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.
For some jobs, yes, it's hard to get fired, and in times when the debt wasn't so high I would have agreed that federal employees are a lock for lifetime employment. Things have changed a bit, and more departments have been affected than others.
My wife's department was essentially eliminated last year. She was given a chance to transfer but there were no guarantees of employment after the end of her contract, so we moved across country and find work in the not-for-profit sector.
For some jobs, yes, it's hard to get fired, and in times when the debt wasn't so high I would have agreed that federal employees are a lock for lifetime employment. Things have changed a bit, and more departments have been affected than others.
My wife's department was essentially eliminated last year. She was given a chance to transfer but there were no guarantees of employment after the end of her contract, so we moved across country and find work in the not-for-profit sector.
Your wife's experience notwithstanding, this has actually been studied. A government worker has 1.3 of the chance of being involuntarily laid off as a non-government worker. It's not a myth, you really have to try hard to get fired by the government.
Quote:
This analysis suggests the possibility that public sector compensation may be significantly higher than competitive levels. Moreover, the fact that public sector workers are only about one-third as likely to voluntarily leave their job as private sector workers is consistent with the conclusion that average public sector compensation rates are in excess of competitive levels, indicating that there are relatively few external employment opportunities that dominate public sector workers’ jobs. The fact that average public compensation is higher than average private sector compensation suggests that public sector worker compensation may be well above competitive levels and indicates that public sector wages could be reduced without significantly impacting public sector employment. For example, I’ve calculated the impact of a 5 percent wage reduction for all public employees in California, a state with one of the most severe fiscal crises in the country. A 5 percent wage cut would reduce state spending by $1.33 billion, which would reduce California’s 2011 state budget deficit by nearly 15 percent. - See more at: Lee Ohanian on the real wage premium for public sector workers
This deals with the state and doesn't even touch the federal government juggernaut.
EdwardA - did you mean to say a gov't worker has 1.3% of the chance compared to non-govt worker?
I'm seeing some posters say "you have to try really hard to get fired". This seems like a very, very general statement. I know for a fact, for example, that at the United States Patent/Trademark Office, employees are judged solely on meeting a certain amount of performed office actions per pay period. Employees can easily get fired there for not adhering to this.
Seems like needing to "show good cause" for firing an employee in the govt is one of the major differences compared to the private sector. But usually in the private sector, mass employee layoffs are very well-justified (companies losing a ton of money, not being profitable, etc). Why wouldn't govt agencies try to do similar cost-cutting maneuvers? Certainly, that demonstrates "showing good/just cause" for a layoff wouldn't it?
We all know that job security is one of the perks of working for the government. But what EXACTLY are the reasons for why employees in the gov't are seen to have more job stability? Doesn't the US Govt have a federal debt to worry about too? Don't the agencies enforce performance/efficiency standards on their employees? Why exactly is it so hard to get laid off working for the gov't?
Just curious.
I think there has to be a bit of a difference here established between local, state, federal and quasi governmental employees.
There generally is more job stability but it largely depends on where you are.
First and foremost is anything that is attached to someone in a political office is a pretty bad bet. Case in point I know a women that worked for former Senator Scott Brown. She worked for him during the campaign and then as senator. There is a difference between campaigning and governing and she was lucky to continue to have work while in office. A campaign manager is no assurance of being able to do budgeting etc. After he lost she was out of work. There's no real obligation to give her a job. Likewise if you work as a mayors staff and he/she is voted out of office you might not *really* have a job with the next one. It's like that with governors and presidents. Sure of course there's general staff for cooks and maintenance of the building but in terms of key staff they do not stay.
Secondly there are some jobs that are apolitical the process can be political. You can be appointed, that is chosen by a group for a given position. When you hired by a group you are accountable to that group. In local government I live in a town with selectmen that hire the town administrator. Those five people hire that person. The contract is three years which is the largest per state law.
