ShareThis Page

Ferlo out of line I

| Thursday, June 20, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

As a merit-shop association, Associated Builders and Contractors Inc.'s Western Pennsylvania Chapter has always stood strong on the side of providing quality products and services at competitive pricing, for the community's good.

With discussion about liquor privatization, lively debates are to be expected. However, the focus has been shifted from the issue at hand to personal attacks and assaults on the character of a family business that truly is an American success story.

State Sen. Jim Ferlo's remarks about the Sheetz family and their employees at the June 4 Senate Law and Justice Committee hearing were inexcusable.

Sheetz has supported our communities with good-paying jobs and careers for thousands, while delivering quality products, convenient access and philanthropic achievements for more than 60 years.

Ferlo is not voicing the beliefs of anyone except the public-employee unions that fill his PAC coffers. He doesn't care what is best for his constituents, only for what is best for the people who fund his election.

We need to support Gov. Corbett and the senators and representatives who have championed this free-enterprise solution. Without fair and open competition, consumers pay more.

Pennsylvania is one of only two states that think state-owned and -controlled liquor stores are the best way to go. Public-employee unions are the villains — not job creators, taxpayers and economic generators like the Sheetz family.

We need to stop protecting only public-employee jobs and start doing what is best for all Pennsylvanians and allow free enterprise to create more private jobs.

Eileen Watt

The writer, a former Allegheny County Council member, is president of Associated Builders and Contractors Inc.'s Western Pennsylvania Chapter (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.