GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Federal employees' job tenure on the decline

• 19563
  

  I retired from the Navy in 1995 and joined the federal civilian work sector after the dual compensation laws were rescinded. I offered 25-plus years of experience without the specter of retiring within a few years - the major human capital threat of my baby-boomer contemporaries. Despite this, and quality work, I could not make headway in advancement - advancing only from GS-13 to GS-14 in six years. Careerists did not want to deal with hard-charging former military personnel. I was violating their comfort level. Management and FERS offered no incentive to stay. So I recently took my MBA and 31 years hands-on experience to the private sector. Would I still like to be a government employee? Yes. Am I willing to work in the current leadership vacuum? No.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 10, 2006 8:37 AM
• 18912
  

  I have 25 years service with the Defense Department. Even though I hate to wish my life away, I sure wish I had five more. There will be no looking back when I walk out that door!

  Civil Posted September 26, 2006 8:57 AM
• 18773
  

  I am one of those younger federal employees (in my 30s) and have worked for the federal government for almost seven years. At this point, I can't honestly say if I will stay for my career or not. I've looked at returning to school and in my profession, as long as it states GS, the pay is better in than on the outside. As a newer employee, I find myself looking on the outside with jealously seeing old school friends get on the job training and other perks that in the long-term may offer better pay and benefits.

  Phil Posted September 19, 2006 1:49 AM
• 18757
  

  Another reason that the tenure has been reduced, at least in the Defense Department, is that since Bush declared us at war, the retiring military personnel, especially officers, have been the only ones getting hired for civilian vacant positions. We have had only one career civil servant promoted at my location since 9/11. All others have been either officers or senior enlisted personnel who were retiring. These personnel have no corporate knowledge and have no intentions, in most cases, of staying employed as a civilian until they can retire again.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 18, 2006 9:02 AM
• 18730
  

  At the time I quit the Civil Service, I had 16 years in. I thought I was a lifer. However, I got a better offer in private industry. I evaluated my options carefully. Since I was under the gutted FERS retirement system, I found that I was basically retiring on my own money and Social Security ... just like I would be if I was already in private industry. Since the new job paid more and I didn't have to put up with my manager in the government any more, I resigned. Truthfully, the only thing I miss is the generous leave and the almost automatic step increases, which this Republican administration can't wait to take away. Thanks a lot Ronald Reagan, for the irreparable downward slide in the civil service that started under your watch.

  Dis-gruntled.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 15, 2006 9:33 AM
• 18680
  

  I'd be willing to bet the primary reason would be that the majority of the workers, especially of those in DHS, are fed up (no play on words) with what their respective agencies have morphed into. They don't want to be associated with bad morale, poor leadership, lack of fiscal responsibility and the loss of purpose in their jobs.

  Let's face it -- those who were lucky enough to enter into the government workforce under CSRS or smart enough to stay in it when FERS came about see a better living pulling their retirement and taking their skills to the private sector where they can make good money and not put up with the BS. Until the government does some serious housecleaning and the thought of federal employment becomes more palatable, they'll have even a harder time keeping those employees they've hired to replace those who leave.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 12, 2006 5:11 PM
• 18679
  

  On Friday, March 10, 2006, OPM Director Linda Springer announced a "to do" list.

  The plan called on federal agencies to:

  Identify "career patterns" for the future, on the assumption that the era of the 30-year government career is fading and that agencies will need to be able to accommodate people who come and go from government, who prefer to work irregular schedules, who share jobs or telecommute, who sign up for brief periods as project managers or who come out of retirement to provide institutional knowledge. By June 1.

  This is my interpretation. The government no longer wants loyal, consistent, honorable, dependable and ethical employees. You can still be a family man but be prepared to leave your family for long periods of time (kind of like a soldier). Be prepared to not have any retirement security for your family. Only to give your all to Uncle Sam then be replaced by someone younger or someone more willing to go to war or die if necessary (I served my military time during the 70s). If the government takes away retirement options, the average "time on the job" will drop dramatically. Ms. Springer doesn't plan on having us around long enough to retire anyway. This trend could have been predicted long ago simply by listening to Ms. Springer back in March. The trend isn't an aberration. It's a concerted effort by the government.

  Un-Civil Servant

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 12, 2006 3:26 PM
• 18672
  

  This will continue to decline as more and more CSRS folks unshackle their "golden handcuffs" and retire. There is not as great an incentive for FERS workers to stay put.

  Taxpayer Too Posted September 12, 2006 10:25 AM
• 18667
  

  This trend should not surprise any one. The aging population of civil servants has been documented for at least a decade. Reduction of lower level entry positions due to contracting, dissatisfaction with personnel managerial initiatives (i.e. NSPS), BRAC, and the looming implementation of pay-performance are at the top of the list for motivators for retirement and/or career changes.

  While touted as fixes for the personnel woes of the government, these initiatives will continue to aggravate an unstable situation. As they say, "hindsight is golden," and this administration will not see the trees until the forest is history.

  Looking ahead is always a hard focus, but the vision of a future barren of experience and a reduced knowledge base is becoming clearer as time progresses.

  Let us hope the light will dawn before irreparable damage is done.

  Tip off.

  Tip Posted September 12, 2006 7:07 AM