Dealing with people can be tricky sometimes.
Some people are nice and helpful because they want to be. Some are (pardon the truth) horse's fannies because they can and want to be.
As much as you want to, and as much as you try to be nice at all times you will still sometimes have to be firm--sometimes nasty.
Recently, after an attempt at nice, I had to be firm and nasty.
I had purchased a new cell phone(s) from a company I will not name, but their initials are AT&T. As a retired GM/UAW employee I qualified for a fairly substantial discount. The folks at the phone store looked at my retiree card, agreed, called into the home office, they agreed, and the discount was applied . . .
for a while.
A couple of days later I received an email requiring me to "prove" I merited the discount and giving a phone number to call. I called, spoke to a very nice woman, who spoke to her techies and all agreed I got the discount. . .
for a while.
I receive another email again requesting I "prove" I was eligible. I again called, this time speaking to a nice fellow, and re-explained the problem. He called his techies and they said I didn't qualify. I asked them to check again. Again they said "no." I asked them to check again and they said I needed a letter from GM!
I explained firmly that I wasn't going to even try and get a letter from GM. I qualified for the discount and provided ID, they had approved the discount and sold me the phone(s) under that agreement. Done deal. (We were approaching my, "Gimmie the discount dammit." place.
The young fellow, the middle man between the techies and I, was feeling the heat and clearly didn't know what to do. I told him to tell the techies that I was a tired, old, angry, former UAW negotiator and I wasn't going to argue any longer. We had an agreement. As far as I was concerned it was binding, BUT . . . if they didn't want to honor it I would simply keep the phones and the new pad, call VISA and cancel the charges, and, even though they might ultimately win in an arbitration or court it would cost them one heck of a lot more time, money and trouble than the discount was worth.
I also pointed out that as a retiree I had plenty of time I could use for free and their lawyers/secretaries would require payment, so give it their best.
The young fellow, who remained polite but shaky sounding throughout all this was at a loss. I suggested a supervisor might be in order. He connected me, and in about 45 seconds a bright, reasonable woman said I had the discount. I happily agreed, thanked her, and we parted amicably.
My point of course, is that the horse's fannies who put the young fellow in a no win situation WANTED to be jerks. Others may have caved in, but after 30 years with the UAW, much of it negotiating agreements with GM, I was not in the habit of caving. I once told a personnel director that when he said, "No," I heard "later" and went ahead accordingly.
The pictures at the top of the post demonstrate my point, too. They are all of the same dog, my late, great, boxer Mac. He could be a playful pup, an ass-kicking protection dog, and a friend of children. It all depended on the situation. He's long gone now, but I still miss and love him. I also remember that he was brighter than most of the people he met--a great judge of character.
I'll close with this. Thrice, upon meeting certain unnamed men, each of whom were certified jerks, he simply walked up to them and peed on their leg. Lord how I loved that dog--and O how I wish I had a picture to show you of that!
Don't take no for an answer when you are right--and don't be a jerk when it isn't called for. Make the world a better place!
I am an avid reader of a local blog by Sheila Kennedy. She is extremely well informed on local and national issues, a clear and concise writer and a reformed Republican. Here is a link to today's (Sept. 1st) blog if you would like to see an example: https://www.sheilakennedy.net/2016/09/voting-my-conscience/
By and large her readers are bright, liberal and up on current events. I enjoy their thoughts and comments and occasionally comment myself. Therein is the germ of this post.
One commentator, a teacher in the Indianapolis school system, said he was unable to understand why a black student could hate him simply because he was white. In (what I thought was) a helpful reply I suggested he should read James Cone's A Black Theology of Liberation, Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye, James Baldwin's essay The Fire Next Time and a couple of other titles in the hope that they might help him understand the attitude of the student.
My suggestions didn't make him happy. He basically told me to go jump. He took it all as criticism and not an effort to help. Let me explain why that bothered me so much as it did.
There is a race problem in this country. Blacks don't trust whites. What is more to the point is that they probably shouldn't. Whites have screwed the black population of this country from jump street and, despite the best efforts of a few well meaning folks (count me as one, I hope) prejudice still runs rampant.
Most whites have no clue as to why Blacks are angry. "Slavery ended years ago," they say. "We passed the Civil Rights Act," they say. "We elected a black president," they say. "I never owned slaves," they say, etc., etc., etc..
Those sincere(?) comments mean nothing to African Americans who are still stopped by police, hurt by police, insulted by police and others every day. They mean nothing to the parents of a child who has to be warned "NEVER run through a white neighborhood," or "ALWAYS keep your hands in sight around a policeman." They mean nothing when one in every three black males will eventually do jail time, when the prisons are jammed with blacks sent away for marijuana possession and young white rapists walk after ridiculously short sentences or "affluenza" (read "spoiled white kid") is cited by a judge as sufficient reason for sentencing a white teen to ten years probation after his drunken driving spree (without a license) killed four people and seriously injured others. Here is a link--you really have to watch this to believe it: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/hear-teen-affluenza-drunk-driving-defense-34516612
Did you watch it? Imagine some poor black kid using the defense that "he was raised so poor that he didn't know right from wrong."
Blacks hear, and hate, the phrase, "Black on black" crime. Like there isn't "White on white" crime? Sheesh. We just never hear it phrased that way. Why? Because we are, consciously or unconsciously, racists.
"Wait," you say, Blacks are racist, too." Fair enough. They should be. They have damn good reasons. It isn't up to Blacks to prove to us they are worthy of our trust--it is the other way around. We were never slaves, lynched by mobs, shamed by Jim Crow, harried by police, jailed in ridiculous numbers, and now, victims of voting law changes hell-bent on keeping blacks from voting.
Did you catch my use of "our trust" in the above paragraph? It is there because I'm white. A friend of mine, also white, once said, "It is a tribute to the character of blacks that they haven't all risen up and killed us in our sleep." He was right.
Do you disagree? Well I suggest you read the books/essays suggested above. Others, too. Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Malcolm X's autobiography, Fredrick Douglas' Slave Narratives. Get through those and you will only BEGIN to understand. But at least you will have a start.
It is time we own up to our (read "whitefolks") race problem and got serious about fixing it. We should begin with a heartfelt apology and real repentance. And then it will still take years before we change. But, my friends, it is the right thing, and we just may find it will be well worth the effort.
