Online Now 2229

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

On this Board 80
Record: 9642 (12/28/2012)

Online now 2269
Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

The Best Damn Recruiting Board

If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here

Bucknutin' But Net

Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

The Buckeye Babe Thread

Share your favorite pix, a special lady in your life or someone else's life

Reply

Mass House Democrats vote to Cut Union Barganing

  • Yes you read that right. Massachusetts House Democrats...yes Democrats...voted 111-42 to reduce the bargaining power of unions.It only took Ohio,Wisconsin and other to lead the way.Read on.

    House votes to restrict unions
    Measure would curb bargaining on health care
    Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, said the union would fight the legislation “to the bitter end.” Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, said the union would fight the legislation “to the bitter end.” (M. McDonald for The Boston Globe)
    By Michael Levenson
    Globe Staff / April 27, 2011

    House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

    The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

    Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

    “It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

    “We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end,’’ he added. “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.’’

    The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.

    DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.

    “By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.

    Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.

    The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.

    The second concession gives union members 20 percent of the savings from any health care changes for one year, if the unions object to changes imposed by local officials. The original bill gave the unions 10 percent of the savings for one year

    House votes to limit bargaining on health care - The Boston Globe

    House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

    www.boston.com

    Bamabucknut

  • It's a tsunami sweeping the country.

    pazbuc ●

  • pazbuc said...

    It's a tsunami sweeping the country.

    Why no Liberals in this thread? Why are they not calling for this Governors head? Is this Governor a failure too?

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior ●

  • The dems are targeting the middle class in Mass?

    jcfiesta ●

  • jcfiesta said...

    The dems are targeting the middle class in Mass?

    That would be the case according to DABaker. lol

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior ●

  • Imagine that... The libs are ultimately bound by the same rules of fiscal reality as the rest of us. The reason why this gets done on the State level is because they are required to submit balanced budgets. Get a constitutional amendment requiring the same at the Federal level and we just might have a long term solution to many of our problems.

    sryan2 ●

  • OK, I live in Massachusetts, I am a liberal and I am also on the Board of our local DPW. So let me assure all of you fiscally responsible people (i.e. the ones who brought us two unfunded wars, an unfunded drug benefit and an unfudned tax decrease aimed primarily at the rich) that this is not what you think it is. Actually, it is a fairly responsible response to a real problem. It is very significantly different than what Scott Walker is trying to do. Basically, it allows towns and municipalities to move employees to plans that are very similar to the one offered to State employees. Ultimately, that is where we will end up, with all municipal employees in the state plan, but this is just a first step, and so far only in the House. It is not an attempt to strip all collective bargaining benefits from municipal employees, it just changes the jurisdiction of where and how they get their medical benefits.

    Sorry guys, but your Tea Bagger tsunami is turning into an ebb tide.

    wellesleybuck

  • wellesleybuck said...

    OK, I live in Massachusetts, I am a liberal and I am also on the Board of our local DPW. So let me assure all of you fiscally responsible people (i.e. the ones who brought us two unfunded wars, an unfunded drug benefit and an unfudned tax decrease aimed primarily at the rich) that this is not what you think it is. Actually, it is a fairly responsible response to a real problem. It is very significantly different than what Scott Walker is trying to do. Basically, it allows towns and municipalities to move employees to plans that are very similar to the one offered to State employees. Ultimately, that is where we will end up, with all municipal employees in the state plan, but this is just a first step, and so far only in the House. It is not an attempt to strip all collective bargaining benefits from municipal employees, it just changes the jurisdiction of where and how they get their medical benefits.

    Sorry guys, but your Tea Bagger tsunami is turning into an ebb tide.

    If it is so good, as you explain it, why are the Unions against it?

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior ●

  • Cheering for the taking away of benefits of our Police officers, Fireman and teachers while propping up the rich. What in the hell is wrong with you people?
    This is disgusting.

    What will you say when they start going after those cushy veterans benefits? Will you draw the line there? We have thousands of veterans coming home after many tours of duty with countless health problems. When the costs are running wild will you all be ready to cut their benefits?

    signature image

    mtnbuck

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    If it is so good, as you explain it, why are the Unions against it?

    Because Unions will oppose anything that reduces the benefits of their members. That is their job. They will end up participating in the final result here and will obtain other benefits or concessions as a result. Remember, all politics is a Kabuki dance.

    BTW, Governor Patrick spoke to Union representatives yesterday and explained that this is very, very different from what is going on in Wisconsin. He said, explicitly, "I would veto anything that looked like what they are doing in Wisconsin."

    wellesleybuck

  • wellesleybuck said...

    Because Unions will oppose anything that reduces the benefits of their members. That is their job. They will end up participating in the final result here and will obtain other benefits or concessions as a result. Remember, all politics is a Kabuki dance.

    BTW, Governor Patrick spoke to Union representatives yesterday and explained that this is very, very different from what is going on in Wisconsin. He said, explicitly, "I would veto anything that looked like what they are doing in Wisconsin."

    So he is basically in the Unions pocket.

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior ●

  • mtnbuck said...

    Cheering for the taking away of benefits of our Police officers, Fireman and teachers while propping up the rich. What in the hell is wrong with you people? This is disgusting.

    What will you say when they start going after those cushy veterans benefits? Will you draw the line there? We have thousands of veterans coming home after many tours of duty with countless health problems. When the costs are running wild will you all be ready to cut their benefits?

    Dude......... This does not in anyway say or mean that they are "taking away benefits". All it allows them to do is keep these people from BLOCKING them from changing their health care packages. Brings them inline with ALL the other non-public employees in the country. They have had a SWEET package for many years due to the unions blocking any changes that may actually require them to pay for even 'some' of their health care benefits.

    Police, firemen, and teachers are NOT veteran's of war. They have changed active duty and veteran benefits over the years. They don't get to block the changes like the unions do.
    Sorry.........

    This post was edited by needmorebucks on 4/28/2011 at 11:28 AM

    needmorebucks

  • mtnbuck said...

    Cheering for the taking away of benefits of our Police officers, Fireman and teachers while propping up the rich. What in the hell is wrong with you people? This is disgusting.

    What will you say when they start going after those cushy veterans benefits? Will you draw the line there? We have thousands of veterans coming home after many tours of duty with countless health problems. When the costs are running wild will you all be ready to cut their benefits?

    First, let me say that I completely AGREE that veterans benefits should remain untouchable and if anything be expanded. Nothing compares to the sacrifice these men and women make to protect our country... Freedom isn't free. However, you are drinking the kool aid of the liberals misinformation campaign or just knowingly propagating it. For the umpteenth time, you could tax "the rich" at 100% and it still wouldn't come close to addressing our financial problems. Yes, we need to make certain loop holes are closed and those in higher brackets aren't paying lower rates than those beneath them. Fixing the situation is going to require shared sacrifice and that means MODERATING (not "taking away") the benefits certain public workers receive which in many cases far exceed those in the private sector. I'm certain that the significant majority of people who support these essential reforms respect and admire in appropriate instances teachers, firemen, police officers, etc., but that should not necessitate them making a greater sacrifice as workers and citizens themselves. These public workers chose their profession and no one is requiring them to continue in that line of work if they feel they are either not being compensated for what they are worth or there is a better deal for them elsewhere... That's how it works in a free market which has been responsible for creating the greatest nation this world has ever known.

    "What the hell is wrong with you people?"... Absolutely nothing. We are doing the heavy lifting to make sure we have a country for future generations that offers the same opportunity for freedom and prosperity that you and I enjoy. This is not being done at the expense of public workers, but rather we're just requiring them to participate in the solution. A reluctance to do so is "disgusting" IMO.

    sryan2 ●

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    So he is basically in the Unions pocket.

    You might say that, if your immediate response it to resort to name calling. Hey, it beats thinking. Or you could say that he is proposing a practical solution to a difficult problem. And certainly, he is not in the pocket of some out of state billionaire who have purchased his heart and soul

    wellesleybuck

  • Who is drinking the Kool-aid? If you think public service employees benefits is the reason for financial difficulties well, OK. This is nothing more than the rights effort to break unions and stop funding for Democratic candidates, which unions over-whelmingly back.

    They can choose another line of work? This is a calling for most of these people. Not all, but most.
    Most where promised deals (pensions) for decades and now people want to change the game mid-stream. I don't know where you come from, but in my world a deal is a deal, and scum bags break deals.

    And I got a little news flash for you, those unions also helped create the greatest nation on Earth. We might still be having 10 year old factory workers if not for them.

    How are the wealthy going to participate in your "solution". Rep Ryan wants to cut their taxes by 10%. Please spare me the trickle down economics argument. The wealthy's taxes are at their lowest point since the 50's and where are the jobs?

    signature image

    mtnbuck

  • mtnbuck said...

    Who is drinking the Kool-aid? If you think public service employees benefits is the reason for financial difficulties well, OK. This is nothing more than the rights effort to break unions and stop funding for Democratic candidates, which unions over-whelmingly back.

    They can choose another line of work? This is a calling for most of these people. Not all, but most. Most where promised deals (pensions) for decades and now people want to change the game mid-stream. I don't know where you come from, but in my world a deal is a deal, and scum bags break deals.

