Another union shakedown: Rewarding thugs
“Ding Dongs” aren't merely the popular snack cakes of erstwhile baker Hostess. They're also a fitting moniker for government's union coddlers, who have sweetened the mix for the bakery union that drove Hostess out of business.
Under the federal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, the bakers who rejected Hostess' requested contract concessions — which even the hard-charging Teamsters felt compelled to accept — will get a slew of publicly paid benefits for a “job action” that put 18,500 people out of work, The Heritage Foundation reports.
It starts with up to two years of job training and adds a refundable “health care tax credit” that covers 65 percent of an ex-employee's health insurance, plus a two-year wage-insurance program, which in part replaces workers' earnings if they take a lower-paying job.
Although few people supposedly qualify for TAA benefits, the bakers did, reports Heritage's Ashe Schow. And nobody can fully explain why because TAA support is reserved for workers who lose their jobs as a result of foreign trade.
If private-sector unions can drive their employers to bankruptcy, then pick up a boatload of perks for members in between jobs, what's to prevent more Hostess meltdowns, thereby tipping the bargaining table even more so in unions' favor?
Organized labor has grown fat enough on Obamanomics; taxpayers have no business rewarding their extortionist thuggery.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The IRS scandal: A cover-up grows
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- McKeesport Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The Obamanet: An Internet threat
- The silent treatment in Ford City: Forgotten words
- Taxing consequences: The Shell effect
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Wolf raises: Spittle from the clarion