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?

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.

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!

Originally Posted by DandyGirl

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.

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

Originally Posted by billethkid

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Federal employees union fires back at Romney - Washington Times

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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?

Originally Posted by njbchbum

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

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.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

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!