On October 21, 2005, I received a response from the CTA. I posted their response in the comment section of this posting. Please read the comment to better understand this comment.
It appears the CTA will address this issue. Whether they address it for the consumer or the CTA Union employee is another matter.
The CTA letter is signed by Terry Levin, Vice President of Customer Service. Mr. Levin alludes to the appropriateness of the CTA employee instructing me to try my bus card after I had put the card in the machine already. Mr. Levin suggest if I had tried my card again, and it malfunctioned later, I could have reported it to Customer Service and possibly received a refund. This is not the issue, and it is ludicrous.
The issue is the consumer receiving inappropriate service from an employee, which would have led to another exhaustive manner of relief as stated above by Mr. Levin, and that is, reporting the incident to Customer Service. A consumer should not have to go through this exhaustive measure when they have employees in place to eliminate this action. If the attendant personally viewed a customer buying a card that did not work when an attempt was made to access the "L", that card should have been voided by the attendant/employee and the consumer allowed access to "L" with another card. This action would have eliminated the consumer from another exhaustive remedy.
Mr. Levin does not address the issue using the platform I provided in my writing. I informed the employee to take the card and try it herself along with the request of the employee sliding it through the machine attached to her "cubby" station to give information on the card as to what is left on the card for access to the "L". If the attendant had acted professionally, she would have been able to determine if the card was defective or the turnstile was defective in reading my card.
To add insult to my injury, Mr. Levin uses my language of "argument" as to suggest a negative response from me to the CTA employee. I used the word "argument" because an argument can be constructive whether it is negative or positive. I use the word "argument" because of my litigation experience and the use of litigation terms. I could have used the word "discussion." What would Mr. Levin have said about this word? Nevertheless, I hope this issue does not get covered up as most issues do with the CTA management when addressing issues with a "Union" employee.
Fred Nance Jr.
October 12, 2005
Chicago Transit Authority
Ms. Carole L. Brown, Chairman
Mr. Frank Kruesi, President
567 West Lake Street
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Re: Employee 15785
Ms. Brown & Mr. Kruesi:
On October 12, 2005 at approximately 9:10 am, I, Fred L Nance Jr., went into the foyer of the 35th Street “L” at State Street to board the “Green” line to downtown Chicago. There were no other customers in the foyer. Employee 15785, who refused to give her name, viewed me from Booth P917 purchasing a transit card from Transit Card machine #7136. After retrieving the transit card from the machine, I went directly to turnstyle # 1105. I put my card in the transit card slot, as I have many times before at this “L” station, and the green light came on reporting “Enter”. I attempted to enter and the turnstyle would not turn.
I motioned to employee #15785 for assistance. Employee #15785 suggested I put the card back in the transit card slot. I rejected the idea stating the machine might construe this action as an additional action making my card void for future transferring. After much arguing this point, and other passengers entering through the turnstyle, I proceeded to put my card back in the transit card slot because employee #15785 was not going to provide relief from this situation. It was approximately 9:30 am.
When I put the card in, it did not work. After employee 15785 saw the card did not work she put her card in the slot, which allowed me to enter. Employee #15785 stated, “I shouldn’t do this because I told you to put the card in the slot a long time ago. I informed employee #15785 she has no power, she has a job; and she has to perform her job.
I was on my way to an employment interview scheduled for 9:30 am at Adams and Michigan. I should not have been harassed and intimidated as I was under the oppressive arm of employee #15785. I believe this is an unsupervised position she holds when working in this area. This employee does not seem to work well without supervision. Her character and demeanor was exceptionally unprofessional and discourteous. It appears, in this position, she believed she had some sort of special power over me because she could determine whether I could go or come. I was embarrassed and oppressed.
I do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Employee #15785 needs supervision and training. Please respond in writing.
Thank you.
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Posted on - http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
