Union dues: Enough!
In Pennsylvania, where anti-union teachers and like-minded state employees nevertheless must pay their so-called “fair share,” union dues are regarded as sacrosanct. So much so that the state facilitates their collection from government employees' paychecks.
Adding further insult to pre-existing injury, rank-and-file members have no say in their unions' political agenda, the funding of which in Pennsylvania is significant.
In 2012 that sum amounted to nearly $5 million spent by the state's primary government unions, writes Bob Dick for the Commonwealth Foundation. The Pennsylvania State Education Association alone doled out more than $3 million from dues for lobbying and political action.
Among some of the big-ticket items was $1 million reportedly spent in advertising against liquor privatization by the United Food and Commercial Workers. And, rest assured, the “message” was received: The Legislature, despite GOP majorities in the House and Senate, has stalled and otherwise diluted bills for full liquor privatization.
This, when survey after survey shows Pennsylvanians want privatization of the state's Prohibition-era liquor monopoly.
No citizen, regardless of union membership, should be forced to subsidize any cause. Nor should the state be an accomplice to this union thuggery by using public resources to collect union dues.
From this unrelenting nightmare, the state Legislature must awake and end unions' stranglehold.
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 â 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.