Comments on: In Detroit, protected road menaces

By: Mahlon

Mahlon — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:39:18 +0000

The post seemingly and, in my view, correctly points out that at least some of the claims asserted against Detroit for bus-related injuries are well-founded. I’m sure many asserted claims are tenuous if not completely bogus, but some, maybe even many, are valid. But once again, unions are inflating the cost of doing business. That is to say, unions are hurting people. Of course, Detroit agreed to the CBA terms limiting discipline of poor drivers. A sad state of affairs!

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:59:03 +0000

I sympathize with the difficulty in firing accident-prone drivers, but the same liberal/redistributionist values that drive that also drive the excessive suits against the bus system. You can’t fire the drivers because, well, they’re entitled to a job and saying they aren’t cut out for it amounts to “discrimination.” And you have to allow even the dubious injury suits against the bus system because, well, the plaintiffs are sympathy-deserving “working” or otherwise poor folks who could use a little financial help anyway, so what’s the harm?

Bottom line is that the whole thing turns into an ersatz welfare supplementation system, all of which gets a wink and a nod from Detroit’s powers-that-be. Wouldn’t it be more honest to stop pretending that the bus drivers are competent and that passengers are injured, and just start handing out cash to anyone appropriately aggrieved?

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:58:50 +0000

This annual total is slightly more than the MBTA (Boston) would pay each year for bus, subway and commuter rail claims combined.

(The total doesn’t include the attorneys fees paid to outside counsel for defense.)

By: Dick

Dick — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:05:37 +0000

Why not hold the union responsible to share the damages when one of their members causes the city to pay out on a suit. Especially after x number of problems/citations.