|
America's Cup coming to San Francisco
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:28:46 -0500, Harryk
wrote: On 1/5/11 3:08 PM, wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 07:33:17 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:07:20 -0800, wrote: Cato Institute? Do you know who they are? That is a Libertarian group saying what the government SHOULD DO. That has nothing to do with what they actually do. "Vice-President Gore leads the Administration?'S efforts to reinvent government, making it work better, cost less, and get results that Americans care about. Under his leadership, the size of the federal [civilian] workforce has been reduced by about 350,000 people, and common sense changes have been made in the way government works that have saved the taxpayers $ 137 billion." http://www.scribd.com/doc/3973816/Re...ral-Downsizing That was a great PR stunt but nobody was laid off. There was an incentive for people to take what was essentially a buyout into early retirement. I know a guy who took it. The overall government workforce stayed about the same anyway. Some people believe everything in print. In my tenure at the USDA I saw many people get promoted out. The were promoted to a grade that was higher than their position which required them to get a position in another agency at their new grade. This was the easiest and fastest way to get them to out. Also, incompetence was abundant and all you could do was send people to classes to try and make them un-incompetent. This helped but it rarely resolved the problem. DePlume can believe that AlGore reduced the government rolls by 350,000 but what she isn't saying is that Bill Clinton increased them by 500,000 at the same time. So, you're claiming the U of M was lying... well, ok. Hey...it's an *academic* institution... OIC |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
|
America's Cup coming to San Francisco
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:18:21 -0500, John H
wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:31:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:37 -0500, Harryk wrote: It's hard, but not impossible, to believe you don't see the "non-confrontational" aspects of your union-bashing post. It's not necessarily bashing when the truth is spoken. On the other hand it is certainly off topic, and to a certain extent, inflammatory. Given all that, and in the interest of group harmony, discussions of unions and government employees don't really belong here. We all know how it ends up and there is very little new that hasn't already been said in the past. I'd rather talk about boats and boating - went for a nice little sail yesterday on the Caloosahatchie River. Boat was a 24 ft Sonar class which sails very well with 2 to 6 people aboard but 3 or 4 is close to ideal. Weather was very nice - mid 70s with light to moderate winds. http://www.getawaysailing.com/images2/sonar.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-08.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-09.jpg On the other, other hand, one shouldn't have to fear retribution from Harry for posting a true life experience. I'm surprised you said nothing about this post: "Wow... you're just a downer for everything. I guess creating 8000 jobs and pumping $8B into the economy is the wrong thing. But, of course, San Francisco is Pelosi country, so it must be a terrible idea." ...talk about inflammatory and political!! Talk about supporting more nonsense and bad posting behavior... |
America's Cup coming to San Francisco
On 1/5/11 4:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:18:21 -0500, John wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:31:25 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:37 -0500, wrote: It's hard, but not impossible, to believe you don't see the "non-confrontational" aspects of your union-bashing post. It's not necessarily bashing when the truth is spoken. On the other hand it is certainly off topic, and to a certain extent, inflammatory. Given all that, and in the interest of group harmony, discussions of unions and government employees don't really belong here. We all know how it ends up and there is very little new that hasn't already been said in the past. I'd rather talk about boats and boating - went for a nice little sail yesterday on the Caloosahatchie River. Boat was a 24 ft Sonar class which sails very well with 2 to 6 people aboard but 3 or 4 is close to ideal. Weather was very nice - mid 70s with light to moderate winds. http://www.getawaysailing.com/images2/sonar.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-08.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-09.jpg On the other, other hand, one shouldn't have to fear retribution from Harry for posting a true life experience. I'm surprised you said nothing about this post: "Wow... you're just a downer for everything. I guess creating 8000 jobs and pumping $8B into the economy is the wrong thing. But, of course, San Francisco is Pelosi country, so it must be a terrible idea." ...talk about inflammatory and political!! Talk about supporting more nonsense and bad posting behavior... Some of the boys just can't help themselves! |
America's Cup coming to San Francisco
"John H" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:41:29 -0500, Ziggy® wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:31:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:37 -0500, Harryk wrote: It's hard, but not impossible, to believe you don't see the "non-confrontational" aspects of your union-bashing post. It's not necessarily bashing when the truth is spoken. On the other hand it is certainly off topic, and to a certain extent, inflammatory. Given all that, and in the interest of group harmony, discussions of unions and government employees don't really belong here. We all know how it ends up and there is very little new that hasn't already been said in the past. I'd rather talk about boats and boating - went for a nice little sail yesterday on the Caloosahatchie River. Boat was a 24 ft Sonar class which sails very well with 2 to 6 people aboard but 3 or 4 is close to ideal. Weather was very nice - mid 70s with light to moderate winds. http://www.getawaysailing.com/images2/sonar.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-08.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-09.jpg On the other, other hand, one shouldn't have to fear retribution from Harry for posting a true life experience. I'm surprised you said nothing about this post: "Wow... you're just a downer for everything. I guess creating 8000 jobs and pumping $8B into the economy is the wrong thing. But, of course, San Francisco is Pelosi country, so it must be a terrible idea." ...talk about inflammatory and political!! Krause was banished from Maryland Shooters list for similar shenanigans. http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=26680&page=4 It seems like he acts like an asshole wherever he posts. Wouldn't it be a good idea if we just ignored him? Splitter's a pretty bright guy. Seems so. What ever possessed Krause to antagonize a bunch of gun enthusiasts; in his own neighborhood yet. -- Ziggy® |
