Never Lose Faith!!
Keep FR Strong
By Becoming A Monthly Donor!!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/20/2011 1:14:17 PM PDT by Hojczyk
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 1,800-employee Federal Communications Commission and the 1,200-employee Federal Trade Commission didn’t lay off or fire a single employee last year. The SBA had no layoffs, six firings and 17 deaths in its 4,000-employee workforce.
When job security is at a premium, the federal government remains the place to work for those who want to avoid losing a job. The job security rate for all federal workers was 99.43% last year and nearly 100% for those on the job more than a few years.
HUD spokesman Jerry Brown says his department’s low dismissal rate — providing a 99.85% job security rate for employees — shows a skilled and committed workforce. “We’ve never focused on firing people, and we don’t intend to start now. We’re more focused on hiring the right people,” he says.
Too much of a good thing isn’t necessarily a great thing, according to a management expert consulted by USA Today:
San Francisco State University management professorJohn Sullivan, an expert on employee turnover, says the low departure rates show a failure to release poor performers and those with obsolete skills. “Rather than indicating something positive, rates below 1% in the firing and layoff components would indicate a serious management problem,” he says.
In this environment, it indicates something else, too. While the private sector has lost millions of jobs, the federal government hasn’t shed hardly any at all, outside of the temporary Census workers hired last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
There are rules for multi-man routes in those areas. But 2 AM, ain’t no thang ~ if you know what you’re doing.
The only really bad federal employees I've ever seen were retreads from Capitol Hill, or folks hired in by a new "appointed" Postmaster General from his old place of work, or from his friends, etc.
Some private sector folks just can't cut it in the federal environment. For some of them it's simply too much alcohol, or the requirement to show up every workday. Executive level people are like that.
The USPS has over 1000 people OVER AGE 80 who are currently on the “active” roster and are receiving workmen’s comp.
Three of them are 98 or older.
Hogwash.
I’ve seen people appreciably older than 35 hired into my work places and they are/were utterly useless. Don’t even try to sell such nonsense. Age is no guarantee against incompetence. In private jobs they can and will get rid of such people.
And do you have any felony convictions on your record?
CENSUS ~ read the footnotes.
Oh, so I get to be an open book, but your vague assertions get a pass? Try again.
I’ve worked in a variety of places. I’ve had a security clearance. Again I will state the obvious. Age is no guarantee against incompetence. Stupid people come in all ages. Do you think young incompetents don’t survive past 35? Obviously your argument is laughable on its face.
And you can go stuff your crap about felony convictions. Good lord you are insufferable. You try every cheap ploy to defend your padded little nest and that of your cronies.
I do note that you didn’t bother to reply to when I blew your bogus assertions about constant levels of federal employment out of the water.
I guess if you can’t dispute the argument, your dispute the messenger.
You have to go back and do that first.
But the contention was the federal bureaucracy was in a state of runaway bloating ~ yet my contention was it has been remarkably stable over a very long period of time ~ and most of that is due to extensive computerization.
Obama doesn't know that ~ but he's the guy who thinks we still do "shovel ready" stuff in this country!
And as far as playing with the numbers is concerned the professor is misrepresenting the numbers and drawing unwarranted conclusions and you called me a liar ~ but you tried to do it nicely.
Nice doesn't count when it comes to internet insults.
Revenge will be exacted at some point. You won't know when, but it will.
You say that like a federal job is the ultimate goal. For most people it is not.
I’ve worked extensively with federal workers and contractors. Most seem to work harder at getting out of work than getting anything done.
A director of one dept told it the best - ‘what took me 30 seconds in the civilian world takes me 6 months here’
You have the gall to claim that the extra 500k extra civilian department employees are the Census? How dumb do you think we are? Those numbers have been inflated for several years (since 2008). That’s not just a Census spike as anyone who’s not trying to be deluded or to deceive would notice.
If you say yes, you won't get hired (without some really really really huge reason).
I'd imagine I was asked that every time I filed an application for promotion.
It was a test. You failed.
So why hasn’t productivity increased? Because you can’t fire people so you have to find something for them to do.
>But the contention was the federal bureaucracy was in a state of runaway bloating ~ yet my contention was it has been remarkably stable over a very long period of time ~ and most of that is due to extensive computerization.
I’ve provided the numbers and they don’t lie. There has been a ~60% increase in the federal non DoD workforce. That is the government’s own numbers. You can dance around all you like, but facts are facts. The fact that you cite ‘extensive computerization’ in the face of a vastly expanded workforce means each member has managed to not increase in productivity at all in spite of the fact that productivity in every other sector has been incredibly improved by computerization.
>And as far as playing with the numbers is concerned the professor is misrepresenting the numbers and drawing unwarranted conclusions and you called me a liar ~ but you tried to do it nicely.
The professor is spot on and you are a liar. You misrepresent facts and play bait and switch games. You might as well be a politician.
>Revenge will be exacted at some point. You won’t know when, but it will.
Ooh, internet tough gut. I’m just shaking in my boots now.
The Census bump was in 2010 and http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp clearly shows that and provides a footnote.
Look, I stated I’ve had a security clearance. Hence I’ve not had a felony conviction. You just don’t grasp that questioning the debater instead of his point just shows the weakness of your argument. You’re simply out of ammo. Your arguments are either simply factually wrong (the numbers) or based on laughable premises (nobody incompetent is ever hired by the federal government because they are over 25).
I understand you are trying to save face by going after me since you can’t beat my facts and arguments, but honestly, it’s just another pathetic ploy.
When you say someone is lieing you must PROVE IT.
Frankly, I don't believe you on anything you've said. I asked you about your felony convictions and you tried to change the subject. Evasion is one of the things I was trained to watch for.
Are you deliberately trying to look stupid? I’ve provided the numbers and a link (from the government- same agency in fact).
Here’s the number of executive branch, non DoD employees by year:
1964 855000
2005 1224000
2006 1227000
2007 1237000
2008 1289000
2009 1357000
2010 1360000
Obviously this is not a ‘Census bump’.
Again you are clinging to deceptive numbers which mix DoD personnel and civilian agencies. In 1964 we were in the middle of the Cold War. By your link the military had 1.1 million more active duty people for the DoD to deal with.
The funniest thing about your cited data is that the increase due to the census from your own numbers was only 13K more people than the previous year. That’s nothing. So much for a ‘census bump’.
It sure is - along with precious few IT people that can maintain and fix it!
Yes, and I gave you the data source as well:
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/ExecutiveBranchSince1940.asp
From the same agency as your data source. Mine is the more detailed table. In accounts for changes in DoD vs. civilian agency staffing. Yours just mixes them together so that any ‘peace dividend’ from the end of the Cold War becomes invisible. Any staffing decrease from having a much smaller military was far overtaken by padded staffing in civilian agencies. I have shown this repeatedly. You choose not to recognize this fact and in stead play rhetorical games or cast aspersions on me.
Again, you are trying to attack the arguer rather than the argument. That’s utterly pathetic. I’m not here to play bigger wee wee games about background and qualifications. I’m debating facts and arguments. Since you are losing in those areas, you appear to have acted in desperation to change the topic. I am not going to stoop to your level and start attacking your background or making assertions about you. I don’t need to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.