Public employees are getting a lot of publicity about how they will suffer if Senate Bill 5 becomes law. For them, SB5 is taking away their rights for the use of collective bargaining to establish working conditions, salaries, benefits, days off, work procedures, and who, incidentally, gets laid off if there is a cut back in employment because of financial problems. The unions call it collective bargaining. But is it fair to the tax payer?
Under current collective bargaining laws, the two sides, unions and cities, get together and discuss terms under which the union will work. It is basically a one way street. The union says this is the type of work we will do, this is how we will do it, these are the benefits, or freebies if you will, that you will give us, and this is what you will pay us. Should the city suggest it can’t afford to make the changes the unions want, the union says, we’re going to fact finding/arbitration, discussion closed.
Arbitration and fact finding work like this. An arbitrator is chosen from a list of people approved by the union, and agreed to by the city. His job is to decide which side, union or city, presents the best argument for increases, or keeping the status quo, of wages, working conditions, and all other matters connected with government funded, paid for by taxpayers, jobs. He hears both sides then makes his decision based on his wisdom, experience, and the amount of money the municipality has available which can be taken to make wage and benefit payments to the union members. One problem with the system. Most arbitrators are ex-union members who invariably lean toward the union point of view. When you go to arbitration or fact finding, the city is going to pay up, period.
The end result of the current system is unbelievable. Public employees consider dictating their working conditions their “rights.” They consider their benefits “rights.” They consider their jobs as “rights”. Nowhere is it written that being on a public payroll is a right. Where in the constitution is it written that public employees have a “right” to work for any level of government.
Disagree with the unions and you are immediately branded as being against teaching of students, fire prevention, police patrols, garbage collection, equal rights for workers, women, men, and dog catchers.
Suggesting municipal workers pay a fair share of their health insurance, life insurance, or retirement, is considered by unions to be a crisis because it will “take food from the mouths of children” who are dependent upon a parent who works for some form of government. No matter that health insurance, vacations, retirement, overtime, and benefits not available to non-public employees result in increased costs to municipalities and are direct causes of the municipality's financial distress. No matter that these benefits are far greater than paid by non-government workers. Government workers want them, the arbitrators provide them, and the public be damned.
Wages should be based on productivity and competence, not length of employment. Most people want to be recognized for doing a good job and well they should. It is degrading that the inept, lazy, irresponsible worker is paid the same as the conscientious, responsible worker. For that matter, within a pay scale, those efficient, responsible workers, should not be paid more for their work within that scale, those who do not measure up should be paid less or fired. The unions do not see it that way, and the loafer earns what the producer does because the union has protected their jobs for a number of years.
The money that pays public worker salaries comes from the taxes of people who don’t work for public employee unions. A public employee produces no income for the municipality for which he works. He provides a service without which the municipality could not exist. But income to the city comes from taxation. Money which is taken by taxation reduces the available money used by the taxpayer to subsist, to pay the bills, to live. Government employees do not always seem to be aware of that.
A new Philadelphia school teacher was quoted by the Times-Reporter as stating, “I’m opposed to the bill – I’m really frightened about my family’s future….It’s a slap in the face. I feel like they just don’t think teachers are important, and that’s really hard to swallow.” Those people who are out of work because the cost of doing business in Ohio has driven hundreds of businesses out of Ohio find their lack of any income hard to swallow. Thousands of workers lost their jobs, their livelihoods, because companies could not afford to stay in business in Ohio because of a tax structure which is oppressive. The highest cost of government is, like private enterprise, the high cost of personnel. But there is a difference.
Nongovernmental businesses have to make a profit to stay in operation. Governments don’t as they have the power to tax those who provide the jobs, who produce the goods, who keep the economy going. Governments raise taxes to pay their bills. So if government employees want more wages and benefits, their unions provide the means to increase them regardless of the effects such increases produce.
Increased taxes always result in decreased taxpayer spending, which decreases manufacturing, which decreases jobs, which results in a failure of the economy. SB5 recognizes this. The government unions do not. Regardless of how they try to explain it away, government employee union greed is the major cause of the financial mess Ohio is in today.
Of course government employees are opposed to SB5. It’s passage will force responsibility onto them which they have not had to accept for years. It will without doubt cause some readjustments in their living standards. It is not right that government employment should provide wages and benefits which are oppressive to the taxpayer, have hurt the economy of the state. A government job is just that, a job, a privilege.
One thing is abundantly clear. As shown by union reaction to SB5 government workers are not dedicated to public service. Their dedication is to money. Their dedication is to getting whatever they can from the taxpayer. Their dedication is to self, not to the public good. The concept of public service is dead.
Under current collective bargaining laws, the two sides, unions and cities, get together and discuss terms under which the union will work. It is basically a one way street. The union says this is the type of work we will do, this is how we will do it, these are the benefits, or freebies if you will, that you will give us, and this is what you will pay us. Should the city suggest it can’t afford to make the changes the unions want, the union says, we’re going to fact finding/arbitration, discussion closed.
Arbitration and fact finding work like this. An arbitrator is chosen from a list of people approved by the union, and agreed to by the city. His job is to decide which side, union or city, presents the best argument for increases, or keeping the status quo, of wages, working conditions, and all other matters connected with government funded, paid for by taxpayers, jobs. He hears both sides then makes his decision based on his wisdom, experience, and the amount of money the municipality has available which can be taken to make wage and benefit payments to the union members. One problem with the system. Most arbitrators are ex-union members who invariably lean toward the union point of view. When you go to arbitration or fact finding, the city is going to pay up, period.
The end result of the current system is unbelievable. Public employees consider dictating their working conditions their “rights.” They consider their benefits “rights.” They consider their jobs as “rights”. Nowhere is it written that being on a public payroll is a right. Where in the constitution is it written that public employees have a “right” to work for any level of government.
Disagree with the unions and you are immediately branded as being against teaching of students, fire prevention, police patrols, garbage collection, equal rights for workers, women, men, and dog catchers.
Suggesting municipal workers pay a fair share of their health insurance, life insurance, or retirement, is considered by unions to be a crisis because it will “take food from the mouths of children” who are dependent upon a parent who works for some form of government. No matter that health insurance, vacations, retirement, overtime, and benefits not available to non-public employees result in increased costs to municipalities and are direct causes of the municipality's financial distress. No matter that these benefits are far greater than paid by non-government workers. Government workers want them, the arbitrators provide them, and the public be damned.
Wages should be based on productivity and competence, not length of employment. Most people want to be recognized for doing a good job and well they should. It is degrading that the inept, lazy, irresponsible worker is paid the same as the conscientious, responsible worker. For that matter, within a pay scale, those efficient, responsible workers, should not be paid more for their work within that scale, those who do not measure up should be paid less or fired. The unions do not see it that way, and the loafer earns what the producer does because the union has protected their jobs for a number of years.
The money that pays public worker salaries comes from the taxes of people who don’t work for public employee unions. A public employee produces no income for the municipality for which he works. He provides a service without which the municipality could not exist. But income to the city comes from taxation. Money which is taken by taxation reduces the available money used by the taxpayer to subsist, to pay the bills, to live. Government employees do not always seem to be aware of that.
A new Philadelphia school teacher was quoted by the Times-Reporter as stating, “I’m opposed to the bill – I’m really frightened about my family’s future….It’s a slap in the face. I feel like they just don’t think teachers are important, and that’s really hard to swallow.” Those people who are out of work because the cost of doing business in Ohio has driven hundreds of businesses out of Ohio find their lack of any income hard to swallow. Thousands of workers lost their jobs, their livelihoods, because companies could not afford to stay in business in Ohio because of a tax structure which is oppressive. The highest cost of government is, like private enterprise, the high cost of personnel. But there is a difference.
Nongovernmental businesses have to make a profit to stay in operation. Governments don’t as they have the power to tax those who provide the jobs, who produce the goods, who keep the economy going. Governments raise taxes to pay their bills. So if government employees want more wages and benefits, their unions provide the means to increase them regardless of the effects such increases produce.
Increased taxes always result in decreased taxpayer spending, which decreases manufacturing, which decreases jobs, which results in a failure of the economy. SB5 recognizes this. The government unions do not. Regardless of how they try to explain it away, government employee union greed is the major cause of the financial mess Ohio is in today.
Of course government employees are opposed to SB5. It’s passage will force responsibility onto them which they have not had to accept for years. It will without doubt cause some readjustments in their living standards. It is not right that government employment should provide wages and benefits which are oppressive to the taxpayer, have hurt the economy of the state. A government job is just that, a job, a privilege.
One thing is abundantly clear. As shown by union reaction to SB5 government workers are not dedicated to public service. Their dedication is to money. Their dedication is to getting whatever they can from the taxpayer. Their dedication is to self, not to the public good. The concept of public service is dead.
Mr. Conner,
ReplyDeleteLate in your post, you stated: "A public employee produces no income for the municipality for which he works. He provides a service without which the municipality could not exist. But income to the city comes from taxation."
I may misunderstand, but I believe you are mistaken. The public employee still pays income taxes, still pays property taxes, still pays local sales taxes, and so on. Those would result in some income for the municipality for which he works.