It's not specific to governments, any sufficiently large organisation behaves like this. Think of the people who've had Google accounts vanished without explanation. Or the RBS small business scandal: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/12/confidentia...
At least with governments you get a representative.
With government orgs we get representatives who don't have any stake in improving these things.
I once had an incident where the receptionist at a DMV office messed up and didn't register me. I had patiently waited for 3 hours before noticing that people who lined up after me started getting called. So when I went up and asked if anything is wrong, the office manager looked something up on her screen and, upon seeing that I'm not registered, smiled and cracked a joke about it with another employee. She then told me I have to go back and take a seat and wait for my number to get called. At this point, I realized something went terribly wrong, and started literally begging to get expedited since I had already waited for more than three hours by then. The office manager's response was to scream at me, telling me that I'm causing disruption, and threatening to remove me with force.
I wonder if there's a way to actually improve the quality of these services?
I always hear horror stories about the DMV from Americans, and I too am baffled as to why a service used by almost everyone is bad. The UK equivalent (DVLA) has no branches and does everything by post. So you don't have to queue for anything.
In the UK the extremely user hostile government services are those for the marginalized; benefits and immigration. But the universal ones have pressure to work effectively.
I think the DMV job are high volume customer service and the pay is not particularly great. So it is probably a stressful job dealing with all the people. On the other hand if I go to a low volume office like county records, the people are more pleasant.
They don't take a picture of you in person for your driver's license? Even the first one? What about the driving tests? Eyesight tests?
What if you want to buy a used car from a stranger, do you hand over the cash and then wait weeks for the registration to change hands by post? How do they prevent title theft if they can't check ID in person?
Photo authentication is either from other photo ID, or by a gloriously decentralised system of getting someone sufficiently middle class to sign it: https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence
Driving tests are done in person with an appointment, so no queueing. There's no eyesight or medical tests, but at the start of the driving test the examiner will ask you to read a numberplate from a specific distance (20 meters?)
> How do they prevent title theft if they can't check ID in person?
I'm not really sure what this means or how to translate it to the UK system? You might be at risk if someone managed to forge a V5 for a car they had stolen?
Where I live, you bring your own photo – there's some basic requirements to the photo, though – to the police station. Then you'll get a temporary license while the real one is in the mail.
You go to your doctor and get a proof of health. Costs around $100.
Typically the tests are arranged with your driving instructor as part of the course. Each attempt is also around $100.
When selling a used car, you just give the person the registration certificate when you've received payment. Then you reregister the car on the tax authority Web site.
If I recall correctly you either have to mail in your passport with application form and photos or you can go to post office where they can verify ID for your fist provisional license.
One of the step to get full license is to take theory test in person at test centre. They check your address and verify ID again at this stage.
We have small driving test centres in most areas. You prebook the slot and turn up. They’re fairly punctual.
> At least with governments you get a representative
...if you live in a republic. Bonus points if it's a democratic republic; then your representative will actually listen to you... if you can outbid the competition and get said representative elected via advertising money.
At least with a corporation, they can't impose arbitrary fines on you and lock you in a concrete box if you don't pay said fines... unless the government says they can.
The House of Lords kinda throws a wrench in calling the UK a republic, IMO. I know they're technically representatives (of... someone), but the Life Peers within the Lords Temporal are Crown-appointed ("on the advice of" the PM, which sounds like Her Majesty can tell the PM to bugger off and ignore that advice, but maybe there are specific restrictions there that I ain't aware of on account of not being British), which to me sounds like monarchy with extra steps.
The UK has a monarch. That means it's a monarchy without any extra steps and thus not a republic. I didn't call the UK republic, I pointed out that having representatives does not require a republic.
The House of Lords can only delay laws AFAIK and the monarch just can't decide anything. Even if they did, the House of Commons would still exist.
Yes, the Lords may only delay bills for up to a year and the Commons has the right to reintroduce the bill in the next session and pass it without the consent of the Lords under the Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949 respectively).
