Wednesday, August 17, 2011

WHIOtv.com: Kasich Willing to Soften SB5 to Avoid Repeal

WHIOtv.com is reporting that Governor Kasich has proposed softening some of the more harsh provisions within Senate Bill 5 in an effort to avoid the issue hitting the ballot in November to be determined by the voters of Ohio.

He has requested a meeting with 10 union leaders to discuss the plan, while the union leaders say it is now too late for compromise.

Click here to read more from WHIOtv.com

41 comments:

  1. Because Kasich knows he is going to lose, big-time, on the issue of Senate Bill 5.

    ...back-peddling, back-peddling...we will see the GOP doing a lot of this in the next two years.

    Stick a fork in him, folks, Kasich is one and done!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kasich will be gone quicker than you think ... because he will soon be vice president of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the union leaders don't want to meet, that's fine. Let it ride out through the election and if it is defeated, come up with something new for next year! Look up the facts, Ohio! The states that have done similar in the past are the states not with debt problems! This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, either, as states with Democrat Governors and legislatures are creating similar bills, just to less media attention because it isn't a Republican doing it!

    Common sense dictates SB 5 is approved by the voters. But, then again, it also dictated that Obama not receive a single vote. Shows how much common sense plays into the minds of most folks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Forced Union states are suffering and losing jobs left and right. Right to work states are not.

    Lets not forget Kasich is one of the REPUBLICANS who balanced the budget under Clinton, not the Democrats. He knows a thing or two about making budgets, unlike any Democrat in office currently.

    Unions are a cancer, look at how they are fighting Boeing from building a new plant in a right to work state! How is that even possible in the United States? Oh yeah, we have a president who gave them two car companies and massive bailouts as payback.....

    He should never have offered to negotiate. There are winners and there are losers, winners do not have to negotiate with the losers. That is life, and that is the price of losing, the left lost, and to quote the immaculated one.. "Elections have consequences". Look at Wisconsin, the left lost there, and the unions lost despite them dumping tens of millions into the recall efforts. The tide in this country is changing, people realize that things can not continue as they once were, so why bow to the pressure from the losing side?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Looks like that whole "We Won't Compromise" thingy likes to bite back!

    Oops!

    ReplyDelete
  6. BE - If elections have consequences then I guess you believe Obama care should stand?

    Winners do not have to negotiate with losers? I think you are right. So I don't think the unions should negotiate with Kasich.

    Kasich knows he will lose, that's why he is trying this pathetic ploy.

    Let the people decide.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, the Supreme Court will rule that one, and so far they are losing that battle as well. Contrary to what the cry baby in chief thinks, he is not ruler of this country.

    I agree, let the people decide. one only needs to point to the failing union states to show how they only hurt businesses.

    Unions do not save companies or create jobs, they merely suck wealth from corporations and use their positions for power. No one is being forced to work 18 hours in unsafe working conditions anymore, no one is being forced to work for pennies on the dollar, they have no purpose in a modern society except to strongarm companies.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree. Let the people of Ohio decide. They may have gotten over one million signatures, but there are seven-eight million people in this state. I believe and hope 5 will stand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I say let sb5 go away and just make serious cuts in state employees. There are far too many anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kasich must think SB 5 has a real chance to be defeated in the polls, otherwise he would not offer to negotiate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ... or maybe it was to show that the unions never intended to negotiate in the first place

    ReplyDelete
  12. Negotiate what Damon?
    Were they offered that chance when the bill was enacted?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why should we negotiate with the unions? They have never shown they are willing to make the cuts necessary to save the company or the municipalities they work for.

    Look at the thug unions Verizon is dealing with at the moment, typical union tactics on display.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "They have never shown they are willing to make the cuts necessary to save the company or the municipalities they work for."

    Really? Didn't the city firefighters just do that?
    There are dozens if not hundreds of public safety unions In Ohio alone that have made concessions in the last several years.
    Obviously you deal in rhetoric and not facts or you would have known that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And, obviously you are always on here defending unions every chance you get. The reality is unions cause more harm than they do good. Look at states where workers are required to join unions versus right to work states. The comparison alone shows the effect unions have.

    Pointing out one or two unions that actually do make concessions does not let the majority of them off the hook.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I guess "rhetoric" is the correct answer, You spout off and when it gets pointed out you are horribly wrong you change tact.
    I didn't defend anyone BTW, just pointed out that you were wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BE, why do you say the left lost in Wisconsin? Quite the contrary. The Republican majority was reduced to 17-16. And one Republican voted AGAINST the union-busting bill. The recall effort against Scott Walker is alive and well. Why do you think Kasich is making this ploy? Sorry, John, you're about eight months too late.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ 3:34 ... you better hope SB5 sticks. if the referendum succeeds, the GOP-controlled Ohio House and Senate will just pass another, more aggressive union-busting bill and THAT referendum will occur during a year when a lot of conservatives will be voting to defeat the current president. maybe you should be careful what you wish for.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "if the referendum succeeds, the GOP-controlled Ohio House and Senate will just pass another, more aggressive union-busting bill"

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, the majority go to the polls and overturns it, and you think they would turn around and pass something similar after such a defeat?
    Not real likely IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ 6:06 ... yes they will. this is a bare-knuckle brawl. look at everything that has happened in wisconsin. it makes no sense for the fight to continue there, but yet it does.

    The GOP controls the Ohio House and Senate with big majorities. They can pass whatever they want, whenever they want. If the unions spend $50 million to defeat SB5, then the GOP can pass another bill and make them spend $50 million more. Maybe the new bill will be more aggressive, or maybe it will be a little weaker (kind of like what Kasich is proposing now). But they'll pass something.

    Dig in Nomad, you're either going to lose on SB5 this November --- or you're going to pay over and over and over again to keep winning.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think the best thing for Kasich to do is announce the following: "If SB5 is voted down, there will immediately be a 15% reduction in state employees. SB5 is what allowed the state to NOT lay off this 15% of our employees, but if it is overturned, jobs will have to be shed to compensate."

    Essentially, that can happen. Quite honestly, it probably SHOULD happen. But I think Kasich cares too much for the state and the people to want to cut ANY jobs at all.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Kasich is now proving himself weaker and meeker than he led everyone to think. What happened to his "bus" that he was going to use to "run over" anyone who got in his "way?" He is now paying back $40-$45 million of taxpayers money to state employees, and worst of all, says he already put the expense into his new budget (the one he supposedly balanced with an $8 billion deficit). Had he an the Republican leadership not been so arrogant and inflexible over the content of SB5, a good piece of legislation could have been made. The bully is now the compromiser?

    ReplyDelete
  23. If they repeal SB5, then I agree, instantly cut 15% of all state employees across the board. It wouldn't be the first time unions have stuck to their guns despite it costing them big job cuts.

    There are too many state employees and federal employees anyways. Not too mention, the state employees and people like Nomad, like to toss up how little they make in comparison, it will get them out of those supposed low paying jobs and in to the rebounding private sector that the Democrats keep claiming they are creating. So don;t worry, Obama is laser beam focused on jobs, and he really means it this time....

    ReplyDelete
  24. "There are too many State employees, anyway"- so where do you cut? Which State jobs will go, which will stay? People spew this comment but do not give examples or numbers to back up their arguments.

    Do you want less cops, firefighters, or teachers? Do you want less license bureaus workers? Define what you mean when you say there are too many state workers. Cutting 15% across the board for fed and state workers- what sectors? Do you want nuclear power plants to have less oversight- 15% less? What about the USDA/State of Ohio inspectors? Do you want less (than what are already on staff) available to inspect the food supply? Do you want x-ray machines, fluoroscopes, cat scan and other radiation-producing devices go un-inspected so you or your loved one(s) can get too much exposure when receiving a test with such equipment?

    I don't think you know exactly what you are talking about and are just making a general statement. I dare you to prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You look at the whole state and identify the 15% that are most expendable. It's just that easy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "it's just that easy"

    Yep, when you don't have to insure that programs are run, services are available, and people are protected, it's easy to just say "cut 15% across the board". If you ran your business this way you'd be broke in time.

    And why not 10% or 20%? I guess it's easy to just throw around numbers when you don't have a clue how anything works.

    Is there waste? You bet. But no one knows how much or how little at this point. But that doesn't stop the baseless comments.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 15% only because somebody above used that figure. 20% would be better.

    and i never said "across the board." you said that. i said to take your time and find the 15% most expendable.

    there's plenty to cut without putting people in danger.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "across the board" was in reference to Hard Truth's comments (11:18 am). As a matter of fact, my whole comments were directed at him/her.

    I agree. Take your time and find the 15% that are expendable.

    Wholesale cuts could be worse than wholesale spending. Especially if safety is at risk.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This fallacy that there is no federal or state employees that can be cut without risking all of our lives is idiotic and nothing but a scare tactic. Same reason the federal budget has millions of tax payers dollars going to watch shrimp run on treadmills or rebuilding some mosque in some middle east black hole and yet when you bring up cuts, they say there is nothing to cut without starving old people or killing kids.

