Federal employees in Romney Plan

[Guest]

I was just reading on Mitt Romney's plan to be President about some of the things he proposes to do.

One was to cut the size of Federal government employees by hiring one for every 2 that leave. Another was to reduce the salary of the Federal employee so it would "match" with the same employee in private sector. This could be up to 40% according to the plan. The idea of this is to streamline the government workforce and to get bright new talent into the workforce. I do not see bright new talent going into a system where the pay has just been cut and you are told you have to do a lot more work with less reward. The talent will go to the big money jobs in private sector.

I would like to know how the Republicans think they would have a single Federal employee vote if the employees read this information? It is saying that the Federal employee will have to do more work with less salary and the retirement benefit will be lowered as well.

I would think that the vital services such as processing veterans claims, health care, Social Security payments, and Medicare payments and processing would take longer and longer to do do with a smaller staff of probably unhappy employees doing more and more work as their salaries got cut. How would the Repubicans take care of that problem?

[Guest]

I agree. I worked as a government employee all my career in different locations. In some locations, such as the rural south, my salary was above the normal for the locale but in others, such as the D.C area, my salary was below the normal. Reducing the salaries would be ridiculous. When I retired the trend had allready begun to hire less people but increase the workload. The result being less quality work cause there are only so many hours in a day and the stress really causes you to burn-out. I worked HR for the DOD but the reputation the VA has is not good. To reduce the ranks would be a crime against the veterans who need those services.

[Guest]

buggyone - i'm not sure that republicans, in general, have a prob with the proposed working conditions - i have always seen Rs as out for themsevles rather than out for the group. but the fed emps and their extended families will sure have something to say and vote about! there are prob more voters who support the romney proposition than not - so it could just be a mute issue in the voting booth.

your predictions re the happiness of employees and the processing of their work is EXACTLY what has happened to nj state employees since the election of the current gov. he set about legislating away the collective bargaining rights of the union members, he legislated an increase in the member's contribution for their pension and healthcare, and he had their new contracts negotiated to deny them an increase for the first two years of the contract and with less than one and two percent raises in the third and fourth years. the union employees are losing money with no salary increases and higher contributions for benefits. that's how you lower employee's salaries!

the processing of ALL state work has suffered due to the reduced number of employees and the tanking of morale. major processing delays have become the norm. legislators now write more letters than even to complain about that processing time...i would love to be able to respond that the delays are their's and the gov's fault for acquiescing to the wants of the populace rather than the needs of the state!

acquiescing is what romney is touting, too. all politicians do it - we can only hope that [if elected] romney will do what poloticians do after being elected - the exact opposite of what they campaigned on!

what should be done is some heavy duty negotiating, compromising, bipartisan discussion, accomodation, arbitration, concilliation, haggling re the stumbling block of effective cost benefit to the employer/employees. after this administration that would be something new and unique! just offering such might be enought to garner some votes rathen than lose them! ;)

[Guest]

I agree. I worked as a government employee all my career in different locations. In some locations, such as the rural south, my salary was above the normal for the locale but in others, such as the D.C area, my salary was below the normal. Reducing the salaries would be ridiculous. When I retired the trend had allready begun to hire less people but increase the workload. The result being less quality work cause there are only so many hours in a day and the stress really causes you to burn-out. I worked HR for the DOD but the reputation the VA has is not good. To reduce the ranks would be a crime against the veterans who need those services.

dandygirl - would it not be a crime to reduce the ranks of ANY work unit that SERVES its clients in need as the va does its clients? each is a special interest group for one reason or another. i assume you set veterans above the other groups because of service to country; but you do so without knowing/understanding the 'stories' of other group's members who may be just as worthy. which makes me question - who are 'you' [both the singular you and the collective] to judge which group should be set above others. setting our vets above others is not what vets fought for - they fought for the rights of all - even the right to quick processing. ;)

[Guest]

It is never popular to eliminate waste or get rid of expenses that are not needed.

Remember whether it is the government or GE or GM or the shop down the street...when they cut back all that is talked about is the usual 5-10% or less that are let go.

Why is it never a good thing that because of the actions taken 90-95% get to remain gainfully employed?

Whether there is an R or D after their name or not if there are too many people on the payroll, government or other wise....getting rid of them is not a bad thing and it certainly is not going to be an election swinging subject....not even close.

btk

[Guest]

It is never popular to eliminate waste or get rid of expenses that are not needed.

Remember whether it is the government or GE or GM or the shop down the street...when they cut back all that is talked about is the usual 5-10% or less that are let go.

Why is it never a good thing that because of the actions taken 90-95% get to remain gainfully employed?

Whether there is an R or D after their name or not if there are too many people on the payroll, government or other wise....getting rid of them is not a bad thing and it certainly is not going to be an election swinging subject....not even close.

btk


You obviously did not take time to read my post.

I began with the premise that it would be extremely foolish for any current or retired Federal employee to vote Republican. That is a very, very large number of votes. The Republicans had better re-think their plank on Federal employees if they expect any of their millions of votes.

[Guest]

I was just reading on Mitt Romney's plan to be President about some of the things he proposes to do.

One was to cut the size of Federal government employees by hiring one for every 2 that leave. Another was to reduce the salary of the Federal employee so it would "match" with the same employee in private sector. This could be up to 40% according to the plan. The idea of this is to streamline the government workforce and to get bright new talent into the workforce. I do not see bright new talent going into a system where the pay has just been cut and you are told you have to do a lot more work with less reward. The talent will go to the big money jobs in private sector.

I would like to know how the Republicans think they would have a single Federal employee vote if the employees read this information? It is saying that the Federal employee will have to do more work with less salary and the retirement benefit will be lowered as well.

I would think that the vital services such as processing veterans claims, health care, Social Security payments, and Medicare payments and processing would take longer and longer to do do with a smaller staff of probably unhappy employees doing more and more work as their salaries got cut. How would the Repubicans take care of that problem?

Federal employees union fires back at Romney - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/26/federal-employees-union-fires-back-romney/)

[Guest]

Federal employees union fires back at Romney - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/26/federal-employees-union-fires-back-romney/)

Federal employees fire back at the one who threatens the future of their out of control, lifetime lucrative gravy train?...........WOW!!, what a surprising reaction.

[Guest]

Federal employees fire back at the one who threatens the future of their out of control, lifetime lucrative gravy train?...........WOW!!, what a surprising reaction.

Lifetime lucrative gravy train? Any black and white numbers to support that?

[Guest]

dandygirl - would it not be a crime to reduce the ranks of ANY work unit that SERVES its clients in need as the va does its clients? each is a special interest group for one reason or another. i assume you set veterans above the other groups because of service to country; but you do so without knowing/understanding the 'stories' of other group's members who may be just as worthy. which makes me question - who are 'you' [both the singular you and the collective] to judge which group should be set above others. setting our vets above others is not what vets fought for - they fought for the rights of all - even the right to quick processing. ;)

I did not say that that other groups are not deserving but as a former government employee, military wife and mother of another military wife, I have been there first hand to witness the sacrifices made by veterans who put their LIFE on the line and their families. That's who I am.

[Guest]

I was just reading on Mitt Romney's plan to be President about some of the things he proposes to do.

One was to cut the size of Federal government employees by hiring one for every 2 that leave. Another was to reduce the salary of the Federal employee so it would "match" with the same employee in private sector. This could be up to 40% according to the plan. The idea of this is to streamline the government workforce and to get bright new talent into the workforce. I do not see bright new talent going into a system where the pay has just been cut and you are told you have to do a lot more work with less reward. The talent will go to the big money jobs in private sector.

I would like to know how the Republicans think they would have a single Federal employee vote if the employees read this information? It is saying that the Federal employee will have to do more work with less salary and the retirement benefit will be lowered as well.

I would think that the vital services such as processing veterans claims, health care, Social Security payments, and Medicare payments and processing would take longer and longer to do do with a smaller staff of probably unhappy employees doing more and more work as their salaries got cut. How would the Repubicans take care of that problem?You're right on Romney probably not getting a lot of votes from federal employees, unless they're in the Defense Department.

But I think that they'd have little difficulty getting both bright, well educated entry-level folks, as well as those that they need for middle management. A huge number of kids are graduating from college with no job to go to other than Mickey D's or cutting Dad's lawn. And what about all those middle managers who have been let go in recent years and will never be re-hired? My son tells me he had to terminate about half his department at one of the auto companies, most of whom he describes as competent, hard-working, smart folks. The government will get all they need at the top levels, as they always have, even though those jobs typically don't pay anywhere near as well as more senior management in the private sector. Remember, those government positions have a lot more job security Han the private sector.

