2 weeks of federal furlough?

[gbear]

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=2055749

I'm just curious what the general public thinks of the idea to save $5 billion. I did think it put at least one thing in perspective. There are 26 pay periods per year. That would put the budget for payroll at $130 billion which probably does not count benefits. I know we allow 50% to 75% for benefits so we're talking roughly $200 billion.

What is our defecit? roughly 1.3 trillion? I put this out there only for a sense of scale.

For it or against?

[December90]

How about a two decade furlough for non-military federal workers.

[Predicto]

It's a stupid idea, but that's where we are these days.

Entitlements are the problem. Everything else is secondary.

[Corcaigh]

For it or against?

Might be easier to implement, but the reality should be cutting the least effective 20% or more from the Federal workforce.

[BeachSkin]

Strongly oppose. But then, I'm a federal worker...AFGE will stop this in its tracks

[Predicto]

Might be easier to implement, but the reality should be cutting the least effective 20% or more from the Federal workforce.

Of course. Going with furloughs assumes that all federal workers do nothing necessary, important or useful. That's a good tea party slogan, but it's really a stupid assumption.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Imagine what the State has had to deal with.

[Predicto]

Imagine what the State has had to deal with.

We are already using furloughs in California. They are a disaster.

Yet another bad idea from the Golden State.

[ACW]

I'd like to have a 2-week vacation :mad:

How about cutting the workforce? Start with the DEA, ONDCP, and FCC.

[The Evil Genius]

Hell no.

It's hard enough to attract good skilled workers into public service.

Now you want to take additional funds from an already below average payscale (for comparison work done in the private sector)?

Try getting anyone worth anything to take that.

If this continued assault on public workers continues - when the last of the baby boomers retires - public servants will be less qualified and skilled than fast food workers.

[USS Redskins]

My office has been furloughed every other Friday for over a year now. It saved the jobs of 75 people. Its a 10% salary cut (which sucks but over half of my salary is commission so it doesnt effect me as much) and it has worked out really well for the whole company. I enjoy the extra time with my kids ( my wife can now work on Fridays) and I am able to get my job done in 9 days instead of 10. There were adjustments to be sure but they work well.

I wish the gov't would act more like a business sometimes with our money.

[The Evil Genius]

We are already using furloughs in California. They are a disaster.

Yet another bad idea from the Golden State.

And ours is 7 weeks of furloughs.

Per year.

[jhayunga]

Well in MD we can furlough cops and firefighters but not teachers! Despite the fact that they get 35 paid days off during a ten month work year. So I don't think the world would end if we tried it.

[The Evil Genius]

I still do not understand how furloughs can be implemented without collective bargaining, especially when a groups of employees have a contract with the state/feds.

[Popeman38]

Hell no.

It's hard enough to attract good skilled workers into public service.

Now you want to take additional funds from an already below average payscale (for comparison work done in the private sector)?

Try getting anyone worth anything to take that.

If this continued assault on public workers continues - when the last of the baby boomers retires - public servants will be less qualified and skilled than fast food workers.

I am SOOO tired of this argument. Federal jobs are cake. EVERYONE wants a federal job right now. For every govt job posted there are literally thousands of resumes thrown at it. Why? Because the pay gap has narrowed CONSIDERABLY over the last decade, and it is the ONLY stable platform out there. The govt is expanding at an unbelievable rate. Contracting jobs are being converted to govt jobs.

Ever deal with the Social Security Office? Why is it so inefficient? If a private company was responsible for that work, would it be more efficient? Why is that?

Ever try to get something new incorporated into the govt? How'd that work out? Why is it so difficult?

[The Evil Genius]

What job isn't cake when your are a disgruntled outsider looking in?

The notion remains though - reducing pay of federal jobs will result in even a worse return. What good remains in the system won't be replaced because whatever stability and perks that drew the good to the job have been eliminated.

Think the system is bad now? Wait 15 years when the last of the baby boomers are gone and no one wants a job that is thankless for crap pay (benefits and stability be damned).

[Redskins Diehard]

I am SOOO tired of this argument. Federal jobs are cake. EVERYONE wants a federal job right now. For every govt job posted there are literally thousands of resumes thrown at it. Why? Because the pay gap has narrowed CONSIDERABLY over the last decade, and it is the ONLY stable platform out there. The govt is expanding at an unbelievable rate. Contracting jobs are being converted to govt jobs.

Ever deal with the Social Security Office? Why is it so inefficient? If a private company was responsible for that work, would it be more efficient? Why is that?

Ever try to get something new incorporated into the govt? How'd that work out? Why is it so difficult?

So the pay gap has narrowed but hasn't closed? Is that what you are saying?

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with private sector. A model of efficiency. I mean what would happen if BP were incompetent? Or if GM was inefficient? Or is Wall St made made bad decisions?

The whole "private sector is so efficient and productive and nobody does anything except collect a paycheck in the public sector" is tired and untrue.

Let me guess...if the social security office was private then it would be out of business. That is the answer you are looking for isn't it?

[Popeman38]

So the pay gap has narrowed but hasn't closed? Is that what you are saying?

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with private sector. A model of efficiency. I mean what would happen if BP were incompetent? Or if GM was inefficient? Or is Wall St made made bad decisions?

If the idiot govt doesn't get involved, GM fails. If a business doesn't make money it folds. If the govt doesn't cover last years expenses, it expands. WTF kinda reasoning is that? The fed govt is THE most inefficient entity in the country.

