Hi Dom,
Thank you for taking the time to read the bill and to provide clarification for us. This information must be passed along to all voters.
Sue M.

This is a well researched reality check regarding Issue 2. The pandering and obfuscation of special interests has been stripped away. Vote as you wish, but the if the issue fails, Mr. and Mrs. tax payer, you will have done it to yourselves. Mr. Sciria, has done us all a truly genuine service by offering factual enlightment as opposed to obliqueness and innuendo. Thank You.
Harry Altman .

Great summary on why Issue 2 needs to be passed!. Wish more people understood that they are safer with more people working than too few people working that are being overpaid through pension contributions and health care premiums.

Govt jobs are being added in Wisconsin ?

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin's unemployment rate is holding steady.

The state Department of Workforce Development reported Thursday that the unemployment rate for September was 7.8 percent. That is down slightly from 7.9 percent in August.

The department reported that private sector employment was essentially flat. There was a net loss of 900 jobs. However, there was a loss of 11,500 government jobs

This tells me all I need to know about this "objective" assessment:

President of the Cuyahoga Valley Republicans

Any union can only get what its management agrees to. There's no gun being held to their heads.

This is why I will be voting FOR Issue 2:
"Probably the most important thing that Issue 2 does is to take the resolution of contract negotiations and disputes out of the hands of third party hired arbitrators, and place that responsibility in the hands of elected officials who answer to voters. It also requires, for the first time, that contract negotiations will have to take into consideration the finances of the local community, and if officials want to make a deal that will require more funds than a city or school system has, without passing another levy, then the voters will have to approve that contract."

The issue of public employees being able to strike or not, outside the statutes set forth in the ORC for safety forces, has always been NEGOTIABLE; ie the bargaining unit agreement between Kent State University and AFSCME Local 153(maintenance/service employees). This type of agreement is facilitated by the provision of a State Mediator, free of charge, if both parties agree to same. The use of binding arbitration is the final solution and handled, once again, by an independent arbitrator provided by the State and agreeable to both parties. The results of all such binding arbitration are publicly posted on the SERB website.

A prime example for the need for binding arbitration is the most recent negotiations between the City of Akron and it's police union. The mayor cried "poor"...the union's negotiating accountant called him on it...it went to binding arbitration and the arbitrator found in favor of the union. Funny thing is, an independent audit afterward by the State re the City's "peculiar" way of funding it's projects revealed the shell game the City was playing with local tax dollars. It was using them to establish project accounts that were supposed to be funded with Federal/State grant money!

The President of the Cuyahoga Valley Republicans is for issue 2? Wow there's a surprise.
By the way, water is wet.

Excellent read Mr. Sciria. Facts rather than fear mongering, what a concept!

As usual, Mr Sciria has done his homework. He has removed the emotion from the issue, and explained it logically. Dom, I commend you for researching Issue 2, and explaining it to your fellow citizens.
Jack Kananian

Jack Kananian

this article is full of many false statements.

done his homework ? he should get a grade of a D

Nothing in this statement uses one fact to back up the need to change the collective bargaining law in Ohio. Facts were listed but then opinion over road the facts. The only reason for S.B.5 was to it possible for republican politicians to ballance the budget on the backs of the middle class by cutting wages and benefits and cutting services to all of us. The workers have already agreed to pay and benefit cuts through the collective bargaining law. The middle class and poor did not cause this financial crisis yet that is the only way some republicans feel they can resolve the issue. It is time to hold those who have benefited the most to contribute their fare share in resolving the economic crisis. Corporate and financial greed is what caused it and it is time to have those who benefited to begin to pay their fair share.
S.B.5 was just another example of going too far in an effort to resolve the economic problems on the backs of the middle class and poor. Enough is enough!! Vote NO on Issue2

I would love the opportunity to have someone else pay for my retirement fund instead of having to pay towards a 401K. Would someone like to volunteer? I know i dont want to have to pay for someone else's with my taxes. What about healthcare? I pay 1/3 of my healthcare from my paycheck, not sure why this is even an issue, as healthcare costs rise, should taxpayers pay the burden? Yearly job appraisals are also common in private companies, why would you promote someone with sub-par performance? All these issues are what common people face everyday, im not saying SB 5 is the best answer but when the state is in a deficit, cuts need to be made. Again I think the people speaking the loudest against it have never worked in the real world. And with the way the advertisements spin it, no wonder folks vote the way they do. Too bad we dont have an educated voter base.

Who gets promoted with sub-par performance ? I believe SB 5 does not have any section about promotions.

There are far too many people holding positions who should have been let go a long time ago. Teachers come to mind. Unions make it impossible to let them go and give them an "atta boy or girl " while they are at it. I will be voting YES on Issue 2 for this reason alone but I do Thank You for clarifying all the other points.

Jeff is ignorant of the retirement and benefits of public employees. Again he is basing his opinions on emotionalism. Public employees pay their share toward their retirement system and benefits just as most in the private sector. They also recieve annual employee evaluations just as in the private sector however they cannot recieve unlimited raises and bonuses as they do in private sector where the "customer" has no say in the amount of pay, compenstation or benefits. In the private sector there is no input from the customers or public. Yet they are the ones paying for their benefits and compensation.
What I do not understand about conservatives is why they lack the ability to understand that in the private sector they are also paying for the pay, benefits, compensation, retirement etc.... only it's not called tax but the cost of the product. Why don't they raise as large a "stink" when insurance rates go up, costs of goods and services rise so that corporations, CEO's and the shareholders maintain and grow their wealth while the poor and middle class are drained.

Here's one of the reasons why many hard working middle class taxpayers are so frustrated:
http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/uploads/files/BUCKEYE_public_employee_millionaires_FINAL-1.pdf

Trumka reveals unions are about Progressive agendas; not wages.

http://youtu.be/I097Y2uxoFc

Here's the rub, you elect your own bosses then negotiate with them (wink, wink) to get the upper hand in contracts in exchange for future votes. I say take your case to the public and convince them that they should elect governor _____ because your pay and retirement is not proper for the service you provide. If it is compelling, then governor _____ will prevail.

Well, sorry to burst the bubble, but polls now show issue 2 will be defeated. ( a no vote) Listening to NPR today, the repeal crowd has raised over 31 million dollars compared to 8 million from the other side. A big chunk of this change has come from unions out of state. It was easy to put a "vote no" sign in your yard because it was so politically correct. We've been deluged with ads with firemen in front of burning homes, and police officers overseeing a crime spree. This, of course, being the result of passing issue 2.
We have only two alternatives, raise taxes to keep funding wages and benefits of union government employees, or layoffs to balance the budget. We did have an alternative, vote yes on issue 2, but polls now show a 25% margin for no.

Has anyone noticed it is really unusual to see a vote yes on 2 sign in front of a residential home? It would be like the scarlet letter on your lawn.

I cannot vote yes on an issue that Kasich and his fellow cronies in the Ohio house excepted themselves from. I do not even want to start on him redistributing stealing money that has always been earmarked for schools and cities from our ohio state taxes thus forcing layoffs and operating levies to almost every community and school system
For starters Kasich gave himself a $10,000 a year raise. More examples of Kasich’s wasteful spending are as follows:
Under Ted Strickland, the Communications Director (Keith Dailey) has a salary of $89,003. Under Kasich, the same position (Scott Milburn) will make $120,000.
Strickland's Press Secretary Amanda Wurst makes $69,992, and Kasich's will get $90,000.
Strickland's Chief of Staff John Haseley makes $122,990. Under the proposal, Kasich's Beth Hansen will make $170,000.
But it gets worse. Not only is Kasich bumping up the pay of existing positions, he's also creating brand new positions to make sure that his buddies are taken care of. For example, he created the position of Special Assistant to the Governor with a salary of $145,000 per year for his long-time friend, Jai Chabria.
This does not take in account his retirement for life and premium free medical plan for life him and his wife will enjoy. It’s the middle class that will suffer from his follies.
Anyone who does not support, crosses or disagrees with Kasich will pay the price…… until the recall vote.

