The Corbett administration's response to news that Pennsylvania's largest public employee union hasn't been reimbursing the state for the costs of processing members' voluntary political action committee donations via paycheck deduction — as its contract requires — should consist of two words: “Pay up.”
And if verbal persuasion isn't effective, the state must do whatever it takes to force American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 13 to live up to its contractual obligations. A contract is a contract, after all.
This outrage was revealed in a sworn state Office of Administration affidavit uncovered through a Right to Know law request and obtained by the Trib.
And get this: That request was filed by a Bucks County activist and union opponent within that very same office — which just as outrageously maintains that the costs at issue are minimal and doesn't seem all that interested in collecting what's owed.
That stance ignores the fact that these processing costs — no matter the amounts — aren't taxpayers' burden to bear. Plus, the union wouldn't sit still if the state weren't living up to its contractual obligations. Neither should Pennsylvania regarding this reimbursement provision.
Failure to ensure that AFSCME Council 13 pays what it owes would be nothing less than dereliction of the Corbett administration's duty to abide by the rule of law, honor contracts and do right by taxpayers.
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.