←back to thread

632 points xbryanx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.339s | source
Show context
jordanb ◴[] No.44532900[source]
I went on a deep dive on this scandal about a year or so ago. One thing that struck me is the class element.

Basically, the Post Office leadership could not understand why someone would buy a PO franchise. It's a substantial amount of money up front, and people aren't allowed to buy multiple franchises, so every PO was an owner/operator position. Essentially people were "buying a job".

The people in leadership couldn't understand why someone would buy the opportunity to work long hours at a retail position and end up hopefully clearing a middle class salary at the end of the year. They assumed that there must be a real reason why people were signing up and the real reason was to put their hands in the till.

So they ended up assuming the postmasters were stealing, and the purpose of the accounting software was to detect the fraud so it could be prosecuted. When the accounting software started finding vast amounts of missing funds, they ignored questions about the software because it was working as intended. I bet if the opposite had happened, and it found very little fraud, they would have become suspicious of the software because their priors were that the postmasters were a bunch of thieves.

replies(16): >>44532976 #>>44533020 #>>44533158 #>>44533278 #>>44533786 #>>44533975 #>>44534079 #>>44534542 #>>44535515 #>>44535532 #>>44536140 #>>44536170 #>>44536440 #>>44536933 #>>44537531 #>>44540144 #
njovin ◴[] No.44534079[source]
So the PO creates a franchise program that they later decide isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor, and instead of revising the terms of the franchise program to make it so, they assume that the participants are criminals and prosecute them?
replies(3): >>44534654 #>>44535013 #>>44535146 #
lawlessone ◴[] No.44535146[source]
The same way many think about welfare/unemployment/disability schemes.

Constant hoops to jump through to prove they're looking for work or still incapable.

Or in the case of illness to prove they're still sick. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59067101

replies(4): >>44535605 #>>44536032 #>>44536868 #>>44537052 #
citizenpaul ◴[] No.44535605[source]
There is a rather famous book written on this subject.

Catch-22.

In order to be given disability you must jump through so many hoops that no one whom is actually sick could complete them. Or how in unemployment you must prove you must spend your time proving you are looking for a job so you cannot spend you time actually looking for a job. My personal fav because its almost universal is sick-day policies that codify 100% abuse of sick days because people are punished for not using them because some people were "abusing" their sick days.

In the case of the book to be discharged from military service they must prove they are insane which no insane person could complete.

replies(1): >>44535776 #
1. viciousvoxel ◴[] No.44535776[source]
Minor correction, but in the book the act of asking to be discharged on account of insanity is taken as proof that one is sane, because no sane person would want to keep flying bombing missions day after day with low odds of survival.