Skip to comments.More federal workers involuntarily leave jobs horizontally than vertically (never fired)
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 didnt 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 departments low dismissal rate providing a 99.85% job security rate for employees shows a skilled and committed workforce. Weve never focused on firing people, and we dont intend to start now. Were more focused on hiring the right people, he says.
Too much of a good thing isnt 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 hasnt shed hardly any at all, outside of the temporary Census workers hired last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
this is not unexpected
Just comparing the federal government against the broad spectrum of private sector employment, the average age of entry into the private sector is more like 18 to 22.
Another standard is that for two major sectors of employment ~ USPS and Department of Defense, which are together about 70% of all federal employment, you cannot have a felony on your record. The various federal police agencies AND IRS are a tad tighter than that.
I'd suggest the guy at San Francisco State is probably not a good statistician, or even honest.
Another thought for everyone is that total federal employment hasn't changed very much since 1964. It's sometimes gone up a few thousand, and then down a few thousand.
In the private sector you had maybe 40,000,000 NEW JOBS added during that same period of time.
Lot of those people were released felons and drunk drivers.
Frankly, it's really difficult to compare the federal work force to any other work force. But people persist, particularly those who probably can't get a federal job ~ like that professor.
The computer age should have taken a chunk out of federal employment, as it has in private business. But no, the pathetic agencies of the US government are in the digital dark ages.
It took us over two years to get the Medicare bureaucracy to correct some bozo’s mistaken entry that declared my husband to be “Female,” in spite of his definitely male given name. The plaintive stories of living people being pronounced dead by the Social Security slugs are well known.
The old USSR provided the model for bloated bureaucracy everywhere.
Medicare, though, is contracted out to the PRIVATE SECTOR!
So, they couldn't tell the difference between men and women ~ doesn't surprise me a bit. That's like those criminals and perverts who came in as top end appointees with the Obama regime.
We'll soon be rid of them, but EDS or its successor contractor will be with you forever.
Most old goobers actually know how to make change and speak coherent English.
The private sector, though, continues to bloat.
How could you miss that point?
Federal workers do that every day.
And you want us to believe retirees on Social Security can do that?
I spent 33 years as a federal employee, most of it overseas. I can remember only one guy getting canned. He was a good buddy, but he deserved it. We warned him that he could get fired for falsifying his travel vouchers. He was working TDY in west Africa, staying in government quarters, which meant that his per diem was cut in half. He “knew a guy who knew a guy” who got him some blank hotel receipts. When he got back to CONUS, he turned them in and claimed full per diem. Someone must have dimed him out and the establishment came down on him like a ton of bricks. My Agency wanted to yank his clearance, reduce him in grade, stamp a big “T” on his 201 file (for “terminal,” no further promotions) and let him serve out the rest of his career unloading trucks or inventorying paper clips, but the case got kicked to the Justice Department. They fired him with cause, as they wanted to make an example of him. It sure cut down on falsified travel vouchers. He was a GS-14 with about 20 years civilian service, and four years active duty military.
Like to note some of it can be a little subtle ~ and would not have been noticed easily except I was pulling data out of voucher after voucher after voucher from the same employee within seconds of each review.
Do you have the numbers for all federal employment, from 2000 to 2010?
>>Two things I want to see you do ~ hump boonies with a machine gun and attack the Taliban from your chair in front of your TV, and deliver mail in a bad part of Detroit City.
Federal workers do that every day.
And you want us to believe retirees on Social Security can do that? <<
How many WHITE postal carriers deliver mail in a bad part of Detroit City.
I've been on the streets of downtown Detroit at 2 AM.
I hadn’t realized that. I’ve turned in a lot of travel vouchers and if there were any discrepancies, they were accidental. In the wake of this guy’s firing, there were a lot of guys who went to the travel accountants who “all of a sudden discovered some mistakes that they’d made.” They paid back a lot of money, but they saved their careers.
I decided to look up the number myself. I don’t think the professor is the one playing with the numbers.
From the goverment’s own data:
In 1964 the civilian agencies of the executive branch(no USPS) employed 855000 people.
In 2010 the number had increased to 1360000
That would be a 59% increase.
So much for your ‘total federal employment hasn’t changed much’.
There is a basis for your claim however. It’s when you factor in Department of defense. In 1964 they employed over 1000000 people. Now they employ ~700000. Looks like any peace dividend we once had got eaten up by other departments. I’d say the article had a point about nobody getting fired, just moved side to side.
Even if you use the total including DoD, you still have an increase of about 250K people. Funny how the bulk of that is since Obama.
>Two things I want to see you do ~ hump boonies with a machine gun and attack the Taliban from your chair in front of your TV, and deliver mail in a bad part of Detroit City.
Cute rhetorical ploy you are using here. You use the select few who do decent jobs (though I don’t know that I’d include postmen in the number) as cover for the legions of incompetent or indifferent federal employees.
Nobody in their right mind can argue that somehow the federal government manages to be so perfect in their hiring policies that they NEVER hire incompetent people. As such the negligible firing rate is indicative of a serious problem. No business is so perfect.
>>I’ve been on the streets of downtown Detroit at 2 AM.<<
Unless you had an armed color guard that would be something I would consider to be foolish.
>>letter carriers in bad parts of Detroit <<
Yes, they do bring the welfare check and SSDI checks , don’t they. Wear your uniform and don’t stare at anyone.
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!
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.
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:
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:
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.
Then contractor surfs were brought in to displace their feeble efforts.
Now if you don't have a good contract you are doomed to sitting there staring at a dumb tube that will report any efforts you make to crack the case as a security violation.
The security violation features always work even if nothing else does.
If you want to go back and thrash out what the FDR regime was doing to the federal work force, fine, but that's not what the discussion was about.
Again, your evasiveness suggests some good reasons to not discuss this with you. All you will do is keep changing the base.
But back in 1940 I think we had less than 150 million people. We now have 300+ million people.
The federal bureaucracy has shrunk relative to the population over that period of time.
Anyone can look at the numbers and see the difference.
Now, how do you explain WWII? Should we have avoided that war lest the bureaucracy grow?
>The initial question was about 2000 to present, not 1940 to present.
Umm, who cares? The years of 2000 to the present are covered in my table. It is not overly demanding to only look at data of your choosing.
However my point was to dispute your claim that federal employment has been static since 1964. You made that claim. I found a source which demonstrated that you were playing games with it.
As for evasiveness, I’m not evading anything. We’re discussing federal employment. We’re not discussing me or you. This isn’t some flame site where we exchange insults. We discuss topics provided for in articles via links to external sources. I don’t care who you are or what you may do or have done. None of that makes any difference to me.
I care for whether you make sound arguments based on established verifiable facts. In this regard you fail.
I have made no argument about 1940. I haven’t brought that into the discussion at all. Yet for some reason you choose to bring it up. I’d say there is where we venture into the area of evasion.
But heck, if we want to bring up the total federal employment in civilian agencies (as listed in my provided table)
As you just stated, the population back then was 150000000. Now it is roughly 300000000 (308 million actually according to the census, but rough numbers are OK).
So for a a population which has increased by 100%, we’ve increased in federal staffing by 200%.
You know, you really should leave numbers alone. You simply aren’t good at them. You just shot yourself in the foot.
You were proved wrong. Then you made an ad hominem inquiry. Then you retreated into self-referential weirdness.
You change your ground every minute and insist all replies conform to some bizarre, low insight set of rules the rest of us have to guess at.
Personally I am having NO trouble believing that you work for the public sector:- probably doing some job which could be replaced by an Excel macro.
Your patience on this thread is a credit to FR.
BTW, I was not "proved wrong". Guy never did respond on the felonies.
If you take a look at what I actually did I compared FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT over a long period of time (1964 to present) against PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYMENT over roughly the same period of time.
There's some change in federal employment in that period ~ but the private sector had a whoppingly huge increase of at least 40 million jobs!
The change in federal employment is of less magnitude than the rounding factor for private sector employment.
In short, whatever the federales were doing, they did it without much change in personnel complement ~ which, as I explain later in response to another ridiculous charge, was because the federal government in all sectors and departments became heavily computerized.
So far you haven't proved a thing that you claim you proved. Just wind
Your post at #40 covers 1940 on. My post at #31 starts at 1962.
Your reference DID NOT INCLUDE the Postal Service. That fact is stated AT THE TOP OF THE CHART.
You are not using the same numbers.
My numbers are quite clear. They also clear up your issue about the postal service, since it really is fairly irrelevant to the point I am making (maybe the USPS has become massively more efficient, I can’t say as I don’t have fine grained enough numbers to make a case). As can be seen on my table the decrease in DoD employees was offset by the increase at civilian agencies. That is a simple fact. Unless you think the numbers I’m using, provided by the federal government are a lie, then my point is made. Non defense jobs have expanded over the time between 1964 and 2010 by 59%. That is an indisputable fact (which you don’t see to care for, so you don’t recognize it).
Over that time period the population of the country went up 58%. That’s the relevant number, not private sector employment vs public sector employment. Federal agencies serve the entire population, not just the working population. So it took a 59% increase in civilian workers to manage a 58% increase in population. That sounds like slipping productivity to me. That is, mind you, in the face of computerization.
Now it is interesting that you would bring up the private sector by comparison (though I suppose that is the whole point here after all). Though your numbers appear to be wrong in any case, even there.
There were more than 40 million jobs created between 1964 and 2010. More like 60 million. The increase was a bit over 120%
Now let’s look at GDP growth over that period so we can measure productivity increase.
1964 $3.338 trillion
2010 $13.380 trillion
which is a 300% increase.
Private sector workers increased productivity massively, while federal civilian department workers appear to be flat.
Gee, I wonder how well that correlates to the fact that federal employees don’t get fired for incompetence?