Cound VS PIPSC 2024

 

Date:  20250414

File:  561-02-50766

 

 

KENTH COUND

Complainant

 

and

 

PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA

 

Respondent

Indexed as

Cound v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada

In the matter of a complaint made under section 190 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

Before:         Joanne Archibald, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board

For the Complainant:     Himself

For the Respondent:    Tony Micallef-Jones, counsel

 

Decided on the basis of written submissions,

filed September 30, November 6, 15, and 29, and December 19, 2024, and January 7, 2025.

Reasons for Decision               REASONS FOR DECISION                                   Page:  1 of 9

I. Complaint before the Board

[1]          On October 1, 2024, Kenth Cound (“the complainant”) made a complaint under s. 190(1)(g) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2; “the Act”) against the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (“PIPSC” or “the respondent”), alleging that it breached its duty of fair representation.

[2]          Section 190(1)(g) of the Act requires the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) to examine and inquire into a complaint that an employee organization committed an unfair labour practice. The nature of the alleged unfair labour practice in this complaint is set out in s. 187 of the Act as follows:

187 No employee organization that is certified as the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, and none of its officers and representatives, shall act in a manner that is arbitrary or discriminatory or that is in bad faith in the representation of any employee in the bargaining unit.

187 Il est interdit à l’organisation syndicale, ainsi qu’à ses dirigeants et représentants, d’agir de manière arbitraire ou discriminatoire ou de mauvaise foi en matière de représentation de tout fonctionnaire qui fait partie de l’unité dont elle est l’agent négociateur.

 

[3]          The respondent responded to the complaint to request that it be dismissed without a hearing on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success, as it does not reveal an arguable case that PIPSC acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or badfaith manner.

[4]          Section 22 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act (S.C. 2013, c. 40, s. 365) permits the Board to decide “… any matter before it without holding an oral hearing.”

[5]          In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that I can decide the complaint based on the parties’ written submissions.

[6]          For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the events described do not establish an arguable case. The complaint is dismissed.

II. Summary of the facts

[7]        The complainant was a member of PIPSC. On January 15, 2020, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (“the employer”) terminated his employment. On February 15, 2020, he filed a grievance against the termination. PIPSC supported his grievance. [8]         On December 21, 2020, the employer denied the grievance at the final level. It was referred to adjudication before the Board, which consolidated it with three earlier disciplinary grievances.

[9]          On March 23, 2023, the complainant, PIPSC, and the employer agreed to settle the four grievances. Their agreement is reflected in a terms of settlement document (“the settlement agreement”) that they signed on March 30, 2023. 

[10]       Documents provided to the Board demonstrate that after they signed the settlement agreement, the complainant and PIPSC engaged in an email exchange about the implementation of its terms. The exchange includes the following:

1)  On September 13, 2023, the complainant confirmed to the respondent that the employer had fulfilled a term of the settlement agreement.

2)  On September 25, 2023, he contacted the respondent to advise that he wanted to write a book about his experience as a federal public service employee.

3)  He wrote to PIPSC’s Office of the President on September 25, 2023, to express dissatisfaction with his representation.

4)  On October 6, 2023, PIPSC responded, stating, in part, this:

… while we recognize that you are not satisfied with the service you received, we are confident that the appropriate support was provided by Institute representatives over a period of several years, as evidenced by the termination settlement that you signed. As such, [PIPSC] considers the matter closed.

5)  On October 16, 2023, the respondent cautioned him against sharing his workplace experiences, as “[d]iscussing matters that were deemed to be resolved by the Settlement may result in a negative consequence for him.

6)  On October 27, 2023, he followed up with the respondent on an outstanding obligation in s. 2 of the settlement agreement.

7)  On November 2, 2023, it confirmed that it was looking into the matter.

8)  On November 8, 2023, it sought clarification of any matters that remained outstanding.

9)  On November 16, 2023, the complainant confirmed that the employer fulfilled one of its two obligations under s. 2 of the settlement agreement.

10)         On November 17, 2023, the respondent indicated that it would speak with the employer the following week. Later that day, it confirmed that the employer considered that it had fulfilled its obligations under s. 2 of the settlement agreement.

11)         On November 27, 2023, the respondent provided the complainant with the most recent update from the employer s. 2 of the settlement agreement. He replied on November 28, 2023.

12)         On November 29, 2023, the respondent wrote to him about his contact with a management representative.

 

[11]       On January 24, 2024, PIPSC wrote to the Board to confirm that the settlement agreement’s terms had been satisfied. The termination grievance and the three disciplinary grievances were withdrawn. The Board closed its files.

[12]       June 10, 2024, the complainant emailed the respondent, asking by what means he could be released from the settlement agreement.

[13]       On June 27, 2024, the respondent’s counsel replied to indicate that contracts are generally binding, unless duress or incapacity can be proven, and added this: “… but as far as I know that wasn’t the case here.” 

[14]       On July 5, 2024, the complainant responded, stating that he had been ill when the settlement agreement was signed but that he had not known the degree to which his illness had affected his cognition. He stated that he would contact his doctor for information. He raised concerns about freedom of speech and the feeling that the settlement agreement was unfair. He expressed remorse for signing it.

[15]       On July 21, 2024, the complainant provided a physician’s letter dated July 17, 2024. It described the medical condition for which he was being treated and included the following passage:

 … His diagnosis was not made until December 2024 [sic]. In the time leading up to this diagnosis, patients often suffer from a variety of symptoms including fatigue and issues affecting their concentration and focus. Mr. Cound has done well with his treatments at present and such symptoms have resolved.…

…

 

[16]       On August 9, 2024, PIPSC responded to state that the medical letter did not demonstrate that the complainant lacked capacity or was unable to make a clear decision when he signed the settlement agreement. PIPSC viewed it as a binding contract. It declined to take any steps toward dissolving the settlement agreement.

[17]       On August 10, 2024, the complainant wrote to PIPSC to allege that he had been pressured to sign the settlement agreement. He provided information on his medical condition in 2019, which was four years before he signed it. He indicated that his circumstances in 2019 might have contributed to the employer’s termination decision.

[18]       On September 11, 2024, PIPSC wrote to the complainant, indicating that it had reviewed the information that he had provided. It maintained the position it took in its correspondence with him on October 6, 2023, that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable. It stated that it would take no further action. It reiterated this decision in another email to him on October 1, 2024.

III.     Summary of the arguments

A.     For the complainant

[19]       The complainant argues that he was unwell when he signed the settlement agreement. His illness was diagnosed on December 22, 2023. Fatigue is a documented effect of his illness. His ability to understand the settlement agreement’s content was impeded by fatigue and the pressure for him to accept the settlement process.

[20]       Any contact with PIPSC from the time of signing the settlement agreement to that time should not be taken as proof that he agreed with it.

[21]       The complainant’s position is that PIPSC’s October 6, 2023, response, indicating confidence in the support that it had provided to him, demonstrates that it acted in an arbitrary manner. It ignored the medical arguments and the condition that impaired his ability to understand the settlement agreement. It refused to act at that time and gave him no further consideration when he made the actual request to nullify the settlement agreement some months later.

B. For the respondent

[22]       The respondent denies that it failed its duty of fair representation and states that there were no compelling reasons to assist the complainant in an attempt to nullify the settlement agreement. It argues that the complaint lacks an air of reality.

[23]       The respondent considers that during the 15 months after he signed the settlement agreement, the complainant’s communication was clear and cogent. It related to expectations surrounding implementation.

[24]       When the complainant then raised the issue of a medical condition, the respondent considered the medical information that he provided and determined that it was not sufficient to support an argument to nullify the settlement agreement on the basis that he lacked capacity. It responded promptly to advise the complainant of its decision. When asked to reconsider its decision, it advised him that the decision was final.

[25]       The respondent argued that it evaluated the complainant’s circumstances, investigated the merits, and made a reasoned decision. It did not act arbitrarily. 

IV. Analysis

[26]       This complaint raises the issue of whether the complainant established an arguable case that PIPSC breached its duty of fair representation in a manner that would justify an oral hearing before the Board. 

[27]       When the Board considers an application to dismiss a complaint summarily on the basis that there is no arguable case, the decision maker assumes that the information in the complaint is true. The Board set this out as follows in Reid v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2024 FPSLREB 100 at paras. 29 and 30: 

[29]              In a complaint like this one, the burden rests with the complainant to demonstrate a breach of the duty of fair representation. However, when the Board is seized with a request to summarily dismiss such a complaint without holding an oral hearing, the factual allegations that the complainant submitted must be taken as proven for the sake of determining if they could demonstrate the existence of a breach of s. 187 of the Act. This is often referred to as the “arguable-case” analysis. 

[30]              However, this principle must be nuanced. To be taken as true in the context of an arguable-case analysis, factual allegations must be provable and have an air of reality. Arguments and opinions need not be taken as proven; nor need mere assumptions, speculations, or accusations be so taken (see Payne v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2023 FPSLREB 58 at paras. 60 and 91;

Sganos v. Association of Canadian Financial Officers, 2022 FPSLREB 30 at paras. 80 and 81; Beniey v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2020 FPSLREB 32 at para. 57; Archer v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2023 FPSLREB 105 at para. 29; and Corneau v. Association of Justice Counsel, 2023 FPSLREB 16 at para. 34).

 

[28]       That means that the facts alleged in the complaint are not deemed proven. I express no opinion on the truth of those facts.

[29]       The complainant has the burden of proof in a complaint made under s. 187 of the Act. It requires the complainant to present evidence sufficient to establish that the respondent failed to meet its duty of fair representation. As expressed in s. 187, this required the complainant to put forward a factual foundation that supported his position that the respondent acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

[30]       In a complaint under s. 187 of the Act, the burden of proof falls on the complainant to present sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent failed to meet the duty of fair representation by conducting itself in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. As noted in Manella v. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2010 PSLRB 128, “The bar for establishing arbitrary conduct — or discriminatory or bad faith conduct — is purposely set quite high”.

[31]       The Board will examine the actions of the respondent in handling the complainant’s grievance and related matters, to determine whether they were “… fair, genuine and not merely apparent, undertaken with integrity and competence, without serious or major negligence, and without hostility towards the employee” (Canadian Merchant Service Guild v. Gagnon, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 509 at 527). 

[32]       Further, the Board has consistently held that a complainant’s disagreement with a respondent’s handling of the grievance is not the gauge of whether the respondent’s actions constitute an unfair labour practice. (See Mangat v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2010 PSLRB 52; Bergeron v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2019 FPSLREB

48; Boudreault v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2019 FPSLREB 87; and Andrews v.

Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2021 FPSLREB 141.) 

[33]       The crux of the complaint before me is the respondent’s failure to act on the complainant’s request to nullify the settlement agreement. He provided information to support his contention, and PIPSC assessed it as insufficient for a claim that he lacked capacity when it was signed.

[34]       Based on the facts alleged in the complaint and the information before me, I am unable to find a basis for an arguable case of arbitrary conduct, discriminatory treatment, or bad faith that would establish a breach of s. 187 of the Act.

[35]       Rather, I find that when the complainant approached the respondent to express his concern for his capacity, it prudently asked for medical evidence, to support the claim. The document he provided speaks generally to issues of fatigue, concentration, and focus that may be suffered by persons awaiting a diagnosis. It makes no statement about the complainant’s specific symptoms, deficits, or abilities at the time he signed the settlement agreement.

[36]       I find that the respondent considered and assessed the information when arriving at its decision. It was a reasoned decision based on the content of the medical information that the complainant provided, which does not demonstrate that PIPSC acted in a way that was arbitrary or in bad faith.

[37]       As such, there is no basis for the Board’s intervention. I find that the complainant did not establish an arguable case that the respondent breached its duty of fair representation, and I dismiss the complaint.

V. Sealing order

[38]       The respondent requested that the Board issue a sealing order for Appendix E of its written submission, which is the settlement agreement.

[39]       The respondent noted that paragraph 10 of the settlement agreement states that it is confidential among the parties, the complainant, the respondent, and the employer.

[40]       The respondent argued that it is important for the administration of justice to protect the confidentiality of settlement agreements. Disclosure could have a chilling effect on settling future disputes.

[41]       The complainant opposed the sealing order on the basis of the open court principle. He argued that sealing the settlement agreement “chipped away” at the Board’s jurisdiction. He had no issue with it being made public.

[42]       In Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 38, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the test for an order sealing a document filed with a court. The party seeking the order must establish that: 

1)  not sealing the document poses a serious risk to an important public interest; 

2)  the order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and,

3)  as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effects. 

 

[43]       In Reid v. Deputy Head (Library and Archives of Canada), 2021 FPSLREB 104 at para. 84, Ross v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2017 FPSLREB 13 at para. 12, and

Valderrama v. Deputy Head (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development), 2020 FPSLREB 86 at para. 12, the Board concluded that there is an important public interest in preserving the confidentiality of settlement agreements and that sealing is necessary to protect that interest.

[44]       I also note the Board’s decision in Catahan Niles v. Professional Institute of the

Public Service of Canada, 2024 FPSLREB 169, in which it held at para. 80 that “… the public interest in encouraging settlement justifies a sealing order and outweighs the public interest in an open and transparent justice system.”

[45]       Accordingly, I am satisfied that sealing the settlement agreement in this case is necessary to protect an important public interest. The benefit of a sealing order outweighs any negative effect, including the potential damage to the willingness of parties to settle disputes if the Board can breach their agreements to confidentiality.

[46]       Paragraph 10 of the settlement agreement is a succinct statement of the parties’ intention that confidentiality should extend to all aspects of their settlement, including the settlement agreement. Therefore, consistent with that provision, and as agreed by the parties, the sealing order will extend to the complete settlement agreement.

[47]       For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:

(The Order appears on the next page)

VI. Order

[48]       The complaint is dismissed.

[49]       The settlement agreement found at Appendix E of the respondent’s submission of November 6, 2024, is ordered sealed.

April 14, 2025.

Joanne Archibald,

a panel of the Federal Public Sector

Labour Relations and Employment Board

In defence of being pardoned

 

In defence of being pardoned,

Youthful way’s growing pains.

Big feet stumble on the crack

Unable to explain; a scene,

An act, and we the actors

 

A room with items various

Of origin and shape

The wondering

Is cumbersome,

 

I wonder

Of each item’s significance

Some,

Like this copper cutlery holder

Need more explaining.

 

Through children we live vicariously

Life full of effort

With pain,

Bad upbringing

Troubled

By feelings left untended

 

Of the comforts of home

I have no claim;

A table, a chair, a window

Snow, destitution

How did the polar man survive?

But that a child

Dared to test the ice.

 

Community in cities

Foundation strength accepts

All who dare

 

Porcupine bids me,

Take this quill in hand.

As instructed by beaver of whose people you are

Construct lines

Cross the gap

A soul submerged

Deep in the mud of time.

 

Amidst the sleeping snow.

 

No pain; but a life

Not ice; but strong shoulders

Not mud; but these cold feet

 

Poetic lines,

Will form a dam.

Find safety in these words.

 

Except for literary constructions

What have I made?

This type thing abounds

The can, made of

Recovered roofing materials

Once a home now condemned,

Rooted in the past.

 

Sentenced, to

Three years for stealing

Maybe six, stopped counting,

And guilty as sin.

Maybe not the original sin

But another one that came very soon after.

 

I gather,

I have become the person

In a way, from whom I removed goods, these trinkets

Never knowing their full value

Tossed,

Depriving the worker

That proud moment

Of once reclaimed,

Experiencing value.

 

What presumption

Straddle the gap

That all things have value

Seems self-evident

In physics

 

A revolving door full cycle,

Thoughts of escape swirl

Karmic Wham!

Gravity shift,

Away comes the block

Darkness becomes clear

The pain of trinkets past

announce its uses

Logos, slogans, we have them,

Don’t let them get away

 

Reading Franz Kafka

Resistance to a force inside,

Until today,

Just like his,

Clear image of darkness

I am the vine, my umbrellas

A twisted lot.

 

Climbing up the wall

Like so many times

Seeking an entrance

To another’s realm?

Uncertain, if any

Value existed.

What right does one need,

To possessions

Intrinsic total value

Measured in shekels or pennies,

Memories, hopes, uses… maybe.

 

Or to proclaim it as property

The power to set its value.

One the judge could not ascertain,

So, adding to the loss

In multiples of six months

The preferred block to apply, it would seem.

 

What happened to daylight

It went climbing.

Inaccessible as,

Thoughts speed

Rations, some menial tasks

Kicking back in a cell

Lacking a sense of proportion.

 

Scratching puppy nails,

Pencils waited sharpened

Not an appropriate thing to

Allow around paper?

 

At first pain of lost pride surged

Through my chest

Attempts to rise from screws protruding into my back

but I must stay

In a simple chair

With…

 

What is private?

Thoughts and feelings of shame

My rehabilitation plan,

Somewhere locked away

Head counts on the hour

Finding my Target market for this Blog.

 

I have come to accept the limited value of my contributions. 

There is no easy way to say this…I do not think I am reaching my target market with this blog. Yes, opinions, news, narrative pieces are products. Mine are the products I want to sell. They are assembled from the substance of my heart and to the extent they incorporate some verifiable facts you might find value in gaining my perspective, if you have an appetite for anti-bureaucracy and anti-newspeak.

 

Example: Russian trolls are invading our news feeds using methods that reflect the chaos that is part of their lives by simply being Russian. It is obvious to those watching the video of a soldier unpacking his new armored vest to find no breast plate, instead three slats of hard wood are meant to stop bullets, and he exclaims, “This has never happened before, but it is happening again. “

 

I feel as though I am unpacking this sort of statement several times a day while consuming mainstream media. It is not the conundrum it proposes but more the statement it makes about the intelligence of its market. There is a huge amount of material to go through and some of it is thick – as in difficult to penetrate.

 

Example: Biden chose to debate another presidential candidate. He seemed a bit taxed at times and lost his train of thought once or twice and stumbled in the come back or in how to package the response.  And if you did not see it yourself, news services are all pointing it out screaming that Biden showed signs of losing his competence. It is the news. What is not news, you may be tempted to forget or discount is that Trump is a repetitive criminal.

 

To get to the root of that, you need to understand how they decide what to relay as news. Do they show the picture of one dead Arab in Gaza or the scene of a slaughter of Jews. The reader is often left perplexed matching the story to the photos. I don’t know if it even matters. The average person cannot possibly be expected to sort through the known facts to find the new ones. Facts do change.

 

Previously, when it was fashionable to portray the middle-east conflict as Arabs hating Jews, we did not need to know the details. For example: it was simple to see from a picture that a suicide bomb caused an explosion, and some were killed. Even seeing the carnage of October 7, it is obvious what has transpired. Now there are new facts to consider, being the supposed disproportional response from Israel. If you go back in history there is no definition ever given for what a sense of proportional dictates, or what it even means or can come to mean in an ongoing hostage crisis like Gaza. I want to explore the meaning of that word. The media is not the best source for this type of study. History even has been edited; there is still a pope in Rome after all the massacres of indigenous peoples by good catholic soldiers.

 

If you are reading this you are probably a human, although I am aware robots do read. A robot might be better at calculating what is the right portioning out of carnage in such situations. The news media are trusted to know the right amount of disgust viewers can tolerate while they consume the news. Given thousands to news sources where can we find the correct proportions that fit the medium and their target markets.

 

We live in a world divided in two. First those who do not ask questions and only follow unswervingly, this includes robots as well as those who live under duress of punishment, forced into being silent. Then we have those who follow the evidence and attempt to correctly analyze the facts and the proportions. They calculate and include allowance for various amounts of disgust and other human emotions. We call those people influencers because they put the right amount of spin on facts. They choose the right pictures to expose us to, to keep us in emotional crisis.

 

The risk to influencers is that followers will flip to a new channel when the amalgam of your product ceases doing the job for them. The classical trend is that they go from a left to a right stance. They might want more graphic details; they might seek out other spin factors and have perspectives fleshed out. People migrate, they always have. Web services tend to degenerate to the lowest common denominator, namely smut.

 

This brings me back to my point, so who is the target market? All I know is some read my stuff as evinced by the view count. And, to the extent there is a comments section (still empty) there might be a handle associated. I like to comment on interesting stuff. But I do not always do it because I do not trust the source. I still need to work this market thing out, so I do not feel like I am barking into a void with this blog. I promise to accept the truth, but I am afraid that once I finish imposing my assumptions and biases to the equation there will be nobody left.

 

Thanks for sticking around.

Under the Carpet - by Kenth Cound

 This post was originally made on June 27, 2024 but it is now modified to remove names Senior Legal counsel and My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC, so as to preserve the integrity of the arguments.

My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC, screwed me over.  It occurred on a day in May 2023. He may have gotten directions from PIPSC senior legal counsel to throw me under the bus any way he could.  It was a great arrangement since legal did not want to represent me since they considered me to be an unsavory member of the union steward contingent. It worked out for My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC as well since he had gotten a job offer from a larger public service union and he wanted to get my cases off his plate as soon as possible so he could move on.

My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC might not agree with this summary however to suggest that he was just bested by the legal council for the employer would be too simplistic. He was given explicit instructions from me to negotiate a settlement in return for my dropping my cases. Instead, he negotiated something different and wedged me into signing it with threats of getting nothing and of being forced to sign by the board. So, this bright young man has a notch in his proverbial gun, and I am sidelined.

I did not hear from My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC until April 2023. At first, he looked at those grievances and his thoughts were that much of what I had been punished for was not even disciplinable. I am not sure how or when his course changed or when he received the job offer from Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) but he sure could not wait the three week for the labour board to convene to hear my cases.  I was very confident I could get my job back or something in lieu and the manager behind this would be punished somehow.

If you have worked in the government before you will know that you must not step out of line by questioning what is going on. If you are a steward, you are a natural target. In January 2020, at age 64, I had my building pass taken away from me and was no longer allowed back into my workplace. Unfortunately, My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC did not seem to care what my chances of winning at the labour board were or where his plans would leave me emotionally and financially. Maybe he saw it as too much work when he was already moved on from PIPSC in his mind.

Now I am pissed, and I cannot hide that.  I will likely remain pissed at My assigned legal counsel from PIPSC for a very long time. I am also concerned that the legal council at PIPSC is gone rogue. I have valid issues with how I was treated, and some convincing evidence Senior legal counsel was behind it. Whatever the arrangement that was made between PIPSC and TBS with the result being that I was banished from my job of 12 years, I can only speculate. I am sure it was something the likes of which I never thought could occur in the public service of Canada. Now I know what two faced people at the top look like I will do my best to flush them out and make them accountable.

 

Thinking and Instinct

 

Thinking is comprised of chemical processes producing physical reactions in neocortex neural pathways. These events lead to strengthening of associations between adjacent neurons reinforcing the likelihood that they will be used again should the need arise. In this model synapsis are prone to replicate since the basic structure of the neocortex does not change radically from day to day, while it also allows for the principal of plasticity.

The mind is a function of the human brain organ. It processes information. It does so at the rate it is received by my senses.  This rate may be seen as posing a number of limitations.  We know of two opposing phenomenon namely mental overload and boredom. These occur in the neo-cortex at a rate determined by an individuals memory functions. Information arriving faster than the mind can make sense of is supplemented by processing in the amygdala that reconstitutes information and fits its results into a framework developed over time and often referred to as the reptilian brain.

Human instinct can account for this contingency for re-occurring thought which translated means,” a thing you observed but did not immediately make use of.” This theory assumes the existence of a residual experience. Something added up inside or outside of the process and it became clear. It works the same way as thinking does; it is triggered by some input and it translates into some form of activity whether it be a behavioural reaction or a cognitive one.

Equate it to the war room where there are many screens with activity being monitored and suddenly a messenger enters and exclaims that a certain item (maybe something that went off the radar and is no longer being tracked) has been identified as an enemy submarine.  The report originated in an auxiliary area of the brain where further analysis is effectuated. This report might be based on a sudden memory of a similar movement observed but not given much heed at the time, but it was strong enough to leave a slight impression. We may have needed this second observation to reinforce our sense of possibility.

In the case where the observation was identified positively previously it would not make sense to suggest it was not on the books so to speak.  The senses would provide the rational for initiating a tracking reflex, not a thought process. Here we have reiterated the difference between our instinctual senses and our later developed intellect. In other words we may perk up our ears but not yet make that mad dash to the thicket.

How these higher functions develop is a function of evolution and our ability to avoid natural selection taking us as its prey. What happens in the molecular level of the brain may be a mystery but it might suffice to say there was a survival mechanism in it.

