Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance

Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:05:31 AM)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-18-fderal-job-security_n.htm 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 federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 — 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce. Research shows that the private sector fires about 3% of workers annually for poor performance, says John Palguta, former research chief at the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles federal firing disputes. Now, we know this isn't because they are all so damn efficient, and personally devoted to providing the very highest levels of service and courtesy to the public they serve. I think there should be highly competitive performance reviews every few years, with a target of clearing out 15-20%, and bringing in fresh workers. It will save on the pension obligations as well.

Moonhead -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:07:36 AM)
How will purging and replacing 15% of the workforce reduce pension obligations? Those who are fired need paying off and the replacements will sign up for the government pension scheme that's the only perk of the job.

Sanity -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:13:57 AM)
But, but, but, but, but... Cushy government jobs are an entitlement, Rich!

TheHeretic -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:16:34 AM)
Thanks for your comments in complete ignorance of the realities in my country, Moon. Gov't employees do quite well compared to the private sector. Do feel free to educate yourself http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/12/class-war/singlepage

Moonhead -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:20:37 AM)
That's what I just said. How will paying out redundancy packages for 15% of the workforce and setting up new pensions for the replacements reduce costs? You know, if we're talking about ignorant arguments... You've also yet to cite any reason why five times as many federal employees should be fired as private sector employees, btw.

ArizonaBossMan -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:22:46 AM)
WAIT A DAMN MINUTE! Dear Leader, Messiah, wants MORE government and MORE government workers.. you know like the ones in Atlanta.. the teachers and leaders who fudged student test scores. That's government for ya!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:50:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-18-fderal-job-security_n.htm 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 federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 — 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce. Research shows that the private sector fires about 3% of workers annually for poor performance, says John Palguta, former research chief at the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles federal firing disputes. Now, we know this isn't because they are all so damn efficient, and personally devoted to providing the very highest levels of service and courtesy to the public they serve. I think there should be highly competitive performance reviews every few years, with a target of clearing out 15-20%, and bringing in fresh workers. It will save on the pension obligations as well. the difference is almost certainly due to the union/non-union disparity between public and private employers. Public sector employees are 5.5x as likely to be unionized, hence that much less likely to be fired.

Owner59 -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:53:42 AM)
This is why cons seek to bankrupt government. They don`t see any other way to force their agenda on us.

imperatrixx -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:55:28 AM)
quote: I think there should be highly competitive performance reviews every few years, with a target of clearing out 15-20%, and bringing in fresh workers. It will save on the pension obligations as well. Really? With the current level of unemployment, underemployment, and financial struggle your plan is to reduce job security and create a system to keep bringing in new people at lower wages? My father has worked for the government for over 30 years. He's about ready to retire. He never misses a day of work, even though he's getting really bad arthritis in his knees. He's up at 6 AM every day, drinks his coffee, reads his paper, and takes the train downtown. He's got that old world German work ethic. In fact, I remember him complaining about a lot of the new employees, the young ones, recent hires, who talk on the phone at work and are only interested in doing the bare minimum. I have no problem with getting rid of incompetent employees, but setting up a system designed to force out the older workers who have gotten steady raises for steady job performance, to keep bringing in new people because they're cheaper, is incredibly disturbing to me.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 8:00:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx quote: I think there should be highly competitive performance reviews every few years, with a target of clearing out 15-20%, and bringing in fresh workers. It will save on the pension obligations as well. Really? With the current level of unemployment, underemployment, and financial struggle your plan is to reduce job security and create a system to keep bringing in new people at lower wages? My father has worked for the government for over 30 years. He's about ready to retire. He never misses a day of work, even though he's getting really bad arthritis in his knees. He's up at 6 AM every day, drinks his coffee, reads his paper, and takes the train downtown. He's got that old world German work ethic. In fact, I remember him complaining about a lot of the new employees, the young ones, recent hires, who talk on the phone at work and are only interested in doing the bare minimum. I have no problem with getting rid of incompetent employees, but setting up a system designed to force out the older workers who have gotten steady raises for steady job performance, to keep bringing in new people because they're cheaper, is incredibly disturbing to me. Where did TH say anything about targeting older or cheaper workers? "Fresh" doesnt go that far imo. 15-20% is too high though. Existing employees would spend far too much time training new employees who probably wont be much better than most of those "cleared out". 3-5% fired and the rest of turnover through retirement is pretty typical in highly efficient non-unionized work forces. The bulk of the firings are in the first 6-18 months of employment, so they are naturally cheaper.

imperatrixx -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 8:03:30 AM)
If the only goal is to get rid of incompetent employees, you don't need a percentage quota. You can judge based on a performance review and fire those who don't measure up, whether that's 3% or 30%. Having a set turnover goal reeks of wanting to get rid of people who have worked there long enough to have expensive benefits and vacation time, and bring in new workers. Same as hiring "part time" workers 37 hours a week. Balancing the budget at the expense of the employees.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 9:14:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx If the only goal is to get rid of incompetent employees, you don't need a percentage quota. You can judge based on a performance review and fire those who don't measure up, whether that's 3% or 30%. Having a set turnover goal reeks of wanting to get rid of people who have worked there long enough to have expensive benefits and vacation time, and bring in new workers. Same as hiring "part time" workers 37 hours a week. Balancing the budget at the expense of the employees. It doesnt reek of any such thing if its performance based. I see no theoretical or legal problem with having a performance based minimum quota for firing employees. Think of it as employment Darwinism. If the weakest 3% are culled every year (again based on performance) then those that survive will make the organization that much stronger. Obviously administering that kind of system to ensure legal compliance would be a major headache and still carry risks of lawsuits, but isnt illegal in and of itself.

