Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts

Monday, April 20, 2020

Major Cracks in Human Resources and Management in the American Grocery Industry Made Transparent during the Coronavirus Pandemic

For a certain personality-type, character, or mentality, it is easy to blame other people while remaining silent on one’s own mistakes (and mentality). This approach can be particularly harmful during a pandemic, for one’s own mistakes could be passing on the infectious illness. Such mistakes include refusing to maintain a physical distance from other people in public places and retail stores. As noxious as the blaming is, a more significant anthropological point may be that as a social and habitual animal, the human being may not be mentally advanced enough to keep a distance from other such animals even for self-preservation. I don’t think the instinctual urge for socializing exhausts the explanation, for the failure (and even refusal) to respect others enough to keep at a distance even when they ask surely involves weakness that manifests psychologically beyond merely having a bad attitude. Not even the artificial organizational-management systems our species has established are a match for the toxicity of a weakness that is even just passively aggressive toward other people. I contend that American management is susceptible to an even more severe weakness; one that foists organizational power as a club even on customers. 

In mid-April, 2020, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, “some worker experts, union leaders and small grocery store owners” were claiming that it had “become too dangerous to let customers browse aisles, coming into close range with workers.”[1] The president of the United Food and Commercial Workers’ union pointed to “careless customers” as “probably the biggest threat” to the workers.[2] According to that union, “85% of its grocery store member workers reported that customers” were not literally going even a bit out of their way to maintain a physical distance from other shoppers and employees.[3] With supermarkets struggling to convince customers to wear masks, the union's president also said that he was urging grocery stores to make masks mandatory not only for employees, but also customers. "Everyone must wear masks," he insisted. [4] Too many customers were endangering lives. Wearing a surgical or handmade mask could not prevent the virus from being inhaled; rather, such a mask prevents the mask wearer from sneezing or coughing near another person, increasing the likelihood of infecting him or her (infection could also result from breathing regardless of whether masks are being worn). In other words, wearing a mask protects other people, so not wearing one does not indicate a weakened motive of self-preservation, but, rather, a lack of consideration and even empathy for other people. It is quite selfish, as is walking or standing by another person. 

From my own experience in several Albertsons, Kroger, Target, and Sprouts stores in Phoenix, Arizona, I saw the vast majority of customers—perhaps all of them—fitting within the union’s statistic on the lack of physical distancing. 

This customer headed directly toward me. I asked him to maintain a distance and reminded him that the aisle is one-way due to the pandemic. He showed disgust, but turned around. Disgust at me, rather than recognition that he was in the wrong. Presumptuousness on top of not being responsible. 

                                                    

                                                            



In fact, I encountered a few customers who verbally lashed out at me for asking them to keep a distance due to the pandemic as they were about to closely approach me and thus blatantly dismiss the two-carts-apart policy of the stores. In one case, the Albertsons  (Safeway) store manager was very near and yet in spite of having witnessed the violation, he refused to chastise the customer not only for violating the store’s policy of “social” distancing, but also being verbally aggressive toward me. “I think we should just let it go,” the manager told me as I looked at him in utter astonishment.


At another Safeway store, a customer headed directly at me and refused to back up, even to let me back to the products where I had been. Then he assaulted me by slamming my cart until it blocked the aisle. The sordid Phoenix police, whom I asked be called, turned it on me. I had assaulted the customer by blocking the aisle! The contrarian attitude of the seven or eight police who responded to my initiated call was as obvious as their confrontational postures toward the victim--me!

In fact, I had not seen one employee or manager of a grocery store bother to enforce the policy of “social” distancing since the U.S. Center of Disease Control issued guidelines and the Arizona government issued an order to maintain a physical distance of six feet from other people unless necessary. With regard to the masks, and I submit on the distancing too, stores generally were "reluctant to antagonize customers by turning them away."[5] According to a Wegman's spokesperson, the chain wanted to minimize "the likelihood of conflicts in our stores" and would "not put our people in the position of having to deny entry to our stores," even in states where masks in public settings are required.[6] In other words, the company's management was not even willing to conform to government orders. I saw the same refusal at Albertsons, Kroger, and Sprouts stores in Arizona. In Los Angeles in neighboring California, customers had to wear masks or coverings in stores, but Kroger (Ralphs) was not enforcing the government order. In fact, a store manager reprimanded an employee for having asked a customer to wear a mask. "I was told that it was none of my business and that I was not the mask police," the employee later reported.[7] She was being quite reasonable in wanting to protect herself. 

At the time, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Hawaii, Miami (Florida) Austin (Texas), Washington, D.C. and some others had orders mandating that grocery shoppers wear face coverings or masks in the stores, yet no penalties go to noncomplying customers or stores. Only a handful of smaller grocers in the U.S. were requiring customers to wear masks. The medium and large companies, however, were putting expediency on revenue before the safety of two major stakeholders: the employees and customers. 

Such stakeholder management is unethical because it prioritizes company gain even at a time when the business was good before the very lives of others. Yes, even employees can be thought of as others to a company's management that is oriented to the company's profits and executive bonuses. Utilitarianism is violated because the greatest good is not provided to the greatest number (of people). Even were a major chain to risk going out of business by enforcing physical distance and mask-wearing on customers, the industry was too important during the pandemic not to get money from the U.S. Government. So the executives' mindset was one of selfish enrichment over consideration and even empathy for others who could suffer greatly and even die as a result. Hume's theory of moral sentiment has it that the sentiment of moral disapprobation that people would naturally feel looking at the sordid refusals to enforce even government orders is the moral judgment against the companies. Kant would point out that the executives (and store managers) were not treating those put at risk as not just means, but also as ends in themselves (for they are rational beings worthy of intrinsic value). 

To be sure, I had seen plenty of employees and even store managers violating their own company's policy on physical distancing both between themselves and as inflicted on customers through callious disregard. Such behavior is also unethical.

For example, a store manager of a Sprouts store, whose nitch was supposedly still healthy foods, stood just behind an employee who could not wait a few seconds until I would emerge from the narrow hallway from the bathrooms to enter without passing me at close range. “He tried,” the manager said when I asked the manager why he was not enforcing his store policy (and CDC guideline) on his own employees. As I pivoted to exit the store, I glanced around to see another employee come up right behind me to grab something, with of course her manager looking on. 

The next week, while I was waiting outside far to the left of the entry to the same store, I asked an oncoming employee to keep a distance as she passed by. She did not alter her course. She even hurled insults at me, including, “Maybe you should bring a ruler.” She then said to a customer, who also thought my request had been unreasonable, “There is something wrong with customers who ask me to keep a distance. I get thirty customers everyday asking me to keep a distance.” One implication is that she had not been maintaining physical distance much at all in the store, which implies that the store manager was not enforcing the policy on his employees. This inference is consistent with my observations by then of employees at several Kroger (Frys) and Albertsons (Safeway) grocery stores in Phoenix, Arizona. 


This Kroger (Frys) store manager was not even maintaining a distance from an employee even in just talking. How could it be expected that the manager was enforcing the policy on his employees given that he was not enforcing it on himself?

This Albertsons (Safeway) department head and employee walked close by me twice without a thought between them on the risk they were posing to a customer. 

This Kroger (Frys) employee, who worked at the self-check-out stations (and thus close to customers), lied to me that she had tried to keep a distance from me in an aisle. Walking on the other side of the pillar at the end of the aisle would have counted as trying. 

The Albertsons (Safeway) employee on the left had been even closer to the other employee's face in passing close by before stopping to talk. Two-cart-lengths distance was the store policy and Arizona's guideline.

Not once did I see an employee even move to the other side of an aisle in passing a customer. Not once did I see an employee bother to move out of the way to give a customer some distance. “I’m trying,” one employee told me even though she had not even bothered to move from the center of an aisle when she passed me. I, however, was hugging the other side. I held back from replying, “You’re not trying enough.” I don’t think she was trying at all. She was lying. In general, I had the sense that employees thought it was rude for customers to ask that the store policy be followed. At the very least, employees didn’t want to follow the policy, and their managers were not enforcing it. Even cashiers managed to evade the clear plastic screen between them and the customers checking out. I was speechless when a cashier moved her head around the plastic to hear me better at close range. Apparently she didn't think there was a pandemic going around. Perhaps her store manager had believed that scant training was sufficient for the employees. 

  
The upper sign asks customers not to talk to employees around the edges of the plastic that covers most of the desk area.


The plastic screens at Kroger (Frys) grocery check-out stations are too narrow because the plastic does not cover the area where customers pay even though the distance from the cashier is close. Also, the area at which customers spend considerable time unloading carts and waiting is also too close to the cashier to be unprotected by the plastic. 

This video demonstrates that the plastic screens at check-out are insufficiently narrow because they do not cover the area between the cashier and customer during the payment phase. Even though I told the cashier that she was too close to me, she did not back off while I was paying. Instead, she chastized me for pushing a wrong button on the keypad. "We could be infecting eachother right now," I said. "I know," she replied. 

Even so, as I was taking a photo of the sign ironically just behind her station, the cashier backed away from the next customer as she paid. The cashier was staring at me to present the illusion that she was following the guideline of "social" distancing. I wish she had been less social with me.

Therefore, it would be one-sided to conclude that employees needed more protection from customers because customers also needed protection even though managers and even employees themselves in some cases felt free to inflict on customers asking for such protection. Even more so than refusing to enforce policies and even government orders, aggressively blaming the victim is not a viable long-term strategy for retaining good customers and minimizing the number of bad employees. 

The thought of Friedrich Nietzsche, a nineteenth-century European moral philosopher, anthropologist, and philologist, is useful in providing a deeper explanation. He would say that both the employees and customers were behaving like herd animals too weak to master their base instinctual urges, including selfishness, greed, and the desire to aggressively lash out at other people. Selfishness out of weakness is not necessarily in line with furthering self-preservation; ignoring the physical-distancing policies and guidelines ran contrary to the egoist urge of self-preservation. 

The industry needed ethical leaders willing to go beyond what is convenient and expedient for the companies. Even the head of at least one major labor union sought to blame customers while looking the other way on the sordid lack of regard that at least some members were displaying for customers. Only a child would say, "I won't step out of my way in the least," and then, if caught, lie, "I tried" as the lack of effort had somehow not been noticeable. 

Nor were any of the store managers in the stores that I surveyed leaders, for they were not strong enough to enforce the health guideline and store policy even on employees. Nietzsche would explain those managers as herd animals with an extended urge to dominate without the requisite strength.[8] The indictment, therefore, exposed during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States, is that retail-level managers may not be strong enough to manage stores. Generalizing so from my unscientific sample can of course only be taken as a rough-draft yet to be verified. That I saw the same pattern in every store gives me confidence that I am correct, but here I am on more solid ground in relating my observations to Nietzsche's psychological-anthropological theory. 

According to that theory, the herd animals who cannot resist their urges to dominate even without being strong enough compensate through aggression, including intending to be cruel. In contrast, a strong conqueror does not intend to be cruel, but is instead oriented to overcoming both external and internal obstacles.
 
So I was not completely surprised when an assistant manager with an employee of a Kroger (Frys) store in Phoenix, Arizona stalked me around the store because I had photographed the store manager talking at close distance with one of his employees, an employee who had refused to keep a distance from me, and a customer who had mindlessly come up to me like a herd animal moving on to the next clump of grass. These people, even the manager, violated the store policy (and CDC and state guidelines) on maintaining a physical distance from other people. Neither man was wearing a mask. Had they been more clever, they might have combined their two infractions by walking up to me and sneezing or coughing. 

The (assistant) manager not only felt the need to be confrontational and insulting toward me in a way that indicated that he really wanted to attack a customer, but also missed an opportunity to hear from a customer with proof that the store's employees were serially violating the store's policy on physical distancing--even violating a governmental guideline or order on "social distancing." In other words, the head of a large union was wrong in blaming only the customers! 

A self-confident, strong assistant manager (which may be an oxymoron) in the store would have asked me at the time why I had taken pictures instead of accusing me even though he still didn't know for sure and the management had not posted signs prohibiting photography. I would have explained that I had photographed only some infractions in which I was being but in harm's way, and that the company stood to benefit. Several days later, I had chance, impromptu  meeting in the parking lot of an Albertsons (Safeway) store with a woman who works with the county's Environmental Services department. I learned that her department had no clue that the stores were not enforcing the government guidelines on physical distancing. Referring to my earlier experience at Krogers (Frys), she said my photography was justified. "You were collecting evidence!" I had also been holding my phone up as a possible deterrent (i.e., another customer or employee approaching very near would presumably not want to be photographed). 

And yet, the (asst) manager had been accusatory, and in this sense confrontational as if he had already made up his mind that I was guilty. He and his young sidekick employee were in a hunting mode, so I did not feel comfortable bringing my earlier complaints to them. 
The two men left me, or so I first thought, but the sidekick was keeping an eye on me. Both men waited to pounce on me just after I had paid for the groceries. The assistant manager walked fast to me in an aggressive manner and shouted insults at me as if he were a policeman. "I heard from a customer and employee!" he said in a loud, threatening voice without bothering to even consider that the complainers might have been retaliating against me for getting evidence of their wrong-doing. Instead, he was an extension of their self-righteous fury. 

He even shouted at me to leave the store even though I was already outside! That he was motivated to make the demand even when I was walking away, outside the building, suggested to me that he was motivated to lash out at me for its own sake--for the pleasure that comes from even positional power. Tellingly, even though I was pushing the cart into the parking lot, the manager threatened me, "You need to leave or I'm calling the police!" There was at the time a local law against calling the police for frivolous reasons. "But he was already leaving," the police would have told him. 

Because I was obviously leaving, Nietzsche would say that the man (and his sidekick) was weak which is to say, sick. A strong person would have let the matter go when I was paying for the food and leaving the store rather than act out of resentment and an urge to subdue. A strong manager makes a point and then moves on; a weak manager cannot let go--cannot master--his or her pressing institual urges. Such mastery is the richest source of the pleasure than comes from power--far richer than acting out against a customer already leaving the store. 

The (asst) manager's young sidekick had not kept at a physical distance from me twice when we were inside of the store. That he violated the store policy even as he was questioning me as if he were a detective demonstrates weakness primping itself into dominating inspite of itself. In fact, the seccond time he had come close, I positioned my cart between him and myself (two cart-lengths was the policy, as per the recurring announcement that he presumably had heard often enough). He was stunned that I would protect myself, such was his feeling of entitlement. 


Major cracks in Kroger's human resources and store management occasion smaller cracks in customer's "loyalty" cards.

Nietzsche urges the strong to keep a distance, a pathos of distance, from the weak. If you go to a hospital, you risk getting infected by the sick. So don't hang out in hospitals. Unfortunately, I did not practice enough social distancing from the weak yet aggressive birds of prey at a Kroger Frys store in Phoenix even though the pandemic there had rendered the weakness suddenly blatantly transparent. It is tempting to engage with the birds of prey, but it is a trap, for they lure stronger people in, perhaps out of resentment for the inner weakness that the weak sense, in order not to conquer but instead to inflict. Such invisible birds of prey are infectious in that even the healthy can be beguiled into going down to the birds' acrimonious level. Nietzsche's writing style, which I am reflecting in this paragraph, certainly does not mince words; both the herd animals and those from within who dominate the herd and beguile the strong to dominate them too are sick.  

Physical distancing can thus be distinguished from social distancing; the former is advisable during an infectious pandemic and both kinds of distancing are recommended for a person who is confronted by weak, confrontational (and even aggressive) retail employees and managers. 

To be sure, not all retail employees and managers are weak, but that restless birds of prey survive in retail stores reflects badly on retail companies, including their internal accountability. Put another way, without empirical studies in the stores, it is not possible to know the percentage of workers and managers who have been infected or are innately sick--the weak cannot be but weak, and the strong cannot be other than strong. Yet the severity of the sickness suggests that the company or even the industry is unduly susceptible to the weakness and its being able to even beguile the strong into being dominated in fear. Put another way, the behavior can violate customer service so deeply that the presence of a kind of brain sickness can be inferred. 
The sheer extreme to which the Kroger (asst) store manager and his young sidekick allowed themselves to go in verbally attacking me as I walking toward the main door and even outside of the store, without instead asking why I had used my phone to record the lack of physical distancing in the store by customers, employees, and even a manager, demonstrated to me at least that something was wrong with the two men. They wanted to go beyond insults to be cruel in their aggressive walking after me, scolding me, and threatening me. 

The young sidekick's bizarre behavior was also a red flag concerning his underlying sickness (and mentality). Outside of the store, as I was heading into the parking area, he loudly threatened me, "Taking pictures on private property is Very illegal!" Then he immediately (and fakely) repeatedly thanked me for shopping there! Did he then think he had exercised good customer service? 

He obviously thought he knew the law, as did his boss, even though the company had posted no signs prohibiting photography and I had not used my phone-camera after the two men had initially accosted me in the store (they lied that a customer had complained, hiding that an employee had also complained). Also, as the employee of the county's Environmental Services department later told me, I was not breaking any law recording evidence. Of course, the sidekick would doubtlessly have declared that such taping is illegal! Perhaps I should have called his bluff. In hindsight, I wish I had taped the (asst) manager and his sidekick shouting at me from the check-out area to the parking area. Evidence! Perhaps it was out of fear of this that the manager threatened that he would call the police even though I was leaving anyway. At the time, I didn't want to trigger the aggressive birds beaming down from their perches. In actuality, the customers should be on perches!

It is interesting that an employee and customer who were violating the store policy (and government guidelines) on physical distancing  decided to retaliate against me by reporting on me rather than cease their problematic, and perhaps even dangerous, inconsiderate conduct. I held my phone up in part to dissuade them from continuing to proceed so closely to me (I also asked them, but they refused), but to no avail. They were oblivious to what they were doing, but not to what I was doing. I submit that they felt resentment--ressentiment--rather than remorse; they lashed out, rather than offered even just an apology.  They would thus be likely to continue their risky behavior. 

I contend that the mentality was by 2020 so ingrained in Arizona that the government's guidelines on physical distancing were insufficient, given the people there. Even an order would have had to be enforced by law enforcement, especially as the stores were not willing to enforce even their own policies on wearing masks because doing so could compromise earnings. 

The mentality was so prevalent among the general public (notably in the middle and lower economic classes) in at least Tucson and the Phoenix metropolitan area that aggressiveness toward strangers was very apparent to people new to Arizona. "The people here are mean as rattlesnakes," one person told me. The people native to Arizona have blamed people coming in from other U.S. states, but even such convenient deflection is actually part of the culture in the state where cacti prick. In fact, culture-shock in moving to a major city in Arizona includes adjusting to the obvious "police state" mentality, wherein security guards and the police easily partake of the excess aggression. Overly, and I suspect intentionally visible security guards even standing next to an off-duty police employee were not uncommon at Albertsons (Frys) stores in Phoenix. As this was not the case at other grocery chains there, I submit that desire to intimidate customers is a revealing part of Albertsons' corporate culture in Arizona. That is, the company's culture there reflected the societal culture.  


A security guard stands in a confrontational stance at an Albertsons (Frys) store in Phoenix, Arizona. 

The (assistant) manager and his sidekick were clearly at home in such a societal and corporate culture. At the store level at least, it was permissible to intimidate customers by an excessive show of even police force on a routine basis and verbally and physically harass customers. It is not the sort of company culture that would be conducive to managers and employees mastering their sordid instinctual urge of aggression. The instinct to be considerate towards other people, on the other hand, would not receive its due respect. 

In being so motivated to be unnecessarily aggressive toward me because an employee had complained, the (asst) manager was enabling the employee's sick game. Two birds of a feather fly together, Nietzsche would say. The healthy cannot be blamed for cutting up their store cards in order to maintain a pathos of distance from the sick. Strength can only be frustrated by weakness. This is the epitomy of the sickness that Nietzsche describes in his texts.  

So in proclaiming the law as if he could not be wrong about it and assuming that customers should know that the company prohibits photography without being told or seeing any signs posted, the sidekick not only demonstrated his ignorance, but also lashed out at me. At the very least, this anadote strongly suggests that retail is susceptible to weakness wanting to dominate even the people to be served. In fact, the managerial role itself may be susceptible as control is so salient.[9]

In the Kroger store, two birds of prey flied too close to me, literally circling me and hovering within the store and pursuing me as if I were their prey outside, as they smelled an opportunity to eke out a bit of pleasure from inflicting repressed ire (sourced in self-resentment, which is deeper than the resentment against the strong) on a customer. Customers conveniently look weaker to faint, greedy eyes from the birds' soiled perches. I regret not having photographed the birds so you too could be astonished at the severity of the sickness of the weak, but I promise the manager and his sidekick were nothing to look at. 