    And I got a little news flash for you, those unions also helped create the greatest nation on Earth. We might still be having 10 year old factory workers if not for them.

    How are the wealthy going to participate in your "solution". Rep Ryan wants to cut their taxes by 10%. Please spare me the trickle down economics argument. The wealthy's taxes are at their lowest point since the 50's and where are the jobs?

    You do know Obama is the most anti-business ,anti free enterprise ,anti capitalist president in over a half century.The steps hes taken to kill jobs are countless.The story's to kill oil industry jobs or coal jobs are posted on this board ad nausium.Forcing health care that the populous and business did not want(with the loss of over 800,000 health care jobs) ..and on and on.What's so hard to understand?
    --------
    CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers
    2:37 PM, Feb 10, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text

    Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000. Here are excerpts from the exchange:

    Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “[I]t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

    Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...

    […]

    Rep. [John] Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we'll -- and Dr. Elmendorf -- and we'll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to -- before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe -- or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there's 160 million full-time people working in '20-'21. That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21. Is that correct?

    Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that...employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000.

    CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers | The Weekly Standard

    Read conservative news, blogs and opinion about Health Care, Obamacare and Repeal from The Weekly Standard, the must read magazine available in online edition.

    www.weeklystandard.com

    Bamabucknut

  • mtnbuck said...

    Who is drinking the Kool-aid? If you think public service employees benefits is the reason for financial difficulties well, OK. This is nothing more than the rights effort to break unions and stop funding for Democratic candidates, which unions over-whelmingly back.

    They can choose another line of work? This is a calling for most of these people. Not all, but most. Most where promised deals (pensions) for decades and now people want to change the game mid-stream. I don't know where you come from, but in my world a deal is a deal, and scum bags break deals.

    And I got a little news flash for you, those unions also helped create the greatest nation on Earth. We might still be having 10 year old factory workers if not for them.

    How are the wealthy going to participate in your "solution". Rep Ryan wants to cut their taxes by 10%. Please spare me the trickle down economics argument. The wealthy's taxes are at their lowest point since the 50's and where are the jobs?

    Ah, and the personal interests and left-wing talking points come out right from the "unions member's guide to why we deserve more" (subtitle - "facts and circumstances be damned")... What is it that you libs don't seem to understand about the truth that "the rich" cannot solve this nation's financial problems alone no matter what absurd and punishing tax rates you want to assess on them so you can redistribute their in vast majority of cases hard earned money?

    A "calling"... Please. I had a calling to be a professional football player and that didn't pan out. There are many things I would choose to do professionally but I weigh the benefits against the sacrifices and ultimately decide what represents the best interests of myself and my family. "A deal is a deal"... Typical selfish liberal mindset and inability to accept reality. Circumstances change and you adapt accordingly. My company previously allowed us to expense many things which are no longer permissible. I can either chose to now accept those as personal costs associated with my job OR I can find a new job, even if that means abandoning "my calling". Your logic is so insane and centric that it galvanizes your opposition. You suggest that the taxpayers should subsidize your salary/benefits/retirement no matter what financial pressures they are personally facing... Sorry, but it doesn't work that way and that doesn't make anyone a "scum bag". It makes them a grown up who understands basic economics. Public workers have a responsibility for shared sacrifices when the times call for them just like every other citizen (and the Top 20% already pay 80% of the taxes with 47% of our citizens not paying a single dime in Federal income tax).

    Finally, yes those unions did contribute to making this country what it is today but their modern version have morphed into something completely different in most instances. This is exactly why the liberal icon FDR refused to allow the unionization of the Federal work force. The crippling effects are being felt across our country and many courageous leaders like Chris Christie, Scott Walker, John Kasich, plus numerous others are in the process of rectifying their damage to ensure a better future for the greatest number of people. Kindly put your hands back in your own pocket and take them out of mine.

    sryan2 ●

  • Interesting piece "End Public Sector Unions.....Period" recently published in THE AMERICAN THINKER.

    February 20, 2011
    End Public Sector Unions...Period
    By C. Edmund Wright
    It's about time. I've been waiting for this debate to mature for 15 years.

    The battles in Wisconsin and New Jersey over public sector union benefits are merely financial precursors to a much bigger ideological war that has been on the horizon now for years, if not decades. When you acknowledge the coming battle, you realize that Governors Walker and Christie -- courageously as they are behaving -- are only nibbling at the edges of the real issue.

    And the real issue is whether public sector unions should even be allowed to exist. Frankly, when even a modicum of common sense is infused into the equation, the answer is a resounding no. And the foundational reason is simple. There is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated.

    Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

    Well let's see what went wrong: California, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago, New York State, New York City, Wisconsin...on and on I could go including almost every city and state where government workers are unionized.

