Fed employees and work ethic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I have both discussed the fact that as we get older our jobs seem to get easier and we work less hard, but here's the thing. I'm an academic and I have studied history and there's this phenomenon where you need to keep certain types of people in strategic professions 'in reserve'. In other words, you might not need that military planner or that economist now, but if you need hundreds of them at some point because you go to war or something, you can't just suddenly find these people and train these people -- so there's this idea of backfill. You have extra people who don't appear to be working hard at the moment, but what you are paying for is to keep their expertise on retainer, to keep their skills up to date in the event that they are needed. I realize that what I bring to the table at the age of 60 is mostly institutional memory, knowledge of procedures, etc. and this is why they keep me around -- because I can answer the question without your having to research it, rather than because you need me to fulfill some other function. And my husband has also added that countries historically keep a lot of ex military around and on the payroll because it's good for these guys to be kept busy and happy -- mostly so they don't riot, carry out a coup, etc. This has been a thing historically since the ROman Empire. I worry that Ramiswamy et al do not understand these basic facts. At the beginning of World War Two, Britain was losing badly against the Nazis because they had cut back on ship manufacturing, and at times they were using civilian fishing boats and the like to patrol the coastline because someone thought defense cuts were a good idea. Short sighted. We can learn from that.

Ripe for replacement by AI.
Not even trying to be mean. Just factual.

So you don’t even read their post.

And AI is so far what you are describing tells me you aren’t in tech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I have both discussed the fact that as we get older our jobs seem to get easier and we work less hard, but here's the thing. I'm an academic and I have studied history and there's this phenomenon where you need to keep certain types of people in strategic professions 'in reserve'. In other words, you might not need that military planner or that economist now, but if you need hundreds of them at some point because you go to war or something, you can't just suddenly find these people and train these people -- so there's this idea of backfill. You have extra people who don't appear to be working hard at the moment, but what you are paying for is to keep their expertise on retainer, to keep their skills up to date in the event that they are needed. I realize that what I bring to the table at the age of 60 is mostly institutional memory, knowledge of procedures, etc. and this is why they keep me around -- because I can answer the question without your having to research it, rather than because you need me to fulfill some other function. And my husband has also added that countries historically keep a lot of ex military around and on the payroll because it's good for these guys to be kept busy and happy -- mostly so they don't riot, carry out a coup, etc. This has been a thing historically since the ROman Empire. I worry that Ramiswamy et al do not understand these basic facts. At the beginning of World War Two, Britain was losing badly against the Nazis because they had cut back on ship manufacturing, and at times they were using civilian fishing boats and the like to patrol the coastline because someone thought defense cuts were a good idea. Short sighted. We can learn from that.

Actual just in time staffing is how most private companies work. There is no slack in labor supply, so if someone takes maternity leave, quits, gets sick, etc there is no backfill at all in the staffing so EVERYONE works unpaid overtime to get work done. This is by design, and why they created salaries employees.

[Anonymous]

Another point - if the federal government is decimated and regulatory work goes away, so does much of Biglaw work. No merger enforcement work, no advising companies on regulatory compliance, no SEC defense, no government litigation. Have fun making your hours without this work! Enjoy doing insurance defense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a fed lawyer, headed to work at 6:30 am. Will probably be home around 6 pm, spend an hour with my family, and then work from home until bed. That is typical for me. Similar to when I was in biglaw but a much lower salary.

sounds like you are doing it wrong. why would you take big law hours for fed pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, it is entirely possible that your 3 examples are just genuinely bad employees with a bad work ethic. I can see why that would make you feel as you do. I don’t like that either and, as a long time fed get mad about that because they make the honest hardworking feds look bad. In my career the bad actors have been the exceptions.

I would ask that you genuinely consider if these 3 people accurately represent a ~3 million person work sector (is that right? whatever the exact #, you get the idea) that covers diverse fields but also diverse positions from say lawyers and engineers through clerical and maintenance staff. It might be akin to having 2 bad plumbers and deciding all tradespersons are inept.

Then consider the vast # agencies that all have their own scheduling and telework policies. Plenty can step away for an hour or two so long as they get the hours in on a flex schedule. As in the general workforce, I am sure some abuse or take advantage.

The government is certainly not exempt from bad employees the same as any employer, and I agree they should be able to get rid of them more easily than they sometimes are. In my experience, which may be specific to my unique agency, by and large we do get rid of poor performers though it takes a long time. I would welcome thoughtful effective changes and would be happy to see that. The slash and grab or burn it all down mentality is not that though and I think is not in the country’s overall best interests.

Yeah, I think the bigger issue is what these 3 people mostly have in common is OP. Somehow OP is choosing to associate with people who have bad ethics. The 2.3 million civilian workers across the country are likely very poorly represented by these three people. Other things to note: 54% of the workforce work entirely in-person. Of those that telework, 60% of those hours are performed at the worksite. Very few positions are full remote or primarily telework. https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2024/08/teleworking-feds-are-spending-60-their-time-working-person-omb-says/398779/

I definitely appreciate a flex schedule, where I only need to take leave for those hours I cannot be at my computer, rather than having to take the entire day off just to take my kiddo to a doctors appointment before school. As a long-term fed, accumulating 12 hours of leave per pay period (8 annual, 4 sick), I definitely carry over 6 weeks of annual leave every year. But that leave is also designed to be a short-term disability policy, as the federal government does not offer STD plans to the entire workforce. (some few agencies do offer STD and LTD policies for purchase.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a non fed with a few fed and state gov friends/acquaintances. For years I've always been mildly annoyed at what I've seen in terms of their work ethic. I get annoyed bc it is such a waste of taxpayer dollars which is paid by every single one of us.

I do think that gov employees should be able to be fired for poor performance etc. I do think gov workforce should be cut bc there are too many fat cats.
Some gov friend stories:
One friend barely works and spends most of her time shopping and texting friends her various shopping finds during the day.
One friend has weeks and weeks of ptonbc she doesn't have to take any. If she needs a day or a few off she only has to check email once or maybe make a call and she does not need to take pto for the entire 8 hrs
One person I know who works for a hhs told me that her job involves supervising others but she literally just does zero work all day long. She works on her side business.
I could go on.

So I personally am looking forward to a trimmed down government employee model. I'm sure this will get a lot of hate. But this is just my own opinion after years of observation.

I'd ask why you think slaving away for an org (public or private) that doesn't care about you is desirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another point - if the federal government is decimated and regulatory work goes away, so does much of Biglaw work. No merger enforcement work, no advising companies on regulatory compliance, no SEC defense, no government litigation. Have fun making your hours without this work! Enjoy doing insurance defense!

I actually think there is a ton of underestimation going on about the macroeconomic costs of severe government cuts. Government spending is a pretty damn big part of the economy. There are government programs that specifically stimulate the economy by putting money in the pockets of people, and this translates into more money flowing through the economy. Sure! Regulation elimination is great…for companies, not for people.

On a smaller level, imagine if you did do catastrophic (1m+ people) layoffs — you then have a big inflow into the labor market, which will significantly depress wages since employers have no reason to pay more. Depressed wages = lower demand for goods and services, less consumer spending. And you’d think then that prices would go down, but we have 100% seen that private industry instead hoards profit to give to owners and shareholders, so benefiting a top 1-3% of society.

Seriously - part of the reason that super rich people want the government cut is because any benefit is hoarded by them. Then there is this false narrative among trump voters that cutting “them” is good for “us”… somehow. And that people don’t deserve handouts and government workers are lazy…despite the fact that government workers *aren’t* any lazier than regular people, and many programs in trump-voting states are heavily subsidized by federal spending.

Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I have both discussed the fact that as we get older our jobs seem to get easier and we work less hard, but here's the thing. I'm an academic and I have studied history and there's this phenomenon where you need to keep certain types of people in strategic professions 'in reserve'. In other words, you might not need that military planner or that economist now, but if you need hundreds of them at some point because you go to war or something, you can't just suddenly find these people and train these people -- so there's this idea of backfill. You have extra people who don't appear to be working hard at the moment, but what you are paying for is to keep their expertise on retainer, to keep their skills up to date in the event that they are needed. I realize that what I bring to the table at the age of 60 is mostly institutional memory, knowledge of procedures, etc. and this is why they keep me around -- because I can answer the question without your having to research it, rather than because you need me to fulfill some other function. And my husband has also added that countries historically keep a lot of ex military around and on the payroll because it's good for these guys to be kept busy and happy -- mostly so they don't riot, carry out a coup, etc. This has been a thing historically since the ROman Empire. I worry that Ramiswamy et al do not understand these basic facts. At the beginning of World War Two, Britain was losing badly against the Nazis because they had cut back on ship manufacturing, and at times they were using civilian fishing boats and the like to patrol the coastline because someone thought defense cuts were a good idea. Short sighted. We can learn from that.

