2009 08 It's Not Fair

It’s not fair!

Recently I heard a politician on radio news say, “That’s not fair”. She was being questioned as to whether she had read the bill on which she was casting her vote. Aside from the fact that my mother and father taught me to read a contract in its entirety before signing, her response, “That’s not fair” brought to mind a number of situations from my childhood through the present. The scenarios range from quite simple to extremely complex. I’ll share some of them now.

Children seem to have a very keen sense of what is fair. Their self-interest also makes their perception of fairness quite transparent. If Johnny wants to keep the ball longer than the norm, others playing the game will say, “That’s not fair”.

It is generally accepted that if rules are clearly established in advance, that breaking those rules subjects the violator to the “That’s not fair” statement. And that’s fair! Where the rules are less than precise, there is considerable latitude on when the “That’s not fair” statement might be invoked. Sometimes it takes such challenges to determine what the rules actually are. Even in professional sports where the rules are fairly exact in their written expression, the application of those rules often requires interpretation by an official. Those rulings provide fodder for fair-minded fans to argue whether the ruling was fair or not.

I’ve noticed that it is usually the perception of the beholder that decides what is fair. Two people can reasonably see the same facts differently depending on their prior experiences. In one of the most widely celebrated sports contests in the San Francisco Bay area, the Cal vs. Stanford Big Game of 1982 when the Stanford Band ran on the field, Cal fans celebrate the fact that no flag or whistle was blown during the five lateral touchdown made by Cal as the clock expired which gave Cal the win. Stanford fans believe that one of the players was actually down when one of the laterals was made and thus believe that they should have won the game. They cry, “That’s not fair”. If it had gone the other way, Cal fans would have made the same cry.

As children, it is often our parents who decide what is fair. When it comes to sibling rivalry, many smart parents leave their children to work out the agreements needed to maintain peace in the home. Otherwise, the parents end up being the lawmakers, judge, jury and “executioner” (figuratively, we hope) all rolled into one…not a very popular place to be since that changes the focus of the argument onto the parents rather than the place where it belongs—the argument itself. In my family, splitting a dessert in half was always decided by one person with the other person getting to choose which half was the better piece. No claim of “that’s not fair” could be made, because the choosing person could have chosen either piece.

Most often, it is the injured party who decides with great vehemence what is not fair and clings tightly to that conviction whether they are right or not. They think that they have the most to gain by persuading others that they have been wronged and will spend many hours attempting to defend their position, even if an impartial observer might not agree with their stance. This happens every day in our courts. In the United States, it is supposed to be the law that decides what is fair. So volumes of text are written to codify what is right and wrong behavior. Then it is up to our judges and juries to decide what is fair within the context of that law.

In insurance, it is the claims adjuster who tries to decide what is fair. These hard-working people were not present when the incident in question took place. They have to re-create the loss scenario and interpret what lawyers wrote in the insurance contract to first determine if the loss is covered or excluded. If it is a covered loss, then they have to decide how much money will be sufficient to make the customer or injured party whole. They have to balance the obligation of the insurance contract with the obligation to the injured party. Meanwhile, they have to protect their company against fraud. In auto insurance, some estimates show that fraud accounts for one third or more of claims costs. Injured parties sometimes see an opportunity for financial gain in their loss and justify it by the “poor me” syndrome. An entitlement mentality sets in and they will go to extreme lengths to make their case look worse than it really is. Or they will intentionally bend the facts to make it appear that someone else was to blame for the loss. I admit to trying that once with my young son. I attempted to claim that a car ran into him even when he admitted that it was he who ran his bicycle into the car. When the police pointed out that the scratch angle could not have been made if the car was moving, I retracted my position. Ever since, I have felt guilty about having tried to change the facts, as that was neither a good lesson to teach my son, nor ethical for me. Fortunately, I was corrected in the error of my ways and we paid the car owner for the scratch. Since then I have tried to accept responsibility for actions where I might have caused injury to others. As grandma said, “Pay your way and hold your head up.” I’m also happy to confess this incident publicly now many years later to assuage my guilt.

The police have an interesting role in deciding fairness. Sometimes they get to decide how hard to press in enforcing the law. They can issue citations or they can go back to the station to meet their peers. They can evaluate, sometimes in a split second how dangerous a situation they’re in. While the law is supposed to treat people equally, the enforcers cannot always catch perpetrators of misdeeds. Thus some get off easily and others are brought to justice. Those who are brought to justice can feel that it is not fair that they were singled out while others get off scot-free. This is particularly true in traffic infractions. Why is one person singled out for speeding when they were “going with the flow” of traffic?

Teenagers are often put into situations their parents perceive they’re not yet ready to experience. Drugs, alcohol and sexual temptations abound. Their natural reaction is to claim, “If my friend’s parents think it’s okay, why do you say I can’t do it? It’s not fair that you’re so restrictive!” Then, when the next generation rolls around, interestingly enough, the cycle is usually repeated.

Store policies are sometimes restrictive. “No returns” and “restocking fee” signs announce that once sold, an item should be kept. If a product is defective, of course the smart thing for a store to do is replace it in order to retain a loyal customer. However, they have the right to refuse if they have announced their policy in advance. While it might not be fair, it doesn’t appear to be illegal.

Used cars have a reputation for being sold with less than perfect condition. Of course the seller has the advantage of knowing what works and what doesn’t work. The buyer might pay a price reflective of a working vehicle when some part of it is not fully functional. The fairness of this transaction is that the seller cannot always get a price he might like. Nevertheless, many times the buyer gets a deal which is not truly fair because he lacks knowledge of the true condition.

And that leads me to comment on the expression, “Life is not fair”. When one person is dealt a hand in life that is less than desirable or at the very least, less than average, it certainly does seem that life is not fair. Whether it is a serious illness or an untimely death, any individual has the disadvantage of being the victim of being an individual. It is very easy to compare oneself with a class of people who have it better. And it is very easy to think that it is not fair to be out of that class. And it is very easy to believe that the class owes you something. And it is very easy to think that you’re entitled to better. It’s very easy to observe that life is not fair to an individual. And you’d be right.

©Frank Bliss All rights reserved
August, 2009