[Guest]

Federal employees fire back at the one who threatens the future of their out of control, lifetime lucrative gravy train?...........WOW!!, what a surprising reaction.

Sounds like RichieLion does not want his Social Security check every month on time or his Medicare taken care of in a timely manner or the veterans of our wars to be compensated, educated, given a home loan, or even buried in a timely manner.

If Federal employees wanted a career to become wealthy, we would have gone into another line of work. I am sure there are plenty of union drivers who make a lot more money than Federal employees - and the drivers get to wear those cute shorts to work.

[Guest]

Sounds like RichieLion does not want his Social Security check every month on time or his Medicare taken care of in a timely manner or the veterans of our wars to be compensated, educated, given a home loan, or even buried in a timely manner.

If Federal employees wanted a career to become wealthy, we would have gone into another line of work. I am sure there are plenty of union drivers who make a lot more money than Federal employees - and the drivers get to wear those cute shorts to work.

I'm sure he'll pop by shortly with numbers to support his attack and broad brushing of government workers riding the, now how did it go, lifelong, lucrative gravy train.

[Guest]

buggyone - i'm not sure that republicans, in general, have a prob with the proposed working conditions - i have always seen Rs as out for themsevles rather than out for the group. but the fed emps and their extended families will sure have something to say and vote about! there are prob more voters who support the romney proposition than not - so it could just be a mute issue in the voting booth.

your predictions re the happiness of employees and the processing of their work is EXACTLY what has happened to nj state employees since the election of the current gov. he set about legislating away the collective bargaining rights of the union members, he legislated an increase in the member's contribution for their pension and healthcare, and he had their new contracts negotiated to deny them an increase for the first two years of the contract and with less than one and two percent raises in the third and fourth years. the union employees are losing money with no salary increases and higher contributions for benefits. that's how you lower employee's salaries!

the processing of ALL state work has suffered due to the reduced number of employees and the tanking of morale. major processing delays have become the norm. legislators now write more letters than even to complain about that processing time...i would love to be able to respond that the delays are their's and the gov's fault for acquiescing to the wants of the populace rather than the needs of the state!

acquiescing is what romney is touting, too. all politicians do it - we can only hope that [if elected] romney will do what poloticians do after being elected - the exact opposite of what they campaigned on!

what should be done is some heavy duty negotiating, compromising, bipartisan discussion, accomodation, arbitration, concilliation, haggling re the stumbling block of effective cost benefit to the employer/employees. after this administration that would be something new and unique! just offering such might be enought to garner some votes rathen than lose them! ;)I guess I don't quite know how to respond to the "difficulties" experienced by state employees, other than to say join the real world. Their are hundreds of thousands of people in the private sector, who if they are lucky enough to still have a job, have endured exactly the same treatment as have the New Jersey workers. And guess what, permitting changing conditions, pay and benefits to effect the amount or quality of their work isn't an option. They either work harder, longer and produce the same quality of product or service, or their employer will get someone who will.

[Guest]

I'm sure he'll pop by shortly with numbers to support his attack and broad brushing of government workers riding the, now how did it go, lifelong, lucrative gravy train.

Yes, that is his style. He loves to say that government workers do not produce a product therefore they are worthless. Let his Social Security check be late and see how worthless they become!:a20::a20:

[Guest]

I guess I don't quite know how to respond to the "difficulties" experienced by state employees, other than to say join the real world. Their are hundreds of thousands of people in the private sector, who if they are lucky enough to still have a job, have endured exactly the same treatment as have the New Jersey workers. And guess what, permitting changing conditions, pay and benefits to effect the amount or quality of their work isn't an option. They either work harder, longer and produce the same quality of product or service, or their employer will get someone who will.

Sounds a bit feudal to me. The welfare of the worker is receding to 19th century era levels?

[Guest]

:clap2:Yes, that is his style. He loves to say that government workers do not produce a product therefore they are worthless. Let his Social Security check be late and see how worthless they become!:a20::a20:

:clap2:

[Guest]

I did not say that that other groups are not deserving but as a former government employee, military wife and mother of another military wife, I have been there first hand to witness the sacrifices made by veterans who put their LIFE on the line and their families. That's who I am.

DG, I think I understand where you are coming from. I served in our military and have two sons and one son-in-law who did the same. One of my sons is now In Afghanistan (again) and on the front lines with the 82nd Airborne. My mother and two of my sisters were Federal Civil Service employees.

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Civil Service employees are paid more than their civilian counterparts (I believe they are, you and B1 believe they are not), we need to look at how much government we can afford and how those funds are being expended. Today, Federal expenditures are more than 24% of our GDP, a level not seen since WWII. At our times of greatest prosperity, they were under 20%. We need to get back to those levels to return to prosperity.

No one is saying that working for the government is easy, it's not. The questions that need to be asked are; (1) do we still need to do what we have been doing? (2) Is what we are doing a net benefit to the American people? (3) Is there an entirely different way to accomplish what we are doing? (4) Is this really the responsibility of the American people or is intended to benefit a select group? (5) Are we effectively doing that which we set out to do? (6) Is this service still really necessary?

The examples that can be cited are numerous. Let's look at a two. Fraud is believed to be rampant in Medicare. A private industry where fraud is a great problem is the credit card industry. AMEX, Visa and Master Card have extensive fraud detection and prevention systems. When my wife died recently, I contacted Social Security immediately as well as her supplement provider. I was informed by her supplement provider that had I not done so, Social Security would have let them know in 90 to 120 days. By contrast, when I made a purchase that was unusual for me in Georgia a few months ago, my credit card provider had me on the phone before I could leave the store! It is not that our government has less conscientious people, but rather that Master Card has better fraud detection and thereby fraud prevention systems.

Our Postal system is a wreck. They are doing the same things the same way that they did years ago. They lost their most profitable operation to FedEx and UPS because they refused to adapt even when the need to change was clear. They still do not compete. Priority mail is a joke. If the package is too large to fit in the boxes at our mail station, they put a notification in my mail slot and tell me I can pick it up the next day. UPS delivers it. ditto FedEx. Why would I ever go back to a slower, unreliable service?

Constant change is essential to a private companies survival. Of the 100 largest companies in the year 1900, only one remains in business today - General Electric. How many government agencies go out of business because there is a better way for the need to be met?

I would hope our government employees will be concerned for our future generations and accept that change must come about.

[Guest]

I am sure that no matter who you say should be cut back they will take the "cut them not me" stance and have many reasons for their own worth.
How do you pick who loses?
When the economy crashed the people caught in that, in the public, sector did not have a choice of reduced pay, they just get no pay.
Why should the government employees make more that the public sector.
I think their pay should be based on the public sector rates and not what a union is able to squeeze out of the employer.

And really, if your pay drops 40% to reach public sector levels you are really taking it to the bank! Is your service to the public really 40% better? I would like to see that stat.!
I mean, I guess anybody could do a good job with 15 trillion dollars!

Like Obama says, "when is enough enough". I guess he was not talking about government employees.

[Guest]

I actually believe I am seeing and hearing a not so hidden concern or fear that Romney just might try to fix things in Washington that are not right or broken or bloated or over spending or too many people or anything else that disrupts the status quo or business as usual.

Ya just have ta look at it like surgery....nobody likes it...but ya gotta do it for the patient to survive....and 90 days later you will feel oh so much better.

btk

[Guest]

Sounds like RichieLion does not want his Social Security check every month on time or his Medicare taken care of in a timely manner or the veterans of our wars to be compensated, educated, given a home loan, or even buried in a timely manner.

If Federal employees wanted a career to become wealthy, we would have gone into another line of work. I am sure there are plenty of union drivers who make a lot more money than Federal employees - and the drivers get to wear those cute shorts to work.

I'm was in the private sector, my pension is in a private fund, which can fail with the economy. Nothing was or is guaranteed in my future. You and the fast rising numbers of public employees, on the other hand, can expect your check, and do ad-infinitum, no matter what the economy does.

I not talking about the job done, I speaking to the compensation, which was reported to be sometimes 40% higher than comparable jobs in the private sector. We didn't even get into the lifetime benefits that are guaranteed unlike anybody's in the private sector.

[Guest]

Lifetime lucrative gravy train? Any black and white numbers to support that?

It's just a fact that the benefits are lifetime benefits. Numbers?; we doan need no stinkin' numbers!

