Ohio to limit union stranglehold on taxpayers

[Red Dawn]

Eh you get what you pay for. Cut the wages and benies of Cops, Firemen and Teachers and you make those careers less attractive

 

[boomerang]

Push to make Michigan a right-to-work state gets rolling

This would be about as huge as it could get in this state.

I know that emotions run high on issues like these but it's just the pendulum swinging. In time, it will swing back.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

And what do you do when there is no work?

Like when real unemployment is at 17%?

too bad for all those who are unemployed then.

a govt's policies should encourage job creation but in no way does it guarantee that everyone will have a job.
unless those policies are so suffocating that it's stifling job growth, the responsibility falls on the individual.

i fail to see how a union would help in this situation any better than not having unions.

 

[actuarial]

There are no laws to define or impose such limits on how much "power" unions can accumulate or wield in their negotiations, and it would be difficult to do so. That is left to the labor contract negotiation process and to labor relations boards, both of which are heavily stacked in favor of unions. I don't know of any other way to impose or define such limits other than to fundamentally modify the bargaining power or rights of unions, or to change the make-up of labor relations boards to favor the company in disputes.

Here's a way: negotiate more favorable ways of firing and promoting employees.

I'll say it again: where's the outrage that the government, on Ohioans behalf, agreed to ridiculously overpriced contracts which make it impossible to fire bad employees? That's who the anger should be directed at. The people who were more concerned with winning an election than getting a good deal for taxpayers.

All the government is doing now is legislating away the rights of others (and welching on a deal they agreed to) because they didn't have the balls to negotiate in good faith.

 

[CLite]

Do you believe that a non-union teacher, who under the bill, pays no dues should get the same benefits as one who does. This bill makes that possible.

They shouldn't get benefits they aren't entitled to. They should start at a lower pay and not receive the benefits the union fought for.

wow.....just wow......

I can't fathom the amount of short-sightedness, arrogance, and stupidity it took to dream up that line of logic.

 

[Acanthus]

too bad for all those who are unemployed then.

a govt's policies should encourage job creation but in no way does it guarantee that everyone will have a job.
unless those policies are so suffocating that it's stifling job growth, the responsibility falls on the individual.

i fail to see how a union would help in this situation any better than not having unions.

It was in reference to the "lol if you don't like the union changes just go find another job!" line.

 

[Acanthus]

The whole point of the union is to "protect" it's members from such things and ensure higher wages or benefits than the market would otherwise pay. Unions are parasitic and lately have a habit of killing the host (in the private sector real world). The one place they can exist and thrive is in government where there is no real world pressure in terms of expense control, quality control, efficiency or any competition.

Unions are supposed to protect you from exploitation by your employer, including WRONGFUL termination.

If you are a shit employee, you should be able to be fired. It is that simple. I don't think even a union rep would contest that position.

 

[boomerang]

Unions are supposed to protect you from exploitation by your employer, including WRONGFUL termination.

If you are a shit employee, you should be able to be fired. It is that simple. I don't think even a union rep would contest that position.

I'm sorry but this really brought me a laugh. In my working days I saw a good number of folks get "fired" only to see them back in six months or even up to three years later. Most got back pay for all the time they were off. The union would use them as bargaining chips in contract negotiations.

There were only two offenses that were guaranteed to stick and even that got proven to be wrong. If you were caught stealing or if you were caught with a weapon in your possession you were toast. But one guy got his job back after accidentally shooting himself in the foot so, I guess rules were meant to be broken?

You could be consistently late, miss time, do little or nothing, screw up with regularity or be generally incompetent along with various other offenses and be virtually untouchable.

 

[Acanthus]

I'm sorry but this really brought me a laugh. In my working days I saw a good number of folks get "fired" only to see them back in six months or even up to three years later. Most got back pay for all the time they were off. The union would use them as bargaining chips in contract negotiations.

There were only two offenses that were guaranteed to stick and even that got proven to be wrong. If you were caught stealing or if you were caught with a weapon in your possession you were toast. But one guy got his job back after accidentally shooting himself in the foot so, I guess rules were meant to be broken?

You could be consistently late, miss time, do little or nothing, screw up with regularity or be generally incompetent along with various other offenses and be virtually untouchable.

As i was saying though, that is clearly what needs to be changed. Destroying unions is not the answer. Revise the laws so that employees can be fired for violating a set code of employee ethics. Set it in stone so the bad employees are indefensible to the union.

Just like how Carter wanted a workers bill of rights, there should be the counterweight to that, the employers bill of rights.