Geez Al, are you kidding with this argument?

1. Kasich and his cronies DID NOT EXCLUDE ecludes themselves from this bill because, they are ELECTED OFFICIALS. They can not bargain or strike, and if we don't like the job they do, we can FIRE them. If you don't like the job a patrolman, fireman or teacher does, you can complain, but guess what, THEY WILL NEVER GET FIRED unless they commit some felony.

2. Strickland did the same thing when he got in to office. He hired his "cronies" as you call them and gave them more than the previous administration. Oh yea, and guess what, Strickland has the same retirement for life and medical plan.
The difference between Kasich and Strickland is, Kasich took ACTION TO STOP THE BLEEDING. The only bleeding Strickland was trying to stop was the scandals he had in the first year from hiring many incompetent, tax evading criminals that had to be replaced.

You spent a lot of time and effort looking up salaries and comparisons, but forgot substance.

"If you don't like the job a patrolman, fireman or teacher does, you can complain, but guess what, THEY WILL NEVER GET FIRED unless they commit some felony."

This is absolute rubbish - public sector workers can get fired for simply performing poorly. Every firefighter in the state has to perform to a set of very high standards or they get fired. I've seen it myself many times.

What is true Dave is that "you" cant fire them - thats because you have no business doing such a thing. Because you don't know anything about that business. What you can do is shut your pie whole and admit defeat.

The fact that this bill only applies to union people is a good example of how it is flawed. You say kasich is not subject to it because he and his staff are not union. Who cares - if we're out of money - we're out of money. He and his staff are public employees and it is disgusting that they took a raise in this climate.

KASICH IS A DIRTY BUM AND ISSUE 2 IS A FARCE.

Wow, Crazy Cynthea, thanks for proving my point. Is this a joke?

really Dave? I don't like the job the governor is doing, can I fire him? Yeah, in four years after he has left a wake of destruction in his path. Which is a large part of the point. Elected officials will be given ALL the power. That is never good! They can do a lot of damage over the time they have before you can fire them. Don't trust the teachers and firemen and their unions? If only we had a neutral third party that could examine both sides and make a fair decision so that neither side has too much power! Hmmm, like the system we have now, the one issue 2 wants to destroy. Thank you hurricane Kasich.

Yet another personal attack on Kasich. Issue 2 is NOT about teachers, police, fireman, and other public servants job performance. It is about the stranglehold the public unions have on our budget. Job performance, for the most part is subjective. There will never be a politician with a 100% job approval. Jesus Christ could be elected governor, and at least 30-40% of people would disapprove of his job performance. That is the nature of politics.

From what I could see, Kasich did what he thought he had to do, to try and get his budget under control. He knew that his cuts were going to put pressure on local governments, hence the provisions in SB5 that everyone is fighting about. Kasich and the republican controlled state legislature got into power because of the poor job approval ratings of the past administration and legislature.

I dont know of any other we Orr in the economy, that allows it's employees to retire at 100% of current pay, let's them come back to works and build up big lump sum payments on top of it all.

We the taxpayers can no longer afford this. GM and Chyrsler went bankrupt because of a retirement benefit system that was no where near as generous as our public employees system.
Now let's hear the screaming about they built lousy cars, and that is why they went bankrupt. Think about this, the Japanese car makers who survived and prospered, the very automakers everyone held as an example of quality, did all this WITHOUT unions. Think about it.

Once again Dave D, I am not sure what you dont understand, but SB5 does very little about pensions for public workers. It will effect less than 5% of the public work force when it comes to the pension. And many private companies rehire, retired employees.

