WHATS THE REAL DEAL ON ISSUE 2

Explain issue 2 to me from your prospective. does it or does it not help the tax payers and the city. Does it or does it not eliminate jobs...

No votes yet

Over 100 people read this and not one can comment on it, no wonder why we can get to the voting booth and understand what were voting for..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

No one wants to get in before Paul's cut and paste extravaganza. I would say in my opinion you are asking a couple of different questions. Yes it can and will help taxpayers who are currently overburdened with public sector union costs. That is not the only problem of course with municipalities, spending on items which they should not be spending money on is also out of control including administrative costs that could and should be shared by cities, villages, counties.
As far as jobs go you are on a scale that could tip either way. If Issue 2 fails many municipalities will be forced to cut back on staff they cannot afford to keep. Those will be last in of course not the long in the tooth union stewards, treasurers etc. It will be the young, newly hired union employees who will then leave the city for jobs elsewhere taking thier families along with them. If it passes you may have some job loss also although I have yet to be shown where that would happen.
Here are a couple of links for you to check out, I'm sure there are more
http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/getthefacts/
http://action.weareohio.com/page/s/issue2primer
http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses129/11-sb5-129.pdf
The last one is the link to the bill itself and an analysis prepared by the Ohio House. Go on facts not feelings when voting on Issue 2.
Thanks for at least voting.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I was looking forward to your prospective. Will check back later for others if any...

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

In good news I am buying a new car. I am looking at the American built Honda Odyssey.

I wasn't sure what car I wanted but I was sure I wasn't going to buy a union made piece of crap from a company that needs to be bailed out by the taxpayer as a payoff to the unions.

So Honda, you will get my business, because you actually keep American's at work.

MikeyA

I bought an odyssey a couple years ago and I intend to drive it till the wheels fall off - if the accord I had before that is any indication that'll be around the quarter million miles mark...

If I had to buy another set of wheels today, I'd replace what I have now with another of the same make/model. the new ones are pretty cool.

I was not excited to buy a mini van when the wife wanted to, but I cannot complain about the Odyssey. I great ride, plent of room to haul, dvd player for the kids. Wonderful vehicle...

Or you could buy a Ford....der...

I may be an evil conservative...but I wouldnt be caught dead driving a foreign car...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

that's very true zeitgeist. but you could be caught dead in a ford pinto with exploding gas tanks

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Uh..Fred..that has been proven to be a myth...based on faked trials where UCLA planted incendiary devices to get the tanks to explode....remember the GMC side saddle tanks and NBC?

NBC Settles Truck Crash Lawsuit, Saying Test Was 'Inappropriate'

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/10/us/nbc-settles-truck-crash-lawsuit-say...

Yeah...same thing...

http://www.car-forums.com/s10/t2240.html

QUOTE:

The UCLA testers explained their methods in a 1968 report published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, fully ten years before the 20/20 episode. As they explained, one of their goals was to study how a crash fire affected the passenger compartment of a car, and to do that they needed a crash fire. But crash fires occur very seldom; in fact, the testers had tried to produce a fire in an earlier test run without an igniter but had failed. Hence their use of the incendiary device (which they clearly and fully described in their write-up) in the only test run that produced a fire.

Fact...deaths from crash fires in ford pinto's...27...

Fact..a Prius can burst into flames simply driving down the road...

Driver escapes injury in Toyota Prius fire

RYE — The lone occupant of a Toyota Prius pulled over to the side of Lafayette Road Friday after hearing a "noise" and was able to exit the car just before it burst into flames, said Fire Lt. Steven Laing.

Firefighters were called to the scene at 11:58 a.m., and once there found the four-door sedan fully engulfed in flames, Laing said. The driver was uninjured and told emergency responders that after he heard the noise, the car seemed to be malfunctioning, Laing said.

After the fire was extinguished, the car was towed by National Wrecker Service, he said. The Rye Fire Department was assisted by North Hampton Fire and Rescue.

— Elizabeth Dinan, photo by Harold Buzzell

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100424-NEWS-4240319

Or it might burst into flames parked in your garage:

Converted Plug-In Prius destroyed by fire!

http://green.autoblog.com/2008/06/18/converted-plug-in-prius-destroyed-b...

Aftermarket Plug-In Prius Battery Causes Balls of Fire, Explosion

http://gizmodo.com/5018111/aftermarket-plug+in-prius-battery-causes-ball...

Hell...even the factory catches on fire!

Toyota Factory Catches Fire, Prius Production Suspended Temporarily

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/02/toyota-factory-catches-fire-p...

In other words...I would gladly take a 1975 pinto over the damn death trap you are driving...AND it's American made...

http://cars.oodle.com/ford-pinto/for-sale/

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

But I saw a Ford Pinto explode with my own eyes!

Okay, it was the movie 'Top Secret' back in the 80's...but still!

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Fred gave a sound viewpoint on the matter, which frees me to outline the extremity of my own viewpoint. That is to say, I agree with what he said, but I must add that portion of my viewpoint that is radical and additive:

Issue 2 is trying to overturn Senate Bill 5. But SB5 was the sane response to (stopping) the outrageous growth of the costs of a unionized government labor force. Those who support Issue 2 (and are against SB5) are pretty much saying that they expect the unionized government labor force to feast while the rest of us starve. The entire system is flawed in that promises were made and benefits were given that were not sustainable, but such unsustainability would not become a problem until the system loaded up later on with beneficiaries. All companies with defined-benefit pensions have run into this problem.

True, those on the "management" side should never have agreed to those sorts of labor-contract terms. Said management is incompetent, which has only become worse as government growth greatly out-stripped the population's ability to pay (hence, all this vast government borrowing). But the crisis is still here regardless of who caused it, and so it must be solved.

And the solution is NOT to just keep paying and paying the labor elite in our government, so that within a generation we'll have a government that does little else than collect taxes and then pay off govt retirees with those proceeds. No, the solution is to unilaterally (even brutally) go into to all these so-called agreements and cancel them. One, by one.

After all, it was never EVER a "right" of the laboring class to force employers to accept terms. Terms should have legal force after negotiation, not before. And our legal system doesn't even allow the former, if the terms are ruinous to the paying party in egregious cases.

In short, Issue 2 is an attempt to keep those unionized government slobs in their caviar. We can't afford it; it was never a right of labor; and why should we be paying pensions and health care for file clerks? There is no shortage of file clerks, hence their market value is small, hence their compensation should remain in line with that.

GZ are you a carpenter because you hit the nail on the head.

Now the unions are crying about the wording of Issue 2. Seriously? You can't expect voters to actually read what they are voting for?

MikeyA

Well, I'm glad that I checked about the wording:

Ohio 2011 Issue 2 on Ballotpedia

I had believed that Issue 2 was an affirmation for repeal of SB5. No, not according to the language. If you vote YES on the issue, you AFFIRM that SB5 stands. A vote of NO on the issue is effectively a REPEAL of SB5.

Since I do want these public unions to limit their costs as are imposed on us, then I'll be voting in support of SB5, hence a YES vote on Issue 2.

But, But wait, we wouldn't have are Zoie if it wasn't for issue 2...

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Things we also wouldn't have if we followed the logic of We Are (6.5%) Ohio:

  • Minority voting rights
  • Equal pay for women
  • More than one nurse to a floor
  • Safety equipment for firefighters

And for those who haven't quite yet gotten the point, here is a preview of what will happen if Issue 2 passes.

You do know that I was mocking the no on 2 ad where gramma is saying if it wasn't for issue 2 we wouldn't have are Zoie today...

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

and I decided to play along. The sad part is that their ads, press releases and rallies have all tried making one of those points, indirectly of course.

Mock away my good man...mock away.

I keep hearing (from the commercials against issue 2) that SB5 makes it illegal to collectively bargain for the minimum number of firefighters, police, etc.
However, I looked up SB5, which became part of the O.R.C. after it was signed into law.
Under O.R.C. 4117.08 it clearly lists thing which are subject to collective bargaining.
From what I read, it appears that the anti issue 2 folks are lying, plain and simple.
If they are lying about that, why trust them at all?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

They are in fact lying. There is no reason to trust them.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

So let's deal with the facts then.

The fact of the matter is this:

The attempt to repeal SB 5 is nothing more than a large, well-funded special interest group, Big Labor- the self-proclaimed saviors of the middle class, trying to protect their political power.

It has nothing to do with the amount of firemen and women who are on staff.

It has nothing to do with taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees- no matter how they completely lie...errrr...attempt to spin it.

It has nothing to do with saving the middle class. Big Labor doesn't give a damn about middle class America. That's right, I said it. Big Labor only cares about protecting what they feel they are entitled to- my tax dollars and their political power.

If you truly want to begin to take back the government from special interest groups and restore some semblance of common sense, vote yes to affirm SB 5.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

The unions only true interest in this issue/legislation is protecting the revenue stream to their bloated and illegitimate piggy bank.

Issue 2 is not going to pass, and you know why! There is to much confusion and lying among ads. If you confuse the public, public meaning those who don't bother to take the time to research the facts for themselves, then they won't vote, and if they do they are swayed by the ads themselves. It is a catch 22 for them. I haven't seen 1 sign for yes on 2 and only 1 TV ad for issue 2, and that doesn't follow the no on 2 TV ads each time the no on 2 is shown. Also what happen to Mayor Bell's ad? Its an uphill battle in this city to get the uninformed informed. The question is, will the Intellectual light bulb ever come on for them.?????......

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

The premise for public sector collective bargaining was and still continues to be completely flawed. First and foremost, and I am in 100% agreement with GZ on this, collective bargaining is not a right; public or private.

From a negotiating standpoint, there is a Grand Canyon size difference between the two. With a private company, the money being negotiated belongs to the company. If the contracts ultimately end up being unsustainable, it's the company's business and they have to live with the consequences.

In the public sector though, the money being negotiated doesn't belong to either side. The majority of it is and always will be taxpayer money, and an overwhelming population of those taxpayers don't belong to a public sector union. Of course our elected officials should carry the responsibility of spending our money wisely; but can anyone honestly say that taxpayers get an honest seat at the table?

And what happens when those contracts ultimately end up being unsustainable? Bankruptcy? Probably not. Higher taxes? Quite possibly.

The downside of the private sector is also sometimes companies don't make a profit. When that happens the union has to give concessions in order to keep their members a part of the workforce.

In the public sector there is always profit because you can just tax more. If you don't tax more than you run a deficit. Either way the gov't employees still keep getting more money.

I've seen this myself. I watched through the stimulus gov't budgets get bigger yet no one was hired. They just expanded, gave their employees more duties, gave the employees raises because of their added duties.

For these reasons I believe we need to get rid of large sectors of the bureaucracy and run them through bid contracts with private firms. The contract side of gov't work is not perfect but it is much better run than the gov't side and the contracts are written in the best interest of the gov't. Again I have seen that from first hand experience.

MikeyA

I like the Yellow Pages theory. If a city can find the service in the Yellow Pages then it uses that service. As an example, lawn care. Is there any reason the city needs to have a fleet of lawnmowers and the people to ride? There are currently any number of lawn care services here in Toledo that could be hired. Your arguments?- they aren't big enough, don't have the equipment, wouldn't do a good job. My arguments?- they would hire more people if needed, but equipment if needed, and could be fired if the performance wasn't good enough. Oh yeah and we wouldn't have to pay for thier pension or health care costs.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

"My arguments?- they would hire more people if needed, but equipment if needed, and could be fired if the performance wasn't good enough. Oh yeah and we wouldn't have to pay for thier pension or health care costs."

Very true fred. Additionally you could hire one place to mow park A and another place to mow park B. You've now employed twice the people than you did previously on half the money because the lawnmowing companies will seek other customers to stay in business.

Additionally, try to fire a city employee. It's tough. Their are several hurdles to do it without getting locked into a lawsuit.

However if you have a contract, if they're not meeting the benchmarks of the contract the contract can be ruled null OR you just wait for the contract to expire and refuse to accept the new bid of the contractor based upon previously poor service quality.

I did this very thing in Afghanistan. I had two major contractors, Dyncorps and FLUOR who did a turnover. They had the big contracts, yet they subcontracted many of the individual services. I had a fire inspector who went to area's he was not permitted, attempted to enforce the wrong regulations, and harassed local commanders. During the turnover I gave the contract oversight representative all of my documentation on that Inspector and the new major contractor decided not to continue his subcontract with all the others. It was completely legal and I was able to raise the customer service level of the base commands when the new Fire Inspected arrived in country and was willing to work with commands to make a safer environment and he was enforcing the correct regulations.

Additionally gov't employees in that scenario would have cost 10x as much as the contractors in that same situation.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.