Honey, I Shrank the Federal Workforce

“I tell my people, ‘Where you don’t need to fill slots, don’t fill them,’ ” Trump told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham in November.

The Washington Post analyzes federal personnel data and finds that President Trump is delivering on a promise near and dear to those who believe government is too big:

Nearly a year into his takeover of Washington, President Trump has made a significant down payment on his campaign pledge to shrink the federal bureaucracy, a shift long sought by conservatives that could eventually bring the workforce down to levels not seen in decades.

By the end of September, all Cabinet departments except Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and Interior had fewer permanent staff than when Trump took office in January — with most shedding many hundreds of employees, according to an analysis of federal personnel data by The Washington Post.

The diminishing federal footprint comes after Trump promised in last year’s campaign to “cut so much your head will spin,” and it reverses a boost in hiring under President Barack Obama. The falloff has been driven by an exodus of civil servants, a diminished corps of political appointees and an effective hiring freeze.

Even though Congress did not pass a new budget in his first year, the drastic spending cuts Trump laid out in the spring — which would slash more than 30 percent of funding at some agencies — also has triggered a spending slowdown, according to officials at multiple departments.

The Obama administration added 188,000 permanent federal employees to the rolls, according to Office of Personnel Management stats cited in the story. The decline in the number of federal employees is comparatively small but, if it continues, it will signal a welcome decrease in the size of government.

There has also been a substantial falling off in staffing at a number of federal agencies, which doesn't show up in OPM data. Some of the decline seems to stem from the polarizing effects of the Trump presidency, which has led to voluntary departures by federal workers. The story reports that during the first six months of the Trump administration, 71,285 career employees retired or otherwise left government--up from around 50,000 during the same period in 2009.

“Morale has never been lower,” said Tony Reardon, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 150,000 federal workers at more than 30 agencies. “Government is making itself a lot less attractive as an employer.”

For those inside the bureaucracy, a new Trump-era focus on accountability has meant working under greater oversight — and in some cases, fear of reprisals.

Agencies have told employees that they should no longer count on getting glowing reviews in their performance appraisals, according to staff in multiple offices, as has been the case for years.

Housing and Urban Development managers, for example, are being evaluated for the first time on how effectively they address poor performers, according to Ashaki Robinson Johns, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 476, which represents HUD employees.

The truth is that government workers have traditionally been insulated from some of the realities that private sector workers routinely face. It is almost impossible, for example, to fire a federal worker who underperforms or presents disciplinary problems. If government employment is now coming more in line with private sector work rules, that is a good thing.

The Post of course presents the decline in federal employment in some agencies as "crippling" and even proposes it will be harmful to some of President Trump's agenda--including beefing up the military and tax reform (if our tax system becomes simpler and clearer, a leaner IRS should be able to handle it, right?).

Most deliciously, one former "high profile" federal worker is quoted saying that he left because the new administration was trying to use private sector solutions in government! (He also retired from government, he said, because of President Trump's dust-up with former FBI director James Comey--the former federal employee could not give his loyalty to Trump. But the federal bureaucracy is supposed to work for whomever is elected, not carve out empires oflike-minded individuals in a byzantine and bloated bureaucratic structure. I'd say that early retirement was an honest, and quite revealing, solution for this particular former federal bureaucrat, who now toils in the private sector, where we taxpayers are not forced to pick up the tab for his salary.)

I'm glad to get a lot of these folks off our payroll, but I want to close with what the always-astute Ed Morrissey says about reducing the federal workforce--he gets to the heart of the matter:

Reducing the federal bureaucracy is an excellent overall goal, but to do that intelligently, one has to reduce the mandates those bureaucrats serve. It’s not enough to merely starve the beast because someone will come along soon enough to feed it again. That requires strong personnel in all policy-making arenas who are committed to ending empire-building within the federal government in order to end the programs that intrude on personal liberty and generate inefficiencies and corruption.

There are at least 18 levels of GS employees.
The sole reason for most of the middle levels is to supervise those under them. The theory is that one person can only supervise 6 to 8 people at the most.

So if the ranks are thinned, then fewer mid-level supervisors are needed. The ranks should be further thinned.
* * * * *
The limit of supervision to 6 or 8 people is pre-technology. Given computerized reporting systems and admin systems, it the number of people a supervisor can handle is now much larger. Flatten the org charts. Have each supervisor over twice or tree times as many as before.
* * * * *
Cut the beltway jobs far more than the regional jobs. As beltway jobs are cut, shift the remaining work tot he regional offices. Cut the beltway below a critical mass level.

Every little bit helps.

What is the average total Compensation cost for each Federal Employee, $150,000 a Year?

For each 10 gone, $1.5 Million bucks a year saved. Well, if they Retired we’re still on the hook. LOL

“.... There are at least 18 levels of GS employees ....”

That hasn’t been true since about 1975. In the Carter era, they created the Senior Executive Service and removed GS 16 - 18 from the GS schedule. The theory to do so, was to create a corps of cracker jack management whiz kids armed with all the modern management techniques. This corps could be moved from agency-to-agency where they could apply their management acumen to solve problems. Has it worked? Do pigs finally fly?

All it has done is create a “mandarin class” with its own internal culture removed from their local agency workforce cuture. It’s evolved to where its primarily concerned with its own aggrandizement and well-being. Government protocol-wise they’re flag ranks.

“Reducing the federal bureaucracy is an excellent overall goal, but to do that intelligently, one has to reduce the mandates those bureaucrats serve.”

In my experience this is very true -— in the longer term. However, you can generally reduce something on the order of 5-10% and never miss a beat. Then you start examining what the organization is supposed to be doing and establishing staffing levels accordingly.

"Now, let’s get 100% of the Education Department employees(?) to quit..." LOL! That would be a great start!

Fed unions have screwed us over.

One of the few things I sorta agree with FDR.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

Reading over this, this just hit me between the eyes. If all president today talked like this most American's would go HUH! We have so gone backwards. Thanks DoE!

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.