Federal Hiring Freeze

tommyjo

New Member
What, no mention of this on here yet? It happened 3 hours ago.

Our illustrious President signed an order freezing new hiring of civilian employees. How wonderful! Especially in the era of massive retirements. Don't like the lines at SSA now? Don't like the IRS hold times? Are a govt worker expecting time off? Too bad...as you all like to say...you get the govt you vote

But the best part is the "alternative facts" excuse made by Sean Spicer! I am sure all the Trump supporters believe him...because why after all would you start letting facts get in the way of your decision making process now?

On Monday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order freezing all federal government hiring with the exception of the military.

In a press conference on Monday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that the hiring freeze was due to "dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years." Spicer later said that the increase in the size of the federal workforce has been a source of government waste in recent years.

The only problem with this reasoning is that the workforce of the federal government is roughly the same as when President Barack Obama took office and much lower than in decades past.

The non-military workforce was 2.80 million people according to the most recent jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (this number does include civilian employees in the Department of Defense). This is only slightly higher than the 2.79 million at the time when former President Barack Obama took office in January 2009.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spricer-trump-hiring-freeze-doesnt-hold-up-2017-1
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
How is a federal hiring freeze NOT a good thing? You really need to take up smoking pot TJ.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
What, no mention of this on here yet? It happened 3 hours ago.

Our illustrious President signed an order freezing new hiring of civilian employees. How wonderful! Especially in the era of massive retirements. Don't like the lines at SSA now? Don't like the IRS hold times? Are a govt worker expecting time off? Too bad...as you all like to say...you get the govt you vote

But the best part is the "alternative facts" excuse made by Sean Spicer! I am sure all the Trump supporters believe him...because why after all would you start letting facts get in the way of your decision making process now?


http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spricer-trump-hiring-freeze-doesnt-hold-up-2017-1

LMAO This along with that threat that 30% of Government would quit if Trump got elected should help a lot to bring down the massive amount of Government employees who do mostly nothing all day.

The fun thing is that Trump promised to lower the taxes and bring down the debt, now we will hear bitching every time he tries to do that.

Sure bringing down the debt and lowering the vast amount of people on entitlements will hurt, but that's what it's going to take.
Doubling the amount of people on food stamps like Obama did only make the entitlement people vote for Democrats and increase the debt.
Cutting always hurts. But that's what he was hired to do.
 

luvmygdaughters

Well-Known Member
What, no mention of this on here yet? It happened 3 hours ago.

Our illustrious President signed an order freezing new hiring of civilian employees. How wonderful! Especially in the era of massive retirements. Don't like the lines at SSA now? Don't like the IRS hold times? Are a govt worker expecting time off? Too bad...as you all like to say...you get the govt you vote

But the best part is the "alternative facts" excuse made by Sean Spicer! I am sure all the Trump supporters believe him...because why after all would you start letting facts get in the way of your decision making process now?


http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spricer-trump-hiring-freeze-doesnt-hold-up-2017-1

:shrug: Why is this a bad thing? Its a freeze on new hires. The federal government is probably the biggest employer in the USA and honestly, it shouldn't be.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Well I don't want in any way to suggest that any Government agency should be used by a political party.
I believe agencies like the IRS should be fair in all they do and not be politically motivated.
Having said that, they should also do their jobs.

People like Al Sharpton should pay their taxes. I sure hope soon the IRS will do their duty.
In the first place Al Sharpton makes a living out of race baiting.
In the 2nd place I believe his replacement has arrived in the form of the newly retired Barrack Husssein Obama , who will soon take Al's position.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The federal govt. employs almost 3 million people that have continually received higher compensation than the average private sector employee. The average wage for a federal employee was a tad over $86,000 per year compared to the average private sector employee at almost $59,000 per year. Factor in healthcare and pensions and those numbers rise to just over $123,000 compared to the private-sector average of almost $70,000.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Yet federal labor unions still say they are underpaid and lobby for additional pay raises and lobby against pay freezes (like we saw 2011-2013) going so far as to declare their union would "open up the biggest can of whoop ass on anyone" who opposed their demands.
Every time the “fools” in Congress try to hurt the federal workforce, said AFGE National President J. David Cox in a passionate address to his members, “We get bigger. We get stronger and we fight harder.”

He added: “We are a force to be reckoned with and we are a force that will open up the biggest can of whoop ass on anyone” who votes against the union’s interests.
http://www.govexec.com/oversight/20...en-can-whoop-ass-unfriendly-lawmakers/104925/

Couple that with the fact that federal employees are rarely fired. "Layoffs and discharges" in the federal workforce is just one-quarter of the rate in the private sector.
https://www.bls.gov/jlt/

There is near-universal recognition that agencies have a problem getting rid of subpar employees.
http://www.govexec.com/feature/firing-line/

Agencies fired 9,537 federal employees for discipline or performance issues in fiscal 2014, down from 9,634 in 2013 and down from a high of 11,770 in fiscal 2010, according to the data. The firing rate held at 0.46 percent of the workforce in both fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2014 — the lowest rate in 10 years.

The private sector fires nearly six times as many employees — about 3.2 percent — according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and whether the government fires too few people or just not the right people is the subject of continued debate.
http://www.federaltimes.com/story/g...ency/2015/02/24/federal-firing-2014/23880329/

There's obviously some things that need discussing and changes need to be made because the federal govt. cannot simply be this high-paid, low-work environment where it's hard to get fired. It's not like that in the private sector and with such low turnover rate in the government, new talent, new ideas, and production are going to the wayside. American workers have prospered because they don't go into government right out of school. They go to places like Silicon Valley where their ideas can, and have, made them successful.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
the problem any 'reduction' is made in the people that actually work, while middle managers or higher are never touched
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
When Obama took office there was also a hiring freeze.

When comparing pay you have to compare jobs, its not like you can say Google pays too much because their average employee makes more than McDonalds average employee either.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The federal govt. employs almost 3 million people that have continually received higher compensation than the average private sector employee. The average wage for a federal employee was a tad over $86,000 per year compared to the average private sector employee at almost $59,000 per year. Factor in healthcare and pensions and those numbers rise to just over $123,000 compared to the private-sector average of almost $70,000.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Yet federal labor unions still say they are underpaid and lobby for additional pay raises and lobby against pay freezes (like we saw 2011-2013) going so far as to declare their union would "open up the biggest can of whoop ass on anyone" who opposed their demands.

http://www.govexec.com/oversight/20...en-can-whoop-ass-unfriendly-lawmakers/104925/

Couple that with the fact that federal employees are rarely fired. "Layoffs and discharges" in the federal workforce is just one-quarter of the rate in the private sector.
https://www.bls.gov/jlt/


http://www.govexec.com/feature/firing-line/


http://www.federaltimes.com/story/g...ency/2015/02/24/federal-firing-2014/23880329/

There's obviously some things that need discussing and changes need to be made because the federal govt. cannot simply be this high-paid, low-work environment where it's hard to get fired. It's not like that in the private sector and with such low turnover rate in the government, new talent, new ideas, and production are going to the wayside. American workers have prospered because they don't go into government right out of school. They go to places like Silicon Valley where their ideas can, and have, made them successful.

While the statistics you quote are accurate, they are as misleading as "70 cents on the dollar" claim, using factual statistics, for male-female pay gaps.

Please compare the average experience in non-federal positions to the average experience of the average worker. Please compare the average education of the federal worker to the average worker.

If you believe that the average woman makes 70 cents on the dollar as compared to the average man IN THE SAME POSITION, you would be wrong. It's those four capitalized words that make all the difference between rhetoric and reality.

Similarly, it is not uncommon for the contractor, working for a government program manager, to make more income than the manager - even though the government individual has the responsibility for the contractor.

If you compare apples to apples, government worker make far less. If you throw in all of the McDonald's employees, Tupperware ladies, part-time barmaids, etc., and compare them to the budget analysts for multi-million dollar government programs, then, well, yeah, government workers make more.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
There's obviously some things that need discussing and changes need to be made because the federal govt. cannot simply be this high-paid, low-work environment where it's hard to get fired. It's not like that in the private sector and with such low turnover rate in the government, new talent, new ideas, and production are going to the wayside. American workers have prospered because they don't go into government right out of school. They go to places like Silicon Valley where their ideas can, and have, made them successful.

Having been both in the private sector - and a federal employee for a total of 25 years in two different agencies - I think I can safely comment on this.

There are numerous mistakes usually used comparing federal workers to the rest of the country. Comparing federal pay to average pay is like comparing the salary of a barista in Seattle to the salary of a programmer in nearby Microsoft. Just because one makes a lot more in the same area doesn't make sense. When similar jobs are compared - most of the time federal pay comes out lower.

The allure of federal work for most professional jobs IS in fact, the job security - and some of the benefits. Opportunities for advancement are less in government, raises in pay - at least for me and my experience - are always less beyond a few years' experience - and there's no profit sharing or any of the perks of a profitable industry. You get very little incentive for working hard - do a GREAT job - and maybe you'll get a plaque. Because as a general rule - the boss just can't give you a raise or a bonus.

The government doesn't stand or fall on a profit basis - but they do have budgets which are usually tight. Trump may declare a hiring freeze, but we've pretty much been on one for years, because ain't no money. But what that means is, your pay and benefits pretty much never change.

I've seen job by job comparisons. TWO things stick out. Low skill jobs DO get paid more. Not a lot, but more. That's the union. The other is the higher management gets compensated a bit more than their private sector counterparts. However, these two categories of workers aren't going anywhere. As much as federal workers get vilified for not working hard - I can say, yes we have them. And yes the work gets done - by everyone else. So SOMEONE *is* working.

I've seen side by side comparisons - and lawyers, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, programmers, IT specialists - we all get paid a little less. We do get good benefits and great flexibility in work hours and schedules. I did read the transcript of someone in the government - I think it was a cabinet level person - describing how some jobs don't compare. One was - "cook". One article criticized the high pay of cooks. He mentioned that the most common cook works in the PRISON SYSTEM. And the money is to compensate for the hazard.

But - your typical white collar professional in government has more education and more years of experience than their private sector counterparts. I recall hearing Limbaugh scoff at that and say, why don't they all then move to private industry. One big reason - and I experienced this PERSONALLY. Lay offs. For a little less money, you get to keep your job. If your area stops doing what they do - we will move you somewhere else (in government).

This USED TO BE common for white collar jobs in America. You didn't lay off ten thousand employees when the economy went south. You kept them on. We have moved to a modern day business model where upper management NEVER or rarely ever loses their jobs - but the staff - do - when there's a downturn.

So when there's a low turnover rate, a LOT of it isn't so much about FIRING. It's partly about layoffs. It's partly about workers not quitting. It's partly about the government trying to find a good fit for a worker who isn't working out in a given area. My return to the government was like that - I wasn't working out after six months in a certain area - and another area wanted me. I've done outstanding work there for 14 years, and it shows. At my prior employer, they canned me - and other departments told me months later - damn, *I* would have hired you, why didn't they tell ME?
 

DEEKAYPEE8569

Well-Known Member
At my prior employer, they canned me - and other departments told me months later - damn, *I* would have hired you, why didn't they tell ME?
Sounds like a case of, 'Sorry to hear about your luck; well.....too late now.'

Again, not MY experience, but my Dad's.....after he retired, he heard things like 'when you decide you want to go back to work, look me up; I'll have a job for you' numerous times. So, not too long after retirement; not sure of the exact timeframe; Dad got in touch with those same folks. 'Well, uh.....sorry.....uh.....'
 
Last edited:

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
While the statistics you quote are accurate, they are as misleading as "70 cents on the dollar" claim, using factual statistics, for male-female pay gaps.

Please compare the average experience in non-federal positions to the average experience of the average worker. Please compare the average education of the federal worker to the average worker.

If you believe that the average woman makes 70 cents on the dollar as compared to the average man IN THE SAME POSITION, you would be wrong. It's those four capitalized words that make all the difference between rhetoric and reality.

Similarly, it is not uncommon for the contractor, working for a government program manager, to make more income than the manager - even though the government individual has the responsibility for the contractor.

If you compare apples to apples, government worker make far less. If you throw in all of the McDonald's employees, Tupperware ladies, part-time barmaids, etc., and compare them to the budget analysts for multi-million dollar government programs, then, well, yeah, government workers make more.

I'm not sure if that info is out there (actual job to job comparisons on a large scale) since the government goes by classifications. It's not really useful to compare, say, a GS-12 to a private sector worker. But, USA Today did a small scale study (see below for its findings)

So, since it would take years to go job to job comparisons, this is what we've got. I do agree that it's tough to compare when million of private sector jobs are low skill, low pay jobs as you mentioned.

It's not, however, ignoring the benefits federal workers receive (see below) nor is it ignoring the political battle regarding the unions. One side says they make too much, the other says they don't make enough. Firing federal employees seems to be hard to do.

Having been both in the private sector - and a federal employee for a total of 25 years in two different agencies - I think I can safely comment on this.

There are numerous mistakes usually used comparing federal workers to the rest of the country. Comparing federal pay to average pay is like comparing the salary of a barista in Seattle to the salary of a programmer in nearby Microsoft. Just because one makes a lot more in the same area doesn't make sense. When similar jobs are compared - most of the time federal pay comes out lower.

The allure of federal work for most professional jobs IS in fact, the job security - and some of the benefits. Opportunities for advancement are less in government, raises in pay - at least for me and my experience - are always less beyond a few years' experience - and there's no profit sharing or any of the perks of a profitable industry. You get very little incentive for working hard - do a GREAT job - and maybe you'll get a plaque. Because as a general rule - the boss just can't give you a raise or a bonus.

The government doesn't stand or fall on a profit basis - but they do have budgets which are usually tight. Trump may declare a hiring freeze, but we've pretty much been on one for years, because ain't no money. But what that means is, your pay and benefits pretty much never change.

I've seen job by job comparisons. TWO things stick out. Low skill jobs DO get paid more. Not a lot, but more. That's the union. The other is the higher management gets compensated a bit more than their private sector counterparts. However, these two categories of workers aren't going anywhere. As much as federal workers get vilified for not working hard - I can say, yes we have them. And yes the work gets done - by everyone else. So SOMEONE *is* working.