Seems we've got lots of people getting their worry free lifetime benefits that I've offended. Oh well.

[Guest]

I'm was in the private sector, my pension is in a private fund, which can fail with the economy. Nothing was or is guaranteed in my future. You and the fast rising numbers of public employees, on the other hand, can expect your check, and do ad-infinitum, no matter what the economy does.

I not talking about the job done, I speaking to the compensation, which was reported to be sometimes 40% higher than comparable jobs in the private sector. We didn't even get into the lifetime benefits that are guaranteed unlike anybody's in the private sector.

I think it's quite obvious you are not familiar with the Federal Retirement System.

Since 1986 all fed hires are under a retirement that has 3 components - Social Security, a savings plan that can be invested in the stock market and/or treasury notes, and a small defined contribution plan. The employee contributes to all three through payroll deductions. SS is the same benefit as you receive. At present the savings plan offers treasury note interest of stock market volatility - not much to brag about there. Your share of health insurance premiums come out of the defined contribution plan which leave the remainder miniscule. Is this the 40% higher compensation you refer to and do you think it is not subject to economic swings?

[Guest]

I think it's quite obvious you are not familiar with the Federal Retirement System.

Since 1986 all fed hires are under a retirement that has 3 components - Social Security, a savings plan that can be invested in the stock market and/or treasury notes, and a small defined contribution plan. The employee contributes to all three through payroll deductions. SS is the same benefit as you receive. At present the savings plan offers treasury note interest of stock market volatility - not much to brag about there. Your share of health insurance premiums come out of the defined contribution plan which leave the remainder miniscule. Is this the 40% higher compensation you refer to and do you think it is not subject to economic swings?

I think the article was just referring to salaries of some employees being 40% higher than comparable positions in the private sector.

Also, I know retirement compensation varies to the retiree as to their job and years invested and so on.

Still, most jobs are lifetime jobs, with little risk of being fired. Retirement compensation is lifetime without regard to economic factors.

This is why some courageous administrators are trying to change these parameters in order to balance budgets. This is usually done in regard to new employees.

[Guest]

I think the article was just referring to salaries of some employees being 40% higher than comparable positions in the private sector.

Also, I know retirement compensation varies to the retiree as to their job and years invested and so on.

Still, most jobs are lifetime jobs, with little risk of being fired. Retirement compensation is lifetime without regard to economic factors.

This is why some courageous administrators are trying to change these parameters in order to balance budgets. This is usually done in regard to new employees.

Ritchie, my point was that the 3 tiers of the fed pension are indeed tied to economic factors. The savings portion or TSP can easily rise and fall due to performance and withdrawals, and we know SS is always a topic of debate. Stability is also not certain and seems that DOD is suffering the biggest cuts but do agree working for the feds is generally more stable than private industry comparables.

[Guest]

I think the article was just referring to salaries of some employees being 40% higher than comparable positions in the private sector.

Also, I know retirement compensation varies to the retiree as to their job and years invested and so on.

Still, most jobs are lifetime jobs, with little risk of being fired. Retirement compensation is lifetime without regard to economic factors.

This is why some courageous administrators are trying to change these parameters in order to balance budgets. This is usually done in regard to new employees.

Federal wage employees have their pay determined by a wage survey that is done on a local market area for similar jobs. In some parts of the country a wage grade employee will make more than in other parts of the country. When the employee would move areas, the wage would be adjusted up or down. The wage survey would not allow for compensation for wage grade employees to be 40 percent higher. That is pure bunk.

What was started on this thread was the fact that Mitt Romney is going to have a very tough time to get the millions of Federal employees to vote for him in each and every state. We do have some fools in the Federal service that will vote Republican but not too many, you can bet on that.

[Guest]

I did not say that that other groups are not deserving but as a former government employee, military wife and mother of another military wife, I have been there first hand to witness the sacrifices made by veterans who put their LIFE on the line and their families. That's who I am.

dandygirl - i got that and i respect that - BUT - i regret that you do not see my family's sacrifice [and its need] as equivalent to yours. appreciate, though, that you can consider another group deserving.

