Reply to Are Feds offering pensions to new employees?

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Are Feds offering pensions to new employees?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OP, here.  I'm not employed by the Feds.  I was just wondering as I find it inappropriate to be offering new employees in any industry a defined benefit, but particularly inappropriate for a government with such massive and worsening budget problems and a poor track record of managing talent (ie, allowing poor workers to remain in service and accrue exceptional benefits for inefficient work).[/quote]

Government employment is one of the last bastions of the middle class in the US.  People shouldn't be looking at taking away what the government workers still get, but instead be asking why everyone else was allowed to erode workers' benefits to the sad point they are at now.

But if you like, you could instead pay us obscene amounts of money in line with the private sector, allow the researchers to retain the patent rights to their discoveries, let us charge the public directly for the services that are provided at the extortionist rates of something like the cable companies, and then we'll see. [/quote]

"Government employment is one of the last bastions of the middle class in the US."

- I don't know what your point is, but the fact that you think government should be the employer of last resort is indicative of the sad direction we are going away from private enterprise and towards a government dominated state.

"People shouldn't be looking at taking away what the government workers still get, but instead be asking why everyone else was allowed to erode workers' benefits to the sad point they are at now."

- I never said take away pensions.  I said it's inappropriate to continue enrolling new pensioners.  People are at economic actors and will take whatever jobs offer the best package of compensation.  If government truly is the "last bastion of employment" then pensions should not be required to attract candidates.  Regarding the erosion of benefits ... more socialist talk there.  Benefits should reflect only what the company can provide to still operate profitably, and what the company can provide is reflective of what the company and employees produce.  Workers don't deserve benefits that prevent the company from continuing to operate.

"you could instead pay us obscene amounts of money in line with the private sector,"

- Why? Under what justification do government employees deserve more than than they're getting in aggregate now?  They are by most accounts very well employed with great benefits and there's no shortage of candidates for each opening, which says to me that the pay is more than sufficient for the requirements of the job.  Create more economic or social value, and earn more.  If you can qualify for obscene private sector pay, you should pursue it.  I do not believe that altruistic compulsion to "serve" is the driving motive for all but a minute percentage of government employees - it's the comfy economic benefit.

"allow the researchers to retain the patent rights to their discoveries"

- I largely agree with this, or at least believe there should be some incentive for government employees to benefit from their exceptional contributions.  This in fact is a core criticism of offering defined benefit prospectively ... it's a blanket reward for undefined contribution - it offers neither upside nor downside for above or below average work.

"let us charge the public directly for the services that are provided at the extortionist rates of something like the cable companies, and then we'll see"

- Private enterprise has been demonstrated to run most non-essential services better than government, at lower cost and higher efficiency.  So, yes, I agree that we should open many government services and regulated private industry for competition.  Defined pension for essential and dangerous services like the military is eminently reasonable to me, as it is necessary to attract candidates and a fair compensation for exceptional service.  Pushing paper in most agencies does not strike me the same way.

p.s. I don't work for the Feds, but I spent close to five years there a decade ago, and I've seen plenty of the insides to have a generally pessimistic view of the efficiency of several agencies and necessity of public management of several services.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics