GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Officials say recruiting efforts will offset retirement wave

• 6703
  

  I had a total of 16 years experience in the Federal govt. I received my last promotion to GS-11 in 1993. I was sure that I worked in the only place where people looked forward to retiring because they hit a brick wall while still in their 30's - but I found by reading the other comments that this is true in alot a federal workplaces. Whenever myself or someone else I knew tried to get reclassified in another job series, we were told to move down to the grades typically taken by the newbies - as if to say our experience in the government wasn't worth anything. I guess they know what they are talking about.

  Let them open up the floodgates for people like us and replace us with lackeys, relatives and new, Stepford federal workers that don't know anything and don't complain!! They obviously don't care if the work gets done anyway.

  EX-Disgruntled Dod Worker

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 15, 2004 12:56 PM
• 4855
  

  The reason Middlings are treated poorly is because of this horrible assumption underlying much of recruitment and retention that the private sector folks are better. I've seen it in action. You can apply for a senior position for years and never get it. You step out into the private sector for a year or two- reapply for the position they wouldn't give you the time for- and bingo, you are now in the SES congratulations. :-)

  The Middling comment is very important. Not only do you have trouble recruiting for positions but we are seeing trouble retaining those we recruit and those mid-level folks with 10-20 years who finally say, enough.

  The current top down HR approach won't bring in the younger folks and won't keep folks in the government- it will just widen the breach. If Director James wants to learn about the problems in the agencies let her walk for a week in my shoes instead of only talking with my bosses three levels above me.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 27, 2004 12:38 PM
• 4836
  

  James is a master (among many) of the platitude. Most of the "new initiatives" are resurections of regulation and authorities that have been around for years and under utilized. OPM and its rulemaking/oversight have been, and continue to be, irrelevant and/or obstructionist when it comes to personnel issues. James merely elevates the common Washington-crock-buzzword to a new "21st Century" level.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 26, 2004 9:20 AM
• 4834
  

  Once again, the powers that be are putting the cart ahead of the horse. So much is made of attracting new young college grads, giving hiring bonuses, and paying off their student loans. Then a few years later, they leapfrog over the very people who trained them on their way up the ladder.

  Meanwhile, I can't get one dollar for a job related college course at the local community college. Many of we "middlings", those in the middle of their career, are leaving, too. We can't stand the second class citizen treatment we are getting from management. I am looking for something in the private sector now.

  Why not invest in and promote the middlings, then hire new people to replace them? You could take advantage of the experience, and the new hires could pay their dues, then it would be their turn to move up someday.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 26, 2004 9:08 AM
• 4806
  

  I do not question the fact that the Federal Government must recruit a younger, smarter, and more agile workforce. I do question the assumptions and planning that go into the effort. One of the more valuable tools in a mid level managers tool kit is an understanding of the way government works, particularly the fact that changing politics drives most initiatives as much as need. The other potential shortcoming of managers is the inability or lack of desire to perform those human resource functions of training, evaluating, promoting and if necessary removing employees.

  All of the papers and studies that I have seen only recognize outside recruiting of the best and brightest as a viable long term solution. This approach does nothing to address the issues I have already cited. In addition, it ignores the most talented pool of well qualified individuals. By any measure I should be an ideal candidate for any entry to mid level management position in a wide range of agencies. I have an excellent academic record, years of military experience Managing up to 250 people and a number of projects through up to ten supervisors, and experience in four different agencies. None of this is terribly important in finding a job. In almost every case I have gotten positions because I knew somebody in the gaining organization. I am at the end of my career. However, I work with many mid career employees and I recognize the managerial qualities that some of them posess. At one time there were programs in most agencies to provide opportunities for personnel to compete for developmental positions up to the SES level. There were opportunities to mentor and promote employees with potential and to lead them into career paths that would benefit themselves and the Federal Government. Relying solely on new hires to meet the government's need for quality people has as many pitfalls as failing to promote from within. The grass on the outside may have a lush shade of green but it might be covering up a host of pests from sloth to inability to acculturate to the business of government. Known quantities exposed to the challenges and demands of government service, mentored and trained well should form the core of the government's attempts to reinvent itself.

  Ralph L. Timmons Posted May 25, 2004 8:21 AM
• 4804
  

  They must be kidding. I fell out of my chair laughing reading this article. Recruitment for the federal government is a disaster. The only thing keeping this boat afloat is that the leak isn't too great when retirements are at 2% due to a poor economy. The total disaster will be seen if retirements go to double digits. Young people are just not interested in the federal government and no Chief Human Resource Officer program and no 15,000 person recruitment fair is going to change this sad fact.

  If Director James wants to improve recruitment she should tell her CEO boss to stop bashing the federal workforce with nonsense debates over 2% or 4% pay increases. Or with a Labor Secretary who can't even get along with her own union. These silly arguments and crazy situations do more damage in the area of recruitment than Director James can imagine.

  I'm in the process of recruiting now for 2 HR positions and the amount of red tape I'm tangled in has me wondering how anyone can be hired in the federal government. Instead of this top down approach Director James, how about coming down into the trenches to speak with those of us on the front lines doing the recruitment and the hiring and the employee relations work.

  I'm still laughing at this article. From where I sit I can see the train wreck about to happen. From where Director James sits she is getting all her information from CHROs with their own agenda. We'll see whose right.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 25, 2004 7:27 AM
• 4778
  

  Just another snow job by the James crew. She couldn't keep someone for a full pay period. The woman needs to go away and stay away.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 24, 2004 6:58 AM
• 4774
  

  Not sure how this plan will stave of the retirement wave. This plan sounds as if it benefits new recruits and not the core force that have already contributed their lives to federal service.

  As far as things are going in my Division when someone retires or transfers, due to promotion or lateral move, NO ONE is rehired, period! Their work is dumped onto the remaining individuals that are either looking for a promotion/transfer or counting the days to their retirement.

  Hey OPM Director! Want to provide a reasonable perk to keep us around? Start providing compensation pay for the individuals that are required to pick up a workload that was once the sole responsibility of a former employee. The money saved from the abolishment of one full time employee could easily pay an additional $ 2-3 dollars an hour more to the person having to now perform the duties of two.

  Since DoD's federal civilian personnel system is going under reform this would be a perfect opportunity to make this perk a reality. It is time to pay employees something for this added burden that is increasing at an alarming rate. When will this practice of overloading an individual end? How do you expect to keep us around when we have more work than there are hours in a week to accomplish it on time and with any type of quality? Not that the extra dollars will solve this problem, it won't! But it will provide some assurance that we are being considered for our expected efforts.

  David Posted May 23, 2004 10:49 PM
• 4765
  

  You also might add, not only how many of these actually apply and accept, but also will you keep them. The big concern isn't so much will you get people, but will you get them to stay.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 21, 2004 12:20 PM
• 4759
  

  OPM Director James sites the fact that 15,000 people showed up at a federal job fair as proof that the Civil Service is still able to attract workers. What she doesn't say is how many of those 15,000 actually go on to complete an application for a federal job using the incredibly complex and frustrating online application required by most agencies today. After years working as a contractor, I decided to apply for a federal position. Using "QuickHire" it took me six hours of frustration to complete the application AFTER I had already planned my answers to all the questions. Three months later, I have yet to even have receipt of my application acknowledged. James will be lucky to get 10% of those 15,000 to apply, let alone stick around to take the job.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 21, 2004 8:20 AM