User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6086
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Ohio's Proposed Changes To Public Sector Unions

Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:47 am

So with all the hubbub in Wisconsin and all the ire and attention being directed at them, the Ohio Senate just approved a bill that would changes what the public sector employee unions can do:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...ions-factbox-idUSTRE72181N20110302

Quote:
Offers limited collective bargaining rights for wages based on performance; health insurance benefits subject to state limits on percentages; sick leave and other types of leave capped at the level allowed for non-union employees; certain aspects of performance evaluations; and duration of the agreement. Eliminates collective bargaining rights on numerous other issues, including transfers, staffing levels, hours of work, equipment, privatization of services and discipline. It also prohibits seniority from being the sole factor in determining order of layoff.

Other changes:
- Binding arbitration on contract disputes is gone. A final decision is now made by an elected body, such as a city council
- Merit is now the only measure for pay increases (vs length of service)
- Public sector employees no longer have the right to strike

I don't know if Ohio public employees are required to join and pay dues to the union or if this affects that.

It still needs to be approved by the House and signed by the Governor but it is expected to pass.

Actually looking at this, it does not seem "unfair". Basically the employees still have the option of supporting elected officials that will provide better pay and benefits (within the limits the changes allow). If all employees pay into the union then that is still a big stick.

I wonder if the Wisconsin public sector unions would accept something like this? And if Gov. Walker would be willing to consider it.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Ohio's Proposed Changes To Public Sector Unions

Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:05 am

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
- Merit is now the only measure for pay increases (vs length of service)
- Public sector employees no longer have the right to strike

I agree, this is essentially the way forward. Public sector employees are not the same as private sector in my book and should not have the right to strike. A strike is a refusal to provide the public necessary services and is unacceptable in these positions. Pay increases should never be automatic for longevity and should be based on merit. There is no better incentive for improving public sector productivity and work performance.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
seb146
Posts: 14060
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Ohio's Proposed Changes To Public Sector Unions

Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:59 pm

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
And if Gov. Walker would be willing to consider it.

No. He has already said it is his way or the highway. He is completely unwilling to compromise. Even though he (and the entire right-wing) is screaming for compromise and cuts from unions and the left, which they already conceded to.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
Pay increases should never be automatic for longevity and should be based on merit.

So a person who works at a place for 40 years should not be rewarded? I am not saying they should be the highest paid if they have done nothing outstanding, but if they are following the employer guidelines and have zero complaints, very few sick days and so forth, why not reward that employee? I agree it is silly to award merit pay after a year. Maybe after five. But, long term employees should see something extra in their pay check, IMO.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Ohio's Proposed Changes To Public Sector Unions

Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:13 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 2):
I am not saying they should be the highest paid if they have done nothing outstanding, but if they are following the employer guidelines and have zero complaints, very few sick days and so forth

I would venture this is exceptionally rare. People who come to work every day and make a point of mediocrity are usually not the type of personalities that have zero complaints and perfect attendance.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6086
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Ohio's Proposed Changes To Public Sector Unions

Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:22 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 2):
No. He has already said it is his way or the highway. He is completely unwilling to compromise.

That's what I thought, and I agree it is a dumb position to take. "My way or the highway" like "zero tolerance" is seldom ever an effective way to handle things. Negotiation is just that but then people (and it happens on all sides) get greedy and decide they must have everything when some "give" from the opposing side is seen.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 2):
So a person who works at a place for 40 years should not be rewarded? I am not saying they should be the highest paid if they have done nothing outstanding, but if they are following the employer guidelines and have zero complaints, very few sick days and so forth, why not reward that employee? I agree it is silly to award merit pay after a year. Maybe after five. But, long term employees should see something extra in their pay check, IMO.

No, just working at a place for 40 years does not, or at least should not, earn you a raise. A "reward" perhaps, as in a standard bonus or some such that many companies give at 5, 10, 20 (or 25) years of service to recognize an obviously good employee, but not a raise.

The reason you are there still after 40 years should be because you are a good employee and have done good work that merited keeping you on and merited raises during your time there. But not just for time.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Ohio's Proposed Changes To Public Sector Unions

Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:59 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
I agree, this is essentially the way forward. Public sector employees are not the same as private sector in my book and should not have the right to strike. A strike is a refusal to provide the public necessary services and is unacceptable in these positions. Pay increases should never be automatic for longevity and should be based on merit. There is no better incentive for improving public sector productivity and work performance.

Well said from someone who lives in Ohio. I remember growing up that public sector work was a way into your field or something you did until something better came along in the private sector.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Ohio's Proposed Changes To Public Sector Unions

Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:45 am

This just brings Ohio (and Wisconsin when their bill finally passes) in line with the Federal Government, which has outlawed union collective bargaining on anything but wages since the Carter administration.
 
thegreatRDU
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:47 am

RE: Ohio's Proposed Changes To Public Sector Unions

Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:20 am

This is good...it seems like it's full speed ahead as resistance is minimal compared to Wisconsin...and hopefully Ohio can get its swagger back
Our Returning Champion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], cledaybuck, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], OA412, rfields5421 and 9 guests