Category: Unions

Why We Need ‘Right To Work’


Reader Cathy C submitted an email she received from Mark Mix of of  National Right To Work Committee.

While Mix’s group is pushing for national reform,  Pennsylvania becoming a “right to work” state would likely do as much if not more to save the Delaware River refineries than relief from thoughtless environmental regulation.

BTW, Delaware County Daily Times columnist Gil Spencer, with this column and one written Friday, is joining the crusade to highlight the havoc stupid, quasi-religious regulations are creating with the lives of Delaware Countians.

Welcome Gil and thank you, Cathy.

Here is Mix’s letter.

Dear Cathy,

“You guys slash my tires, stab me in the neck, try to beat me up,” the construction company official explained to the union organizer.

Given all that, he asked, why should the company hire such aggressive union militants?

“The positives are that the negatives you are complaining about would go away,” the union operative reportedly replied.

According to the Buffalo News, the “negatives” include hot coffee thrown at independent-minded workers, sand dumped into the engines of company vehicles, and the wife of a company representative threatened with sexual assault.

And the union toughs just might get away with it.

You see, ever since the Supreme Court’s infamous 1973 Enmons decision, union bosses have been granted immunity from federal prosecution for acts of violence and vandalism they orchestrate in the so-called “pursuit of legitimate union objectives.”

AFL-CIO union lawyer Jonathan D. Newman told the Buffalo News that “we simply want to make sure that the [federal law] is not interpreted in a way that could have a chilling effect on legitimate union activity.”

The union violence in Buffalo is hardly an isolated incident.

As you may recall, the Associated Press reported that hundreds of Longshoreman union militants held security guards hostage for hours at the Port of Longview in Washington State on September 8.

Union thugs reportedly committed numerous acts of vandalism and violence including breaking windows, cutting brake lines on railroad cars, and threatening police officers with baseball bats.

Weeks later, local police have only made two arrests in connection with the September 8 raid.

And now Longshoremen union officials have launched a Wisconsin-style recall campaign against the county sheriff investigating the raid.

Union officials know that if they intimidate local authorities, they can get away with anything.

The loophole in federal law ensures that union officials who may have orchestrated and encouraged the union violence may never be brought to justice, especially where they can intimidate and use political connections to stop local or state prosecutions.

That’s why the Freedom from Union Violence Act (FUVA) is so vital. To learn more about FUVA and how you can help urge Congress to take action, please click here.

Your National Right to Work Committee has an aggressive plan of action to force the politicians in Washington, D.C. to stop turning a blind eye to union violence.

Thank you once again for helping us fight back.

Sincerely,
 
Mark Mix

Dennis Gannon — Govt. Work Meant $5 Million For The Day

Dennis Gannon, the former president of the Chicago Federation of Labor who works for a hedge fund, is getting paid a  $158,000 pension by the City of Chicago for a day’s work in 1994. The city hired him for a sanitation job then granted him leave to do his union duties. Now he’s “retired” and collecting.

The package is estimated to be worth $5 million.

Hat tip Tom C.


Dennis Gannon == Govt. Work Meant $5 Million For The Day

 

Reality Check For Labor Unions


Oh the guilt. For all us unlucky folks who aren’t part of organized labor, how can we not feel at least a little conscience-smitten? After all, we are taking full advantage of that end-of-summer holiday honoring “the working class,” a.k.a. “labor.”

And nowadays, if your goal is to join a union, you would indeed be “lucky” to achieve that, since only 12 percent of the workforce is now unionized, and when you factor out the public sector workers, that number plummets to seven percent. Far from the heyday when nearly 40 percent of the nation’s workforce belonged to the union.

It would seem, then, that for the nine out of 10 Americans who aren’t considered “working people”—which must mean they don’t work—every day is a holiday. So taking advantage of Labor Day just seems like another way to put the screws to the unions.

But what else is new? Public sector unions have seen their pay scales, benefits and pensions under constant attack recently from dastardly Republicans trying to stave off bankruptcy. The nerve!

Think about it. For some teachers’ unions, that might mean giving up paying … absolutely nothing toward their healthcare, such as those in the Neshaminy district, where their Rolls-Royce plan, courtesy of taxpayers, costs $27,000, per teacher, per year. How could any taxpayer or elected official be in favor of making teachers pay five or, God forbid, 10 percent of that cost? Disregard the fact that for most in the private sector, contributing 10 percent toward guaranteed healthcare in a virtually guaranteed job would be a dream, since they pay far more—if they have any coverage at all.

Far “worse,” some Republicans, in an effort to get their states back in the black, have made it possible for public sector union members to negotiate with their prospective employer individually, with free market-type incentives allowing for a fair offer—fair for the employee, and fair for the “employer” (the taxpayer).

An offer would be made—salary, healthcare, benefits—and the individual could choose to accept or decline it, just as it’s done in the free market. Accountability and efficiencies would increase, and unmotivated, bureaucratic sloths would be eliminated in favor of those willing to be good stewards of taxpayer money.

Sound simple and fair enough? It is, and it’s called the elimination of collective bargaining, but union leaders have demonized all who support such a plan, instead fighting to continue a system that is completely broke.

And when it comes to retirement issues, voracious union opposition rears its head at any attempt to replace costly and antiquated pension plans—which are draining government coffers at an exponential rate—with 401k retirement plans for new public sector employees.

So why all the “unfairness” toward the public sector unions?

Because they are such an inviting target, and it’s just … fun to attack them! Or so many union leaders would have you believe. But the reality is entirely different.

Truth be told, it’s not the GOP that is putting the screws to the unions. They just happen to be the ones cleaning up the mess, especially in states like Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin. (Noticeably absent is Pennsylvania, where it’s Business As Usual.)

For decades, unions have been reaping the rewards of promises that were ultimately empty and could not possibly be kept. But those Ponzi scheme “pay-me-later” deals, made between corrupt union bosses and gutless politicians (from both parties) only interested in self-preservation, have now finally come due. It’s time to pay the piper, and kicking the can down the road just isn’t an option anymore. That “strategy” is a dead end.

Math doesn’t lie. There is simply not enough money to continue paying such high wages and, in many cases, extremely lavish benefits and pensions.

* * *

The way the system was originally intended, joining the public sector was a trade-off: You wouldn’t make as much money as someone in private industry, but you would receive a healthy pension and job security. But all that changed, in large part because millions in union dues (taxpayer money, no less) were allocated to defeat any politician who dared cross the unions.

Now, many public sector union workers make more than those in the private sector, and their pensions are so extravagant that Wall Street-ers blush with envy.

But with the economy in shambles (and no, we are not headed into “another recession”; we never got out of the first one), tax revenue is down and the pension obligations are simply unaffordable. The current system is unsustainable, and no argument can be made to the contrary.

Is it right? Don’t public sector union members deserve what they were promised?

Not to be callous with people’s livelihoods, but those questions are irrelevant. If there is not enough money, there is not enough money. Unlike the feds, states and municipalities can’t print cash, so governments have to cut back and reform everything, including the big-ticket items like labor costs.

If they don’t, the alternative is far worse: bankruptcy. And yes, municipalities can and are declaring. From Rhode Island to Alabama, the message is simple: Agree to cuts, or risk losing everything.

Obviously, it’s not fair. The rank-and-file union member who worked hard his whole career was promised an unattainable bill of goods by now long-gone hacks who don’t have to answer for their irresponsibility. But as Jack Kennedy once said, anyone who believes in fairness in this world is seriously misinformed.

And before we hear the clamor that unions are being singled out and targeted, look at the private sector, which has experienced even greater losses. Pensions there have been battered too, with some retirees receiving just pennies on the dollar. And private industry job losses are hemorrhaging at a much higher rate than those in the public unions. That’s not fair, either, but it’s reality. Deal with it.

So what now?

Instead of engaging in a full assault against politicians trying to clean up the mess left by their predecessors—fighting for monies that just aren’t there—union leaders would do well to realize that the rules of the game have changed, and they are never going back to what they were.

Tone down the hype, stop the personal attacks, and come into the real world. The new reality is that reforms of the public sector unions are imminent, and not because of political will or the (mistaken) perception that Republicans are anti-Labor, but because there is simply not enough money to fulfill those long-ago promises. There are no other options.

Failure to agree to common sense reforms will only result in a protracted battle that the unions cannot win, virtually guaranteeing an (unnecessary) level of pain and suffering to rank-and-file union members.

Union bosses would do well to remember that their job is to represent the best interests of their members, and it would behoove union members to hold their leaders accountable—something they have not done particularly well over the years. On three big issues that mattered to the rank and file—defeat of NAFTA, defeat of Most Favored Trading status for China, and stemming job-killing and wage-depressing illegal immigration—the union leaders have batted zero.

Only common sense and a genuine willingness to work together for fair solutions will resolve the difficult situation facing public unions, states and taxpayers.

While that will never be a perfect “union,” anything less will result in a Labor Day—with no Labor.

Jimmy Hoffa Jr.’s Threats And Irony

Jimmy Hoffa Jr. issued a cry for war against the Tea Party movement during his warm-up act for  President Barack Obama’s Labor
Day speech in Detroit.

“President Obama, this is your army,” said Hoffa, who has followed his father to head the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.  “We are ready to march. Let’s
take these sons of bitches out and take America back to where America we
belong.”

Well, “let’s take these sons of bitches out” is not exactly what Russell A. Bufalino of Kingston, Pa. told one-time Darby-Colwyn High School student Frank Sheeran in 1975.

But it’s close.

Sheeran never could say for certain what became of Hoffa Sr.’s body although he was confident it did not end up in the Meadowlands.

Charles Brandt describes in “I Heard You Paint Houses“ how Sheeran, besides shooting Hoffa Sr., takes a good deal of credit for getting Vice President Joe Biden into the U.S. Senate in 1972. 

That’s irony.

“I Heard You Paint Houses” is in the works to become a major motion pictured directed by Martin Scorese and starring Robert DeNiro.

The book ends with Sheeran making confession at Saint Dorothy’s Church described by Brandt as being in Springfield albeit is just over the border in the Drexel Hill section of Upper Darby.

Wisconsin Appears To Remain In GOP Hands

Wisconsin Appears To Remain In GOP Hands — Reports indicate that Republicans won four of six recall elections, Aug. 9, keeping the state in Republican hands.

Unions spent millions in an an unprecedented attempt to take back the state for the Democrats after legislation was passed earlier this year restricting collective bargaining that had nearly bankrupt the state.

A Democrat won a recall election last month. Two more Democrats face recall elections next week.


Wisconsin Appears To Remain In GOP Hands

Corbett Gives Unions Sweetheart Deal

Corbett Gives Unions Sweetheart Deal —  This article by Chris Freind is being republished with his kind permission.


By Chris Freind


State workers in Pennsylvania just got an 11 percent raise.

In case you have been living under a rock, here’s a newsflash: We are experiencing one of the most severe recessions in our history, and there are no greener pastures in the immediate future. Common sense dictates that with high unemployment, decreased tax revenues, large deficits and, most significantly, massive pension obligations, governors would take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that their states, and citizens, remain solvent, especially when it comes to negotiating public-sector union contracts.

That happened in places like Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, where true Republicans are in charge. Governors Scott Walker, Mitch Daniels and John Kasich took the heat and did what they had to do, reeling in the out-of-control taxpayer largess afforded to these unions.

But most amazing of all is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s remarkable success. Just last week, he pushed through a monumental union pension and benefit-reform package that will save taxpayers over $120 billion—and did so with heavily Democratic, pro-union legislative majorities. So effective was Christie that alongside him at the bill-signing was the Senate President—a longtime union member.

Contrast that to the deal just reached by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett with the largest state unions. Instead of acting in the best interests of the taxpayers footing the bill, he simply continued the Rendell legacy of keeping the cash register door wide open.

It’s bad enough the Governor rolled over on all the sweeping concessions he was seeking, but he ended up giving the unions a sweetheart deal.

Over the next four years, unionized state employees will receive an almost 11 percent raise and a guarantee of no furloughs. And remember, this significant bump is in addition to their three percent raise two years ago, four percent raise last year—and three annual step increases which averaged 2.25 percent during that time.

Cha-ching!

How do these pay raises compare to those in the private sector? With such high unemployment and underemployment rates, do you really have to ask? Most people are receiving no raises at all, not even cost-of-living adjustments. And those fortunate enough to still have a job have no choice but to hang on for dear life, praying they survive the next round of layoffs. Making matters worse, many have to also shoulder ever increasing healthcare costs, if they have coverage at all.