Third yes there are performance standards but they came in various waves. Efficiency was one, then war on waste, then rights and then new public management (results). Just because something is efficient doesn't mean the results are good. I could try to cook eggs in a microwave without the poaching device but they would explode. You can photocopy blank pieces of paper efficiently but that creates nothing of value. The branches of government have checks and balances that slow down the process. When you add that into the elections cycle, budget cycle and contract negotiations (union or not) it does slow things down. You also have to keep in mind there is openness and accountability with records. Emails are public record there is no way around that. Heck there's some talk that even twitter feeds of agencies have to be constantly archived.
"Your wife's experience notwithstanding, this has actually been studied. A government worker has 1.3 of the chance of being involuntarily laid off as a non-government worker. "
"Why wouldn't govt agencies try to do similar cost-cutting maneuvers? Certainly, that demonstrates "showing good/just cause" for a layoff wouldn't it?"
Not really. Cutting costs can be fine to a point but there's a process that generally has to be performed. For example I know a town that budgeted 10 million dollars to build a clubhouse on a locally owned golf course. They spent only 7 million. So when the state came around to ask why it was 30% under budget their answer was that it was volunteer labor. There is nothing wrong with volunteering but this broke nearly every procurement law in the books. Volunteers have no skin in the game to backup their work and more importantly that was not fair to other contractors to dramatically lower the budget with people that work for free! Procurement is not based solely on price it is also based on responsiveness. There is a difference between a RFP(request for proposal) and an IFB(invitation for bid). IFB is for basic price with a commodity. RFP is a request for a whole idea.
Much of government is contracted out to various organizations. Might be non profit or quasi and they depend on those funds to survive. So yes you can argue that the feds might not get rid of people but frankly that's because they've outsourced so much over the past 25 years. NASA is hardly anything without JPL.
"The gov't has zero accountability, and do not exist on production, they exist on taxes. Continued taxation is what makes those jobs viable, although, recently the aren't as secure as they once were."
It isn't so much production or taxes. Remember government is the only real third party for disputes. Apple is one of the richest companies on the planet and why is it using the government to sue Samsung? Why do companies have to resort to patents, trademarks, copyrights, zoning laws, limiting licenses etc. Simply producing something does not actually mean it is of value, ask anyone in retail what it means to have high inventory and why the internet is so much more efficient.
"Moreover, the fact that public sector workers are only about one-third as likely to voluntarily leave their job as private sector workers is consistent with the conclusion that average public sector compensation rates are in excess of competitive levels, indicating that there are relatively few external employment opportunities that dominate public sector workers’ jobs."
prima facie sure but not in reality. That isn't really a conclusion. The fact of the matter is many governmental workers are not paying into social security, they pay into pensions. So WHY would someone junk a decade or two into something and not carry it all the way though? Private sector has stock discounts and frankly the market is at its highest point....ever. Do people jump ship? Well the article does not address ethics laws and cooling off periods that reflect that you should have conflict of interest laws. I have seen countless things in the private sector that would not work in the public. I worked for a retailer that actually carried product that was owned by a competitor?!? huh? Then there's various accounting tricks and then people that serve on a number of various Board of directors with no real intent on doing anything. And of course there's always high frequency trading and Michael Lewis described in Flash Boys.
I would also add that the openness of government leads to various organizations by profession to be established. In the private sector there is linkedin but government is much easier to network in. the more you network the better your odds are. If you want to know a DPW manager in Billings Montana you can find that easily. If you want to know a district manager of a 711 chain in Cleveland that's pretty hard to find out. This openness compounds with time and lack of openness also compounds with time which is why the government had to bail out pretty much everyone in 2008. I'm all for businesses but the lack of real leadership is massive. Outside of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk no one is really investing much.
You have to try extremely hard to get fired by the Feds, union or not. Promotions aren't based on performance but mostly on seniority and if certain diversity criteria are met.
Now some agencies are more merit based like NASA but places like Dept of Ed, mediocrity reigns supreme.
Those who don't live in this area have no idea of what a federal employee is. How many of your neighbors work directly for the federal government or for some company that is contracted to he government in some fashion? Everyone in my area qualifies.
I worked for NASA and performance is what moves you up. The other branches, not so much. As you put it, seniority is the main factor. EEOC plays in heavily as well. I have a friend who is an EEOC grievance investigator. He is busy with a lot of made up stuff.
It takes two signatures to be removed from Federal employment. Trying to get your job back- now that can be a hassle and could involve hep from a Union, an attorney or both. .
Location: IN>Germany>ND>OH>TX>CA>Currently NoVa and a Vacation Lake House in PA
3,259 posts, read 4,326,350 times
Reputation: 13471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita
First, only 26.5% of all federal workers are members of a labor union. The notion that federal employees are almost all unionized is a crock and those who keep repeating that nonsense are just dolts who have not taken the time to do any research on their own.
As we saw in the last years, federal employees are not exempt from the effects of downsizing, financial limitations, work force reductions and many of the same items that impact the private sector.
Now, as to why federal government jobs are deemed more secure over the private sector, it comes down to a very simple item, because federal employees are public employees covered by federal regulations. Just about everything they do from signing in at work, when they take lunch, how many hours they work, and even the specific process required to terminate an employee, is covered by some federal regulation. This is not to be confused (although I suspect many people do) with labor union rules. These are the same as private employers policy and procedure manuals, job descriptions, etc, etc, etc. But unlike a private employers, the US Government can't just change these rules willy-nilly, they must go through a formal process. Your private employer can change them at the drop of a dime.
In addition, federal employees are not AT WILL employees. There is a due process component of the civil service regulations that require the employee to be given just cause (although it could be for any reason) that follows federal regulations. These regulations were enacted because of the political nature of government leadership. It was designed to prevent the current majority to come in, get rid of all employees in an agency and replace them with people they want.
Hope this clarifies some of the confusion.
Outstanding post Rabrrita, but there is a large sector of federal employees that are indeed "At Will" employees. Those that work for the Federal Judiciary are considered "excepted" civil servants and serve at the pleasure of the senior judge for their district. There are other examples of excepted civil service but the judiciary is the largest.
Posts above basically have it right. It takes quite a bit of paperwork and process to fire an individual employee, and a lot of managers won't bother unless the employee's lack of performance or misbehavior is really severe. Over a century ago federal jobs were given out as political patronage -- when your guy or your party lost an election, you'd probably get fired. That led to gross abuse and incomeptence, and so the current civil service system was created that is supposed to ensure impartial hiring and that employees can only get fired for true cause.
The other issue is cultural. The ethos just tends to be one of avoiding layoffs at all costs. At the highest level, Congress and the President usually resort first to across the board moves like pay freezes, eliminating bonuses, and freezes on hiring new employees. And cutting back on capital projects, reducing travel, even penny-ante stuff like limiting toner for the printers or turning the air-con up to 78 degrees, which the Defense Dept has done in its office buildings the last two years. That approach does have morale costs: you have no incentives to offer good performers, while due to the hiring freeze you wont fire anyone no matter how bad, and the nickel-and-diming often harms productivity more than the money it saves. STill, "no layoffs" is just in the bones of civil service managers.
One other reason is that the rules for doing a layoff may not let a manager keep the best and fire the worst. Federal rules are actually a lot more flexible than many state government or school district rules where layoffs are 100% seniority based, but not as flexible as at a private company.
When a whole facility or program is terminated, that's when you do sometimes see big layoffs. Like if a big military base is closed, or Congress cancels a major program at an agency. Not common, but it's happening now as the budget gets tighter and the wars wind down.
Another factor is that most government jobs are highly specialized and skilled. Once they have someone trained, they do not want to lose them. Everything like janitor work or kitchen help has been contracted out long ago.
uh
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.
