The union way: Shafting merit
The union representing Giant Eagle workers at a store in Edinboro did the rank and file no favor by arguing against merit raises that management wanted to give 25 workers.
To ensure solidarity, the union way, the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 23 filed a grievance, arguing that the company needed the union's permission to grant raises at the Erie County store. And, in typical fashion, an arbiter sided with the union's leadership. When that decision was appealed, a court sided with the oppressive union wage depressors.
The case, detailed by James Sherk for The Heritage Foundation, doesn't merely dispel President Obama's assertion that people succeed and grow rich based on performance. What happened to those supermarket workers and, for that matter, to all unionized workers exposes the lie from Big Labor's lamenter in chief.
Unions detest recognizing individual performance from hard workers lest it make the slackers look like, well, slackers. Consequently, unionized shops offer performance-based pay less than half as often as nonunion businesses, Mr. Sherk notes.
But that might change.
Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., have reintroduced legislation that amends the National Labor Relations Act to prevent unions from capping members' pay, thereby allowing performance-based raises. Will Big Labor fight this measure, too?
For all their strong-arm tactics and weak arguments, union socialists have no right to deny hardworking Americans the merit pay they earn.
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 gathering storm: An IRS defeat
- The minimum wage: Theaters at stake
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Wolf attack: Reckless words against UPMC
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: End this ‘relief’
- Amnesty’s bills: The costs rise
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Political vendetta