    Oh, and have you seen pictures of Detroit lately?

    The problem is that our country has been lulled to sleep over decades of hearing that government workers are dedicated and low paid public servants who trade good pay for security. And every time a union pay debate came up, it seemed like only cops and fire fighters and teachers were mentioned. No one stopped to think that most government workers are actually bureaucratic charmers like those we see at the DMV and other government offices -- and not "heroic teachers" or crime fighters.

    (follow link for full piece)

    American Thinker: End Public Sector Unions...Period

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/end_public_sector_unionsperiod.html

    www.americanthinker.com

    Bamabucknut

  • mtnbuck said...

    What will you say when they start going after those cushy veterans benefits?

    What is so cushy about them? Also I am pretty sure they are earned.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Downtown ●

  • mtnbuck said...

    Cheering for the taking away of benefits of our Police officers, Fireman and teachers while propping up the rich. What in the hell is wrong with you people? This is disgusting.

    What will you say when they start going after those cushy veterans benefits? Will you draw the line there? We have thousands of veterans coming home after many tours of duty with countless health problems. When the costs are running wild will you all be ready to cut their benefits?

    What are you bitching about? According to Wellesleybuck, the Unions want this and it is a good thing for them. In fact, even better.

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior ●

  • mtnbuck said...

    Who is drinking the Kool-aid? If you think public service employees benefits is the reason for financial difficulties well, OK. This is nothing more than the rights effort to break unions and stop funding for Democratic candidates, which unions over-whelmingly back.

    Mtnbuck

    This statement is now untrue. You say the states taking away some collective bargaining rights is just the Rights way of breaking unions?

    Did you read what this thread is about? the Democrat controlled Govt in Mass. just voted to take away some collective bargaining rights for there public employees, so are the Democrats now just trying to break the unions? or is there more to it in all states than "breaking unions"

    I dont think anyone thinks that Public workers pay and benifits created the financial problems in the states, but they are a contributing factor. It sucks, but we are in such bad shape because of stupid decsions by both republicans and Democrats that we all now get to suck it up and tighten our belts.

    gpracer73

  • Maybe the union members understand that it has to work for everyone ie: don't bargin for something you can't afford.
    The pendulum has swung. Act like adults and make the best long term sensible deal you can make.
    PS: Get ride of your big thug union leaders. It's YOUR union, take it back.......
    Tea Party Rulesdeadhorse

    SylvaniaBuck

  • mntbuck - my father was promised bennies and a pension with a public company (not govt)....guess what - he got F'd while the UAW workers at the same plant didn't. Life went on - he adjusted his retirement goals and worked another 5 years with a different company to help make up for the lost bennies. He's not where he "was promised" but he didn't whine and claim he was entitiled. Reality was the company didn't have the money to pay the "promises" it made and government didn't step in to fill the void like it did with the UAW.

    I know he wasn't happy having less at retirement age then planned but it is what it is - can't get something that ain't there...unless your a Union worker.

    jcfiesta ●

  • First, Who says "union members deserve more". Where did I write that? I am saying the state governments need to live up to their obligations. That's what adults do. People who understand economics make deals that they can live with. Understanding economics is not turning your back on obligations, unless your the rights poster boy, Donald Trump.

    As far as you not reaching your calling. I am shocked. You think that if these worker's don't like your reasoning that they should move on. Work somewhere else. But then you talk about what you may have to sacrifice and weighing your options. What about the sacrifices that these people have made? And you call me selfish.

    Lets be clear, I understand economics fine. What I don't understand is hateful, devisive, Republician economics.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23094.htm

    Income inequality continues to grow even if I did believe the numbers you post above, and I am not a union member. What are the wealthy going to sacrifice in your new world order?

    "They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children and it would disappear everywhere in the world. Today the workers in Poland are showing a new generation how high is the price of freedom but also how much it is worth that price."

    Ronald Reagan

    Collective bargaining in the years since has played a major role in America’s economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere. Too often, discussion about the labor movement concentrates on disputes, corruption, and strikes. But while these things are headlines, there are thousands of good agreements reached and put into practice every year without a hitch.

    Ronald Reagan

    signature image

    mtnbuck

  • personal bankruptcies are soaring ....home foreclosures are at record highs..business are going out of business....some states are about to go bankrupt and you say that the taxpayer needs to fork over money they don't have because some political hacks made bad deals that were unsustainable ?

    Social Security is going broke

    medicare is going broke

    medicaid is bankrupting the states

    the federal government IS BROKE

    hell the post office is even running a 4 billion dollar deficit

    and you say just close your eyes and PAY UP !

    Bamabucknut

Ohio State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports