Senate Bill 5 would affect all public employees in Ohio.
The bill is proposing to make these changes:
- Merit pay. The bill requires that the state and political subdivisions adopt merit-based compensation systems in place of pay schedules that provide for step increases and other automatic adjustments for public employees.
- Eighty percent cap on health insurance premiums. The bill prohibits state and local government employers from paying more than 80% toward the cost of employee health benefit premiums. Currently, the state pays 85% toward employeesâ health insurance premiums.
- Pension contributions. The bill prohibits public employers from paying employee contributions to any of the five state retirement systems. This mainly effects local governments.
- State collective bargaining. The bill prohibits state agencies and institutions of higher education from bargaining collectively with employees. The bill also prohibits employee health care benefits from being negotiated as part of collective bargaining.
- Reduction of the public sector work force. Removes consideration of seniority and length of service, by itself, from dicsions regarding a reduction in work force.
As of June 30, 2010, approximately 102,000 local government and 196,000 school district employees were covered under collective bargaining contracts. Of the 112,800 persons employed by institutions of higher education, approximately 19,500 are represented by unions. Source.
Related Links
- The bill is currently pending in the Senate Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee.
- View the bill here.
- Legislative Service Commission Bill Analysis here.
- Google Search about Ohio Senate Bill 5.
- Twitter activity Â
- Contact your Senator.
- Who is my Senator? Senate Districts map by county.
FYIâ¦I am not part of a collective bargaining unit.Â
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 176 comments }
← Previous Comments
I don't believe teachers are overpaid, per se. I believe their union has corrupted the democratic process and should be defanged. Teachers will still make decent money and have better working conditions than many. Making hay of the small proposed changes to their jobs is a red herring meant to distract citizens from the corrupt union/democrat political machine.
For those of you who are of the opinion that union's aren't needed, consider this… In ALL of the "Slave Labor" countries, there are NO unions. Coincidence? All our jobs that got relocated over sees to those countries was because unionization is illegal. Look at the quality of life for the majority of those individuals. Are they living in 2000-3000 sq ft homes? Do they have multiple vehicles in the driveway? Do most even have a vehicle, much less a paved/concrete driveway? You blind fools… I personally was raised with democratic views, with both parents as auto workers. Both are now retired, and BOTH have other jobs to still make ends meet. I watch as both have medical ailments from years of standing in place, in non-climate controlled environments, the fumes of various chemicals constantly inhaled, etc. The ONLY reason we have the amount of decent non-unionized jobs, is because they had union jobs to compete against as far as wages, benefits, rights are concerned. It's called balance, people. If you don't have that balance anymore, guess what's going to happen? Bye bye new car, LCD TV, modest house. If you think unions are that bad, go live in China, North Korea, Mexico or any other number of countries that feel the same way you do. They never had a civil rights movement like this country did. Do you see where they are today? As for public employees, they pay taxes just like everyone else. Alot take certain risks that the average guy doesn't. I would hope they get paid decently. I have to laugh at the people who are so Republican, or so Democrat. In case you haven't noticed, neither of them are any better than the other. It's an antiquated system that suffers badly now. I personally don't have much faith in either, but will still vote for whom I see is the lesser evil. If I'm not sure, I don't vote at all. FYI, I am union, but I'm also aware that it was the NAFTA and WTO that caused millions of jobs to relocate to countries that you union fearing people share views with. Thank the Clinton (Democrat) administration for that. So much for your "Unions are pro democrat" theory. Like one guy said, 300 union related, violent incidents? How about 10 million people in China that live in grass huts? I see no reason that people should EVER be prevented from being able to collectively bargain together. If you help kill the unions, you'll be living in a grass hut sooner than you think. Better brush up on your rice planting skills…
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.