As a follow-up to my post last week about the habit of nonpayment of transit fare and the possibility that the Washington State Supreme Court may follow that of the Maryland court and declare that demand for proof of fare payment to be unconstitutional “search and seizure,” I confess that after observing that the driver of the bus I take home at night was simply allowing most people to walk past him without paying fare, I emailed Metro customer service, telling them that "fare is fare," inquiring if I could receive “official” written permission not to have to pay fare, and inform the driver of such. Of course I didn’t actually believe that someone was going to permit this, but I was curious about what Metro’s policy was about nonpayment of fare, pointing out the unfairness of some people paying while many do not, particularly on evening trips. I had to demand a response from Metro twice, and eventually received this message:
I assure you that all Metro Transit drivers receive training in our fare policies and customer relations. Transit Operating Instructions direct drivers to avoid confrontations and never get into fare disputes with customers. When a customer fails to make a fare payment, operators are expected to request a fare payment one time, and then report the incident if the fare is not paid. They are also expected to use their best judgment, placing the highest priority on personal safety and safety of their customers. Our goal is assault prevention.
It's one hell of a statement about our society today when a driver takes his or her own life into their hands asking a "customer" for fare payment. The threat of “assault” didn’t really come into play in regard to my complaint, since the same people boarding the same bus without fare payment simply either gave the same made-up excuse (“forgot” or “couldn’t find” their bus pass or transfer) or simply walked past the driver knowing he wouldn’t even ask them to pay the fare. The actual “policy,” according to Metro, is that if someone boards the bus the driver may tell them they have to have to pay fare, but if there is the threat of belligerence (mainly from vagrants, delinquent punk-types and even more “mature” types who think they are “owed” free rides by society), then to just let them on to avoid “confrontation.” And most drivers seem to wish to avoid even the possibility of that happening by ignoring nonpayments.
The “cost” of this is that, according to the Seattle Times and other local media reports, fare evasion is practiced by at least 30-40 percent of passengers, and other estimates put it as high as 70 percent; as a result of this, Sound Transit and regional transit in general is seeing budget shortfalls in the billions of dollars. During the pandemic, the “honor system” is being depended on by the Sound Transit train and the link light rail for fare payment—and if people think that no one is checking, then even the allegedly “civic-minded” people will eventually take to seeing what they can get away with. Of course there is no “honor” system in regard to Metro and Sound Transit bus service. You either pay, or if you appear you might pose a “physical” threat to the driver, then just let them on, according to “policy.”
That is what society has come to in a culture where even the music—which in the past was usually meant to promote “positive” messages of love and longing—now “justifies” self-obsession, crime and disrespect for civilized norms. I remember once I was at a job being forced to listen to tuneless auto-tuned non-music and suggested a change to an “oldies” station (which then meant the 1980s), but after ten minutes you heard complaints about too many “love” songs; in 1976, Paul McCartney asked what was “wrong” with “Silly Love Songs”; well, in this society obsessed with “wokeness,” “MeToo” and whose “life” matters more than someone else’s, plenty—and I’m not just talking there about BLM, but white women too. Every rule of the “bad old days” is meant to be broken, especially by narcissists and hypocrites.
And I suppose getting away with doing the wrong thing has something to do with the way you were “raised,” right? When I had a temp job at the Fred Meyers on Lake City Way, the “undercover” theft-prevention officer told me that “kids” just went in there to steal knickknacks just to brag to their friends that they could get away with, and they usually got away with it if they got as far as the door. Most were black, and there was always the self-conscious desire to avoid a “confrontation” if it meant being accused of “racism.”
But as I suggested before about “mature”
people breaking rules, some of these “kids” learn from their “elders.” At the
same store, a black woman (wearing glasses, so she must have been "smart") came in with one of those rolling suitcases and
starting filling it up with household items, mostly toiletries and other
hygiene items. Of course the loss-prevention officer didn’t want to make a “scene”
inside the store; the district manager was one of those "the-customer-is-always-right-even-when-they-do-wrong" types, so unless someone is mass-shooting the place, employees have to be concerned for their jobs if they don't treat shoplifters like "human beings." Of course that doesn't apply to Hispanics just for being there.
So the loss-prevention officer waited until the woman walked out of the store with the stolen goods in tow. This time the manager got involved, and what followed out in the parking lot was a seriocomic scene where the manager and the loss-prevention officer took turns trying to grab the suitcase handle and pulling it away from the woman, while she just as determinedly kept grabbing it back. This back-and-forth continued for ten minutes until the manager just said “screw it” and let the woman leave with the stolen goods; he “rationalized” that they were not for her anyways—she was going to “sell” the items. Huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment