North Americans are jealous people. You would think that they would be more self-satisfied and happy, what with their freedoms and their iphones and all that American dream crap, but they are jealous bitter people. Take the current EuroZone crisis. For years before this financial calamity occurred, North Americans have been taking pop shots at Europeans for their lazy, decadent lifestyles, their abundant vacations, wine-soaked lunches and annual beach getaways. Instead of using the example of Europe to demand more for themselves, North Americans in general have been content to insult them from their offices where many of them will eventually collapse either from mental inertia, cardiovascular issues from prepackaged crap or just old fashioned boredom.
There is a pervasive mentality of "everyone should have to suffer what I have to suffer", a sophisticated thought process dating back to the time when dogs snarled at each other anytime one of them had a bone. This is dangerous thinking as a society. To think that because you get 2 weeks off a year means that those guys across the pond don't deserve their 5-6 weeks is backwards. You should actually be thinking about what it would take for you to get 5-6 weeks and the plus benefits all around, rather than calling them lazy. This is the difference between creative thinking and old fashioned jealousy.
But North Americans remain obsessed with work, material wealth and convenience. And this mentality will not slow down anytime soon with the European crisis. It's a shame that we never learned how to better our society through Europe's example. It's a shame that pursuit of wealth is very likely to destroy those good lessons that Europe once had. Quality of life is no longer a philosophy about putting friends, family, good food and wine over work- it is an index factor used to calculate rate of pay with cost of living to see who's economically comfortable.
One only has to look at a series of comments on a news post to know that jealousy, coupled with its old friend bitterness, is in style. Anytime something goes wrong for someone, there's always a handful of people who will chip in with their go-to comment of 'stop whining you babies, everyone just wants a free ride, when I was young I had one pair of pants and a wooden spoon for my porridge, etc etc.' It used to be that the cantakerous old man routine was funny; now it's just getting old and nasty.
The world economy is not in a good place. People are not in a good place. It's normal that when things get lean and mean, people are going to start baring their teeth. But maybe it's time that we all took a good long hard look at ourselves and made the decision to stop resenting everyone for the things that they have that we don't. Especially since it seems that we're at risk of losing a lot of it.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Skinny is not Healthy
The Globe and Mail Hot Button blog, a column designed merely to get attention by shocking and appalling audiences, making it the Fox News of the website, ran a headline yesterday stating that family members should let each other know that they're fat this holiday season. Yes, because in the midst of an awkward turkey, stuffing and potatoes dinner, everyone wants to be reminded that they can lose a few, particularly when they're with their family, which is not going to aggravate anyone at all.
The blog argues that a tough love approach is needed in order to combat obesity, which is an increasingly large, pardon the pun, problem around the world. But the very notion that a frank discussion of how fat a person has gotten is going to lead to productive results is flawed and ridiculous.
First of all, if a person in your family turns to you at the dinner table and tells you that you should lose a few pounds, your first inclination is probably to tell them to go to hell. This inclination is entirely correct and justified. You are well within your rights to react this way and end the discussion.
Second of all, if you really want a person to take an interest in their health, you should encourage them to be healthy. It's a general misconception out there that skinny equals healthy. There are many skinny people who eat badly or don't exercise, but the consequences don't hang off their belts. It's usually good genetics or bone structure, but as infuriating as it may be, it does not mean that they are de facto healthy. They can be just as prone to high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes or cancers if their lifestyle habits don't add up.
The same can be said for bigger people as well. Just because they tip the scale in the opposite direction, doesn't mean that they aren't healthy or active. Skinny also doesn't equate happy- an active lifestyle, balanced diet and a general feeling of satisfaction with ones life doesn't just come from being skinny.
And if you're seriously concerned about someone's health, try being healthy yourself. Be a good example. Be the conscientious host who offers veggie and fruit platters and sparkling water at events. Don't load up the table with fatty foods and then tell people that they can lose a few. It's a great way to anger family and alienate friends to tell them that they're fat.
One final point and this is indicative of a larger problem in today's world: you don't want to shame people into losing weight. When you tell someone that they're fat, guess what happens to their sense of self worth? This process of shaming people who are overweight leads to negative body imaging and it can affect every aspect of a person's life. It can lead to terrible eating disorders and a dysfunctional relationship with food and massive depression. If you're truly concerned for people and their health, emphasize that you want them to be healthy, not less fat.
This is a health issue, a public health issue, but guess what? So is depression and eating disorders. Don't create a new public health issue while trying to solve another. If you're going to tell anyone anything this holiday season for their own good, tell them to be healthy.
The blog argues that a tough love approach is needed in order to combat obesity, which is an increasingly large, pardon the pun, problem around the world. But the very notion that a frank discussion of how fat a person has gotten is going to lead to productive results is flawed and ridiculous.
First of all, if a person in your family turns to you at the dinner table and tells you that you should lose a few pounds, your first inclination is probably to tell them to go to hell. This inclination is entirely correct and justified. You are well within your rights to react this way and end the discussion.
Second of all, if you really want a person to take an interest in their health, you should encourage them to be healthy. It's a general misconception out there that skinny equals healthy. There are many skinny people who eat badly or don't exercise, but the consequences don't hang off their belts. It's usually good genetics or bone structure, but as infuriating as it may be, it does not mean that they are de facto healthy. They can be just as prone to high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes or cancers if their lifestyle habits don't add up.
The same can be said for bigger people as well. Just because they tip the scale in the opposite direction, doesn't mean that they aren't healthy or active. Skinny also doesn't equate happy- an active lifestyle, balanced diet and a general feeling of satisfaction with ones life doesn't just come from being skinny.
And if you're seriously concerned about someone's health, try being healthy yourself. Be a good example. Be the conscientious host who offers veggie and fruit platters and sparkling water at events. Don't load up the table with fatty foods and then tell people that they can lose a few. It's a great way to anger family and alienate friends to tell them that they're fat.
One final point and this is indicative of a larger problem in today's world: you don't want to shame people into losing weight. When you tell someone that they're fat, guess what happens to their sense of self worth? This process of shaming people who are overweight leads to negative body imaging and it can affect every aspect of a person's life. It can lead to terrible eating disorders and a dysfunctional relationship with food and massive depression. If you're truly concerned for people and their health, emphasize that you want them to be healthy, not less fat.
This is a health issue, a public health issue, but guess what? So is depression and eating disorders. Don't create a new public health issue while trying to solve another. If you're going to tell anyone anything this holiday season for their own good, tell them to be healthy.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Are We Too Cool for Santa?
A recent outburst by a Santa hater on Fox News has created a buzz and re-ignited the debate as to whether or not Santa exists. In a not so Miracle on 34th street style, news anchor Robin Robinson ranted to Chicago viewers that kids should be told as soon as they can talk that Santa doesn't exist and doesn't bring them presents or come down the chimney or eat cookies. She later apologized for possibly scarring Chicago children for life by stating that she hadn't intended to give her little outburst without a parental advisory warning.
Of course, the damage has likely already been done, both to the children and to her reputation as a reasonable, fair-minded news reporter- oh wait, she works for Fox. Never mind.
But it does bring to mind an interesting point. Should children be told as soon as they can talk that Santa doesn't exist? Assuming of course that the ability to talk makes them sophisticated, reasonable adults with common sense who will not be shattered by the end of a loveable myth held near and dear to their little hearts with images of peace, love and some guy with a beard raiding the fridge for a Coke.
Perhaps in the newly intellectual, high tech age where everyone is so self aware and well educated on just about every subject on the planet thanks to Wikipedia, perhaps humanity has evolved to the point where they don't need to be lied to with heart-warming artificial made up stories. Perhaps this cynical generation of people don't need naive beliefs and hopes.
Perhaps it's good enough that they have Harry Potter and Twilight to provide those things. Maybe Santa doesn't do it for people anymore. Maybe we've gotten too cool for Santa?
It's funny that a generation of people enthralled by boy wizards and vampire love triangles somehow thinks that a man in a sleigh who delivers presents is stretching it a bit.
Unless Santa is really a boy wizard with elf ears from Middle Earth who competes for the love of a fair damsel by delivering presents around the world, a feat that could never be accomplished by the vampire love interest of the same said damsel? Now there's something that we could probably sell. Of course, it would have to be a book first, then a badly cast movie and finally, it would have to have a prequel.
I call movie rights.
Of course, the damage has likely already been done, both to the children and to her reputation as a reasonable, fair-minded news reporter- oh wait, she works for Fox. Never mind.
But it does bring to mind an interesting point. Should children be told as soon as they can talk that Santa doesn't exist? Assuming of course that the ability to talk makes them sophisticated, reasonable adults with common sense who will not be shattered by the end of a loveable myth held near and dear to their little hearts with images of peace, love and some guy with a beard raiding the fridge for a Coke.
Perhaps in the newly intellectual, high tech age where everyone is so self aware and well educated on just about every subject on the planet thanks to Wikipedia, perhaps humanity has evolved to the point where they don't need to be lied to with heart-warming artificial made up stories. Perhaps this cynical generation of people don't need naive beliefs and hopes.
Perhaps it's good enough that they have Harry Potter and Twilight to provide those things. Maybe Santa doesn't do it for people anymore. Maybe we've gotten too cool for Santa?
It's funny that a generation of people enthralled by boy wizards and vampire love triangles somehow thinks that a man in a sleigh who delivers presents is stretching it a bit.
Unless Santa is really a boy wizard with elf ears from Middle Earth who competes for the love of a fair damsel by delivering presents around the world, a feat that could never be accomplished by the vampire love interest of the same said damsel? Now there's something that we could probably sell. Of course, it would have to be a book first, then a badly cast movie and finally, it would have to have a prequel.
I call movie rights.
Donor Beware
We all want to help make a difference in the world and help out. That's why charitable giving is one of those things that we all try to do if we can, even in tough economic times. But the world of charitable giving is fraught with problems and people are becoming more and more wary.
It was revealed today that Japan is using part of its funds from the tsunami relief fund to subsidize their annual whale hunt. While they argue that the whale hunt is for research purposes, the hunt ultimately ends with the death of animals and the sale of their meat. This has caused conservationists to get up in arms, but the fact that this practice, which clearly has a commercial value to it, is being subsidized by aid money, is frustrating.
So little of the aid money that we give in times of crisis seems to go to helping actual people. The subsidy will likely indirectly benefit victims of the tsunami by pumping some revenue to stricken areas, and it probably accounts for very little of the total aid received, but it points to a much larger problem with aid. Donors don't know where it goes, who makes the decisions how it's spent and who actually benefits.
And yet, the need to help others is strong, particularly when a natural disaster occurs causing unnecessary suffering. Do organizations take unfair advantage of these very human feelings to advance other causes? It's a true cause for concern for everyone, and it's not just limited to natural disasters. Initiatives for poverty alleviation and medical research within our own communities are also suspect. Some of the largest charitable organizations are now run as businesses with CEOs who make salaries comparable to bankers. How does that seem justified?
This is not to say that we should stop giving to charitable causes. But we might all want to be more aware of what's going on within the organizations that are soliciting us for donations. Like corporations, charities should be held accountable for the way that money is spent and their CEOs should be encouraged to literally spread the wealth by not accepting such large paycheques. We should all be choosing organizations that are making better use of our dollars.
It was revealed today that Japan is using part of its funds from the tsunami relief fund to subsidize their annual whale hunt. While they argue that the whale hunt is for research purposes, the hunt ultimately ends with the death of animals and the sale of their meat. This has caused conservationists to get up in arms, but the fact that this practice, which clearly has a commercial value to it, is being subsidized by aid money, is frustrating.
So little of the aid money that we give in times of crisis seems to go to helping actual people. The subsidy will likely indirectly benefit victims of the tsunami by pumping some revenue to stricken areas, and it probably accounts for very little of the total aid received, but it points to a much larger problem with aid. Donors don't know where it goes, who makes the decisions how it's spent and who actually benefits.
And yet, the need to help others is strong, particularly when a natural disaster occurs causing unnecessary suffering. Do organizations take unfair advantage of these very human feelings to advance other causes? It's a true cause for concern for everyone, and it's not just limited to natural disasters. Initiatives for poverty alleviation and medical research within our own communities are also suspect. Some of the largest charitable organizations are now run as businesses with CEOs who make salaries comparable to bankers. How does that seem justified?
This is not to say that we should stop giving to charitable causes. But we might all want to be more aware of what's going on within the organizations that are soliciting us for donations. Like corporations, charities should be held accountable for the way that money is spent and their CEOs should be encouraged to literally spread the wealth by not accepting such large paycheques. We should all be choosing organizations that are making better use of our dollars.
Being Real Sucks
I give up.
That's it. I simply give up.
It all started with an innocent flipping through a silly gossip magazine and coming across pictures and a scanty article on the Victoria Secret models diet secrets, which includes juice fasts, eating for blood type and eliminating all intake of liquids and solids for 8 hours straight. I suspected as a reasonable person that this was dangerous, so I casually consulted a health care professional, she being my best friend who had come over for dinner one night, on the health implications of no solids or liquids in the amount of time that is equivalent to a North American working day. She confirmed that the effects of dehydration of this type includes all the usual consequences, such as light-headedness, weakness and death.
Fair enough. We're not all going to be lingerie models, we shouldn't all be lingerie models, and a lot of us wouldn't accept millions of dollars in exchange for that kind of punishment.
Then I came across an online article which states that H & M is computer generating their perfect models. We've all heard about air-brushing and trimming curves in pictures to 'enhance' models, but H & M is taking it one step farther by actually designing these perfect 10s and then pasting clothes on them. It's like a sick virtual online dress up party.
At this point, I'm about ready to put my head in the oven with a platter of Christmas cookies.
So it's not news to me that the fashion industry is all about making me feel bad about my body in an effort to increase my appetite for expensive clothes to compensate for my lack of physical perfection. What's really killing me is the idea that competition to be the body beautiful is so fierce that even real people can't meet the standards anymore.
H & M is insisting that they don't want to push perfect body image-they simply want to show off the clothes. If that was the case, the clothes should really speak for themselves, and possibly should be hung on hangers, unless those hangers need to be further digitally enhanced for not being thin enough.
The virtual world has already dashed the hopes of lots of real women. The constant competition with virtual girlfriends in countries like Japan, the constant competition with online games for attention from real boyfriends when we're lucky enough to have them, the constant threat of Facebook seekers looking to re-connect with exes and now computer generated goddesses. It's no wonder that I want to give up.
People will say that a real person can't be replaced- but we're being replaced all of the time. If it's not for a virtual person connecting online, it's for a computer generated image which has no place in reality. Being real sucks.
I'm going now to pick up a book. Made with paper.
That's it. I simply give up.
It all started with an innocent flipping through a silly gossip magazine and coming across pictures and a scanty article on the Victoria Secret models diet secrets, which includes juice fasts, eating for blood type and eliminating all intake of liquids and solids for 8 hours straight. I suspected as a reasonable person that this was dangerous, so I casually consulted a health care professional, she being my best friend who had come over for dinner one night, on the health implications of no solids or liquids in the amount of time that is equivalent to a North American working day. She confirmed that the effects of dehydration of this type includes all the usual consequences, such as light-headedness, weakness and death.
Fair enough. We're not all going to be lingerie models, we shouldn't all be lingerie models, and a lot of us wouldn't accept millions of dollars in exchange for that kind of punishment.
Then I came across an online article which states that H & M is computer generating their perfect models. We've all heard about air-brushing and trimming curves in pictures to 'enhance' models, but H & M is taking it one step farther by actually designing these perfect 10s and then pasting clothes on them. It's like a sick virtual online dress up party.
At this point, I'm about ready to put my head in the oven with a platter of Christmas cookies.
So it's not news to me that the fashion industry is all about making me feel bad about my body in an effort to increase my appetite for expensive clothes to compensate for my lack of physical perfection. What's really killing me is the idea that competition to be the body beautiful is so fierce that even real people can't meet the standards anymore.
H & M is insisting that they don't want to push perfect body image-they simply want to show off the clothes. If that was the case, the clothes should really speak for themselves, and possibly should be hung on hangers, unless those hangers need to be further digitally enhanced for not being thin enough.
The virtual world has already dashed the hopes of lots of real women. The constant competition with virtual girlfriends in countries like Japan, the constant competition with online games for attention from real boyfriends when we're lucky enough to have them, the constant threat of Facebook seekers looking to re-connect with exes and now computer generated goddesses. It's no wonder that I want to give up.
People will say that a real person can't be replaced- but we're being replaced all of the time. If it's not for a virtual person connecting online, it's for a computer generated image which has no place in reality. Being real sucks.
I'm going now to pick up a book. Made with paper.
Friday, November 25, 2011
The War on Christmas
The Colbert Christmas special last year featured country star Toby Keith singing a song about the War on Christmas, where he denounces the change from Christmas to Holiday and tries to take back Christmas for the Christians. It's a great song and a great Christmas special in the spirit of Colbert's hilarious and biting social commentary. But it looks like Toby's going to have more to sing about this year, as the Occupy Wall Street Movement announces their latest venture: Occupy Christmas.
Abdusters magazine is calling for Occupy Christmas to be launched today, Black Friday in the US, where there's already been one story of a woman in LA using pepper spray to ward off other shoppers looking for deals. This story would probably have more sway if it wasn't in LA where most people are crazy anyway, but it does reinforce what greed has done to people today and that gives one point to the Occupiers.
One point against the Occupiers? Well, launching an offensive against a season which is traditionally known for peace and goodwill is not the greatest PR move. True, Adbusters is targeting the mountains of presents left for entitled greedy children and the spirit of empty consumerism and waste that spoils the holidays. But the reason why this movement is going to fail is because that is not the way the rest of us tend to see it.
The Occupy Wall Street movement resonates with people because it attacks social injustice and the widening gap between the rich and the poor. It's a battle between the haves and the have nots. But the point of Occupy Wall Street is not to turn us into a society of have nots; it's to bridge the gap and give everyone a fair chance at a good life where they don't have to struggle for the basics. It harkens to the spirit of 'we want bread, but we want roses too.'
Fair enough. But Christmas isn't a social justice issue. The most meaningful aspects of Christmas remains the same for the majority of people: getting together with friends and families, giving to charity, watching Christmas specials on tv, baking gingerbread cookies. These things are for everyone, not just the rich elite.
The Occupy movement should be focused on what it was intended to do: fight the power on Wall street and make the big banks accountable to the people whose tax dollars bailed them out in the midst of a financial crisis. There can be some important social changes, changes to government and policy as a result of this movement and more important of all, a change in attitude when it comes to how society should treat its people.
If anything, the Occupy movement would do best by embracing Christmas. The real Christmas, which is all about giving to others, and not just in the form of gifts. Not only will people resent a raining of their Christmas parade, they are likely to misinterpret it as an attack on a cherished holiday. Adbusters is quick to point out that they don't protest the religious spirit or the giving spirit of the holiday, but that's not the way that most people are going to view it.
Occupy Christmas is a bold statement and that's clearly what they want. But it's not going to help the cause. Occupiers should be celebrating with everyone else and asking them to do so moderately.
Abdusters magazine is calling for Occupy Christmas to be launched today, Black Friday in the US, where there's already been one story of a woman in LA using pepper spray to ward off other shoppers looking for deals. This story would probably have more sway if it wasn't in LA where most people are crazy anyway, but it does reinforce what greed has done to people today and that gives one point to the Occupiers.
One point against the Occupiers? Well, launching an offensive against a season which is traditionally known for peace and goodwill is not the greatest PR move. True, Adbusters is targeting the mountains of presents left for entitled greedy children and the spirit of empty consumerism and waste that spoils the holidays. But the reason why this movement is going to fail is because that is not the way the rest of us tend to see it.
The Occupy Wall Street movement resonates with people because it attacks social injustice and the widening gap between the rich and the poor. It's a battle between the haves and the have nots. But the point of Occupy Wall Street is not to turn us into a society of have nots; it's to bridge the gap and give everyone a fair chance at a good life where they don't have to struggle for the basics. It harkens to the spirit of 'we want bread, but we want roses too.'
Fair enough. But Christmas isn't a social justice issue. The most meaningful aspects of Christmas remains the same for the majority of people: getting together with friends and families, giving to charity, watching Christmas specials on tv, baking gingerbread cookies. These things are for everyone, not just the rich elite.
The Occupy movement should be focused on what it was intended to do: fight the power on Wall street and make the big banks accountable to the people whose tax dollars bailed them out in the midst of a financial crisis. There can be some important social changes, changes to government and policy as a result of this movement and more important of all, a change in attitude when it comes to how society should treat its people.
If anything, the Occupy movement would do best by embracing Christmas. The real Christmas, which is all about giving to others, and not just in the form of gifts. Not only will people resent a raining of their Christmas parade, they are likely to misinterpret it as an attack on a cherished holiday. Adbusters is quick to point out that they don't protest the religious spirit or the giving spirit of the holiday, but that's not the way that most people are going to view it.
Occupy Christmas is a bold statement and that's clearly what they want. But it's not going to help the cause. Occupiers should be celebrating with everyone else and asking them to do so moderately.
Friday, November 18, 2011
The Wheels on the Bus Are Falling Off
OC Transpo and the city of Ottawa transit riders are at it again and this time, it's all out war. With the 2010 Ottawa bus strike fresh in the minds of everyone in the city, it's galling to see that the union representing the bus drivers is threatening once again to strike a year later after what they called a 'witch hunt' of its employees.
Labelling Ottawa transit riders as a torch and pitchfork mob is not exactly going to endear them to the public. But then again, there was zero public sympathy for the drivers when they went on strike in the winter of 2010, timing the strike to fall in the coldest months of the year and just in time to spoil the holidays. They stranded seniors, low income people and students during a time of crazy snow falls, exams and what should have been peak holiday shopping and get togethers.
Compounding the problem with an obnoxious attitude and no sign of compromise, the union kept digging its own grave by making statements that were anything but sympathetic for stranded riders. Now, the union is back at it in the media, claiming that they can stop all the buses with a flick of their fingers.
Let's consider the recent OC Transpo stories, both of which can be found on youtube:
The singing bus driver: riders complained to OC Transpo management that they found this singing bus driver annoying. He was told to stop. He stopped, even though many others said that they found his singing to be delight and if you watch the video, he's incredibly charming. Rare for a bus driver of any kind. But the complaints of the few meant no more singing for the many who enjoyed it. OC Transpo stated that professionalism was their top priority and that they had to silence him.
The swearing bus driver: the online video is supposed to portray an angry bus driver screaming at a semi-autistic teenager, even calling him retard and swearing profusely. While there's controversy about the context of this video, it's pretty clear that this is a rude man on the edge, talking in a way that many of us would never tolerate. In the interest of maintaining professionalism, OC Transpo wants to fire this bus driver. The union leader for OC Transpo has now proclaimed that there's a witch hunt and is threatening to strike.
So much for professionalism.
What does it say about the city of Ottawa when a union defends a screaming swearing employee against the public and management and declares a witch hunt?
OC Transpo is not the transit of choice in Ottawa. It's the only transit in Ottawa. There is no competing transit service, there is no complimentary service like a metro and there is no other commuter train or tram or streetcar. It is the transit for low income, students, seniors, mentally ill, or for those people who simply choose not to drive.
The amount of urban sprawl occurring in Ottawa due to sky-rocketing property tax and million dollar condos has driven most Ottawans out to Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans because there is no affordable housing downtown. It's only natural that transit is going to be considered a have-to rather than a want-to option.
So most people aren't happy about riding the bus in the first place. And it's probably not a pleasant job to have. But the attitude that bus drivers for the most part are giving to their riders is that they see us as nothing more than chattle. And we aren't chattle. We deserve better.
Transit riders aren't asking bus drivers to be singing happy people. We're not even asking them to be pleasant to us at all. We just want them to do their job and treat us with a minimum amount of respect and not call strike on us every time that something bad happens to them.
All of us are accountable in our jobs if we blow our tops or lash out at our client base when working with the public. You know what happens to us in that situation? We get fired. We don't have people step in to defend us or call for action. OC Transpo should learn to be accountable as well, even though they clearly have no vested interest in serving us well, as there is no competition of any sort.
Transit is becoming a fight in Ottawa. It's time that the city intervene and legislate it. Transit shouldn't be a fight. It's a right. We can't all walk, drive and bike year round. Although with the way things are going, most of us probably want to.
Labelling Ottawa transit riders as a torch and pitchfork mob is not exactly going to endear them to the public. But then again, there was zero public sympathy for the drivers when they went on strike in the winter of 2010, timing the strike to fall in the coldest months of the year and just in time to spoil the holidays. They stranded seniors, low income people and students during a time of crazy snow falls, exams and what should have been peak holiday shopping and get togethers.
Compounding the problem with an obnoxious attitude and no sign of compromise, the union kept digging its own grave by making statements that were anything but sympathetic for stranded riders. Now, the union is back at it in the media, claiming that they can stop all the buses with a flick of their fingers.
Let's consider the recent OC Transpo stories, both of which can be found on youtube:
The singing bus driver: riders complained to OC Transpo management that they found this singing bus driver annoying. He was told to stop. He stopped, even though many others said that they found his singing to be delight and if you watch the video, he's incredibly charming. Rare for a bus driver of any kind. But the complaints of the few meant no more singing for the many who enjoyed it. OC Transpo stated that professionalism was their top priority and that they had to silence him.
The swearing bus driver: the online video is supposed to portray an angry bus driver screaming at a semi-autistic teenager, even calling him retard and swearing profusely. While there's controversy about the context of this video, it's pretty clear that this is a rude man on the edge, talking in a way that many of us would never tolerate. In the interest of maintaining professionalism, OC Transpo wants to fire this bus driver. The union leader for OC Transpo has now proclaimed that there's a witch hunt and is threatening to strike.
So much for professionalism.
What does it say about the city of Ottawa when a union defends a screaming swearing employee against the public and management and declares a witch hunt?
OC Transpo is not the transit of choice in Ottawa. It's the only transit in Ottawa. There is no competing transit service, there is no complimentary service like a metro and there is no other commuter train or tram or streetcar. It is the transit for low income, students, seniors, mentally ill, or for those people who simply choose not to drive.
The amount of urban sprawl occurring in Ottawa due to sky-rocketing property tax and million dollar condos has driven most Ottawans out to Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans because there is no affordable housing downtown. It's only natural that transit is going to be considered a have-to rather than a want-to option.
So most people aren't happy about riding the bus in the first place. And it's probably not a pleasant job to have. But the attitude that bus drivers for the most part are giving to their riders is that they see us as nothing more than chattle. And we aren't chattle. We deserve better.
Transit riders aren't asking bus drivers to be singing happy people. We're not even asking them to be pleasant to us at all. We just want them to do their job and treat us with a minimum amount of respect and not call strike on us every time that something bad happens to them.
All of us are accountable in our jobs if we blow our tops or lash out at our client base when working with the public. You know what happens to us in that situation? We get fired. We don't have people step in to defend us or call for action. OC Transpo should learn to be accountable as well, even though they clearly have no vested interest in serving us well, as there is no competition of any sort.
Transit is becoming a fight in Ottawa. It's time that the city intervene and legislate it. Transit shouldn't be a fight. It's a right. We can't all walk, drive and bike year round. Although with the way things are going, most of us probably want to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)