[1] Nathaniel Meyersohn, “Experts Say It May Be Time for Grocery Stores to Ban Customers from Coming Inside,” CNN.com, April 19, 2020 (accessed same day).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Nathaniel Meyersohn, "Stores Want Shoppers to Wear Masks. But Some Customers Refuse," CNN.com, April 23, 2020.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Skip Worden, On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzschean Critique of Business Ethics and Management.
[9] Ibid.


Wednesday, May 15, 2019

The FAA Deferred to Boeing on the 737 MAX Jet

After a misfiring-prone automatic stall-prevention device on the 737 MAX jet had caused two accidents in which 346 people died, an internal review at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, a regulatory agency, found that the regulators had relied too much on Boeing employees to conduct the safety inspections of the planes. Incredibly, Congress expanded the industry-reliance practice of the agency in 2018. Both the FAA and Congress were admittedly motivated by the added efficiency that such “sub-contracting” could bring. However, to focus on the economic benefit while ignoring the inherent (and obvious) conflict of interest in “sub-contracting” to the very companies that are regulated by the FAA is itself a red flag. A subservient or over-reliant regulatory agency cannot be a check on a company’s claims of not having sacrificed safety or even safety checks in order to focus more on profitability.  Of course, the political influence of a large company such as Boeing may have played a role in the FAA’s “back-seat” approach, but in this case the government’s own interest in stretching the coverage of its human resources may have been dominant. That such an interest could involve minimizing or ignoring outright such a blatant conflict of interest may point to a wider culture in which institutional conflicts of interest are presumed to be innocuous or even benign rather than too toxic to permit even if they have not been actively exploited.  

During the FAA certification process for the 737 MAX, Boeing didn’t flag the automated stall-prevention feature as a system whose malfunction or failure could cause a catastrophic event.”[1] The FAA’s report does not point to any fabrication on the part of the company. The problem is that “FAA engineers and midlevel managers deferred to Boeing’s early safety classification.”[2] No check on the company’s determination could be in such deference. It is astounding that managers at a regulatory agency could have neglected or ignored this basic point, which gets at the raison d’etre of any regulatory agency. C’est vraiment incroyable.

In fact, the company’s initial safety classification allowed “company experts to conduct subsequent analyses of potential hazards with limited agency oversight.”[3] The operative assumption in this practice seems to be that experts cannot be initially wrong, or that they could eventually catch their own errors, and that such experts are not subject to pressure from managers to get the planes in the air and generating revenue that can at least cover payments on the planes themselves.

Even worse, the FAA classified certain Boeing employees as “designated agency representatives.”[4] Employees of a regulated company cannot represent the regulatory agency, for such a designation is itself an institutional conflict of interest. It is, in effect, to designate one wolf as a police-wolf around a hen house! How can this not be obvious? I submit that only in a permissive culture can such blind-spots thrive. The FAA’s practice of designating some employees of regulated companies as being able “to act for the agency” was set up by the FAA and “endorsed and expanded” by Congress with “the aim of freeing up government resources to focus on what are deemed the most important and complex safety matters.”[5] Was not something that had killed hundreds of people an important safety matter? FAA managers might retort, “But we didn’t know this except in hindsight.” Exactly. This is precisely what minimizing or ignoring a huge conflict of interest can do.

See Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available at Amazon.

[1] Andy Paztor, Andrew Tangel, and Alison Sider, “FAA Left 737 MAX Review to Boeing,” The Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2019.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., italics added.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

The Arrest of a Senator in Georgia’s Capitol: A Sign of a Growing Authoritarian Police-State in America?

Sen. Nikema Williams (D-Atlanta) of the Georgia Senate “was arrested along with more than a dozen other protesters” at the Georgia Capitol on November 14, 2018.[1] The demonstration asked Georgia’s government to count every vote in the gubernatorial election. As a civil rights advocate, Williams had organized domestic workers for Stacy Abrams when she was running for Governor. Protesters shouted, “Let her go!” as the Capitol police handcuffed Sen. Williams and led her from the rotunda. No sitting legislatures in Wisconsin had been arrested (as far as I know) when huge constituent protests erupted in the Wisconsin rotunda against Gov. Scott Walker’s successful effort to remove collective-bargaining from powers of public sector unions there. As odd it may be for the police of a Capitol building to arrest a sitting senator, the observations of another senator, who witnessed the arrest, are even more chilling concerning an ominous trend then well underway in American cities.
Rep. David Dreyer (D-Atlanta) of the General Assembly, which was in session at the time, later said he had gone down to the rotunda about the same time as Williams, “but for some reason, Sen. Williams was treated differently than I was treated.”[2] He was insinuating the presence of racism in the Capitol police. “Because of our system, because of the bias and the way that our laws are enforced, just like I went down with Sen. Williams to try to de-escalate the situation, Sen. Williams was taken away,” he said. “We understand she’s been left in a van for a very long time on a cold and rainy day.”[3] Was there political pressure on the police to teach the senator a lesson? The gubernatorial election had been called for Brian Kemp, before which he had lost several court cases over “his attempts to block voters of color from the polls.”[4] In other words, as secretary of state, the Republican had not only exploited a giant yet virtually ignored conflict of interest in being the head of elections in Georgia even as he was a candidate for the highest office. It is thus conceivable that he pressured the Capitol police to arrest his former rival for the governorship—maybe even to punish her for having stood up to him in contesting his conflict of interest.
Yet beyond race and garden-variety partisanship, what more Rep. Dreyer had to say is even more critical in terms of Americans’ daily lives. “For some reason,” he continued, “I saw Capitol police lined up three abreast, row after row after row, looking like they were trying to stop a riot, when we were standing up for people’s right to vote. So this is not democracy; this looks a lot more like an authoritarian government. And it seems like that’s happening a lot these days, doesn’t it.”[5] Yes, it does.
In the Phoenix metropolitan area, especially in the city of Phoenix, local residents with sufficient longevity were noticing an increased police presence. Armed police standing outside certain stores and banks as a matter of routine, four or five police vehicles showing up to issue minor traffic tickets, police standing next to security guards just inside many grocery stores—police even going aisle to aisle as a routine rather than in responding to an incident or theft—police and security guards stationed in light-rail cars (sans incidents) and on the platforms, and generally very rude police; all these data-points are indications that an authoritarian government—at least in terms of political culture—was already well ensconced in Arizona.
I lived in the Phoenix metro area at the time. Coming from California and major cities in the Midwest, I was stunned by not only the number of police cars I saw on a daily basis, but also the number of security guards stationed on a light-rail car (sometimes up to six) as a matter of policy rather than incidents. 

