Kryss set him up with a computer account and showed him the online library with operations manuals and the forms he was expected to keep filled in.
His first few months were overwhelming. Apparently, there was nobody else doing maintenance because the backlog of error reports overflowing his screen only grew. He was tempted to start at the oldest report and work forward, but he figured it was more important to deal with the serious problems first, except that the error reports all had the same priority. High. He sent emails to everyone who had submitted an error, introducing himself and asking them to assess the severity of their error on a checklist. As he expected, all the responders rated their errors as most serious, but from the details in their answers, he could set his own priorities.
Eight months after he started, having spent most of his time watching the list fill up as fast as he could whittle it down, Roger Addison summoned him. “I’ve been getting flak from our users that you’re handling other departments’ problems before you get to theirs. For example, you fixed the problem with the training schedules of new recruits less than a week after it was reported, but there’s one from accounting that’s been around for almost a year. What can I tell them?”
“Okay, the problem with the recruits is that their supervisors couldn’t tell which courses they had taken. Some recruits took the same course two, even three times, while others missed courses.”
“I heard about that. Caused a lot of grumbling.”
“Right. Now the accounting bug meant that some supplier payments had to be processed by hand. Some went out late. Which bug do you think was worse?”
“The one with the training schedules of course.”
“So which one should I have fixed first?”
Addison nodded. “That’s all I need to know. You won’t be getting any more complaints. And Todd. Thanks for bringing some order to our chaos. After all, that’s what the NPF exists to do.”
“WELCOME TO THE news at six. A demonstration in Hamilton turned violent today when demonstrators protesting the expansion of a steel mill clashed with counter-protestors. At least three people were taken to hospital, two with serious injuries. Randy Foreman is standing by. Randy?”
“Louise, the streets are quiet now, but you can see a couple of burned-out cars and store windows smashed. There have also been reports of looting.”
“What sparked the riot?”
“That’s not clear. Both sides are blaming the other. The protest against the steel mill expansion has been planned for about a week, while the counter-protest seems to have been spontaneous, driven by social media. I spoke with one of the people protesting the expansion.”
Cut to a man in a hoodie holding a sign. “Can you tell us what happened here?”
“Yeah. We were demonstrating against expanding the steel mill. It’s going to pollute the environment even more than it already does, and it’ll probably release toxins into the lake. All this so a bunch of fat cats can make a few more bucks. It has to be stopped.”
“Was your protest violent?”
“No. We always keep it peaceful. We were attacked by a bunch of goons who were probably hired by the steel company. They started it. They turned an ordinary protest into a riot.”
“Do you plan on another protest?”
“Damn straight. We’re not going to let a bunch of thugs stop us from doing what’s right.”
“Louise, I also spoke with one of the counter-protestors. He agreed to talk as long as we protected his identity.”
Cut to a man, his face blurred. “Can you tell us what happened here?”
“We have to stop these enviro-freaks who want to shut down industry and throw people out of work. I just lost my job because my company was depending on the expansion of the mill. But now my boss figures it won’t happen, so he laid a bunch of us off. What am I supposed to do?”
“Was your demonstration intended to be peaceful?”
“Yeah. We just wanted to make sure the politicians know there’s more than one side to this. It got out of hand when some of the protestors attacked us.”
“They’re claiming you were hired by the steel company, and you attacked them.”
“Lies. Nobody here was hired by anyone. We’re just a bunch of working guys who want jobs to go to. Besides, you’ve got a camera. It’ll show you who attacked who.”
“So there you have it, Louise. Both sides are blaming the other and both sides are entrenched. Unfortunately, this could well happen again.”
“That was Randy Foreman reporting from a demonstration in Hamilton that turned violent. I have a special guest with me today. Boris Strynski is a psychologist specializing in group dynamics and is the author of Riots: Root Causes. Dr. Strynski, this seems to be becoming more common. We’re used to peaceful demonstrations, but lately, we’re seeing violence we’re not accustomed to. At least not in Canada. How do you account for this?”
“The nature of protests has changed. In the past, protests have been against industrial developments such as pipelines or mines. It’s just in the last couple of years that counter-demonstrations have started. It’s those that are fueling the violence.”
“You’re saying that the demonstrators in favour of industry are to blame?”
“No, these demonstrations are not in support of industry. Nobody demonstrates in favour of a pipeline or a new shopping mall. People who approve of those just stay home. The counter-demonstrations are against the people who they perceive as choking industry. As killing jobs.”
“So you’re saying the counter-demonstrators are protesting against the demonstrators?”
“Exactly.”
“But that doesn’t explain why just one side seems to trigger the violence. Or is that just a misperception?”
“No, it’s not a misperception. It’s true that the violence tends to arise from the counter-demonstrators, but that’s not because they’re unhinged or spoiling for a fight. It’s because there is one fundamental difference between the two groups: the proximity of their enemy.”
“Enemy?”
“Yes. To people protesting against, say, a pipeline, the enemy is the pipeline company or the oil companies that will be using it. But to the counter-protestors, the enemy is the group of activists who are killing development, who are destroying jobs. More to the point, destroying their jobs.”
“You said the difference between these groups was the proximity of their enemy. Can you expand on that?”
“Yes. The enemy of the anti-development protestors is usually far away in another city, another country. Even in the riot in Hamilton, the company and its managers are nowhere near the demonstration or are protected by the plant gates and fence. Attacking them is impossible. Keeping things peaceful is not difficult.”
“Ah, I see what you’re saying. The enemies of the anti-development protestors are out of reach, but the enemies of the counter-protestors are standing on the other side of the street.”
“Exactly. People will be more likely to attack an enemy that is to hand. One that is convenient. Especially one that is taunting them.”
“But still, the scale of the violence seems out of proportion to the issue.”
“Out of proportion? The counter-demonstrators aren’t there for some academic reason or because they love smokestacks and factories. It’s personal. They’re there because they’ve lost their jobs or are about to. They don’t know how they’ll pay their mortgages, feed their families, even buy winter tires for their cars. They’re demonstrating because they’re desperate. And desperation leads to violence, especially when the people who they believe are ruining their lives are jeering at them from the other side of the street.”