Respect and Appreciation

[Superman]

On another thread, a hero is identified. A gifted athlete who chose to risk, and ultimately forfeit, his life for the country and values that he loved. A true hero to anyone who recognizes the highest in human values. I didn't want to sully that thread with politics, and actually believe and hope I am not doing that here, but I have often wondered why "government worker" is right down there next to "father-raper." Doctors and judges get respect and deference. Teachers SHOULD get all that.

Sure, we all know stories of how a government office took too long, or was handcuffed against doing what made sense. And yes, there are lazy government workers. But my experience in government, and outside government, tells me that government workers are often people who are working toward a social good that they hold dear, and some of them are foregoing more lucrative careers in the private sector. Government workers are not doing their jobs because they pay obscene money. They pay WAY below their private-sector counterparts. Washington State is struggling to keep their workers at 80% of private sector pay for the same positions. Government workers are also not in it for the prestige. They sometimes are a little quiet about their line of work.

So, underpaid and under-appreciated (perhaps hated), they sometimes feel and seem (from the inside) like "Resistance" commandos, workign undercover serving society. Some of you who get your information from talk shows will not understand what I am talking about, but others will. This is not a question, though you guys are welcome to treat it as such, or comment. It's just my observation that government workers have that team spark that you get from doing really important work, at a sacrifice to yourself. It is, as they say, like peeing your pants in a dark suit. It gives you a warm feeling but nobody notices.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

There are government workers, and there are government workers.

The folks in our armed forces are there to defend us. I don't think they could ever get paid enough.

Our teachers are hamstrung, usually by budget and parents who leave the child-rearing to the public (i.e., teachers).

The AZ police officer who pulls you over for 46 mph in a 40, makes a rude comment in addition to giving you a ticket, and motors off on his $20k Harley is on a power trip. Oh, and incidentally, he shows up 30 minutes after you've been mugged.

Then there's the guy at the DMV who goes to lunch right before your number is called, and then snidely tells you to go to the end of the line because you don't have the right form.

Of the four I've listed, which two are the ones we run into most often?

Then there's the IRS agent....never mind. In no other court in the US are you guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof rests on the defense.

Maybe I don't understand your question.

[Moses]

It's not you, Superman. Most people have no quarrel with government employees. It's just that some of us think there are too many of you.

If about half of you were working in the private sector, our gratitude would swell like our new tax returns.

[Superman]

I understand the concept of being frustrated by government decisions. Government workers are very very familiar with that. As I've said before, since no one seems to be watching congressional and legislative decision-making very closely, good, solid proposals take a back seat to idiotic decisions made for a variety of idiotic reasons. The most popular trick overall is to pass a law making the liberals happy, and either underfund the administration of the new regulation so that it is not enforced, or leave loopholes that an iceberg can fit through. Eventually, no one is happy but in the short run, this is successful legislation.

Okay, thanks guys for noting that some government workers can be characterized as unsung heros. This is true. And if society made sense, gifted managers from the private sector would be cycled in and out of public service, and that service would be both effective and respected. I can tell you unequivocally that the highest impact jobs are in public sector. The regulations I interpreted and determined had impacts on nearly every single employment relationship in the state. Millions of workers were affected by my decisions. In fact, I'd challenge my conservative friends to go into this area, even if it is for the purpose of frustrating government mandates from the inside. Sneaky and potentially effective, this will look like a good way to bring the system down a notch. The reason I can feel comfortable, as a government-liker, in suggesting this kind of sabotage, is because once in, the whole picture will begin to change for you. Like when CS Lewis picked up the bible with the intent of discrediting it. The rest, as they say, is history.

[fintstone]

It depends on the government worker. I have worked for the federal government, and my wife does presently. The biggest problem I see is the the way it is akin to a union (in fact there is one). Employees almost have to start at the bottom. It is almost impossible to hire folks from outside the current workforce, so if the people inside wait long enough..they eventually move up the ladder, regardless of ability. For example, a person with no experience can start in HR as a GS-3 (high school diploma) and is eligible for promotion to a GS-5 te next year, a GS-7, the next. So in 2 years can be a GS-7 if the stars are aligned. If a person has a Masters degree in HR, they are only eligible to start as a GS-7. Of course the person with the MS is not going top take the GS-7 job. So the group considered a year later for the GS-9 level are all the high school grads..No fresh blood or outside competion ever comes in past this point..the GS-11, GS-12, GS-13, GS-14..etc...Almost all the people in the system are the folks who started at the bottom and often those who could not find anything better. Eventually due to the low competition, most of the higher graded folks are promoted well past their level of competency.

[araine901]

Government employees are a mixed bag. There are many who are fantastic and work hard for their employer. Again there are those that just like the private sector suck. The big difference is the protection of their jobs. There is no good reason that my high school history teacher I had to wake of for class regularly should make as much as my mother who with a masters PhD and voted teacher of the year every year. There is no incentive for merit.

My oldest brother (GS 17) was called in to “clean up” JPATS “Con Air”. The things that were going on were mind blowing. Laws were broken all the time and it was mostly by the management level of the organization. He busted his but and got it turned into a well oiled machine. It was very hard to get some of the employees terminated even the ones who made death threats and broke serious laws. In most for profit companies if an employee made a death threat they would be terminated in quick fashion. He also ran all of the detention and transportation in the post 9/11 round up and helped keep the “undisclosed” location safe with 800 people looking to blow us up. He saw his family less than 45 min a week as he was rarely in San Diego (home) and spent 3 weeks a month in AZ and 1 week a month in DC. He gave more than he was expected to and so did many other government employees. There are many heroes working for the government. There are also many turds.

My next oldest brother was a social worker in so cal and was very poorly treated by managers due to race and gender. His union was too busy with too many grievances they would not accept any more grievances. Oddly enough they represented both labor and management. Conflict???

Both have excellent co-workers and both have crapy co-workers. The difference between me and them is in the real world crapy ones get fired for lack of productivity.

[expat]

Private vs Government worker effectiveness arguements generally hold no validity due to the comonly failed 'arguement by selected instance' strategy (a great way to try to prove a point on this BB!).

No matter whether you are in a gov. job or a private job you will find the good the bad and the ugly!

Government jobs are quickly turning into contract positions so if you are not effective, your gone. Not much different than private really.

You can argue that in private enterprise there are a lot of 'jobs for the boys' where working 'benefits' only extend to greedy, corrupt, self-serving individuals and not society, and while the private entreprenuer is working hard at etching a living, they are equally dodging taxes left right and centre, don't have time for their families leaving the rest of society to care for them yada.. yada... yada....You can make an arguement on either side of the fence, depending upon which side your sitting.

For me, no job is necessarily more alturistic/important than another. We all need each other to survive at some level. You can't really define one job as more significant than another (well, maybe you can ). Problem is some jobs seem to attract amazing salaries/income/benefits that may be out of step in a comparison of benefit to society. An example (by selected instance ) might be the soldier vs the private practice doctor/lawyer.

Hmmm...starting to sound very socialist Hohumm

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by expathk
You can argue that in private enterprise there are a lot of 'jobs for the boys' where working 'benefits' only extend to greedy, corrupt, self-serving individuals and not society, and while the private entreprenuer is working hard at etching a living, they are equally dodging taxes left right and centre, don't have time for their families leaving the rest of society to care for them yada.. yada... yada....You can make an arguement on either side of the fence, depending upon which side your sitting.

So basically what you're saying is don't bother me with your arguments about private vs. government efficiency, but let me generalize of the ills of private enterprise and entrepreneurs. So there's good, bad, and ugly in government, but it's all bad on the private side?

I would argue you use 'selected instance' to argue against the private sector, but you won't accept such jabs against the government conglomerate...

As with any profession, there are good and bad. Unfortunately, the average citizen interfaces with some of the rudest and incompetent of the government ranks, while the hardest-working are in the trenches making real progress. The good ones are transparent, because doing your job well means you draw less attention—kind of like a successful entrepreneur.

