Anything wrong with favoring the union company?
September 25, 2011 - 1:04 am
To the editor:
I don’t agree with Jane Ann Morrison’s rant about the competing bids submitted by Las Vegas Paving Corp. and Fisher Sand and Gravel (Thursday Review-Journal). It seems that Fisher, which doesn’t use union workers, offered a lower bid than unionized Las Vegas Paving. Of course Las Vegas Paving — paying union wages and complying with the union requirements for workplace safety — would have a higher bid.
Fisher’s workers have no say about their wages or working environment. I applaud Commissioner Tom Collins and my commissioner, Steve Sisolak, for fighting for Las Vegas Paving.
As far as the taxpayers getting stuck here, Ms. Morrison should do some math. There are more than 2 million residents here in Clark County, and because this cost them some $7 million, that breaks down to $3.50 for each resident. I’d gladly pay that — and more — if necessary to have fellow Americans work in a safe environment and be treated with respect.
Know that if the Republicans are successful in their goal of destroying unions, you can kiss the middle class in America goodbye.
Richard J. Mundy
To the editor:
Jane Ann Morrison’s expose on Thursday is more proof that when one party rules the roost we can expect them to abuse their power. The all-Democratic Clark County Commission’s actions in the handling of contracts is a clear example.
In light of the county’s money problems, giving sweetheart contracts is both immoral and illegal. An audit is in order to determine the depth of the abuse. It might open some eyes.
To the editor:
It seems as if every day we read about a politician dipping into one thing or another, lining his pockets with cash from a contributor — i.e., pay for play. Jane Ann Morrison’s Thursday column is a case in point.
Ms. Morrison tells us about a road paving contract that was awarded to, not the lowest bidder, but rather, one with connections — a union company over a non-union company. In the end, we the taxpayers had to pay for their bad judgment. And the two commissioners involved won’t say a word.
Then, we learn that Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., has used her influence to help her husband’s career. And, it seems, she has friends in the online poker world, too.
There is, however, a solution to these problems. It is called an election. Every two, four or even six years, we the voters get a chance to correct all these problems. Our founders knew that people, confronted with the opportunity to make some money, would do so. That is why they set our election cycle system as they did.
It is up to us, the voters, to keep an eye on our elected officials. And if they do something wrong, we must vote them out.
A better solution would be term limits. If it is good for the presidency, how can it not be good for Congress, where all the money is gathered and spent?