Critique of Steven's post

**********

Excerpt from Steven's post:

"The Santa Cruz Bus Drivers are not nearly the fourth highest paid drivers in the country. This idea that they are the fourth highest is a lie spread by the Sentinel..."

Suggested re-working: "Lie" is considered by many to be a very strong word. Consider substantiating your use of the word "lie." Perhaps the Sentinel printed merely a sincerely misguided inaccuracy, and not a lie. Suggest showing more clearly that the Sentinel, in fact, lied. Doing so may well increase support for your argument.

Also suggest that you consider the possibility that you may run the risk of legal action for libel by using the word "lie." Not sure about this, but it is something to consider.

Also suggest considering that using the word "lie" may make you seem to many readers to be hotheaded fanatic, though you may well not intend to come across this way. It may be more persuasive to use a more moderate tone. Suggest considering this.

Steven's post, continued:

"...that doesn't take into account the obvious fact that this also one of the least affordable places in the nation to live."

Critique:

Thsi is a promising tack. Your point might be more strongly made if you got a table of bus driver pay packages vs. cost of living in various locales. Perhaps you can obtain this online, somewhere.

Without information along those lines, your argument is perhaps not as strong as it might be. To name one example of how your argument may be perceived as having weakness:

New York City bus drivers are paid less than Santa Cruz bus drivers. Rents in NYC are nonetheless often are greater than rents in Santa Cruz. Suggest addressing arguments such as this one in order to lend greater force to your assertions.

Some readers might also feel that the SC bus drivers are not overpaid, but are nonetheless paid COMMENSURATE with the cost-of-living in SC. If you want your readers to feel as if the bus drivers are not paid ENOUGH for the Santa Cruz area, suggest you provide information supporting that contention. The goal of course is to persuade the reader that SC bus drivers are not paid enough.

Steven's post continues:

"But pay is not the issue.

This strike was not caused by the drivers, it has been caused by the Metro Board’s failure to negotiate in good faith."

Critique:

Many may see this argument as being insufficiently substantiated. Many readers may wonder why the drivers just don't go back to work for their FORMER PAY, if pay is not the issue. They may be perceiving the UTU to be dickering ardently for vaious increases in compensation. Suggest a more detailed argument that the UTU is not making an issue about financial compensation.

Also, many readers will ask, "What exactly does 'good faith' mean?" Suggest that you spell out what "good faith" means. Doing so may well increase support for your points. Your goal is to show that the Metro caused the strike; many readers will likely want to understand very clearly and specifically why this is the case. Show them those specifics, and you may well gain increased support for your theses.

****************

Good luck. You convey fire and sincerity. Your points may well gain greater support by considering the suggestions provided above.