For a more indepth analysis I suggest you consider survival. What is it? If you say I am surviving, what exactly do you mean? For example, take a dream, it does not survive waking. Take your career, it does not completely survive being fired. But you may retain aspects of each. You may reconstitute them into a new form and for the purpose of this treatise, your thoughts cannot survive being refuted by new information.

This ability to rehash sensual data may have benefited the early hunter gatherer.  For example: while foraging for food our hunter-gatherer sees a bush with some berry growing on it. The need to eat may spur the tasting of said berry, combining that with the existing knowledge of cycles of plants the combined information makes that berry somewhat identifiable. If the berry episode was positive, or even if not, there was some new entity that might be allowed to survive. It would be the thought that a certain berry was such and such.

The brain develops some more and our hunter lies awake in bed and considers the options for obtaining more of that berry, or that fruit or that potato. All the processes occurring in that part of the brain go toward survival of the memory.  Memory assures survival of the purpose and with that we can say the intact individual is on a survival path.

 

But the reoccurrence factor in this case is somewhat autonomic. Behaviorists are somewhat concerned with dividing the brain functions into a part that is not conscious, one that is sort of accessible memory but not yet formed into physical memory, and the part that is conditioned reflex.  The more we can unearth from our subconscious the fewer mysteries we will be burdened with. There may be a requirement for analyzing the existence of alter egos.  We can read about experiments that show that personality can be non-singular. These alternative “I" exist in the mind of an individual who has certain disorders, maladaptation or quirk. For example: if I were to break away from what I am currently preparing to write about so I could expand on this new theory of schizophrenia it would require that I place some thoughts on pause while I pursue some others. The activity associated with my thesis would split and I would have to decide, whether through a voluntary decision-making process or a process that was not voluntary, which path my mind will proceed upon.

 

What else matters? We can put the figurative
lego back in the box every evening and start anew to recreate our world each day. Yesterday has not survived, it was destroyed through the unmaking of the lego project. There is a new knowledge and it is that there are options we have not yet explored. We have broadened our experience to new levels and it may make a difference today.

Identifying the Enemy

Originally posted 6 March, 2024. It was modified to remove the name (s) of real people in an attempt to preserve the integrity of the arguments contained therein.

Hi. My name is Kenth. Based on my experiences, I believe human beings are guided by principals. These can be as simple as pleasure and pain; maximize one, avoid the other. For the most part we have a concept of a friend. People or a person who will be counted on if the pain grows to be unbearable or your pleasure become too elusive. We have empathy in our friend. By contrast we can only hope, at best for a degree of compassion from our enemy.

I was told by a wise person who shall remain nameless, that I should not look for friends in the workplace. In hindsight those words made sense but left a great deal of human endeavor to be void of humanity. Reducing work to a sterile experiment.

In my pedagogy I learned that there was a good argument for equality of the sexes, both in the workplace as well as in the home or other social settings. I came to realize also that there are those who would argue, and do actions against the principal of equality.

For some, there is no equality among individuals as there are always those who perform better and those who own more of the means of production and we just have to work around the various biases these differences impose.

We can ask what makes for a better friend, similarity of; opinion on topics, economic status, group membership? For the sakes of argument let’s limit the question to how we navigate the workplace. If we have the possibility of making a friend we have a certain power, as Plato said, when we are friendly with another we own them to some degree. We say this person is our friend and we own each other as friends.

Conversely, when another individual proposes impediments in our path, we have the makings of an enmity. How do we come to own our enemy. I suppose we can own the disputes that arise, and our role in their existence. It may even be said that without there being any dispute, there is no ground for hatred or animosity. This is why I believe we must not have hidden agendas towards coworkers. We must be able to rely on the group known as management, to be prepared to navigate disputes, and to seek their resolution in the most human way.

I have heard it said that when we are functioning in a hierarchical structure as most workplaces are, we need to learn to fly beneath the radar so we do not stand out with any of our controversy. I know I am not alone in being persecuted at work. My story is my own and while I am certain there is no perfect workplace, the environment of work should not propose a restricted area for norms and rules about how equality is interpreted.

So I have introduced the workplace. I would now like to introduce the Union. From my point of view, following the events that I experienced, it is safe to say there is a similar structure existent in it. A union may be managed through a similar organizational model with those who hold the supreme power at the top. Since Union presidents are elected from the body of membership ranks, we can be sure the role is rarely occupied by a competent member. The difference is in the potential for power arising from the role. In the union the president has a disproportionate amount of sway in the direction taken in policy.

Therefore, an individual who runs afoul of both the union president, and the department head (or Associate deputy minister in government) is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I will begin here in presenting my case to you, gentle reader, to glean as you will from my experience. The situations in my case are not unusual, in their occurrences. In some sense as well, they could have been dealt with in a more intelligent approach.

My decision to become a shop steward originally at the department of Finance of Canada was a simple one to make. My friend Francois asked. Every workplace needs a union, and every union needs stewards. When I had been hired in government computer services three years previous, I signed an oath to the crown. I was asked to say something like so help me god.   I explained at that time that I do not believe in the existence of a god. That proved to be problematic as I would find myself reporting to several layers of evangelical types. As a new steward I had misconceptions on what my duties were and how to approach management, so I made mistakes.

My first mistake was to assume I could count on a level of respect, a minimal at least level, from managers. I expected that when there would be changes in the workplace I would be informed personally so that I could attend meetings prepared to provide the unions point of view on those same topics. But this did not happen and when I attended a meeting with my colleagues I found myself in a conflict with a coworker who was scheduling the overtime for a project. It happened when I asked the manager if she could assure all team members could have equal access to that overtime, that colleague pointed out in the meeting that I had not volunteered in any of the time slots available.  I clarified that the question was for the manager. I was punished for disrespect.

After the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan there was a day called the day of honour announced by the secretary of TBS because at that time Finance Canada and Treasury Board Secretariate were separated into two departments with me going to TBS. It was encouraged to attend the events planned for that day. Attending another meeting I asked the same manager whether it constituted a day off. The manager was not sure. As it was the day prior to the event I asked that we have an answer as soon as possible. That day I let my supervisor know I would be away the next day to attend events. At 5:10, ten minutes after my shift ended and the service desk I worked at was closed, and everybody else had gone for the day, she approached me and told me I was expected to be at work the next day.

It was impossible to communicate this news to my coworkers. Since I made my intention of being off clear, I took the day off. So I had no expectation of respect being presented. Some might say I did not deserve respect simply because I proved myself willing to go against a management decision. I was promptly disciplined. I was accused of “maintaining that the day was a paid holiday.” In the ensuing disciplinary meeting I explained that I did not consider the day to be a day off as it required attendance at a number of events planned in the day of honour and sanctioned by the Secretary. The top person in TBS.

Maybe discipline is not the word I am looking for. It is their word, for sure. It assumes a lack on the part of the disciplinee.  I asked bing, “what do you call the person who receives discipline?” It obviously confused the question and replied “the disciplined” and you know it is a leap. So I asked about the person who requires discipline. Funnily enough, it gave me the government of Canada web page on progressive discipline. I am close.

There is a need to provide a template for such disciplines. Do you have concerns with an employee's work performance?  Here are the steps for applying progressive discipline in the work place. Immediately there is confusion between performance and behaviour. The template asks the discipliner, usually a manager, to provide the policy that was broken, some reference to the employees actions that were suspect, and the resultant disciplinary action to be taken. The progressive part is about increasing the penalty at each new breach. My problem was that they actually made up policies in order to apply increased punishments and the union was complicit along the way.

I think if person A needs discipline and person B is prepared to provide it, that makes person B a helper. B helps A become more disciplined. The upper level bureaucrats think they are helping when they punish. The concept of agreeing to disagree is not recognized or practiced. They think their response to their personal anger at an employee must hurt that employee somehow for it to work and they think not paying your salary, is appropriate pain, enough anyway, to help you become disciplined. If that top bureaucrat is wrong she does not want to hear about it, and no discussion is possible. I get that. They are floating around in a precarious situation and do not have the time in their rise to the top, to stop and sort things out. My workplace, or hard place has become a harassment zone.

What went wrong between me and the PIPSC union would be a very difficult situation to describe. It began with a fellow steward who raised an important point of order at a board of directors meeting being that one board member was currently an undischarged bankrupt. Being a bankrupt disqualifies individuals from holding an office in the unions decision making body. There is sufficient cause to remove said individual. This did not hold well with the president who sought to solidify some power base she held in the region from whence he came, and felt, I guess, his presence in board meetings was to her advantage somehow. She used a special general meeting to discipline that fellow steward and I went to it. I was not invited as the president wanted as few opposing views as possible. Some, like regional representatives were invited as a matter of course. In any event her motion to remove this guy, claiming he harassed this bankrupt guy was defeated. I was singled out for her ire and I believe she followed through when I needed the unions protection. I should have known this one does not play by the rules.

Fast forward to a time when I need union representation in my workplace disputes and I was cut off. I had to self represent and I attend labour board hearings to argue against treatments I was only covered by in a collective agreement. I was prohibited from using the CA as only the union would be able to.

Enough pointing fingers for now. I have personal issues I think are more important to focus on for a bit. Like the life I have outside of work. Around the time of the first disciplinary action, I fell off my bike and landed on my head. I went to the hospital and was discharged without going through concussion protocol. I was tended to by a Dr. Davoudie who I got the name wrong and it seemed to irritate her. It might be my face. Or my voice, as the executive director once told me, when I speak at meetings he can see the other attendees visibly tense up and cringe.

When I told my wife, E about my reprimand letter for the supposed disrespect she must have been sure it was my fault since she was down on me about my poor performance review as well. I was a guiniea pig for the supervisor's new work objectives and since they were unachievable, containing mutually exclusive work instructions, I was administered an action plan. The manager and the supervisor were having a great time at my expense. Work tended to infiltrate my home life and soon enough my marriage was in the pit.  I had a few run ins with traffic since I bike to my punishing job at TBS and I follow most rules of the road. As a road warrior I probably did not fit your template of a public servant. This would be an understatement. If you had known me in 1990 you would be excused for not seeing how I made it into the Public service. Further if you’d known me in 1980 you would likely have written me off. I won’t get into details here since the subject of work place harassment should have nothing to do with a persons past. A coworker who was once an MMA fighter was more than capable of performing functionary duties. He must have had at least as many concussions as me.  I am not sure what draws someone to the PS but I think it is the opportunity to make an impact in the areas they have been educated in or otherwise have experience and /or expertise.

I sought to join the public service because, since my early teens, my cousin had a splendid life in the foreign service. We looked up to her, my whole family did. Her dad was another story. We mostly joked about uncle Tommy as being cheap skate. In hind sight we were so poor it would be an improvement if we were able to keep a few dollars for bread. As a child there is so much I had to learn about the world. I went through a lot but I always held on the the thought that I was public service material or at least I could get a steady job someplace and pay my taxes and someday get a pension.

I had friends, so I know what it means to be friendly and to count on others who share your views and enjoy similar activities. I experienced moments while working at TBS of camaraderie, but I felt management was watching me even conducting intermitted blind sides like accusing me of being unproductive in a meeting so they could send me home. Or of leaving a meeting without permission when permission was not required. This last one would be my first argument for not returning to the office following a lengthy stint of telework if I was still in the public service, as I could avoid arbitrary attacks by having the ability to blank my screen during a pointless meeting.

In 2018 a new ADM came on as head of the department which was corporate services sector, I met her in the kitchen on the 3^rd floor at 90 Elgin where I operated the service desk. It was an open concept space but she occupied a glassed in office immediately adjacent. As the shop steward, the only one for PIPSC which we will call the union, even though it chooses not to call itself one, so I was charmed that she would speak to me and show some concern for getting to know me. I introduced myself and I mentioned that I was the steward. Maybe it made me feel proud to a degree, like maybe I might be her peer. But it was turned around fairly flatly when I mentioned that I knew a fellow from Saguenay, she said was her home town. She asked for his name from me to which I had to recoil since it went against my creed to toss names around. Since that first encounter, I was not able to reach a level of mutual respect. Plus she went petulant about me calling her Miss when I had said Ms.

I want to say something about the difference between men and women that is more of a traditional one than an actual one. First, women can take the name of their husband which our Karen did. The person can now do real suspect behaviour and hide again simply by changing her name back. I never knew her real family name but if I did, I am sure if I saw it in an invitation list it would make a difference to me. 

Here is why. She is not my friend. There might have been a time when she could have been but things she did made that unlikely. She came to the rescue of my supervisor, a serial micromanager when that individual had lost the handle on reality and instead of getting help for her, she pursued me with the same plan of attack. At the end, these two unsavory people made my workplace a hard place. I know how hate is transmitted and becomes common place when there is a distinction to be made like between me, an atheist, and the three women I mentioned that I reported to being evangelical Christians. The prejudice was palpable and the results brutal.

Like a dog who still loves the master after being smacked with a stick, I continued to hold out that things could turn around. Being in a place now with a much clearer head I see I was dreaming. The wording of those disciplinary articles was undisputable, they were filled with hate and it would be a waste of my time to think I could change their mind when a hardened bias was evident. The union certainly would not help me therefore I was not able to hold the ADM accountable for her actions against me.

If you, gentle reader, are a member of the public service please take heed, and if you are a steward be advised it is only a matter of time before you fall into the cross hairs.  If you are in PIPSC Union management I hope you have a chuckle and it warms your otherwise joyless physical aspect. If none of the above applies, I thank you for your time and I hope you found something of value in my story. And please let me know what you think in the comments or ask questions. I will try to answer them all.

To be, or not to be a team player (Originally posted Jan 11, 2020)

If by team you are referring to the Unions of my brothers and sisters then, you should probably be a good union person.  Someone who knows their collective agreement and who is aware of conditions of the workplace which could lead to a conflict between management's and labour's objectives.

As a union person you seek to lift every worker's standard of living, not just those who pay dues, or those who work in your tidy little corner of the shop, but for all workers. There is a proposition for you; stop focusing on your group membership and start focusing on your species membership. It is not to say that socialism is the only way to make progress.  It is not as though we are strapped to this railroad track with the hoot-hoot of the capitalists racing in head long. But it is the union way. It is an ideology which is not bound by geographical space but acts like a liberating force, allowing people from all backgrounds to assemble under the sun.  It is an intellectual space, and it is in keeping with our better human nature. Our union aspirations are really a manifestation, a bringing into reality, our letting go and embracing the idea of a world without evil. What is understood without any explanation based in reason and evidence can be treated as evil. We do not need an event to rise from hostility or murderous anger to say evil is at the root, we only need actions based on beliefs that are not based in reality. Black Oxford at paragraph 3, provides this analysis of Alan Badiou's essay on the understanding of evil.

But there is an objective issue as well as this subjective fantasy in the defining of rights in terms of evil: “because if the ethical ‘consensus’ is founded on the recognition of Evil, it follows that every effort to unite people around a positive idea of the Good, let alone to identify Man with projects of this kind, becomes in fact the real source of evil itself.” This is a subtle but crucial point. The ethics derived from evil are at best a sort of “stodgy conservatism” much like the ethics of Christianity which has always found it preferable to enforce the ‘don’ts’ than the ‘do’s’.

Many people come to the subject of capitalism with the thought that the people at the top of the food chain belong there offering one or more explanation from a set of patent answers to why.  It is either because they worked harder, or they spend wisely on an education or it is a free world and daddy left enough money for sonny to avoid work altogether or some selection of the above. I am confused by this rush to protect capitalism. Is it possible that each of those doubters harbors a hope in their heart that someday they will have better luck and they will not have to swallow their ethics or to experience any guilt for the shame of not sharing what they have.

What is the difference between being poor and being rich: while poor you may welcome any small improvement to your standard of living.  You might even sell your soul so to speak.  It is the soul that gives us an excuse for every evil thing we allow into our thoughts. I say soul since it is an inclusive phrase not because I would vouch for the existence of an everlasting aspect of being. The rich are very busy exploring the culture of having. They can have a lot more than they consider, since they likely have investments and these are not fully conscious elements of the equation, or a member of the set of concerns. They do not feel any rush to address, maybe solve social problems through spending their money.

It seems the rich person has it better in many ways from the poor slob. The money the food the lodging and the perks, like foreign cars, vacations on watercraft, mountain skiing. Surely everybody wants to have those options. Surely there are many ways to come by money, to create a new product, or find a new use for something that exists. But we are always going to try to find a new way of looking at the economy, or economies, that will allow a new course to be set, one that benefits the masses.  It is not the ultra-rich who can find this new principal, although it might, it will be likely some poor slob who had to find a solution to their own difficult situation. Then he had to find a way to sell it and to become rich.

Another way of looking at it is that maybe I do not want something just because I am envious of the rich. Maybe I do not want it, maybe I do not care to own it. Maybe I recognize its value, but I do not need it. In this category I place collectible . Land also does not have a value, but we give it an address and a square footage or acres.

For some strange reason people who align with a group tend to take on the values of that group. In the same way that electrons may spin closer to the boundary of the molecule and drift off through an affinity with another substance, so too people can evolve out of group relationships and find new affinities. While your relationship with unionism may be fraught with disagreements and promoted through acts of evil, there is better that can come from such associations than harms simply due to the constituent causes being people and not values.

Where speaking truth to power is pointless.

An update to this blog, originally posted in September 2023 to remove references to a real person were made in an attempt to preserve the integrity of the arguments. 

In the aftermath of my “resignation” from TBS, I reached out to the primary antagonist of the situation, the top bureaucrat in the corporate services sector.

After she accepted my contact request, I attempted to engage her in reassessing a nasty turn in events she helped bring on.

There are two points of contention I wanted her to take another look at. There was the lack of requirement on the part of those who use the PSPM (Public Service Performance Management) system to sign their entries. And the other was the work objectives which were assigned to a small group of individuals in the AMG (Access management Group) in the IT solution section which she oversaw.

Sous-ministre adjointe Services ministériels chez Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor | Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

• SEP 2Kenth Cound sent the following messages at 9:35 AM

Kenth Cound  9:35 AM

A: Because I care. Q: Who cares if there is no signature, only a check box?

• SEP 14

 11:27 AM

To seek the names of your employee's friends is overt control, and rushing to the aid of a serial incompetent micromanager is just wrong. Of course, they are going to come running crying and swearing one of their charges is driving them crazy by asking for explanations they cannot provide. I learned a valuable lesson, and the failures are mine. I make no apology. I seek no reset.

