The corruption of an individual
manager or non-supervisory employee, or even a government official can be
distinguished between the collusion of multiple levels, as I contend has been
the case at least as of 2023 in Boston, Massachusetts in regard to the
government and the Commonwealth’s most populous region’s mass transit system—in
particular, its bus service. I contend that the government has been looking the
other way as the management of the local bus transit has held off from firing reckless
bus drivers, who thus sordidly feel entitled to ignore the training—assuming it
is not deficient—by driving recklessly by riding the accelerator pedal before stomping
down on the brake pedal at the last minute, literally, in stopping. With
positions to fill, the company’s management treats such driving at best with a
slap on the wrist, with the government looking on rather than divesting the management
of its disincentive to fire even dangerous drivers. Such corruption is systemic
in nature, and thus is much worse than the corruption of an individual. Ultimately,
it is the public—which includes the electorate—which goes unprotected
while bus riders have to put up with jolting rides.
With a pay rate of $30 per hour, a signing bonus of $7,500, paid commercial-driver’s license training, health benefits, and $10,000 for tuition reimbursement for college being the new labor contract for Boston’s bus drivers in 2023, better bus driving would theoretically follow as better candidates apply. In her State of the Commonwealth speech in early2024, Governor Healey announced that 2023 had been “the best year of hiring the T has ever had.” But the T includes subway and light-rail operators too, and as of the end of 2023, 415 bus-driver positions were still unfilled, and that is relative to the 1,452 bus drivers currently working—a net increase of only 2 since that August.
The better compensation package seems not to have made a dent, and I suspect that the company's mechanics would probably admit in private that too many buses continued to make dents (as well as wear out brake pads, from braking hard, and even shocks, from driving too fast on roads in need of repavement). In general, aggressive driving means higher maintenance costs than need be the case.
In other words, the “in theory” consequence of better driving failed to materialize. This in spite of Governor Healey having told bus
drivers in a press conference announcing the labor contract, “We’ll be looking
to improve working conditions as you improve the safe and effective operation
of our public transportation system,”[1]
the drivers were able to take the raise without improving the safe operation
of the buses. Perhaps this was due to not only incompetent supervision by the
management of the mass-transit of its bus drivers, but also enabling by the
government. “Today you see a demonstration that we have your back,” the head of
state of Massachusetts said during her press conference.[2]
To be sure, the incentive that the management of the “T” has serially had not
to increase the number of unfilled positions by firing even reckless drivers is
likely the real driver here, with the government looking the other way rather
than looking out for the public’s interests by providing a countervailing force
to the bus company’s disincentive in getting rid of bad drivers, who in turn
doubtlessly have felt both entitled to drive however they want with the air of
impunity. This is literally dangerous.
On the evening of November 29,
2024, I was riding on a route 71 bus, having boarded the beginning of that
route, at the bus/subway station underneath Harvard Square. In spite of the
fact that I had submitted a complaint concerning the driver’s aggressive driving,
which was uncomfortable to passengers and a risk to pedestrians and people
driving near the bus, he still felt entitled to floor the bus’s accelerator,
even in the tunnel out of the terminal at Harvard Square, where the speed limit
was 6 mph, and to slam the brake pedal despite the harsh jolt felt by
passengers. After speeding through the tunnel out from the underground station,
he proceeded to ride the accelerator pedal on the street that winds through the
crowded square so excessively that he had to stomp hard on the brake pedal to
avoid back-ending the car that was stopped in front of the bus at the red
light. Then the driver honked the bus’s horn at the car’s driver, who did not
react to the now-green light fast enough for the harried bus driver working to
extend his break at the end of the route. He proceeded to accelerate so excessively
that had braked hard not to hit the three pedestrians who were in the middle of
a designated cross-walk. Because they looked like they could have been three undergraduate
Harvard students, I wondered whether the university administration might have
some words for the mass-transit’s management. I immediately called the transit’s
customer service line while the driver was once again riding the accelerator
pedal only to brake hard at the first bus stop in spite of the fact that he
could see several people well ahead waiting at the stop. At the very least, his
judgment concerning how much to accelerate in a given distance and how to stop
a bus (including some coasting seemed beyond him) was warped.
On the phone with a customer-service employee, I hurriedly exclaimed, “The driver almost hit three pedestrians who were in a crosswalk! And now he is quickly accelerating again! I have called in a complaint on that driver’s driving before, and yet he is still driving recklessly. I’m getting off and will wait for the next bus; he is too reckless.” So, I got off at the first bus-stop and will wait for the next bus.” In spite of the customer-service employee telling me that she would notify operations at “the garage” as well as her immediate supervisor, I had the sinking feeling that, like my prior complaints, that one would fall on conveniently deaf managerial ears.
Sure enough, the driver was driving the same route on the next night. He tailgated another bus part way through the tunnel out of the station, and then was able to easily surpass the speed limit by accelerating until just before he had to stop before turning onto a road. Then he accelerated on that road, and braked hard at the first bus stop. Somewhere in the middle of the route, he accelerated until a minute or so before braking behind a stationary car at a red light intersection even though an ambulance with lights flashing was trying to make its way through the intersection. Passing through the intersection, the bus driver applied a series of “fits and hard stops,” and this pattern continued when he approached two or three bus-stops ahead.
The customer-service employee on the night before had said
that the procedure when that department is closed and safety is at risk from a
driver’s reckless, aggressive driving, is that I should call the company’s
transit “police.” When I called that department just after I got off the bus, a
stern woman stated, as if she could not be wrong, “No, you need to call
customer service.” I told her that customer service was closed on Saturdays and
that that department had informed me that transit police should handle cases of
safety issues when customer service is closed.” “No!,” she exclaimed, “you have
to call customer service when they are open.” I was stunned because I had told
her that the driver had almost hit three pedestrians in a crosswalk the night
before, and he slammed on the brake pedal just fifteen minutes ago behind a car
at a light that had been red for some time. “We have to witness the incidents
to do anything about them,” the corrupt woman said. Knowing this was incorrect (I had already stated that I was a witness) and thus that the "police" employee was corrupt. The pathetic excuses she used clearly indicated that she was willing to dismiss a report even of pedestrians almost
being hit. Her crime was more than being inept and corrupt; she didn't care whether the aggressive driver might kill a pedestrian between that Saturday night and Monday, when customer service would reopen. So, I ended the call as she was obstantly denying that she was refusing to take and act on my reports. I called 911 emergency to speak with the local
police department not only to report the driver, but the transit "police" employee too! Even though I told the employee of the local police department of the driver’s reckless driving both that night and the night before,
and that he was still driving even though I had notified the transit company’s
customer service department the night before that the driver had almost hit
three pedestrians—likely Harvard students—he told me I had to contact the transit
“police,” which prompted me to relay the last conversation with the control-freak who presumed that she could not be wrong and utterly dismissed my claims gained from the transit company. “The transit police would rather risk
pedestrians being killed than follow the transit company’s policy that the
transit “police” handles such reports when customer service is closed. It’s
really just common sense not to wait two days before reporting (and the company
therefore acting on) a report of reckless driving where safety is being
compromised. He said he would call the transit police, but I did not believe
him. I gave up. A report against a bus driver was being blown off yet again,
and the driver doubtless was breaking traffic laws with a sense of impunity,
which made him especially dangerous.
Not a full week before that
weekend, I had called in a complaint on a driver, also a Black male, who had
been riding the accelerator and hitting the brake pedal hard when stopping,
rather than coasting to a stop—as that would mean less break-time at the end of
the route for him. “He almost hit a car standing in front of the bus; that car
had its left-turn signal on, and that could be seen at a distance as it was
dark outside. But the driver kept acccelerating until he got very close to the
car. What if he had misjudged on where to come to a quick stop by slamming on
the brakes? He is a reckless driver!” That driver might have been the same one.
I had also called customer service to report a young black woman whose stomping
on the brake pedal had rendered rides very uncomfortable. Yet she was able to
continue driving without any concern for the comfort of the paid customers
on the bus.
It bears repeating that after I
had called customer service a few weeks before and said, “One of your coworkers
told me to call the transit ‘police’ to report reckless driving when your
department is closed, but your company’s transit “police” have insisted to me
that I call customer service. Apparently, they are just fine with letting a
reckless bus driver continue to drive through a weekend and have riders wait
until your department is open, which could be a day or two away.” Although the
customer-service employee told me that I had followed procedures correctly, and
thus that the transit “police” dispatcher had been wrong, and I asked the
customer-service employee to have her supervisor contact the transit “police”
supervisor, but, as I have already stated, there was no change in the script of
the transit “police” when I called the transit police to report the driver who
had almost hit three Harvard students the night before and could easily have misjudged
when to stomp on the brake pedal behind a stopped car at a red light.
In addition to the bus company
having a disincentive to terminate even bus drivers whose driving could
terminate people in cars and in cross-walks, the refusal of the company’s
transit “police” to contact “the garage” to intercede on behalf of the public
(and bus riders) to get a reckless bus driver off the streets until the driving
could be investigated by an operations supervisor points to bad management not
only in the transit “police” department, but also higher up, to the manager who
is over both that department and customer service and was thus responsible for
making sure that reports of dangerous driving do not fall between the two
departments, as when customer service is closed and yet the transit “police”
insist that customer service be contacted when it opens.
Whether because my paternal
grandfather rose from being a trolley driver to being the president of the
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (then Des Moines, Iowa) mass transit company, or because I
have worked in public accounting and have a B.S. and M.B.A. in business (with
an emphasis on organizational studies because systems theory intrigued me), I
have called the customer service (and transit “police” departments) to report uncomfortable
and even reckless bus driving even though most riders would not bother, or even
suspect that the problem is systemic both among the bus drivers and even
including their supervisors. So, in response to one customer-service employee,
who had told me that the company looks for reports from many riders before taking
action, I said, “It is a fallacy to assume that there is not a problem unless
many people report it, because, frankly, most people figure, why bother,
nothing will happen, and some people may even expect bad driving because it happens
so much.” Yet how many companies stick to this fallacy! The macro-culture of
democracy may be erroneously projected on business management in assuming that
a majority is needed for a complaint to be valid. The assumption ignores the
fact that few riders may actually be able to “connect the dots” and be willing
to call in a complaint. The assumption of political equality of voters—one person,
one vote—does not hold in complaints to a manager about an employee. Even in
terms of political democracy, Donald Trump only received the votes of 34% of
the eligible voters (and Harris received 32%) in 2024, so it is not really true
that majority rules. I for one am more interested to know why eligible voters did
not vote (or voted for other candidates, who could not be expected to win) than
in why voters voted for Trump or Harris.
Individuals have insights, and,
for any given subject-matter or domain, some people have more insight than do others.
I might even venture to claim that some people are, whether genetically or by
effort in formal education, more intelligent than are other people. Herds, however,
walk only when a general shift is occurring. Waiting for a herd to complain for
the substance of the complaint to have merit and thus value and credibility, can
be reckoned as foolish management. Nietzsche contrasted herd-animals, who are
weak, from the strong, who act out of self-confident strength if they are not
beguiled by the weak to be ashamed of being strong, as if it were unethical. In
actuality, weakness even in not standing up to corruption is unethical even in
feckless non-action, and the corrupt are themselves obviously unethical in
being so.
I contend that the transit “T” company
and the Massachusetts government with respect to that company comprise layers
of negligence, beginning with the dangerous drivers themselves and going
through the customer service department and the transit “police” department to
upper management, and finally to the Massachusetts government: none of which
are looking out for the public and the bus riders (as even accelerating even just
until the point of stop by braking hard is very uncomfortable).
Once I conducted a small
experiment to find out if the bad bus drivers had been trained badly or have been
knowingly driving badly. I asked one bus driver to stop slamming on the brakes,
and he complied, which told me that at least some of the reckless drivers know
that they are driving badly and yet are doing it anyway. I believe they do
so in order to rack up minutes at the end of a route to take a personal break,
or else because they are late due to traffic and the company pressures its
drivers to reach the end of a route on time. But this does not explain why many
drivers depart the beginning point of a route early. A longer
break at the end or insuring an on-time arrival is likely the motive. Creating
a longer break could be called gaming the system. I know that the driver
supervisors know this is happening, yet they conveniently allow it.
Finally, notice that I have not
had to resort to claiming that the drivers’ union is protecting even reckless
drivers. I suspect that is also in play, but the sad point is that I have
enough without even bringing up the pressure from the union on the management.
I would not be surprised to learn that the upper management has told the union’s
head, We’ve got your back. After all, it is what the governor told the
drivers when she announced the sweet labor contract in 2023 that was, according
to that governor, supposed to make the operation of the buses safer.
Collusion upon collusion upon collusion can make for collision, collision, and collision when aggressive bus-driving is involved, and this is obviously at the expense of customers and even the public, not to mention the innocent pedestrians and car-drivers who are injured or even killed as a result. The banality of narrow, bureaucratic managerialism and oblivious, duty-free politics is none other than corruption writ large. This means that that the system itself, which spans the domains of business and government, is corrupt and thus is in need of reform. Generally speaking, furtive though obvious unaccountability can become so banal as it becomes so common that it renders bad management itself as unethical.
In the present case before us, the expectation of harm to innocents may be eclipsed by a narrow, self-centered fixation on enuerated departmental tasks (e.g. by the transit “police” department), and willful gross negligence (e.g., many of the bus drivers). The harm may be an implicit byproduct of the incentives and disincentives that are operative in the system, including the bus company and the government that is supposed to oversee the company. Aside from the refusal or sheer inability of elected government officials and regulators to adequately oversee the Boston metro area's mass-transit, known as the "T," the aggressive bus-driving and the transit company's management can be so bad that both can be said to be inherently unethical.
Even the ongoing momentum of the inertia of such a dysfunctional system can be said to be unethical, such that inaction is culpable. In such a case, the status quo does not warrant pride of place; rather, warrants should be issued for the drivers who believe that the traffic laws do not apply to themselves.
Indeed, an attitude can be determined to be unethical, as can the consequences when innocent people are injured or even killed and human customers are driven like cattle. Ironically, the toxic "herd animals" depicted by Nietzsche that are too weak to master their instinctual urge to dominate are at the wheel, as they are too weak to experience the richer pleasure that comes from power derived from mastering one's own most intractible urges. If this verdict seems overly harsh, you might imagine the jolt from a foot stomping down on a brake pedal immediately after having ridden the acelerator without allowing the bus to coast at all, all this without any concern for the paid passengers or for pedestrians and people driving nearby.
In the seventeenth century, a European Jansenist priest, Pierre Nicole, wrote that even though self-love (over loving God) can have unintended beneficial consequences and thus be reckoned as enlightened self-interest, self-love is still a sin. Although Augustine wrote that sin can have unintended beneficial consequences, it is important to remember that self-love is still a sin. In moral terms, which has been my vantage-point here, it can be said that selfishness negligent of any possible resulting harm to other people, is unethical. Selfishness can be extended to an organization's managers as well as to government officials who look the other way. Unfortunately, the human nose can become accustomed to a bad odor if it hangs around long enough to become the atmospheric norm.
1. Christian MilNeil, “MBTA Adopts ‘Historic’ New Labor Deal with Carmen’s Union,” StreetsBlogMass, August 2, 2023.
2. Ibid.
