VOTE YES ON ISSUE 2/SB 5!

Everything you're about to read came directly from The Columbus Dispatch, pages G4 and A15, Sunday November 6th, 2011.  I couldn't have said any of it better myself, so I just copied and pasted it here for you.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Safety Workers are Compensated Well

In an effort to gain knowledge on how to vote on State Issue 2/Senate Bill 5, I listened to friends who reminded me that police officers and firefighters put their lives on the line and deserve every consideration. And since segments of my life have been somewhat at risk as a farmer, a fighter pilot and a helicopter pilot, each of which have had moments of high concern, I wondered how dangerous occupations rated and whether the salaries and benefits are commensurate.Internet findings gave me some insight.
Of the 2009 most-dangerous occupations, fishermen are No. 1, with 200 fatalities per 100,000 employed, and have an average salary of $22,160. Airline pilots have 57 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $53,990. Roofers have 34 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $41,200. Crop farmers have 30 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $24,900. Livestock farmers have 14.9 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $24,900. Police officers have 13.1 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $55,400. Firefighters have 4.4 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $47,760.
We always will consider police officers and firefighters to be our heroes, but when compared with others at high risk, some with even-higher skill requirements, I think their unions have placed an undue burden on society.
After due consideration, I will vote for State Issue 2.
JOHN A. STEVENSON
Circleville

State Issue 2 will hold line on spending

It's time to stop spending money. I have voted yes on every levy to raise my property taxes for schools, law enforcement and fire protection.
I believe in supporting these institutions, but now it's time to stop and assess the situation, because outside forces are corrupting these valuable institutions and those outside forces must be dealt with.
I believe the legislature and Gov. John Kasich took a bold step to deal with these corrupting outside forces and I support their efforts. Ohioans must vote yes on State Issue 2.
LINDA WOLLETT
Lewis Center

Issue 2
Collective-Bargaining Arguments


"As opponents push to get Ohio's new collective-bargaining law overturned on Election Day, there is no shortage of issues to fight about. A look at many of the bill's major provisions and how supporters and opponents have argues their points:

