Kill the 'prevailing wage'
Published: Sunday, March 3, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Because more road and bridge work would be done under Gov. Tom Corbett's proposed $1.8 billion transportation package if Pennsylvania did away with its prevailing wage law, this is an ideal time to do the right thing for state taxpayers by repealing it.
Among conservative Republicans pushing to do so is Lancaster's Rep. Gordon Denlinger, who's sponsoring outright repeal legislation and wants to make prevailing wage reform part of this spring's transportation legislation.
The prevailing wage law's demise is long overdue. Applying to publicly funded construction projects worth more than $25,000, it in effect guarantees that unionized contractors get such work because its county-by-county pay standards reflect union wages, artificially hiking labor costs by at least 10 percent and pricing out nonunion contractors and workers.
Yes, prevailing wages still would apply to projects involving federal money under the Davis-Bacon Act. Yet reform at the state level would “save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars,” according to Rep. Stephen Bloom, R-Cumberland, making it a step in the right direction that's manifestly worth taking.
Of course, unions and their Democrat puppets will fight hard against doing so. Taxpayers must counter those special interests' influence by pressuring lawmakers of both parties to end prevailing wages' ongoing plundering of their pockets, which flies in the face of the public's best interests.
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.
- On regulatory ‘autopilot’: Anchors on the economy
- The Thursday wrap
- Saturday essay: A special tinsel
- Christmas in Connellsville: Catch the spirit
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- ObamaCare: HIT’s hit
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes