Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a fed contractor for 20 years, it is a mixed bag, both on contractor and fed side.

Probably 50/50 or 60/40 - just over half are hard working talented workers and the remainder are lazy, incompetent, or loafers.

There are also programs with talented people that are pretty worthless.

Hopefully DOGE is able to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff.

I’ve worked on government contracts and my estimation is that the vast majority of the people there are lazy and incompetent. It was really rare to find someone who wasn’t annoyingly incompetent and then those people didn’t stay very long because they couldn’t stand it either. But even if we just get rid of the bottom half, that will improve things a lot. We can’t just reshuffle them to another department though. Like pass the lemon dance in the public schools. They need to be out and blacklisted so they can’t be hired in public service again. Or at least not at that level, maybe a couple of levels down.

Every contractor I've ever had the displeasure to work with has no idea how to do anything and frequently turns in products that we have to reject when they don't actually do the things we need them to do. Definitely agree that getting rid of the contractors will do a lot to save money.

Sounds like you have a contract officer problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a fed contractor for 20 years, it is a mixed bag, both on contractor and fed side.

Probably 50/50 or 60/40 - just over half are hard working talented workers and the remainder are lazy, incompetent, or loafers.

There are also programs with talented people that are pretty worthless.

Hopefully DOGE is able to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff.

I’ve worked on government contracts and my estimation is that the vast majority of the people there are lazy and incompetent. It was really rare to find someone who wasn’t annoyingly incompetent and then those people didn’t stay very long because they couldn’t stand it either. But even if we just get rid of the bottom half, that will improve things a lot. We can’t just reshuffle them to another department though. Like pass the lemon dance in the public schools. They need to be out and blacklisted so they can’t be hired in public service again. Or at least not at that level, maybe a couple of levels down.

Every contractor I've ever had the displeasure to work with has no idea how to do anything and frequently turns in products that we have to reject when they don't actually do the things we need them to do. Definitely agree that getting rid of the contractors will do a lot to save money.

Anonymous wrote:As a fed contractor for 20 years, it is a mixed bag, both on contractor and fed side.

Probably 50/50 or 60/40 - just over half are hard working talented workers and the remainder are lazy, incompetent, or loafers.

There are also programs with talented people that are pretty worthless.

Hopefully DOGE is able to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff.

I’ve worked on government contracts and my estimation is that the vast majority of the people there are lazy and incompetent. It was really rare to find someone who wasn’t annoyingly incompetent and then those people didn’t stay very long because they couldn’t stand it either. But even if we just get rid of the bottom half, that will improve things a lot. We can’t just reshuffle them to another department though. Like pass the lemon dance in the public schools. They need to be out and blacklisted so they can’t be hired in public service again. Or at least not at that level, maybe a couple of levels down.

Anonymous wrote:As a fed contractor for 20 years, it is a mixed bag, both on contractor and fed side.

Probably 50/50 or 60/40 - just over half are hard working talented workers and the remainder are lazy, incompetent, or loafers.

There are also programs with talented people that are pretty worthless.

Hopefully DOGE is able to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff.

Start by getting rid of the contractors. There is no universe in which adding an entirely unnecessary middle layer of bureaucracy and money changing hands is LESS expensive and MORE efficient.

My federal colleagues and I work damned hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
-People who know how to game the system, including use of EEOC and ADA, and do just enough to never get fired. It is genuinely very difficult to get rid of an average to below average employee who can show intermittent periods of doing their job.

And of course there are people in public service who work very hard.

So shouldn't everyone have a some type of income? Should we just fire people because they had a bad year, bad week or got sick? I know many amazing workers who fell ill with cancer, lost a loved one or had a mental health issue. Their work suffered because they couldn't take time off without a paycheck. So they just muddled along until they could get back on their feet professionally.

I find that many Americans want to see people fired, not the street, begging and groveling if they aren't working at 100 percent and firing on all cylinders every day of every year. People should be fired for major screw ups like in medicine, science, architecture and data breaches. But in my years in government, much of the work that people think is fireable is actually laughable. I worked for an overeducated, prep school elite woman who would write paragraphs in emails that were akin to Jane Austin. I couldn't believe she held her position. She said she was such a hard worker, but really it was full of fluff. She also had a son with special needs and was going through a divorce. Should she get fired? I mean what do people think happens to all these unemployed people? They end up on the streets and it isn't a good look for society. Look at California. Hard working people are sleeping on the steps of Rodeo Drive because they were fired. Do we really want a society where all we do is fire people because they are not performing like robots?

This is one of the craziest things I’ve ever read on dcum.

Feds are not being fired for not firing on all cylinders nonstop. 99% of feds are fired for egregious actions- working a 2nd job at work (using gov computer, gov printers), misuse of government funds, not showing up to work, or criminal activity.

Someone with a special needs kid going through a divorce gets a lot of grace. Reasonable accommodations are a change of schedule, ability to go to doctors appts during the day. But even still, we need work to get done. How is it fair to coworkers that they have to do their work plus yours?

I am concerned for the future of work in general. Gen Z has a lot of mental issues and wants everyone else to work harder to accommodate them. I’m a millennial and completely understand mental issues, but I feel like you can’t bring it to work or let it interfere with your life. They’re making their mental issues their entire life.

COVID shutdowns and social media has done them in hard.

No one requires more accommodation than boomers who are way past their prime. My gen Z employees can at least complete basic administrative task when directed.

Your Gen X losers have zero valuable corporate knowledge and regularly lack basic common sense.
And that's why we are very careful before hiring them in my org.

Anonymous wrote:As a fed contractor for 20 years, it is a mixed bag, both on contractor and fed side.

Probably 50/50 or 60/40 - just over half are hard working talented workers and the remainder are lazy, incompetent, or loafers.

There are also programs with talented people that are pretty worthless.

Hopefully DOGE is able to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff.

As a high performing fed with excellent performance reviews I hope this is the case, but I’m genuinely worried I’ll be churned out with the harvest.

Anonymous wrote:As a fed contractor for 20 years, it is a mixed bag, both on contractor and fed side.

Probably 50/50 or 60/40 - just over half are hard working talented workers and the remainder are lazy, incompetent, or loafers.

There are also programs with talented people that are pretty worthless.

Hopefully DOGE is able to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff.

The thing is I’m not at all convinced DOGE wants to separate the wheat from the chaff. They just want to burn it all down and profit off of the destruction.

As you said, there are certainly programs that are not worthwhile but that’s not the fault of the employees. DOGE wants to fire all the employees but Congress is what created statutory requirements and programs that then have to be carried out by the agencies. The regulations that they attack are typically necessary to meaningfully carry out the requirements of the statutes Congress created.

I’m a government employee who has x number of tasks to do. Some are standard and some are emergencies. Either way, I have to handle them. I worked a couple hours yesterday and a couple today to make sure nobody else was jammed up. Thankfully, I telework as I would have had to just let it fester otherwise.

As a fed contractor for 20 years, it is a mixed bag, both on contractor and fed side.

Probably 50/50 or 60/40 - just over half are hard working talented workers and the remainder are lazy, incompetent, or loafers.

There are also programs with talented people that are pretty worthless.

Hopefully DOGE is able to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff.

Anonymous wrote:We need to start treating government departments like private companies. They have x tasks to do in whatever certain time with y money to do it. Someone in charge of the department. If it’s not done, they get fired until someone is competent enough to lead that department. Of course you’d need to give them the power to fire people for low performance, not just egregious offenses the way it is now. Private citizens are fired at will for low performance and it should be the same for government employees.

This will never work because private businesses and government agencies serve entirely different purposes.

The government can’t just do a cost/benefit analysis and cut stuff like SSI and Medicare that requires a lot of resources and by definition will never be profitable. And we can’t just easily reallocate resources to whatever “priority” is du jour.

Yes we can (and do) have goals and metrics employees are expected to meet, but agencies don’t get to choose their own goals, budget, and timelines so you end up with a bunch of people being told to “do more with less.” The job protections are supposed to be here to help offset some of this.

Could it use tweaks? Sure. But it should be done thoughtfully with input from people who actually understand the public sector, not private sector billionaires who have no understanding of workloads that do not involve profit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a fed and consistently work more than 60+ hrs/week. I do work over the weekends and so does my boss.

+1. I also used to work for one of the largest oil companies in the world, and if you don't think there were some lazy moochers hidden away throughout that organization, I've got a bridge to sell you. Every large bureaucracy will have it.

Not to be all "old" about it, but IMHO the bigger problem over the next decade isn't "lazy feds," but it's the genuinely lazy Gen Z'ers. If you work with anyone in their early 20s, you know that they truly do not like to work.

They all got pushed though remote school and public schools have no consequences for behaviors or late work and many schools aren’t allowed to give students a zero on assignments. They aren’t pushed to work early on and it sticks.

I'm a HS teacher and I agree with this. Caught a kid cheating recently and the kid started arguing with me in front of the whole class, then went crying to mommy and counselor that my classroom wasn't "safe". Mommy and counselor e-mailed echoing the kid's concerns.
Have another kid not turning in assignments (for which we do give zeros) and the mom is harrassing me and admin non-stop about extending deadlines, which the kid keeps missing. But it's all my fault.

The schools' relentless lowering of standards is responding in large measure to the non-stop harrassment from parents of perfect children whose perfection is not recognized by those miserable, inadequate schools.

Anonymous wrote:We need to start treating government departments like private companies. They have x tasks to do in whatever certain time with y money to do it. Someone in charge of the department. If it’s not done, they get fired until someone is competent enough to lead that department. Of course you’d need to give them the power to fire people for low performance, not just egregious offenses the way it is now. Private citizens are fired at will for low performance and it should be the same for government employees.

Well if you actually worked in government you’d know that we do have x tasks to complete in y time. As an attorney who handles issues litigated in federal court there are statutory deadlines for filings that we could get in a lot of trouble for missing. There are also plenty of agencies with production type requirements like SSA, VA, USPTO, etc. Then you have agencies that are dealing with members of the public so they are trying to keep up with work in real time. Also most of the higher level management have their performance graded based on meeting certain metrics.

Do you really think people are showing up to work with some loose directive to do some work with no deadlines or standards? This is so insane to me that anyone would think this.

As for firing people I agree poor performers should be easier to get rid of. Right now they get put on PIPs which often means they improve just enough to get off them for a while. I think most good fed employees would be fine with some sort of streamlined way to get rid of deadweight (but hint: a couple billionaires firing 2/3 of the workforce or making government a miserable place to work for so that the the top people leave isn’t going to have this effect).

Also, the x time to complete tasks with y money to do it only works if you actually fund things properly. Unlike private industry, agencies don’t control their own budgets or hiring. They can’t go borrow a bit more money when needed or rely on increased profits. So to some extent the public also needs to grasp the fact that fed workers are doing job that cannot functionally operate like a private business.

We need to start treating government departments like private companies. They have x tasks to do in whatever certain time with y money to do it. Someone in charge of the department. If it’s not done, they get fired until someone is competent enough to lead that department. Of course you’d need to give them the power to fire people for low performance, not just egregious offenses the way it is now. Private citizens are fired at will for low performance and it should be the same for government employees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
-People who know how to game the system, including use of EEOC and ADA, and do just enough to never get fired. It is genuinely very difficult to get rid of an average to below average employee who can show intermittent periods of doing their job.

And of course there are people in public service who work very hard.

So shouldn't everyone have a some type of income? Should we just fire people because they had a bad year, bad week or got sick? I know many amazing workers who fell ill with cancer, lost a loved one or had a mental health issue. Their work suffered because they couldn't take time off without a paycheck. So they just muddled along until they could get back on their feet professionally.

I find that many Americans want to see people fired, not the street, begging and groveling if they aren't working at 100 percent and firing on all cylinders every day of every year. People should be fired for major screw ups like in medicine, science, architecture and data breaches. But in my years in government, much of the work that people think is fireable is actually laughable. I worked for an overeducated, prep school elite woman who would write paragraphs in emails that were akin to Jane Austin. I couldn't believe she held her position. She said she was such a hard worker, but really it was full of fluff. She also had a son with special needs and was going through a divorce. Should she get fired? I mean what do people think happens to all these unemployed people? They end up on the streets and it isn't a good look for society. Look at California. Hard working people are sleeping on the steps of Rodeo Drive because they were fired. Do we really want a society where all we do is fire people because they are not performing like robots?

This is one of the craziest things I’ve ever read on dcum.

Feds are not being fired for not firing on all cylinders nonstop. 99% of feds are fired for egregious actions- working a 2nd job at work (using gov computer, gov printers), misuse of government funds, not showing up to work, or criminal activity.

Someone with a special needs kid going through a divorce gets a lot of grace. Reasonable accommodations are a change of schedule, ability to go to doctors appts during the day. But even still, we need work to get done. How is it fair to coworkers that they have to do their work plus yours?

I am concerned for the future of work in general. Gen Z has a lot of mental issues and wants everyone else to work harder to accommodate them. I’m a millennial and completely understand mental issues, but I feel like you can’t bring it to work or let it interfere with your life. They’re making their mental issues their entire life.

COVID shutdowns and social media has done them in hard.

No one requires more accommodation than boomers who are way past their prime. My gen Z employees can at least complete basic administrative task when directed.