Can callousness be limited to indifference? Or can it be active, affirmative, and intended? Is there a qualitative difference between cruelty which is intended and that which disregard represents?
We often think of callousness as a passive activity — as in a person who walks past tragedy without giving a pause, a second thought or consideration. But does it matter if a person instead stops, expresses empathy, speaks a lot of flowery words — then walks away still doing nothing? Does the expression of “right and appropriate” words make a difference? Or of the person who intentionally harms as opposed to refusing to intervene when cruelty is exposed — is there a qualitative difference between the two?
Agencies, entities, large corporations, bureaucracies, etc. — they are often charged with “callous indifference”, whether because they mechanically follow the dictates of an inflexible company policy, or because individuals within the company have become so attuned to a corporate attitude of indifference that they have simply lost their humanity.
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition and can no longer perform all of the essential elements of the job, callous indifference is often the attitude encountered by the Federal agency or the Postal facility. It is sadly a fact of life. And if you decide it is time to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, you will likely find a similar attitude of callous indifference from your Human Resource Office — yes, that very department which is supposedly set up to be of assistance in the process.
Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to separate yourself from the callous indifference of the world around, and initiate the process to take care of yourself in the process.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire