Of course you could figure I’m for No on Issue 2. A "no" vote repeals SB5. I’m a teacher, and I’m simply trying to protect my own pocket book, right? Well, yes and no.
I’ve heard it before. Teachers are overpaid, get too much time off, have too good a pension... First of all, I don’t agree with those, but I'll agree that those things are certainly fair game for discussion. But SB5 makes no sense for a number of reasons.
First of all, republicans are behind it. That doesn't make it bad of course. I used to be a republican. Back then, we stood for small government, keeping government out of peoples’ lives whenever possible. Republicans hated big government telling local people what to do. So here comes SB5, a totally republican initiative. SB5 imposes the state’s idea of how schools should be run onto the local school districts. Let me say that a different way. SB5 takes control of many aspects of local education from the local school districts and turns it over to Ohio. It tells local school districts in what ways they can negotiate with staff. It tells local school districts how to resolve disputes. It tells local school districts how to decide which staff gets laid off. You get the idea. I’m guessing even Reagan himself would have hated this. But then, republicans today show no resemblance to the republicans I used to be proud of.
But the most amazing part of SB5 is rarely mentioned. In SB5, teachers (and firefighters and police) are allowed to have collective bargaining for a few items, determined by the state of course. Salary is one. But according to this law, if the school board and the teachers can’t come to an agreement, after a short period of time, it goes to the "governing body," whose decision is final. And that governing body: is it an impartial negotiator? Maybe a judge? How about a jury? Nope, the governing body is the school board. So if the school board proposes a huge pay cut and we don’t like it, the school board gets to decide whose side to take, and their decision is final. No, I can’t figure that one out either.
If you call yourself a conservative, maybe you object to the “excessive pensions” (as stated on a commercial) of teachers or firefighters, or police. Or maybe you think we have cushy jobs, or we get paid too much, or any of a thousand other things. Fine. But I have yet to understand how a true conservative can support this as a proper solution.
And don’t even begin to tell me that this law is needed because the unions are all-powerful. Union membership in America is at an all time low. They don’t have the power they used to. And besides, how often do you hear about teachers striking? If our unions were so all-powerful, that would happen a lot. But it doesn’t. For two reasons: our unions are not that strong, and, believe it or not, teachers don’t want to mess with the kids’ education. Really.
SB5 is a bad idea. I just can’t say it any other way.
I’ve heard it before. Teachers are overpaid, get too much time off, have too good a pension... First of all, I don’t agree with those, but I'll agree that those things are certainly fair game for discussion. But SB5 makes no sense for a number of reasons.
First of all, republicans are behind it. That doesn't make it bad of course. I used to be a republican. Back then, we stood for small government, keeping government out of peoples’ lives whenever possible. Republicans hated big government telling local people what to do. So here comes SB5, a totally republican initiative. SB5 imposes the state’s idea of how schools should be run onto the local school districts. Let me say that a different way. SB5 takes control of many aspects of local education from the local school districts and turns it over to Ohio. It tells local school districts in what ways they can negotiate with staff. It tells local school districts how to resolve disputes. It tells local school districts how to decide which staff gets laid off. You get the idea. I’m guessing even Reagan himself would have hated this. But then, republicans today show no resemblance to the republicans I used to be proud of.
But the most amazing part of SB5 is rarely mentioned. In SB5, teachers (and firefighters and police) are allowed to have collective bargaining for a few items, determined by the state of course. Salary is one. But according to this law, if the school board and the teachers can’t come to an agreement, after a short period of time, it goes to the "governing body," whose decision is final. And that governing body: is it an impartial negotiator? Maybe a judge? How about a jury? Nope, the governing body is the school board. So if the school board proposes a huge pay cut and we don’t like it, the school board gets to decide whose side to take, and their decision is final. No, I can’t figure that one out either.
If you call yourself a conservative, maybe you object to the “excessive pensions” (as stated on a commercial) of teachers or firefighters, or police. Or maybe you think we have cushy jobs, or we get paid too much, or any of a thousand other things. Fine. But I have yet to understand how a true conservative can support this as a proper solution.
And don’t even begin to tell me that this law is needed because the unions are all-powerful. Union membership in America is at an all time low. They don’t have the power they used to. And besides, how often do you hear about teachers striking? If our unions were so all-powerful, that would happen a lot. But it doesn’t. For two reasons: our unions are not that strong, and, believe it or not, teachers don’t want to mess with the kids’ education. Really.
SB5 is a bad idea. I just can’t say it any other way.
I'm not sure how true this is but I just hear at work today that even though SB5 passed if a school is in financial distress they can riff anyone they want to for any reason and don't have to follow the union seniority rules and they can move non teachers to other positions. Does anyone know if this is true??
ReplyDelete