My father has been involved in government for 20+ years (working as a civilian employee as well as city commission/city planner), and he could make arguments for both sides. The government can be equally inept and wonderful at the same time. As a city commissioner he is frustrated at times, because his constituents can bring ridiculous demands (why can't I subdivide my property when I have only 50' of road frontage). So, in essence you have a government that can be unpredictable at best, and citizens that can be downright ignorant. Sounds like a perfect match to me.
jürgen

[Superman]

Can't disagree with any of you guys. You've got it. My experience might be a little skewed. I worked for a state agency that has a reputation of being a place NOT to transfer to if you want to nap. Within that agency, the division and program I worked in was, again, 'green beret.' I've met some bad government workers, but most of the folks I dealt with would, quite frankly, clobber the average private-sector worker in a head-to-head competition. And I have worked for some private sector companies that are regularly hailed by magazines as being way out in front of their competitors. As a quick example, I worked for Nordstroms, and my people at the state agency could give those folks lessons on "customer service." That's going to be hard for some to believe, but that's my position and I can prove it.

And here's another thing that has always been striking to me, since my career has at times focused on compensation analysis. The difference in pay between public and private sector service is striking. Entrepeneurs are not special. They are reaching for the brass ring, and I'm very supporting and yes, appreciative, but they are going after a chance to earn essentially unlimited money So, they are not like missionaries or something. Get it? Anyway, I made decisions (I'm not trying to blow my own horn here) that affected thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of workers. I had that as a sole responsibility. No boards or commissions, etc. Singe decision-maker. And my bosses had their hands full, and my office was understaffed. So, I was on my own. The pay I got was pathetic. Now, if you're going to set a system up where a single individual will decide pay policy for nearly every Washington State business, wouldn't it make sense to offer an attractive salary and perhaps get someone with some talent and understanding? All they had was a dimwit like me. When I left that agency and became a consultant to another local, municipal agency, my salary rose by more than 20%, and my duties/responsibilities/influence went to near zero. I do almost NOTHING compared to that government job, and get substantially more money.

Again, it is hard for me to imagine one person having more impact over more private businesses than I had with that G-job. And if the conservatives were really serious about the importance and impact of economics and government regulation upon the "market," they wouold support the notion of getting someone into that position who was REALLY sharp. But as I've said before, the conservatives hate government and don't know how to run it. So, that position remains underfunded. It is not a "work up" job. It is an exempt position for which the agency can do a nationwide search, if they want to. There is some real talent out there in the private sector. But to attract them, the governmetn would have to offer a more attractive compensation package. But right now, the preferred strategy is to STARVE government. Okay. But you're going to get what you pay for. And then you're going to whine.

[expat]

Originally posted by turbo6bar
I would argue you use 'selected instance' to argue against the private sector, but you won't accept such jabs against the government conglomerate...

jürgen

Of course I did! That was my point! You can make an arguement on either side of the fence by selected instance. And I didn't say its all the private businesses that's bad I certainly don't believe that! Hell, private industry rocks and takes a lot of courage, persistence and usually intelligence to work well. Again I reiterate that you can make arguement on either side however.

Likewise I never said there is nothing wrong with '....the government conglomerate...'. Geeze...read more carefully...an arguement on either side can be made. I was just pointing out to those who always raid down on the government workers that it's not just the govt. sector that has these problems, which was the point of the thread I believe.

[turbo6bar]

Ok, so this thread is bascially preaching to the choir... next question please.

[lendaddy]

But right now, the preferred strategy is to STARVE government.

Bwaaaaaaaa haaaa haaaaaa

Oh stop it , it hurts

bwaaaaaaaa haa haa [cough cough]

Man Sup, we disagree sometimes, but that is some funny ***** man, kudos.

[lendaddy]

In all seriousness man I gotta say here is yet ANOTHER time when I feel your statements are incredibly detached from reality.

Bush’s spending splurges not only include extra spending on defense, but also an increase in nonmilitary spending by 21 percent over the last three years alone. In fact, Bush hasn’t vetoed a single bill that involved an expansion of government spending since he has entered the White House.

Maybe "starve" means something different where you live I think your statement is classic of government lovers(neat tag I think). When you get a decrease in the level of funding increases you call it a cut, and when you actually get increases you claim to be starving. It hurts my head.

[pwd72s]

I wish that every bureaucrat, and I include teachers here, who told me they could do better working in private enterprise would simply do so.

[expat]

Originally posted by pwd72s
I wish that every bureaucrat, and I include teachers here, who told me they could do better working in private enterprise would simply do so.

Well Paul, I don't know about doing better!!!...I guess that depends upon what you/they mean by doing better, but I have left gov. teaching positions to work in the private sector (teaching still)...so does that make you happy?

I can tell you that in Ca., private schools pay less than gov. schools, we work longer hours and have yearly contracts. That keeps the private sector teachers pretty 'honest' I reckon because they have to march to the drum of parents who have generally high expectations (and rightly so) and are therefore quite accountable. Also, nationally advertised benchmark testing results is really putting the pressure on schools to lift their game.

You know, I hold a Masters in Education, a Masters in Business Admin and start my PhD in education next year, and one of the private schools in LA offered me an annual salary of US$25,000. That's pretty crappy money so I wonder who the teachers are that are saying they can do better in private?

Even the gov. teaching positions in Ca. top out around the $65,000 mark which ain't good money by many standards. It's a pretty big disincentive for men especially (traditionally the main bread winner), to start or stay in education. Remember the cost of living is pretty darn high in Ca. and as has been mentioned in previous threads, if your not earning a couple $100,000 each year it's pretty hard to raise a family and all that goes with that.

Mark

[lendaddy]

"Even the gov. teaching positions in Ca. top out around the $65,000 mark which ain't good money by many standards."

Glad I don't live in CA, cause $65k aint too bad here in west Michigan. Good points though.

[Hugh R]

I'm no expert on compensation, but in the public sector, (at least here in CA, state employees get 14 paid holidays, the private sector usually give about 6-7. The California Highway Patrol gets (I think) 90 or 95% of full salary on retirement. I wouldn't be a CHP or any kind of cop, it is a dangerous job, but 95% of salary on retirement??? The private sector, if you have a pension at all, usually gives closer to 30-40%, State employees don't pay into Social Security there's about 13.5% (employer and employee contributions) of your money that you may actually get when you retire. Unlimited jury duty, I had to take a week of personal vacation with my last employer, and I had to eat it (5 days) when I worked for myself as a consultant. In government, you start with two weeks of vacation and can work up to eight weeks. I have an colleague in the City of Burbank whose going to retire with 30 years at age 51 with a pension of $10,000/month, that's $120,000 a year in pension. He'll also get lifetime medical insurance for free. My sister works for the Department of Energy and she became very, very sick in November and spent several months in the hospital. The DOE has a "donated sick time program and she had almost six months of sick time donated to her from other people in the DOE who had so much sick time accrued that they couldn't acure any more. So government work isn't all that bad.

[Moses]

Originally posted by expathk
Also, nationally advertised benchmark testing results is really putting the pressure on schools to lift their game.

The California Teachers Association has successfully fought attempts to link testing scores to individual classrooms. Apparently they feel it is important to protect the identity of the teachers whose students habitually underperform.

If public school teachers were rewarded based on actual measurable performance, I would gladly pay more taxes to support better teacher compensation. Until there is real reform, I'll vote no on most school bonds.

[island911]

Originally posted by pwd72s
I wish that every bureaucrat, and I include teachers here, who told me they could do better working in private enterprise would simply do so.

No Kidding!

It is an absurd premise to spout "underpaid and under-appreciated" . . .as if the weekly paycheck was the only marker of compensation.

Government workers have MUCH higher job security than those in the private sector. They have much higher chance of a reallizing a solvant retirement plan. They get the opportunity to steer large amounts of other people money (read: lots'o lips on their butts) Or, in the case of teachers, get the opportunity to steer large amounts of other people minds.

The toughest part of teaching (from my experience) is fighting the repetitious boredom of repeating the same subject-matter, qtr after qtr. That, and dealing with those slackers who show up as part of a govt funded (or parent funded) worker retraining program. . ..These ones are just enduring the class so they can realize the joy of the hand-out. . . . .thats it. . .i'm going to go write a pop-quiz for them today. ahh - now I feel better.

. . . uh wait. . uh . . I mean; I must be underpaid and under-appreciated . ..yeah, thats it. . .gimme more money!

[Superman]

Lendaddy, your posts and mine are different because you get your data from summaries and radio shows. I know nothing about 'aggregate spending' or 'decrease in the level of increases." I will try to state my case in terms most folks can grasp, and I'll just have to assume that works for you. I was saying that, if you're going to have a regulation, there are three levels of costliness. The lowest cost is if you fund the program so that it barely can achieve its objective. The second lowest is if you fully fund the program so that it can do its job properly. These two are potentiall interchangeable. It might be more expensive to barely fund a program, but here I am assuming that's not the case. The the absolute MOST expensive way to run a regulatory program is to underfund it so that it cannot possibly do a good, or even passable, job. My case was a good illustration. I calculated wages that would serve as minimum wages on all state and local construction jobs. I had a budget that allowed me to perform cheap wage surveys, but did not allow me to fully edit and understand the data. So, the state saved a couple of thousand dollars each month by not providing me with staffing resources. Let's say I created a Laborer wage of $40, when the real number should have been $25. My state performs somewhere between $2 Billion and $4 Billion in construction each year, with Laborer as a principle construction occupation. The savings of a couple thousand per month would come NOWHERE NEAR enough to cover the added costs to our contractors and public agencies' budgets from an over-calculation. And that's not all. The fee, to administer this function, was charged to contractors, and 30% of those fees were siphoned off to the General Fund (schools). So, not only were we (probably) making mistakes costing contractors and public agencies millions of dollars, but the money that would have fixed the problem was already being paid by the contractors...just not applied in the right place.

So, you can go ahead and call me names. You can pretend like I'm an idiot. But you seem to me to be a long way from understanding your own public policy-making process and I have little respect for folks on the outside throwing rocks at the people who are trying to make it work....using phraseology from radio talk shows.

And your sources probably tell you nothing about the very popular strategy of starving specific government offices, to make things really look bad and get expensive, so that the law can become a better repeal target later. Please do not sadden me more by caricaturizing the name-calling that conservatives do when we liberals outline our position. It is my position that much of government works poorly because it never gets a chance to work at all. Lendaddy, here's a thousand dollars. Go get a car and be competitive in next year's Open Track Challenge. This is all you can spend. And you cannot just back away. That is the position that many governmetn office are in. They are mandated to do certain things, and the funding for those functions leaves NO HOPE of meeting the mandates. But not meeting them is not an option. So, the mandates get met, barely, poorly.

Again, I am tired of people who think they understand government, but all they really understand is that "government" is a bad thing. They don't know why, but they know it's a bad thing.

And here's something for the rest of you to understand about education and health care. Once upon a time, there were just two vocations generally open to women working outside the home. They could be teachers, or nurses. Even the very brightest and most energetic. They could be teachers and nurses. And since their husbands had the "family" jobs, there was no need to pay them competitively. Also, they had no mobility. Again, they could be teachers, or nurses. Lack of mobility, to a compensation analyst like myself, means that the market cannot bring the pay levels in those occupations to "equity." So, they were in some cases very talented (these were our brightest and most energetic women), and in all cases underpaid. I mean underpaid when you analyze the occupation and compare it to other occupations that have similar requirements/duties. Since that time women have been allowed to enter many other fields, and now our brightest women are attorneys, doctors, politicians, actuaries, you name it. But those occupations are still floating toward, but not yet arriving at, equity compared to other of our society's occupations. Nurses are moving more quickly, since they are commonly employed in the private sector. Teachers will take more time, largely because their pay rates are mandated by legislative fiat.

In my view, it might be fair to regard teachers and other public servants more highly than we do. I could argue that their functions are among the very most important in our society. But then, the reason they are not as respected as entrepeneurs is because they are not doing society the ultimate service of making the digital widgets that we will all need to buy to replace our analog widgets because, well, because those are the widgets you need in today's market.