ext_185952 ([identity profile] oneagain.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] davis_square2011-11-04 02:21 pm
Entry tags:

MBTA follow-up

I got a call yesterday in response to the call I put in on Monday to the MBTA. A message was left for me on my answering machine (which I requested in the event that I could not answer the call) saying that the service providers had been made aware of the problem of adherence to the schedule and they were working on it, but he did not know how long it would take for any resolution. I called back today and told the woman answering the phone about the situation and that I wanted to be notified when some conclusion was reached about how this would be prevented in the future. She thought I meant that I wanted the 89 to run more than hourly, which, though it would be nice, was not exactly what I was asking for; what I was asking for was for this kind of situation to be resolved in the future by taking a bus that runs far more frequently in the event of another 89 mechanical issue, particularly in the midst of a snowstorm (did I mention seeing 4 87s in the time I was waiting?). (Also--the 89 is often 20 or 30 minutes late, or more, particularly on weekends. Is it *always* mechanical failure?) I was told that mechanical failures can not be avoided, and that it would have taken another hour to get another bus leaving from Charlestown (nonsense, the bus ride from Sullivan to Davis is something like half an hour *with* *stops*). I asked why a different bus could not be diverted, and she said there were not buses laying in wait (which was not an answer) and that they just didn't have the resources. I told her nonsense, there were many resources, folks just had to prioritize what to use them for, and keeping *many* people waiting an *extra* hour on top of the usual wait for an hourly bus, in the midst of a snowstorm, wasted *many* hours collectively and was simply not acceptable. She told me she would relay my message. I asked her if anyone was going to take this seriously, or would the answer still be, when (if) it winds up making its way back to me, that they don't have the resources. She said she thought so. I credit her for honesty, but I am still rather irritated.

On a related note, someone struck up a conversation with me about the 86 that was late some Thursday evening a few weeks back while we were waiting for it (ok, it was more like a monologue, but not an uninteresting one) and all he went through to try to get that addressed. He mentioned a bus driver, btw, who said "this is for people like you" as he showed him his tattoo on his arm with his bus driver number when the person talking to me asked for it. When he complained, he was told action would be taken, but he was never told what action *was* taken). Have others been threatened or intimidated this way by bus drivers? He also told me bus drivers make $80,000 a year. I am wondering how I would verify that. Anyone hear that, too? Know how to find out? I'm kind of curious now. If it is true, I guess I am kind of confused about how the excuse of "there are not enough resources for us to do our jobs" can fly. Is it possible that they can be paid per successful ride? (And by successful, I mean on time or close to it, not an our late, not even 15 minutes late.) Any thoughts welcome.

It's not about "empathy" it's about effectiveness of solutions.

[identity profile] turil.livejournal.com 2011-11-05 04:48 pm (UTC)(link)
I know this isn't what we're taught by the mainstream media, so it might come as a surprise, but ultimately it doesn't matter who you empathize with or who's "side" you pick. (We're all in this together! We're all struggling just the same, just trying to have a decent life, trying to make the best of what we've inherited through nature and nurture...) What matters ultimately is, is the problem going to be solved or not? Threatening and harming people makes them sicker, guaranteed. Violence/bullying/punishment/harm/threats is a dead end approach. Helping people heal, so that they can feel good about themselves and the world around them, on the other hand, will make them better people, pretty much guaranteed. :-)

Thus, the logical, AND empathetic solution is a healing, positive, understanding approach. And the most effective way to do that, from my research, is to focus on the baseline "deficiency needs" that Maslow identified in his hierarchy of needs as being absolutely required before a person can be pro-social (self-transcendent, which means caring about others at least as much as oneself). Maslow identified four crucial needs to be mentally healthy:

Physiological inputs (high quality food, water, air, warmth, sunlight)

Safety/output needs (the freedom to express one's excess matter and energy)

Belongingness needs (being a welcome part of a couple or family that works together to successfully get everyone's input and output needs met

Effectiveness/Esteem needs (having one's efforts/work be appreciated by close friends/family)

And since the vast majority of people are lacking in many of these things constantly, it's logical to expect that people will be sick (deficient/toxic), and need help in healing.

So now maybe you can see why I have a different approach to solving my problems than wanting to hurt/harm/threaten/bully/punish someone who was clearly mentally ill.