Suck At Your Job? Better Hope You Work For The Taxpayers
Dennis Cauchon writes in USA Today that job loss by dying is more likely than firing for employees of government agencies:
Death -- rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs -- is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations....The 1,800-employee Federal Communications Commission and the 1,200-employee Federal Trade Commission didn't lay off or fire a single employee last year. The SBA had no layoffs, six firings and 17 deaths in its 4,000-employee workforce.
When job security is at a premium, the federal government remains the place to work for those who want to avoid losing a job. The job security rate for all federal workers was 99.43% last year and nearly 100% for those on the job more than a few years.
Oh, and P.S. As for the rest of us, we'll be working in donut shops at age 90 to pay these government workers' pensions.
> As for the rest of us, we'll be working in donut
> shops at age 90 to pay these government workers'
> pensions.
Agree we'll be working at age 90, but why in donut shops? You planning a career change?
Snoopy at July 21, 2011 11:01 PM
New rule:
UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE, ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE MONSTROUS, SELF-INTERESTED TWERPS.
They're completely removed from economic reality... And this is a cancer.
There are really no exceptions.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 21, 2011 11:15 PM
You'll get no argument from me, Criddo!
Flynne at July 22, 2011 5:15 AM
No argument from me Crid.
Robert at July 22, 2011 6:31 AM
NO arguments here either....
Sabrina at July 22, 2011 6:31 AM
Glenn Reynolds interviews Iain Murray, author of Stealing You Blind, who explains how civil servants are getting rich off our tax dollars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYCMoJviTJQ&feature=player_embedded
Amy Alkon at July 22, 2011 6:42 AM
One thing that I'd like to see sweep the nation is more Walker-style laws that limit what rights unions can bargain for on behalf of government workers. Or better yet, eliminating collective bargaining entirely for government workers. Either of these would make it much easier to fire government employees, and to move them out of defined-benefit retirement programs and into defined-contributions programs like the rest of us.
While on balance, private sector unions probably hurt their industries, there is at least some rationale for them - the workers are bargaining for a share of the profits they help create. But there is no similar rationale for government employees, who do not create profits and whose employers (i.e., taxpayers) don't get to be part of the negotiations. (N.B. - This line of argument is entirely swiped from another writer elsewhere, but I forget the source. Repeated because I found it to be persuasive and well considered. Apologies to whomever for not attributing.)
I suspect an anti-government union movement would prove quite popular. This is the sort of thing I'd love to see on a California ballot initiative (since there is no way it would get through the legislature here).
Christopher at July 22, 2011 8:06 AM
As we approach the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, remember: nobody in the FAA, FBI, CIA, DOD, NOBODY got fired.
Apparently, it all went as planned. Perhaps bonuses were paid. "Other than that one day, it was a good year for you."
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 22, 2011 9:07 AM
Yes, federal workers are very lazy. BTW, here is a list of federal employment by agency.
Department of Defense 3,000,000
Veterans Affairs 275,000
Homeland Security 250,000
Treasury 115,000
Justice 112,000
Energy 109,000
USDA 109,000
Interior 71,000
Labor 17,000
HUD 10,000
Education 4,487
Some of these lazy, "not good-at-their-job" employees get to retire after just 20 years of service--and get full lifetime pensions, and lifetime medical care at federal facilities.
Yeah, let's cut federal waste. Gee, where should we start? At the top, do you think?
BOTU at July 22, 2011 9:39 AM
BOTU, where's the "top"? Who knows how large those agencies are supposed to be? You are man incapable of judgement.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 9:58 AM
Crid:
If not mistaken, this is your post from a few minutes ago:
"New rule:
UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE, ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE MONSTROUS, SELF-INTERESTED TWERPS.
They're completely removed from economic reality... And this is a cancer.
There are really no exceptions."
BOTU at July 22, 2011 10:02 AM
> nobody in the FAA, FBI, CIA, DOD,
> NOBODY got fired.
People, write it down:
I will not hear it said that most of them are actually hardworking people... That a lot of these people are truly nice on the inside... That they're just trying to make their way through the world as best they can, just like the rest of us... That they have kids to feed and are doing their best to fulfill their responsibilities.
No.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 10:07 AM
WHY ARE YOU HERE? What is the impact you're going to have on us that you haven't had yet? Do you think there's someone who hasn't received your message? Aren't you done here?
Shouldn't you find another blog?
Are you actually a teenager, one who thinks it's charming or humble or exculpatoruy to call himself "butthole"?
You're DONE, ok? Go away now. You're incapable of judgment: We get it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 10:11 AM
>>Department of Defense 3,000,000
Since when did military personnel become federal workers. I'm sure that they'd love to get anything like the salaries and benefits of federal workers.
The true Defense civilian workforce is about 600K.
-----
It's funny that the federal agencies don't at least make some effort to look as though they care about personnel quality. Because the obvious fact that they don't undermines all of their other claims towards their competency and efficiency. One of the most common arguments for federal oversight is that federal agencies have access to resources and expertise that private parties don't and so are in a better position to make decisions and resolve conflicts. But that claim isn't credible if their employees aren't accountable.
kalem at July 22, 2011 10:23 AM
How smokin' is my distaste for BOTU?
It gets smokier every day.
There are a few sane people who want to truly want to treat the cancer, and can imagine a government that's lithe, responsive, decent and humble.
But in the finest tradition of exploitative fucktards through history, and in lockstep coherence with the self-interested opportunism that's crippling western Democracy, BOTU wants to use a crisis moment to squeal about his own, most personal bugaboo. His infantile fuck-headedness is precisely the problem.
Botty baby, there's just nothing to admire about you. You're not on the team for a better America... Or a better civilization of any description. You're certainly not on mine. Please don't imagine that our interests are in any way aligned. I'll know my path by its distance from yours.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 11:09 AM
what crid said times 100, re:bunghole
ronc at July 22, 2011 12:25 PM
The value of BOTU:
1. Example of the lack of critical thinking.
2.
Dave B at July 22, 2011 1:00 PM
My wonderful, smart, and very hardworking father was a federal employee, so I refuse to say that every last federal employee is a lazy good-for-nothing slob.
What I will say is that our government has made it so difficult to fire anyone who works for it, that most bosses don't bother. When I was in high school, my dad had an employee who had stolen funds, among other things. In order to fire her, my dad had to have witnesses and documentation from here to the moon. When he went with all of the above to his superiors at Dept of Agriculture, they were very hesitant to move forward because this employee was African-American, and they were terrified of an EOC investigation.
Hence the attitude. Why work when you know that firing you would take months or even years, and most bosses just don't have the desire to stick with it for that long?
UW Girl at July 22, 2011 1:06 PM
Crid. That shit just made me fall out of my chair. Brilliant.
Sabrina at July 22, 2011 1:20 PM
"The value of BOTU:"
His ability to explain to delusional hypocritical people that your own shit stinks just as much as anyone else even though it is the final product of gourmet washed down by 1787 Chateau Lafite Bordeaux.
chang at July 22, 2011 1:24 PM
Chang, you are even more blind to the obvious than BOTU. Every now and then BOTU does manage to make a salient point appear under layers of toxic sludge.
BOTU at least occasionally makes an effort to say something serious. A big step up from his first appearance.
You Chang, have so thoroughly deluded yourself that you embrace a system of beliefs that has had all the success of the Edsel, offered all the comforts of a death camp, provided the prosperity of a labor camp, and the human rights record that any serial killer would envy.
Robert at July 22, 2011 1:43 PM
The worst mistake our company ever made was subcontracting for the government. For three years of DCAA audits we were told our books were fantastic, wonderful record keeping, everything looks fine. Then our prime contract refused to pay us so we had to sue them which means another DCAA audit.
This time, everything is crap. This is done wrong, that's miscalculated, and you should have gotten comparisons for this other thing.
well,
why
the
FUCKING
HELL
did your FUCKING GODDAMNED IGNORANT WHORESON auditors not see these PLAIN AS GODDMANED DAY errors when we were doing our yearly audits? It was the exact same damn paperwork and no one ever told us that we were making HUGE mistakes in the way we processed it. Believe me, we would have changed policies in a flash to be in compliance.
The upshot of this is that my company (and me especially) looks like a bunch of ignorant fucktards who couldn't figure out how to talley simple expense reports. We are going to get *hosed* when we finally make it to court with our prime (who FUCKING GAVE US THE PROCEDURE). The business will be fine but my mom might lose her house. (Why the FUCK bother incorporating if you're going to take out personal loans to keep things afloat? - that stupidity is on her.)
Sorry about the screed, I'm currently dealing with all this bullshit and I am so far beyond pissed I've actually reached some kind of profanity-based nirvana. Federal agency employees can all go fuck themselves sideways with a rusty pike (except for UW Girl's dad whom she says is wonderful).
Elle at July 22, 2011 1:54 PM
Ever wonder why there are no Communist CEOs?
Because CEOs are supposed to add value.
Why are there no Communist managers?
Because you have to get a job to move up into management.
Why did the Communist become a Capitalist?
Because they found a cure for blindness.
Why did the Capitalist become a Communist?
Because he went broke.
Why don't Communists drive cars?
Its hard to pass the eye exam when you can't see past your nose.
Why did the Communist become a Capitalist.
He found a job.
Why did the Capitalist become a Communist?
He started working for the government.
Robert at July 22, 2011 1:58 PM
Why do we even need a Federal department for education?
Education should be handled at the state and local level.
It should never be touched by a disconnected bureaucrat out of state with 0 connection to the job market, the children, the families, or the education system itself.
What possible value does the Federal level offer except money, and what does it ask in trade for that money? Control or authority of some kind, federal money to state and local institutions are little more than taxpayer dollars used as bribes to buy away the taxpayer's power over their own local institutions.
SO, there we go, we can cut nearly 5,000 in dead weight.
Want to bet we could get rid of lots out of the rest of those organizations too?
Robert at July 22, 2011 2:08 PM
> I refuse to say that every last federal
> employee is a lazy good-for-nothing slob
As do I, Angel, as do I...
But from now on, they're "good-for-nothing" until proven otherwise.
Listen, this can't be put into fewer words, OK?——
Government employees are isolated from economic reality.
So, like it doesn't matter how nice your Dad was, whether he came to your school plays or remembered his spinster aunts over the holidays.
People who don't feel the power of economic truth through their fingertips make bad choices. And when those people have the power of lawful taxation on speed dial, the choices are catastrophic.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 3:03 PM
UW girl, I have to agree with Crid. Your dad could have been the sweetest man on earth.
But that has 0 to do with the economic reality faced by the private sector employees. The public sector is dangerously isolated. They are virtually oblivious to the fact that every raise they receive, every benefit they get, every 20 year retirement they celebrate which leads to a young new hire...comes at the expense of tax increases upon the private sector employment.
When the private employee doesn't get a raise, and the public sector does, the public worker has taken a bigger bite out of the private paycheck.
When the private sector cuts back on pay, benefits, or even starts firing people en masse due to economic recession, the burden of supporting the public sector falls on heavier upon fewer persons.
How often does this even occur to the public worker? Did your saintly father ever refuse a pay raise because the private sector didn't get one that year? I'm betting not. And when that happens to be the case, the saintly become...not so saintly.
Robert at July 22, 2011 3:32 PM
Have we actually determined that chang and BOTU aren't the same person?
My father was a state employee and will, to this day, twenty years after his retirement, argue that most government employees are incompetent, lazy, self-serving, and obtuse.
Nothing he saw in his 20+ years of government employment convinced him that all but a few of his coworkers were qualified to work in the private sector (he spent 20 years in the private sector before working for the government).
True. Very true.
People lament the fragility of private sector jobs, but the ephemeral nature of employment in the private sector means companies must stay ahead of the curve, employees must have up-to-date skills, and laziness and incompetence are not rewarded with longevity.
Conan the Grammarian at July 22, 2011 3:45 PM
Sorry, that should be "none but a few of his coworkers was qualified to work in the private sector."
Conan the Grammarian at July 22, 2011 3:50 PM
It's one of the things I hated about the military. The civilian employees could be as hateful, rude, obnoxious as they wanted to be to the servicemen and women. Nothing we could do about it, as it would take a Salem witchhunt to get any of these people fired. Or even reprimanded. "It's not in our job description" was their favorite phrase.
Patrick at July 22, 2011 3:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/22/suck_at_your_jo.html#comment-2378525">comment from Conan the GrammarianHave we actually determined that chang and BOTU aren't the same person?
They aren't.
I have the IP trail.
Amy Alkon at July 22, 2011 3:54 PM
But in a spiritual sense, Amy, rather than a technical, computational one: Can you deny that their souls are essentially identical, undercooked and needy?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 4:12 PM
I've been drinking.
Amy Alkon at July 22, 2011 4:31 PM
Oh, and yes, Crid.
Amy Alkon at July 22, 2011 4:33 PM
We should hope so: You're in freakin' Naw'lins, fer Chrissake. We'll tell you when you've had enough.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 4:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/22/suck_at_your_jo.html#comment-2378586">comment from Amy AlkonGregg's comment on my current state: "Don't give anybody any personal information."
(Obviously, that shark was jumped decades ago.)
Amy Alkon at July 22, 2011 4:59 PM
> Gregg's comment on my current state
You're in Louisiana; there's nothing to drive for anyway. Last time I was there I went to Alabama, and it was mostly the same kind of thing.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 5:29 PM
Crid-
Your logic appears deeply impaired. Please re-read your posts--you appear to vacillate between heating and defending public employees,
Are they all worthless scum? The why not cut the largest federal agencies down to size?
