Another union racket: End it with Pa. House Bill 1507
Pennsylvania's public employee unions are pressuring state lawmakers to preserve the act of using public resources to deduct dues — money used for union political purposes — from members' paychecks. Unique to these unions, it's a practice that must end. It's not only unfair to public employees who disagree with what these unions do with their hard-earned money but to taxpayers who foot the bill for processing those paycheck deductions.
House Bill 1507 would take such payroll deductions, part of these unions' contract terms, off the collective-bargaining table. Establishing “paycheck protection” for public employees, it would end what the Commonwealth Foundation describes as another form of the corruption that has put many legislative leaders and aides behind bars: using public resources for political purposes.
Commonwealth CEO Matthew J. Brouillette says these unions are trying “to defend the indefensible” and “using scare tactics.” They're falsely claiming that HB 1507 is about right to work and would destroy their unions.
The truth? There would be no effect on private-sector matters. Public-sector unions would still bargain collectively. Public employees could still join them and contribute toward union political activities — but they'd have to write checks to do so, which would force bosses to be more accountable about members' money.
For taxpayers, for public employees, even for unions that don't use state resources to plunder their members' wallets, passing HB 1507 is the right thing to do.
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.
- Calling out Russia: But weakly
- The Thursday wrap
- The China question
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- The Western Psych grand jury report: Do the right thing