imperatrixx
Posts: 903
Joined: 3/29/2011 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic If you'd read my post, instead of just having knee-jerk reactions to positions that only exist in your own mind, Impera, we might get somewhere. Somehow, my suggestion that performance reviews every few years be used to move people along and motivate the rest (as they move along and find motivation in the economic sector that pays the bills) has become annual 20% cuts? You've never addressed the stagnation that develops in these lifer jobs, never acknowledged the entitlement mentality, and would rather mischaracterize and demonize than think. Have a lovely day You're right, you didn't say 20% every year, you said that should be the target every few years. I did address entitlement mentality when I said that the "entitlement" here is that if you show up to work and do your job you are "entitled" to keep it. I really don't see what the problem is there. You do your job, you keep your job, you don't get laid off because someone wants to put a 15-20% "target" of layoffs, just to keep you on your toes so you don't feel entitled to keeping the job you show up to do every day. In fact you're the one who never addressed that "entitlement mentality" - why do you not think that someone who does their job is entitled to keep it? Why do you believe it's better to fire a reliable worker simply because you "can't think of a single reason why driving a water truck for the city should ever be a career." And besides that, you think that a government job that provides a decent salary and benefits for unskilled labor is creating an "entitlement mentality cancer," how about those same jobs in the private sector? You know, something like factory work or construction...if a guy works for a company for 30 years, shows up and does his job well, do you think he has some sort of "entitlement mentality cancer" if he doesn't think he should get fired so that they can bring in new people to pay less to cut costs? Assuming the guy did nothing wrong, like I'm assuming these government workers did nothing wrong...you think its a "cancer" to think that if you do your job reliably you should keep it? The reason I didn't address the "stagnation that develops in these lifer jobs" is because there's nothing to address. You just said that it's stagnant. But here's the thing, sometimes stagnant means stable. Take a good look at the private sector - all the factory workers whose jobs were shipped overseas, all the administrative staff whose companies went under, all the layoffs due to lower profits...suddenly "stagnant" steady employment looks kind of good when the rest of it is crumbling down. And you think the government should emulate this? My problem isn't with performance reviews. With regard to performance reviews, I said this: quote:
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%. My problem is with your motivation. Your motivation is to literally pull the rug out from under the working class and make it that much harder for them to keep a steady job. Not because there's any proof that they are bad employees, but because you don't like the fact that they think that they should be able to keep their job. Do you not realize how sick that sounds?
< Message edited by imperatrixx -- 7/24/2011 11:55:45 AM >
|