We are spending more now on defense than when the USSR had three million men in uniform, a blue-water navy, an air force with supersonic fighters and bombers, ICBMs, a KGB, and was producing thousands of tanks, planes and warships every year.
Now, our "enemy" is a few dozen, possibly a few hundred punk terrorist.
No private sector company would respond to such a reduced need by spending more.
Only a federal agency could accomplish that.
And no, no GOP pol, and damn few Dem pols will say anything. The Department of defense pours money into key districts, and into the pockets of campaign contributors.
DoD employes 3 million directly, and another 2 million in the private sector--5 million votes, not counting families, friends, retirees etc.
DoD is a prime example of how dangerous socialism is--these employees, private contractors and their families are dependent on continued federal outlays. So they vote to tax productive people, take their money, and give it to themselves.
BOTU at July 22, 2011 6:28 PM
Does your "spending more" assertion account for inflation differences since then, BOTU?
I will actually agree with you in either case. A large military is at best a burden upon the state, and may even be a curse.
Sun Tzu commented on the drain caused my supplying and resupplying large armies, well before the birth of Christ. His work, "The Art of War" remains as true today as when he authored it.
The fact is that a nation such as ours does not genuinely need a massive well equipped army. We just need a well equipped army with enough standing force to TRAIN A LARGE ARMY, when we need to pull in people for a conflict that requires huge numbers. We should have a fairly large reserve/guard force, and a small core of full timers across the board.
I've been a soldier for 12 years, I see what gets spent, what gets wasted, what gets used. I've been issued so much gear over the years that was utterly useless, not even brought when I deployed, that I could almost open my own army surplus store.
I hate the idea of cutting the military down to size, but as these wars wind down, it is an economic necessity. The DOD and the standing military branches need to be stripped down drastically.
They're not alone, vast tracts of federal employment must be slashed. But started with the biggest is not the worst idea in the world, though in this case I'd say give cut dates for the closure of our current conflicts.
Robert at July 22, 2011 6:38 PM
> Your logic appears deeply impaired.
Your measure of "logic" means even less to me than would Hawking's critique of my ballroom dancing.
> heating and defending public employees,
I never heated anyone, though you tempt me, and be careful with your punctuation.
What you perceive as "vacillations" are your own waxing and waning hopes that someone might agree with you. [No one else reading our exchanges is unclear about this:] I do not.
> We are spending more now on defense
> than when the USSR had three million
Who says that should have been the high-water mark for defense spending? The nature of our presence in the world is changing, and there's no reason to reflexively presume that it should be less complex... or costly.
> Now, our "enemy" is a few dozen,
> possibly a few hundred
> punk terrorist.
Poof; Any credibility you might have gained through the simple passage of time —as one might trust a serial killer in a courtroom not to garrote the bailiff during the third week of a trial— is lost. First, by the teenage "irony" quotes around the word enemy... I recognize that kind of lefty idiocy from having grown up around it, that presumption that our world is a cuddly place where big problems can be solved over hot chocolate. You apparently think we don't really have enemies out there... As least, we have to presume so, because your punctuation isn't explained. (If you were hoping we'd ask you what you meant, you're going to be disappointed.) Secondly, by the idiocy of your numbers, and their description as mere "punks". The Norks aren't just punks, nor are the Iranians, nor the Libyans nor the Syrians. It's an adult planet where nations we're compelled to describe as friends do hideous shit. There are violently ugly people out there, and a huge swath of the developed world is counting on us to deal with them... And rightly so.
> No private sector company would
> respond to such a reduced need
> by spending more.
Again, anyone could quibble with your presumption that the need is reduced instead of just changed. But the larger point is that defense isn't a private sector activity... Not heretofore, at least. Private sector companies don't levy taxes, license drivers, or operate public libraries, either. So what?
And again, again again, because you can't seem to take this point: The fact that the whole of government needs to be reduced doesn't mean we should start with the largest sector, or concentrate on it to the exclusion of others. Different things in government mean different things to us.
Reviewing yet another of your unimproved spasms on this topic calls to mind cunnilingus from the Cookie Monster: Spittle everywhere; rude, googly eyes rolling hither and yon; and absolutely zero satisfaction. I guess you want us to think it means a lot to you... But you seem to have acquired no expertise. We get no thoughtful appraisal of security matters. You don't talk about the size or (black) budgets of intelligence agencies. You don't talk about world affairs with any nuance or sophistication. If you've thoughtfully discussed what the Indian middle class is going to mean to people in Omaha in fifty years, I missed the comment. Have you ever said anything specific about procurement, and how it could be made better? If you really cared about this is a grown-up way, it might be fun.
So, like, you're not being rational about this. You don't do details. Then what's this about?
I'm going to assume a uniformed ROTC kid screwed your prom date, she loved it, and you're still pissed off about it.
But whatever. We really need you to comprehend this: WE'VE ALL READ YOUR COMMENTS. Repeating them will not help. They do not engage or enlighten. You can stop now:
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 8:11 PM
Not quite a fair comparison.
Stephen Hawking might be capable of recognizing ball room dancing and even offering a reasonably informed critique of it.
Conan the Grammarian at July 22, 2011 8:37 PM
What is it? Dude... Why? Why must you undermine?
Does your wife —or your ex-wife— have an explanation that she gives to your friends when you've left the table to refresh your beverage or whatever?... Some little narrative of childhood abuse to excuses your petty (yet reliable) incivility?
Do your kids do that?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 22, 2011 8:56 PM
Guys,
You convinced me to seek employment in the federal service!!
(joking)
nico@hou at July 22, 2011 10:16 PM
The best example I know of an out of touch government employee was one that called into a talk show on the radio to comment about the topic of govm't vs private pay.
She was a lawyer for the government - don't remember which level. She was only paid around 100k/year. She pointed out private lawyers regularly get $300/hr. The host had a field day with that. First, she didn't seem to realize that the private lawyer had to pay for his own benefits, no paid time off. The private lawyer had to pay for his office & secretary. The caller had new clue about this stuff.
Some big companies get to the point where it is difficult to fire people. I have worked for two like that - I mean so long as you didn't do anything blatant...the guy watching porn on the company computer during regular work hours got fired. One manager finally got a guy fired but it was a three year process of documentation & meettings & improvement plans.
The Former Banker at July 22, 2011 11:20 PM
Large companies tend to create their own problems when it comes to making it hard to fire people.
Oh sure there is some rational concern over whether or not they would get sued for some form of discrimination.
And there is the concern that because they're not giving away their own money, a jury might decide to grant some ridiculous award to a plaintiff they know deserves nothing.
It happens, there was a man in...I think it was Louisiana, he was electricuted accidentally, the widow sued the power company, and was given a huge award by the jury. Questioned about it, the jury stated that while they didn't think the electric company was at fault, they wanted the dead man's family taken care of.
Its easy to be generous with other people's wallets.
So some companies make it hard to fire people because it may be cheaper to employ them.
But in the case of private employees, this doesn't cost the government or citizens anything.
However, when the government employs someone useless, it costs all of us an ever increasing sum. We need to start trimming the fat back in a big way.
Robert at July 23, 2011 4:00 AM
I have worked on many federal, state, county and city government projects. I also have worked on many private corporation projects (from large to small). My own experience says:
A) Government is pathetically inefficient. To do X you first need them to get A and B and C done. Private corporations, most especially not the large ones, have A and B and C done very quickly. Getting most government locations to accomplish A and B and C is often pathetic (the Federal government typically is the worst).
B) Often private workers will work overtime to get it done. It is rare for government workers to work a minute past 5 (with quite a bit of 'I have to leave early'). But I have worked with several government workers/locations who gave more than 110%.
C) There is a solid mix of incompetent and competent people in government. Private corporations definitely have a higher percentage of competent workers (but to be sure they do have plenty of incompetent workers).
D) The atmosphere of the government is so entrenched that anyone who comes in with a good work ethic will get swallowed up in it. How could they not? No matter how F'd up you see a process is or how frustratingly bad some of your coworkers performances might be, nothing can or will be done. At some point the white flag is raised, you put your 8 hours in, and you just accept it. I'm not a government employee but I had to accept it for the sake of my occupational sanity.
TW at July 23, 2011 5:33 AM
"New rule: UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE, ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE MONSTROUS, SELF-INTERESTED TWERPS. They're completely removed from economic reality... And this is a cancer. There are really no exceptions."
Okay. After I wondered why you ran out of terms (really, "monstrous" and "twerp" don't belong together), I realized I have a couple of questions.
The DOE reps at Savannah River Site are direct Federal employees. They impose their policies on the contractors who work for them (see here).
1) Do the contractors become "monstrous, selp-interested twerps" by the extension of Federal regulations to those contractors?
2) If 1) is TRUE, how would this be refuted to an audience with neither the background nor inclination to hear otherwise?
