"For most of their lives, federal workers in Mantua say, having “United States Treasury” atop their paycheck meant security, pride and a sense of mission. Things change: Now it means having to defend yourself against arguments, from strangers and even from your own relatives, that you’re an overpaid and underworked leech. And in these days of political paralysis, it means that that paycheck suddenly isn’t so secure anymore."
I didn't realize that the disdain of the taxpaying public was playing head-games with some government employees. Heck, when I was a young girl, my mom tried to get a job at the post office; hundreds of people applied for one position. The job was considered a gravy-train of pay and bennies, and required no skills other than being able to read and count change. Alas, she didn't have the connections to be handed the sugarplum. The article captures this view of government work in one quote:
“I don’t know if people will want to go into the government the way it’s thought of now,” Foo said. “For us in the ’70s, it was about security and availability. It wasn’t the highest paid of jobs, but the pay was guaranteed and you couldn’t get laid off.” (bolding mine)
Actually, even back in the seventies, the pay was good. I've often seen a certain "disconnect" between some federal workers and the private sector, and it doesn't surprise me that a few of them are feeling a bit of animosity from their friends and families. While those in the private sector have been brutalized by the crippled economy and the budget-busting weight of millions of pages of new regulations, the government-class has been fairly well insulated from the pain. It's difficult for people who are living in personal austerity to relate to...well, to THIS guy:
"The professor has already cut back in anticipation of the forthcoming budget slashing: He told a carpenter who was going to build bookshelves in the living room that the $5,000 job will have to be put off, and he told his doggie day care provider that he’ll have to go without that service when the furloughs kick in."
Really? Please tell us more about your tragic personal situation! Or not. Whining will not win the hearts of folks who have seen their retirement savings gobbled up by simple living expenses, their paychecks (if they're lucky enough to have one) remain stagnant, and their taxes go up.
We need a small staff of federal workers; good ones. Strong people. Educated people who take public service as a calling, not a pig trough. They are out there; hard-working, brilliant, and dedicated. I think we owe those people a hearty "thank you", and on the flip side of the coin, they owe taxpayers a hearty "thank you" for the paychecks and benefits the private sector provide.
While it's true that the federal government has an enormous glut of personnel and programs, and that the tail has been wagging the dog to the point of economic collapse, we must be careful, in our fed-up disdain, not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
...and you couldn’t get laid off.” (bolding mine)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how or where that idea took root, but it is false. Flat out false. I presume the originator never experienced a "RIF" ... aka "reduction in force". It is a musical chairs affair of bump & retreat, in civil service, even more drastic in the military, but in the end, those left over are separated, permanently.
It never ever makes the MSM reports, electronic or print.
Some of you may recall that when I retired it was in the midst of a DOD/Army RIF. If I had stayed, my successor would have been bumped down 3 grades and the person she bumped would have been let go permanently. At 63 I was eligible to retire, so I did, giving a fine young woman a better chance and saving one lower ranked employee from discharge. It cost me some dollars in Social Security benefits to go at 63 not 65+, but I do not regret it and never have. It was just the right thing to do. Especially when others faced RIF.
Ari, FWIW I do recall that there were RIFs in the early part of the Clinton administration - "Peace Dividend" - and the press covered the situation faced by soldiers who had fought in Desert Storm not long before. I may be misremembering, but that's what I remember.
DeleteNo, you have it right...one of the few times RIF's have made it to MSM news are 1972 and 1992. Cake eaters were retained, actual workers and fighters were RIF'd....and I don't recall THAT distinction making the press.
DeleteWe are going in to a similar RIF condition today...seems like they go on 20 year cycles. We'll soon see how much attention gets paid to it this time around. I'm real curious to see if overall the number of flag ranks falls below 800....since, even at our full strength today it should be no more than 300 for barely 1.4 million under arms.
My point was they occur much more frequently that that (mine was in 2005)and never get a mention. Thus the idea that feds or soldiers cannot be laid off, which is flat out not true.
I admit that my cynicism about government is prejudicial...since around 2004 it has almost been 100% lies and bullshit. It did wear me out.
One of our nephews has been laid off by the Navy; he and his family are preparing to transition to civilian life. I know this isn't the first time for a RIF, but it sure is painful for the troops who were planning on making the military a career, and who have 10+ years in.
DeleteCutting our troops is a mistake, then and now. It seems as if soldiers, cops, and firefighters are always the ones on the chopping block. You never hear of thousands of IRS agents or hordes of HHS desk-jockeys getting the boot. Maybe they do, but I can't remember reading of such a thing.
Lady Red...you are correct, the RIF's usually occur within critical groups, not the cake eaters. Infantry and other combat arms units will go long before any Pentagon Rangers.
DeleteFor example: If we read about the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team being deactivated, that will signal the end of forward positioned fighting pro-activity in the US Army. There's nothing the fucking Democrats and Libertarians would like better. Render us impotent is the goal. The financial goal of Libertarians is pointless, however admirable by itself, if we're subject to defeat by Mice that Roar. The latter cancels the former.
Some history: The 173rd...aka "The Herd" ... is the last permanently deployed, in Vicenza, Italy, U S Army light infantry outfit with its own self contained support elements that can go anywhere do anything on a moment's notice....and is the closest U S Army formation to a doubly reinforced USMC expeditionary force....but one that goes by air faster and soonest.
When Turkey refused to allow the entire 4th Infantry Division to cross its borders into Iraq, the 173rd AB Brigade made an airborne assault in to northern Iraq, alone, as a single brigade....the photograph of the 173rd trooper became famous and shows what a "self sustaining" load means individually. Light infantry is anything but light.
I cite the 173rd for a reason...how many people do you know who have any idea of who they are? Where they go? Of those of perhaps saw the television documentary "Restrepo" know that it was about 173rd soldiers in the Afghan Korengal Valley, an equivalent to the Ashau Valley in Vietnam? How many know that it was a battalion of 173rd soldiers that became surrounded on Hill 875, at the Battle of Dak To, Vietnam, outnumbered above and below, cut off completely, but did NOT cave in and held out until relieved. 30% of that battalion were killed or wounded on Hill 875, and 20% of the 173rd overall died at Dak To. But they won and the NVA retreated. 3 173rd troopers received the CMH for Dak To, and 13 total received it for actions in Vietnam.
There is tradition there, in the 173rd, that I can almost guarantee you that no one in the White House has ever thought about or even heard of...like their 3 deployments to Afghanistan (including the Restrepo outpost) or their point of the spear, literally, role in Iraq....let alone Hill 875 at Dak To. I am in awe of them ... I served, BUT I know that I could not have filled those boots. How many in the White House know that?
Obama's administration never lets a crisis pass by without milking it. They won't this time either.
We do need a reduction in our military.
ReplyDeleteA reduction of those JAG officers who spend their time investigating line soldiers.
A reduction of OIC of political correctness for each service.
And most especially a reduction in the REMF's who set the idiotic ROE's that get our front-line fighters killed and wounded.
Most especially we need a reduction of a particular CIC and the marxest fools he's surrounded himself with.
And most especially a reduction in the REMF's who set the idiotic ROE's that get our front-line fighters killed and wounded.
DeleteSpecifically, those ROE's were the products of General McChrystal, and subsequently reviewed and essentially approved whole, by General Petraeus. I do recall General Stumpy Lovey Balls reversed McChrystal's edict about no fast foods on enclave post...but the ROE's stood for the field.
I do not suspect much, if any at all, reduction in the number of flag rank officers, who are now nearly all culled for political correctness. Example: Can anybody tell me what's happening to General Carter Ham of AFRICOM, half way through his tour of duty, and WHY?
No worries, eh! We've not got a Secretary of Defense who asserts quite righteously in the book Chuck Hagel: Moving Forward that he was advised by his draft board to go back to college to avoid the draft and Vietnam, but that he refused and volunteered. Bullshit, he did not enlist, but volunteered to be drafted...e.g., didn't dispute a 1A classification. Everyone who was 1A in 1967 was drafted, but "volunteering" is a cute semantic shift. Now if you believe that story about a draft board scrambling to find candidates advising him to go to college, and him subsequently "volunteering" .... heh heh, I've got this bridge near Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, New York city, for sale. :D
Hagel gets credit for serving in the 9th Mechanized Infantry Division and earning a CIB. There was never a need to enhance the story. 2.5 million guys were drafted or enlisted in the Vietnam War...it wasn't all that unique or special. Unless you died.
I would have to say that the military does not fall into the category of being protected from Federal layoffs. My father had to retire before he wanted to (1971).
ReplyDeleteThe point is that the post office, the IRS, etc., have pretty much been immune to such things.