Don’t let them block reform

Don’t let them block reform

An Oct. 13 letter demon- strated the same professional union propaganda as the barrage of negative video ads and the previous five or six letters printed.

Voting down Issue 2 is an attempt on blocking good, honest restraints on the unions and their members that are currently seriously responsible for our budget crisis at all levels of government. Yes, they have a large hand in it. Issue 2 will allow governments to transfer their employees into Social Security from the gold, plated unfunded retirement programs that encourage double dipping. For example the gentleman who has more then enough time to comfortably retire from a law enforcement position to run for sheriff.

If Social Security and its requirements are good enough for the citizens that provide the funds for “public servants” then it should be good enough for them.

In all seriousness, we the citizens of Ohio and the USA must have tools to control costs in this and future tough economic times. Yes on Issue 2 does that. The private sector who pays the public sector can suffer and struggle, but not them. Is that fair?

For example, my daughter-in-law in California has been for the last two years required to take at least two unpaid days off per month to help balance their budget. Why not the rest of the public sector with their historically secure positions? I am aware of occasions when at the end of the fiscal years “down time” is forced on them. No big deal; their contract provides for them to be “reimbursed” in the next budget. That is only kicking it down the road. Please vote yes on Issue 2, for the future. And those that agree, please show some sort of public support — for example, write The Vindicator.

Daniel Victor Bienko, Canfield

Retirees help state’s economy

Senate Bill 5 proponents have suggested that collective bargaining for public employees has created massive budget deficits by allowing enormous salaries and more than generous benefits which are too much for taxpayers to burden. Careful review of information does not support that claim.

Pensions only make up 3-to-4 percent of the state and local budgets. When you factor all of the data (including the lack of Social Security benefits for public workers, a fact that is omitted by many) it appears that public sector workers salaries and benefits are not as high as the proponents of SB 5 would lead you to believe.

The outcome of not having the collective bargaining rights that were granted some 27 years ago is that many public sector workers would lose their ability to bargain for issues pertaining to safety, benefit wages, etc. Significant repercussions would follow these changes. Employees nearing retirement, with years of skill and experience, may lose their jobs to someone who may be hired at minimal cost. Corresponding “losses” in contributions with lower salaries and fewer employees will create an erosion that will lessen the pension system’s ability to provide benefits for members now and well into the future. This in turn will create a process of less qualified workers seeking these positions.

Additionally, fewer retirees would be putting funds back into the local economy. Many localities are already reporting job losses due to budgetary issues and these losses will begin to accumulate and be recognized very soon.

In 2010, 66,127 individuals received pension benefits from SERS (School Employees Retirement System) of which 91 percent live in Ohio. They received payments exceeding $777 million, which was distributed among Ohio’s 88 counties, positively impacting the state’s economy. Local distribution was as follows: Mahoning County, $16.8 million; Trumbull County, $14 million; Columbiana County, $6.2 million. I might add that this does not include the other four Ohio pension systems.

Please give your consideration on this matter and vote no on Issue 2 on Nov. 8.

George Phillips, Youngstown

The writer is president of the School Employees Retirement Organization.