America's Cup coming to San Francisco
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 16:24:12 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:18:21 -0500, John H wrote: On the other, other hand, one shouldn't have to fear retribution from Harry for posting a true life experience. I'm surprised you said nothing about this post: "Wow... you're just a downer for everything. I guess creating 8000 jobs and pumping $8B into the economy is the wrong thing. But, of course, San Francisco is Pelosi country, so it must be a terrible idea." ...talk about inflammatory and political!! There's an important difference: It's called maturity, good judgement, and emotional stability. Please don't prove me wrong. There you go criticizing my age, my inability to escape the draft, and my CRS syndrome. Just can't win with you. |
America's Cup coming to San Francisco
On 1/5/11 6:04 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... "John wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:31:25 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:37 -0500, wrote: It's hard, but not impossible, to believe you don't see the "non-confrontational" aspects of your union-bashing post. It's not necessarily bashing when the truth is spoken. On the other hand it is certainly off topic, and to a certain extent, inflammatory. Given all that, and in the interest of group harmony, discussions of unions and government employees don't really belong here. We all know how it ends up and there is very little new that hasn't already been said in the past. I'd rather talk about boats and boating - went for a nice little sail yesterday on the Caloosahatchie River. Boat was a 24 ft Sonar class which sails very well with 2 to 6 people aboard but 3 or 4 is close to ideal. Weather was very nice - mid 70s with light to moderate winds. http://www.getawaysailing.com/images2/sonar.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-08.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-09.jpg On the other, other hand, one shouldn't have to fear retribution from Harry for posting a true life experience. I'm surprised you said nothing about this post: "Wow... you're just a downer for everything. I guess creating 8000 jobs and pumping $8B into the economy is the wrong thing. But, of course, San Francisco is Pelosi country, so it must be a terrible idea." ...talk about inflammatory and political!! Krause was banished from Maryland Shooters list for similar shenanigans. http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=26680&page=4 It seems like he acts like an asshole wherever he posts. Wouldn't it be a good idea if we just ignored him? ROTFLMAO! He really does play the same cards at several sites at at time...;) Quote from moderator after the binning...:) We ban people for being assholes and/or asshats, not for being "questioning moderates". End of Quote... and that was a frekin' moderator!snerk Yes, this Hakr fellow tried to pass himself off as a "questioning moderate" over there and of course it lasted about three minutes.. Nobody believed him, and he got binned.. Wonder if he set some kind of record yet;)? snerk I've never been tossed down the stairs at a police station, though. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On 1/5/11 5:02 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/5/11 2:07 PM, I am Tosk wrote: Your post is irrelevant to the conversation. He never said he "wanted" anything at all, he was arguing with you a definition, period. Your tactics are strangely familiar... Doing a bit of instigating on the side? Nope, I was addressing Plums disingenuous assertion/instigation... That's all... Uh-huh. |
America's Cup coming to San Francisco
Ziggy® wrote:
"John wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:31:25 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:37 -0500, wrote: It's hard, but not impossible, to believe you don't see the "non-confrontational" aspects of your union-bashing post. It's not necessarily bashing when the truth is spoken. On the other hand it is certainly off topic, and to a certain extent, inflammatory. Given all that, and in the interest of group harmony, discussions of unions and government employees don't really belong here. We all know how it ends up and there is very little new that hasn't already been said in the past. I'd rather talk about boats and boating - went for a nice little sail yesterday on the Caloosahatchie River. Boat was a 24 ft Sonar class which sails very well with 2 to 6 people aboard but 3 or 4 is close to ideal. Weather was very nice - mid 70s with light to moderate winds. http://www.getawaysailing.com/images2/sonar.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-08.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-09.jpg On the other, other hand, one shouldn't have to fear retribution from Harry for posting a true life experience. I'm surprised you said nothing about this post: "Wow... you're just a downer for everything. I guess creating 8000 jobs and pumping $8B into the economy is the wrong thing. But, of course, San Francisco is Pelosi country, so it must be a terrible idea." ...talk about inflammatory and political!! Krause was banished from Maryland Shooters list for similar shenanigans. http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=26680&page=4 It seems like he acts like an asshole wherever he posts. Wouldn't it be a good idea if we just ignored him? I'm not surprised. |
America's Cup coming to San Francisco
BAR wrote:
