Skip to main content

canada post is guaranteed to drive you a little crazy

i want to make this clear, right off the top: no one envies postal employees at this time of year. it's harsh work tramping through snow and sleet and driving in dangerous conditions or even just standing at a counter with a line up of people who are all convinced that it's your fault that they waited too long in order to mail your holiday packages. those jobs are thankless and everyone should bear that in mind when dealing with postal employees close to xmas.

however, there is a sort of mentality that seems to permeate the upper echelons of the postal organisation that i would like to characterise as an absurdist conspiracy. they're all mad there and they want you to join in the fun. to illustrate this [again] here is a conversation i had with a canada post employee when trying to ship a package to halifax.

me :: hello, i'd like to ship this box overnight to halifax

customer service rep :: we can't do that.

me :: it says on the sign behind you that you do.

csr :: [double checking] oh yes, that's our overnight service.

me :: so i'd like to ship it overnight for it to get there tomorrow.

csr :: well i don't know if that would work.

me :: it's 8 in the morning. your counter just opened. doesn't that mean that the package will go out today and arrive tomorrow?

csr :: well i wouldn't bet on it.

me :: i don't understand.

csr :: well the guaranteed next day service only applies when you're shipping to a city.

me :: halifax is a city.

csr :: yes, i know.

me :: so why wouldn't the guaranteed service be available?

csr :: it is. i just don't know if it would get there by tomorrow or not. it's very busy.

me :: so your guaranteed delivery service isn't guaranteed to get there?

csr :: well i would never guarantee that. but you can ship it for next day delivery and if they don't deliver it, you can call canada post and ask for your money back.

me :: but will they still deliver my package after?

csr :: i can't say.

me :: [ponders length of time it will get to fed ex counter and determines it is not an option] ok, well, i want to ship my package.

csr :: are you sure?

me :: yes.

csr :: and when would you like it delivered?

me :: um... how soon can you get it there?

csr :: well we have the overnight delivery service.

me :: i think i'm going to go lick an electric socket now.*

csr :: pardon?

me :: i'd like to ship it overnight.

*it's possibly definitely true that i didn't say this out loud. but i really wanted to.

note :: while checking the postal code to which i was shipping, i noticed that canada post's web site will soon be limiting the number of postal codes you can look up on line. i believe that the restrictions will only limit the number you can look up in one day, but there's very little information available. i have to wonder who in hell thought this was a good idea. looking up postal codes is one of the few things that would drive people to the canada post web site. in particular, it seems like a spectacularly bad idea for a company that is poised to start laying off thousands of employees. wouldn't they want to get people used to going on line rather than calling for this sort of information?

Comments

Bellyhead said…
Is it due to pending financial ruin that Canada Post is being so oddly peculiar? I feel like I'm reading some absurdist play reading your recent CP posts. :(
Kate MacDonald said…
Canada Post has certainly been experiencing some losses, however I think that they may be mistaken about the reasons. They are assuming that people are no longer using their services because they are sending less mail. That might be partially true, but I think that the larger problem is that people are using other services even when they do have mail to send, because they have no confidence that anything sent via CP will ever reach its destination.

On a happy note, my package did make it. So really, CP just got themselves a minor bit of bad publicity for NO REASON. Which is silly, because they've managed to generate so much bad publicity for good reasons otherwise. (More on that to come.)

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…