Why No Rights At Work Is Wrong

Borrowed totally from OEA.

OUR OPPONENTS ARE ATTACKING WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE AGAIN

Our out-of-touch opponents are trying to deceive voters again like they did last year. This is worse than SB 5. It doesn’t have to be this way. The so-called, trick-titled “right to work" is WRONG because it is an unsafe and unfair attack on workers' rights, good jobs, families and the middle class. We call it No Rights at Work is Wrong and we don’t need it.

IT'S UNFAIR

If you work hard and play the rules, you should be treated fairly You should be able to earn a fair wage for a hard day’s work RTW is unfair because it degrades the value of hard work and the worker

IT IS AN ATTACK ON WORKERS' RIGHTS

RTW strips workers of their collective bargaining rights Voters have spoken on this issue: they support collective bargaining rights Workers should be able to speak up for themselves, their coworkers and their community on the job

IT HURTS JOBS/COMMUNITY

RTW means lower wages and fewer benefits for you, me, all of us We need good paying jobs for working and middle-class Ohioans Communities thrive and grow when Ohioans have good paying jobs

IT'S UNSAFE

It makes it harder to collectively bargain for life-saving equipment, staffing and other safety issues for the brave men and women that protect us, like police officers and firefighters It takes away the professional voices of those we trust to take care of our children and families, such as teachers and nurses It is wrong because it means less money, lower wages and fewer benefits for you, me and all of us in the middle class. Communities thrive and grow when Ohioans have good paying jobs. Let's stand up together and stick together for a decent standard of living.

We Deserve It.

Are Ohio's Republicans threatening to pass SB5 again if it is defeated?

After the SB5 debate last night, State Sen Niehaus was asked "If you look at the polls they seem to indicate that voters, even though they are polling against SB5 support portions of it, are you prepared in the senate to move forward worth separate legislation if this fails next month?"

State Sen. Neihaus responded, "Well I think Senator Faber spoke to it, I mean the issues that drove the necessities of having SB5 or issue 2 haven't changed. were on an unsustainable path we cannot continue paying the cost of local government level or state level so those fundamental factors have not changed so we have not prepared anything at this point, given the fact that the situation will remain exactly the same on Nov. 10, then we certainly have an obligation to the voters and residents of Ohio to find a way to make sure, to ensure the continuation of local government services in a reasonable way"

You can fast forward to the 2minute 37 mark for the exchange

I cannot imagine anything that would great more chaos and anger than thwarting the will of Ohio's voters.

Does Class Size Really Matter?

If you’re a good teacher, the number of students in your class shouldn’t be a factor – at least according to a growing chorus of self-styled education reformers. In a recent speech to the National Governor’s Association, Bill Gates said the nation could improve education – even in an era of extreme budget cuts – by lifting caps on class sizes, by identifying a school’s top teachers, asking them to take on more students, and then paying them more to do so.

But more than 30 years of research shows that smaller class sizes are better – including a study that was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

[readon2 url="http://neatoday.org/2011/04/20/does-class-size-really-matter/"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Governor Kasich offers shabby solutions

The Dispatch brings us news of one of the most appalling rationalizations for S.B.5 that the Governor has made to date. Because Bob Evans offers "shabby" benefits, teachers, firefighters and police should be worse off too.

Talking about the need for the collective bargaining overhaul he recently signed, Gov. John Kasich today suggested employees at Bob Evans have "shabby, at best" health insurance benefits.
[...]
"You know, when I go to Bob Evans and I see a woman working in there who doesn't have any pension, and I don't even know that she has health care benefits, and if she does they're shabby, at best, to think we're asking public workers to do a little bit more, people who have guaranteed benefits and people who are not paying very much for their health care, and to ask them to a little bit more to provide balance to that mom who is trying to educate her kids, it's fairness."

The Governor has it backwards. Perhaps if workers at Bob Evans could collectively bargain, their benefits might not be so "shabby". Perhaps the Governor should be less excited to extended millions of dollars of tax payers money so the CEO of Bob Evans can have a shorter commute - and instead insist that companies receiving tax dollars provide their employees benefits that aren't "shabby".

It's time this Governor stopped believing that a race to the bottom is "winning".