You're very entertaining, Crid - but so is Jerry Springer. You've made a statement with all the certainty of an accusation leveled across the handlebars of a single-speed bicycle. Now what?
Keep in mind that I'm a process operator. Think of your local power plant. And no, I have no idea what the DOE reps actually DO, despite spending 8+ real hours a day digging in documentation that supposedly has legal import.
Radwaste at July 23, 2011 8:52 AM
> Now what?
Exactly.
No matter what, nomatterwhat nomatterwhat nomatterwhat, your cowardly pink ass is covered... By me, the taxpayer. You're in, Babe... It's over! You can't lose! For the rest of your life, you can be as smug and costly and incompetent as you want to be. And there's not a motherfucking thing that anyone can do about it.
Golly, Raddy... I just want people to know that I'm no longer impressed.
Hmm? There's documen-taters? Whatever.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 23, 2011 10:17 AM
Amy, please insert a comma after the boldface in in the preceding comment.
Because other than that, it was a lot of fun!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 23, 2011 11:11 AM
Today is the day that I realized how much I missed Crid.
Dave B at July 23, 2011 12:21 PM
Crid-
Have you considered Sanka-brand coffee? you appear irrational.
I contend the federal government is largely coprolite, and that includes the Department of Defense, the VA and Homeland Security--the largest agencies, btw.
Any who has worked in, or studied large organizations that never feel private-sector pressure to become more efficient knows such agencies become coprolite.
And Milton Friedman would tell you that militaries everywhere and always are economic parasites--sometimes necessary, often not.
We are in one of those "not" periods, and we should trim down government accordingly.
Also, see Robert's comments above, those of a soldier--actually, though, comments from any federal bureaucrat will do.
And as for soldiers--since Richard Nixon, they are employees, with benefits and wages and health care like other employees. But they get to retire at full pensions and complete medical care, after just 20 years of service.
Very expensive, and a drag on our jobs- and wealth-producing private sector.
The best government is the smallest government.
BOTU at July 23, 2011 1:06 PM
> the largest agencies, btw.
We've begged you not to repeat yourself... You just can't stop. Please don't pretend to be principled... You don't care about government, you're just spooked about soldiers.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 23, 2011 1:26 PM
AmyIwasjustkiddingbutthanksanyway.
(If I paid for a new comment module for your blog, on that permitted typo fixes, etc., would Gregg install it?)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 23, 2011 2:19 PM
"No matter what, nomatterwhat nomatterwhat nomatterwhat, your cowardly pink ass is covered... By me, the taxpayer."
There you go again.
You apparently don't know anything about my job, but that doesn't keep you from making all sorts of disparaging remarks about it or me.
If you quit, who would miss you?
Radwaste at July 23, 2011 4:02 PM
If you would quit, who would save money?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 23, 2011 4:11 PM
Crid said: "But from now on, they're "good-for-nothing" until proven otherwise.
Listen, this can't be put into fewer words, OK?——
Government employees are isolated from economic reality."
----
That's quite an attack. A younger brother works for the agency NOAA, has for 14 years, I think. He has a PhD in Meteorology. With all the budget cuts likely, his current job is not at all secure, although he says when Congress takes the ax to NOAA soon, they'll let contract employees go before the federal employees. (Because so many Republicans don't believe humans are behind global warming, they are targeting NOAA.)
There's a lot to be said for maintaining continuity in gov't agencies, and doing what it takes to attract and keep good people. Not everyone who works at these agencies are clerk-like people who can be easily replaced by a long shot. It's not always easy to find people with specialized expertise such as those who work at the EPA. When someone at one of these agencies walks, they take away expertise that took years to develop, and required a substantial investment by the agency to develop. It's also not clear to me that outside contractors can always do things more efficiently than gov't employees. I've worked with a lot of local gov't employees in my job as an engineer over the last 12 years, so this isn't wild speculation.
Teachers have little in common with most federal employees, but I detest the way they've come to be made a scapegoat. My son changed majors away from education as a college senior to him. Good, I say. In my state, the bar that's being set for teachers is continuously being raised. I'm convinced the main problem is the parents, not teachers. Too many parents are minimally involved in their kids' education. They don't prod them to do homework enough, or just plain read. They don't do enough to keep them away from amusements away from school. Many overemphasize sports, just to try and make Mom and/or Dad proud. With regards to education, we have a lot of parents who expect the schools to do EVERYTHING. And we have so many parents who are susceptible to these arguments being promoted by politicians that the fact that junior isn't doing well is because of the teachers...
In short, while some of the posters here have made legit complaints against gov't employees, they don't come close to describing the full picture.
Iconoclast at July 23, 2011 4:15 PM
They're isolated from economic reality: THAT'S the full picture.
Busy, more later.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 23, 2011 4:43 PM
Undermine?
I merely commented that Stephen Hawking has a better chance of offering salient and insightful commentary on the subject of ballroom dancing than BOTU does on the subject of logic.
Undermine what?
Only if one can argue the agencies in question and the expertise of the personnel are necessary. In too many cases one cannot.
[BOTU, this is not an invitation for yet another diatribe against the DoD, the VA, et al. Give it a rest.]
Thanks to the agitation of teachers unions, the requirements to be a teacher of a specific subject in many districts no longer contain any reference to studying the subject matter in college ... or even being interested in it.
Teachers who are not required to gain expertise in their subject area are insulated from the economic consequences of being incompetent at their job. Just like federal employees.
How is he going to major in him?
Conan the Grammarian at July 23, 2011 4:51 PM
My father was a saint, thank you very much. He's been dead for almost four years.
Did he ever turn down a raise or promotion? No. And I can guaren-goddamn-tee you he earned every one. My dad worked hard at everything he did. So does my friend who is a DNA examiner for the FBI. She works nights and weekends over and beyond her regular schedule to help find murderers. Not every single government employee is a lazy, incompetent moron sitting on a pile of cash. Just like not every cop is a sexist control freak, or every lawyer is a lying sack of shit.
And as far as being isolated from economic reality- I paid for half of my own college tuition. My parents were by no means wealthy.
I abhor government waste. But we should be looking at Congress and the last 8 or so presidential administrations who t allowed this overgrowth of the federal government to occur.
UW Girl at July 23, 2011 5:11 PM
> I merely commented that
Right. Petty and essentially offtopic; insidiously disruptive. Why?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 23, 2011 5:41 PM
Off-topic?
It was simply a humorous aside on your contention that BOTU's "measure of 'logic' means even less to [you] than would Hawking's critique of [your] ballroom dancing."
====================
Conan the Grammarian at July 23, 2011 6:21 PM
> By the way, as a student at
> St. Alban's, Hawking...
Are you Asperger's or something?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 23, 2011 10:58 PM
Just so we're all on the same page here, I'm gonna ask everyone to read the article Amy's linked at the top of this page. I know, I know, following the links is usually no fun... But this one will pay off for you. Pay special attention to that "Turnover minimal at federal agencies" box, and see this for more.
> You apparently don't know anything
> about my job
No? Let's see...
• I, as a taxpayer, am paying your salary and bennies.
• You are not subject to the competitive forces of the marketplace. Only government can fire and replace you.
• Because greater administrative power in government is acquired only through expanding budgets, managers are not encouraged to get rid of weaker performers... It's better to just push them into a back office, even if they're falling down drunk, to keep the budget tight. Being "compassionate" with their paychecks has no downside. (If you continue to show up, at ANY level of performance, you're likely to stay employed.)
• Neither does fattening payrolls generally: No hotrod competitor will gain traction with your superiors by claiming his team could do as well for less money.
• Because you work for government, you by definition cannot be said to be directly involved in the creation of wealth... That's usually considered a no-no. The rest of us can hope you're doing something useful to help us in that regard, but there's really no way to be sure, or to trust that the mechanics of your employment favor us.
• Also, I know that your sinecure has not made you happy: You're arrogant.
So there you go, Raddy! Turns out I know quite about bit about your job. Or do you want to tell us precisely which department you work for, so we can look up the employment and termination numbers? Would you care to provide a link? You seem awfully proud of your position, after all... No? OK then.
Out president is from Chicago. This can't be said often enough. THIS is the Chicago way. Government overwhelms through bulk and seedy patronage.
We're going to choke on this debt, much of it as inexcusable entitlements for mediocrities.
So how do federal employees want us to feel about it?
> With all the budget cuts likely, his
> current job is not at all secure
When considering the barreling punch that the private sector has faced in recent years, how much sympathy are you demanding for a job at risk?
But wait! There are mitigating circumstances!
> Because so many Republicans don't
> believe humans are behind global
> warming, they are targeting NOAA.
Riiight. Republicans.
It's funny, I'm middle-aged, and I've been watching politics pretty carefully. But I had no idea exactly how deluded the average man on the street had become about politics during the fat years of the Clinton administration and the runnup of the Dubya adminstration... Years in which, I would argue, most of our good times could be credited to the conservatism of Ronald Reagan.