In theory the Queen has the right to tell her advisors to bugger off, but in practice she hasn't done so in a long time, and I think it's widely believed that if she tried to exercise any power the monarchy would be abolished very shortly.
I'm not sure that in theory she does. The law has this idea of "the Crown", which is a sort of mechanical legal function, which happens to be exercised by Queen Elizabeth II at the moment, but which is tied up in a lot of law governing what it does in various situations.
Consider the recent Miller II case [1]. The prime minster advised the Crown to prorogue parliament, which it did. The supreme court decided that the advice was dodgy, and so the prorogation was void.
This is not how it works for normal decisions taken under advice! If you advise me to buy an avocado ice-cream, and i do, but it turns out that you've never tried avocado ice-cream, and it's actually horrible, i don't get to go back to the shop and tell them that the purchase was void. I made my decision, and i have to stand by it. I might get to sue you for giving me duff advice, but there's no suggestion that my decision itself is altered.
So it really seems here that the Queen isn't deciding to do things, even in theory.
If she refused to do something she's required to - issue the prorogation, assent to laws, etc - then she would be in trouble, not because she's upsetting the balance of power, but because she's simply not doing her job, which is to exercise the powers of the Crown as required by law.
It's one of her reserve powers and exercise of her powers is non-judiciable (cannot be reviewed by a court); only the advice given to her can.
If she so wished, given she is the font of all law in the country, she could close down Parliament and sack her advisors - there is no legal mechanism to stop her, except the practical consequences of doing so.
With the way things have gone lately in the UK, it seems like they'd be a lot better off if she stepped up and took over for a while. She sure seems a lot more intelligent and sensible than the current PM and other figures in power.
> At least with governments you get a representative.
At least with corporations you get a choice, short of emigrating. Google is one of the most dominant corporations in the world, yet there are multiple alternatives to most of their services.
And how many people can pay for schooling their children twice, once for the the public school they aren't using, and then again for a private school? Or, afford to not work and homeschool their children?
> And how many people can pay for schooling their children twice, once for the the public school they aren't using, and then again for a private school?
That wouldn't be paying for it twice... it would be paying for it like 1.1 times because of the large number of house holds that have no children in public school and still pay taxes.
Who cares? That's irrelevant. You stated, quite clearly, that there is only "one choice". You're wrong about that, as I pointed out: there's multiple choices. I never said any of them were free.
Complete non-sequitor. A corporation can make a choice that causes misery. By the time the consequences of this corporate decision precipitate, it becomes too late to make a choice.
Case in point: 300 people killed by Boeing and 100 people dead in the fire in Grenfell tower in UK.
On the contrary, a representative might amend/revere the situation, for example by changing the law.
It’s ironic to talk about how corporations cause destruction in people’s lives in a way governments don’t, and then bring up hundreds of deaths as an example. Those deaths are tragic to be sure, but how many tens of millions of people have died at the hands of their governments in the last century?
I dont think counting deaths caused by dictators addresses my point.
How do we make it an apples to apples comparison? For example,today, 2 million people a year die from air pollution, who is to blame for those deaths?
What about drug cartels, do we count the deaths that occurred in fighting them 'against' government? But if the government did not exist, those deaths would be higher, so do we count 'prevented deaths'?
What about tabacco, etc. I dont think a realistic tally can be made.
I once had an incident where the receptionist at a DMV office messed up and didn't register me. I had patiently waited for 3 hours before noticing that people who lined up after me started getting called. So when I went up and asked if anything is wrong, the office manager looked something up on her screen and, upon seeing that I'm not registered, smiled and cracked a joke about it with another employee. She then told me I have to go back and take a seat and wait for my number to get called. At this point, I realized something went terribly wrong, and started literally begging to get expedited since I had already waited for more than three hours by then. The office manager's response was to scream at me, telling me that I'm causing disruption, and threatening to remove me with force.
I wonder if there's a way to actually improve the quality of these services?