• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poor performance entitles federal employees to bonuses.

T

Texmaster

Banned
Would this happen in your job?


? The Federal Aviation Administration, where 161 civil service executives collected more than $1 million in bonuses even though the agency failed to meet half of its performance goals for the previous budget year;

? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, where two executives won presidential rank awards worth $10,000 each, even though the agency missed by 14 percentage points a presidential target to increase seat belt use to 85 percent;

? and the Department of Education, where 39 executives got nearly $500,000 in bonuses last year, the highest payout of all the Cabinet agencies despite a General Accounting Office report that said the department provided "no fiscal year 2000 data for many indicators, no discussion of why goals were not met and no strategies on how the department would reach its goals."



Link
 
Yes poor performance tends to be tolerated in federal jobs. For example, my dad is a manager for the IRS and he's not allowed to fire the most incompentant, lazy idiots unless it's after 2 warnings and 6 months, for fear of discrimination lawsuits.
 


<< Yes poor performance tends to be tolerated in federal jobs. For example, my dad is a manager for the IRS and he's not allowed to fire the most incompentant, lazy idiots unless it's after 2 warnings and 6 months, for fear of discrimination lawsuits. >>




I'm sorry your dad has to put up with that crap.
 
The exact same thing happens in corporations. Human nature doesn't change just because you work for the gov't.
 


<< The exact same thing happens in corporations. Human nature doesn't change just because you work for the gov't. >>


I couldn't agree more.

Bigger (i.e., more people) = more bureaucracy required to maintain = more inefficiencies.

That's why not all mergers work -- if a company becomes too big, the administrative costs go through the roof.
 
smaller government or more efficient government? The difference is how many roles the government tries to play vs how well they play those roles. I am all for more efficient government, however, i don't think a smaller government would be any better.

The problem of firing bad employees is endemic to all forms of government, not just the federal government.
 


<< smaller government or more efficient government? The difference is how many roles the government tries to play vs how well they play those roles. I am all for more efficient government, however, i don't think a smaller government would be any better.

The problem of firing bad employees is endemic to all forms of government, not just the federal government. >>


I think a lot of people would be fine with a government that's the current size, but that's more efficient. I imagine people like Texmaster wouldn't, and I know I wouldn't either, as I'd prefer a smaller government.

I think another issue is, however, whether having a big government that's also efficient is actually possible. I tend to think not.
 
I guess all governments have their quirks. Doesn't mean I have to like them, but such is life. Here we are set to give billions in tax breaks to oil companies. I don't hate oil companies, nor do I disagree with tax breaks in general, but why do they have high relative priority compared to developing new, non oil dependant energy sources? I will not accept that it totally a Bush thing, since Clinton and Gore did nothing significant about it. Yeah, we can drill more, but the time to market and costs of developing the northern oil fields seems to be perpetually ignored. I have to say that the free market is not always the best answer and sometimes leadership and funding are needed from the folks in DC. Sen. Kerry (here in Mass) has been pushing for that, but no real support on either side of the aisle. Yeah, I know all these guys are trying to protect their war chests for the next election (that includes both parties) but I naively wish someone would stand up and do something significant.
 


<< I guess all governments have their quirks. Doesn't mean I have to like them, but such is life. Here we are set to give billions in tax breaks to oil companies. I don't hate oil companies, nor do I disagree with tax breaks in general, but why do they have high relative priority compared to developing new, non oil dependant energy sources? I will not accept that it totally a Bush thing, since Clinton and Gore did nothing significant about it. Yeah, we can drill more, but the time to market and costs of developing the northern oil fields seems to be perpetually ignored. I have to say that the free market is not always the best answer and sometimes leadership and funding are needed from the folks in DC. Sen. Kerry (here in Mass) has been pushing for that, but no real support on either side of the aisle. Yeah, I know all these guys are trying to protect their war chests for the next election (that includes both parties) but I naively wish someone would stand up and do something significant. >>


I guess I don't have a problem with giving tax breaks to oil companies, per se. I wish they'd give tax breaks to -everyone-. But tax breaks for oil companies is much more preferential than doing something dumb like giving them subsidies so they can continue to "compete."
 


<< I think a lot of people would be fine with a government that's the current size, but that's more efficient. I imagine people like Texmaster wouldn't, and I know I wouldn't either, as I'd prefer a smaller government. >>



Agreed. I want a smaller governement, less control over me and less handouts on failed programs. Thats where the dead weight is and that is what we can cut.

Making a bloated government effecient without decreasing its size is impossible IMO.



<< I think another issue is, however, whether having a big government that's also efficient is actually possible. I tend to think not. >>



agreed
 


<< The exact same thing happens in corporations. Human nature doesn't change just because you work for the gov't. >>


There is one very important difference between this happening in a corporation and it happening in government. Corporations have to operate with the bottom line and stockholders in mind. Any large corporation that operates with the inefficiences that I have routinely observed while working on government contracts for most of my career would be bankrupt. Government operates on funds taken by force of law from taxpayers and should be held to a much higher standard.
 
I guess I don't have a problem with giving tax breaks to oil companies, per se. I wish they'd give tax breaks to -everyone-. But tax breaks for oil companies is much more preferential than doing something dumb like giving them subsidies so they can continue to "compete."



I agree with you. It is not the money we are in effect giving to the oil companies. My problem is that we are relying on an energy source that is sooner or later going to get us in trouble. Forget enviromentallism, I am talking economic blackmail. The Saudis have us over a barrel (pardon the pun). If a radical Islamic group seized control, which seem a real possibility, do you not think they would use our addiction against us? Besides all that, remember that much of the material we come in contact with is a product of the petrochemical industry. We are in effect burning our house down to heat it. It seems prudent to put as much money into alternative sources (such as hydrogen) as we give away.


Edit: this is off Texmasters topic, and he has a point, so I'll stop thread crapping here
 
There are many obvious reasons why quite a few "marginal performers" in the workforce would give their left <you know what> to work for the government.

Government operates on funds taken by force of law from taxpayers and should be held to a much higher standard.

Amen.
 


<< Would this happen in your job?


? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, where two executives won presidential rank awards worth $10,000 each, even though the agency missed by 14 percentage points a presidential target to increase seat belt use to 85 percent; >>



i don't understand the big deal on this one. NHTSA has been trying to raise the seat belt usage to 85% ever since the law was passed. someone that works for the government can't MAKE you were your safety belt. Maybe these two executives did something else. why do we assume they did nothing else but fail to raise the seat belt usage from 71% (where it has been for a while) to 85? the other two are unbelieveable and sad. just my $.02
 


<< I agree with you. It is not the money we are in effect giving to the oil companies. My problem is that we are relying on an energy source that is sooner or later going to get us in trouble. Forget enviromentallism, I am talking economic blackmail. The Saudis have us over a barrel (pardon the pun). If a radical Islamic group seized control, which seem a real possibility, do you not think they would use our addiction against us? Besides all that, remember that much of the material we come in contact with is a product of the petrochemical industry. We are in effect burning our house down to heat it. It seems prudent to put as much money into alternative sources (such as hydrogen) as we give away. >>


I completely agree with you in this respect, that more effort should be made to developing alternative energy resources. I have to admit, though, that I know very little about alternative energy resources, so I have no idea whether it's financially feasible. But you know how things work, especially with the government -- nothing will be done about this until a serious problem is staring at them in the face and unavoidable (i.e., whenever oil supplies are about a year from drying up).
 


<<

<< I agree with you. It is not the money we are in effect giving to the oil companies. My problem is that we are relying on an energy source that is sooner or later going to get us in trouble. Forget enviromentallism, I am talking economic blackmail. The Saudis have us over a barrel (pardon the pun). If a radical Islamic group seized control, which seem a real possibility, do you not think they would use our addiction against us? Besides all that, remember that much of the material we come in contact with is a product of the petrochemical industry. We are in effect burning our house down to heat it. It seems prudent to put as much money into alternative sources (such as hydrogen) as we give away. >>


I completely agree with you in this respect, that more effort should be made to developing alternative energy resources. I have to admit, though, that I know very little about alternative energy resources, so I have no idea whether it's financially feasible. But you know how things work, especially with the government -- nothing will be done about this until a serious problem is staring at them in the face and unavoidable (i.e., whenever oil supplies are about a year from drying up). >>



Totally agree. Alternative sources need to be explored because oil does have a time limit.
 
Tex: Sorry for the OT here.

The Saudis have us over a barrel (pardon the pun).

I can't fully agree with this statement. While from a physical aspect, 16 percent of our crude oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, they provide 8 percent of our total consumption. We also have them over the barrel as well. They have something to sell, we have the wealth to afford it. The US at 10 percent of their total production, is their 2nd largest customer. Considering that 70 percent of Saudi state revenues are derived from oil, an embargo would hurt them just as much.
 
True... I was told where I work just how hard it was to fire a civil service employee... Was shocking the level of incompetence some are made to put up with according to some stories. On more than one occasion I've heard of people jack!n off on the job!

I agree that our government does need to be more efficient, streamline, and cut the bureaucracy. Or atleast allow more freedom for managers to enforce working goals and prevent frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately, there aren't any departments I would want to get rid of, or that I would think a private entity would do a capable job of handling... I think anyone suggesting a privatized millitary or security overseer ought to be b!tchslapped right out of this country... In the end I think inefficiency may be the lesser of two evils.



<<

<< I think a lot of people would be fine with a government that's the current size, but that's more efficient. I imagine people like Texmaster wouldn't, and I know I wouldn't either, as I'd prefer a smaller government. >>



Agreed. I want a smaller governement, less control over me and less handouts on failed programs. Thats where the dead weight is and that is what we can cut.

Making a bloated government effecient without decreasing its size is impossible IMO.



<< I think another issue is, however, whether having a big government that's also efficient is actually possible. I tend to think not. >>



agreed >>

 
We're over 20 posts into this thread. Is anyone else surprised that we haven't seen a single post extolling the virtues of a BIGGER government? Have all of the big government advocates really disappeared?

Also, I don't think I've seen a post yet that's cast a dissenting view. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a harmonious political-type discussion last this long. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top