The whole "private sector is so efficient and productive and nobody does anything except collect a paycheck in the public sector" is tired and untrue.

Let me guess...if the social security office was private then it would be out of business. That is the answer you are looking for isn't it?

I never said that. I used to work in the govt. I have seen its inefficiency first hand. When there is no competition or threat of losing business, what motivation is there for the workforce?

If a business is in competition it has to be productive.

[Popeman38]

What job isn't cake when your are a disgruntled outsider looking in?

The notion remains though - reducing pay of federal jobs will result in even a worse return. What good remains in the system won't be replaced because whatever stability and perks that drew the good to the job have been eliminated.

Think the system is bad now? Wait 15 years when the last of the baby boomers are gone and no one wants a job that is thankless for crap pay (benefits and stability be damned).

Benefits and stability be damned? Benefits cost me $3,000 a year! Plus you have to ensure that you grow your business to keep a job. Govt accounting is broken accounting. Instead of encouraging saving, it encourages running a deficit so your budget expands next year.

[Redskins Diehard]

If the idiot govt doesn't get involved, GM fails. If a business doesn't make money it folds. If the govt doesn't cover last years expenses, it expands. WTF kinda reasoning is that? The fed govt is THE most inefficient entity in the country.

I never said that. I used to work in the govt. I have seen its inefficiency first hand. When there is no competition or threat of losing business, what motivation is there for the workforce?

If a business is in competition it has to be productive.

I am sure your experience is indicative of the entire government. I worked in the private sector and saw lazy unproductive people that collected a paycheck.

What motivation is there for the workforce? Some people actually believe in the work they do. Some people are motivated to do a good job for the sake of doing a good job. Some want to get promoted. Same as private sector.

[Burgold]

Govt workers and bureaucrats are easy scapegoats. They always have been.

[The Evil Genius]

Govt workers and bureaucrats are easy scapegoats. They always have been.

http://www.thenation.com/article/war-public-workers

The lavish lifestyle of public workers is a myth, but the right-wing mythmakers know it's a powerful talking point. By attacking public workers, they can demonize "big labor" and "big government" at the same time, while deflecting attention from the more logical target of Middle America's rage: the irresponsible Wall Street traders, whose risky, high-profit business practices brought down the economy, and the lax regulators who let them get away with it.

At its heart, the scapegoating of public employees is an insidious way to divide public and private sector workers who share many of the same interests. The Manhattan Institute's Nicole Gelinas, for example, cynically argues that cutting pensions for transit employees is an act of "pure social justice" because it might spare minimum-wage workers higher subway fares. Absent is any disussion of raising the minimum wage or of more progressive means of funding the transit system. Low-wage workers aren't Gelinas's real concern; they're just a rhetorical device in her assault on public employees.

[Popeman38]

The lavish lifestyle of public workers is a myth, but the right-wing mythmakers know it's a powerful talking point. By attacking public workers, they can demonize "big labor" and "big government" at the same time, while deflecting attention from the more logical target of Middle America's rage: the irresponsible Wall Street traders, whose risky, high-profit business practices brought down the economy, and the lax regulators who let them get away with it.

At its heart, the scapegoating of public employees is an insidious way to divide public and private sector workers who share many of the same interests. The Manhattan Institute's Nicole Gelinas, for example, cynically argues that cutting pensions for transit employees is an act of "pure social justice" because it might spare minimum-wage workers higher subway fares. Absent is any disussion of raising the minimum wage or of more progressive means of funding the transit system. Low-wage workers aren't Gelinas's real concern; they're just a rhetorical device in her assault on public employees.

What is the most inefficient industry? What sector has the most red tape? What sector is bloated? What sector is expanding at astronomical rates? What sector is full of sweetheart deals to politicians?

I don't "hate" on public employees. I hate on the institution that employs public employees. There is no standard. Once you are hired, if you choose you can coast for 20 years and then retire. You receive better benefits, you have almost a 0% chance of being fired as long as you don't do anything illegal/unethical. The system is broken. And it starts with govt accounting. Govt accounting's goal is to reach $0.00 at the most at the end of the year. It would be even better to be in the red a little so you can justify a bigger budget next year. And nowhere is that more evident than the contracting world. There are contractors getting paid $100,000+ to do nothing (I know guys that are literally sitting on their asses at home playing video games because there is no work to do, but the contractor doesn't want to lose the money, and the govt doesn't want to have its funding cut). If they are making $100,000+, how much is the sector of the public workforce being funded that contracted out? How much are they paying out to the sub contractors? It is a joke, and until govt accounting is done away with it will continue to be.

[Catatonic]

Popeman38 - You sound like a contractor who tried to get on as civil service and couldn't.

[Forehead]

Well, I'm going to vote no since I'm a Fed and would prefer not to miss out on the paycheck.

Look, Popeman is right and wrong on some things. Yes, there are lazy Federal workers, plenty of them. There are also many lazy contractors. The fact is, it creates a good situation for someone like me, who appreciates an honest day's work. I work my butt off, some of my co-workers coast. Who do you think gets the promotion to a higher pay grade at the end of the fiscal year?

I was a contractor for years before I switched over. I did so mainly for stability and solid insurance since I was beginning a family, plus the work I do is interesting. Not every Fed is out to steal money and coast for 20 or 30 years. I actually take pride in my work.