Local Mayors Explain Opposition to Senate Bill 5
The mayors who took part in We Are Ohio’s press conference think the bill won’t save cities money and will discourage people from pursuing public service.
Photos
Middleburg Heights Mayor Gary Starr doesn’t believe that Senate bill 5 would save his city money, and he thinks that without its repeal, the city will lose the ability to attract highly qualified employees.
“It’s not just a monetary problem,” Starr said during a press conference in Middleburg Heights on Wednesday morning.
Starr and Berea’s mayor, Cyril Kleem, were at the conference in support of We Are Ohio, an anti-Senate bill 5 activist group that is campaigning against Issue 2. If Issue 2 passes, Senate bill 5 will go into effect, restricting what unions are able to discuss in negotiations. One of the benefits of the bill is that it is supposed to be a way for local governments to save money, but not everyone agrees.
Starr and Kleem are two of those local exceptions. Starr said that he thinks the bill would tilt power to local governments, and he wants to “keep it in balance.”
“After all, the process works best when everybody has the ability to have their voices heard. It is not only fair, but insures that our streets are safe, our children are provided a superb education and public employees remain accountable,” he said.
Starr and Kleem were the only mayors in attendance at Wednesday's conference, but according to We Are Ohio, nearly a dozen local mayors have come out against Senate bill 5. Six who weren’t at the press conference provided letters of support to We Are Ohio. That includes Cleveland Mayor Frank G. Jackson and Lakewood Mayor Michael P. Summers. Cleveland Heights provided a City Council resolution passed in March that explained its city’s opposition to the bill.
Starr said that he thinks the changes that would follow Senate bill 5’s enactment would lead to layoffs, cuts in benefits and, overall, fewer people wanting to go into public service. If a city wants highly qualified employees, it has to pay competitive wages and benefits, he said.
And the belief that those in public service don’t contribute to their benefits or pensions is mistaken, Starr said, adding that in his city, employees already pay 10 percent of pension costs.
“There is nothing reasonable about Senate bill 5. It takes away the rights and the voices of the hardworking Ohioans who serve loyally our state and local governments,” Starr said.
James Thomas
3:30 pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Of course these two mayors are speaking against SB5, they are both Democrats and probably owe their careers to Union support. Wonder what the taxpayers of their cities think? Maybe those taxpayers should give their Mayors an earfull.
James Thomas
6:04 pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Ohiofire(Full name in compliance with Patch policy?)
So I'm suposed to believe you over my own life experience? Not bloody likely. I've seen it happen in my own town. It's amazing (or disengenuous) to believe Unions don't have and use great power. Look at the money being spent against Issue 2. It's running about 5 to 2 in favor of the NO crowd. I hope all the union members appreciate their dues going to politics. I hope it buys them all the success they had in the 2010 elections.
Larry
6:34 pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
James Thomas, Just so you get your facts right the yes crowed have donated three times the amount to the fight. That being from big business so they can eventually screw their employees and get fat while doing it. You seem like a educated man but not one that really knows what is at stake here. Most of the public employees already pay 10% + to their pensions and close to 15% for their medical. The yes commercials lie and tell another story just like politicians usually do.
James Thomas
7:47 pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Larry (Full name in compliance with Patch policy?)
I heard the 5 to 2 ration on the Bob Frantz radio show on 1100 and he is an SB5 opponent. This article; http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/10/09/foes-of-sb-5-outspend-supporters-on-tv-ads.html also supports the idea that anti-SB5 efforts are better funded than their opposition. Please cite where you got your numbers. As to commercials lying; it's not limited to one side.
James Thomas
7:54 pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Sorry,
5 -2 ratio.
Robin Anderson
11:38 am on Thursday, October 13, 2011
I've heard the same numbers as you, JT, which is why the Governor's side of the aisle made their last-minute offer to "negotiate" the matter in an attempt to keep it off the ballot; they knew it was going to be an expensive proposition if it goes to a vote. While I haven't heard any outright lies from either side concerning Issue 2 I have heard many misconceptions repeated as fact to some folks' ignorance and others' disingenuous arguments.
Mike Times
8:57 pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Just because you are a cop or a fireman you think I should help pay for your pension for life? Stop drinking so much, and be thankful you have a great job, great benefits and usually no one gives you a hard time.
No one has mentioned the $200,000 "annuity" each cop and fireman can get by foregoing their annual raise for the 8 years immediately before retiring. Using a $4000 annual raise, just for conversation, this means that not taking those raises totalling $32,000 they get $200,000. Just where does anyone think that moeny comes from? It comes from the rest of us who don't usually have a pension, pension health care and the abiltiy to retire in your early 50's.
Enough, put them on a 401-k like everyone else and let them get their own medicare supplement.
How can these sorry excuses for financial managers (mayors) not think this will not save tax dollars.
Robin Anderson
11:43 am on Thursday, October 13, 2011
Um, MT? The annuity option you've mentioned was NEGOTIABLE; you just stated the man's giving up any raises for 8 years in favor of the annuity! Given the propensity for our local administrators/city councils to under-staff their respective police forces and the potential overtime that could be required, that just may not be such a bad deal for the city.
Donald R. Thompson
8:14 am on Thursday, October 13, 2011
Hey Mike,
It's called the DROP program , it has proven to be budget neutral and saves the pension fund money by keeping retirees off the pension health care for up to 8 years. The employee remains on the employers health care and draws their regular annual salary because they are still working, their pension payments are deferred for up to 8 years. There is legislation in the que regarding so called double dipping and the DROP program....it is Ohio HB 202 introduced by Rep. Hollington (Hunting Valley) no less
Donald R. Thompson
8:16 am on Thursday, October 13, 2011
http://www.op-f.org/drop/
Donald R. Thompson
5:01 pm on Thursday, October 13, 2011
The deferred pension payments are invested by the state pension fund and the state gets a % and the deferred pensioneer gets a %. If your pension is $40,000 a year and it is deferred for 8 years...without any interest that is $320,000...read the literature it's all public record
Cindy E
5:45 am on Friday, October 14, 2011
Unions are not allowed to use the dues for politcal campaigns of any kind. This is the law. The money is all contributed volunteerily by the members. This is a very common misconception. Just so you realize unions do not use the members dues.
Ed Kent
8:41 am on Friday, October 14, 2011
So, are you saying you don't have a problem with the section in SB5 that states public unions can't do what you said they don't do anyhow and that you agree with the law in that they can't use dues to pay for PACTS or any other political agenda without individual, per case member consent? And for those who say all public unions already contribute the amount the law calls for, I imagine you don't have a problem with that part of the law either? So, it's just certain other parts you are against, just not all of it, is that correct?
Robin Anderson
11:10 am on Friday, October 14, 2011
Is this the same section of SB-5, Ed, that seeks to relieve the public employers from their obligation of handling the payroll deduction for union dues, if any? As far back as 1998, if not longer, the members of AFSCME Local 153 made any political contributions through a payroll deduction totally separate from their payroll deduction for union dues; this program, called P.E.O.P.L.E., I believe, is listed as a separate article of the bargaining unit agreement with the University and was freely negotiated into the bargaining unit agreement by both parties involved.
Ed Kent
11:49 am on Friday, October 14, 2011
I was asking questions not trying to answer. I'm trying to understand what parts of the law that aren't already part of what public unions do and what part public unions are against in SB5.
Ohiofire
4:25 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Ed... there wouldn't even be a referendum in the fall if wasn't for the fact that Issue2/SB5 took away binding arbitration. Taking it away weakens unions by 100%. Sure we can still negotiate some matters but with the final say always going to management the bill takes this too far. Reagan gave binding arbitration to unions in 83'. It has never been in favor of unions overall and it has stopped work stoppages. Tell me how it hasn't worked? This is just a ploy by the GOP to weaken unions because they are one of the top contributors to the democratic party. GOP plan right now is to weaken unions, change voting rights, and change voting districts.
Cynthea Sabolich
3:44 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
Whenever I see a Mayor or City Council person saying they are against having the power to serve their citizens, saying they want the union boss to decide the salary, benefits, safety force levels, and make promises that cannot be kept, I just say There is an elected official who is owned by the unions and not serving the people.
Look at Central Falls Rhode Island. Look at Pritchard Alabama. Or how about Harrisburg PA? Debt crippled cities can't serve their citizens, can't pay their retirees, and ultimately they lay off the police and fire men who the unions claim they serve. But we keep the ones at the top of the scale and we keep the ones who are beyond running into buildings and then the cities collapse. I hope and pray this Mayor gets a job equal to his intellect and skill level, and maybe it will be a step above the drive through window.