Actual just in time staffing is how most private companies work. There is no slack in labor supply, so if someone takes maternity leave, quits, gets sick, etc there is no backfill at all in the staffing so EVERYONE works unpaid overtime to get work done. This is by design, and why they created salaries employees.

That isn’t just in time staffing. That is “company hoarding profit by taking advantage of salaried employees extra uncompensated labor instead of bringing in extra resources.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point - if the federal government is decimated and regulatory work goes away, so does much of Biglaw work. No merger enforcement work, no advising companies on regulatory compliance, no SEC defense, no government litigation. Have fun making your hours without this work! Enjoy doing insurance defense!

I actually think there is a ton of underestimation going on about the macroeconomic costs of severe government cuts. Government spending is a pretty damn big part of the economy. There are government programs that specifically stimulate the economy by putting money in the pockets of people, and this translates into more money flowing through the economy. Sure! Regulation elimination is great…for companies, not for people.

On a smaller level, imagine if you did do catastrophic (1m+ people) layoffs — you then have a big inflow into the labor market, which will significantly depress wages since employers have no reason to pay more. Depressed wages = lower demand for goods and services, less consumer spending. And you’d think then that prices would go down, but we have 100% seen that private industry instead hoards profit to give to owners and shareholders, so benefiting a top 1-3% of society.

Seriously - part of the reason that super rich people want the government cut is because any benefit is hoarded by them. Then there is this false narrative among trump voters that cutting “them” is good for “us”… somehow. And that people don’t deserve handouts and government workers are lazy…despite the fact that government workers *aren’t* any lazier than regular people, and many programs in trump-voting states are heavily subsidized by federal spending.

Jesus.

Sheesh, If there is no private industry producing goods and services there is no money coming in to pay for government jobs. That is why the Biden/Kamala's last job report was so problematic. The jobs created in the US were government jobs, not in private industry.

[Anonymous]

I just want one of those lazy jobs. Sign me up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have the same problem in corporate America. There are the hard workers and then those who skate by. It took me almost a year to fire a person who was doing basically no work.

There's also a middle ground between people who think they must work 60 hours a week and the examples OP described. I shoot for high muddle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have the same problem in corporate America. There are the hard workers and then those who skate by. It took me almost a year to fire a person who was doing basically no work.

As a worker, I've found that the better I performed and the more I did, the more I was singled out for more work and extra responsibilities to juggle, with no advancement. I am now a "skate by" type because I learned my lesson and I can't invest myself more in something that doesn't pay more. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here we go. Unless you have worked there OP you have no idea. I have worked in state, Fed, non profit, small and large private and consulting.

For public servants there are always the ones who work their butts off, care about the mission and manage well (around the red tape and BS). Then there are the bums. Seriously bad. If they are reading the paper blatantly, they tell you they are "on break". The ones who file grievances. The ones who insist on special accommodations for special (made up) needs.

I too would love to trim out the horrible ones. Everyone would. But don't throw out the good with the bad!

My friend is an accountant. at her state government team of 17, she is the only 3 ppl with real responsibilities. Her boss knowingly assigns all the work to the 3 of them while the rest just chill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you are friends with low value folks got it.

I’m a remote fed and I freaking WORK because I love my job and I love the mission and that I make a difference. I help people every single day and I show up.

I took an oath and I follow the rules and loathe to see people who do not and just add more workload that I have to pick up. But you know that’s not why you wrote the post, my MAGA friend.

Same. I wouldn’t say I love my job but I take it seriously and work all day. If I am out during work hours, I am flexing or on leave. How do you know the pickle ballers and golfers aren’t putting their time in later or before? I hate this misconception about feds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have the same problem in corporate America. There are the hard workers and then those who skate by. It took me almost a year to fire a person who was doing basically no work.

As a worker, I've found that the better I performed and the more I did, the more I was singled out for more work and extra responsibilities to juggle, with no advancement. I am now a "skate by" type because I learned my lesson and I can't invest myself more in something that doesn't pay more. It just doesn't make any sense.

You don't get advancement from doing more work. That's not how it works. You perform and take on more work to gain experience and problem solving skills. Then you identify the right next step for yourself, get hustling and land that pay bump (internal or external).