6 ms·

Getting enforcers to quit or be fired is the general idea of focusing in on them -- if there are no enforcers then nothing is enforced regardless what the polic

Getting enforcers to quit or be fired is the general idea of focusing in on them -- if there are no enforcers then nothing is enforced regardless what the policy makers say. It's another solution to solving the problem of bad policy besides the one of changing the policy. One could argue its results. The strategy seems to make a lot of TSA employees feel bad, so the turnover there is quite high, but enough people need any job just to make ends meet that the overall effect to their workforce isn't very much. But this just suggests an alteration: focus on individuals of the loathed organizations, which has had success in the form of social justice warriors being quite successful at getting individuals, even "powerful", higher-up-the-ladder individuals, fired for things they've said or done.

opendais 12y ago
ROFLMAO. If you don't fix the policies, they just hire replacements. You even admit it is how it works. "The strategy seems to make a lot of TSA employees feel bad, so the turnover there is quite high, but enough people need any job just to make ends meet that the overall effect to their workforce isn't very much." You also didn't think about the logical result of pushing out the people who would feel bad about bad policies. It means you leave only the desperate & the bad people running the organization. Well done! You've removed everyone with a hint of moral fiber and/or soul from the enforcement role. And then you'll be surprised when no decent person is there to help you when there is an issue.
- beeworker 12y ago
  If you read my comment carefully you'll see I don't advocate this strategy, I'm just exploring it. Extermination can be an attractive strategy, it just doesn't work very well against endless foes. The part you quote is sufficient for casting doubt on its efficacy -- that I didn't make the slam dunk of pointing out who's left seems irrelevant. Thanks for reminding me of that additional detail, though.

opendais 12y ago

ROFLMAO. If you don't fix the policies, they just hire replacements. You even admit it is how it works. "The strategy seems to make a lot of TSA employees feel bad, so the turnover there is quite high, but enough people need any job just to make ends meet that the overall effect to their workforce isn't very much." You also didn't think about the logical result of pushing out the people who would feel bad about bad policies. It means you leave only the desperate & the bad people running the organization. Well done! You've removed everyone with a hint of moral fiber and/or soul from the enforcement role. And then you'll be surprised when no decent person is there to help you when there is an issue.

beeworker 12y ago
If you read my comment carefully you'll see I don't advocate this strategy, I'm just exploring it. Extermination can be an attractive strategy, it just doesn't work very well against endless foes. The part you quote is sufficient for casting doubt on its efficacy -- that I didn't make the slam dunk of pointing out who's left seems irrelevant. Thanks for reminding me of that additional detail, though.