William, I understand all too well. The 5% you are referring to is the percentage of government employees that actually have their share of pensions picked up. What I am referring to is nearly every member of the public workforce who has a pension. The pension and medical benefits that retired public employees get are no longer affordable to us, the taxpayer. This is similar to the drain on social security and medicare we are facing right now the biggest segment of the population, Baby Boomers are retiring, and this will also adversely affect local and state government budgets. Contracts were negotiated, and promises were made to these employees and must be kept. What SB5 will address, is the future of these benefits. Just like much needed changes in Social Security and Medicare need to be made for future retirees these changes must start being made to public employees not near retirement age and new hires. We can no longer afford to hire someone with the promise of pensions at near 100% of their salaries.
I went on to the pers system to figure a benefit if I retired in the next 3 years. First of all I was astounded that I could just go on to the system, not being an employee, just answer some questions, plug in my compensation, and get an answer. I found that If I worked for 25 years, and retired by age 55, I would get 100% of my last 3 years salary average.
We can no longer afford to fund this kind of retirement benefit.
Check this out for yourself. .

Once again Dave, SB 5 pass or fail does not address the issues you are talking about. This will not change anything with the pensions. Also the medical benefits the retirees recieve is not funded by the taxpayer. The retirees are paying close to 100 % of the medical premiums. Actually a public employee who buys the retired health insurance ( for police and fire it is over $1000 a month ) is saving the taxpayer money. Otherwise they could be on govt assistance, costing the taxpayer more money.

Wow William, you must think I just fell off the turnip truck
Go to this site, and you will see someone with 30 years service, pays for themselves and their spouse, 1002 dollars a month. But of course this person could be 55 years old and drawing at least, $5000 a month retirement benefit. If this persons spouse is still working, chances are they are getting hospitalization from their job. At age 65 the spouse should be eligible for Medicare, in which case the retiree will only pay about 250 a month for his. This policy is medical mutual plus similar to the plan they have while working. A very generous plan.
https://www.strsoh.org/pdfs/2011premiums-nomed.pdf
Just click on that link, for that matter everyone should click on that link. As we know most public employees have worked enough quarters to be eligible for social security and Medicare.
A teacher working 30 years can retire at 55 work another 10 years on the outside and draw another $1000 to $2000 dollars a month on top of the $5000 they get from. Then their premium for both will be $321 a month. (I can supply that link also)

The state, (that's you and me folks) pays about $750 of the total premium plus the $1000 the the retiree pays, that is a nice policy. My son had to buy his own insurance, so he bought a high deductible policy for his family for about $550 a month. Now it is nowhere close to the teachers coverage, but he is in the private sector.

Come up with a better argument William.

Please don't forget our Terms of Use -- we ask you to use your real name. http://brecksville.patch.com/terms

Once again SB5 does very little to the public employees pension plans. Second public employees do not qualify for social security. Third, No money from the state budget is used to pay for pension or health care for retirees.

A pension reduces the likelihood that its recipients will have to turn to taxpayer-funded public assistance, Medicaid or social services in retirement, thus relieving taxpayers of future obligations, plus helps ensure these pensioners can continue to help sustain their local communities.

A July 2009 report issued by the National Institute for Retirement Security (NIRS) shows that defined benefit pension income plays a critical role in reducing the risk of poverty and hardship among older Americans. The report, titled “The Pension Factor: Assessing the Role of Defined Benefit Plans in Reducing Elder Hardships,” notes that pension income resulted in a savings of $7.3 billion in public assistance expenditures and 4.7 million fewer households in poverty or near poverty in 2006 in the United States. More than 23 million older Americans received a defined benefit pension that year

Insurance companies do not give a different rate for private ( your son ) or public employees. Or do they care if you are a private or public employee. They do give a different rate depending on the number of people in your plan. For example, the pension plan has a large number, so they get a better rate than the one person looking for just him and his family.

The average monthly pension for Ohio’s public educators (as of July 1, 2010) is $3,104 or $37,249 annually. Not the $ 5000 you stated.

In April 2010, the Center for State and Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security stated Holding education and other characteristics the same, typical state employees earn 11 percent less, and local workers earn 12 percent less, than comparable private sector workers.

Original thoughts only please.