In addition to substantial retirement benefits, state workers have guaranteed healthcare, too. And while they will pay a bit more with this new contract, it’s still at a level way below many in the private sector.
It used to be that working in the public sector was a trade-off. You wouldn’t make as much money as in the business world, but the benefits were good and contracts were guaranteed. But all that changed as union contracts exploded upward—at the expense of taxpayers.

Now, in many cases, unionized public employees make more than their peers in the private sector, and retire on pensions and benefit packages that would make Wall Street financiers blush with envy. Of course, that has come with a price, especially in Pennsylvania, and now it’s time to pay the piper. State pension obligations go through the roof over the next several years, as annual taxpayer-funded contributions to the two state pension funds increase exponentially, ballooning from $800 million now … to billions per year.

The last Governor and legislature kicked the can down the road last year, but that only gets you so far and, in the process, devastates the future of our children and grandchildren.

By caving in to the unions, giving them a contract that would be way too generous even in a strong economy, this Governor has chosen not to address the reforms necessary to keep Pennsylvania on solid ground, which will eventually lead to higher state borrowing costs and push the state closer to the abyss.

While we’re on the subject of the state’s finances, let’s set the facts straight about the current budget. Reducing the budget by four percent is a good thing, but was inevitable after the loss of federal stimulus dollars. Had he won the governorship, Dan Onorato would have signed a budget almost exactly the same as the one Corbett did. For that matter, even Governor Spendell, who never saw a spending increase he didn’t like, would have been forced to reduce the budget to close the $4.2 billion budget deficit—which, in reality, is closer to $7 billion because no one in Harrisburg wants to address the real fiscal situation.

The budget, which is constitutionally required to be balanced, was passed last year on ghost revenue: $400 million from the tolling of Interstate 80 (which never got tolled); $800 million raided from the MCARE fund (used to offset high medical malpractice rates) which, in all likelihood, will be ordered repaid by the State Supreme Court; federal Medicaid dollars that were budgeted to be $800 million but actually amounted to $595 million; and a $1.1 billion revenue shortfall after 10 months of last year’s fiscal year.

This shortfall seems to have simply vanished off the books. Of course, do that with your own business and you go to jail. So with the looming pension bomb and the real state deficit, it’s not a pretty picture for Pennsylvania’s future.

There was a way to address these issues and begin to reverse the state’s decline. Governor Corbett could have mandated a situation whereby union members would negotiate with their prospective employer individually, and free market-type incentives would allow for a fair offer—fair for the employee, and fair for the “employer” (the taxpayer).

So an offer would be made—salary, healthcare, benefits—and the individual could choose to accept or decline it. Which is exactly how it’s done in the free market. And for those who would claim it wouldn’t be “fair” to the state worker, you know what? There would be a line a mile long of qualified individuals ready and willing to accept such an offer. Accountability and efficiencies would increase, and unmotivated, bureaucratic sloths would be eliminated in favor of those willing to be good stewards of taxpayer money.

Sound simple and fair enough? It is, and it’s called the elimination of collective bargaining. It’s something successfully implemented in other states, but was incomprehensibly taken off the table by Corbett three months ago—while getting absolutely nothing in return.

The result: No pension reform and a lucrative union contract that the Governor says will be a net cost to the taxpayers of $164 million (which means that figure can be safely doubled).

The Wall Street Journal just labeled Corbett as leader of Keystone Cops. After this latest debacle, it’s hard to disagree.

 

Corbett Gives Unions Sweetheart Deal

Pa. Should Follow Tenn. Lead On Teachers Union

Tennessee , June 1, ended collective bargaining for school teachers, a story pointedly ignored by the in-the-pocket-for-the-left news media.

The law signed by Gov. Bill Haslam allows for a process called “collaborative conferencing” but leaves the school boards with the final say — the teachers get no right to appeal; no right to ask for binding arbitration.

Further, there are certain things the teachers may not negotiate namely staffing decisions, the use of grant money, the employee evaluation process and whether or not payroll deductions can be made for
political purposes.

It sounds almost like what existed in Pennsylvania before 1970 when the teachers got their right to strike.

Pennsylvania, the state most tortured by child-hating teacher strikes and “work to rule” negotiating strategies, is pondering plans to replace teacher strikes with binding arbitration and allow for seniority-based economic furloughs.