    It's BS. you can start by cutting the EPA across the board, nationwide, followed by the IRS.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If union leaders were smart, they would be busting the door down to talk with Kasich now. If union members were smart, they'd be encouraging their union leadership to bust down the door to talk with Kasich now. But they aren't. They are stupid. Kasich offers to talk through the issues, but the union leaders say "we'll talk after the bill is voted down." Why? All the unions will be able to talk about then is which employees are going to have to get laid off to make up for the 8-billion (I think that is the number) dollar budget problem their selfishness will have created.

    Here's the thing - if the average person with even a modicum of intelligence looks at this without the influence of outside yapping, they will undoubtedly come down on the side of keeping SB5 because of what it accomplishes. However, so many people have been inundated with fear tactics and lies from the anti-SB5 idiots that they think little Jimmy will not receive an education or their house will go up in flames instead of a small fire being put out, etc. etc. etc. The "repeal SB5" people have no choice but to prey on the weak and feeble minded as intelligence and common sense is against their argument.

    The lowest of the low will be when teachers or schools start sending out "Vote Down SB5" fliers to parents, or police and firefighters start canvassing neighborhoods in uniform telling people to vote it down. Nothing but cowardly fear tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lots to cut starting with portions of all subsidies, including farming. But wholesale cuts with blinders on is stupid and dangerous. Cutting things across the board like the EPA and the IRS is oversimplistic thinking at its worse. Obviously not much thought put into comments like that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "you can start by cutting the EPA across the board, nationwide, followed by the IRS."

    Great idea, who needs clean water or water? and that pesky IRS, his country doesn't need to collect those silly taxes right?

    LMAO!

    ReplyDelete
  33. The facts are: all provisions of SB5 are good and reasonable with the exception of the elimination of strike rights and binding arbitration which is a de facto destruction of the unions. This provision is not cost control, but is Republican ideology designed to weaken Democrats. They (Reps.) tell you that SB5 will preserve collective bargaining. That is like saying, "We will not kill this animal, just take away its food and water."
    If the political ideology is eliminated, SB5 could be a very valuable and reasonable piece of legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You mean the IRS that added over 16,000 new agents last year and a half alone? You telling me w suddenly had to have 16,000 more federal and state employees?

    If you believe there are not cuts to be made in both departments you are just a step above a pet rock IQ wise...

    ReplyDelete
  35. First off the IRS is a Federal agency not a state ageny, so they added no "state employees"
    Secondly I have no idea what the staffing is at the IRS, and unless you work there I doubt you do either.
    Did they need more people? are those replacements for retiring workers? again I don't know and I know you don't either.
    That brings me to this; you obviously can't argue here with facts, what you do is regurgitate stuff you read or saw somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Simple way to solve the problem, ban all unions from donating to any political party. The Republicans know that the Democrats rely heavily on the unions for donations (something like 90% of all union donations go to Democrats), so it makes sense to go after them. Doing away with union donations to political parties would also cut down on the conflict of interest and we wouldn't have these multi-billion dollar so called stimulus packages that are nothing but payback to the unions.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anon at 12:36 - dead wrong. States where state employees cannot strike and are under similar provisions as SB5 are the ones NOT facing huge debts. The removal of the ability to "strike" (it isn't a right, thank you very much) is key to this in those states. Want to strike? Fine, you'll be replaced, but enjoy holding your sign.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Exactly, striking isn't a right. You are not entitled to a job at your employer, they LET you have a job, and can fire you from it if you refuse to do your job. This idea that you have the right to strike is more democrat nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 5:11 p.m. - Let's take it a step further - ban all union AND corporate contributions. Get rid of "corporate personhood" altogether and let the "one man, one vote" principal stand. Don't let these corporations and unions flood elections with money. Leave it up to the constituencies.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Funny how people want to blame Unions for everything. How about Corporate Greed. How you give bonuses to corporate Ceos when you are filing for bankruptucy. Get real

    ReplyDelete
  41. GM went bankrupt because they were being crushed under the weight of the cadillac retirement plans and other reasons. The UAW was unwilling to negotiate to save the company, so instead they were bailed out as payback by the administration.

    The Unions are just as much to blame as corporate greed. Neither the CEO's or the unions deserve bonuses when the company has to be bailed out.

    ReplyDelete

Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */