Ohio Senate passes bill to restrict public unions

[aGameOfThrones]

COLUMBUS, Ohio – The bargaining rights of public workers in Ohio would be dramatically reduced and strikes would be banned under a bill narrowly passed by the Ohio Senate on Wednesday.

The GOP-backed measure that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees squeaked through the state Senate on a 17-16 vote. Six Republicans sided with Democrats against the measure.

Firefighters and teachers shouted "Shame!" in the chamber as the legislation was approved and moved on to the GOP-controlled House, where it is likely to receive strong support.

The bill is similar to the Republican-supported collective bargaining bill in the Wisconsin legislature that has sparked national debate in its weakening of public employees' ability to negotiate contracts — although there are differences between the two. Wisconsin's bill exempts police and firefighters from the collective bargaining restrictions, while Ohio's does not.

The Ohio bill would ban strikes by public workers and establish penalties for those who do participate in walkouts. Unionized workers could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions — but not health care, sick time or pension benefits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_ohio_union_fight

[eduardo89]

COLUMBUS, Ohio – The bargaining rights of public workers in Ohio would be dramatically reduced and strikes would be banned under a bill narrowly passed by the Ohio Senate on Wednesday.

The GOP-backed measure that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees squeaked through the state Senate on a 17-16 vote. Six Republicans sided with Democrats against the measure.

Firefighters and teachers shouted "Shame!" in the chamber as the legislation was approved and moved on to the GOP-controlled House, where it is likely to receive strong support.

The bill is similar to the Republican-supported collective bargaining bill in the Wisconsin legislature that has sparked national debate in its weakening of public employees' ability to negotiate contracts — although there are differences between the two. Wisconsin's bill exempts police and firefighters from the collective bargaining restrictions, while Ohio's does not.

The Ohio bill would ban strikes by public workers and establish penalties for those who do participate in walkouts. Unionized workers could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions — but not health care, sick time or pension benefits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_ohio_union_fight

6 union prostitutes need to be voted out next election.


So this has passed the Senate, does it still need to pass the House?

EDIT:

The bill now goes to the state House, where the GOP holds a 59-40 majority. If passed there, it would go to Kasich, a strong supporter.

[aGameOfThrones]

6 union prostitutes need to be voted out next election.


So this has passed the Senate, does it still need to pass the House?

EDIT:

The bill now goes to the state House, where the GOP holds a 59-40 majority. If passed there, it would go to Kasich, a strong supporter.

[Stary Hickory]

The key to fiscal sanity at the state level is taking on the public unions. The unions are going to lose this battle, the laws of the universe and reality itself dictate change.

[Thomas]

I don't support destroying collective bargaining, the problem is how much they are being paid not that they can bargain.

[eduardo89]

I don't support destroying collective bargaining, the problem is how much they are being paid not that they can bargain.

The problem is they are able to bargain deals that are too good. Limiting their bargaining power is a must, especially with regards to unpayable benefits and wage increases above inflation.

[Brett85]

"Unionized workers could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions — but not health care, sick time or pension benefits."

How could they negotiate anything if they aren't allowed to strike? They wouldn't have any leverage.

[eduardo89]

How could they negotiate anything if they aren't allowed to strike? They wouldn't have any leverage.

Good. They have too much leverage right now. The only leverage teachers should be able to use is increased test scores.

[FrankRep]

GOOD!

I live in Columbus, Ohio so I'm excited about this.

[Fox McCloud]

when you have a monopoly on your job, as most public employees do, then banning strikes is ok, because a strike is always an incentive to increase wages, whether they're needed or not.

example: if all the teachers in a school district go on strike, because of the monopoly of public schools, there won't be any school until an agreement is reached...therefore, there's always an incredibly strong incentive to just raise their wages, which requires even more taxation.

Regulating private sector unions isn't good (either is forcing employer's to negotiate with them either, for that matter), but when it comes to public unions who have a monopoly on things, it is legitimate to limit them....this is exactly what Reagan did with the air traffic controllers in the 80's...because they already had a monopoly on their jobs, a strike would mean air traffic would be completely shut down in the US, thus there would be an insanely strong incentive to just give them whatever wage hike they wanted (payed for, of course from your tax dollars) to get traffic back up and running again.


As an Ohio citizen, I'm very excited to see this pass---I hope it goes through all the way, because needs drastic change; we're up there with New York, Michigan, and California in terms of political and economic stupidity.

[Jack Bauer]

I don't support destroying collective bargaining, the problem is how much they are being paid not that they can bargain.

Nobody is "destroying" collective bargaining in the common way the term is understood.

The more important question is: Do you support closed shop collective bargaining for public employees?

[Stary Hickory]

What I dont get is how people can still be on sthe wrong side of this issue. There is no such thing as collective bargaining rights. None...they do not exist....just because you form a collective does not entitle you to special protections under the law.

The same people who bitch about corporatism and all the special privileges somehow support the very same concept with Unions. They can either trade their labor for the price offered or they can withhold it and find better opportunities. There is no government enforced right to special bargaining.

Would you support someone using the government to force a man to sell a car at cheaper price than he wanted to? Would you support a restaurant forcing you to patronize their restaurant because they managed to get the government on their side?

Nope...then the same thing applies to Unions, they have no right to use force, whether it be personal,or government force to coerce another person to give them a deal. I wholeheartedly support abolishing the state sponsored collective bargaining rights, it is an injustice. People may unionize, they may form groups, but they may not use government like a club to intimidate employers.

[Jack Bauer]

What I dont get is how people can still be on sthe wrong side of this issue. There is no such thing as collective bargaining rights. None...they do not exist....just because you form a collective does not entitle you to special protections under the law.

The same people who bitch about corporatism and all the special privileges somehow support the very same concept with Unions. They can either trade their labor for the price offered or they can withhold it and find better opportunities. There is no government enforced right to special bargaining.

Would you support someone using the government to force a man to sell a car at cheaper price than he wanted to? Would you support a restaurant forcing you to patronize their restaurant because they managed to get the government on their side?

Nope...then the same thing applies to Unions, they have no right to use force, whether it be personal,or government force to coerce another person to give them a deal. I wholeheartedly support abolishing the state sponsored collective bargaining rights, it is an injustice. People may unionize, they may form groups, but they may not use government like a club to intimidate employers.

Thank You!

Closed shops should be declared illegal.

Just like how cartels are illegal.

[FrankRep]

What I dont get is how people can still be on sthe wrong side of this issue. There is no such thing as collective bargaining rights. None...they do not exist....just because you form a collective does not entitle you to special protections under the law.

The Unions are a major backbone for the Democrats. Starting to get the picture now? Follow the money.

[libertybrewcity]

I don't support destroying collective bargaining, the problem is how much they are being paid not that they can bargain.

it's all tied in together.

[Mark37snj]

How could they negotiate anything if they aren't allowed to strike? They wouldn't have any leverage.

I use to be in law enforment and we were in a union and could not strike and there are many ways to leverage for a raise. One time they said they didn't have the money to give us a raise. So we audited their books...that was the fastest I've ever seen Freeholders run back to the negotiating table. Newpaper/radio adds as well. And also law enforcement officers picketing outside the courthouse makes politicians look really bad. Collective bargaining by state and federal employees is literally bribing politicians with union money for their campain and votes, repaid with lavish salaries and benefits paid for by the taxpayers. Those paying the bills, taxpayers, have absolutely no say in the matter, and those responsible for the ramifications of these bad deals have no accountability. It must end.

[eduardo89]

Does this bill also prohibit automatically deducting union dues from wages? I think that's important