The Government's New Year's Resolutions: I Will Not Shut Down

[airjay75]

Originally Posted by spencgr

Shutdown Will Cost U.S. Economy $300 Million a Day, IHS Says - Bloomberg

The Costs of the Government Shutdown - ABC News

Government shutdown cost feds 6.6 million days of work - FederalNewsRadio.com

2013 IN REVIEW: Government Shutdown Temporarily Closes Local Historic Sites « CBS Philly

I hate to tell you but every single one of those articles is about the government shutdown, not about the closure of the federal government in the DC metro area for a weather related incident. Even assuming the numbers in those articles are accurate for a government shutdown, I don't see how they directly apply to the closure for a weather related incident. First of all, the government shutdown was of the entire federal government, not just the federal government offices located in the DC metro area. Last I checked the majority of federal employees are not even employed in DC, Maryland, or Virginia, let alone the DC metro area (see pg. 7 here http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-overs...nment/ccog.pdf).

A government shutdown is also a very different beast. Projects and deadlines are delayed, oftentimes significantly, resulting in lost productivity that cannot be recaptured. A one day closure for weather does not have the same effect. A government shutdown also results in lower workforce morale, which further decreases productivity. A one-day snow closure does not - in fact, one might argue that it provides a boost to employee morale resulting in increased productivity when the employees return. Not to mention the fact that when there is a day of weather like this, since many employees do telework or take leave, many meetings and work that otherwise would have occurred does not. Opening the buildings for the employees that do come in costs money that might not otherwise have to be spent if the government simply closed - potentially some minor savings in costs.

I won't dispute that something is lost if you close all federal offices in the DC metro area, but I think $300 million is a gross exaggeration and I don't see how articles about the 2 week + government shutdown really support what you're saying. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

[airjay75]

Originally Posted by spencgr

But there has to be a point where it goes from the "occasional snow day" to where you feel it is meaningful. Two snow days, five, sixteen? If sixteen are meaningful, one has to be, too.

I think this question is off point for several reasons.

One, we're not talking about consecutive snow days the same way we would have in a government shutdown. I would argue that much less productivity is lost by an employee from multiple 1-day closures spread out over the entire winter season than from the same number of consecutive days. As Carlingtonian compared to a sick day, it isn't hard to pick back up with your work if one day of work was simply cancelled. You simply get back to work the next day and get going again. In fact, if you were facing a deadline, you might even end up increasing your level of productivity the next day you return to work. With say a 2-week shutdown, it's much different. Being away from your work for that period of time can set back projects by much more than the 2-weeks. It can take much more time to get back into your work when you return because you have not been mentally focused on it for a more prolonged period of time. If you're working with others, you may have to take additional time to coordinate with them and their schedules. There may have been other projects you were supposed to be working on by that time and you will have to take time to figure out which project is now going to have priority.

Two, we're not talking about a climate, on average, where we get more than a handful of snowstorms per year - what I would define is occasional. I don't think we need to be thinking about the cost of 16 snow days per year when, on average, we aren't going to get anywhere close to that given the climate of this area.

[airjay75]

Originally Posted by spencgr

How many private companies closed down today due to the weather?

Again, I don't think this is really a relevant question. The benefit to the federal government closing in the metro DC area, in my opinion, is that it takes a significant number of people off the roads. What private employer in this area could do the same thing by keeping their employees home? I suppose if enough of the private employers in this area banded together in the name of public safety, they would be able to match the size of the federal workforce in this area, but I don't see that happening. And, really, that is not the job of the private sector, that is, to serve the greater public good. On the other hand, I would argue that is the job of the public sector. By closing down and keeping a sizable number of people off of the roads, I would argue they are serving the public interest. Of course, they would also be serving the public while they're at work, in my opinion at least - I also greatly value the work done by the federal government.

I'll just add that I don't feel strongly that the government should have closed today or that it should have closed the last time in December. Both snow storms were relatively minor and I don't know that the benefit to be had for public safety outweighed the lost work and productivity - you can't really prove what would have happened had the government done the opposite of what it did. But, I also don't think it is a bad call to close down the federal government for weather like we had today. There is a potential benefit to be had to public safety, at least in my opinion - as I understand your earlier post, you seem to think that absent me providing empirical data, you don't think the percentage of drivers involved in accidents with injuries and fatalities increases when there is snow and/or ice on the roads. Combined with the fact that I don't believe that the cost of occasional 1-day closures is as great as you seem to think it is, I don't have a problem with the government closing on a day like today. I'm also fine with it staying open and providing unscheduled telework/leave like they did today, but I don't see it being a clear cut bad decision for OPM to make.

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by airjay75

Again, I don't think this is really a relevant question. The benefit to the federal government closing in the metro DC area, in my opinion, is that it takes a significant number of people off the roads.

The same can be achieved by asking people to work from home. Most can, thus reducing the amount of people on the roads.

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by airjay75

I hate to tell you but every single one of those articles is about the government shutdown, not about the closure of the federal government in the DC metro area for a weather related incident. Even assuming the numbers in those articles are accurate for a government shutdown, I don't see how they directly apply to the closure for a weather related incident. First of all, the government shutdown was of the entire federal government, not just the federal government offices located in the DC metro area. Last I checked the majority of federal employees are not even employed in DC, Maryland, or Virginia, let alone the DC metro area (see pg. 7 here http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-overs...nment/ccog.pdf).

A government shutdown is also a very different beast. Projects and deadlines are delayed, oftentimes significantly, resulting in lost productivity that cannot be recaptured. A one day closure for weather does not have the same effect. A government shutdown also results in lower workforce morale, which further decreases productivity. A one-day snow closure does not - in fact, one might argue that it provides a boost to employee morale resulting in increased productivity when the employees return. Not to mention the fact that when there is a day of weather like this, since many employees do telework or take leave, many meetings and work that otherwise would have occurred does not. Opening the buildings for the employees that do come in costs money that might not otherwise have to be spent if the government simply closed - potentially some minor savings in costs.

I won't dispute that something is lost if you close all federal offices in the DC metro area, but I think $300 million is a gross exaggeration and I don't see how articles about the 2 week + government shutdown really support what you're saying. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Fair point. I stand corrected and will use the data you provided to say shutting down the government in the DC area costs the taxpayer around 87 Million per per day. It is still a huge number to swallow as a taxpayer, when the "liberal leave" policy essentially solves the same problem.

(average salary = $80K, 285,000 federal workers in this CBSA)

[airjay75]

Originally Posted by spencgr

The same can be achieved by asking people to work from home. Most can, thus reducing the amount of people on the roads.

I'm not sure if this is true. According to the 2012 Status of Telework in the Federal Government Report to Congress (http://www.telework.gov/reports_and_...workreport.pdf), only about 32% of federal employees are actually deemed eligible for telework and only about 7% of federal employees actually have telework agreements in place. I wouldn't be surprised if percentages are higher among federal employees in the DC metro area, but I don't know that we get to 50% of employees eligible and able to telework. If you add in those employees who would take leave if they can't telework on a snow day, we might well get to 50% of federal employees staying home, but you are still not achieving the same effect as you would if you did a full closure.

Originally Posted by spencgr

Fair point. I stand corrected and will use the data you provided to say shutting down the government in the DC area costs the taxpayer around 87 Million per per day. It is still a huge number to swallow as a taxpayer, when the "liberal leave" policy essentially solves the same problem.

(average salary = $80K, 285,000 federal workers in this CBSA)

For reasons I have already stated, I don't think you can just take the salary for 1 day and multiply by the number of employees to measure the cost of a closure. If we did that for the government shutdown based on the numbers in that OPM document I posted earlier, you would get a 1-day cost of a nationwide government shutdown to be around $617 million. Of course, you have to adjust for those who report to work even when there is a shutdown or closure, but, regardless, I don't think that is the best way to measure the cost of a closure or shutdown.

To me, the key measure is lost productivity - over the long-run, how much work that otherwise would have gotten performed does not end up getting performed as a result of a closure. For sporadic 1-day weather closures, I would argue that it is a minimal amount of lost productivity for that 1-day. Measured over the course of a year, I would doubt that it has a meaningful effect on the productivity of most employees. For consecutive days, I would argue that the more days that you have a closure, there is an exponential effect on the lost productivity, i.e., the more days in a row the government is closed, each day increases the cost by a greater amount than the previous day. When you get to something like a 2 week government shutdown, I think the amount of lost productivity is quite significant.