• SEP 25

 5:08 PM

New day here, how will it start? I will produce something a little more esoteric, a treatise on what is positive and negative when we talk about work objectives. Let’s say you work in an IT shop; you make accounts and administer changes to them. You might be asked to make a 100 of them to fulfill a quota. That is a positive work objective. Let’s say new products come online and you are asked to split your work between network accounts and cell phone setups. Still a standard type of requirement. Now we will complicate things somewhat, your boss says a new work assessment software is going to be used and the people in your section will have to perform a percentage each for some of the ticket types. You must take the orders from the top of the ticketing system queue. 

You might get an arrival or file system change request. Now your ability to make quotas is completely out of your hands. So you ask your boss to assign you the tickets, we'll because when you enter your work place at 9 unless it is really busy, all the arrivals and account transfers are taken. And since the boss determined the priority for tickets only she can change things. You cannot achieve your objectives and your complaint has made you pariah.

 The reasoning management provides is that they have been told to use a performance rating system that must include work objectives to fulfill a calculation. The manager makes the standard but does not remove the ticket queue. There is no satisfying this requirement. Your luck is now being stretched. This is an oversimplification of the situation I encountered when I was a tech in the government of Canada. I had this work objective. •Percentage of requests completed at the end of the fiscal year that includes requests from these key categories – Person Departure Request, Person Arrival Request, Outlook Permissions / Generic Email Account Request and Network Permissions Requests is: At least 25% for technicians with more than 3 years’ experience in the team. At least 23% for technicians with 1 - 3 years’ experience in the team. At least 19% for technicians with less than 1 years’ experience in the team. •Percentage of ticket closed by a technician that is reopened or completed incorrectly is less than 15% of the total tickets completed over the fiscal year. By this standard one cannot know whether one is on track or failing until all the numbers are in and it is too late to reverse any trend.

 It is like the manager is telling the worker to do a quota as well as other work and that objective does not take other work into account. And what happens to all the other types of requests that are not one of the above? By making different requirements for techs of shorter or longer tenure the whole concept of 100% is lost. There are only three techs the equation applies to. Somebody with a more ingenious mind than mine might devise a system to keep track of it all and we can ignore the fact that taking tickets from the top of ticketing system queue is still the rule. But I could not, and there is just no explaining the basic concepts of statistical analysis to some people. For example, what happens with the other types of tickets? We have a service desk where people can approach with their devices and their inquiries etc., and tickets are made for these. You basically must stop what you were doing and make a ticket from scratch which consumes time. Management stick to it, are prepared to punish any who question, and have no answers regardless of the policy that they must be able to explain the objectives. This all flies right under the noses of HR. In their happy-go-lucky world there is no need to have a union representative when workers have Them. And how lucky they are for being given a system to support their arbitrary judgements. Again, in my life I see a window of opportunity and feel the need to address it. This should be an easy win. The objectives are not clear and numbers do not and never will jive. I am sure there is an accountant somewhere who is thinking that this is satisfied by creating an entry on a spreadsheet like “ Extra work extracted by all the workers confused about their work objectives but who are not able to articulate their confusion, so they just try to do more and hope it is enough.” She would discount the impact such strictures have on workers’ mental health and mitigate damages by removing anyone who speaks up about it.

• OCT 12

Kenth Cound  10:32 PM

Hope this finds you well Karen.

This will be my last word about the person. She does not know my pain yet she is prepared to hunt down a lowly CS1 to issue the blow that will in her mind, clean up the service desk. Shame. We all know it has little to do with a few harmless jokes.

On Marcel Proust. ( the devil is in the details)

 

Marcel Proust: He was determined to tell a story in great detail as the good writer that he was. Being eloquent in his recounting the tale of a life from earliest times to ..well, as much of it as possible. Many who read his work get the impression the life being narrated is his own. So I drew great pleasure from his comment that it was all fiction.

I feel this way about the story I am part of. I have created my legacy in my mind and that is mostly personal narrative, only because truth is only an ideal and as such is not knowable. Like a man who comes out of unconsciousness and learns second hand of how he had an accident or blow to the head or whatever. In my case near fatal events while riding bicycle. We are not always aware of what the role is we are playing in life. I like to be cognizant of what is going on around me but I will be the first to admit there are times I do not know where the story is leading. If I suddenly were transported onto the set of a sitcom and had no lines rehearsed, and no idea who the other actors were, I would not be any less awkward.

It has been said that truth is stranger than fiction. What is truth. What is real. What we observe with our eyes and register in our heads. I have to ask, are our facilities for apprehending the world true. We can go through the history of philosophy and the scientific studies that show parts of the brain being active during various activities, but where in all of this research is reality? Where is the I, that sees.

In the moments shared we may initiate nudges or feel the seemingly less perceptible nudges of others to veer a certain way, to drag a topic Kicking and screaming towards an (un?)-natural direction, we are not computer programs operating in a virtual environment, but we think and act in characteristic ways. It can be said that the identity of a human being, at any point in time, is a function of how their program interacts with the reality they are found to be in.

When things happen, it is by intention or as a consequence of human influences, human made forces coming into play, forces we cannot always control.  We can also attempt to influence the programming of other individuals to make interactions with them more predictable. We can even alter the perception of what has actually been observed to have happened. You might have heard the saying "repeat a lie enough and people will start to believe it.

What is to be done with / about the imperfections? You and I might be likened to the small routines that comprise the bigger picture. Yes, there is a purpose that is much bigger than we can ascertain, and it is not rocket science although it includes all the activities people engage in. We exist. That existence might mean something different to each individual regardless of how much someone might like to think of themselves in terms of their group memberships. 

When a person directs their focus towards fitting in they are assimilating and handing in their individuality in a sort of surrender to perceived higher forces allowing themselves to be controlled by a superego. They give up thinking for themselves.

Proust understood how triggers worked, like how the smell of a biscuit could recall memories of events in which those sensations were previously registered. He was said to be a great writer since he is known best for his literary contributions, but to me he did not achieve greatness in his work. I felt no indication from his novel that things were ever great. Any pain that he might have experienced seemed proof to him anyway, that he was alive.