'In-house' perspectives I
Only in Harrisburg! Public employees think outside the box to create a new product to fill a market demand, satisfy tens of thousands of paying customers and generate significant revenue for taxpayers, and for that they get criticized (“Lawmakers express sour grapes over LCB in-house label,” Feb. 27 and TribLIVE.com)? Only in Harrisburg!
The privatization ideologues should lose their rhetoric and focus on the facts. The success of TableLeaf wine reflects the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's ongoing effort to give customers what they want — more selection and better prices.
TableLeaf is the fifth most popular chardonnay sold in Pennsylvania. The brand has generated significant revenue for taxpayers, adding to the $530 million that the agency provided to the state's general fund last year.
I urge the Trib to look closely at how every retailer in the nation takes advantage of private labels. It's standard practice — right up there with coupons and Sunday sales. It would be news if the PLCB were not pursuing this opportunity.
Gov. Corbett and like-minded allies in the Legislature can ignore the facts and continue to push a reckless, philosophical scheme to dismantle Pennsylvania's Wine & Spirits stores. But they would be wise to listen to their constituents who are voting with their wallets: TableLeaf is a great product at a great price, and it came about only because of innovative public employees.
Wendell W. Young IV
The writer is chairman of the United Food and Commercial Workers Pennsylvania Wine and Spirits Council and president of UFCW Local 1776, which represents some 3,000 state store workers.
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.
- PETA & its tactics II
- Why the difference?
- Expecting we’ll pay
- Right to veto
- PETA & its tactics I
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- It’s not personal
- No ‘pass’ for Obama
- Being a volunteer firefighter
- Incomprehensible hatred
- Today’s technology