GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Pumping Public Service

• 30825
  

  I have applied for numerous jobs on USAjobs.gov It is ridiculous that I have to apply to 50 different postings and still not hear anything. After a while one gives up and take whatever comes by because we must keep food on our tables. I believe the process should be changed. I will be finished with grad school in February is that what the government is waiting for?

  Dana Posted August 14, 2007 9:42 AM
• 30714
  

  I think that the Federal and State Governments should recruit students from institutions of higher learning much like the athletes are recruited for professional sports teams. The private sector has a stronghold on Panhellenic Life and the consequent secrecy surrounding post-graduate employment seem more like "reality shows" and a game than anything so serious as Government service.

  With the current big government regime that exists now we can look forward to even more expansion in the future. Private sector corporations are virtually govenrment services in disguise to make them seem more "people-friendly" when in actuallity we all use the same blue-prints. How is the president of one company not the same as the president of our government; in his role and function? Forget the circus charade known as elections and voting; that is merely THE SMOKESCREEN for a people-friendly form of governance.

  If young people would focus more on the matter of control and governance rather than sex and love we could emerge as a society and culture without blemish; but as long as there is propaganda that subverts the truth with lies and traditions that are non-sensical in a modern world; we will have the corruption that we have seen in the past two decades.

  Anyone who signs a Federal student loan should realize immediately who they know work for and who by-and-large owns the rights to them and their work.

  Duke Nukem Posted August 13, 2007 4:05 PM
• 30325
  

  There is unlikely any rule that says that employees cannot transfer between agencies, but that is not a problem for Federal employees exclusively, it is also endemic in NYC. What one of the posters is suggesting is redeployment, which makes sense to everyone on an individual basis, but is impractical from a political standpoint (e.g., a manager may think it will hurt their image if an employee goes to another agency, another bureau, another division or unit at the same agency!

  Teresa P Bland Posted August 8, 2007 6:03 PM
• 30208
  

  As someone who entered public service right after grad school, the issue isn't attracting people to government. The issue is actually getting them in and then retaining them. To accomplish that end, OPM must first change the way agencies hire because it takes FAR too long. In this day and age, no one will wait around for 2-8 months to hear back about a potential job. There is little personal contact between applicants and prospective new hires. Most people applying for a position are applying to multiple jobs. Often, the quickest win the talent.

  Then, once in government service, it is FAR too difficult to move from agency to agency or position to position. The current system is from a defunct era. It's designed to encourage longevity in a particular job, but today's market and expectations of careers are nothing like that. People need the flexibility to move around every 2-4 years, try new things, maintain the stimulus of pursuing what interests them. That is how you stay excited and motivated in government service. Inter and intra-agency transfers are just as cumbersome as the initial new position hiring process. Both must change.

  allen Posted August 7, 2007 9:55 AM
• 30149
  

  You have talented, hardworking people already working in the federal government who would welcome the opportunity to work at a different agency. However, that seems more and more difficult if not impossible to do. Is there an unwritten rule about federal agencies not hiring other federal agencies' employees? (Especially if that agency is understaffed.)

  Anne Clark Posted August 6, 2007 7:54 PM
• 30145
  

  The Federal Gov't does not need to do targeted jobs. Democracy affords the best, the most qualified. Targeting certain groups is unconstitutional and simply creates a back door for those who otherwise would not be interested without HELP! You are doing the good people of this country a disservice to advocate special selective indignation to those not qulified except by race, religion or gender.

  Margaret Hood Posted August 6, 2007 6:53 PM
• 30115
  

  The Fed government needs to do targeted recruitment for the groups it has been ignoring: Hispanics, White women, and people with targeted disabilites (see the EEOC's annual report on the Federal workforce.)

  Has anyone seen a report that actually shows a decline in the number or quality of applicants for Federal positions? Or is this all a figment of someone's imagination?

  charleen Posted August 6, 2007 11:04 AM
• 30094
  

  You hit the nail on the head. Agencies need to develop comprehensive intern programs(with centrally funded salaries and training)to help attract the best and brightest. This will allow interns to be placed at locations which will afford them the best training opportunities without regard to local budget constraints.

  EMH Posted August 6, 2007 8:58 AM
• 30082
  

  Many young people coming out of college these days often have tens of thousands of dollars in loans to repay. They want jobs that with pay proportionate to their skills. The federal government expects the best and the worst graduates to start out at low paying entry levels and fight their way through an unfair bureaucracy to get the "prize" position they want.

  What is five thousand dollars to someone who has worked hard at great expense to become the best at what they do? Who wants to spend years doing someone's dirty work and taking orders from someone who is less the competent without any guarantee of advancement? Who wants to work under a mess of complicated rules and regulations that no one seems to understand? Who has more dead end job opportunities than the federal government?

  Corporations may have their bureaucracies. But, the successful companies are quick to recognize talent and develop it. They are also quick to dispense with marginal talent, including management, in order to maintain a productive workforce.

  So give up the song and dance and put away the token handouts. Until the Feds fix the way they do business(and thats a huge task), talent will go where it is appreciated and rewarded.

  Robert M. Posted August 6, 2007 7:56 AM
• 30075
  

  I'm still waiting for our Nation's many fine schools of public administration to ask, "What are we? chopped liver?" These schools turn out excellent candidates for public service without the bureaucracy and tax support of a public service academy. If there were a public service academy, what would we think about candidates who graduate from Syracuse or Harvard or Indiana or Texas A&M or Southern California? Are they suddenly second-tier candidates? There is no demonstrated need that this boondoogle would solve.

  Thad Juszczak Posted August 6, 2007 7:39 AM
• 30072
  

  If the federal government wants to pump up federal service they are certainly going about it the wrong way. Congress and the adminstration are continuing to try to save more money at the expense of the federal worker. Locality pay which is 10-15% of your pay does not count toward your retirement. The implementation of pay for performance basically does away with developmental positions (7/9/11) which nearly guarantees college graduates, a nice raise after each of their two years of service. If the Feds want to attract better candidates let's do three things. Get rid of pay for performance, aka kiss up to the boss personnel system, make locality pay count toward retirement. Pay off all 2.5% of a new employees student loan for each month of service. Employees would be debt free in a little more than 3 years of service.

  doug smith Posted August 6, 2007 7:17 AM