That’s not the way to solve the problem.

What Tennessee did is the way to solve the problem.

Hat tip FreeRepublic.Com

House Vs Senate On Teacher Furloughs

The Pennsylvania House and the Pennsylvania Senate have competing bills to allow school districts to furlough teachers for economic reasons, an action the traditionally union-dominated state has long prohibited.

House Bill 855, introduced March 1  by Scott Boyd (R- 43) would  allow the furlough decision to be guided by several factors including the teacher’s specialization and performance evaluations.

The good ol’ boys in the Senate Appropriations Committee, however, did not think of the children or the taxpayer but listened to the lobbyists and cut out all factors but seniority — with one minor caveat  — from Senate Bill 612, which was introduced Feb. 18 by Mike Folmer (R-48).

The caveat is that tenured teachers who have been placed on an improvement plan due to poor evaluations would not be protected by seniority. This would only apply to very few teachers who are the worst of the worst and one wonders why such teachers are protected from anything now.

Think of the children.

SB 612 was referred to the House Education Committee, May 11, where HB 855 has remained stuck since it was introduced.

Adolph Says Vote Likely On Pa. NoBamaCare Bill

The man accused of bottling up a bill that would make much of Obamacare hard to enforce in Pennsylvania told the Delaware County Patriots, Thursday, May 19, that it will likely come up for a vote this year.

State Rep. Bill Adolph (R-165), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee has been accused of sitting on HB 42 by Tea Party activists. The bill has been tied up in Adolph’s committee since Feb. 8.

HB 42, introduced by Matthew Baker (R-68) on Jan. 19, says A law
or rule shall not compel, through penalties and fines, directly or
indirectly, any individual, employer or health care provider to
participate in any health care system.

It also specifically
says that an individual or employer may pay directly for lawful health
care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for
doing so; and specifically allows  health care providers to accept
direct payments without penalties. It also prohibits state law enforcement and regulatory agencies from
participating “in compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy”
that would compromise the “freedom of choice in health care” of any
resident of the state.

Adolph told the group, which met at Knights of Columbus hall in Newtown Square, that the biggest budget problem facing the state was the expiration of federal stimulus money. He said  last year’s $28 billion budget contained $3.1 billion of the fed dollars.

The $27.3 billion budget proposed by Gov. Corbett places a heavier burden on the state taxpayers despite it being smaller. House Republicans have tweaked the budget by easing some of the cuts the Governor had made to education while adding cuts to welfare. Adolph said the House budget gives state higher education 75 percent of what it had gotten last year, while Corbett would have cut the outlay in half.

Adolph said that the House budget actually ends up being few hundred thousand dollars less than the Governors.

Concerning the questions fielded by Adolph — and HB 42 was one — he said:

— He supported in principle privatizing the state-owned liquor stores but would not commit to any specific legislation as the “devil was in the details”.

— He supported giving school boards the power to furlough teachers for economic reasons. He, however, ducked the other half regarding his position on ending the requirement that school districts and municipalities pay prevailing wage for renovation and construction projects.

–He is not familiar with the First Suburbs issue which is starting to be discussed in Tea Party groups and appears to be an attempt to use government programs such as Section 8 housing to economically “diversify” Philadelphia’s older suburbs in accordance with the preferences of academics and activists.

–He supported abolishing the inheritance tax.

–He voted for and supports HB 1330, which expands the state’s Educational Improvement Tax Credit, and that he was only aware of the highlights of SB 1, the school choice bill bottled up in the Senate. He said he supports school choice in principle.

–That teachers should not be allowed to strike.

— He supports voter ID.

— He believes in state sovereignty.

— He supports cutting the size of the state legislature.

The only matter on which he incurred the crowd’s wrath concerned state pensions, and his unwillingness to condemn former State Sen. Bob Mellow’s $300,000 pension in significantly vociferous terms. He said Mellow’s pension plan had been grandfathered from before 1974, and that he should get it. He did not seem to get that it may fairer and more just to change the terms of an old poorly conceived contract rather than make a widow who was not party to it lose her home trying to fulfill it.

Philly School District Caves

This article by Chris Freind is republished with his permission.

