Paycheck deception |

Paycheck deception

In the editorial “Another union racket: End it with Pa. House Bill 1507” , the Trib claims to know “the truth” about House Bill 1507, yet the only “source” it cites is the Commonwealth Foundation — the furthest from reliable.

The real truth: No worker can be forced to join a union. Union members can opt out of having dues used for political activity and collectively vote on how their dues money is spent.

If the Trib knew how payroll deductions worked, it would know the cost is relatively nonexistent. How much money would this legislation save taxpayers? The Trib’s source, Commonwealth Foundation CEO Matthew Brouillette, never has an answer.

Automatic paycheck deductions are convenient for both union and nonunion employees. They’re used for United Way, the state credit union, private banks and health care. If HB 1507 is not an attack on unions, why aren’t Brouillette and his secret billionaire donors backing legislation that eliminates all other automatic deductions?

“Paycheck protection” laws have been ruled unconstitutional by state Supreme Courts across the country. And politicians have admitted these laws are the first step in limiting union representation.

I can only hope the Trib does a little more research before it prints its and the Commonwealth Foundation’s version of the truth. Maybe next time, the Trib and the Commonwealth Foundation will understand the difference between protection and deception.

Wendell W. Young IV

The writer is president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776, which includes 3,000 state store workers.

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.