Time to prevail on wage issue
Thank you for the editorial “Kill the ‘prevailing wage': The timing is ripe” (March 4 and TribLIVE.com). Personal efforts have been expended for the last eight years toward trying to get an update of the prevailing-wage legislation signed by Gov. Lawrence in 1963. This law has not been updated since that time. Efforts to get the law updated in the past have been bottlenecked in the House Labor & Industry Committee.
Ward 5 in Bethel Park, which I represent on borough council, was “blessed” with two state House members, Republican John Maher and Democrat Matt Smith, who is now in the state Senate. Maher has submitted at least two pieces of legislation to get the dollar value for projects to which the prevailing-wage law applies increased from $25,000 to approximately $180,000, which is today's inflated value equivalent to 1963's $25,000. Maher and then-Sen. John Pippy, also a Republican, supported the change, but then-Rep. Smith did not.
In the last legislative session, a bill was moved to the floor of the House with the expectation it would be favorably acted on, considering the Republican control. The bill magically disappeared.
I communicated with Maher this year on the issue but have not received a reply. Hopefully, the Trib's attention to the issue will initiate some action.
The writer is a Republican.
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.