[Guest]

I guess I don't quite know how to respond to the "difficulties" experienced by state employees, other than to say join the real world. Their are hundreds of thousands of people in the private sector, who if they are lucky enough to still have a job, have endured exactly the same treatment as have the New Jersey workers. And guess what, permitting changing conditions, pay and benefits to effect the amount or quality of their work isn't an option. They either work harder, longer and produce the same quality of product or service, or their employer will get someone who will.

mercy, vk! join the real world? every day that i worked in the public sector i WISHED that i could join the real world!!! :a20:

years ago i am waiting in the central office of social security on the beltway waiting for their salary administrator...i overhear a tele conversation with a cust serv associate..."i'm sorry sir, but you are deceased and the effective date was..."...i will never forget it!

i once worked in local govt as the aide to the mayor - can i tell you the requests that some people made? i wished i could have told them welcome to the real world!

and once ensconsed, or maybe encased, in state govt, things didn't get any better - but this time the inane requests came from the arrogant govt appointees who thought they had free reign to do as they saw fit rather than have to follow department policy and procedure! omg!

i understand the private sector only too well, as many in my family have been a victim of employment with a major telephone service provider [from as far back as ma bell to the current day]. they learned very early in their careers that the only time off for a funeral is for your own!

[Guest]

Taking into consideration that government employees is generally considered synonymous with union employees I would doubt very much that they would want to vote for any Republican.

[Guest]

What was started on this thread was the fact that Mitt Romney is going to have a very tough time to get the millions of Federal employees to vote for him in each and every state. We do have some fools in the Federal service that will vote Republican but not too many, you can bet on that.

Which is why the Democrats are trying to expand the public sector union force in any way they can. The TSA being one of the newest expansions of the public union work force expansion attempts.

Public Union workers, illegal aliens, convicted felons, dead guys; hey the Democrats need all the sure votes they can get, it seems.

[Guest]

It's just a fact that the benefits are lifetime benefits. Numbers?; we doan need no stinkin' numbers!

Seems we've got lots of people getting their worry free lifetime benefits that I've offended. Oh well.

Not offending me at all. Two government pension checks for me, one bigger one for my wife and both on Social Security. Life is Good. :kiss:

[Guest]

40% higher? Not in my case.

Contractors are costing us a lot more than government civilians, where I work. I took a pay CUT for this job. Why? Because it gives me something the private sector doesn't. Time. I am not expected to work 60 hours and be paid for 40. I get decent time-off policies (though only about equivalent to a secretary in Germany). I get sick leave *and* vacation time - unlike the way my previous employer (a national defense contractor) deliberately mislead me on my offer letter (saying I had 10 days vacation plus sick time - and when I took 2 sick days for the flu, found out I had 2 less vacation days than I thought).

If I worked for the private sector, I could be making as much as 25% more than I am now. But, by the same token, I won't be getting a phone call at 6:30am telling me not to go into the office anymore because my contract has been cut (for reasons that were completely made up, cutting me two weeks after telling me my contract was being extended).

What I've noticed in the past 20 years is an increasing probability of companies treating their employees like cattle. This "race to the bottom" in commodotizing *people* has had a number of effects on the workforce. Loyalty is unheard of anymore, just for ONE example.

Pensions? When you company gets bought out, the pension bled off to the Board of Directors and bankruptcy is filed, see where that leaves you..

[Guest]

40% higher? Not in my case.

Contractors are costing us a lot more than government civilians, where I work. I took a pay CUT for this job. Why? Because it gives me something the private sector doesn't. Time. I am not expected to work 60 hours and be paid for 40. I get decent time-off policies (though only about equivalent to a secretary in Germany). I get sick leave *and* vacation time - unlike the way my previous employer (a national defense contractor) deliberately mislead me on my offer letter (saying I had 10 days vacation plus sick time - and when I took 2 sick days for the flu, found out I had 2 less vacation days than I thought).

If I worked for the private sector, I could be making as much as 25% more than I am now. But, by the same token, I won't be getting a phone call at 6:30am telling me not to go into the office anymore because my contract has been cut (for reasons that were completely made up, cutting me two weeks after telling me my contract was being extended).

What I've noticed in the past 20 years is an increasing probability of companies treating their employees like cattle. This "race to the bottom" in commodotizing *people* has had a number of effects on the workforce. Loyalty is unheard of anymore, just for ONE example.

Pensions? When you company gets bought out, the pension bled off to the Board of Directors and bankruptcy is filed, see where that leaves you..

I can't disagree with your observation on the lack of loyalty in private enterprise. I also worked for a company that was under a huge corporate umbrella, and while the company knew the value of the workers under their supervision, they had to follow the direction of the suits at corporate. The lower and middle management had to worry a lot more than we union workers when corporate got a bee in their bonnet.

In my case the pensions belong to, and are under the control of the Union. Corporate has no hold on them.

[Guest]

DG, I think I understand where you are coming from. I served in our military and have two sons and one son-in-law who did the same. One of my sons is now In Afghanistan (again) and on the front lines with the 82nd Airborne. My mother and two of my sisters were Federal Civil Service employees.

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Civil Service employees are paid more than their civilian counterparts (I believe they are, you and B1 believe they are not), we need to look at how much government we can afford and how those funds are being expended. Today, Federal expenditures are more than 24% of our GDP, a level not seen since WWII. At our times of greatest prosperity, they were under 20%. We need to get back to those levels to return to prosperity.

No one is saying that working for the government is easy, it's not. The questions that need to be asked are; (1) do we still need to do what we have been doing? (2) Is what we are doing a net benefit to the American people? (3) Is there an entirely different way to accomplish what we are doing? (4) Is this really the responsibility of the American people or is intended to benefit a select group? (5) Are we effectively doing that which we set out to do? (6) Is this service still really necessary?

The examples that can be cited are numerous. Let's look at a two. Fraud is believed to be rampant in Medicare. A private industry where fraud is a great problem is the credit card industry. AMEX, Visa and Master Card have extensive fraud detection and prevention systems. When my wife died recently, I contacted Social Security immediately as well as her supplement provider. I was informed by her supplement provider that had I not done so, Social Security would have let them know in 90 to 120 days. By contrast, when I made a purchase that was unusual for me in Georgia a few months ago, my credit card provider had me on the phone before I could leave the store! It is not that our government has less conscientious people, but rather that Master Card has better fraud detection and thereby fraud prevention systems.

Our Postal system is a wreck. They are doing the same things the same way that they did years ago. They lost their most profitable operation to FedEx and UPS because they refused to adapt even when the need to change was clear. They still do not compete. Priority mail is a joke. If the package is too large to fit in the boxes at our mail station, they put a notification in my mail slot and tell me I can pick it up the next day. UPS delivers it. ditto FedEx. Why would I ever go back to a slower, unreliable service?

Constant change is essential to a private companies survival. Of the 100 largest companies in the year 1900, only one remains in business today - General Electric. How many government agencies go out of business because there is a better way for the need to be met?

I would hope our government employees will be concerned for our future generations and accept that change must come about.
:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Guest]

an awful lot of suggestion that if one is either a federal employee or union member they are beholding to the democratic party. I am sure that is a myth the faithful are expected to believe and continue to parrot.

I wonder if any of the current 15,000,000 unemployed are union members?

Or how many of the millions who have given up all hopes of finding a job are union members?

Now just how does the democratic party insulate themselves from any responsible for the current, long term (over three years) unemployed union members?

btk

[Guest]

From January of 2012 BEFORE a Republican candidate was decided.....from a site...

"Purpose of this Site

FedSmith.com is an information portal for sources of information impacting the federal community and those interested in the Federal Government's activities. The site provides links to daily news headlines, original articles from our writers, and Federal Retirement information including TSP rates and information. We use our extensive experience in working with the Federal sector to provide news items of interest each day."


"Many outside of government automatically assume the federal workforce is an automatic voting bloc and supports the candidates supported by federal employee unions (almost all of whom are Democrats) and that federal employees have a defined point of view on political issues. It is easy to see why this is the case. Most press releases and publicity reflects the views of the organizations who purport to speak for these 2.7 million or so federal employees who work for the executive branch of government (that figure includes the Postal ServThis latest survey surprised us. We know that there is tremendous interest in the upcoming election. Still, we were surprised that about 9000 of our readers took the time to participate. The interest in this year's election is obviously intense.

"In reality, our surveys have demonstrated over the past few years that federal employees vote very much like the rest of the American public."


"This poll is of particular interest as most of those who are giving their opinion ultimately work for the President of the United States. In effect, it is a chance for them to voice an opinion of how their boss is performing.ice but excludes the military)."

"If the election were held today, would you vote to re-elect Barack Obama for president?

Yes: 41.8%
No: 58.2%"

News Articles: Federal Employee Preferences: 58% Would Not Vote for President Obama (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3262/federal-employee-preferences-would-not-vote.html)

Those who worked for the Federal Govt may have goods or bads on the site !!!

[Guest]

As a retired Civil Service Electronics Engineer who worked for the Department of the Navy in test and Evaluation, we were always paid less than contractors. People who think Feds make more do not compare professions and compare Engineers to Engineers, Medical Doctors to Medical Doctors, etc.
I am under the CSRS retirement system, I do not get a separate Social Security payment, and My TSP contributions were limited to 5% with no match. I pay pretty much half of the Health Insurance bill, and 100% of Dental and Long-term care insurance.

We were always supporting the Republican's who are pro-defense. Obama killed a major program here, the new Presidential Hellicopter, many jobs in contractor community lost.

The Postal Service is an independent company, they get no federal funds.

[Guest]

If this thread does nothing else it proves that this is a subject that a broad brush does not work on.

We all take a path chosen long ago in hopes that we can live in a place like TV and enjoy the rest of our lives.

Congrats to you who are there and I hope my path will get me there.

P.S. When Obama says he just wants it all to be fair and give everybody an equal share, do you think he includes private vs public? Hmmmm???

[Guest]

Please provide a link to the quotation of President Obama in which you stated, "When Obama says he just wants it all to be fair and give everybody an equal share, do you think he includes private vs public?"

[Guest]

Please provide a link to the quotation of President Obama in which you stated, "When Obama says he just wants it all to be fair and give everybody an equal share, do you think he includes private vs public?"



Sorry, had to go do some work so I can become one of those evil rich but back now.

Here is one for starters but I must say that you having to ask for proof that he has said this, or something very close to this would lead me to believe that you have been living in outer space and just got back today.
By the way I did not "quote" Obama I paraphrased.

Obama wants people to have "fair chance and fair shot" - Charleston, SC | Breaking News, Sports, Weather (http://www.abcnews4.com/story/16204516/obama-wants-people-to-have-fair-chance-and-fair-shot?clienttype=printable)

[Guest]

Sorry, had to go do some work so I can become one of those evil rich but back now.

Here is one for starters but I must say that you having to ask for proof that he has said this, or something very close to this would lead me to believe that you have been living in outer space and just got back today.
By the way I did not "quote" Obama I paraphrased.

Obama wants people to have "fair chance and fair shot" - Charleston, SC | Breaking News, Sports, Weather (http://www.abcnews4.com/story/16204516/obama-wants-people-to-have-fair-chance-and-fair-shot?clienttype=printable)

That was a very good link that you provided. Thank you for that. In your post, your paraphrase said Pres. Obama said he wanted everyone to have an equal share. That is NOT what the link said at all. A "fair chance and fair shot" does not say "equal share" in any languange.

[Guest]

The president is quoted as saying "a fair shot and a fair share" in the article. Whoever wrote the artice made the headline " a fair chance and a fair shot".

[Guest]

As usual the post is going off track and I take part blame for for that. However I think that the Pres. has made it very clear that Equality by shifting money is his goal, not a fair chance or fair shot.
I think people have a fair shot now and some that think they don't actually have better than a fair shot. I think they are too busy telling everybody how unfair it is that they don't have time to see their "Fair Chance".

People who think we will all be better when we all are paid the same and make the same amount of money are just living in a world that does not exist and I hope never does!

Why would people step out on a limb if they get paid the same as someone who barely shows up. It will never be "equal" even though that is what the left wants.
People with good ideas make money, those with a chip on their shoulder or a government out there telling them "we got your back" are just going to get what the government wants to give them.

As far as government pay, I only care because my taxes pay for that and I have no choice in the matter when it comes to buying governments products. In the public sector I get to make that choice. So if government decides to pump up the pay for their employees it cost me so I think it should be based on what the "going rate" is.

I know that all government employees don't make 40% higher than the public does but I also know that government wastes money, my money at a rate that is obscence!
Every new program to make sure everyone is getting their fair share brings in new waste and employees. And by the way, what is meant by Fair Share.
It is said as if what someone else has earned belongs to the collective! It is not to be shared, it is to be earned. Unless you want to give it away and then that is the persons choice.