Return to Article: Public rates federal jobs poorly on pay, chances for innovation
-
22155
I am a GS (for now) employee and love what I do. The low pay, serving my country, working in combat zones all comes with the job. But after 20 years of service I had good job security untill now. NSPS takes away what made working for the US government good then takes it away. The NSPS will force employees to withhold info to compete fot the crumbs that may not be there anyway, that will have a negative impact on the warfighter. It will be an Army of one(every man for himself)Now I wear my Battle Battle (Flak Jacket)with SAPI plates to protect me from the NSPS back stabbers not the Insurgents.
-
20155
I really don't care what the public thinks about pay or innovation in the federal work place. The current administration is doing everything in its power to undermine, dismantle and destroy morale in the federal workplace and doesn't give a hoot about public perception.
This article did not lay out anything new, nor did it change anyone's perception about the federal worker. You can't privatize federal law enforcement, the Defense Department, tax enforcement, etc. It takes a certain type of person to work these types of jobs as well as a certain dedication that accepts the fact that you don't do this job for the pay. There are many more variables involved.
At least I'm not a third generation big three auto worker who is getting the axe or a casualty of an Enron scandal holding nothing in my 401(k) after 25 years on the job.
-
20027
"If they wanted innovation they had to look no further than the Defense Department where soldiers were able to fight using unmanned drones in Iraq controlling the aircraft from Washington, D.C., using today's technological advances, for one."
Contracting officer - the drones were not developed by government worker! The innovation was accomplished in the private sector not the government sector! The government only used my money to pay a private company through a contract to develop the drone. Same with the economic impact of base closure - we do not do the analysis we contract it to private sector companies to do.
Government cannot even introduce innovation in its processes for work. Try getting our wonderful financial people to envision an electronic transfer of funds and you will continually fight a battle to produce paper documents to move money that is totally unnecessary and inefficient! Also, the contracting process is inefficient and should be improved significantly but it is not happening! Where is the real innovation that government employees do or are involved with in the hands-on position rather than contracting it to private companies?
-
19998
While the reference to unmanned drones in fighting the war in Iraq is correct, innovation from Defense Department employees in trying to turn out armor kits for humvees to protect soldiers when funding has been limited, or in Defense Department employees taking up collections to buy helmet kits that Defense won't provide its soldiers. Or where civilian employees do any number of a thousand different things every day while under funded, under staffed, and under appreciated, is more the norm.
-
19986
I have worked for the federal government for 30 years now (plus three years in the Army). I've had a brother and two brothers in law get laid off from various jobs through no fault of their own. That is not a worry for us.
Uncle Sam is probably more fair to employees than most private industry employers. If you are a federal worker in grade GS-12 or higher in a Midwestern or southern state, you are doing OK financially. On the coasts it is tougher. I would go federal all over again if I had the choice.
-
19982
As always, my co-respondents input tripped my brain into gear. Being a numbers person, I'm chagrinned to not have seen what "EJC in ATL" saw. Very astute! Having taught interviewing techniques, I'm well aware that question bias can guide participant's responses; and one can prove anything manipulating statistics. "More input next time, folks. Please?" That may allow us to screen the agenda from the data.
As for "Contracting Officer:" While I'm a avid reader of PopSci, an admitted "Geek" (humbly), and simply love the advancements I've seen since I completed my own career as a green-suiter; I wonder as to the "progress" of anyone in D.C. controlling UAVs over the deployed area. May I bring your attention to "The Vision Thing" article of this newsletter's Dec. 4 issue. And I quote:
"In 2004, GAO reported that networking causes command to become overly centralized and overloads soldiers with so much information that combat operations bog down. As information flows up the chain, commanders thousands of miles from the battlefield but linked by real-time video and communications become involved in decisions at lower and lower levels." Please note that this was not perceived as a good thing.
I work here because, unlike Taxpayer, I love my job. We are innovative, we do care, and we try hard often under lousy circumstances. But, to be quite honest, sometimes the flow of all that information, like a river, has a negative effect. Some will say that back in 'Nam, decisions were made up the chain; literally in altitude. Multiple commanders would hover in their choppers over the operational area at heights respective to their position, dictating up and down as circumstances changed. Now that is an exaggeration, but, like all legends, there is some truth to be gleaned. People are our greatest resource and sometimes all these new things just get in the way. Still, I know what it's like to need a radio and not have one.
As we innovate, incorporating technology into our systems; let's check the systems. Listen to your people. The Emperor may actually be naked. Remember that the next time you hear "Eh? You're breaking up." Just as the camera goes dead.
Tip off.
-
19978
I wonder if they polled any ex-employees of Enron and the automotive industry. So much for the financial benefits of the civilian sector and its rewards for innovation, work environment and quality of co-workers. The results might have been a little different.
I would suggest that those polled should further their education on federal work opportunities. If they wanted innovation they had to look no further than the Defense Department where soldiers were able to fight using unmanned drones in Iraq controlling the aircraft from Washington, D.C., using today's technological advances, for one.
-
19974
I believe the federal employee findings would be similar to those for the public. Innovation requires empowerment to think out of the box. We have opportunities in empowering the workforce.
-
19973
The article contains 384 words, but conveys little in the way of substance, largely due to the paternalistic approach taken. We are informed of a survey, but no actual questions are shared -- only the interpretations of others. I guess we're just supposed to accept whatever the "smart" people gleaned from whatever the questions were.
The title suggests the survey was about federal jobs, but the article indicates "government jobs." So, did the survey cover federal jobs only, or local, state and/or federal jobs? Since no part of the actual survey was shared with us, we don't really know what people were actually asked, do we?
Was the survey government jobs versus the private sector in general, or was the private sector broken down into for-profit and non-profit/charitable sectors? Given that the survey supposedly showed federal work low on "impact on important causes," I'm wondering what constituted "important causes" in the minds of the respondents.
Is a for-profit place like McDonald's considered higher impact because of its Ronald McDonald House activities, versus, for example, the disbursement of checks by SSA to retirees, or the care of veterans by the VA? Or is the mere dispensing of fast food considered an important cause, in-and-of itself? On the other hand, would a non-profit like an efficient feed-the-homeless operation be recognized as being more immediately effective than a government think-tank concocting strategies for the homeless?
The article contains implications, or at least allows readers to draw the conclusion, that the underlying purposes of the survey were to: (1) gauge the current level of interest in (federal?) government jobs and (2) identify possible marketing / recruitment strategies to overcome the low perceptions of (federal?) government work. That alone would have provided some context for the survey, but if that was the purpose, it certainly wasn't made clear.
The article reads like fourth-hand information drafted from notes taken by someone else who attended a meeting that included an agenda topic related to the survey, and summarized at that meeting by someone who wasn't directly involved in the survey. Boy, do I feel informed!
EJC in ATL
-
19972
Wow! I'm amazed. The American public appears to be more perceptive and aware of our situation than I would have thought.
I do wonder if they would think even as highly of civilian careers if they were aware that, under NSPS, civil servants will have less job security (if the Defense Department has its way with arbitration), less financial security (due to a lack of longevity raises), and will be able to be mobilized like the military (duck, incoming!!).
But then, those details seem pretty much to have been buried even from the rank and file.
Tip off.
-
19969
And this comes as a surprise? You don't hear that message from the audits done internally. The surveys I've seen tell a story of satisfaction and good leadership and fulfillment. I wonder why that is? We wouldn't be getting the mushroom treatment would we? I wonder who really will be holding up the management chain when there are no more "Real Worker Bees?"
-
19968
When considering the interpretation of this survey, keep in mind that the Council for Excellence in Government and OPM are likely to be biased. Just because people might say they would consider federal employment doesn't mean it is at the top of their list. Most likely, it ranks somewhere around flipping hamburgers and cleaning out septic tanks.
A different interpretation of the survey is that the general public has become much more aware of the actual conditions of federal employment. The mystery is gone largely thanks to the Internet. If the agencies want to fill jobs with skilled people they have to improve the way they treat their workers. It isn't just the money.
-
19966
Working for the government totally sucks (particularly in DoD). Innovation is a joke - they think innovation is building an electronic data system to do what they did in the past electronically. The systems they introduce do nothing but handle everything electronically without ever using the power of the computers because they cannot picture that! The resistance to change in government is overwhelming! People are so narrow that they cannot face any significant change. The managers are so bad they do not allow for change and innovation is a dirty concept and an often used word because it makes them look progressive. Try and introduce real innovation and you are slapped down for changing the way things were done in 1776! You think 1776 is a joke just look at the position that we cannot get money to do anything - Congress cannot pass an annual appropriation before the start of any fiscal year. Remember also that George Washington could not pay his troops in a timely manner nor could he get supplies because Congress would not appropriate money in a timely manner. What has changed other than the amount involved?
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.