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.
Huh? I guess you haven't researched Job Requirements for public service positions then. Any agency I know of requires at LEAST a 4 Year degree for any position beyond Senior Clerk.
sorry. didn't mean to imply ALL public jobs don't require a degree. but police officers generally don't, and that's what this conversation was about.
i was saying to rscalzo, don't paint everyone in private with the same brush because of the comments of a few people on this board.
I think a big issue that a lot of people have with public sector jobs is that nepotism is alive and well in a sector that should be as blind as the scales of justice. Nepotism certainly exists in the private sector as well, but I think it is more tolerable as it is the 'private' sector.
I know far too many local cops who have their jobs do to their family connections than do to their qualifications. Case in point, an old family friend of my parents used to be the police chief in our town. Both of his sons were accepted to the academy right out of high school and currently have nice suburban police jobs. Another friend of mine has an influential father. How else would a 22 year old with no college education get accepted to the academy and now be posted in a nice quiet suburb. Oh and his fiancee, also with no college education works in the county clerks office.
All of these people are good at their job to my knowledge, but they certainly didn't get the job because of their qualifications and most certainly were hired over other more qualified individuals. This kind of treatment, that is very common, leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths when it comes to public sector employees. It's almost like a club that you need to invited into. So, in some ways the sour grapes are warranted when not all of us have an equal chance to get those jobs even if we wanted them.
but what you're saying is exactly what happens in virtually every private sector job. law firms hire partners' kids or relatives, if not for a job, for a nice resume building internship. everyone takes care of their own. freemasons, fraternitys, alumni groups, etc. it's all the same as nepotism really.
people get outraged in public sector jobs, but not in private. it's accepted in private almost blindly.
Sorry, but I don't agree with you, here. I feel nepotism is rampant no matter which side you look at. Believe me ... it's alive and well in private industry, as well and public service. But I think you have a point (bolded-above), in that in public service, one must also be "good at their job" to hold onto the position. In private industry, it really doesn't matter that much.
the theory is that, in private, if you're no good, you'll eventually be revealed.
i've found that's mostly bull----. even in some areas where people just become "favorites". they can do no wrong, but they don't do much right either. they keep advancing cause they kiss the right a--, and those of us who refuse to participate are left behind.
Unfortunately, in public sector jobs, you don't have to be good at your job to keep it. The only thing that may happen is it will go on your record that you have had a poor review - which no one looks at anyway.
I worked in the public sector for 10 years and although most, yes most, are very hardworking, competent people, there were some that never should have had a job and wouldn't have lasted in the private sector.
but what you're saying is exactly what happens in virtually every private sector job. law firms hire partners' kids or relatives, if not for a job, for a nice resume building internship. everyone takes care of their own. freemasons, fraternitys, alumni groups, etc. it's all the same as nepotism really.
people get outraged in public sector jobs, but not in private. it's accepted in private almost blindly.
I said as much in my post. I was merely pointing out the fact that nepotism in the public sector really shouldn't exist as it does in the private sector as the jobs should always go to the best applicant.
What I can tolerate in the private sector (even if I don't like it), I find really "rubs me the wrong way" when it comes to the public sector. Why does the guy I know with the influential father deserve a job on the police force when they passed over many other more qualified candidates to hire him?
He was one of over 600 people who applied for the job and was only 1 of 17 who didn't at least have an associates degree with the majority holding 4 year degrees in criminal justice or something similar. His test scores were acceptable, but I'm willing to bet many others were as well. He is in excellent shape, but so was everyone else. Basically, there is a police force out there who didn't hire the "best", they hired a politicians son. Then the county went on to hire his girlfriend at the time (now fiancee) to work in the county clerks office, despite having no real job skills or college education. I wonder how many people with vastly superior qualifications lined up for that job?
I know it exists on many levels in many places, but when it comes to my tax dollars paying someones salary, I expect them to higher the best person for the job, not someone whose only claim to fame is being someone's son, daughter, brother-in-law, etc.
Politicians screwed with out testing procedures a few years back. For as much ass I battled with the former Chief, he did bring in an outside organization to conduct all phases of our testing. This organization, located in PA specializes in LE hiring processes. One of the features that made them the company of choice was that their bibliography contained more than the normal number of publications allowing the database of possible test questions to be well over a hundred thousand. This made attendance in a study group less helpful. (anyone not knowing the features of a group, ask).
The test was developed and sealed until needed for use. They brought them the day of testing. No one had an advance look and each test copy was accounted for after the test. Any copies missing meant the test would be voided.
We also has an extensive oral interview phase conducted by these people. The board consisted of highly ranked police and military officials. An hour of sweating. My flight testing was easier.
The oral was held after the physical testing phase which again was handled by an outside organization and their staff. We had no control of input.
The benefit of this route was that each phase already passed the scrutiny of any agency concerned about bias on any level. Over the years we did get complaints when someone failed but not ever were upheld. The downside was that this testing wasn't cheap. It wasn't limited to the local area but at one point all fifty states could apply. We got some great people this way.
Then the political forces found that their buddies kid's couldn't walk on and they weren't happy. So we got what was humorously known as the "Idiot Test" As many of the politician's choices couldn't pass the oral interview portion, that to was dropped. The physical stayed. In those years we got some duds. We did get a few good ones but one or two bad employees override the twenty good ones. Unfortunately, they will be around for some time.
Two years ago the old form of testing was brought back. The politicians were pretty much gone. Some in handcuffs. The town administrator who pushed the idiot test was gone and was screwing up another town. But the test was made even more difficult as the original organization was brought back in. I was surprised to see a written portion included. That's an eye opener. Sad to say that today's kids (and I say kids as one who may be in their mid 20's) that have little to no writing skills. Their written documents look like a printout of a text and can't function without electronic aids to do the work. Again, not cheap to conduct such a stest. Each applicant was charged $100 to help cover some of the costs. The town lost money but costs were reasonable to the taxpayer.
Once again, their were complaints when the favorite son wasn't first in line. But for the most part, getting a spot on the list didn't in any way be influenced by the relationship of the applicant. The raw scores we redetermined by someone who didn't speak to or accept any input from the client. They had a reputation in the field and weren't about to jepodise it in any way. I'd say the only area where the politicans had an influence is the number of new employees to hire. If they wanted someone, would they hire a larger number to get to them? Possibly.
But no process is one hundred percent perfect. In many ways, they are subjective. Smaller town can and do at time bias toward the "who you know" theory of hiring practices. It does exist. Sometimes the failed applicants are inclined to use the "sour grapes" response with no real validity to their comments. In some case, the best doesn't get in. but I seriously doubt that LE isn't the only organization subject to this type on conduct.
Unfortunately, in public sector jobs, you don't have to be good at your job to keep it. The only thing that may happen is it will go on your record that you have had a poor review - which no one looks at anyway.
I worked in the public sector for 10 years and although most, yes most, are very hardworking, competent people, there were some that never should have had a job and wouldn't have lasted in the private sector.
it's funny that you say this though because i can say the exact same thing about 3 different companies i've worked at in the private sector. most are very hardworking, but there are definitely a handful that don't deserve a job at mcdonald's. but they are professional kiss-arsers so they somehow hang on.
I said as much in my post. I was merely pointing out the fact that nepotism in the public sector really shouldn't exist as it does in the private sector as the jobs should always go to the best applicant.
What I can tolerate in the private sector (even if I don't like it), I find really "rubs me the wrong way" when it comes to the public sector. Why does the guy I know with the influential father deserve a job on the police force when they passed over many other more qualified candidates to hire him?
He was one of over 600 people who applied for the job and was only 1 of 17 who didn't at least have an associates degree with the majority holding 4 year degrees in criminal justice or something similar. His test scores were acceptable, but I'm willing to bet many others were as well. He is in excellent shape, but so was everyone else. Basically, there is a police force out there who didn't hire the "best", they hired a politicians son. Then the county went on to hire his girlfriend at the time (now fiancee) to work in the county clerks office, despite having no real job skills or college education. I wonder how many people with vastly superior qualifications lined up for that job?
I know it exists on many levels in many places, but when it comes to my tax dollars paying someones salary, I expect them to higher the best person for the job, not someone whose only claim to fame is being someone's son, daughter, brother-in-law, etc.
i think we're saying the same basic thing. but i don't get why it shouldn't exist in public sector like it does in private. we're talking about human beings in both cases. human beings are going to take care of their family and friends first when given an opportunity. unless there's a very well known acknowledged lack of work ethic in a person, i think most people would give preference to their friend or family vs a stranger in any job.
maybe it's tougher to stomach on a wider scale because all NJ residents help pay for public employees. but it's tougher to stomach at my company as well, when i know that less productivity means less money for me in the end (theoretically at least - it really just means less money for the shareholders or the execs!).
i think everyone should be hiring the best person for the job. but i think it is pretty widespread to not happen public and private. i see what you're saying though - it is tougher to stomach on the wider scale.
the theory is that, in private, if you're no good, you'll eventually be revealed.
i've found that's mostly bull----. even in some areas where people just become "favorites". they can do no wrong, but they don't do much right either. they keep advancing cause they kiss the right a--, and those of us who refuse to participate are left behind.
At least one important difference is that with the private sector, the customers are paying voluntarily. If they get too bloated, then they can get their lunch eaten by someone else who can provide better products and services at a lower price because they're not carrying as much baggage.
I suspect it's generally easier to "hide" in large companies, though ultimately, the large companies will die if they develop a culture of complacency (US big auto, anyone ?)
Among other things, one aspect of the non-voluntary aspect of the payment structure means that wages can be set well above the market clearing level (especially if there's a powerful union involved!) which means that even if the "nepotism hires" are doing a perfectly good job, their job is payed much better than it would be if wages were more appropriate.
i think everyone should be hiring the best person for the job. but i think it is pretty widespread to not happen public and private. i see what you're saying though - it is tougher to stomach on the wider scale.
If the position is so easy to fill that it doesn't really matter whether or not they hire the "best person" -- because several qualified candidates present themselves, barring abnormally high unemployment (e.g. an "employers market"), it probably means that the pay is much higher than it has to be.
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.