In , says... "John wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:31:25 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:37 -0500, wrote: It's hard, but not impossible, to believe you don't see the "non-confrontational" aspects of your union-bashing post. It's not necessarily bashing when the truth is spoken. On the other hand it is certainly off topic, and to a certain extent, inflammatory. Given all that, and in the interest of group harmony, discussions of unions and government employees don't really belong here. We all know how it ends up and there is very little new that hasn't already been said in the past. I'd rather talk about boats and boating - went for a nice little sail yesterday on the Caloosahatchie River. Boat was a 24 ft Sonar class which sails very well with 2 to 6 people aboard but 3 or 4 is close to ideal. Weather was very nice - mid 70s with light to moderate winds. http://www.getawaysailing.com/images2/sonar.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-08.jpg http://www.nyss.com/NYSS/Jpeg/nyss-09.jpg On the other, other hand, one shouldn't have to fear retribution from Harry for posting a true life experience. I'm surprised you said nothing about this post: "Wow... you're just a downer for everything. I guess creating 8000 jobs and pumping $8B into the economy is the wrong thing. But, of course, San Francisco is Pelosi country, so it must be a terrible idea." ...talk about inflammatory and political!! Krause was banished from Maryland Shooters list for similar shenanigans. http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=26680&page=4 It seems like he acts like an asshole wherever he posts. Wouldn't it be a good idea if we just ignored him? Harry ingratiates himself with the locals everywhere he goes. It's a wonder he has ended up in a dumpster with a messed up shoe. At least the Clinton administration had the decency to kill Vince Foster in a park. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:08:07 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:52:01 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:07:06 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:32:20 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:52:08 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:07:20 -0800, wrote: Cato Institute? Do you know who they are? That is a Libertarian group saying what the government SHOULD DO. That has nothing to do with what they actually do. "Vice-President Gore leads the Administration’'S efforts to reinvent government, making it work better, cost less, and get results that Americans care about. Under his leadership, the size of the federal [civilian] workforce has been reduced by about 350,000 people, and common sense changes have been made in the way government works that have saved the taxpayers $ 137 billion." http://www.scribd.com/doc/3973816/Re...ral-Downsizing That was a great PR stunt but nobody was laid off. There was an incentive for people to take what was essentially a buyout into early retirement. I know a guy who took it. The overall government workforce stayed about the same anyway. So, you're claiming that U of Missouri was lying??? But, you believe everything the Heritage Foundation says... No, you are claiming these people were fired ... remember what this was about? I am saying they simply allowed people to retire without replacing all of them. This was not a layoff and they moved others around to fill the slots. There is a CBO report on H.R.3218 that lays out one of these programs and explains all of this. Later in your article you notice they ended up promoting people from lower grades to higher grades and the payroll actually went up. It also shifted a lot of the burden from the payroll to the unfunded pension system, something that corporate America was doing You said that the federal worker is basically immune from downsizing. This is not correct. Seems to me you want it both ways. You want "permanent" jobs, but then complain when people have that. I said a federal worker is virtually impossible to fire and will not get laid off. You have only reinforced that statement. The article you posted said the people who left were rolled into the retirement system, either because they were of age or because they got an incentive. I know a guy who took the incentive (basically full retirement at an earlier age). The only decline in headcount was in not hiring new people to replace them That was a temporary situation. Yeah... really hard.... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On 1/6/11 3:48 PM, wrote:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Wow...all the excitement of attending a teabagger rally without actually having to be anywhere near those sorts of folks! :) |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On 1/6/11 5:32 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 1/6/11 3:48 PM, wrote: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Wow...all the excitement of attending a teabagger rally without actually having to be anywhere near those sorts of folks! :) Nice use of pejorative, it clearly shows why you get banned from every moderated group you infect... Sorry, Scotty, but I'm no longer playing your game. Have a nice life. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On 1/6/11 5:56 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In article55ydnT7L8Mi72bvQnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 5:32 PM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... On 1/6/11 3:48 PM, wrote: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Wow...all the excitement of attending a teabagger rally without actually having to be anywhere near those sorts of folks! :) Nice use of pejorative, it clearly shows why you get banned from every moderated group you infect... Sorry, Scotty, but I'm no longer playing your game. Have a nice life. You never really did... although I do think you might have given it a bit of a shot last month... Last month...oh, I remember...that's when you were actively urging more ID spoofing here, and otherwise behaving like a flaming asshole. I'm sure you'll find some playmates here...perhaps you might want to hang with Ziggy, the ID Spoofer, the Loogy, the LG, the Bert, the Herring, et cetera. They're really more your type than mine, since I have little use for rightwingers and morons. Sorry, I'm not interested in your ill-informed opinions on the world, on politics, on music, on child-rearing, or any of the other nonsense that vent here, except as a source of giggles. Have a nice life. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:48:07 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:55:11 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:08:07 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:52:01 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:07:06 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:32:20 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:52:08 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:07:20 -0800, wrote: Cato Institute? Do you know who they are? That is a Libertarian group saying what the government SHOULD DO. That has nothing to do with what they actually do. "Vice-President Gore leads the Administration’'S efforts to reinvent government, making it work better, cost less, and get results that Americans care about. Under his leadership, the size of the federal [civilian] workforce has been reduced by about 350,000 people, and common sense changes have been made in the way government works that have saved the taxpayers $ 137 billion." http://www.scribd.com/doc/3973816/Re...ral-Downsizing That was a great PR stunt but nobody was laid off. There was an incentive for people to take what was essentially a buyout into early retirement. I know a guy who took it. The overall government workforce stayed about the same anyway. So, you're claiming that U of Missouri was lying??? But, you believe everything the Heritage Foundation says... No, you are claiming these people were fired ... remember what this was about? I am saying they simply allowed people to retire without replacing all of them. This was not a layoff and they moved others around to fill the slots. There is a CBO report on H.R.3218 that lays out one of these programs and explains all of this. Later in your article you notice they ended up promoting people from lower grades to higher grades and the payroll actually went up. It also shifted a lot of the burden from the payroll to the unfunded pension system, something that corporate America was doing You said that the federal worker is basically immune from downsizing. This is not correct. Seems to me you want it both ways. You want "permanent" jobs, but then complain when people have that. I said a federal worker is virtually impossible to fire and will not get laid off. You have only reinforced that statement. The article you posted said the people who left were rolled into the retirement system, either because they were of age or because they got an incentive. I know a guy who took the incentive (basically full retirement at an earlier age). The only decline in headcount was in not hiring new people to replace them That was a temporary situation. Yeah... really hard.... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Well, I'm not sure what to say. You claim that the UofM is either wrong or lying, and you don't believe that Fed. workers were in jeopardy, even though that would have been the case had Bunning not relented. I'm not sure what you believe at this point. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
|
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:19:19 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:38:07 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:48:07 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:55:11 -0800, wrote: Yeah... really hard.... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Well, I'm not sure what to say. You claim that the UofM is either wrong or lying, and you don't believe that Fed. workers were in jeopardy, even though that would have been the case had Bunning not relented. I'm not sure what you believe at this point. I know how these appropriations fights are fought. They "shut down" some function of government, there is a lot of saber rattling and the citizens see locked doors but the AFGE agreement doesn't change, nobody gets fired and when they finally hammer out the deal they want on the hill everyone gets their back pay ... if the paychecks ever stopped. They usually just keep coming right on schedule. You say there are layoffs where civil service workers actually lost their job and you still haven't showed us any.You have shown early retirements and paid days off but no layoffs. You also have to understand how the 171 process works. If your government position is eliminated you get the highest priority to be hired by any other agency. Basically they have a hard time hiring anyone until all current employees are in new positions so they find you a job (just like any other union). Again this virtually always happens before you miss a paycheck. In fact in all of the 70s relocations, I don't know a single person who lost a dime. It is more likely that you get a promotion but you can always find something. Like this one? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101220/..._until_january |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Jan 7, 1:12*am, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:38:50 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:19:19 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:38:07 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:48:07 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:55:11 -0800, wrote: Yeah... really hard.... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...-of-federal-wo... I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Well, I'm not sure what to say. You claim that the UofM is either wrong or lying, and you don't believe that Fed. workers were in jeopardy, even though that would have been the case had Bunning not relented. I'm not sure what you believe at this point. I know how these appropriations fights are fought. They "shut down" some function of government, there is a lot of saber rattling and the citizens see locked doors but the AFGE agreement doesn't change, nobody gets fired and when they finally hammer out the deal they want on the hill everyone gets their back pay ... if the paychecks ever stopped. They usually just keep coming right on schedule. You say there are layoffs where civil service workers actually lost their job and you still haven't showed us any.You have shown early retirements and paid days off but no layoffs. You also have to understand how the 171 process works. If your government position is eliminated you get the highest priority to be hired by any other agency. Basically they have a hard time hiring anyone until all current employees are in new positions so they find you a job (just like any other union). Again this virtually always happens before you miss a paycheck. In fact in all of the 70s relocations, I don't know a single person who lost a dime. It is more likely that you get a promotion but you can always find something. Like this one? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101220/...nment_shutdown... Yes exactly like that one. EVERY ONE OF THOSE EMPLOYEES GOT BACK PAY in spite of a lot of them not working. On these "shutdowns", part of the deal that finally gets hammered down on the hill is that the AFGE members get their back pay whether they actually came to work or not. Most stay home. That is part of the "Close the Washington Monument" blackmail that shutting down the government imposes on the citizens. They usually target the most visible agencies and then the news media hypes it up. They bury the story that these people actually get their money on the back of the social page, if it gets covered at all, Did you read the story? "In all, 28 days saw a partial government shutdown. The second lapse was the longest in history at 22 days. The effects and consequences were temporary even though millions of people were effected." "The effect was TEMPORARY" They got paid. Again you still have not talked about anyone LOSING their job in a layoff. That is because the ignorant twit has nothing to accomplish in her miserable existance but to argue. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On 1/6/2011 6:07 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 1/6/11 5:56 PM, I am Tosk wrote: In article55ydnT7L8Mi72bvQnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 5:32 PM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... On 1/6/11 3:48 PM, wrote: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Wow...all the excitement of attending a teabagger rally without actually having to be anywhere near those sorts of folks! :) Nice use of pejorative, it clearly shows why you get banned from every moderated group you infect... Sorry, Scotty, but I'm no longer playing your game. Have a nice life. You never really did... although I do think you might have given it a bit of a shot last month... Last month...oh, I remember...that's when you were actively urging more ID spoofing here, and otherwise behaving like a flaming asshole. I'm sure you'll find some playmates here...perhaps you might want to hang with Ziggy, the ID Spoofer, the Loogy, the LG, the Bert, the Herring, et cetera. They're really more your type than mine, since I have little use for rightwingers and morons. Sorry, I'm not interested in your ill-informed opinions on the world, on politics, on music, on child-rearing, or any of the other nonsense that vent here, except as a source of giggles. Have a nice life. Like I said, you're obsessed with him, like a bully. Every time you say you're done with him, you're back to take another swing. So much for the status you believe you attained in life. The past 15+ years you've been here picking fights with people. Pretty *ucking sad. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
In article ,
says... In article , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 5:32 PM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... On 1/6/11 3:48 PM, wrote: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Wow...all the excitement of attending a teabagger rally without actually having to be anywhere near those sorts of folks! :) Nice use of pejorative, it clearly shows why you get banned from every moderated group you infect... Sorry, Scotty, but I'm no longer playing your game. Have a nice life. You never really did... although I do think you might have given it a bit of a shot last month... That's our Harry. Caught in a lie or something? Deflect! |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 02:12:44 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:38:50 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:19:19 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:38:07 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:48:07 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:55:11 -0800, wrote: Yeah... really hard.... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Well, I'm not sure what to say. You claim that the UofM is either wrong or lying, and you don't believe that Fed. workers were in jeopardy, even though that would have been the case had Bunning not relented. I'm not sure what you believe at this point. I know how these appropriations fights are fought. They "shut down" some function of government, there is a lot of saber rattling and the citizens see locked doors but the AFGE agreement doesn't change, nobody gets fired and when they finally hammer out the deal they want on the hill everyone gets their back pay ... if the paychecks ever stopped. They usually just keep coming right on schedule. You say there are layoffs where civil service workers actually lost their job and you still haven't showed us any.You have shown early retirements and paid days off but no layoffs. You also have to understand how the 171 process works. If your government position is eliminated you get the highest priority to be hired by any other agency. Basically they have a hard time hiring anyone until all current employees are in new positions so they find you a job (just like any other union). Again this virtually always happens before you miss a paycheck. In fact in all of the 70s relocations, I don't know a single person who lost a dime. It is more likely that you get a promotion but you can always find something. Like this one? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101220/..._until_january Yes exactly like that one. EVERY ONE OF THOSE EMPLOYEES GOT BACK PAY in spite of a lot of them not working. On these "shutdowns", part of the deal that finally gets hammered down on the hill is that the AFGE members get their back pay whether they actually came to work or not. Most stay home. That is part of the "Close the Washington Monument" blackmail that shutting down the government imposes on the citizens. They usually target the most visible agencies and then the news media hypes it up. They bury the story that these people actually get their money on the back of the social page, if it gets covered at all, Yes, they got paid retroactively. Millions were effected. Guess what'll happen if the debt ceiling isn't increased. Do you think Fed employees are going to get paid for that retroactively? Did you read the story? "In all, 28 days saw a partial government shutdown. The second lapse was the longest in history at 22 days. The effects and consequences were temporary even though millions of people were effected." "The effect was TEMPORARY" They got paid. Again you still have not talked about anyone LOSING their job in a layoff. I guess when the OPM creates a publication to address it, it must not have happened. http://www.opm.gov/pressrel/1995/PR950407.htm http://www.opm.gov/rif/general/rifguide.asp I guess when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers they got their jobs/money back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profess...zation_ (1968) I guess this author is just making things up... http://finance.dir.groups.yahoo.com/...&sec=dir&slk=9 Never happens at the EPA... http://www.epa.gov/boston/jobs/displace.html Certainly not at NASA... http://www.afeu.org/blog/?p=57 And on and on... Next time do your own Google search! |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:49:38 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:37:00 -0800, wrote: Yes exactly like that one. EVERY ONE OF THOSE EMPLOYEES GOT BACK PAY in spite of a lot of them not working. On these "shutdowns", part of the deal that finally gets hammered down on the hill is that the AFGE members get their back pay whether they actually came to work or not. Most stay home. That is part of the "Close the Washington Monument" blackmail that shutting down the government imposes on the citizens. They usually target the most visible agencies and then the news media hypes it up. They bury the story that these people actually get their money on the back of the social page, if it gets covered at all, Yes, they got paid retroactively. Millions were effected. Guess what'll happen if the debt ceiling isn't increased. Do you think Fed employees are going to get paid for that retroactively? I can't speak for every shutdown but usually the checks or EFTs never stop. It is harder to stop them than to let them keep coming. Everyone knows they will get paid eventually anyway. Did you read the story? "In all, 28 days saw a partial government shutdown. The second lapse was the longest in history at 22 days. The effects and consequences were temporary even though millions of people were effected." "The effect was TEMPORARY" They got paid. Again you still have not talked about anyone LOSING their job in a layoff. I guess when the OPM creates a publication to address it, it must not have happened. http://www.opm.gov/pressrel/1995/PR950407.htm Did you read it? It is all about how other agencies will absorb the RIFed workers, exactly as I have been saying. http://www.opm.gov/rif/general/rifguide.asp Another article defining how you reassign RIFed employees I guess when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers they got their jobs/money back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profess...zation_ (1968) I guess this author is just making things up... http://finance.dir.groups.yahoo.com/...&sec=dir&slk=9 The PATA employees violated their contract and DID NOT SHOW UP. (remember that was one of the rare instances where I said you could get fired). This should have caused them all to be fired immediately. Most ended up getting their job back anyway. Never happens at the EPA... http://www.epa.gov/boston/jobs/displace.html Certainly not at NASA... http://www.afeu.org/blog/?p=57 And on and on... Next time do your own Google search! You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Jan 7, 8:17*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...p/05/mcain-fed... http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. having difficulty staying focused ,D'Plume? Between your dulled comprehension skills and your constant thirst for confrontation, it's evident you can't handle having your ass handed to you by the likes of Mr. Fretwell, especially on such a consistent basis. After all, in your ever presence of trying to save face, you have changed the subject in your conversation at least six times. Please try to improve D'Plume. presently, you are less then humourous. "Sorry if you can't handle it." Indeed. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss. That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 Losing their security clearance http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm Stealing and disclosing confidential information. You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest of the work force and lowers overall productivity. Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss. That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 Losing their security clearance http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm Stealing and disclosing confidential information. You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest of the work force and lowers overall productivity. Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On 1/8/11 4:04 PM, YukonBound wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss. That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 Losing their security clearance http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm Stealing and disclosing confidential information. You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest of the work force and lowers overall productivity. Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers. That must be some list. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
Harryk wrote:
On 1/6/11 5:56 PM, I am Tosk wrote: In article55ydnT7L8Mi72bvQnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 1/6/11 5:32 PM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... On 1/6/11 3:48 PM, wrote: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html I guarantee you they will get every dime of their pay, even though they stayed home. This is just another "shut down the government" thing like the mid 90s. Nobody lost a dime then either. I suspect people in LA don't understand that. Wow...all the excitement of attending a teabagger rally without actually having to be anywhere near those sorts of folks! :) Nice use of pejorative, it clearly shows why you get banned from every moderated group you infect... Sorry, Scotty, but I'm no longer playing your game. Have a nice life. You never really did... although I do think you might have given it a bit of a shot last month... Last month...oh, I remember...that's when you were actively urging more ID spoofing here, and otherwise behaving like a flaming asshole. I'm sure you'll find some playmates here...perhaps you might want to hang with Ziggy, the ID Spoofer, the Loogy, the LG, the Bert, the Herring, et cetera. They're really more your type than mine, since I have little use for rightwingers and morons. Sorry, I'm not interested in your ill-informed opinions on the world, on politics, on music, on child-rearing, or any of the other nonsense that vent here, except as a source of giggles. Have a nice life. You should have taken advice on child-rearing. We know how that turned out for you. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
YukonBound wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss. That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 Losing their security clearance http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm Stealing and disclosing confidential information. You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest of the work force and lowers overall productivity. Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers. And you know that how? |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
Harryk wrote:
On 1/8/11 4:04 PM, YukonBound wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss. That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 Losing their security clearance http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm Stealing and disclosing confidential information. You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest of the work force and lowers overall productivity. Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers. That must be some list. Must be. WAFA... |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
In article ,
says... wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss. That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 Losing their security clearance http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm Stealing and disclosing confidential information. You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest of the work force and lowers overall productivity. Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers. Another post from you with nothing in it but stupidity. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:30:06 -0500, Spoofer wrote:
In article , says... wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss. That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 Losing their security clearance http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm Stealing and disclosing confidential information. You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest of the work force and lowers overall productivity. Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers. Another post from you with nothing in it but stupidity. I suppose he meant to say 'Scotty's' and will probably say that 'Scotties' was just a 'typo'. Right. He's filterable, BTW. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:30:06 -0500, Spoofer wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss. That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 Losing their security clearance http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm Stealing and disclosing confidential information. You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest of the work force and lowers overall productivity. Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers. Another post from you with nothing in it but stupidity. I suppose he meant to say 'Scotty's' and will probably say that 'Scotties' was just a 'typo'. Right. He's filterable, BTW. Hey... did you read that thread where the poster claimed the only people interested in his sporty Chrysler/Dodge were 13 year old boys. Same true for a yellow Mustang? |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
In article ,
says... On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:22:26 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:23:40 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:27:35 -0800, wrote: Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. It is very easy to get rid of poor performers in private industry. In fact most were eliminated along with more than a few good performers in the 90s, never to return. Sometimes, but not always. I know, even though the economy is improving and job growth has been pretty good, the sky is falling and the end is near. Are you really trying to say private industry will not fire a person who is not making them money? (particularly in right to work states) I worked in a division of a company that was making a profit. We were still shutdown due to the fact that the company figured it could make more profit with the money they spent on us in another part of the business. Not all profit is equal. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:52:37 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:22:26 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:23:40 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:27:35 -0800, wrote: Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. It is very easy to get rid of poor performers in private industry. In fact most were eliminated along with more than a few good performers in the 90s, never to return. Sometimes, but not always. I know, even though the economy is improving and job growth has been pretty good, the sky is falling and the end is near. Are you really trying to say private industry will not fire a person who is not making them money? (particularly in right to work states) No. I said that it's not always easy to get rid of such an employee in the private sector. Great example... some of the CEOs of late. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 22:21:59 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:59:59 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:52:37 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:22:26 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:23:40 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:27:35 -0800, wrote: Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. It is very easy to get rid of poor performers in private industry. In fact most were eliminated along with more than a few good performers in the 90s, never to return. Sometimes, but not always. I know, even though the economy is improving and job growth has been pretty good, the sky is falling and the end is near. Are you really trying to say private industry will not fire a person who is not making them money? (particularly in right to work states) No. I said that it's not always easy to get rid of such an employee in the private sector. Great example... some of the CEOs of late. And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done. I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it up. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:08:38 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:41:08 -0800, wrote: And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done. I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it up. You have moved from how easy it was to fire a civil service worker to how hard it is supposed to be to fire a private industry worker (there are about 15 million of them who would disagree) and ended up at how hard it is to get rid of a CEO. CEOs aren't even that hard to get rid of. Most don't last 5 years, particularly if they can't keep up the stock price. They just get a better buyout than the rest of us. I never said it was easy. Heck, it's not easy to fire a corporate worker. Even corp. layoffs can invoke a lawsuit if it's not handled properly. So, if CEOs aren't hard to get rid of, how come it takes forever, and they end up running the company into the ground even though it's obvious that they did that. They still get their bonuses, no problem. Then, maybe they take their parachute and go sailing.... um... like BP's guy??? |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:01:38 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:59:00 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:08:38 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:41:08 -0800, wrote: And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done. I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it up. You have moved from how easy it was to fire a civil service worker to how hard it is supposed to be to fire a private industry worker (there are about 15 million of them who would disagree) and ended up at how hard it is to get rid of a CEO. CEOs aren't even that hard to get rid of. Most don't last 5 years, particularly if they can't keep up the stock price. They just get a better buyout than the rest of us. I never said it was easy. Heck, it's not easy to fire a corporate worker. Even corp. layoffs can invoke a lawsuit if it's not handled properly. It is clear you have never worked in a right to work state. All they need to do is say they don't need you anymore and tell you to stop coming in. The worst case is they have to pay your unemployment if they can't make a "with cause" case. (basically 3 strikes will do it) I've only worked in Cali. It's only ranked #1 in population, so it must be an exception. It's at-will employment, and firing someone without cause can get you in trouble. All you really need to do is write someone up twice and you can fire them "with cause" on the 3d infraction. (take your stuff and go) There are a number of infractions that are considered a condition of employment and you can fire you on strike one. Even IBM in the northern states could let you go with 2 weeks notice and pay your severance. That could be as small as 2 weeks pay up to 6 months (one week for every year you worked there up to 26) Even that was just a handshake deal. It was not a contract ... as a lot of people found out in the 90s. If they rolled you into early retirement, you didn't get anything not even unemployment. You better be ready to live on about 40% of your salary. When my wife got laid off she got the "good" severance package (about 3 months base pay) and no notice. Basically she got called into the office "Turn in your phone, Palm Pilot, ID card and go home now". Six months later the people who got laid off got the same treatment and 2 weeks pay. If you are a trade, they just say, "we don't need you tomorrow". So, if CEOs aren't hard to get rid of, how come it takes forever, and they end up running the company into the ground even though it's obvious that they did that. They still get their bonuses, no problem. Then, maybe they take their parachute and go sailing.... um... like BP's guy??? Exactly like Hayward. What did it take? 2-3 weeks? You think he doesn't work for BP? Think again.. http://www.usatoday.com/money/topsto...63110359_x.htm When they decide to dump a CEO the board can have security carry their stuff out in a box but the terms of their contract will probably cost the company millions. We are not talking about CEOs tho. The government equivalent of that is an appointed position, not Civil Service and those guys serve at the pleasure of the president. One bad joke can send them packing off to the private sector where they triple their salary. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
In article ,
says... On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:41:08 -0800, wrote: And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done. I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it up. You have moved from how easy it was to fire a civil service worker to how hard it is supposed to be to fire a private industry worker (there are about 15 million of them who would disagree) and ended up at how hard it is to get rid of a CEO. CEOs aren't even that hard to get rid of. Most don't last 5 years, particularly if they can't keep up the stock price. They just get a better buyout than the rest of us. dePlume is an idiot. She doesn't understand the concept of at will employment. For someone who is supposed lawyer she doesn't understand the basic concepts of contracts or contract law. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com