Talk:Going postal

Ha. Canada invented going postal at least 50 years before =) In October 1934 Rosaire Bilodeau, ex carrier of the Quebec postal service, drove five of his family out in the woods - in two trips - and did away with them. He then took 8 shots at postmaster Morin, senior mail clerk Moise Jolicoeur, and divisional superintendant Oscar Fiset, killing the last. [Family Herald and Weekly Star, 1934 Oct 31, p48] 142.177.170.43 23:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC), cleaning house

Would the links at the bottom not be better spun off into a separate disambig page? Thryduulf 22:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This description of "going postal" is surprisingly biased against the numerous alienated workers of the USPS. You even mention a "study" by the USPS management which refutes the obvious fact that something is terribly wrong with the USPS! Unbelieveable. I'm sure my comments here will be promptly deleted. "Going Postal" didn't come out of thin air: the USPS has a notoriously BAD reputation for quasi-militaristic management style of employees. They spy on letter carriers as they do their routes. They verbally abuse temporary employees. Their hierarchical "boot on neck" way of treating workers creates a hostile work environment fostering resentment and alienation. In general, the United States has a hyper-lopsided pro-management bias in its labor laws: if you don't believe me, go work at WalMart--which right now has the largest class action discrimination lawsuit grinding through the courts. The tragic "gone postal" incidents which created this slang term came into being because of an oppressive and unjust work environment in the USPS which exploits workers to the benefit of management. To work in the United States, sadly in general, is to be a wage slave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.205.192 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sure my comments here will be promptly deleted." As you can see, they weren't. Less martyrdom, please. --24.172.77.138 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only they'd thought of, well, you know, quitting their job and getting another one! Who knew. --60.46.249.243 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the reference to the "Queens Street" massacare noted or removed as this shooting was the result of someone turning up to postal backoffice operations who was not invovled in working there or was ever a postal worker. I would not think this was a case of "going postal", suprising that this hasn't been picked up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.230.77 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clueless?

Anyone have a source for the claim that the film Clueless popularized this phrase? I would have thought it was in currency before 1995. Postdlf 15:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date of term not accurate

My father was a postal worker and a shooting event where he worked took place in the late 70's and the term was being used then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.214.4.62 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 31, 2006 one notable?

Is the Jan 31 shooting notable enough to have its own paragraph? Above it, there's a statement that "Between 1986 and 1997, more than 40 people were killed in more than 20 incidents." To keep things consistent, either at least some of those other 20 incidents should be detailed as well, or the Jan 31, 2006 details should be removed. --Interiot 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the latest one, and a relatively large number of people died. When another one occurs, I am sure that the editors who are interested in this article at that time will replace it since this article was tagged with the qualifier "the latest incident". --hitssquad 19:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one vote for including statistics for all 20 incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.16.166 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include all the incedents. --WhiteDragon 19:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where might one find all of these incidents?--ttogreh 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement was originally added by Tagishsimon, who cited this web site. GUllman 21:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure each one is cited by CNN or the BBC if you are going to add it to the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much point to adding information on all of them, but if it is to be done, a table with simple statistics might be most appropriate, with date, location, number of deaths, simple facts like that. I agree with Hitssquad that whatever one is the "latest incident" should be treated as at present. The "latest incident" is why I happened to look up this article, as I'm sure is true for many other people. However, this "latest incident" will just be another statistic when a new "latest incident" comes along and so will no longer deserve such coverage. Postdlf 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might stir the pot a bit, I'm sorry but I'd like to know

I read many years ago that one of the reasons there was a higher incidence of workplace shootings at the USPO was that being a governmental agency, they had instituted a policy of giving war veterans preference when hiring and that a number of those hires suffered from Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome, and that this was one of the reasons they would flip out and kill like that. Urban legend, myth? I have no idea. Of course one way to verify that would be to check if most of the killers were in fact war veterans. Progman3K 08:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that prevalent

While it is popular think that workplace violence is more prevalent among Postal workers, take a look at the numbers. The USPS employs 700,000 people. [1] Among all of these employees, there are a couple homocides per year on average. However, in the US there are over 1,000 work place deaths per year. [2] Can someone show there is a real relationship here? 69.106.245.242 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wanted to bring this point up but in reverse. The section critical of the amount of postal workers going postal shows that only a very few postal workers die each year compared to a larger amount of taxi drives. But taxi drivers are presumably more likely to be killed by their customers, and so that statistic has nothing to do with 'going postal' which is of course the process of an employee or ex-employee committing homicide on their fellow employees. You say above that there are over 1,000 work place deaths per year but they don't necessarily have a relationship to 'going postal'. they may be the result of accidents, or murder by customers and clients. Anyway, to get to my point, I think the reference citing the amount of deaths per thousand in postal worker, retail, and taxi drivers should be removed because it doesn't actually shed any light on the process of 'going postal'. Maybe other people have taken responsibility for this page, so I will let them decide whether my advice should be taken or not. 195.92.67.71 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the writer of the comment farther to the top of this page about "Going Postal is surprisingly biased..." I finally registered. Anyways I only came back to this page because I am amazed that only weeks after my above posting about the awful state of the USPS employee situation, ANOTHER "going postal" incident has happened in Goleta, California! To all those contributing to this section of Wiki taking a contrary position to mine: what can I say but (with much remorse and sadness for the victims and their families in Goleta) 'I told you so'. Not going to say anything else out of respect for the dead and wounded from this last USPS massacre. Clearly there is something terribly wrong with USPS and the way it handles it's employees. Period.