No, the average guy sincerely believes that it was Dubya Bush who taught the little children how to hate... That life before Dubya was candy and ponies. And head from chubby interns.
Now it turns out Dubya gave us global warming, too... As if NOAA, or any of their typically coddled employees, were politically formed to present these matters accurately, OR EFFICIENTLY HELP US IF THE THREATS WERE REAL.
> Teachers have little in common with
> most federal employees, but I detest
> the way they've come to be made
> a scapegoat.
This from someone who calls himself "Iconoclast". As if education costs have gone down, or as if public education has improved since the creation, not so many years ago, of a Federal Department of Education... With a Chairman in a limousine.
And whaddya know, people want to take it personally...
> My father was a saint, thank
> you very much
..and mawkishly...
> He's been dead for almost four years.
See, it's like, PERSONAL!
> Did he ever turn down a raise or
> promotion? No. And I can
> guaren-goddamn-tee you he earned
> every one.
No kitten... Actually, you can't do anything of the kind. (You can't give us the money back if your wrong.) NOTHING could truly prove it... Though the best guarantor of performance is free-market competition. Everything else is idle boasting. I don't CARE if you think he was the best. You can't prove it, and HE DIDN'T BOTHER TO PROVE IT, because he worked for the government.
Friends, understand this: when it his the fan, EVERYONE IN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO BE MAKING EXACTLY THESE ARGUMENTS. That we don't understand how clever their departments are, or recognize the excellence of their paperwork. That we don't understand how unremarkable technicians are actually trying to save the world and make us safe. That teachers are always underpaid, and that (Daddy, brother, spouse) was a saint who deserved not to have to face competition, as do the taxpayers who cut his paychecks.
The years ahead are not going to be pretty.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 24, 2011 12:06 AM
No, Crid, you don't know about my job. You just continue to make noises as if you do.
You don't look anything up, and you've donned the mantle of outrage any religious fundamentalist might about a challenge ta whut their Maw would of tole them about Jebus: if you can't understand it, it must not be the truth.
An' that boah over theah is a heathen for sayin' Ah don't unnerstand this heah!
Yes, it's MY fault. (/sarc)
What I do for you is not "arrogance" in any way - except for that special definition you save for those who might object to a statement you make. I post what I know from the practice of my profession.
Have we talked about yours? No? Well, it must not be important, or a pressing social issue.
I've gone on at length here about the operation of reactors and the handling of waste. All you've done is bark because complaining about what you THINK my job is distracts from the plain fact that you haven't begun to challenge anything I've had to say.
While you're at it, treat me like the whole industry some more. I'm sure you won't mind having the same thing applied to your profession - as soon as someone can figure out what it is.
Radwaste at July 24, 2011 3:38 PM
I missed this:
"If you would quit, who would save money?"
Nobody. I have a record of saving engineering expenses and of consistently doing more than the job description calls for.
You?
-----
See, here are fundamental properties of my job that are ridiculously different from yours - so much so that I only blame you for running your mouth before you study the situation:
My position cannot be "privately" funded.
Radioactive waste is not a consumer product, and so there is no private sector to derive profit.
Radioactive waste is here as a result of past public policy. You may continue to be insulted by your inability to change this.
Now, setting aside for a moment or two your bad manners, I'll ask you two questions to illustrate how far at sea you truly are:
Do you think nuclear waste can be left unattended?
Who do you want to tend nuclear waste?
Both questions have extensive conditions already in place. Let's see how far off your answer is from good engineering practice.
Now, you may continue to blame me for the situation. Cheers!
Radwaste at July 24, 2011 3:58 PM
> Who do you want to tend nuclear waste?
At what price... Yours? I'll get back to you on that.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 24, 2011 5:15 PM
"At what price... Yours? I'll get back to you on that."
Sure you will. Can you point to a question about real things you have actually answered?
I asked, "Do you think nuclear waste can be left unattended? Who do you want to tend nuclear waste?"
Before that, I asked you right back - if you quit, who would save money?
Apparently, you have some strange idea about employment. Your boss - I hope - pays you to earn money by performing a task for the company. Thus, firing you would supposedly cost money.
In my case - apparently, you've been too busy to read this when I link to my blog page about health care - my job is to find errors and fix them. If I didn't do that, not only would the company not qualify for performance bonuses, it could be fined.
Finding errors and fixing them. What about that do you think is wrong?
Dodge, equivocate, fabricate some more righteous outrage.
But don't actually answer the questions - or you'll show that you simply have not learned about the issue, and therefore, don't really know about my job.
Radwaste at July 30, 2011 11:40 PM
Leave a comment