juliaoceania -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 11:20:32 AM)
quote: Really? With the current level of unemployment, underemployment, and financial struggle your plan is to reduce job security and create a system to keep bringing in new people at lower wages? It is the only way to keep the wage slaves in line...

outhere69 -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 5:26:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Thanks for your comments in complete ignorance of the realities in my country, Moon. Gov't employees do quite well compared to the private sector. Do feel free to educate yourself http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/12/class-war/singlepage Umm, you did see later coverage, did you not, giving the fine details that were neglected in all the reports of outrage? Like the fact that the population is older (more expensive), has more bachelor's degrees by about 20% and master's degrees by about 35%, etc.? I worked for a lot of companies that used "poor performance" as a great way to do a layoff when business was a bit down or the workers got a bit expensive. Intel had a strong reputation for the latter. Oh yeah, for those who advocate "culling", that's another thing Intel did. You could have a group of freakin' geniuses, but a gaussian distribution would be forced on them, and you'd lose a freakin' genius. HP saw the stupidity of that practice and stopped doing it. Shit, even Gates said a shitload of weapons systems (and contracts for the Iraq war) were fucked up because there weren't enough contracts types or engineers in the DoD.

bamabbwsub -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 5:46:54 PM)
quote: I see no theoretical or legal problem with having a performance based minimum quota for firing employees. Think of it as employment Darwinism. If the weakest 3% are culled every year (again based on performance) then those that survive will make the organization that much stronger. I disagree. What happens if you have "culled" your poorest performers and now have a group of people who work hard, deal well together, and otherwise have no issues? Granted, even a good worker has room for improvement, but why would you want to fire a good worker just because you have to meet a quota? I say this because I work with a great group of people...except for about three really lazy ones. If we were to get rid of those three, our area would be extremely productive. In addition, keep in mind that replacing employees on a regular basis is a good way of losing productivity because of the learning curve involved in any job. I've been at my current job for 4 years, but it took me a good year and a half to really come up to speed to understand all of the complexities required for me to perform at a high level of quality. Perhaps my biggest gripe is that it is just so damn difficult to fire people these days. I understand that you don't want people to just be fired for little or no cause -- after all, nepotism is alive and well -- but dangit, you should be able to get rid of people who just sit on their asses all day and collect a paycheck!!

TheHeretic -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 7:24:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx Really? With the current level of unemployment, underemployment, and financial struggle your plan is to reduce job security and create a system to keep bringing in new people at lower wages? My father has worked for the government for over 30 years. He's about ready to retire. He never misses a day of work, even though he's getting really bad arthritis in his knees. He's up at 6 AM every day, drinks his coffee, reads his paper, and takes the train downtown. He's got that old world German work ethic. In fact, I remember him complaining about a lot of the new employees, the young ones, recent hires, who talk on the phone at work and are only interested in doing the bare minimum. I have no problem with getting rid of incompetent employees, but setting up a system designed to force out the older workers who have gotten steady raises for steady job performance, to keep bringing in new people because they're cheaper, is incredibly disturbing to me. To be accurate, Impera, my plan would be to essentially end government work as a lifetime career path for the overwhelming majority. There are some jobs where we do want a lifetime of knowledge and experience, but there is no scenario where the janitor and lunchlady meet that criteria, and damn few where the 75% of any department or agency would need to be. Sorry if you or yours have a personal stake in it, and take my thoughts as a direct personal attack. Read the link I posted to Moon up above (the one he obviously didn't read) and if you can set aside the filter of personal interest, tell me this is a sustainable path. Now your father might be one of the ones worth keeping, and he might not. There are plenty of people pushing their 25/30 years who do the same daily routine you describe, and aren't worth a damn to anybody, and forgot a decade ago who it is they actually work for. People change jobs in their lives. Sometimes they change entire fields and skill sets along the way. Why should the bureaucracy be allowed to stagnate? Why equate fresh workers with young ones? Ever sit around, and listen to government employees bitch/whine about how stressful their jobs are? Well move along then, before you get an ulcer on our dime, and I'm betting the 35 year old software engineer who get laid off a year ago will be thrilled to put his mind back to work, as the 3rd floor left side cubical bay IT guy at the Dept. of Agriculture (whatever), with a four year contract. Or the woman who made her living processing mortgages learning some new set of forms. And then they'll move along again, unless they are really worth keeping for some reason.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 8:40:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bamabbwsub quote: I see no theoretical or legal problem with having a performance based minimum quota for firing employees. Think of it as employment Darwinism. If the weakest 3% are culled every year (again based on performance) then those that survive will make the organization that much stronger. I disagree. What happens if you have "culled" your poorest performers and now have a group of people who work hard, deal well together, and otherwise have no issues? Granted, even a good worker has room for improvement, but why would you want to fire a good worker just because you have to meet a quota? I say this because I work with a great group of people...except for about three really lazy ones. If we were to get rid of those three, our area would be extremely productive. Sorry, but with businesses averaging 10% turnover in normal economies, there is virutally always room to lose 3% without firing good workers.

cloudboy -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 8:46:27 PM)
I think pundits are more concerned about about our real 16% unemployment rate and whittling away of the middle class. As for the EPA, the last thing Republicans want is better, more qualified workers in it. To wit: their refusal to approve Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection Agency.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 8:52:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I think pundits are more concerned about about our real 16% unemployment rate and whittling away of the middle class. As for the EPA, the last thing Republicans want is better, more qualified workers in it. To wit: their refusal to approve Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection Agency. There shouldnt even be a "Consumer Protection Agency", unless its to protect the consumer from Washington.

cloudboy -> RE: Federal workers more likely to die of natural causes, than be fired for poor performance (7/22/2011 8:55:27 PM)
There is "less government" in Afghanistan, why don't you move there. You will find relaxed gun laws as well.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.882813E-02