The Pa. pensions debate: Union hypocrisy |

The Pa. pensions debate: Union hypocrisy

If actions really do speak louder than words, the verbiage spewed by Pennsylvania’s biggest public-sector unions in opposition to 401(k)-style pension plans for government employees rings hollow indeed. That’s because they offer their own staffers 401(k)-style plans.

Citing U.S. Labor Department information, Matthew J. Brouillette, president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation, says this “rank hypocrisy” is practiced by the Pennsylvania State Education Association; Service Employees International Union Local 668; United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 13; the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers; the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO; and the state arm of the American Federation of Teachers.

“Either they’re knowingly mistreating their own employees, or they understand that 401(k)-style plans are best for workers and employers and have been opposing beneficial reforms,” he says. These unions are “all for” traditional defined-benefit plans “when taxpayers are footing the bill,” but “suddenly 401(k)-style plans become the wiser choice” when they’re “paying the bill themselves.”

“It’s time for union leaders to explain their hypocrisy,” Mr. Brouillette says. But no explanation is good enough to satisfy taxpayers on the hook for Pennsylvania’s $53 billion in public pension liabilities.

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.