 Three guards, two of whom are just on the other side of the small passageway. 
 Four guards: two at the outer edges of this picture, and two others at the middle of picture (standing at one of the back doors.
Four or five guards: one perhaps watching me take the picture. The other three or four (two visible) are in the car on the other side of the passageway. 

In none of these pictures has an incident induced the coverage. Rather, it had become all too common. On several occasions while I was standing near the door, I would look up only to see three uniformed guards standing "point blank," side by side, staring at me behind dark sunglasses. They were apparently just fine with their combative, over-the-top stance. Talking with a security manager at the city's light-rail company about the excessiveness on the trains, I learned that the company (or the subcontracted guard company) believed that so many guards are necessary for the guards to feel safe because one had been hit. I suggested that two might do, hence enabling the company to cover more trains at a time. The manager saw the efficiency in this, but the manager did not understand why people would feel uncomfortable or even intimidated being watched by several guards at close range. The normal reaction of regular folks to being watched combatively by so many guards at close range was something the manager just couldn't grasp, which in itself was a red flag. In such an unconscious state of denial, a police-state can grow unimpeded, without internal checks.
Interestingly, in spite of the presence of four to six guards at times in a car, none of the ticket-checkers ever gave out a citation! The guards were more interested in intimidating a car of passengers than devoting the surplus manpower to writing citations, especially to the people who were fraudulently using low-income passes.  
In fact, only twice while on the light-rail did I see citations being written, and this was done not on the trains but by pulling a few passengers off onto one of the platforms. On the first occasion, I saw 14 police and security guards suddenly enter the car I was in while only two of the guards checked tickets. The other passengers and I were very uncomfortable. It felt as if a raid were in progress, but it was actually only about giving citations! 
I had been on a train in which 20 police and their dogs ran into the car because the smell of weed had been reported. At the time, pot was legal in several U.S. states, but to Arizona law-enforcement, you would think the stuff could blow up cities. The sheer excessiveness, the (passive) aggression, and the reputation of the Phoenix police for rudeness even to ordinary citizens (i.e., not suspects) all came together for me while watching the bizarre scene unfold on the train.  

On the two sweeps by a massive showing of police and security guards to issue citations--always after commuting hours, interestingly enough--three or so passengers without passes or tickets (one of which was merely without the transit ID to show with a low-income pass!) were taken off the respective trains and told to sit on seats at the platforms (see the picture above). Four or five police and guards would then surround each person, as if he or she were to be arrested for assault or worse! To conflate writing out a citation and arresting someone for a violent crime suggests the presence of a serious psychological issue that might be widespread in police departments. 
Besides those two sweeps, I had never witnessed (over four months) a guard give out a citation; a guard would merely ask a person without a ticket or pass to leave the train at the next platform, which had a very mild punitive effect even as the company claimed that 43% of its ridership were using low-income passes. At no time on a train did I witness a security guard ask to seek the transit ID that was in theory at least necessary for the low-income pass. The passengers obviously had the impression that no such ID was needed during the actual travel. Yet I only heard this request on the first time I witnessed 14 security people running into a car for the writing of three citations.  The second time I witnessed the same event from across the street. I never saw 14 police surround a vehicle in order to write a traffic ticket. I suspected that the police's overkill was connected to a bias against poor people. The deplorable conditions facing the legions of homeless in Phoenix supported my sense that the powers there didn't care about the poor, and even were prejudiced.  
Another way that Phoenix stood out as a whole as being a proto-police state lied in vague sense of always being watched, not only in public outside, but also while entering stores.I and other people, I would discover, stopped going to a grocery store chain (Fry's) in the Phoenix metro area because in walking into a store, a customer had to pass not only a security guard, but also a policeman wearing a bullet-proof vest! The police would even walk from aisle to aisle! Imagine a young mother shopping with her daughter in an aisle only to look up and see an uptight man wearing a bullet-proof vest  labeled "POLICE" at the end of the aisle staring. While at waiting at the deli once, I asked the assistant store manager about this. His reply revealed that he did not perceive the excessiveness. "We want our customers to feel safe," he stated. At what cost to the customers? I wondered. The lack of balancing safety with the uncomfortability of being aggressively watched plays a major role in an authoritative police state getting worse and worse.
To catch the light-rail, I used to walk down a sidewalk with a 1st Bank on one side. I noticed one day that the security guard was not only stationed outside the bank, but that he wore a bullet-proof vest. I thought all this was too much, even given the so-so neighborhood. Worst still, he would walk around the side of the building to watch people getting off the bus cross the intersection to the light-rail platform (which is in the middle of one of the streets). On another occasion, I saw the guard follow me as I crossed the street and walked up to the platform. Utterly excessive! On a Friday morning while I was speaking with two Jehovah's Witnesses who were sitting in chairs on the sidewalk (i.e., not on the bank's property), I looked up to see the creeper-guard staring at me. That he had a bullet-proof vest on, and was standing "point blank" (i.e., combatively) facing me was enough of a red flag. This was confirmed when the two religious women told me that the bank's guard had told them he would protect them as well as police the area. The women, enjoying the convenience of such protection, were not bothered by the fact that the guard was not keeping to his job-tasks by going beyond the bank's property on a regular basis. Visibly, the two woman did not need protection from me, yet the guard stared at me anyway, though when I took his picture, he turned his head as if he had not been starring. The placement of his feet, however, revealed exactly where he had been looking! 
I called the bank's centralized customer service twice, asking that only a district manager or a customer service manager contact me if needed. Not the branch manager and certainly not the guard. Yet both of them left messages on my phone! I called customer service a third time and finally talked with a supervisor, who promised he would get to the bottom of why my requests had been ignored. I even emailed him the picture below to support my initial claim regarding the creeper guard, for I worried that the lack of accountability at 1st Bank could enable the guard to turn the tables on me. In the message he left me, he practically ordered me to call him back. Or else? I thought. This is another way in which authoritarian police-states can grow--by protecting their sense of entitlement by threatening people who object. This may be partly why the Georgia Capitol police arrested Sen. Williams. 
Back in Phoenix, an authoritarian police state was well underway, with at least two Christian women just fine with it. Moreover, enough of the safety-obsessed people of the city were just fine with it too. In fact, the political culture there could be labeled as at least sporting values that enable a proto-fascist police state that takes liberties from and with respect to "civilians."  The police and security guards even assume that anyone even just noticing the excessiveness is thereby a threat. 


Going into a Goodwill store once, I was astonished to see an armed policeman standing outside the door. Thinking that an incident might be going on, I made my way around him, and turned to check him just as I was walking in. “Trying to sneak a picture of me?” he said dismissively. I did turn on my phone's video by mistake once I had entered the store (hence no sneaking around). He entered the store after me, while I was complaining to a cashier about the police employee's rudeness. Incredibly, the policeman stood near the cashier and me; we both ignored his presence--this too I took to be overkill on the policeman's part, for no reason for suspicion existed--only the human urge to eves-drop with impunity. In this video, the policeman coming in and standing near the cashier and I can be seen. I had no doubt that the motive concerned me even though it is hardly illegal to complain to a store employee or manager about the security guard, even if he is (strangely) an on-duty police employee.  


I went on to tell the store manager about the policeman's rudeness, but the manager merely replied that he didn’t mind if the local police were being rude to his customers because the strip-mall’s property management arranges for the presence of the on-duty police. There was also a security guard inside the store. Only in Arizona had I seen both a policeman and a security guard standing at the front of a store to monitor things (i.e., sans incident).
Incredibly, some Arizonans told me that such a police presence was necessary for safety. I would inevitably reply, so two security guards are not enough on a train car? Incredibly, many native Arizonans relied, “Yes.” I realized that the political culture in that republic was very different—even enabling of the encroaching police state.
If a security guard or police employee are to add to their routine measures stemming from each incident so it is not repeated, then the status quo on the streets and in businesses will become increasingly strangling for a people. Put another way, if a city’s police department is to increasingly rely on shows of intimidation (i.e., when no incident is occurring), then people will feel less comfortable, distrust will increase in the public square, and the passive-aggressive tyranny will have dimmed the natural flame of liberty. The relative comfort of the home will increasingly paint “being out in public” in increasingly stressful colors. An authoritarian police-state was already well in place at least in two major American cities when Sen. Williams was arrested amid rows of Capitol police in riot gear; such gear itself heightens the smell of aggression in the air. Mayors and heads of police departments must have at the very least enabled to trend to continue; I suspect the sheer lack of awareness of the excess and especially how people react psychologically to it on a daily basis—an indifference to how citizens could be affected—is rife throughout many police departments in the U.S. Given the extremely rude comments I heard from police employees when I lived in Phoenix, I also suspect that the low-level (or low class) police employees let the power go to their heads, even in just being rude. Such an entitlement is a symptom of an authoritative police state, which the American people have allowed to grow as if the changes were invisible or inevitable. One effect societally may be increasing levels of accumulated passive-aggression--a sort of psychological carbon that also heats the atmosphere. The problem is thus societal in nature. 

On conflicts of interest such as the one exploited by Georgia's Secretary of State, see Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available at Amazon. 




1. Laura Bassett, “Georgia Legislature, Arrested at Work, Says She Was ‘Singled Out As a Black Female Senator’,” The Huffington Post, November 14, 2018.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

Monday, March 26, 2018

When an Unethical Corporate Culture Becomes Dangerous in a Primitive U.S. State: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars in Arizona

A company with a horrendous reputation for having an unethical, and harsh, company culture is likely to be attracted to places in which lax regulatory oversight exists. A governmental view that regulations should be minimized dovetails with such a company. The two are a match, though not exactly made in heaven. The nexus can be situated closer to the ground, in a desert in North America, in Arizona in particular. In the case of Uber, which was testing its self-driving cars there in 2018, the flashpoint came in March, when such a car hit a pedestrian who was crossing a street without a sustained sidewalk. Suddenly society took another look, a much more hesitant look, at self-driving technology. Missed, however, was the nexus between Uber’s squalid culture/mentality and Arizona—the culpability of both having led to a perfect storm.
“Uber’s robotic vehicle project was not living up to expectations months before” the accident.[1] Specifically, the cars “were having trouble driving through construction zones and next to tall vehicles, like big rigs,” and the company’s “human drivers had to intervene far more frequently than the drivers of competing autonomous car projects. Waymo, formerly the self-driving car project of Google, said that in tests on roads in California [in 2017], its cars went an average of nearly 5,600 miles before the driver had to take control from the computer to steer out of trouble. As of March, [2018] Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per ‘intervention’ in Arizona.”[2] So Uber’s technology was not as good. The company’s dysfunctional culture can be seen in  the fact that “Uber’s test drivers were being asked to do more—going on solo runs when they had [previously] worked in pairs.”[3]
When two employees had been in a self-driving car, one person sat behind the wheel ready to take over if the autonomous system failed, while the other person kept an eye on what the computers were detecting. “The second person,” in other words, “was responsible for keeping track of system performance as well as labeling data on a laptop computer.”[4] When Uber took out the second person in the self-driving cars, “some employees expressed safety concerns to managers.”[5] Although those concerns centered around whether a person alone could “remain alert during hours of monotonous driving,” the actual problems extended to solo stand-by drivers staying on task. Specifically, drivers would often annotate data onto an app mounted on an iPad in the car’s middle console to alert managers to problems. The drivers were to do so only when the car was at a traffic light or stop, “but many of the drivers did so while the car was moving.”[6] Other problems included drivers falling asleep at the self-driving wheel; one driver was spotted “air-drumming” through an intersection. This reminds me of the local (creeper) bus drivers in Tucson who contort internal mirrors so to be able to stare at riders even while turning the bus through intersections!
When the self-driving Uber car hit the pedestrian in Tempe at full speed, the solo “driver” was reportedly looking down. The extent of the waywardness among the solo “drivers” points to incompetent supervision, but also perhaps a culture in which doing the right thing both ethically and in terms of staying on task is not valued. Furthermore, the managerial decision to go from pairs to solo drivers even though the company had been struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per intervention in Arizona points to managerial incompetence (specifically, to bad judgment). That “there was pressure to live up to a goal to offer driverless car service by the end of the year and to impress top executives” suggests that the company’s dysfunctional culture had a role in the crash.[7] That Uber’s management had been trying to improve the company’s image since Khosrowshahi had replaced Kalanick as CEO could account for the bad substance “on the ground,” as well as a decision not to tackle the unethical climate inside the company, but, rather, to paint a glossy coat on top of it for the public to see.
Matt Kallman, an Uber spokesman, stated after the crash, “As we develop self-driving technology, safety is our primary concern every step of the way.”[8] This was obviously a lie, given the switch to solo “drivers” even without any improvement in the intervention rate. Kallman felt the need to add, “We’re heartbroken by what happened.”[9] Another lie! The company’s culture was not known for sentimental feelings; in fact, managers were quite harsh on their subordinates, and thus without even ordinary empathy. Such lies are themselves indicative of a continuing sordid corporate culture, which combined with managerial, supervisory, and solo-driver incompetence (and bad attitude) goes a long way to explaining why the crash occurred. We can’t simply blame the technology, though it was also behind the loop relative to the technology being used by competitors.
That Uber’s management would seize on Arizona, which offered a relative dearth of regulatory oversight, makes perfect sense. States like Arizona that do not tend to view government regulation as instrumental in protecting the public interest even from companies such as Uber are actually like such companies. Uber got away with “testing its self-driving cars in a regulatory vacuum in Arizona,” whose government officials “had taken a hands-off approach to autonomous vehicles and did not require companies to disclose how their cars were performing.”[10] Uber’s solo drivers and Arizona’s legislators and regulators were all hands off. Let the chips fall where they may.
What might be missed is the congruence—the likeness—between the mentality of Uber’s people and Arizona’s political elite and its supporters. The mentality that looks the other way can find a match between an unethical company and a government that views even just regulatory oversight as too imposing, as noxious. In effect, Arizona was, at the time at least, like one of Uber’s self-driving cars, with government officials “air-drumming” through intersections. Such performances were particularly dangerous where municipal bus drivers, whose driving I was pathetic, felt entitled nonetheless to stare at particular riders inside the bus rather than look out ahead, even while driving through intersections.

See Cases of Unethical Business


[1] Daisuke Wakabayashi, “Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash,” The New York Times, March 23, 2018.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.