Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no real purpose other than to appease his followers who are likely to think that federal workers work far less then themselves. It is an opinion born of nothing and based on BS.
You have nothing to back up your comment other than your own opinion that federal workers devote the same amount of time to work than private employees. While there are always exceptions, studies have shown that not only are federal workers compensated far more than private workers (with levels of education factored in), they do in fact work fewer hours.
Also, I was criticized upthread for giving anecdotal evidence (fed workers at the pool all day, going to the grocery store, in the movies), but this is not based on short-term observations. As a native Washingtonian, this is an open secret in DC, and has been for decades. Some fed workers are honest and admit how they really lucked out with a fed job (one person said she "hit the jackpot" and other person said "she's set for life"), but other feds protest over the revelation that they work less and earn more because, hey.....they've got a good thing going and don't want it to end.
As I said, much of this could be solved if the govt would reign in the telework policy. It is absolutely ridiculous that people have "jobs" that let them work four half-days at home, with one full day a week in the office, and earn six-figure salaries. I hear arguments all the time how the govt saves money by letting employees "work" at home since they can cut down on office space, but here's the thing: IF people were required to work at the office at least 4 days a week, more work would be produced by employees and we could cut the number of Feds entirely.
So let me first say that I am not a Trump supporter and I work for the federal government.
Next: I applaud anything Trump and his administration do to get rid of poor performers. All of us in the federal government who are supervisors are miserable that it takes so long to get rid of an awful employee. Every climate survey we take, every time we are asked, that is the overall theme of what is said: make it easier to get rid of bad performers and easier to hire talent.
I have not yet picked up my morning paper which has this story on the front page, but I just read the links inside the OP's post. In my hopefulness, I got a little bummed out because I don't think it went far enough.
Most of the article discussed public unions within the federal workforce. I work for a YUGE agency and we are not unionized. I don't know one federal worker who is in a union. I believe those unions are for certain types of federal workers who are on the WG scale maybe. It's a very small percentage. They might be the blue-collar workers of the federal workforce. Not sure, I could be wrong on that. Much of this order addressed the union side. How much time a worker could spend doing union work, etc. BFD. While I know must republicans hate unions, the public unions for the federal employees are really about protecting the workers' safety and pay to a smaller degree as that is set by Congress.
Moving on, the next thing addressed was about firing people based on seniority. For those unfamiliar with the federal workforce, if there is a reduction in force (RIF) which is where the government comes in and says YOU WILL CUT 10% OF YOUR AGENCY as a cost-saving measure, the agency goes into RIF mode. Back in the day, it was last in, first out. Or last hired, first fired. Period. The guy who barely did anything got to stay. Many years ago, at least where I am, that policy went out the window and your performance rating was also factored in to who gets RIF'ed. When I rate people, not only do I give them their normal scores, but I also have to assess them on, if RIF'ed, where do I place them. It's a 1, 2, or 3 with #1 being you're out the door. Everyone wants to get a 3. So this "new" piece of legislation is nothing new. Maybe it has not been adopted by other agencies?
The last thing I found at the end, which is the MOST important to supervisors is this statement:
Well, that doesn't have a lot of teeth behind it. I'd like to see the policy that is going to allow me to "move faster." So the thing we ALL want is buried at the end with nothing behind it (at least in this article). Can't wait to go to work next week and see if there's really any change here or just a bunch of showmanship.
" I work for a YUGE agency and we are not unionized" I find that VERY hard to believe unless it is part of the DoD.
If, where you work has NO union, how do you know what they do at the other agencies?
You were doing so well until this, "While I know must republicans hate unions"
You do NOT know "most" Republicans an you certainly do NOT know what they think.
"How much time a worker could spend doing union work, etc. BFD."
It IS a BFD!
They are being paid by the taxpayer to DO GOVT WORK ONLY. NOT private business on the taxpayers. dime.
It is THIS attitude that makes us want to get rid of the govt unions.
NOT because we "hate " them.
When I was in the private sector ALL of our union work was done ON OUR OWN TIME.
In addition to the time spent doing govyt business, we SALSO PROVIDE THEM work space, telephones computers, and all the other things that go along with conducting their union business.
GET IT OUT OF GOVT SPACE AND BUY YOUR OWN EQUIPMENT LIKE NON PUBLIC UNIONS DO.
The union ALSO have SAY IN A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO ON THAT THEY SHOULD Not HAVE SAY IN.
I was involved in a project that took a year to bring to get started actually doing the work.
Contracts went out for bid, the evaluation process, finally awarding the contract to a contractor and ALL of the equipment was bought.
The union stepped in and had a complaint on 1 piece of the project.
The ENTIRE PROJECT was DELAYED for 1 SOLD YEAR. A lLT of taxpayer dollars were WASTED over some STUPID complaint, and it WAS a STUPID complaint, from the union.
The contractor had bought all the equipment to be installed and had NOT received 1 dime yet for it.
Being you ADMIT your agency does NOT have the union, you HAVEN'T a CLUE what they do.
You are the typical, "I know everything even though I do NOT have any experience in on the issue.
being a manager makes tho9ngs EVEN worse.
It is people like YOU who give the rest of the govt workers a bad name!
" Many years ago, at least where I am, that policy went out the window"
Thank bill clinton for that.
The govt USED to 'evaluate annually based using the very good, good fair etc.Then under clinton it went to pass or fail period.
"good" workers were NOT given any recognition any different then fair workers.
The incentive to better was taken away.
I could go o and on with REL LIFE examples.
Freedom to be fired for not laughing at the boss`s jokes and freedom to be fired because someone`s nephew needs a job.
Statists? Is that crazy Glenn Beck still around? His parrots use words like that.
Are you saying these things DON'T happen in the govt, ALL govt?
My boss had been fired by his company and went to church with our top boss.
Do I have to tell you more?
We got a new Division manger who came form another department.
80% of ALL promotions went people, mostly women, SHE knew from her old department even though we were a high tech branch and they knew NOTHING about our technology.
You missed my point. Of course you can't fire people on the whim. My point is that it should be no more "difficult" to fire someone in a federal position than it is to fire someone in the private sector. I have friends and family who works for the government (I did a 1 year fellowship at a federal agency), and there is a lot of bureaucracy involved in terminating someone. This is common knowledge, even among non-federal workers (which is why this story is making headlines).
I'm just saying that federal workers should be held to the same standards and be able to be terminated with the same ease as non-federal workers. No more, no less. You would need a legit reason, just like in the private sector, but it sounds like this will eliminate the extra bureaucracy, which is a good thing.
While a I agree that firing a federal employee is next to impossible short of a crime you cannot compare the public to the private. While getting rid of employees can impact function there is no profit motive in federal government, it would make it easier to fire someone you just don't like and not suffer the consequences.
As a manager in a federal agency who has employees threaten me and my family, seen employees simply not show up to work for months at a time, and observed employees sleeping in their offices and who has never once in over 20 years service been able to get the agency to support anything greater than a two week suspension, I won’t hold my breath. There are many hard working and very dedicated people in federal service. But, the worst employees suffer ZERO consequences because the folks at the top are too fearful of the costs of law suits. Despite trump’s best intent, I will be shocked to witness any real change. But it would be refreshing to not have to wonder each day, “is today the day my insane employee blows me away?â€
Removing bad employees is hard work because of the bureaucratic system we have, it takes considerable time to document and spend time with human resources. Many managers are lazy or don't have the courage to take on poor performance. A large majority of employees are hard working but there is a very small contingent of poor employees who live on unless their actions border on criminal.
Trump needs to get buy in from congress to make any long lasting impact and the union contracts themselves will be a road block.
You have nothing to back up your comment other than your own opinion that federal workers devote the same amount of time to work than private employees. While there are always exceptions, studies have shown that not only are federal workers compensated far more than private workers (with levels of education factored in), they do in fact work fewer hours.
Really? What makes you think you have any real insight into my experience and opinions? And there are studies (not my opinion) that show that federal employees are generally better educated AND have more experienced.
And since the government does not hire as many LOW level employees. Do you think there are as many cashiers, janitors, movie ticket takers, popcorn jockeys and lawn maintenance employees in the government as there are in the private sector? Hint... "The government mostly contracts out lower level positions." So what does that leave? Workers across the job spectrum in private enterprise, while the government hires many more office workers, administrators, and specialized personnel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
Also, I was criticized upthread for giving anecdotal evidence (fed workers at the pool all day, going to the grocery store, in the movies), but this is not based on short-term observations. As a native Washingtonian, this is an open secret in DC, and has been for decades. Some fed workers are honest and admit how they really lucked out with a fed job (one person said she "hit the jackpot" and other person said "she's set for life"), but other feds protest over the revelation that they work less and earn more because, hey.....they've got a good thing going and don't want it to end.
Open secrets? You would think someone would document it and put a stop to the practice - maybe even a lot of people getting fired or sued. Also... I worked for a bank where at least once a month the manager decided we should all go to the movies for the afternoon. In addition, employees of that group often took time off in the afternoon to go get their oil changed and the car washed. When I told him I didn't want to go because it would cut into my contractor hours - he insisted and let me know that "important business would be discussed and also that he approves my time."
I also contracted at a huge Boston based investment bank where I was hired at a flat rate to "get a list of changes" done. I informed the manager of the project - day one - that it would only take a few hours (instead of the 6 months I was contracted for) to get all the work done. He told me to "do at least" one item on the list A DAY and then take the rest of the day enjoying Boston. Best working vacation I ever had. Are you sure all these "cheats" you are bashing are employees and not contractors - and that maybe they are not on fixed bid contracts? Guess I hit the jackpot on that job... Good thing I was hired by private industry as a contractor and not as a government employee.
But this is all anecdotal - just as your examples are and means nothing as far as proven data and statistics are concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
As I said, much of this could be solved if the govt would reign in the telework policy. It is absolutely ridiculous that people have "jobs" that let them work four half-days at home, with one full day a week in the office, and earn six-figure salaries. I hear arguments all the time how the govt saves money by letting employees "work" at home since they can cut down on office space, but here's the thing: IF people were required to work at the office at least 4 days a week, more work would be produced by employees and we could cut the number of Feds entirely.
I think you should look for something other than (or in addition to) "The Heritage Foundation" for a source. They are notoriously biased.
I have also worked as a telecommuter. It has been my experience (the opposite of "nothing to back up my comments") and there are also studies that say that most people who are selected to work as telecommuters (and more importantly - permitted to remain in the programs) are people who generally work harder than the average - and get more done than the average. As a telecommuter, my hardest task (at the 6 or more telecommuting job I took - was actually to cut the massive unpaid hours I was putting in.
Really? What makes you think you have any real insight into my experience and opinions? And there are studies (not my opinion) that show that federal employees are generally better educated AND have more experienced.
And since the government does not hire as many LOW level employees. Do you think there are as many cashiers, janitors, movie ticket takers, popcorn jockeys and lawn maintenance employees in the government as there are in the private sector? Hint... "The government mostly contracts out lower level positions." So what does that leave? Workers across the job spectrum in private enterprise, while the government hires many more office workers, administrators, and specialized personnel.
Open secrets? You would think someone would document it and put a stop to the practice - maybe even a lot of people getting fired or sued. Also... I worked for a bank where at least once a month the manager decided we should all go to the movies for the afternoon. In addition, employees of that group often took time off in the afternoon to go get their oil changed and the car washed. When I told him I didn't want to go because it would cut into my contractor hours - he insisted and let me know that "important business would be discussed and also that he approves my time."
I also contracted at a huge Boston based investment bank where I was hired at a flat rate to "get a list of changes" done. I informed the manager of the project - day one - that it would only take a few hours (instead of the 6 months I was contracted for) to get all the work done. He told me to "do at least" one item on the list A DAY and then take the rest of the day enjoying Boston. Best working vacation I ever had. Are you sure all these "cheats" you are bashing are employees and not contractors - and that maybe they are not on fixed bid contracts? Guess I hit the jackpot on that job... Good thing I was hired by private industry as a contractor and not as a government employee.
But this is all anecdotal - just as your examples are and means nothing as far as proven data and statistics are concerned.
I think you should look for something other than (or in addition to) "The Heritage Foundation" for a source. They are notoriously biased.
I have also worked as a telecommuter. It has been my experience (the opposite of "nothing to back up my comments") and there are also studies that say that most people who are selected to work as telecommuters (and more importantly - permitted to remain in the programs) are people who generally work harder than the average - and get more done than the average. As a telecommuter, my hardest task (at the 6 or more telecommuting job I took - was actually to cut the massive unpaid hours I was putting in.
Please don't tell me what my "opinions" are based on - and then proceed to comment backed almost entirely by your own opinions.
My goodness! As I said originally, government workers (and those in their orbit, such as government contractors) get extremely defensive when it is revealed how much less they work, and for much greater compensation. Also, as I mentioned, when parity studies are carried out, it is with apples-to-apples comparison weighting for education levels.
Since you didn't like my Heritage Foundation source, how about Investors Business Daily? In the article, they quote BLS statistics showing how much less federal government workers work.
And I get the defense about the telework. I mean, it's a great deal - I have neighbors who laugh sheepishly when they talk about it - but it is ripe for abuse. Do you remember the agency-wide scandal at the Patent and Trademark Office when it surfaced how many "employees" were spending all day goofing off. - even at the golf course - and shamelessly claiming they were working? (I'll come back with the link. In the meantime, here's a link that gives the BLS data.)
I'm back with a Washington Post article about the rampant abuse of teleworkers at the Patent and Trademark office, where HALF of its 8300 examiners work FULL TIME from home - while they spend the bulk of the day surfing the internet, doing laundry and other household chores, running errands - even taking in 18 holes of golf.
If you read the report, you'll see that the PTO supervisors filtered their report to hide the extent of the abuse, but it eventually came out. And while the PTO was the most blantant example of telework work abuse, it's problematic throughout the entire government, including contractors.
My goodness! As I said originally, government workers (and those in their orbit, such as government contractors) get extremely defensive when it is revealed how much less they work, and for much greater compensation. Also, as I mentioned, when parity studies are carried out, it is with apples-to-apples comparison weighting for education levels.
Since you didn't like my Heritage Foundation source, how about Investors Business Daily? In the article, they quote BLS statistics showing how much less federal government workers work.
And I get the defense about the telework. I mean, it's a great deal - I have neighbors who laugh sheepishly when they talk about it - but it is ripe for abuse. Do you remember the agency-wide scandal at the Patent and Trademark Office when it surfaced how many "employees" were spending all day at the golf course, and shamelessly claiming they were working? (I'll come back with the link. In the meantime, here's a link that gives the BLS data.)
LOL, I find your post extremely interesting.So I am to be mad that other people have a good job and I don't. So the answer is take away what they worked for becuase you are not smart enough to go out and get a good job like they did,is that it?
LOL, I find your post extremely interesting.So I am to be mad that other people have a good job and I don't. So the answer is take away what they worked for becuase you are not smart enough to go out and get a good job like they did,is that it?
First, no need to personally insult me about not being "smart enough" to go out and get a good job. FYI, I was smart enough to identify an unmet need and developed a successful business around it - and I now have clients from Connecticut to California.
Second, it's not that I'm mad when people get good jobs. I'm glad when capable and honest people, who put in full days in return for a full day's pay from their employer, are productively employed. I'm angry that the government enables and/or protects "workers" who abuse telework policies, goof off at the office, or are just plain incompetent at their jobs.
It is a humongous waste of taxpayer money to be unable to terminate employees who deserve it. And that includes people who spend hours every day on personal business on government time and/or are so incapable of their job duties that a "real" worker must be hired in addition to get the work done. But that's just me. As a business owner, I cannot afford to carry two people (one competent, one incompetent) to do a single job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
