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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but why was it the author lady’s job to tell the metro lady she was breaking the rules. I get the whole “see something say something” campaign but I thought that was more for life threatening infractions. She could have handled it way differently. Use the train intercom to call the authorities, taken a picture and then take it to metro police. Who probably would have cited her for being a nuisance.

What gave her the right to take the law into her own hands? She isn’t a metro employee. She wasn’t attempting to correct a child. This was another grown adult woman. She has no agency over this woman. What a sense of entitlement. She should have minded her own business.

The poster who tagged her metro molly got it right!

The riders have to call out people who violate the rules. The other day I was on a Metro train, and some hipster kept putting his shoes on part of the seat where I was sitting. I finally asked him to take his feet down. He actually refused to do it at first and asked what was wrong with it.

But you didn't display his photo to thousands when you did that, right? Hence the difference and the justifiable outrage.

A photo "board of shame" may be the only way to force behavioral change and more enforcement attention. Filth, litter, panhandling, loud music playing, dogs (untrained so-called support animals) who bark and defecate, other types of antisocial behavior in the Metro have increased in the last couple of years. Considering that Metro was once a model for the nation, it is the riders who should be justifiably outraged.

Tell you what, Becky - go for it. And see who comes out worse in the end - you or the people you are trying to shame.

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?

You know that Metro stopped ticketing for this a while ago, right?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:It seems that the Metro union contract provides a greasy Popeye's exception for the eating and drinking ban.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but why was it the author lady’s job to tell the metro lady she was breaking the rules. I get the whole “see something say something” campaign but I thought that was more for life threatening infractions. She could have handled it way differently. Use the train intercom to call the authorities, taken a picture and then take it to metro police. Who probably would have cited her for being a nuisance.

What gave her the right to take the law into her own hands? She isn’t a metro employee. She wasn’t attempting to correct a child. This was another grown adult woman. She has no agency over this woman. What a sense of entitlement. She should have minded her own business.

The poster who tagged her metro molly got it right!

The riders have to call out people who violate the rules. The other day I was on a Metro train, and some hipster kept putting his shoes on part of the seat where I was sitting. I finally asked him to take his feet down. He actually refused to do it at first and asked what was wrong with it.

But you didn't display his photo to thousands when you did that, right? Hence the difference and the justifiable outrage.

A photo "board of shame" may be the only way to force behavioral change and more enforcement attention. Filth, litter, panhandling, loud music playing, dogs (untrained so-called support animals) who bark and defecate, other types of antisocial behavior in the Metro have increased in the last couple of years. Considering that Metro was once a model for the nation, it is the riders who should be justifiably outraged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but why was it the author lady’s job to tell the metro lady she was breaking the rules. I get the whole “see something say something” campaign but I thought that was more for life threatening infractions. She could have handled it way differently. Use the train intercom to call the authorities, taken a picture and then take it to metro police. Who probably would have cited her for being a nuisance.

What gave her the right to take the law into her own hands? She isn’t a metro employee. She wasn’t attempting to correct a child. This was another grown adult woman. She has no agency over this woman. What a sense of entitlement. She should have minded her own business.

The poster who tagged her metro molly got it right!

The riders have to call out people who violate the rules. The other day I was on a Metro train, and some hipster kept putting his shoes on part of the seat where I was sitting. I finally asked him to take his feet down. He actually refused to do it at first and asked what was wrong with it.

But you didn't display his photo to thousands when you did that, right? Hence the difference and the justifiable outrage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

And it is public knowledge where she works

I thought you Beckies thought it was a *good* decision to tweet that photo, just a bad outcome. Now it was a bad decision?

Anonymous wrote:If Metro riders are afraid to speak up, the system will continue to define deviancy down.

Anonymous wrote:

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

And it is public knowledge where she works