tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post988056088611002013..comments2023-11-02T05:04:59.172-04:00Comments on Third Base Politics: Columbus Dispatch forced to issue a correction after printing a union member's lie.Nick (aka Bytor)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15826772166599084105noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-55153593844103023812011-10-17T22:15:02.467-04:002011-10-17T22:15:02.467-04:00First, an original version of SB5 did specifically...First, an original version of SB5 did specifically outlaw the ability for firefighters to negotiate for safety equipment. That provision is not in the bill as it was passed, but could that quote from Doug Stern have come before the wording was changed?<br /><br />Second, what is the definition of "safety equipment" exactly? Does it include the material that uniforms are made from? How about the quality and reliability of the radios used by firefighters? If a department does not currently have bullet proof vests for their employees, but the employees feel they need them in certain EMS situations, do those vests qualify as negotiable items even though the firefighters do no currently have them and they are not traditionally thought of as necessary in their profession? Again, what qualifies as "safety equipment"?<br /><br />The problem with SB5 here is that the wording is vague, as it is throughout the law. It leaves the definition of what is negotiable and what isn't, again, up to the employer who in most cases has no idea how to do the job of a firefighter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-64341009901121877512011-10-14T22:06:47.587-04:002011-10-14T22:06:47.587-04:00I heard what he said in Youngstown. That he paid ...I heard what he said in Youngstown. That he paid 20% of his health care costs. Never mentioned premiums. Probably because sb5 only requires that employees (who are not state workers) pay 15% of overall costs. The bill doesn't address premiums for fire fighters. <br /><br />If the bill doesn't address premiums, why should Stern or why should this blog. Nice try to spin your mistruths but the reality is Stern was right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-26511331940778426012011-10-13T19:16:37.938-04:002011-10-13T19:16:37.938-04:00This blog is shameful. Just shameful. SmhThis blog is shameful. Just shameful. SmhAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-74677192122312721752011-10-13T18:04:06.018-04:002011-10-13T18:04:06.018-04:00Modern, this is remarkable stupidity (even by your...Modern, this is remarkable stupidity (even by your standards):<br /><br />"Jason- You routine refer to these pubic servants as union thugs. So stop the "I haven't gone after public workers." It's yet another pathological lie from you."<br /><br />If I've been calling public servants "union thugs" so routinely - and I've been writing about public union reform for about a year - you should have no difficulty citing instances when I've referred to a public servant as a "union thug." How about 10 instances - less than one a month. Or 5 instances. Or 1.<br /><br />It's cute that you troll 3BP to inform us no one reads 3BP, but let's have some shred of evidence if you're going to call me a pathological liar.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07154365826394597959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-53328328706845863982011-10-13T01:56:21.928-04:002011-10-13T01:56:21.928-04:00Jason- You routine refer to these pubic servants a...Jason- You routine refer to these pubic servants as union thugs. So stop the "I haven't gone after public workers." It's yet another pathological lie from you.Modernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096376710345315767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-13294337096675617842011-10-13T01:54:56.207-04:002011-10-13T01:54:56.207-04:00More lies from this website. Firefighters and pol...More lies from this website. Firefighters and police have always had the ability to negotiate for safety equipment since the 1983 law. So for you to say they don't have that power under the current law is a lie.<br /><br />And yes, the legislature revised SB 5 before it was signed to permit them to negotiate on safety equipment, but under SB 5's system in which the government can ignore labor's proposal and impose their own on any given topic. That's not bargaining, it's begging.<br /><br />And that's why Stern says the provision has no teeth. He specifically was addressing the very provision you claim he was lying about not existing. It exists and it is completely toothless.<br /><br />Yet again, you guys continue to lie in spectacular fashion.Modernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096376710345315767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-78960514014639085272011-10-12T22:31:19.137-04:002011-10-12T22:31:19.137-04:00Anonymous commenter, it's sadly easy to believ...Anonymous commenter, it's sadly easy to believe you're so eager to gloss over the anti-reform campaign's flagrant lies about a crucial issue that you'll accuse us of "going after" public workers.<br /><br />Transparent, tacky... and not even original.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07154365826394597959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-14857284162094042992011-10-12T18:36:19.109-04:002011-10-12T18:36:19.109-04:00Can't believe that you guys are going after fi...Can't believe that you guys are going after firefighters, teachers and police officers. You are certainly changing the face of politics in Ohio for years to come. Congrats!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com