Middletown Forum : SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : Are these people really repeating...

Sat, 02 Apr 2011 12:51:58 +0000

Author: Bocephus
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 02 2011 at 12:51pm

Are these people really repeating anything that comes out of AJs mouth? Makes me sad to see people that actualy work for a living standing there letting this guy put words in there mouths it reminds me of sheep being led to the slaughter unbelievable.AJ I hope that you get a job soon because I do think that you are a one termer on council.

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : Vet - everyone must follow their...

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:40:53 +0000

Author: TonyB
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 01 2011 at 9:40pm

Vet - everyone must follow their own path and do what they think is right. If they stop doing that, you know my mantra.... I oppose SB5 also but I'm also not a member of city council so it doesn't really matter. I really don't know about the conflict of interest between councilman and pursuing a career from a legal or ethical point of view. I see elected office as a service and not a job. The $5k is compensation for the time, not a salary. I don't believe he could be employed by the city and be on council. He could certainly train for a fire position. I believe in term limits and politicians getting promoted to private citizen!! He will need a career!!!

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : AJ should be doing everything...

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:32:11 +0000

Author: VietVet
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 01 2011 at 7:32pm

AJ should be doing everything he can to represent the people of the 2nd Ward. He is now a councilman, not in the fire department. When he leaves office, either by choice or by replacement at the polls, he should focus on pleasing union boss Harvey for the purpose of getting a foothold into the fire department. The problem is, he is trying to do the fire department thing while still a councilperson. He actually has a conflict of interest here. Now, as councilman, he should be helping this cash strapped city save money at the negotiation table meaning he needs to support SB5, designed to help cities deal with the demands of unions. Instead, even as a councilman, he is taking the side of the union folks who are wanting to defeat SB5, which will hurt the cities wallet come negotiation time. He is not defending the city in a city official capacity. When he leaves the city council position, he has every right to pursue a career in the fire department, to help defeat SB5 and to hang out with Harvey if he chooses. Just not now. IMO

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : Upon listening to Jon Harvey,...

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:13:40 +0000

Author: acclaro
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 01 2011 at 1:13pm

Upon listening to Jon Harvey, I thought I was listening to the same speech by Brian Daley, that killed his union with his inept negotiation with AK. Mr. Harvey, this has nothing to do with budgets but an assault on hard working middle class workers? OMG, how hilarious. That argument won't sell, the dog won't hunt. It has EVERYTHING to do with taming costs. Can't wait to see it implemented, can't wait to see it defeated if placed on a ballot, and cannot wait to see AJ Smith out of office. 2nd Ward---you are not being served by this mouthpiece for Obama and union vote snatching.

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : arwendt, thank you for your post....

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:48:53 +0000

Author: TonyB
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 01 2011 at 12:48pm

arwendt, thank you for your post. My implication has nothing to do with corporations paying for the labor they receive. That is what they pay for and it is my belief that a corporation that is not receiving the labor for which they pay should fire the employee.

I agree wholeheartedly that if the employees of AK and the corporation want to renegotiate their contracts that is their business. That works both ways. If the corporation is not making a profit they should ask for a renegotiation. I'm not against the free market working at all.

The public sector is different in that there is no "product" with which to make a profit. The public sector provides a service. The quality and quantity of that service can be adjusted, but not the service itself. It is not the same dynamic. The freedom of the consumer (taxpayer) is that if they don't like the service, they can change it. That is what government is all about: providing the services that citizens desire at a price they are willing to pay. If the price is too high, amend the service. If the service is poor, change those who provide the service. That's why I am opposed to privatizing government services. They are not now or ever meant to create a profit. Government services should be run on ROI; you get what you pay for and if you're not getting that, you get rid of the people not providing that service and replace them with someone who will.

The one thing that both public and private sector unions provide is the labor. Corporations derive a tremendous benefit by operating in a free society. As the beneficiary, they should indeed pay for what they receive. I see no contrdiction there.

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : TonyB, Regarding your statement...

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:31:14 +0000

Author: arwendt
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 01 2011 at 12:31pm

TonyB,

Regarding your statement "Union or non-union, workers in both the public and private sector need to ban together and have the corporations start making some concessions and paying for what they are receiving."

I'll ignore the implication that somehow corporations don't pay for the labor they now receive and only focus on the "Corporation" aspect of your remark.

The way I see it the very fact that public sector employees and their union are Not dealing with a Corporation changes everything.

If the employees of say, AK Steel, think the company is making a decent profit and want their union to negotiate a new and more favorable contract.. go for it. That's between them and AK Steel Corporation.

If the union negotiates a raise, or improved benefits, then AK is free to raise the cost of its product or live with lower profits. If the cost of the product is increased, then AK's customers are free to continue purchasing from AK or to buy from another vendor. That's how a Corporation deals with changing costs.

However, when a public sector union negotiates and receives improved benefits or wages, say from the city, what's the product whose cost can be adjusted? What freedom do the consumers of the product have to buy from another vendor? This is simply not the same dynamic.

So IMO, discussing both public And private sector unions as if they are somehow the same, and their need to make someone "pay for what they are receiving", is a little off the mark.

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : Vet - the statement that you can't...

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:53:46 +0000

Author: TonyB
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 01 2011 at 10:53am

Vet - the statement that you can't fight large corporations anymore is the white flag. they DO NOT HAVE THE UPPER HAND!!! They depend on the worker to do just that: the WORK! I am not advocating that we make corporations unprofitable. Wht I am advocating is; if you want to do business in the US, you will have your business in the US. Want to move overseas where it's cheap; your products will either not be allowed into the country or they will be taxed at such a rate that will leave them uncompetitive. If other countries don't like that, tough s***!!! Our politicians have sold us down the river with this "free trade" mantra; the only thing that is free is that corporations are free to pursue the bottom line and that's all!!! I believe there is a difference between a multi-national corporation that will do anything to increase their bottom line, and an American corporation where making money and providing a better life for citizens go hand in hand. I say pay China the money we owe them and then ban their ships from our ports. I say withdraw from the WTO. You want to do business in America? We only accept dollars as payment. It's time to step up to these elitist bast**** and stop this nonsense once and for all!!!Then we'll see about what is "fair"!!!

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : TonyB.... "Your statement...

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:43 +0000

Author: VietVet
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 01 2011 at 10:05am

TonyB....

"Your statement about being judged and rewarded on merit and not paid a pre-negotiated contract for work yet to be performed is interesting. It brought to mind how professional sports contracts are handed out, on potential not necessarily on performance. The whole point about taking what the boss gives you and you'd best be grateful sums up why unions got started in the first place. If they break the unions now, that situation will only get worse no matter the economic conditions. Union or non-union, workers in both the public and private sector need to ban together and have the corporations start making some concessions and paying for what they are receiving".

Tony, the idea of paying a professional sports player several million dollars before they throw one pitch, make one basket, or throw one completion has always astonished me. How did we get to the point of paying a person before we see what kind of a job they will do. Do you pay the company putting a roof on your house before they lay the first shingle. Not if you're smart, you won't. Once they have your money, some don't care what kind of job they do. Withholding payment until the job is satisfactorily completed is your bargaining chip in the transaction.

As far as union and non-union people banding together to start having corporations start making concessions.......I can tell you that you are wasting your time. The corporations will just laugh, not consider you a serious threat and promptly make plans to vacate the premises to locate to a more friendly environment to do business. You can't fight large corporations anymore. They have the upper hand. Union people need to let it go and quit trying to force a company who is in the driver's seat to agree to their demands. It ain't gonna happen anymore. Just appreciate what they give you and that you have a job now. It could be a helleva lot worse. Ask all the people who have been unemployed for more than two years now. Companies don't want the hassle of disgruntled (protesting) workers demanding more. They will go oversees with cheap labor options and to avoid worker conflicts. That's the new option they have discovered when it became business on a global basis. Go to where the operational problems are the least, wages and benefits are the cheapest and the profits are the most. Makes sense from a business standpoint....hurts the folks trying to get a fair shake sometimes.

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : AJ has a right to his opinion....

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:55:06 +0000

Author: midres
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 01 2011 at 9:55am

AJ has a right to his opinion. He has a right to show his support for a cause. However, why is it that he invades private residences via harassing telephone calls?!? Why do these calls come from out of the state of Ohio???!!!??? He, supposedly, is against a state issue but,yet, makes these offensive calls form outside our state!! Very interesting. Who is supporting him? With his track record, just where is the money coming from to underwrite his disgusting, adolescent behavior??

There is a much larger issue here, however. He is a member of our council. His actions continue to be an embarrassment to this city and those of us who live within the boundaries of this fair city. At a time when things seem to be turning in a, somewhat, positive direction for our city, I can only say -- HEY, HEY, HO, HO ...A. J. HAS TO GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As Vet would say, "JMO".

SB5 Protesters and Petitioners in Middletown : Viet Vet - I think I'm beginning...

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:33:32 +0000

Author: TonyB
Subject: 3758
Posted: Apr 01 2011 at 9:33am

Viet Vet - I think I'm beginning to get an idea of what has really happened here. My father worked for Delco-Moraine and I grew up in the same union friendly, worker oppressed household. I also remember how police, firefighters, teachers, (public workers), etc., were underpaid for the job they did. It seemed a given that if you went into the public sector, you were going to have less opportunity to advance but that wasn't the reason to go into public service. It was about being of service to the community.

IMO, what has happened is that corporate America has outsourced our private sector jobs overseas while pointing the finger at the public sector and claiming that the public sector is the cause of the problem. The powers that be have workers fighting amongst themselves for what few scraps are left while they get richer and consolidate thier power by buying the political system and buying the media to spread these lies. There are problems with unions in both the public and private sector, no question about that. I've said it before, unions have to change from being worried about membership dues to insure that union employees are qualitiy employees. Your statement about being judged and rewarded on merit and not paid a pre-negotiated contract for work yet to be performed is interesting. It brought to mind how professional sports contracts are handed out, on potential not necessarily on performance. The whole point about taking what the boss gives you and you'd best be grateful sums up why unions got started in the first place. If they break the unions now, that situation will only get worse no matter the economic conditions. Union or non-union, workers in both the public and private sector need to ban together and have the corporations start making some concessions and paying for what they are receiving.

I was at the protest and made my opinions heard before the formal speakers started. I agree with you that it is not appropriate for a sitting city council person to advocate the election defeat of another member of council. My advice for Mr. Smith would be: do your job to the best of your ability and let the voters decide who should be on the council. While Mr. Smith isn't up for election in the next cycle, he should remember that his time will come and the voters will decide. Will he be able to work with members of council who advocate his election defeat? I understand he might be upset with the Mayor for calling on him to resign; but to be the bigger person would be to work hard for the city and prove that your election to council was a positive outcome for the residents of the ward. If the voters feel that Mr. Mulligan should no longer be mayor, they'll make the decision. I'd also encourage the rest of council to do their job because I'm of the opinion that none of them will be around when their seats come up for re-election. Be of service to the commuity city council and then enjoy yur promotion back to the ranks of private citizen!