Ohio's anti union law rejected

This could be trouble for Republican union busting governors, and maybe even for Washington Republicans next year....if they back people like Kasich, Christy, Walker..and the rest.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...republican-backed-union-limits/#ixzz1dEJBfmoo




​

 

I don't know what's more troubling, to watch those union hacks show their pleasure in having beaten back the middle class taxpayer so they pay their bills for them, or to watch that meathead Ed Shultz gloat over this govt ursurpation of the middle class rights.

I wouldn't worry too much about this little cog in the road, for these unions have been on a downward spiral for decades now, and I see this troubling vote last night as being the union's last attempt to save the dying socialist dog.​

 

That pretty much sums up my view. I fully support collective bargaining, but in this case they're basically raping the middle class. I guess if Ohioans don't have a problem with it, I don't either.

 

Wait until teacher strikes next year..Police and firemen walk off the job.
Then we'll see how they feel about unions.

 

Don't forget overworked nurses, who may attempt to bargain for their patient's welfare and safety.
To hell with them too, right? Of course only until one is confined to a Hospital bed and can't get anyone to answer to Nurse's call button.

 

I guess I'd be saying the same things if my rhetoric was soundly defeated.


Hey you know what Mississippi and Ohio proved last night? Not everybody thinks like a Republican. Ouch.

 

Ohio's anti union law rejected

.....so now Union Workers will have to be laid off, Schools closed, Police and Fire Stations shut down............

........yeah the Union sure did "Win".
.
.
.
.

 

Determinations that are pro-government union are anti-liberty and economic freedom for those forced to fund their labor market manipulating, "collectively bargained" compensation and pension packages.

The bell will continue to toll.

 

I agree...except for the characterization of unions as socialist dogs.....if I could get a high paying stable union job like we had back in the 50's...I'd take it!, and I'm no socialist.

At any rate....unions do have thier days numbered in the US I believe. Unless our economy roars back to post WWII production levels, and at the same time we had a much lower population.....but yes....it's a downward spiral for labour, and Ed Schultz is an idiot.

 

If anyone wants to look at the big picture. In highly unionized urban areas, the unions won. Everywhere else, the people won.

Even in Ohio, obamacare got rejected, BY THE PEOPLE.

The unions were too busy protecting their power to help b.o.'s signature legislation. They campaigned to save their powerful voting block, nothing else.
The unions are identical to any large corporate lobbying group, but more dishonest.

 

Over worked Nurses ?
You mean the ones that actually show up ?
I'll press that button and be happy when a student shows up.. someone who wants a job..not someone who thinks they deserve a higher paid one because the Union told them so.

Yes ..some day nurses will lie on that same bed they made.

 

Well said. People may vote for anti-union thugs like Walker and Kasich but when confronted with their reactionary policies they reject them for the simple reason that conservative dogma is too extreme for most people.

 

How many days was the new Ohio law in effect ?
NONE.. the citizens NEVER got to see what Wisconsin is seeing.
Lower taxes..job creation and more companies hiring.
No wonder Unions didn't want that.

 

The only problem with that characterization...is that te same people who voted down part of the healthcare law, also voted down the union busting law. You can't characterize one group as impressionable and one not, when there is only one group.

I think Kasich made a grave error....he went after firefighters and policemen too.

 

Clearly, asking the entitled to pay 15% of their own health care and retirement costs was way over the line.......

......now with SB5 repealed....Poor and Middle Class Homeowners and Private Sector workers can pay for it.....its not like they need their own Health Care and Retirement.
.
.
.

 

I wasn't commenting on whether or not Kasich should, or should not, have gone after firefighters and police......I was merely pointing out that it's probably why the thing was repealed so overhwelmingly

 

Well when you give 700,000 Paid Democrat Voters the chance to vote themselves a payraise and more benefits.......overwhelming is probable.
.
.
.

 

Some day that FACT has to be faced. Firemen and policemen have DEFINED BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLANS. These plans are unsustainable and unaffordable, and at some point that has to be faced. All Kasich did was try to get them to contribute more to a plan that the state cannot afford in the long run in any case. There IS a reason that the private sector does Defined Contribution Retirement plans instead of DBRP. The Defined Benefit plans cannot be funded.

 

I understand that in both Wisconsin and Ohio, that the unions were willing to meet all the demands of both governors, but the governors were more interested in disabling the unions, on behalf of the GOP, so they couldn't contribute to Democratic election campaigns.

If the unions weren't willing to adhere to the proposed cuts, I'd say you should cut out collective bargaining. But when the governor says we need to make cuts....and the union says okay, we'll take the cuts....why do you need to destroy collective bargaining too?

 

Right. The Bush tax cuts really stimulated the economy. Unions have pretty much been destroyed over the last 30 years yet the right uses them as a convenient scapegoat to distract people from the economic disaster brought about by conservative policies.

 

I do not understand that unions were willing to make the NEEDED cuts, contributions, in either state. Government workers NOT having collective bargaining rights is NOT a new thing. Them HAVING collective bargaining rights IS the newer thing.

And you missed the point entirely that DEFINED BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLANS TICKING TIME BOMBS MUST BE DEFUSED AT SOME POINT. The taxpayers cannot fund them.
In the private sector an employee gets a defined contribution retirement plan. He may contribute all he wants but the employer will match a defined percentage. That is invested, directed by the employee or the employer, or both. At retirement, whatever the investments have grown to be, IS the retirement benefit. And retirement is at age 65, NOT after a certain number of years.

The government worker is guaranteed a percentage of his highest pay ever received. And gets that after a certain number of years on the govt payroll. For instance 50% at 20 years, 67% at 25 years or 75% at 30 years. SOME are at 100% after 30 years. So after 30 years he is making $120,000.00 and in his last year he works overtime and cashes in vacation and makes $200,000 that last year and his DEFINED BENEFIT is 75%, He gets $150,000. per year for life plus COLA and medical. If he started at age 25, he is now 55 and will collect the $150,000 plus COLA for the next 30 years. That is $4.5 million without one cent of COLA or medical. How does the poor taxpayer put aside enough money to fund that? The simple FACT is, and we ALL know it, if the politicians HAVE the money, THEY SPEND THE MONEY. They do not invest it to fund that future obligation. That's why Ohio is $8 billion in the hole and the USA is $15 TRILLION in the hole.

I have a good friend, grade school buddy that is collecting 3 retirements, military, federal government, and state govt. Some of which he "earned" concurrently. [military reserve while working for the govt.] All 3 are predicated on his highest pay received. A military Colonel, and a State and Federal executive level.

I had to add this in. Growing up, his Father was a high ranking businessman, strictly anti-union. My Father was a bartender and wildly pro-union. I become the business executive and my pal becomes the feeder at the public trough. But he did 2 tours in Nam same as me so he has the right to choose whatever way of life he did.

 

Wisconsin...yes....the unions accepted all of Walker's cust.

I'll look for the Ohio info too, and honestly....you may be right...I'm not completely sure if the Ohio unions were agreeing with Kasich's cuts too

 

While you are researching. Find unbiased analysis of how Walkers programs have worked out.

You might also note that when public employees collective bargain, they to so with an opponent that has no skin in the game. In the private sector when management bargains with a union, it is managements MONEY. Public employees bargain with a politician that wants their VOTE. It is a built in, more like, INBRED, conflict of interest.

 

Why would I want to do that?......my claim was that unions agreed to Walker's cuts...yet he somehow still needed to eliminate unions that contribute to Democratic campaigns.

If you have a point you'd like to prove....I suggest you do the homework yourself...thank you kindly sir.

 

It was said that unions were compeletely dead last year and they'd never rise up to challenge changes in law. So what happened? I think the American people, in particular the working class, have awoken and are beginning to put two and two together. American workers are seeing the benefits of being union compared to working non-union and they want what union workers have.....and they'll get it over time whether you or I like it or not.