Don't blame bus drivers I
The headline on the news story “Port Authority of Allegheny County transit drivers on road to riches” was inflammatory and misleading, reflecting an anti-worker bias. The story lists, by name and total pay, three drivers whose 2013 earnings were in six figures, inviting censure of these workers.
Base pay for bus operators is $54,579, which is in the range of median household income in the U.S. When some drivers' annual income is considerably above that, it is because the Port Authority needed them to work overtime, and they did. With 50 driver vacancies due to inadequate state funding, the only way to meet the schedule was with overtime.
If all drivers had refused to work overtime, how many riders would have been left stranded, unable to get to work, school or medical treatment because their bus did not run? What would have been the Trib's headline then? Probably something like “Lazy bus drivers cripple transit system.”
Pittsburghers for Public Transit agrees with Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 that bus-driver vacancies should be filled to eliminate understaffing. We also believe a strong transit system requires workers who are fairly compensated for their hard work and who have a voice in improving the system.
The writer is a member of Pittsburghers for Public Transit and managing editor of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America's UE News.
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.
- Food for thought
- Animal abuse
- Appreciate caregivers
- Poisoned long ago
- The real big spenders
- Can’t go it alone
- It’s supposed to be a ‘holiday’