What the bill does	Arguments in Favor	Arguments Against	What the bill does	Arguments in Favor	Arguments Against
Bans strikes by public employees and imposes financial penalties for any public worker who does strike	Public workers have good pay and benefits, so they should not strike; unions sometimes use the threat of a strike to bully employers to cave; children should not have to cross picket lines to attend school	Strikes by public unions are rare, but the threat give unions leverage in negotiations, avoiding an erosion of pay and benefits; five everyone an incentive to come to the middle	Eliminates seniority as the sole factor when determining layoffs due to budgetary shortfalls or enrollment reduction	Allows managers to keep their best people, who are not always their most experienced-people; cutting only newer hires means more workers must be laid off because they re the least expensive.	Makes experience public workers very vulnerable to cost-cutting moves, potentially leaving them with major retirement issues because they do not pay into Social Security; increases the chance of cronyism.
Eliminates binding arbitration for law enforcement and firefighters, the process in which an independent third party resolves a negotiation impasse.	Unelected parties should not be allowed to dictate contract terms that taxpayers have to pay for; threat of arbitration can cause officials to give in to contract terms they do not agree with.	Process is rarely used, and when it is, statistics show decisions split between unions and employers; process ended public-safety union strikes, of which Ohio was a national leader in the 1970s; it brings definitive closure to negotiations.	Eliminates guaranteed 15 sick days for teachers from state law; caps sick days for most other workers at two weeks per year; caps accrued sick leave paid out upon retirement at 50 percent of 1,000 hours	Private-sector workers generally do not get such generous amounts of sick time; sick days are designed for unforeseen illness, not severance; payouts of unused sick time can be very expensive for local governments.	Allowing accumulated sick days is an incentive for people not to take off sick, which helps with attendance.
If a deadlocked negotiation cannot be resolved, allows the governing body to implement its own last offer, after holding a public hearing.	Voters elect leaders to make tough decision and spend tax dollars wisely; people should trust that local leaders will be fair to workers; the balance of power in negotiations has shifter too far to the unions over the past 27 years.	This would be a “fundamentally rigged process” that is unfair to workers because it turns collective bargaining into “collective begging” – no matter what the union offers, the employer can reject it and pick its own offer;; lets employers just wait out the process.	Eliminates “fair share” – the provision in many contracts that requires  those who do not want to join the union to still pay some dues because they are covered by the terms of the contract	Workers who do not want to be part of a union should have the freedom to not pay dues.	Allows for “freeloading” where workers can avoid paying dues but still get benefits from the contract negotiated by the union, is aimed at cutting union membership.
Requires public employees to pay at least 15 percent of health-insurance costs and no longer allows union to bargain for health insurance.	Proponents say the average private-sector worker pays 23 percent, but at the local-government level, public workers generally pay 10 percent or less; it’s no necessary for unions to bargain for health insurance.	Health insurance is an important part of negations, particularly for lower-paid employees; the increased share for many local workers means less take-home pay; state workers have save millions for Ohio through health-insurance bargaining.	Requires more transparency of negotiations and terms of a union contract.	Gives the public a more-complete picture of total public-worker compensation beyond the increase to the base salary; each side might negotiated differently if it know its final offers will be made public.	No major issues raised.
No longer allows local-government employers to pick up a portion of an employee’s share of pension contributions. Workers are to pay 10percent of their wages to their pensions.	Pension pickups are used to hide raises give to public workers; puts workers on an even playing field.	Pension pickups can be cheaper than a straight pay raise because the employer doesn’t make Medicare, workers’ compensation, or unemployment payments on that pickup; without a corresponding pay increase, would be an instant pay cut for many workers; “hidden raises” concern handled by other transparency provisions in SB5	No longer automatically rolls over previous contractual agreement into the next contract.	Eliminates the potentially costly “pancaking effect” when a provision inserted into a contract for a specific reason is almost never removed in later year, even if circumstances change; has eroded management rights over time.	Can lead to draconian scrapping of contact provisions that have value to both labor and management; starting from zero can make for long, messy negotiations.
No longer requires that unions be allowed to bargain for items deemed “management rights” including staffing levels, building assignments, and promotions.	Gives managers more flexibility to run their operations; rights should have never been given up in the first place.	Could leas to larger class sizes in schools, fewer corrections officers in some prisons or fewer safety forces on police and fire runs; could cause safety issues for the public and workers.	Allows voters to go to the ballot to reject a contract if the governing body picks the more costly of the final offers and it is determined the contract cannot be paid for with current revenue.	Gives voters a chance to reject a contract that is “out of whack” and could lead to local tax increases.	Hard to fathom a situation where the criteria would be met to trigger a referendum; could lead to an ugly, divisive community fight over the worth of certain public employees; yet another way employees could lose out in negotiations.
Replaces automatic pay increases for steps and longevity pay with a new system of merit pay.	Quality of work, not years of experience, should be the deciding factor in how workers are compensated; will produce more-effective workers; allows mangers to reward exceptional work; limited step increases still can be included in contracts.	Raises concerns of cronyism, especially at the state level, where political appointees are the bosses; merit can be very difficult to define; will push teachers to be even more test-focused in their lessons, instead of teaching critical thinking.	No longer allows employers to do automatic paycheck deductions if money is earmarked for political-action committees, unless the worker gives written authorization.	Makes it easier for workers to decide whether to give politically; brings situation more in line with how corporation collect PAC money.	Makes it harder for public workers to participate in the political process at the same time the courts have made it easier for corporations; could reduce the political power of public unions, benefitting Republicans.
			Reduces the petition requirement for a public union decertification vote from 50 percent to 30 percent of members	Brings Ohio law in line with National Labor Relations Act; still requires a majority vote to decertify.	Another unnecessary effort to weaken union power by making it easier to decertify the organization; lets the employer interfere in union business.

Read the full article here: Issue 2: For or against? | A Case for the Law