It's Not Their Fault

Thursday was tax day.  Like many others, I stood in line at the post office waiting my turn to mail returns.  It was a long line so I overheard several conversations at the windows.  In the half hour I stood there, several people angrily accused the window workers of everything from theft to greed.  I work for a tax accountant so I experienced a bit of that myself this year.  People blame the post office employee or me because they don’t like the way their tax dollars are being spent. 

First of all, I think we all agree that greed in Washington is hurting our country.  Greed in our states and greed on Wall Street are doing the same thing.  Contrary to what the character Gordon Gecko proclaimed in a movie, greed is not good.  That said, let’s move on.

Much of what I overheard is indicative of citizens who are not well-informed.  The post office does not get funding from Congress.  In 1970, President Nixon signed an executive order that created the United States Postal Service.  The Post Office Department ceased to exist and was no longer a cabinet post.  Control of the new service passed from Congress to the executive branch.  The postmaster general was replaced by a board of managers and a service CEO. 

The postal service sells bonds to cover its deficits.  Sound familiar? 

Is the post office poorly managed these days?  Undoubtedly.  Is that the fault of the people who work the windows? No more than badly-run AIG is the fault of a middle-manager’s secretary. 

If you are angry about the way in which your tax dollars are spent, write or call your political representatives.  In other words, focus your communication efforts where they might do some good. Making some poor postal worker the target of your rancor hurts both of you.

How Soon is Soon?

In January, a friend told me that she would soon receive a promotion.  In March, my bank emailed an announcement to its customers that soon it would have a new program for its business accounts.  Last week, my boss reminded us that tax season would be over soon.

According to Webster’s dictionary, “soon” means “almost immediately, shortly, rapidly, in a short while.”  To my mind, soon is within a week or two at most.

So, my friend, whose promotion will effective on June 1, received her promotion eventually, nearly five months after she was told about it.  My bank still has not issued any information about the new program so their “soon” is actually defined as “when they feel like it.”  The only statement remotely close to being accurate is the one made by my boss because the official end of tax season is April 16 – even though my colleagues and I will be doing payroll tax returns until the end of April. 

One of the things my editor cautions me about repeatedly is that I must understand the meaning of words when I use them.  Language is the key to communication in all its forms and if we do not properly convey our intended meaning, we confuse those for whom the communication is intended.  Wars have started for lack of good communication.

Perhaps we use “soon” when we are reluctant to be held to a specific time frame but “soon” has some expectation of immediacy built into it.  If you tell me at the end of February that my account will be credited soon, I expect to see that credit before the end of March.

I suppose “soon” is like many over-worked words in our language.  We use it because it is convenient and the meaning is somewhat nebulous. 

I will soon end this entry with the hope that “soon” will soon be replaced with other, more precise words and that companies or people live up to "soon" whenever they use it.

Now is a good word.  I will end this column now.

Allergic Reaction

My father recently collapsed. At the hospital, my mother and I were bombarded by human and mechanical communication as doctors reported test results and machines whirred or beeped.

Eventually my father was diagnosed with a whopping case of pneumonia and the doctor admitted him so IV antibiotics could be administered.  Within moments of the drug being added to the IV, my father's arm began to itch.  As it turned bright red, I ran for the nurse.

The nurse hurried to my father.  She was joined by another caregiver who said a reaction happens frequently with that particular medicine.  My obvious thought – then why give it?  What this woman said was a concern – not because my father had hives - but because of all the things that were implied in her statement. 

What I heard was:  we should have expected this, we should have remained in the treatment cubicle to be sure it didn’t happen, why does the doctor prescribe something that is a known allergen, these allergic reactions require time that could be spent on other needs or patients.  She was clearly exasperated and I could tell it had nothing to do with my father as a patient.

My father’s chart is no longer void of medications to which he is allergic.  We found one.  I am grateful that the allergic response was confined to hives and it occurred in a setting where medical intervention was readily available.  I am sure that some patients have a stronger and more dangerous reaction.

I wonder if any of this is communicated back to the drug companies or the FDA?  I doubt it.  I’ll also bet that the drug to which my father reacted is more expensive than the one that he was ultimately given.

Am I being too cynical?