Pay grab in Bullskin
In response to your Feb. 5 front-page story about the Bullskin supervisors wanting a raise (“3 Bullskin supervisors appeal for raises in court”): These people knew how much the job paid when they decided to run for that position. If it wasn't enough money for them, they should not have run.
But they wanted the job. Two of them are even charged with violating the election code.
In my opinion, these are greedy, untrustworthy people who want to put more in their own pockets at the expense of others, many who aren't earning anything close to the $19 per hour that these guys are unsatisfied with.
When these people were campaigning a short time ago, do you think they told anyone that their first official actions would be to try and secure a raise for themselves even if that means going to court and trying to take more of your money?
For those of you reading this who are earning $10 or $12 an hour with lousy or no benefits, think about this and if you would be satisfied with a $19-an-hour job with a total value of more than $80,000 a year. Then run for Bullskin Township supervisor in the next election. I'm sure there are a lot of young, energetic people out there who can do the job just fine. It would be interesting to see 25 or 30 people running as independents for the supervisor position in the next election.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.
- Desperate & scary
- Embrace domestic energy production
- Picking our pockets
- Have mercy
- Expensively elusive
- Making it special
- Anthem appreciated
- The email cleanup
- The Catholic foundation
- Good ‘friends,’ good food
- An Obama clone