Ohio vote repeals union limit law
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15649745


Note: 9 November 2011 Last updated at 18:37 GMT

LMAO....slow night :DL

You would only know, :yawn:

Precisely :zzz:

It's quick to change,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us...ts.html?ref=us

Praise be to 'cut and paste' :DL

State workers are going to love it when they get laid off because the budget won't support them all. Wonder how great the unions will tell them it is when the senior folks get golden bennies and keep their jobs while the rank and file are out in the cold.

The unions are no longer about the worker.... and Ohio state workers are getting ready to learn that the hard way.

yes, because everything is the unions fault, and totally has nothing to do with the fall of the middle class, wars abroad or anything else.

I really wish people would stop using unions as a scapegoat for the problems america faces.

I never said that the unions were at fault for the budget woes of Ohio. They have contributed - as have other things.

But the reality is that the government is going to have to slash its operating budget - and then the state workers will suffer. Because the unions were unwilling to budge - the law was put in. Now its out - so the savings have to come from somewhere else - meaning lots of layoffs in the future.

Layoffs of state workers - thats going to be so pleasant...

I don't think that was really the case, but there's a point, when you are making $50,000 and people ask you to make much less, where you can't cover the bills. The fact is though, they really were targeted very heavily by the republican political machine, and unions have long been targeted by them

Gimpy, mark my words there will be significant state workers laid off now.

As for the pay arguement - when a government union worker makes 1.5 to 4x as much as a private sector employee doing the same job - don't tell me or the rest of the folks out here that work in the private sector how hard it is for those folks to "make ends meet". Its my tax dollars that pay them to do a job getting more money than I would if I were doing the same one. The private sector worker paying taxes is the one that is getting screwed - multiple times over - compared to the "poor state union worker".

Okay, then we won't tell you that. Because you have your facts wrong. Federal employees make 26.3 percent less than private sector workers on average, according to a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...sm_btn_twitter

Kind of blows up your whole argument.

Granted, that's for federal and not state employees. But unless you live in Ohio, it's not "your tax dollars" paying the salaries so I can only assume you meant federal employees.

That's one opinion. The other is
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-civil-service

When I came to Utah in 1971 I got hired by Hill Air Force Base as a warehouseman. I made $3.28 per hour, but at that time the minimum wage was $1.85, so I did pretty well. Today a GS1 starts at $8.53, but I was just out of the navy and was a GS6, which today starts at $14.65. That may not seem like much compared to some jobs, but from my point of view looks pretty darned good.
http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/pdf/gs_h.pdf

That article basis its premise on a study from a year and a half ago based on data from as far back as 2006. The article I linked to cites a study that was released last Friday.

But, as is stated in the article I linked to, there's many different methodologies one can use. There's no definitive answer. The Hertiage Foundation also isn't the most unbiased of sources.

The BLS study is used to compute base pay scales, hourly and salaried, and does not included benefits. The Heritage study specifically includes benefits payed while employed and post-retirement.

As Mookie stated, different data sets.

I grew up in a family, both close and extended, of civil servants. DoD specifically. My brother just retired from the DoD. Believe me, the benefits are second to none for rank and file employees.

I wish I could offer my people anything close to what the feds give.

Also, I'm not surprised a federal bureau came up with its own study showing they are not payed enough. :yawn:

As far as I remember, the crux of the matter were the Ohio public employee salaries, not the Federal ones.

If anyone interested in what a Ohio Public Employee takes home in a year, he/she ca find the detailed info, with some digging, here.

As it may be, this page, states that

While Haplo's 1.5x to 4x figure is .. uh.. 'somewhat' exaggerated, they do make more money. But on the other hand, aren't most Public Employees usually earn (comparatively) more when one takes into account benefits and other perks?

Just wondering. :hmmm: