Posted on 08/13/2005 8:10:51 PM PDT by Vigilanteman
That's because these people were a bunch of bigots. Threating her with lynching, vandalizing her car, obsessed with her being a foreigner and having an accent and whatnot. Apparently this is some small hick town where everybody knows each other. Real a*holes.
Your complaint is not with the postmaster ~ it's with people like Mr. Williams in the referenced article.
You take that question up with the guy with that same job in your area and watch him shuck, jive, dance and end up blaming it on the ineptness of the local postmaster (ploy #1). Challenge him to prove it, and he might well start blaming his boss (ploy #2). Pursue the matter, and you will find there are yet other ploys, all of them understandable only to postal management.
No doubt you find the racial/ethnic aspect to be weak.
The reason is the higher level manager just wants the dispute to "go away" and may well wrongly harm the postmaster.
Sometimes the postmaster gets lucky and manages to find an "expert" in Headquarters or an appropriate HFU to intervene ~ other times the postmaster has to go outside to a lawyer.
LOL!!!
If said postmaster was a white male, he would have been fired the first time around.
another 9th circus ruling that will be overturned
The lady was complaining about these people threatening to kill her in a public lynching, and then actually having a meeting.
Holy smoke!
Various lying techniques are basic USPS management skills taught in the
introductory level classes at the Postal Management Academy.
That's because the problem is at that level, and not at the postmaster's level.
The towns people who are not paying post office box rent, and the druggies who use phoney addresses, would still be there, and most likely would have stirred up the townsfolk to lynch any postmaster of any color who attempted to enforce the law.
I'd brought in a team of armed Postal Inspectors long before this.
Well, yes, of course they are lies, but they are lies with an expected probability of working ~ on the other hand, there are situations where the public actually can't understand the truth.
I have mixed feelings about this ruling.
As a govt. employee who has on occasion been subjected to threats and abuse, and who has a supervisor that in the past, failed to even acknowledge that the situation happened much less offer support to his employee, This is a good ruling for our protection.
I can also see that it could be used by workers who were irresponsible and abusive to the customer against his employer.
There is nothing that upper management hates more, than to get involved and actually solve a situation. They normally ignore it or take the path of least resistant which is to remove the employee regardless of fault.
Thanks for the link, very informative.
I sent a friend of mine a Christmas card the week before Christmas. I didn't have her house number, but since this is a small town and there are only 3 houses on her street, I never thought I'd get the card returned to me in the middle of January. When I asked at the P.O. about the lack of delivery, the clerk told me that it was because there was no house number in her address. The fact that there are only 3 houses on the street and surely the mail carrier knew the occupants of those houses had no traction w/the P.O.
Thanks for the link. I'd have to agree that the 9th Circuit probably got this one right based on the facts presented. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I believe your analysis is correct, the problem being the 9th circus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.