I've seen side by side comparisons - and lawyers, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, programmers, IT specialists - we all get paid a little less. We do get good benefits and great flexibility in work hours and schedules. I did read the transcript of someone in the government - I think it was a cabinet level person - describing how some jobs don't compare. One was - "cook". One article criticized the high pay of cooks. He mentioned that the most common cook works in the PRISON SYSTEM. And the money is to compensate for the hazard.

But - your typical white collar professional in government has more education and more years of experience than their private sector counterparts. I recall hearing Limbaugh scoff at that and say, why don't they all then move to private industry. One big reason - and I experienced this PERSONALLY. Lay offs. For a little less money, you get to keep your job. If your area stops doing what they do - we will move you somewhere else (in government).

This USED TO BE common for white collar jobs in America. You didn't lay off ten thousand employees when the economy went south. You kept them on. We have moved to a modern day business model where upper management NEVER or rarely ever loses their jobs - but the staff - do - when there's a downturn.

So when there's a low turnover rate, a LOT of it isn't so much about FIRING. It's partly about layoffs. It's partly about workers not quitting. It's partly about the government trying to find a good fit for a worker who isn't working out in a given area. My return to the government was like that - I wasn't working out after six months in a certain area - and another area wanted me. I've done outstanding work there for 14 years, and it shows. At my prior employer, they canned me - and other departments told me months later - damn, *I* would have hired you, why didn't they tell ME?

Federal workers are one of the few American workers who still have a generous benefit plan, plus Social Security, plus a savings plan with a match by the government, generous working hours and flexibility, and generally more holidays than the private sector. They also have job security more so than many employees in the private sector and it's hard putting a number to those benefits.

See above, and I agree that this info isn't comparing jobs to jobs. I'm not aware of that information existing on a large scale.

USA Today did a small scale study (albeit, in 2010) and found:
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says.

"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work

USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses.

The BLS reports that 216 occupations covering 1.1 million federal workers exist in both the federal government and the private sector. An additional 124 federal occupations covering 750,000 employees — air-traffic controllers, tax collectors and others — did not have direct equivalents, according to the BLS.

Key findings:

• Federal. The federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 jobs paid better average salaries in the federal government; 36 paid better in the private sector.

•Private. The private sector paid more on average in a select group of high-skill occupations, including lawyers, veterinarians and airline pilots. The government's 5,200 computer research scientists made an average of $95,190, about $10,000 less than the average in the corporate world.

•State and local. State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector. City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs. State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included.

Job comparison

Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations. A sampling of average annnual salaries in 2008, the most recent data:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

There's also a chart at the end comparing applicable jobs.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if that info is out there (actual job to job comparisons on a large scale) since the government goes by classifications. It's not really useful to compare, say, a GS-12 to a private sector worker. But, USA Today did a small scale study (see below for its findings)

So, since it would take years to go job to job comparisons, this is what we've got. I do agree that it's tough to compare when million of private sector jobs are low skill, low pay jobs as you mentioned.

It's not, however, ignoring the benefits federal workers receive (see below) nor is it ignoring the political battle regarding the unions. One side says they make too much, the other says they don't make enough. Firing federal employees seems to be hard to do.



Federal workers are one of the few American workers who still have a generous benefit plan, plus Social Security, plus a savings plan with a match by the government, generous working hours and flexibility, and generally more holidays than the private sector. They also have job security more so than many employees in the private sector and it's hard putting a number to those benefits.

See above, and I agree that this info isn't comparing jobs to jobs. I'm not aware of that information existing on a large scale.

USA Today did a small scale study (albeit, in 2010) and found:







http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

There's also a chart at the end comparing applicable jobs.

Instead of using 2008 data, let's look at something more current. What does an electrician get paid in your world? on a government job the contractor gets something like $60.62 per hour per electrician. A government hired and paid non-supervisory electrician with years on the job is $33.15. They both get the same paid holidays. The union electrician probably has a better health plan.
Which one makes more?
 
Last edited:

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Anyone ever try to get rid of a useless Government employee.?
You better have a document book and fill it in every day and even then it's almost impossible and could get charges brought against you.
 

DoWhat

Deplorable
PREMO Member
Anyone ever try to get rid of a useless Government employee.?
You better have a document book and fill it in every day and even then it's almost impossible and could get charges brought against you.
I have seen them escorted off base and their CAC confiscated.
 

Kev_Russell

New Member
So: he's done what virtually every other incoming president has done. As far as I recall Bill Clinton is the only president in recent history who has actually had a net decrease in the federal workforce at the end of his terms. So time will tell with Trump's action.
 
Top