With the arrival of my highly anticipated, week-long vacation from FedEx, I find that my head is filled with thoughts about the work I will be missing this week. Though I am supposed to be going to bed, I feel the need to share with you the secrets of the FedEx Ground Mezzanine.
I've written about loading and unloading and work conditions at FedEx, but until this last week the Mezzanine was a complete mystery to me. I knew that the privileged few who worked up there were given a radio each, with which to communicate with the control room and with maintenance. But I knew nothing of what the job itself entailed, other than that, on rare occasions, someone might be sent up there as a respite for loading downstairs. Because of that, surely it had to be an easy job, I thought.
The Mezzanine is not easy. Perhaps, physically, it is less demanding and doesn't damage the muscles in your lower back in the way that loading and unloading can. In that sense, yes, it is easier. When it comes to being able to move and make judgments quickly, it is significantly harder than any other job that a package handler might be given. The Mezzanine is a job that completely overwhelms and terrifies me, to the point where I can't even make sense of how I actually feel about it.
Boxes fly at you far fast than they do when they slide down the chute in the load ends. You have to be quick to pull trash off the rollers, identify problem boxes, and pull off boxes that need to be sent to QA. At any moment you may be called away from your post to fix a chute jam on your load end, or to check the end of sorter photo eye, where trash can make the system think there is a jam. It is on your shoulders to keep the machine that is the hub running smoothly and efficiently. You, and a few other select package handlers, are responsible.
In light of the stress that working in the Mezzanine can cause, I also have to say that it is exhilarating. I enjoy the work. Using my mind at FedEx was something I never thought I would be doing, but now I have the chance to exercise both my brain and my body. It may seem boring at times, but at any moment I may have to make a split-second decision or rush away to fix a problem that could shut down part of the system.
There are three unload wings in the hub. Therefore, there are three primary singulators where packages are separated into a single-file line. From those primary singulators, packages are sorted into four other areas; A1, A2, B1, or B2. Each side has a secondary singulator. At each primary and secondary singulator there is a Mezzanine worker posted to help separate the packages into a single-file line. Singulators received their name because of their job of separating the packages. From the secondary singulators, the packages are sent along a belt where they are scanned, their measurements are taken, and they are then whisked off to the proper chute to be loaded into a trailer. Occasionally those chutes jam near the top, if a package sticks to the metal or doesn't have enough momentum to make it past the entrance to the chute. If this happens and the photo eyes that report jams are blocked, a Mezzanine worker posted on a secondary singulator will be sent in to clear that jam with a large metal pole. Occasionally there are jams in other areas as well.
It sounds easy. But jams can happen anywhere. Just on Friday I had a box on my transporter (the belt that leads up to my singulator) flip up and get caught between the belt and the ceiling. Boxes piled up behind it, and before we could break the jam it broke free, breaking the box that had caused it and nearly taking part of the ceiling with it. I had to rush back to the singulator to meet the massive river of boxes that threatened to spill over the edge of the rail guards on the belt and slam right into me. At any other time, some other section of belt or rollers may jam, shutting the entire system down. It is our job to keep that from happening to the best of our ability.
I never would have thought that I would be offered the chance to work in the Mezzanine. I don't regret my decision to take the position, for all that the work scares me at times and I sometimes wonder if I will be able to meet my manager's expectations. I didn't think a job at FedEx could be fun.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
A note concerning the statement that men should never hit women.
Twice last week I had presented to me the idea that a man should never hit a woman for any reason. The first was in a form of an image that simply presented the statement. The second time was during a conversation with a very good friend of mine. I never really knew that this was a statement I felt so strongly about until that conversation, and in this I would like to refute it. During this process I will quote my friend several times, as he is the one who brought up the points that I would like to discuss.
I want to begin by saying that, if someone hits you, whether they are male or female, you have the right to defend yourself. If they are going to hit you again, then hit back. Just because someone is a woman does not mean that you cannot defend yourself against her. When I posed this to my friend, I was given the response,
My second argument against the idea that men should never hit women is that it is sexist. Yes, I know that card has been played before, but I have a different take on it than some people do. I believe that it is sexist in favor of women, not against them. I believe that using this statement is a way for people to elevate the female sex above men. Why? Because it is an enabling statement. Look at it this way. If we turned the statement that men should never hit women into a rule that we had to live by, what would happen? Women could hit men as much as they wanted and the man would not be allowed to hit back. Essentially, we could do what we wanted without fear of being physically reprimanded. Men would not have that protection. Now, this is most likely not going to happen, but if this statement were put into law, then what would be to stop it from turning into a situation like this? In short, it enables women to push men around more than they already do.
Of course, I also see it as sexist against women, because I believe that it does promote a certain sense of inequality because it suggests that women are somehow more delicate, weaker than, or deserve different treatment than men. We will never be completely equal because of our physical differences, but that does not mean that we should have values that demand that men treat women better than they treat other men.
Near the beginning of the conversation, my friend made this statement:
I want to make one final point concerning this statement. Unless it's in self defense or to protect someone else, you should never hit anyone. Not women. Not men. Not children. Not adults. Hitting is not okay. Ever. Women aren't the only ones men shouldn't be hitting. Men shouldn't be hitting each other. Men shouldn't hit children. How come those statements aren't running around along with "men should never hit women"? Where is the statement that says women should never hit men?
This statement is flawed, wrong, medieval, and no longer relevant to society today. No, men shouldn't run around hitting women. This is true. But you should defend yourself if attacked by a person, not let yourself get hurt because the person is female. Nor should women hit men, because that is equally unacceptable. Women have been victimized by men throughout history, but there are also men who have been victimized by women. We're not equal. We never will be. But that doesn't mean we need to continue to hang onto such an unequal, narrow-minded, foolish statement.
We are all human. Humans should never hit humans.
I want to begin by saying that, if someone hits you, whether they are male or female, you have the right to defend yourself. If they are going to hit you again, then hit back. Just because someone is a woman does not mean that you cannot defend yourself against her. When I posed this to my friend, I was given the response,
"And no I will take a beating from a woman before I swing. Not saying it wouldn't hurt, but my mom and dad raised me with manners, which is something that few people have now days."I want to point something out. Manners refers to customs or a way of living. Saying please and thank you is, in our society, manners. Taking a beating is not. When someone hits you and intends to continue hitting you, manners do not dictate that you continue to take a beating and possibly suffer serious injury. That, simply put, is stupidity.
My second argument against the idea that men should never hit women is that it is sexist. Yes, I know that card has been played before, but I have a different take on it than some people do. I believe that it is sexist in favor of women, not against them. I believe that using this statement is a way for people to elevate the female sex above men. Why? Because it is an enabling statement. Look at it this way. If we turned the statement that men should never hit women into a rule that we had to live by, what would happen? Women could hit men as much as they wanted and the man would not be allowed to hit back. Essentially, we could do what we wanted without fear of being physically reprimanded. Men would not have that protection. Now, this is most likely not going to happen, but if this statement were put into law, then what would be to stop it from turning into a situation like this? In short, it enables women to push men around more than they already do.
Of course, I also see it as sexist against women, because I believe that it does promote a certain sense of inequality because it suggests that women are somehow more delicate, weaker than, or deserve different treatment than men. We will never be completely equal because of our physical differences, but that does not mean that we should have values that demand that men treat women better than they treat other men.
Near the beginning of the conversation, my friend made this statement:
"(not trying to be sexists) but I don't hit women. That's the right way and the way I was raised, actually since birth. And I wouldn't wanna be raised any other way. mom and dad did a good job at raising me."Apart from the atrocious grammar and spelling, I can point out a significant mistake in this statement. Refusing to hit women is not the right way. I'm not saying it's the wrong way, either, but there is no right way, whether it was the way you were raised or not. Since we're talking about what I think here, I will say that it is both the wrong and the right way. Should you hit a woman for a reason other than self defense? No. That's not acceptable. Should you hit a woman if she is throwing punches, running at you with a knife, or otherwise threatening your well being? Yes! Getting seriously injured just because you won't hit a woman is stupid.
I want to make one final point concerning this statement. Unless it's in self defense or to protect someone else, you should never hit anyone. Not women. Not men. Not children. Not adults. Hitting is not okay. Ever. Women aren't the only ones men shouldn't be hitting. Men shouldn't be hitting each other. Men shouldn't hit children. How come those statements aren't running around along with "men should never hit women"? Where is the statement that says women should never hit men?
This statement is flawed, wrong, medieval, and no longer relevant to society today. No, men shouldn't run around hitting women. This is true. But you should defend yourself if attacked by a person, not let yourself get hurt because the person is female. Nor should women hit men, because that is equally unacceptable. Women have been victimized by men throughout history, but there are also men who have been victimized by women. We're not equal. We never will be. But that doesn't mean we need to continue to hang onto such an unequal, narrow-minded, foolish statement.
We are all human. Humans should never hit humans.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
SOS Venezuela
I play on a SIM website that is about lions and creating your own pride. We have a variety of different nationalities that are represented on the site. I wanted to share this with my friends on Facebook...
"Like many other players in Lioden, I don't live in the USA: when I first joined this Sim, I was actually amazed with the ethnical diversity and the friendliness of the LD community. I'm proud to say I belong to such a marvelous game, where people from all around the world can get along so well, no matter where they come from.
It is because of this kind nature we all seem to share, I thought of posting this thread: as I stated before, I'm not northamerican, but actually venezuelan. Some of you may have heard of the struggle my country is going through: students from all around the venezuelan states rose to protest in the name of freedom, without weapons... and our current, illegitimate leader, dictator Nicolas Maduro, sent the Guardia Nacional Bolivariana (equivalent to USA's military infantry), to arrest, SHOOT and KILL those brave students, who dared oppose him in a PACIFIC protest.
Whomever tried to give the defenseless students refuge from the GNB would be arrested or, if "necessary", killed too. Our capital city, Caracas, closed it's gates to the rest of the country AND the rest of the world, not letting anyone in or out. All the communication services were brought down or censored for good, including a colombian tv channel wich tried to broadcast what was happening. Students barricated themselves inside buildings, and the GNB used tear gas to get them out. The police, instead of protecting the civillians, joined the GNB in it's bloody pursue, and many officers have taken the chance to beat them mercilessly, almost to death. They broke our political and diplomatic ties with other countries, closing their embassies, both ours and those from the other nations. Believe me, this is just the tip of the iceberg...
I created this thread to inform people, to let the world know what's going on in Venezuela, how we need help, support, someone to listen to our pleas: all around the internet, wherever we can, us venezuelans are trying to raise other nations awareness of our dire situation. Like me, right now, native people from Venezuela are trying to let our voice be heard, wether we're currently living there or not, because our family and friends are still there, and we love our nation. Let everyone know Venezuela is bleeding, suffering, dying, every single day. It hasn't stopped, it won't stop until we do something: tell your friends on LD, tell your friends on school, college, work, your family, your neighbors!
I'll check this thread on a daily basis: those who support Venezuela, or want to know more about what's happening right now, feel free to post your questions and/or comments here.
SOS Venezuela."
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Religion and Spirituality
Those who are reading this may or may not know that I was raised as a Christian. My mom took me - and later forced me - to go to church and pray before dinner and things like that. When I transferred from college in Montana to a college at home in Oregon, I dropped the identifier of "Christian" and began to refer to myself as "spiritual" - specifically, spiritual but not religious.
The school I attended in Montana was affiliated with the Catholic church. Some of the people I knew here were a bit confused by my decision. Catholics and Christians don't always get along very well because of the differences in their belief systems. They have the same base beliefs - that God created the world and then sent his son to save humans from their sins in the ultimate sacrifice. After that things start to get blurry and the two split away from each other. Coming from a Baptist church, my experience is that Catholicism is more ritualized and focuses on doctrines whereas we focused on forging a relationship with God and developing a strong Christian family and reaching out to those around us. Not that that made us better, of course. In some ways, we were worse.
Montana was bad for me. I never should have gone. I experienced things that no person should ever have to experience. But I also experienced some spiritual attacks that originated in the Catholic church. Now, I want to be clear that I am not saying Catholics are jerks, or wrong, or bad. I know some awesome, loving, faithful Catholic people who deserve all of the good things in the world and a place in heaven with God someday. The goal of this is to simply share some experiences and observations that I made while experiencing the tensions between two religious groups that share the same history.
I went on a retreat through my college that was supposed to be open to all women of all walks of life. Being Catholic was not required. I wouldn't have gone if I had known what I would be dealing with. I already felt left out because there were so many things I wasn't allowed to participate in because I wasn't Catholic, communion being one of them, and perhaps the one that pissed me off the most. But on this retreat we had a guest speaker. I'm sure she was a great person and all, but some of the things she said were absolutely unacceptable. Ultimately, though in less direct terms, she said that if you weren't Catholic then you weren't Christian. I checked out of the retreat at that point and hid in the basement where everyone was sleeping. I got a lot of homework done that weekend. The sad part is, that wasn't the first part of the retreat that made me feel unwelcome.
That was the only direct insult to my faith during the time. The other insults came indirectly from policies within the Catholic church that controlled who could do what. I already mentioned not being allowed to take communion, so I'll use that as my example.
Transubstantiation is the idea that the wine and bread actually physically becomes the blood and body of Jesus during communion (which resulted in Christians being seen as cannibals during part of history). The Catholic church still believes this and holds onto this idea. It is one of their doctrines. I'm not an expert on Catholicism and their beliefs, but I did have this one explained to me. A significant number of protestant denominations do not hold on to this belief, instead believing that the bread and wine are merely a representation. Essentially, this is why Catholic churches do not allow other people to take communion. It may not be the intent, but the basic message is that other Christian's believe the wrong thing if they do not believe in transubstantiation. There are, of course, the classes that Catholic members have to take before they are allowed to participate in communion, but other churches have similar classes. As long as someone understands the purpose of communion and believes, they should be allowed to take it.
This, at least, is how I was made to feel. I could, of course, go up and be blessed by a priest, but why would I want to do that? If I was at a mass it was because I wanted to commune with and worship God, not be blessed by someone who was just as human as I was. On top of that, it singled me out as different, when really I wasn't. I had to show everyone that I wasn't like them by crossing my arms across my chest. That was exactly why I never got up for communion, and part of why I left mass early multiple times or refused to go at all. I participated in maybe three or four when I was in Montana, at least one of which I had to leave early so I wouldn't burst into tears.
This is a big part of why I no longer identify myself with a religious term, such as Christian or Baptist. I am spiritual, and for me that is enough. I made the decision once before, when I was in high school, but that was typical teenage questioning. Even so, there was one important person who treated me like I was a disease for that short period of time. That hurt more than anything and is yet another reason why I am no longer religious. The final reason why comes in the form of the isolated cases in which I was looked down on after coming out as bisexual several years ago.
There was at least one person who, upon seeing my Facebook page, where I openly display my values and my identity, did not think that I should be allowed to work with the kids at church. At the time I had volunteered to help teach Children's Church during service, so that the kids didn't have to sit through boring sermons and distract everyone. I would have been teaching them about God's love, miracles, different Bible stories, and more. Nothing to do with bisexuality at all. The sad part was that the people who had a problem with it didn't even have the balls to say it to my face, to put it bluntly. They hid behind my mom, who in turn came to me. While she is not completely accepting of what I identify as, she loves me and she was angry that anyone would say things like that about her daughter. I was just angry that they didn't say it to my face.
Religion opens up too many doors for discrimination, judgments of people, and hate. There are too many complexities and too many reasons for people to fight and argue and hate each other. Spirituality is simple. You believe what you believe because you value it and because you believe that it's the truth. No rules, no doctrines, no necessary rituals. It is what you need it to be. And though God and I have some issues to straighten out, I feel closer to him now that I do not view myself as part of a church.
The school I attended in Montana was affiliated with the Catholic church. Some of the people I knew here were a bit confused by my decision. Catholics and Christians don't always get along very well because of the differences in their belief systems. They have the same base beliefs - that God created the world and then sent his son to save humans from their sins in the ultimate sacrifice. After that things start to get blurry and the two split away from each other. Coming from a Baptist church, my experience is that Catholicism is more ritualized and focuses on doctrines whereas we focused on forging a relationship with God and developing a strong Christian family and reaching out to those around us. Not that that made us better, of course. In some ways, we were worse.
Montana was bad for me. I never should have gone. I experienced things that no person should ever have to experience. But I also experienced some spiritual attacks that originated in the Catholic church. Now, I want to be clear that I am not saying Catholics are jerks, or wrong, or bad. I know some awesome, loving, faithful Catholic people who deserve all of the good things in the world and a place in heaven with God someday. The goal of this is to simply share some experiences and observations that I made while experiencing the tensions between two religious groups that share the same history.
I went on a retreat through my college that was supposed to be open to all women of all walks of life. Being Catholic was not required. I wouldn't have gone if I had known what I would be dealing with. I already felt left out because there were so many things I wasn't allowed to participate in because I wasn't Catholic, communion being one of them, and perhaps the one that pissed me off the most. But on this retreat we had a guest speaker. I'm sure she was a great person and all, but some of the things she said were absolutely unacceptable. Ultimately, though in less direct terms, she said that if you weren't Catholic then you weren't Christian. I checked out of the retreat at that point and hid in the basement where everyone was sleeping. I got a lot of homework done that weekend. The sad part is, that wasn't the first part of the retreat that made me feel unwelcome.
That was the only direct insult to my faith during the time. The other insults came indirectly from policies within the Catholic church that controlled who could do what. I already mentioned not being allowed to take communion, so I'll use that as my example.
Transubstantiation is the idea that the wine and bread actually physically becomes the blood and body of Jesus during communion (which resulted in Christians being seen as cannibals during part of history). The Catholic church still believes this and holds onto this idea. It is one of their doctrines. I'm not an expert on Catholicism and their beliefs, but I did have this one explained to me. A significant number of protestant denominations do not hold on to this belief, instead believing that the bread and wine are merely a representation. Essentially, this is why Catholic churches do not allow other people to take communion. It may not be the intent, but the basic message is that other Christian's believe the wrong thing if they do not believe in transubstantiation. There are, of course, the classes that Catholic members have to take before they are allowed to participate in communion, but other churches have similar classes. As long as someone understands the purpose of communion and believes, they should be allowed to take it.
This, at least, is how I was made to feel. I could, of course, go up and be blessed by a priest, but why would I want to do that? If I was at a mass it was because I wanted to commune with and worship God, not be blessed by someone who was just as human as I was. On top of that, it singled me out as different, when really I wasn't. I had to show everyone that I wasn't like them by crossing my arms across my chest. That was exactly why I never got up for communion, and part of why I left mass early multiple times or refused to go at all. I participated in maybe three or four when I was in Montana, at least one of which I had to leave early so I wouldn't burst into tears.
This is a big part of why I no longer identify myself with a religious term, such as Christian or Baptist. I am spiritual, and for me that is enough. I made the decision once before, when I was in high school, but that was typical teenage questioning. Even so, there was one important person who treated me like I was a disease for that short period of time. That hurt more than anything and is yet another reason why I am no longer religious. The final reason why comes in the form of the isolated cases in which I was looked down on after coming out as bisexual several years ago.
There was at least one person who, upon seeing my Facebook page, where I openly display my values and my identity, did not think that I should be allowed to work with the kids at church. At the time I had volunteered to help teach Children's Church during service, so that the kids didn't have to sit through boring sermons and distract everyone. I would have been teaching them about God's love, miracles, different Bible stories, and more. Nothing to do with bisexuality at all. The sad part was that the people who had a problem with it didn't even have the balls to say it to my face, to put it bluntly. They hid behind my mom, who in turn came to me. While she is not completely accepting of what I identify as, she loves me and she was angry that anyone would say things like that about her daughter. I was just angry that they didn't say it to my face.
Religion opens up too many doors for discrimination, judgments of people, and hate. There are too many complexities and too many reasons for people to fight and argue and hate each other. Spirituality is simple. You believe what you believe because you value it and because you believe that it's the truth. No rules, no doctrines, no necessary rituals. It is what you need it to be. And though God and I have some issues to straighten out, I feel closer to him now that I do not view myself as part of a church.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Separation of Church and State
Today I want to take some time to talk about the separation of Church and State in terms of the federal government and why we have it. I bring this up because of the issue of same-sex marriages, perhaps one of the biggest social debates of our time. I recognize that everyone has their own opinion on the subject and their own reason for opposing or supporting it, but I believe that there are some important points that both parties have been overlooking during this drawn-out battle.
In school we are taught the story of the pilgrims and how they left England to escape religious persecution. We know these people to be puritans or protestants. Of course, its far more complicated than all of that. The point is that these people left their homeland because they were being persecuted and wanted freedom from that persecution. It wasn't just the state persecuting them, either. It was the Church. When Martin Luther nailed his ninety-nine theses to the door of the Church, there was a split. The people who moved away from the traditional church became known as Protestants, because they protested against the wrongs of the Church (not to be confused with the Puritans, a slightly more extreme religious sect that was more like a cult).
So, the Protestants found a way to compromise with their governments. They would go somewhere else and settle. They founded the Colonies on the eastern shores of what is now the United States under the principle of religious freedom. And by freedom I mean freedom to practice the different versions of Christianity. Other religious groups - such as the Quakers - were highly frowned upon.
So, what does all of this have to do with separation of Church and State, you wonder. Well, in England and other European countries at the time the Church was closely linked to and heavily influenced the government. The mixture of the Church with the government was what allowed the two to have considerably more power than either ought to have had. The government was able to punish people for religious malpractice (or what they decided religious malpractice was) and the Church was able to persecute people with the government's backing.
When the Colonies were founded, this was an important issue that they considered. Once they were independent of England and began to set up a government of their own it was something that they thought important enough to put on paper. This we have separation of Church and State.
This is important to keep in mind when we discuss the issue of same-sex marriage. One of the leading arguments is religiously based. People argue that the Bible says that same-sex relationships are wrong and sinful. That's fine. Maybe they're right and it is a sin. But it doesn't matter if they are wrong or right. What matters is that same-sex marriage is a political issue, not a religious one. Just because a same-sex couple gets married doesn't mean that the church has to recognize it as "right" or "ok". It just means that the state is recognizing a legal union between two consenting human beings. You can be married without the church. All it takes is a judge and some signatures and a witness.
My point is that Church and State are to be separate. When they are mixed bad things happen and people abuse power. Look at the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, or the selling of "tickets" to have sins forgiven (a clever guise for making money, yes, but wrong).
It is against the law to prohibit something based on religious grounds. And for those people who think that it's wrong or unnatural...well, I'm fairly certain we do a lot of things that are considered wrong or unnatural, but over the years they have become acceptable part of society anyways. And that opinion doesn't have any legal standing, anyways. It's not like allowing same-sex marriages means that you have to marry someone who's the same sex as you. I say keep your values to yourself and don't force them onto other people.
I realize that people can look at this and assume that I am saying all of this because I identify as bisexual. While that doesn't certainly weigh in on my opinion, I want to make it clear that I think each person should be allowed to live by their own morals and values without other people trying to force their opinions and values onto them. By denying people the right to marry whoever they want that is exactly what is going on. If same-sex marriage is allowed, what do heterosexual couples lose? They can still have heterosexual relationships and marriages. Nothing will change for them. The other option - the one that currently holds in many states - is denying someone the right to choose. And, being Christian myself (though I'm loathe to put a label to my spirituality these says, with as many times as I have been targeted by a Christian institution), I'm fairly confident in saying that God gave everyone the right to choose. We have free will to make the right or wrong decisions. Who are we to deny each other that free will if it isn't hurting people?
In school we are taught the story of the pilgrims and how they left England to escape religious persecution. We know these people to be puritans or protestants. Of course, its far more complicated than all of that. The point is that these people left their homeland because they were being persecuted and wanted freedom from that persecution. It wasn't just the state persecuting them, either. It was the Church. When Martin Luther nailed his ninety-nine theses to the door of the Church, there was a split. The people who moved away from the traditional church became known as Protestants, because they protested against the wrongs of the Church (not to be confused with the Puritans, a slightly more extreme religious sect that was more like a cult).
So, the Protestants found a way to compromise with their governments. They would go somewhere else and settle. They founded the Colonies on the eastern shores of what is now the United States under the principle of religious freedom. And by freedom I mean freedom to practice the different versions of Christianity. Other religious groups - such as the Quakers - were highly frowned upon.
So, what does all of this have to do with separation of Church and State, you wonder. Well, in England and other European countries at the time the Church was closely linked to and heavily influenced the government. The mixture of the Church with the government was what allowed the two to have considerably more power than either ought to have had. The government was able to punish people for religious malpractice (or what they decided religious malpractice was) and the Church was able to persecute people with the government's backing.
When the Colonies were founded, this was an important issue that they considered. Once they were independent of England and began to set up a government of their own it was something that they thought important enough to put on paper. This we have separation of Church and State.
This is important to keep in mind when we discuss the issue of same-sex marriage. One of the leading arguments is religiously based. People argue that the Bible says that same-sex relationships are wrong and sinful. That's fine. Maybe they're right and it is a sin. But it doesn't matter if they are wrong or right. What matters is that same-sex marriage is a political issue, not a religious one. Just because a same-sex couple gets married doesn't mean that the church has to recognize it as "right" or "ok". It just means that the state is recognizing a legal union between two consenting human beings. You can be married without the church. All it takes is a judge and some signatures and a witness.
My point is that Church and State are to be separate. When they are mixed bad things happen and people abuse power. Look at the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, or the selling of "tickets" to have sins forgiven (a clever guise for making money, yes, but wrong).
It is against the law to prohibit something based on religious grounds. And for those people who think that it's wrong or unnatural...well, I'm fairly certain we do a lot of things that are considered wrong or unnatural, but over the years they have become acceptable part of society anyways. And that opinion doesn't have any legal standing, anyways. It's not like allowing same-sex marriages means that you have to marry someone who's the same sex as you. I say keep your values to yourself and don't force them onto other people.
I realize that people can look at this and assume that I am saying all of this because I identify as bisexual. While that doesn't certainly weigh in on my opinion, I want to make it clear that I think each person should be allowed to live by their own morals and values without other people trying to force their opinions and values onto them. By denying people the right to marry whoever they want that is exactly what is going on. If same-sex marriage is allowed, what do heterosexual couples lose? They can still have heterosexual relationships and marriages. Nothing will change for them. The other option - the one that currently holds in many states - is denying someone the right to choose. And, being Christian myself (though I'm loathe to put a label to my spirituality these says, with as many times as I have been targeted by a Christian institution), I'm fairly confident in saying that God gave everyone the right to choose. We have free will to make the right or wrong decisions. Who are we to deny each other that free will if it isn't hurting people?
Monday, February 3, 2014
Package Handler 101 - The Trailer and How to Load It
Package handlers at FedEx Ground are most often responsible for loading or unloading the trailers that travel across the country to deliver customers' packages to the sorting facilities. Today I want to talk a bit about the trailer and how you load it as well as some of the dangers that come with loading (or unloading!) a trailer.
Here in Portland we deal with two types of trailers. A normal trailer is shorter than the normal semi truck that you see and has a belly in between the wheels. Usually a truck pulls two of these shorter trailers. The long box is more like what a semi truck usually pulls and doesn't have a belly like the normal trailers do. Long boxes are also significantly more difficult to load and is better suited for taller package handlers (in other words, not me).
In the image I put together above, I have marked the positive and negative aspects of this wall of 'boxes'. Obviously in real life things wouldn't be quite this symmetrical, but FedEx seems to think that this is how real life works, since their training images tend to look a bit like this (though more professionally done).
First, you can see that to the right of the image there is a column of boxes, which I have marked as wrong. This would create an unstable wall and put too much pressure on the boxes at the bottom. Obviously this column isn't very tall, so there wouldn't be as much pressure, but it can still be dangerous to unloaders. Second, I have two boxes with directional arrows on them. When loading the arrows are always supposed to be pointing up. As you can see, I checked the box with an arrow pointing up and crossed out the one with the arrow pointing to the right. Finally, you will see three small check mark next to three red Ts that the lines of the boxes form. This is overlapping the boxes and it makes walls stable and distributes the pressure on the boxes at the bottom. This method is also called the bricklayer method.
Today, my hub follows a loading priority system called VOLT. I have absolutely no idea what VOLT stands for or how to use it when loading trailers, so I can't teach you about that. I was trained on the Five Priorities of Loading system, which I still hold to, with my own modifications (because I don't load very often anymore so I can get away with more than regular loaders).
The five priorities of loading are cornerstone, base shelf, alternate shelf, filler, and top fill/crushables. The cornerstone is usually that massive, heavy box that you probably can't life more than a few inches off the ground. It is typically placed against the wall of the trailer, forming the first part of the base shelf, or the bottom row of boxes that starts your wall. Each row of boxes is called a shelf. Often you will have a taller box that reaches above the general height of the shelf you are building (such as the tall box on the right side of the image above). The part that goes above your current shelf forms an alternate shelf, where you can start another shelf above the one you are working on.
You will always have spaces in between boxes that need to be filled. That is where filler boxes come in handy. These are smaller boxes that can be placed in the gaps that are always part of a wall. This both increases cubes (the amount of cubic space you fill inside of the trailer) and the stability of the wall. Sometimes they are also referred to as wedge boxes.
Finally there are the top crushables, or top fill as we like to call it. More often than not, your wall is going to have space leftover at the top, between the last self and the ceiling. This needs to be filled as well, and there are a variety of boxes that can do the job. Flat, lightweight boxes are preferred, but anything small that is light, can be crushed, or is some kind of bag will work to fill in the space. The more space you fill the better your cubes are (and the more money the company saves!).
Another type of package that we get to deal with is the incompatible or IC (we pronounce it ink/inks). These packages do not come down a chute, but on a separate belt where they are manually pulled off and placed on a flat set of rollers next to the chute where they wait to be loaded. IC packages are not to be built into a wall if they are excessively heavy or an awkward shape. Specifically, metal and tires are not to be placed above the floor unless they are stacked on top of one another (for example, a stack of tires). IC packages include metal, tubs or containers of liquid, thin boxes (less than two fingers thick), wooden packages, packages weighing 100+ pounds, tires, and other miscellaneous items (I've often received igloo shaped dog houses and plastic kayaks/canoes).
And that, my friends, is the basics of loading. There are many other things that I could cover here, but that is for another post on another day. Just keep in mind that this is the basics - there are a lot of things that also come into play when you are loading, and some of these basics and standards are thrown out the door in favor of speed and simply getting the job done.
So, who wants to go get a job at FedEx now?
Here in Portland we deal with two types of trailers. A normal trailer is shorter than the normal semi truck that you see and has a belly in between the wheels. Usually a truck pulls two of these shorter trailers. The long box is more like what a semi truck usually pulls and doesn't have a belly like the normal trailers do. Long boxes are also significantly more difficult to load and is better suited for taller package handlers (in other words, not me).
Typical FedEx trailers with bellies - usually pulled in pairs.
Interior of a regular trailer, flaps closed over the belly.
These regular trailers have a set of roller built in above the belly. Boxes come down the chute and are then supposed to roll down towards the back of the trailer. Because of the number of boxes coming down the chute in most trailers, this rarely works out as planned. Facing the direction of the second image above, the package handler loads the right side of the belly, then the second side, and then begins in the nose (the part that connects to the truck) of the trailer and works their way to the opening of the trailer. It is important to note that long boxes do not come equipped with a set of rollers.
A long box attached to a truck. There is no belly.
The interior of an older long box (they really haven't improved much from this).
Long boxes in comparison to normal trailers (the shorter ones) from a Denver location.
Because the long box doesn't have a set of rollers installed inside, they dock at special doors on a hub that have been equipped with a set of heavy pull-out rollers. One of the reasons why long boxes tend to be more difficult to load is because these rollers have to be pulled to the end of the trailer and then pushed back gradually. The also take up much of the inside, leaving little room to pass through along the sides. Boxes often fall and get stuck in between the walls of the trailer and the rollers, making it hard to get in and out. Because the long box is taller than the typical smaller trailer, a load stand must be used at all times, and even then it is harder for shorter people to reach high enough to fill in the last couple of rows in a wall of boxes, as is expected by managers. I was injured in a long box both because I could not handle constantly reaching up as high as I could and I was not strong enough to push the heavy rollers back each time I finished a wall. I pulled the muscles in my back between my shoulders.
When building walls of boxes inside the trailers you have to avoid stacking them in columns. These fall over more easily and put a lot of strain on the bottom box. When unloaders are injured it is most often because of a badly built wall that includes columns has fallen on them. Head injuries are common in the unload areas. I've had nights where I've clocked out after being hit on the head three or four times in a single night because some loader at some other hub didn't care about their walls.
An image of what a properly built wall should and should not have.
First, you can see that to the right of the image there is a column of boxes, which I have marked as wrong. This would create an unstable wall and put too much pressure on the boxes at the bottom. Obviously this column isn't very tall, so there wouldn't be as much pressure, but it can still be dangerous to unloaders. Second, I have two boxes with directional arrows on them. When loading the arrows are always supposed to be pointing up. As you can see, I checked the box with an arrow pointing up and crossed out the one with the arrow pointing to the right. Finally, you will see three small check mark next to three red Ts that the lines of the boxes form. This is overlapping the boxes and it makes walls stable and distributes the pressure on the boxes at the bottom. This method is also called the bricklayer method.
Today, my hub follows a loading priority system called VOLT. I have absolutely no idea what VOLT stands for or how to use it when loading trailers, so I can't teach you about that. I was trained on the Five Priorities of Loading system, which I still hold to, with my own modifications (because I don't load very often anymore so I can get away with more than regular loaders).
The five priorities of loading are cornerstone, base shelf, alternate shelf, filler, and top fill/crushables. The cornerstone is usually that massive, heavy box that you probably can't life more than a few inches off the ground. It is typically placed against the wall of the trailer, forming the first part of the base shelf, or the bottom row of boxes that starts your wall. Each row of boxes is called a shelf. Often you will have a taller box that reaches above the general height of the shelf you are building (such as the tall box on the right side of the image above). The part that goes above your current shelf forms an alternate shelf, where you can start another shelf above the one you are working on.
You will always have spaces in between boxes that need to be filled. That is where filler boxes come in handy. These are smaller boxes that can be placed in the gaps that are always part of a wall. This both increases cubes (the amount of cubic space you fill inside of the trailer) and the stability of the wall. Sometimes they are also referred to as wedge boxes.
Finally there are the top crushables, or top fill as we like to call it. More often than not, your wall is going to have space leftover at the top, between the last self and the ceiling. This needs to be filled as well, and there are a variety of boxes that can do the job. Flat, lightweight boxes are preferred, but anything small that is light, can be crushed, or is some kind of bag will work to fill in the space. The more space you fill the better your cubes are (and the more money the company saves!).
Another type of package that we get to deal with is the incompatible or IC (we pronounce it ink/inks). These packages do not come down a chute, but on a separate belt where they are manually pulled off and placed on a flat set of rollers next to the chute where they wait to be loaded. IC packages are not to be built into a wall if they are excessively heavy or an awkward shape. Specifically, metal and tires are not to be placed above the floor unless they are stacked on top of one another (for example, a stack of tires). IC packages include metal, tubs or containers of liquid, thin boxes (less than two fingers thick), wooden packages, packages weighing 100+ pounds, tires, and other miscellaneous items (I've often received igloo shaped dog houses and plastic kayaks/canoes).
And that, my friends, is the basics of loading. There are many other things that I could cover here, but that is for another post on another day. Just keep in mind that this is the basics - there are a lot of things that also come into play when you are loading, and some of these basics and standards are thrown out the door in favor of speed and simply getting the job done.
So, who wants to go get a job at FedEx now?
Friday, January 10, 2014
Package Handler 101 - There is no such thing as getting sick
You might think that the title of this blog is a joke. It's not. When you work at FedEx, you can't be sick. If you are, you get punished. Because if you go in sick and need to be sent home, people get mad at you. If you call in sick, you get written up and won't be considered for any new positions for three months.
I have been sick for the last four days. I have gone in every goddamn day and worked my ass of for FedEx. Why? Because I want to be hired as full time at some point in the very near future. Each day I've gone in, getting progressively worse through each shift. Today I was coughing so much that I could barely lift boxes because of the pain in my sides.
FedEx does not give regular package handlers sick days. You can call in three times within a month. Each time you will get written up for it. On the fourth time you get fired. The end. That's it. So, if you can't make it in because of the weather, car troubles, etc. and then you get suddenly sick and have to miss three days, you get fired.
It makes sense, right? I mean, you shouldn't be missing work for anything that isn't serious. And if it is serious then you should go to a doctor. The problem is that even a little sniffle makes work at FedEx extremely more difficult and tiring than you would think. A sniffle at FedEx is like having bronchitis or pneumonia. The dust from trailers and vans that have traveled the road for years without being cleaned out, dirt spills (or sand, or cat litter), strange smells (why does that guy smell like rotten spaghetti?), and the physical activity are enough to turn a little sniffle into something a lot worse, and it makes it as difficult as hell to work. I started out with a sore throat. It turned into sinus issues and a bad cough. I could have used a day off.
So, a lot of people end up coming in sick (like me!). Guess what happens? The rest of the hub gets sick. If it's something like the stomach flu, one day it gets to the point where the hub has twenty call-ins because people are too busy puking their guts out to be able to even attempt to drive to work. And this all because FedEx is too stingy to give it's package handlers a few sick days here and there.
I'm fairly certain that the higher ups (a.k.a service managers, who run the separate areas) get sick days. Why? Because I can't remember seeing a sick one. Ever. They don't come in occasionally during the cold and flu season. Once in a while one of them might lose their voice for a short time. Ultimately, though, I have yet to have a sick manager.
My first summer with the company, I threw up. It was hot, things were running fast, and my stomach got very, very angry. I went to the bathroom, was there for a while, threw up everything, felt weak as hell, and went to my manager. When I told him that I had thrown up (which should have resulted in me being sent home, legally), I was promptly yelled at and then ignored. I worked until break time, at which point my manager came up to me and rudely said, "I can't make you stay so go home if you want to." Being new to the company, I wasn't sure what to do, so I stayed. Despite how shitty I felt that night, I kicked ass, and my manager admitted that he really appreciated my help.
I should have left. No one but him would have cared. The entire hub agrees that he is an asshole.
My point in all of this is that, as a package handler, you cannot get sick. It's against some unspoken rule. If you get sick and need time off, you will be punished. If you get sick and need to go home, your manager will whine and be rude to you. That's just how it works.
This time, I've been letting my performance slip as I get sicker, and I spread my germs as much as possible. Perhaps, if this continues, FedEx will rethink it's sick day policy.
It's worth a shot, right?
Monday, January 6, 2014
The Brain and the Heart
Have you ever been caught in one of those situations when your brain is telling you to do one thing while your heart is telling you to do another? I know I get caught in situations like that all of the time. Usually I do the stupid thing and follow my heart, because it seems to be my heart that makes me feel like something is right, instead of just making me weigh pros and cons and choose the logical option.
My heart is stupid. It gets me into trouble and throws me into situations that I'm just not ready to handle. I followed my heart when I chose my first college and that ended up turning into the most epic disaster in my life. If I had taken the time to really sit and think things through instead of doing what felt right maybe I wouldn't have ended up in that situation.
Right now I'm caught in one of those situations. I have to make a decision and my heart and my brain can't seem to agree with each other. I know that I should listen to my brain on this one, but my heart is speaking very strongly this time and I can't ignore what it has to say.
I've struggled with depression for several long years now. It's not an easy struggle, but I've been doing relatively well for the last several months, especially with the end of the unhealthy relationship that I was in. Now that I am single again, I realize that I will eventually have to deal with potential boyfriends again. My most recent romantic relationship was also my first, and I was disheartened by the ending, which was painful. This isn't the first relationship I've had end in a painful way, though it was my first romantic one, and because of past difficulties I've had a lot of trouble forming new relationships, trusting other people, and being willing to enter into any romantic relationships. I put my whole heart into this last one, giving myself over entirely to my partner, and that ended badly for me. I'm afraid to go through that pain again. The fear comes from the depression. I worry that if I continue to get hurt that I won't be able to continue fighting the depression and it will overwhelm me.
I also hate being alone. While many people will say it's perfectly fine that I didn't date until I was twenty, it is unusual. Most of my friends - even ones more quiet and shy than me - dated throughout high school. I honestly got to the point where I thought no one would ever ask me out or that I wasn't, for whatever reason, a date-able person. I resigned myself to being alone for the rest of my life. Now that I have finally had a taste of what it's like to be in a relationship (the good parts, not the bad) I don't want to go back to thinking I'll be alone forever.
All of this plays into my current dilemma. When I was a junior in college, living in Montana, there was a guy at home - significantly older than me - who expressed feelings for me (that's putting it mildly). At the time I was working through some issues that I had with men - fears that were leftover from several experiences throughout the last 20 years of my life. His messages telling me how he felt upset me and stressed me out and I avoided talking to him as long as I could before I was finally able to deal with the situation and tell him that we couldn't be together. I decided this because I had been trying to recover from depression and find out if I had a personality disorder that would have been the cause of some of my behaviors and experiences. Not only that, but he had his own mental problems that had not been diagnosed yet.
We were a bad match. That's all there was to it at the time. It wasn't that I didn't like him. This man is a sweetheart. I knew that he cared about me. That alone would have made me happy. On top of that, I had feelings for him, too, even though I was trying my best to bury them. In that case, I let my brain win out over my heart because it was a time when I needed to focus on ME.
I am still friends with this man, even to this day. I still suffer from depression, and he suffers from his own mental illness and is even more handicapped by it than I am. His life has not been easy. I haven't even been able to piece together everything that he's been through, outside of what other people have told me and small hints that I pick up in my conversations with him. What I do know is that he still feels something for me. What that something is, I'm never too sure. I think he knows that I tend to shy away from him if he goes back to what he first said when I was still in college. I can see in his messages (we talk via messaging systems at the moment) that he changes the words around. For example, he uses phrases such as "i want to try see something in someone else that i don't get to see but may be once in a life time" and when I ask him what he means he gives me vague responses about friendship or love, but never really explains himself. The last time he mentioned wanting to be with me (he added in "despite our situations" when he mentioned it) I practically interrogated him, so it doesn't surprise me that he's careful in his own, strange ways.
Within the last few months there have been several times when he has asked me to come and hang out with him or get coffee with him. I want to say yes. My heart tells me that I should go. My brain says that it will encourage him to pursue me. The fact still stands that we are a bad match. Our mental illnesses would conflict. We would hurt each other without realizing it. On top of that, he's eight years older than me and, at the moment, can't live on his own. He gets money from the government each month. I want to have children, raise a family, have a home of my own. I need someone who can do that with me; someone who can support a family. I don't think he's capable of that. I don't even know if he's capable of maintaining a normal relationship. Things are different with him than they would be with another man. If my last dream weren't to have a family, then maybe it wouldn't matter so much. But at the age of twenty-two I'm at least ready to start looking for someone to settle down with.
That is what my brain is telling me. It makes sense, but I'm still torn between what my brain says and what my heart feels. Because when I think about this man I feel something. I want to reach out and take care of him. I want to be the friend that he needs. Maybe I want to be more than that. I know that going with my heart on this one would be a bad idea. The problem is that it's a lot easier to do what you feel is right than it is to do what you think is right. Feelings are powerful. Love, fear, hope, sadness...feelings are the basis of who we are. Our thoughts aren't any less important, but it's easier to push them aside.
Feelings are important. Always consider them. But don't forget to pay attention to your brain as well. Sometimes it has something just as important to say as your heart.
My heart is stupid. It gets me into trouble and throws me into situations that I'm just not ready to handle. I followed my heart when I chose my first college and that ended up turning into the most epic disaster in my life. If I had taken the time to really sit and think things through instead of doing what felt right maybe I wouldn't have ended up in that situation.
Right now I'm caught in one of those situations. I have to make a decision and my heart and my brain can't seem to agree with each other. I know that I should listen to my brain on this one, but my heart is speaking very strongly this time and I can't ignore what it has to say.
I've struggled with depression for several long years now. It's not an easy struggle, but I've been doing relatively well for the last several months, especially with the end of the unhealthy relationship that I was in. Now that I am single again, I realize that I will eventually have to deal with potential boyfriends again. My most recent romantic relationship was also my first, and I was disheartened by the ending, which was painful. This isn't the first relationship I've had end in a painful way, though it was my first romantic one, and because of past difficulties I've had a lot of trouble forming new relationships, trusting other people, and being willing to enter into any romantic relationships. I put my whole heart into this last one, giving myself over entirely to my partner, and that ended badly for me. I'm afraid to go through that pain again. The fear comes from the depression. I worry that if I continue to get hurt that I won't be able to continue fighting the depression and it will overwhelm me.
I also hate being alone. While many people will say it's perfectly fine that I didn't date until I was twenty, it is unusual. Most of my friends - even ones more quiet and shy than me - dated throughout high school. I honestly got to the point where I thought no one would ever ask me out or that I wasn't, for whatever reason, a date-able person. I resigned myself to being alone for the rest of my life. Now that I have finally had a taste of what it's like to be in a relationship (the good parts, not the bad) I don't want to go back to thinking I'll be alone forever.
All of this plays into my current dilemma. When I was a junior in college, living in Montana, there was a guy at home - significantly older than me - who expressed feelings for me (that's putting it mildly). At the time I was working through some issues that I had with men - fears that were leftover from several experiences throughout the last 20 years of my life. His messages telling me how he felt upset me and stressed me out and I avoided talking to him as long as I could before I was finally able to deal with the situation and tell him that we couldn't be together. I decided this because I had been trying to recover from depression and find out if I had a personality disorder that would have been the cause of some of my behaviors and experiences. Not only that, but he had his own mental problems that had not been diagnosed yet.
We were a bad match. That's all there was to it at the time. It wasn't that I didn't like him. This man is a sweetheart. I knew that he cared about me. That alone would have made me happy. On top of that, I had feelings for him, too, even though I was trying my best to bury them. In that case, I let my brain win out over my heart because it was a time when I needed to focus on ME.
I am still friends with this man, even to this day. I still suffer from depression, and he suffers from his own mental illness and is even more handicapped by it than I am. His life has not been easy. I haven't even been able to piece together everything that he's been through, outside of what other people have told me and small hints that I pick up in my conversations with him. What I do know is that he still feels something for me. What that something is, I'm never too sure. I think he knows that I tend to shy away from him if he goes back to what he first said when I was still in college. I can see in his messages (we talk via messaging systems at the moment) that he changes the words around. For example, he uses phrases such as "i want to try see something in someone else that i don't get to see but may be once in a life time" and when I ask him what he means he gives me vague responses about friendship or love, but never really explains himself. The last time he mentioned wanting to be with me (he added in "despite our situations" when he mentioned it) I practically interrogated him, so it doesn't surprise me that he's careful in his own, strange ways.
Within the last few months there have been several times when he has asked me to come and hang out with him or get coffee with him. I want to say yes. My heart tells me that I should go. My brain says that it will encourage him to pursue me. The fact still stands that we are a bad match. Our mental illnesses would conflict. We would hurt each other without realizing it. On top of that, he's eight years older than me and, at the moment, can't live on his own. He gets money from the government each month. I want to have children, raise a family, have a home of my own. I need someone who can do that with me; someone who can support a family. I don't think he's capable of that. I don't even know if he's capable of maintaining a normal relationship. Things are different with him than they would be with another man. If my last dream weren't to have a family, then maybe it wouldn't matter so much. But at the age of twenty-two I'm at least ready to start looking for someone to settle down with.
That is what my brain is telling me. It makes sense, but I'm still torn between what my brain says and what my heart feels. Because when I think about this man I feel something. I want to reach out and take care of him. I want to be the friend that he needs. Maybe I want to be more than that. I know that going with my heart on this one would be a bad idea. The problem is that it's a lot easier to do what you feel is right than it is to do what you think is right. Feelings are powerful. Love, fear, hope, sadness...feelings are the basis of who we are. Our thoughts aren't any less important, but it's easier to push them aside.
Feelings are important. Always consider them. But don't forget to pay attention to your brain as well. Sometimes it has something just as important to say as your heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)