Letters to the Editor | Dec. 14, 2023
Inquirer readers on Philly's "holiday tree," the high school football championship, and expanding overtime pay.
O Christmas tree
I would like to know why City Hall continues to call the Christmas tree a holiday tree. With all the other holidays so gleefully expressed this time of year, I don’t see any Hanukkah or Kwanzaa celebrators renaming their ornamentations in the name of inclusion. I hope Mayor-elect Cherelle Parker rightfully restores the Christmas tree lighting celebration to Christians during her tenure.
K. Mayes, Philadelphia
Hollow victory
The high school football season concluded last week, and with it came the same predictable outcome. I have long written of the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association’s complete lack of accountability for allowing private schools to compete in state-sanctioned championship tournaments. My comments have typically cited St. Joseph’s Prep (a fine and respected school) as an example of institutions that openly recruit athletes without restrictions on geography. And, as usual and expected, it won the PIAA Class 6A state championship.
Until PIAA member schools refuse to compete in state-sanctioned tournaments allowing this unfair advantage, nothing will change. Just as responsible for this situation are parents, coaches, and school administrations at every level. The victims, as usual, are the students who play in these games and are asked to compete in an environment unfairly stacked against them. Since previous attempts at engaging the PIAA have gone unanswered and obviously disregarded, the high school football world would benefit from association members resigning and being replaced with commonsense members.
Bill Smith, West Chester, w2smith@aol.com
Concerning proposal
A recent article seems intended to endorse a federal proposal to significantly expand eligibility for overtime pay (i.e., the requirement for employers to pay time-and-a-half for hours worked beyond 40 in a week) for employees in executive, administrative, and professional positions. However, the article misses several key factors for both employers and employees. Many employers would not be able to sustain current operations by simply adding overtime to their labor costs. Think about government-funded nonprofits whose revenue wouldn’t keep pace with new costs and would have to cut back on services.
Colleges have also previously raised concerns with similarly expansive overtime eligibility proposals, fearing the impact on sports programs with assistant coaches who may work long hours during the sports season but enjoy flexibility during the offseason. These types of employment arrangements would essentially be prohibited under this proposed framework. The fact is, the federal proposal would force employers to shift salaried employees into hourly positions, in which hours can be tracked and capped at 40 per week. For many employees who have earned salary status — and the benefits and flexibility that come along with it — transitioning back to hourly work may feel like a demotion.
Alex Halper, vice president of government affairs, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Harrisburg
Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.