What’s more important? Giving public employees expensive benefits and pensions? or preventing lay-offs?

Ohio’s “No on Issue 2” campaign thinks public employees should be entitled to collect 60% of their salary in pensions at age 50, at the expense of private sector tax payers and it’s bankrupting the state.

Look, I’m not against public employees…….especially police & fire fighters who put…

I don’t think it’s an either or issue. Naturally lay offs should be prevented but in a Socialist type economy, workers would not have to be juxtaposed against other workers. This issue because it’s being dealt by with Cons, has resulted in an union busting economic disaster, and it did not have to

Hope this helps

What’s more important is seeing the big picture.

Our economy is being slowly strangled by the ultra wealthy power elite. As money gets tighter, conflicts like this are happening all over the country, in every part of the economy.

Medicaid is starting to demand refunds of health care benefits they already paid to doctors. Now they want the money back.

Our government is running on borrowed money. Nobody knows how that money will ever be paid back.

States are having to choose between paying pensions to retirees or meeting current payroll.

It’s all because the power elite is bleeding the money out of the economy.

Instead of getting focused on the individual issues, why not shift attention to the overriding issue – why don’t we have enough money to pay for things that we used to be able to pay for?

Where did the money go?

As an ethical teacher in the public sector I agree, utterly.
At the same time, I work in a state that does not have collective bargaining and I’m glad of it in some ways.

More, I am in a union without collective bargaining and am one of the minor leaders.

We need an ethical overhaul to the unions. We need to revitalize them but in an ethical and publicly aware way.

To do that, the subject has to be public, and discussed.
Thank you, Lois.

Keep speaking up.
We fought for free speech (Democrats), let’s not let it die (Yeah, you too, FOX).

I agree. The fact they are public sector means nothing. To the public sector, using firemen, police and teachers as some sort of symbol as some sort of political leverage, means everything to them. Most in the public sector don’t give a flyin rip what you think, just pay those taxes. Kind of selfish huh?

I have nothing against firemen, police or teachers for that matter. I think they live, breath and die union and that’s where “sucks” begins.

Public Sector Unions have absolutely no incentive to save money, and they can oppose all reforms without any repercussions. Look at the law in New York State, and then you will see why our taxes are sky high…


California teachers must work 37 years for the Maximum pension. Teachers don’t get the public safety worker pension.

Actually, unions would rather go with layoffs than reducing benefits. People can always be rehired when the bad times are over, but once benefits go away, it is essentially impossible to get them back.

Totally agree, allowing unions into public jobs was stupid to begin with. These people hold the entire community and taxpayer hostage when they don’t get what they want..

Honoring agreements is the mark of an honest person. Preventing layoffs should have to sit on the back burner.

Put your life on the line, then we can talk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *