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.
I've read a lot of stories lately on government workers committing offenses that should result in termination but instead the get a slaps on the wrist. They're reassigned to another position or suspended with pay and go back or nothing happens at all. So what does it take to get fired in the public sector? Do you have to commit rape or murder?
The story below is just another reminder that many "public servants" play by a different set of rules.
This woman makes $281k a year and still thinks it's okay to fraudulently obtain more for herself.
Richmond's assistant city manager pocketed a $400-a-month car allowance for more than a year while using a city vehicle then ordered a subordinate to give her access to the e-mail account of a city worker who complained about the violation, an investigation found.
According to Lindsay, the investigation also found that Knight - with supplies from her personal jewelry business - used work time, city equipment and storage space to create trinkets and gifts that she distributed to city employees as "morale boosters." Lindsay said Knight did not profit from the practice
According to Lindsay, Knight was not fired, but declined to say what discipline she might face, citing privacy laws.
Government tends to have cumbersome procedures for terminating civil service employees. The rules vary from place to place and they involve a complex series of steps and documentation.
Patronage employees in government, OTOH, serve at the pleasure of the official who appoints them to the position. You do a patronage job in a way that the governor or mayor disapproves of, and with a snap of the elected one's fingers, you could find yourself among the ranks of the unemployed before the end of the day.
That specific position is not a civil servant position, it is a patronage like all department heads. Since those people are beholden to the ballot box, they cannot be terminated accept by the elected official that directly appoints them.
If the people of Richmond don't like it, they can choose not to re-elect the city manager and/or mayor who made the appointment. (One of the flaws of the popular manager/council systems of city government is that sometimes the city manager is appointed, putting two layers between the ballot box and the department heads instead of one.)
I have seen regular government workers go to jail for pocketing less than a $400 a month allowance. The jewelry part is just plain petty. The email part is actually the most serious violation, but really only a patronage position would have that authority. I have certainly seen incidents where a regular worker abused their ability to access (rather than their authority to access), and they were very promptly terminated.
It depends. I worked for the State of Texas for a short time and I saw people get fired for the same things they get fired for in the private sector and without much warning. In states where unions are strong and the federal government, it is very hard to get fired.
I was a manager in state government and I terminated several employees who were not performing up to standards. It isn't easy; everything must be documented. One of the individuals claimed discrmination based on religion, but my assistant and I had thoroughly documented her inability to peform the duties of the position. In her case, as well as in at least one other, the agency ended up allowing her to resign and agreeing to give a neutral reference just to stop any further litigation. I wasn't really pleased about this, but at least it ended things.
In two other situations the employee was accepted back at their previous position, so they didn't actually become unemployed. That was fine with me; evidently they had been able to perform at that job so it was a win-win situation.
At any rate, it's not impossible to terminate someone but I suspect it is more difficult than in the private sector.
I have a relative who works for the government and she tells me stories all day about how X person pretends to be sick like 5 times a month and just doesn't come in, but it's impossible to get fired because it's such a hassle, so everyone gets away with everything. Now that's efficiency!
Proof right here,
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.
Proof of what? "Some" federal workers are more likely to die than lose jobs. Same with the private workforce. Private companies shed workers at the first whiff of a cut in profits, and then complain when they can't find qualified workers.
Put out your own fires, fix your own street, keep your own sewer system working if you don't like government employees.
Proof right here,
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.
The key there is "poor performance". Since federal positions have no unemployment insurance, there is no reason to fire for poor performance. You just simply shed them in the near continuous layoffs (federal government does not have seniority layoffs anymore). Since private sector companies have to pay unemployment insurance, they have a greater incentive to fire for cause that the federal government does not have at all. Same thing applies to all levels of local government too. Part of the reason we had such massive layoffs in public education the last two years is that there is no penalty to a school district for laying off workers. No "poor performance" documentation necessary (and even more unlikely there where tenure provides a heavy incentive to use no cause layoffs instead of for cause terminations).
Just last year, the US public sector laid off 442,000 workers in a single month (Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ), or equivalent of the entire federal workforce being replaced in 5 months. And that is not even counting the massive cutback in federal contractors; people who are essentially federal employees, but count as private sector firings. Nor is it counting the massive local government layoffs that occur every June as the school district fiscal years end. This was a mid fiscal year massive layoff!
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.
