To the editor:
In response to the Eric Schansberg article from Tuesday, March 3 (“Prevailing-wage fight mostly about politics,” A4): He raises some very pointed questions about the ethics of market-control wages versus government regulation to support a certain industry, a specific group or a powerful lobby.
I have worked in the unionized construction industry, am now retired, have health insurance that I can afford and can live in dignity, not wondering how to pay my bills, not with my hand out.
I have worked in the industry under attack. I have talked to nonunionized people doing the same job as I did. These folks would join a union in a heartbeat, but now in Indiana, a union-organizing effort is doomed, money being the deciding factor.
I have seen illegal aliens working on tax-supported projects, a religious sect working on schools. If anyone thinks these folks are paying into the system, which they use, they are living in a fool’s paradise.
By all means, let us remove all government interference in wages, letting the market set wages.
While we’re at it, let us remove all ag subsidy, all tax abatements for business, all tax support for public/private enterprises.
This can be done by saying this is only fair to the taxpayers and will result in savings to the public, which will certainly result in lower taxes. Not.
At a time the middle class is shrinking and more wealth is being concentrated in the top 1 percent, I would think the thoughtful man would be pleased to see a vibrant middle class, able to send their children to college if so desired and live their final days in security, in the long run ensuring social stability.
I am not an adjunct scholar. I have not received the wisdom of a degree but have had many life experiences that lead me to the conclusion this anti-worker, anti-family legislation to reduce wages has all the delicate nuances of a decaying rat wrapped in $100 bills.
Robert Heiden
Wilkinson
