Disputes

If you find yourself being more impatient than ever before when interacting with people in customer service roles—or if you’ve noticed other people having a shorter fuse and snapping more quickly—you’re not alone. Lines can be a source of anger, frustration, and arguments. Twenty-seven percent of consumers get annoyed by fellow shoppers when in line and 19% of shoppers have even had an argument with a partner or friend in a line.

The vast majority of consumers associate waiting in line with negative emotions. Nearly 67% of the consumers surveyed report feeling impatient, bored, annoyed, frustrated, or disrespected when they have to wait.

Notably, impatience skyrocketed this year (2024)—increasing by 176%. This suggests that consumers are shifting from boredom and annoyance towards impatience. This finding is unsurprising given our current social climate. Technology is increasing expectations for instant gratification while high levels of anxiety are shortening fuses. Surveys have shown that 25% would only wait a maximum of two minutes. Fifty-nine percent would wait no longer than four minutes. Seventy-three percent would abandon their purchase if they had to queue for more than five minutes.

Furthermore, the widespread transition to remote work during the pandemic resulted in reduced face-to-face interaction. And with a decrease in this time spent with our fellow humans, it has likely been more difficult to develop empathy and patience. Too much screen time may have caused “keyboard courage” to bleed into our day-to-day conversations, leaving us more abrupt and even rude in our communications.

Another cause of heightened emotions is the overall challenges people in the world are facing, including polarization, war, the underlying stress of inflation, supply chain issues, or looming economic uncertainty.

All of these factors are pushing people to their limits and resulting in an increase in burnout, frustration, and impatience in their interactions with others.

According to Business Insider, a big turn off for Gen-Z workers is what workplace experts call “a double bind.” Jeanie Chang is an expert on mental health in the workplace, and she defines it as “giving two or more contradictory messages at the same time.”

For example, claiming to value work-life balance by insisting workers are off their computers by 6pm, while at the same time supervisors routinely send messages after hours. Or when a job advertises unlimited paid time off, but workers are routinely denied PTO requests. Chang says that many Gen-Z workers use another name to describe the practice: “corporate gaslighting.”

As a member of Generation X, Chang doesn’t exactly blame managers for their double-bind habits. She thinks that many of them had the same practices modeled for them in their younger years, and just assumed that’s how work has to be. “People my age and up didn’t talk about mental health,” said Chang. She said that many of her coworkers adopted a survivalist mindset in order to battle burnout and fatigue, but they didn’t understand what was happening since they didn’t have the same common language to describe it.

By contrast, many Gen-Z workers adopt what Chang calls “a thriving mindset.” If they perceive that the company is an impediment to their happiness, many of them will quit, even without a backup plan in place.

“At the end of the day, you can't blame those older folks because they don't know what that is. So, it's a learning curve, but all sides have to be open. No one generation is better than the next.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Business; Church Staff; Volunteer Recruitment; Volunteers - Whether managing people in an office, or working with volunteers in a church, leadership must be clear about their expectations and open about the amount of time and effort that is expected and not take advantage of workers.

After a public outcry and a round of bad press against the entertainment behemoth, Jeffrey Piccolo’s lawsuit against Disney will proceed as planned.

Piccolo and his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, were dining in a restaurant called Raglan Road, which is of part of the Disney Springs shopping center adjacent to the Disney World entertainment complex. Despite making her food allergies clear and being reassured that her meal would be allergen free, Tangsuan suffered an allergic reaction after her meal, and died of anaphylaxis.

Piccolo subsequently sued Raglan Road, and included Disney in its list of defendants, despite the fact that Disney didn’t own the restaurant but merely leased it the space to operate. As part of Disney’s defense, it cited some fine print in the Disney+ end user license agreement (EULA), in which the user agrees to resolve any future disputes in arbitration rather than court. Similar legal language is included any time a customer books a ticket to any of its theme parks.

Corporations like Disney often prefer arbitration over litigation because it’s faster, more cost efficient, and its rulings are binding. Also, because arbitration proceedings are private, there’s no risk of dirty laundry being exposed in court.

But a firestorm of controversy erupted because of all the public attention on Disney. It appeared the company was using a legal technicality to avoid any measure of legal culpability in Tangsuan’s death. As a result, the company reversed course. Disney Experiences chairman Josh D’Amaro released a statement, which included the following:

At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss. As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Though there are advantages to avoiding the formality of court to settle informal disputes, the court is society’s official means of securing a measure of justice and accountability. Businesses which use loopholes to shortcut justice will fall under God’s condemnation (Prov. 11:1; Deut. 25:16).

Iconic quiz show Jeopardy! faces an uncertain future due to ongoing labor strikes by two labor unions, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA). Sony Pictures Television, the show's producer, is exploring solutions like reusing questions to maintain broadcast continuity during the labor disputes. However, the imminent start of Season 40's production adds urgency to resolving the impasse.

Contestants set to compete in the upcoming Tournament of Champions have expressed solidarity with striking workers. Toronto's Ray Lalonde, a 13-time winner last season, declared his support on the Jeopardy! Reddit forum, vowing not to cross picket lines. More holdouts could cause a postponement to winter or spring.

Moreover, the status of hosts raises another concern—Mayim Bialik has already halted her duties until the resolution of the labor issues, while Ken Jennings faces increasing pressure to follow suit.

As Season 40's premiere approaches, the show's future hinges on negotiations between the two unions and Sony Pictures Television. Those negotiations are said to be imminent and/or ongoing. With a rich legacy and loyal fan base, the fate of Jeopardy! rests on key leaders in both camps being able to find middle ground in this dispute. And fortunately, the answer to this problem need not be stated in the form of a question.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Scripture has much to say about the rich and powerful withholding wages from the hardworking laborer. Regardless of how this particular strike is settled, there is a day coming in God’s timetable for all accounts to be settled in God’s courtroom (Jam. 5:1-6).

A recent news article featured the story of three restaurant-owning brothers in India who constantly compete and bicker for business.

B. Vivekanandhan, the 51-year-old owner of a popular restaurant called Moonrakers, competes fiercely for customers in this southern Indian holiday town. So fiercely, in fact, that fists have flown. His chief foes are his own flesh-and-blood. His older brother operates a seafood joint called Moonwalkers right across the street. Just down the same lane, his younger brother runs Moonrocks. The menus are nearly identical.

At one time, all three brothers and their families would sit down for dinner. The three brothers behind Moonrakers agree it began as a true family endeavor. No more. One of the brothers said, “When money comes, comes, comes, love goes away.”

A couple of times in 2020, two of the brothers brawled with each other in the street in front of befuddled customers. “Sometimes it’s like a street fight,” one brother said. “People say, ‘This is a complicated family. We just came down to eat.’”

It’s all proving baffling to tourists, who frequently are stopped on the street by two of the brothers who were giving pitches for their rival restaurants. One resident said she wanted to eat at the original Moonrakers, but was bewildered by the competing eateries. Her husband, who swore he had dined at Moonrakers years ago, was even more confused.

Possible Preaching Angle:

The church looks just as petty and ridiculous when we don’t walk in unity in Christ.

An Indian bride called off her own wedding after getting a look at her groom for the first time on their wedding day. At a reception preceding the ceremony, the bride and groom both lifted their veils and saw one another for the first time. But the would-be bride didn’t like what she saw. According to local news reports, the woman complained the man was too dark-skinned and appeared to be too old. After the woman called off the wedding, the families that had arranged the marriage began fighting, stopping only when police were called to the scene.

A woman was arrested for calling 911 about her lack of cell phone access, despite being warned that doing so was abuse of the system. Seloni Khetarpal was arrested after calling the dispatch center demanding a police presence to settle a dispute she was having with her parents over her cell phone service.

In call transcripts, Khetarpal explains that she lives with her parents, and that she needs her phone for both work and school. She felt like not having cell phone access warranted police intervention, despite the 911 call-taker’s insistence to the contrary.

Local records indicate that 36-year-old Khetarpal is certified as a licensed realtor, but fails to explain why she is unable to afford her own cell phone plan. According to court documents, Khetarpal was characterized during her call as belligerent, and officers charged her with a fourth-degree felony: disrupting public services.

Possible Preaching Angle:

We must both teach ourselves and teach our children to carefully discern wrong from right so that we can serve our communities well. Without that discernment, even our attempts to do good can result in great harm.

In their book, The Way Back, Phil Cooke and Jonathan Bock ask significant questions:

Why did the Early Church succeed where we are failing? How did they transform the Western world in such a relatively short time? They did it because they did things that baffled the Romans. The Early Church didn't picket, they didn't boycott, and they didn't gripe about what was going on in their culture. They just did things that astonished the Romans. They took in their abandoned babies. They helped their sick and wounded. They restored dignity to the slaves. They were willing to die for what they believed. After a while, their actions so softened the hearts of the Romans that they wanted to know more about who these Christians were and who was the God they represented.

Without confrontation, protest, or debate, love did its work.

Why do normal people sometimes do horrific things to other people? In his book, Less Than Human, Professor David Livingstone Smith explains that even ordinary people can demean, enslave, and kill other human beings. Based on Smith's research, it all starts with one important ingredient—the dehumanization of the victims.

Smith says: "Thinking about your enemies in subhuman categories is a way of creating mental distance, of excluding them from the human family. It makes murder not just permissive but obligatory. We should kill vermin or predators."

He goes on to explain that the early American settlers in Arizona characterized Native Americans as "savage beasts." The Nazis depicted Jewish people as "rats." The Japanese invaders of China called their victims "chancorro," which means something subhuman like a bug or animal. Prior to the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the Hutus who killed Tutsis routinely referred to them as "cockroaches." Americans fought barbarian "Huns" in World War I and godless "gooks" in Vietnam. When we slap a dehumanizing label on people, it's much easier to strip them of their dignity and mistreat them.

Simon and Chana Taub seem to agree on only one thing: The house is mine.

The couple wants a divorce, but both of them refuse to move out of their New York home. To solve the matter, the court ordered a sand-colored wall built through the middle of their living room.

Simon can only get to his dining room by going up a neighbor's outside stairs, stepping over a balcony, and climbing through a window. Chana has easier access to the second floor, but she complains that Simon still makes her life a nightmare by yelling, banging on walls, and turning off her heat when it's cold out. They each vow to stay in the house until the other moves—but it doesn't look like that'll be happening anytime soon.

In the 2004 presidential election, partisan fervor visited the University of North Carolina. Two students – —one supporting George Bush, the other supporting John Kerry – —debated over a unique political question. Who would Jesus vote for?

Jesus didn't reveal how he would vote, but we can be sure how he felt about the debate. When the exchange became heated, one of the combatants slapped the other in the face. His opponent fell to the concrete patio, suffering a head injury.

"If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy."

—Peter James Lee, one of 60 Episcopal bishops who voted to approve the appointment of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop of New Hampshire