Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing. Thank you for that scientific 15% fact. It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard. Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia. For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public. There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. How do you count them? Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks. And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers. And what season do you count in? The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available. To mislead?

BTW, here's the source
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/sizing-up-the-executive-branch-2015.pdf

You are an idiot. The report you cite only covers CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees. It says right on page 3 that the numbers provided in the report "exclude a few major components of the Executive Branch (most notably the Postal Service and many intelligence agencies)."

The Postal Service is over 600,000 employees, so as the other PP stated, the real number of federal employees is actually right about 2.8 million.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is most federal workers are underpaid and work really hard. Many, if not most, could make more money in the private sector, especially the most highly skilled. The government's draw is public service and decent benefits. Sure, you could outsource the work that needs to get done, but the private sector overcharges the government and has less oversight.

Completely not true in my agency. The direct opposite. And we're one of the few money-cows, fee-for-service type of deals. I can only imagine the dysfunction in the agencies that don't have to answer to public directly and have no measurable goals to achieve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Absolutely. I worked in government for a year and was bored silly without enough to do. The only time I felt fully productive was when my co-.worker went on vacation for a week, and if had to do both her job and mine. It wasn't hard - it was simply a full day. There never should have been two of us doing that work, but my boss was a GS-15 and "rated" two people, so he took it. I'm sure that went on all over the place, with all sorts of unnecessary overstaffing.

Weak trolling. You can do better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing. Thank you for that scientific 15% fact. It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard. Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia. For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public. There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. How do you count them? Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks. And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers. And what season do you count in? The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available. To mislead?

BTW, here's the source
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/sizing-up-the-executive-branch-2015.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/21/trump-republicans-plan-to-target-government-workers-benefits-and-job-security/

"President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation. Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions — these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January. "


Welcome to the world that the private sector has been living in for years now.

The dude wants to scale up the military, create a deportation force, and increase the border patrol. Ya, sounds like a hiring freeze to me.

Ya? Are you, um, like 12?

You hire where the need is, and fire the dead wood. The Feds are used to job security regardless of performance. Those days are gone.

And about time!! My SIL is crying that her job is no longer guaranteed for life regardless of her job performance. Welcome to the real world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing. Thank you for that scientific 15% fact. It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard. Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia. For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public. There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. How do you count them? Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks. And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers. And what season do you count in? The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available. To mislead?

Anonymous wrote:The reality is most federal workers are underpaid and work really hard. Many, if not most, could make more money in the private sector, especially the most highly skilled. The government's draw is public service and decent benefits. Sure, you could outsource the work that needs to get done, but the private sector overcharges the government and has less oversight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Absolutely. I worked in government for a year and was bored silly without enough to do. The only time I felt fully productive was when my co-.worker went on vacation for a week, and if had to do both her job and mine. It wasn't hard - it was simply a full day. There never should have been two of us doing that work, but my boss was a GS-15 and "rated" two people, so he took it. I'm sure that went on all over the place, with all sorts of unnecessary overstaffing.

Anonymous wrote:The reality is most federal workers are underpaid and work really hard. Many, if not most, could make more money in the private sector, especially the most highly skilled. The government's draw is public service and decent benefits. Sure, you could outsource the work that needs to get done, but the private sector overcharges the government and has less oversight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/21/trump-republicans-plan-to-target-government-workers-benefits-and-job-security/

"President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation. Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions — these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January. "


Welcome to the world that the private sector has been living in for years now.

Didn't make the cut, huh.

I would never apply. Ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/21/trump-republicans-plan-to-target-government-workers-benefits-and-job-security/

"President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation. Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions — these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January. "


Welcome to the world that the private sector has been living in for years now.

Didn't make the cut, huh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Anonymous wrote:The problem is if the R's go after the unions, they will lose the next election. Union members supported Trump and gave him his win.

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are peddling a solution in search of a problem.

The total number of non-military federal workers is at its lowest number since 1966.

What's more, the number of federal govt workers as a percentage of the total work force is at its lowest since WW2.

The number of local govt employees is, however, booming.


http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/07/the-federal-government-now-employs-the-fewest-people-since-1966/