Author's book publication cancelled after a tweet reporting on a WMATA employee eating on the metro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I snapped a photo of a Metro employees sucking on a purple Big Gulp the other day. Gonna send it to Unsuck Metro and the Metro Police. ID tag is fully visible.

Tweet it, too. It's a great idea. All the Beckies here will totally support you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, I do not think anyone should eat on the underground public transport in a city full of rats.

This author was not in the wrong in calling an employee out.

I do not know the reason for the publication cancellation, but if the tweet is really the reason, then it's deplorable. And really weird.

If the employee was a White man then the author would have been lauded. I think the author was correct in tweeting this as a metro customer. She got dinged because the employee was a black female.

If using social media was overreaction, then so was publishing it in WaPo.

What did the Black employee or Metro lose? Nothing. What did the whistleblower lose - quite a lot. She should sue the Metro and her publisher.

That’s the risk you take when you CHOOSE to post someone’s picture without permission. If you did something that reflects poorly on the reputation of your employers, they would have the option to fire you. Why is the relationship between the writer and publisher any different? I’m sure her contract had terms regarding this.

So why isn't the Metro employee fired? In uniform and in full view of passengers, she flagrantly chose to violate the law (normally punishable by a fine or even jail). How does that not reflect poorly on the reputation of her employer?

Where have you been?


Legislation Number
B22-0408
Introduction Date
Jul 11, 2017
Introduced by
Councilmembers T. White, Cheh, Silverman, Bonds, R. White, Nadeau, Grosso, and McDuffie
Co-Sponsor(s)
Councilmember Gray
Act Number
A22-0592
Enacted on
Jan 22, 2019

The D.C. law changed the legal classifications of fare evasion and such offenses as eating, drinking, spitting and playing loud music without headphones on buses and trains and at stations in the District.
Previously, violators were subject to criminal citations. Under the new law, the offenses are civil violations akin to littering or jaywalking and are punishable by lesser fines.

So if someone spits, you just ignore it? If someone is playing loud music on their __ blaster, can we just toss it on the tracks then?

[Anonymous]

^ R u living in 1985? Is Breakin’ 3: Khokl8 City filming at your metro station?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the writer’s original tweet:

“I thought we were not allowed to eat on the train. This is unacceptable. Hope @wmata responds.”

She added, “When I asked the employee about this, her response was ‘worry about yourself.’”

Latest update, this one from Buzzfeed:
“And while the Metro employee will not be facing disciplinary action for eating on the train, she is “hurt and embarrassed” for being blasted on social media, Barry Hobson, a spokesperson for the Metro workers union, told BuzzFeed News Monday.”

The Metro "worker" should be embarrassed. She's been exposed as a lawbreaker and hypocrite.

The woman is a bus operator whose schedule that day required her to travel by train from one bus to another during her meal break. Since Metro assigned her this chaotic schedule that didn't even take into consideration that her lunch would require traveling from one location to another thus prohibiting her from having ample time to eat her meal break (which is only 30 minutes for WMATA employees) then she has nothing to be ashamed of for her actions. Metro's idiotic scheduling left her with no alternative. Would you routinely starve yourself on your menial 30-minute lunch break commuting from one job location to another?
The Metro worker is hurt and embarrassed for being made a public spectacle by a busy-body who didn't know the nature of her situation and jumped to conclusions.

Where did the public statement say that it was actually her meal break (i.e. the only time she had to eat that shift)? I didn't see it in the announcement I read. Actually it seemed to say everything but that, but clearly wanted people to assume it.

If it was her only assigned meal break then for me at least, the situation changes dramatically.

If she was taking the chance to eat while traveling to another work location because she wanted to use her actual break for something else, that's unacceptable.

If it was her only meal break, her working conditions are unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

It’s in several news reports that WMATA confirmed she was on a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s in several news reports that WMATA confirmed she was on a break.

"a break" is not the same as the designated meal break for the shift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ R u living in 1985? Is Breakin’ 3: Khokl8 City filming at your metro station?

R u a DCPS gradooit frum 1985, cuz you write strangely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s in several news reports that WMATA confirmed she was on a break.

"a break" is not the same as the designated meal break for the shift.

OH MY F*CKING GD WHAT IS YOUR F*CKING PROBLEM BECKY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, I do not think anyone should eat on the underground public transport in a city full of rats.

This author was not in the wrong in calling an employee out.

I do not know the reason for the publication cancellation, but if the tweet is really the reason, then it's deplorable. And really weird.

If the employee was a White man then the author would have been lauded. I think the author was correct in tweeting this as a metro customer. She got dinged because the employee was a black female.

If using social media was overreaction, then so was publishing it in WaPo.

What did the Black employee or Metro lose? Nothing. What did the whistleblower lose - quite a lot. She should sue the Metro and her publisher.

That’s the risk you take when you CHOOSE to post someone’s picture without permission. If you did something that reflects poorly on the reputation of your employers, they would have the option to fire you. Why is the relationship between the writer and publisher any different? I’m sure her contract had terms regarding this.

So why isn't the Metro employee fired? In uniform and in full view of passengers, she flagrantly chose to violate the law (normally punishable by a fine or even jail). How does that not reflect poorly on the reputation of her employer?

Where have you been?


Legislation Number
B22-0408
Introduction Date
Jul 11, 2017
Introduced by
Councilmembers T. White, Cheh, Silverman, Bonds, R. White, Nadeau, Grosso, and McDuffie
Co-Sponsor(s)
Councilmember Gray
Act Number
A22-0592
Enacted on
Jan 22, 2019

The D.C. law changed the legal classifications of fare evasion and such offenses as eating, drinking, spitting and playing loud music without headphones on buses and trains and at stations in the District.
Previously, violators were subject to criminal citations. Under the new law, the offenses are civil violations akin to littering or jaywalking and are punishable by lesser fines.

Still against the rules, though, yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the metro employee for this:

"You worry about yourself."

That is perfect advice.

I love this too. She could have said “F— off,” (I would have), but she handled it gracefully.

Telling someone to mind their own business is not "graceful". If she really thought that she had the right to eat on the train, she should have calmly explained that. But she was defensive, because she knew that she was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MYOB is just another variation of Don’t Snitch.
There is a reason some communities are nice, and don’t experience much crime.
Sure, what’s the harm using the public park for your family reunion? It’s not a big deal. It’s not hurting anyone.
Why does it matter if a couple of kids use the pool without passes? It doesn’t really matter.
So what if someone eats last night’s lasagne on the metro? It’s not really my concern.
But that’s not true.
We have rules and guidelines for a reason. It’s never just one person. If every Weekend has people partying and trashing the park, it ruins the park for all. If the pool is overrun with unsupervised kids, it ruins the pool for everyone. If everyone eats on the train, it ruins the train for everyone.
Communities with the mantra “worry about yourself” tend to not be the places posters coo over on the real estate forum.

"Snitch" is the term only criminals use.

It’s not.

It is not your job to enforce the rules. Contact law enforcement if
someone is breaking a rule that is endangering someone. Or MYOB.

So only rules or laws where people are endangered should be enforced? If you contact law enforcement for a minor offense, you will make intl news as the next BBQ Becky "policing the bodies of POCs". I would have thought that reminding the employee that we are all noticing her infraction would have been enough to make her put it away. You'd rather have the Metro Police?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s in several news reports that WMATA confirmed she was on a break.

"a break" is not the same as the designated meal break for the shift.

OH MY F*CKING GD WHAT IS YOUR F*CKING PROBLEM BECKY?

Never had an actual job, most likely.

[Anonymous]

If my job requires me to commute from one site to another, that does not count as my lunch. I find it difficult to believe the Metro union would allow WMATA to conflate her travel and lunch. So it's just a lie to back their employee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the metro employee for this:

"You worry about yourself."

That is perfect advice.

I love this too. She could have said “F— off,” (I would have), but she handled it gracefully.

Telling someone to mind their own business is not "graceful". If she really thought that she had the right to eat on the train, she should have calmly explained that. But she was defensive, because she knew that she was wrong.

+1

The people who love her response are rule breakers who hate being called out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next time you make one bad decision,
let’s take away YOUR livelihood.

Happens to poor people all the time.

News Flash:
Indeed it often happens to poor people...
of EVERY color.

I agree that there's probably a correlation, but the causation goes the other way. The being poor is a product of poor decision making in the first place. You can't save people from themselves.

NP. You’re an idiot. And where did the poor decision making for AAs generate? When reading was illegal for my great-great grandmother? Was the poor decision making in the gerrymandered districts? The fair housing that was occurring in cost and right to ownership of property? The public investment in education and medical systems for people of color? And that’s just in the US — not even going into the details of the immigrants here who strive to make it.

Everyone didn’t get a fair start in this life, all from the same place on the track when the mark was set to go. People aren’t all poor because of their decisions. Do you know how hard it is to make the jump from the poverty line to lower class? Lower to middle? The bands are HUGE. Don’t be an ass.

Well I actually grew up poor. And believe it or not, there is a way out of poverty, ESPECIALLY in the US.

It starts with finishing school and trying to do the best you can, getting some sort of job as soon as you're legally able and then continuing to work throughout your schooling, following the rules, not getting involved in gangs, not getting pregnant before choosing a partner you actually intend to make a family with, not making stupid decisions that land you in prison or worse. I can promise you that I've worked plenty of minimum wage jobs in my life and gotten around on public transport and I've never once eaten a plate of food under a "no eating" sign, let alone told someone to shove it for pointing out that I shouldn't be doing that.

It sucks that some people start on third base and think they hit a home run. I get it. It annoys me too. I'm shocked again and again on this forum when I see how easy some people have it. But I'm so sick to death of people acting like there's just no way out of poverty unless someone buys you everything. And that being poor is somehow always an excuse to break rules. It isn't.

Thanks for answering my question: you’ve always been a dick.

Really? Not pp, but makes sense. Doesn’t matter what I earn or where I have to take my lunch break —I don’t eat food in a contained space where people may be allergic (and where it says not to). I especially don’t break rules as an employee of a company that sets them. I don’t care what race you are (and, I’m sorry to say, I feel if she were white we wouldn’t care). Many of us are lucky to have jobs and work our butts off — your skin color doesn’t give you an excuse to break protocol.