Back to Gaffer's Variety.
Gaffer Variety:
The Imperial We 037:
By Willie Gaffer:
April 24, 2006:
In a previous essay titled UPS Screwup 026, I described the three most likely responses by major corporations to a complaint. I should have said any bureaucracy instead of major corporations. For sure, most government bureaucracies follow these models of behavior.
The three most possible scenarios are, no response at all, a buck down, or a con artist phone call. The most common is no response at all which happens about 90 percent of the time. The buck down, about 5 percent of the time, is where the bigshot bucks the complaint down to the person who caused the problem pretending that it will be handled. This has always produced a bizarre rationalization from the culprit with no attempt to correct anything. The con artist phone call is where a trained specialist in simple psychology calls and tries to con the victim out of the complaint.
I should also have noted that sometimes a combination of these three responses is used. This was the case with the Michigan Secretary of State (SOS). A while back, I posted and essay titled Revenue Cops 028. In that I recounted an experience with a Redford Township cop and my experience with two offices of the SOS. I sent a copy of that essay to the SOS. The response to this was a buck down followed by a phone call from a SOS assistant.
Concerning the buck down, in all case in my experience, the person who was addressed in the complaint never sees it. The missives are always handled by some flunkey. Sometimes they are actually read. Sometimes they are simply trashed. Sometimes they are bucked down to the person who caused the problem, but the bigshot never sees them at all. She or he never knows they were received.
So, at 4:00 PM on Monday, February 27, 2006 I received a telephone call from an Assistant (SOS) for Michigan, one, Mary Bonner. This woman turned out to be the county supervisor for one of the offices I had criticized. What annoyed me most about this woman was her consistent use of the "Imperial We." In my understanding of this honorific, it should only be used by someone who has the final authority to make things happened or not happen. In this case, that would be the SOS, not some assistant. Yet this woman used it consistently. She said we, this and we that and we the other, time after time. It was very annoying, but I held my peace.
She also lied. Concerning the reminders and forms for automobile and driver's licenses, she said, "We send these things out as a courtesy." That is simply not true. This procedure of sending out forms to license holders when renewal is due was initiated by the previous SOS, Candice Miller. It was not a courtesy. It was done to save a bundle of money, confusion, and public rage. It made licensing by mail a reality and that's why it was done. Unless Bonner is an idiot, she knows that.
She did one other thing that was somewhat comical. When I first answered the phone she identified herself and said, "You didn't think it would get this far, did you?" That made me wonder how important she thinks an assistant SOS is, but I kept my peace again.. What I had said in my essay was "I will send a copy of this essay to Land. I doubt she will ever see it, but I will send it for two reasons." Then I gave the reasons. Land is the SOS and I stand by what I said. I am sure she never saw it. As I said, in all cases in my experience, the person who was addressed in the complaint never sees it. The missives are always handled by some flunkey.
Okay, this woman called and wasted several minutes of my time before she finally got around to her point, which was to say, in essence, it's your own fault. So, the Imperial We was exonerated. It was all my own fault. The Imperial We had done no wrong. The Imperial We can do no wrong. For sure, she could have said that right away and not wasted so much of my time. In fact, she could have just sent a postcard and saved the state the cost of a phone call. I'm not going to talk about her time, because the time of bureaucrats is not worth anything. For their workers it is better if they are occupied with useless things. It keeps them from interfering with the real work.
Anyway, her call was useless, because I had already stipulated that it was my fault. I said it in the first paragraph of my essay. Her time wasting effort did not add anything to that. It really was my own fault, because I trusted a bureaucrat to act rationally. By now, at 75 years old, you would think I would know better than that, and I do. I simply screwed up. For sure, I'll never make that mistake with the SOS or any other Michigan bureaucrat again. Of course, I already said that too. The fact is, I let them set me up and they did.
I did not expect any accountability from a bureaucrat and, of course, I did not get any. It's grist for the mill. The lesson to me is, never talk to a bureaucrat on the telephone. I already knew that too. I'll try to remember it the next time a bureaucrat calls.
Now, most bureaucrats will argue they do not have time to read all of the missives address to them so it must be handled by underlings. For Ms. Terri Lynn Land I have a solution to that problem. The next time she is up for reelection, I will use this website and do my very best to make sure she has plenty of time for reading after the election.
Remember, a vote against Terri Lynn Land is a vote for good
government.
Back to Gaffer's Variety.
|
|
|
|