On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:41:55 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:34:51 -0800, wrote:



A federal Civil Service worker is about as hard to get rid of as a
tenured professor. There has not been a real RIF (layoff) since the
50s. There have been some reorganizations that eliminated jobs but the
workers simply moved across the street, or in some cases just stayed
where they were and GSA changed the sign on the building. (The Carter
administration was probably the best example of that). A GSA guy I
knew said they were thinking about using thumb screws to mount the
signs because they changed so often.

Completely untrue.

How do you know what a GSA guy told me. I bet you didn't even know
what GSA was without looking it up.
If you are saying it is easy to fire a federal worker you are just
ignorant of the US Civil Service.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/


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



It is possible to fire a government worker for stealing or not showing
up but if they are there every day, you can't fire them for
incompetence or goofing off..They just get shuffled off to another
agency if anything happens at all. Usually they just get put back in a
corner and ignored.

Completely untrue.

Again, how the hell do you know about this? How many years have you
worked in federal offices and how many federal worker bees do you
know? I was in DC for 38 years and about half of the people I have
known all my life were federal workers or the kids of federal workers.
It is what they do in that city. I also spent 15 years working in
federal offices, most of the time down where the GS 5-11s work. I am
not going to say the slugs get promoted but they can just sit in a GS
5 or 7 job for years, taking their in grade step raises and do fine.

http://www.redstate.com/nikitas3/201...rs-fired-good/

A good start but I said US Civil Service, not the states.

See previous.


The states are going to be getting rid of lots of people because they
are broke but I do not see much happening beyond normal attrition in
the federal government. The only way they have actually trimmed the
size since the 50s was not hiring people to replace ones who retired
and even doing that is very rare. I am not sure the USCS has actually
reduced headcount since the Eisenhower administration.

Now you are.

Obama has increased the size of the federal workforce by 10% in 2
years.

And the problem with this is.....?

Average annual salary of all full-time employees was $79,179 in 2008.

http://federaljobs.net/overview.htm

Sorry, but I don't need a job.


http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-civil-service


Uh huh.. the heritage foundation. Sure. We should believe them....

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...

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.

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?

On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:18:25 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

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?

I mostly ignore him. I means what's the point...

On 1/5/11 4:26 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:18:25 -0500,
wrote:

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?

I mostly ignore him. I means what's the point...


Likewise, these days.

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.

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

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! :)

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.