State of Texas turnover is 18.6% and costs $361 million (Ranger: unemployment, buying)

[earthisle]

In 2017 24,000 workers at the state quit or retired. 71% left for higher paid jobs. This is almost certainly on the high end for state governments. The cost of that high turnover rate is estimated at $361 million. It doesn't quite fit the narrative of Texas as a well-run booming state does it?

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texa...7-report-finds

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/a...-quit-in-2017/

https://cwa-tseu.org/state-employee-...s-361-million/

[Trainwreck20]

It keeps the retirement payouts down.

[ikoolu]

so i assume your definition of a booming economy is more high paying govt workers taking more of our hard earned tax dollars?

the fact is govt work is doing exactly what we the taxpayers want - keep payrolls down, keep liabilities in check and hopefully move on from public life to the real world and make something for yourself.

i applaud our current leadership

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by ikoolu

so i assume your definition of a booming economy is more high paying govt workers taking more of our hard earned tax dollars?

the fact is govt work is doing exactly what we the taxpayers want - keep payrolls down, keep liabilities in check and hopefully move on from public life to the real world and make something for yourself.

i applaud our current leadership

These are not elected politicians, but career public servants who carry out the vast middle workings of government. I would applaud for the elected do-nothing high officeholder politicians to have their salaries cut (and public financing of elections to prove their fiscal worth and keep bribery out), but these dedicated people have families to raise too!

If you think public service is akin to welfare, you have too many personal problems to resolve! (And what booming economy???)

[ikoolu]

duh i did not say the workers were elcted first

2nd all government workers are paid from the taxes of those who took risk, started companies, hired people - and i for one appreciate that OUR tax dollars are used properly - public service is necessary buy the pay and retirement should not be above what private industry pays - PERIOD - public employees depend out OUR TAX DOLLARS to get paid and they should understand that fact and not except outrageous pay and benefits.

Even cops and fire personal sound not get benefits AFTER they retire - they are not running into buying buildings or in the line of fire - plus given the fact most can retire after 20 or 30 yrs of service and expect to be paid the same for life is not only morally wrong to the tax payer but cant be sustained without ever increasing taxes.

[earthisle]

Originally Posted by ikoolu

duh i did not say the workers were elcted first

2nd all government workers are paid from the taxes of those who took risk, started companies, hired people - and i for one appreciate that OUR tax dollars are used properly - public service is necessary buy the pay and retirement should not be above what private industry pays - PERIOD - public employees depend out OUR TAX DOLLARS to get paid and they should understand that fact and not except outrageous pay and benefits.

Even cops and fire personal sound not get benefits AFTER they retire - they are not running into buying buildings or in the line of fire - plus given the fact most can retire after 20 or 30 yrs of service and expect to be paid the same for life is not only morally wrong to the tax payer but cant be sustained without ever increasing taxes.

Clearly retirement benefits don't outweigh low and declining pay, which I think is lower than you realize.

Driver license office workers earn $26,000 *average*
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...icense-offices

You may think of those jobs as a stepping stone and that people should grow up and work in the private sector, but they are all necessary. That's exactly the issue, they are leaving for the private sector or for other governments. There's not going to be a scenario where no state workers are necessary and everyone can just work in the private sector. The number of state workers has also remained steady as the state population has grown dramatically over the last 30 years.

[tcualum]

I’ve worked in the public and private sector. Many government workers accept lower pay than they’d get in the private sector bacause they’re promised good benefits. If you under pay and offer lousy benefits then the caliber of people attracted to the public sector will decrease. I, for one, would prefer to have competent people running my state.

[ikoolu]

agreed competent people with cost control and fair not outrageous benefits -

but if you dont keep a eye out you will find the leftist politicians make promises for votes to state workers for more vacation, more benefits like life long heat care, etc -

all you haver to do is look west and see what a cluster cali because of liberal policies when it comes to government workers

i applaud the fiscal restraint texas leadership provides when it comes to using my taxes - i like most of you are the ones funding the state and i want my dollars spent wisely with the understanding that there is a LIMITED supply and they cant just keep taking and taking

[earthisle]

Originally Posted by ikoolu

agreed competent people with cost control and fair not outrageous benefits -

but if you dont keep a eye out you will find the leftist politicians make promises for votes to state workers for more vacation, more benefits like life long heat care, etc -

all you haver to do is look west and see what a cluster cali because of liberal policies when it comes to government workers

i applaud the fiscal restraint texas leadership provides when it comes to using my taxes - i like most of you are the ones funding the state and i want my dollars spent wisely with the understanding that there is a LIMITED supply and they cant just keep taking and taking

Well what we're getting from the Republicans is low pay, high turnover, and a huge cost to taxpayers as a result. The state of California seems to be running pretty well compared to Texas. Texas just had a huge Family Protective Services crisis because the workers kept quitting, so the RANGERS had to assist them with child protection cases. The legislature finally relented and gave workers a raise, but they're still underpaid.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12...es-restrictio/


The reason you don't think that failing to protect children from abuse is a huge issue is political bias. The reason you think California is a "cluster" but Texas isn't is your political bias.

[Trainwreck20]

I have worked state and private sector. The people that work at state jobs fall into several broad categories:
1) Fresh out of school. These folks often don't have experience for a private sector job. They take state jobs at reduced pay because it is SOMETHING; however, they often earn valuable experience and move on to public sector jobs in a relatively short period of time. Maybe 3-6 years? The downside is that these people have no work history and some are 'duds' while others are 'rock starts' - it is just a crap-shoot for the state.

2) Laid off workers. Worked in private industry, but 'downsized' out of a job. Generally, these people are significantly older then group 1, but were not the highest paid before the layoff (those people are drawing unemployment and looking for high-pay again). This group can be fantastic, as they have experience and are, in general, demonstrated to be at least competent. Morale can be low due to low pay at the state, though, and if private sector opens up they likely will jump ship.

3) retired military. After 20 years in the military, quite a few retire fairly young and take state jobs for additional income. These are some of the best workers, in my experience. They are used to bureaucracy, are usually choosing the job based on location rather than pay, and are generally good quality (if not sometimes a bit quirky). These folks tend to stay for many years - sometimes 20 or more - if the work conditions are good.

4) Second income. Spouse looking to work and earn additional income. These may stay forever or for a short-time, depending on a thousand other factors (kids, spouse income, moral, pay, etc).

Those are just some groups that I worked with at the state or now work with from 'the other side'. Pay does not need to be on-par with private sector, but some of the state jobs are almost insulting now days. When I went to work at the state, it was for about 75% of what the private sector was paying for a similar level of experience/background. That same job has fallen to less than 60%. This low pay reduces the draw for groups 1 and 2 and increases the turnover rate. The state 'rationalizes' the low pay by decreasing the work requirements - what used to require an engineering degree was changed to a physical science degree or similar. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for.

Moral is the second biggest 'chaser' of state workers - the inexperienced person hired out of college ends up as a manager or team leader within a few years and has next to zero training in management and only moderate skills to begin with. Better qualified people will be hired but leave out of frustration relatively quickly. This is more likely to drive off the military people and second income people. Pay isn't the deal, totally 'Monte Python' work situations just aren't worth the low pay.

Anyway, I know very few people that take a state job for the benefits - it is nice after many years, but not the draw. More of a rationalization that people make when they look at the puny paycheck.