What’s wrong with this picture?
Teacher doesn’t like a possible school district decision. Teacher gives students SEPTA tokens, ostensibly allowing them to attend a protest rally at District headquarters — during the school day. Teacher doesn’t notify principal or parents that students were leaving school. Teacher was allegedly insubordinate by disclosing a document the District wanted kept confidential. Union boss fights efforts to fire teacher on First Amendment grounds.
Teacher wins.
That’s right. Despite an initial effort by the Philadelphia School District to terminate Hope Moffett, a teacher at Audenried High School, she is back at work, smug as ever. And why not?
The District completely caved. Instead of pursuing the right course of action, it settled for Moffett to read a non-descript one sentence letter to her class — a statement the District claims is an admission of wrongdoing, but which Moffett bluntly denies. “There’s no apology,” she said. “I think it’s very clear that they wanted an apology, but what they wanted an apology for was something that wasn’t true.”
The statement: “I acknowledge that I didn’t notify the principal on 2/14/2011 that students planned to leave the school building during the school day on 2/15/2011, even though no parental permission had been submitted to the school.”
Seems Moffett is right — no apology there.
The District’s take? They were pleased she was admitting wrongdoing.
“I think her acknowledging that she did something wrong was part of what we were looking for all along,” a District spokeswoman was quoted as saying. “Just that she had some sense of remorse that she put the students in harm’s way.”
Remorse? Where is the remorse when Moffett refused to apologize for placing students in possible danger without any parental or school notification? “It’s ridiculous, but it gets me back into the classroom,” she said, according to the Inquirer. “It is a statement that I’m fine with making because to them it will always be an apology, thereby justifying that I can return to the school.”
“Ridiculous” and “no apology.” Wow. What incredible remorse.
Most interesting was that even Moffett herself “didn’t anticipate being returned to the classroom.” So let’s get this straight. Moffett’s actions led the District to start the firing process, and despite Moffett believing she did nothing wrong, she thought she would lose.
So what happened?
The unions got involved. And since everyone in Philadelphia kowtows to the unions, the ballgame ended. Incomprehensible? Yes. Expected? Absolutely.
Moffett’s union, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT), sued the District on free speech grounds, since Moffett opposed plans to convert Audenried to a charter school. That argument is so hollow that it would be laughed out of court anywhere but Philadelphia.
So a U.S. magistrate judge got involved, and helped broker a deal. (Moffett was also given a five-day suspension, but don’t count on that standing up, since the union is appealing that, too).
The biggest joke in this whole debacle is the notion that both sides can claim a semblance of victory.
Moffett won, and District made fools out of themselves. If that’s “victory” for the District, I’d hate to see what losing is.
The First Amendment has no role whatsoever in this case. Moffett is certainly free to disagree with the District’s charter school plans, and it’s well within her rights to advocate for her cause.
What is unacceptable is to knowingly allow students to leave the safe confines of school and venture unsupervised into the city (facilitated, the District claimed, by giving out the SEPTA tokens), with parents having absolutely no knowledge of their children’s whereabouts. What if a student was involved in an accident while on this unsanctioned field trip? Or mugged? Or raped?
(And let’s be honest — how many students, completely of their own volition, were really motivated to take up this cause as their own? It’s a fact that some teachers use students as pawns in political fights. Was this one of those cases? It certainly raises questions.)
To say the District — and in fact, taxpayers — would be liable for a massive lawsuit is a gross understatement.
And, if as the District contends, Moffett was insubordinate for disclosing a document that it had ordered kept private, they had even more grounds for firing.
Given the facts, Moffett should have been terminated. It’s a case the District should have pursued, because it would have sent the right message. Instead, the clear message is that the District can be bullied into submission, settling for nothing despite holding all the cards.
This is one of those rare cases when the union should have backed away. Loyalty above all, except honor. And there is no honor in what Moffett did.
But why should the union back away when it knows it won’t be challenged? These victories only add to the union’s mystique.
Of course, it’s a good bet this wouldn’t have played out the same way about ten miles east, across the Delaware River. Odds are that Governor Chris Christie would have come swooping in with his trademark thunder, pointing out how cowardly the District was being, aggressively taking on the union, and fighting for justice to be done.
And he would have won.
Too bad we don’t have the same kind of barnstorming leaders in Pennsylvania. If we did, this would have been the perfect opportunity to show that quality.
And little Miss “Moffett” would be eating her curds and whey somewhere other than Audenried High.