Don't blame bus drivers II
On Aug. 14, the Trib ran an editorial cartoon showing bus driver Ralph Kramden expressing a wish to move to Pittsburgh upon learning that some Port Authority drivers had earned $80,000 in overtime pay.
As one who is old enough to remember well “The Honeymooners” TV show in which Jackie Gleason played Kramden, I am confident that Kramden would never have entertained such a notion.
Why? Because Ralph, like most of us, enjoyed his time off and would have been well aware that the only way a bus driver could make that much in overtime would be to virtually live at the job and therefore have no life outside of that job.
Further, I doubt that Ralph would wish to move to a city with a newspaper that apparently believes workers should not be paid for their time worked.
Obviously, to make that amount of money, a Port Authority driver would have had to work far more hours than usual and only with the permission of and request by management to do so.
If there is that much overtime available, it certainly is not the fault of the drivers who agree to work it, but of the Port Authority management, which has, by its own admission, failed to hire enough drivers to staff the routes.
Should those drivers who are willing to work extra hours to keep the buses running and routes covered work for free?
Of course not. Would you?
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.