Study supports SB5...

Senate Bill 5 saves $1.3B, study says

That's the headline of an article that ran in Saturday's Dispatch. The State's been in an uproar for a couple of weeks now. There have been 20+ hours of testimony before the Senate committee, several days of protests at the Statehouse, tons of water cooler talk, coverage in all the papers and on all the networks, and we've even made it onto The Colbert Report, and yet just days before the committee is to vote, there is suddenly talk of a study that supports SB5?

And The Dispatch is the only entity in the whole darn state who knows anything about the report?

C'mon, really? Seriously? Who believes this... crap?

The study supposedly tallies the millions that would have been saved in 2010 without the automatic pay increases that SB5 would eliminate. Um... what automatic pay increases would those be? The ones that the current union contracts did away with?

To read the article, it's as though the salaries and benefits in question are nothing but numbers in the state ledger. Could we please remember that there are people behind those numbers?! When certain folks like to go on about how overpaid state workers are, I never ever see them quote numbers or salaries. The only mention I've seen in the recent coverage was a commenter talking about the salaries of administrators. So all of our bosses. You know, the non-union upper management. Cutting the salaries and benefits of the actual workers doesn't touch those salaries. And overpaid upper management -- as everyone should realize -- does not equal overpaid worker bees.

Though it's "merely" anecdotal, again and again I've watched my professional friends either ignore the public sector altogether or leave the public sector for the private sector. Why, you ask? Because most of the time you make more in the private sector. Period. End of story.

Oy.

Calamity days in Ohio's schools...

"When a high school varsity athletic game or match is canceled because of snow, more than likely it will be rescheduled. We should expect no less of our children’s classroom time."*

For anyone who doesn't know, "calamity days" are days when the schools are closed for things like snow, flooding, power outages, illness, and so on. Once you pass the allowable number of calamity days for one school year, the district has to make up the time. For years, the number of allowable calamity days per school year was five. This school year (2010-2011), that number changed to three. What many don't realize is that without further action by the General Assembly, the number would have returned to five for next school year (so 2011-2012).

In their infinite wisdom, the current General Assembly has decided to change the law back for this school year. (This hasn't actually passed yet, but I'm guessing that it will.)

This is ludicrous. If they want to continue to allow for five days, then extend the school year (something that should be done anyway). Why we're still following a school schedule that was set up in the days when kids didn't go to school when they were needed in the family fields is just beyond me.

*This quote comes to you from an editorial in the TimesReporter.com.