Short on facts
It is nice that the Trib sees fit to include a column by a liberal in The Review, but could you not try to find an intelligent liberal? Isn't there some liberal writer who will actually try in a column to explain why the liberal position is correct and present some arguments as to why we should agree?
Joseph Sabino Mistick just throws out his views and expects everyone to agree with them, as he did again in his column “Change is here & so is resistance” (Dec. 16 and TribLIVE.com).
His one attempt at some facts refers to a study by the Economic Policy Institute (an organization derided elsewhere in that same edition of The Review) that says workers in right-to-work states make less money than those in other states. This ignores that most of those states have a lower cost of living, especially when compared to such union states as New York and Illinois.
Does calling the Michigan bill “more a ‘right to steal the benefits that others have paid for' law than anything else” reflect reality? How does he explain what the UAW and the government-employee unions have done to the city of Detroit?
Please offer some explanation of why right-to-work laws are harmful — and be sure to include why so many union officials earn six- and seven-figure salaries paid by union dues.
If unions are such worthwhile organizations, shouldn't they be able to demonstrate to potential members why they should join, rather than forcing workers to join?
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.
- ‘PC’ Ebola approach deadly
- Find hilarity in the headlines
- Behind tax inversions
- GCC 19, sportsmanship 0
- Gas revenue at stake
- Science on fracking’s side
- Vandergrift killing Olmsted’s vision
- Won’t stop drilling
- Far-left continuation
- Better choice
- Honoring Pastor Asa Roberts