Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
Because one way you attract higher quality talent for lower wages - and many federal employees could make vastly more money in the private sector, especially lawyers - is to offer them greater job protections. Reducing those protections reduces the attractiveness of federal jobs.
Call me crazy, but I think finding good candidates is a bigger issue than being able to get rid of lower performers, especially in a tight labor market.
|
When I was a civil servant, I was kind of bored, and in law school. So I started doing grievances for our employee union.
The thing is, the gov "protections" aren't that big a deal. It seemed the supervisors only had to follow procedure and they could unfairly fuck people. The employees who were getting fucked we typically couldn't help, because the supervisor knew he was doing something wrong, so em was careful. Who could we help? The employee that should be getting fired, because their supervisor would often act hastily. That is, I don't think it is hard to fire gov employee now.
That said, I also knew NO ONE who was their because the job had firing security. Maybe some people, especially the clerical group, were there because layoffs were less likely. People in legal jobs might have been there for experience, because it does come quicker. And the bennies were great. I had 4 weeks from the start. And the thing is, I could use it. I remember big law telling me I got 4 weeks! Might as well have been 20, you can't use it all, and still keep your job.
But I never ever heard anyone there for "hard to get fired" rules.
