|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Group:
The following is from someone who works for a big city government ... He asked me to send this to the group because he had no access of posting.
Bill W
In a message dated 3/9/2004 --
<snip>
I work for a <snip> City Councilmember. Much of what you say is true -- all both adding up to and stemming from "government is inefficient." Please also keep in mind, however, that government was not designed to be inefficient. Government was designed to be fair, balanced, and protective of peoples' constitutional rights and privileges as set in federal, state, and local code.
It's also true -- most elected offices would want as few civil service positions in their own staffs. I know that it is true for mine. These designs of these jobs have progressively changed for multiple reasons -- two of the main ones being: (a) they need to be accomplished, regardless of how poorly or inefficiently, on a relatively low wage, and therefore people perhaps not as skilled must be able to do the work; (b) the economy revolves around all employment, all people, not just those appraised as being notable. Should every civil service employee who should be fired, be fired, not only would the job not get done, the unemployment rate would significantly rise, and the economy flounder aimlessly.
I also understand the directive in the proposal to "change the laws" should enough people have grave concerns about them. Please keep in mind, however, that these are not laws that are applicable to that type of change. They are here to stay in this day and age. I do not mean this to sound like an attack, it is just not as easy to change a law as someone may think.
Subj: Re: government efficiency or lack thereof [RT] sp500/nasdaq top
Date: 3/8/2004 10:28:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: rascal2@xxxxxxxxx
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's right. Almost all government agencies are covered by "civil service" provisions. Why? To prevent government managers from hiring their friends, relatives, etc., who are unqualified for the job. Also, almost all have standards of "progressive discipline" to ensure that disciplinary actions, including firings, are for legitimate purposes and are taken after due process. Unless a crime has been committed, it is almost impossible to fire someone for a "first offense". Much harder than in the private sector.
Again, that is a law designed to protect the public dollar. Adds to inefficiency and to poor performance by employees in the public sector, but that is because we want the system that way.
In short, a lot of what people complain about in government is designed into the system on purpose. Don't like it? Then direct your elected representatives to change it. Meanwhile, government managers are bound to obey the law. BTW, most of them hate it as much as you do. And be sure you would prefer the alternative.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kent Rollins
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: government efficiency or lack thereof [RT] sp500/nasdaq top
I work for a company that produces software development tools for PDA's and cellphones. My boss recently went on a tour to talk to customers about how they are using our products.
One of the places he went was a software company in Texas that is essentially dedicated to government projects. They have 3 20-story buildings filled with mostly programmers. One project they are using our software on is for the Texas version of "Child Protective Services". It seems that some of the "child welfare agents" weren't going out to visit the children as often as they should and sometimes not at all. Instead, they were filling out false reports on the childrens' status. Some of the children wound up being hospitalized or dying as a result. So they are now giving the "child welfare agents" PDA's with built-in cameras and GPS's. The software will require them to go to specific GPS coordinates and take a picture of the child in order to file the report.
The first question we had was "Why don't they fire or even imprison the screw ups?" We've had people in our office fired for a lot less. But then we aren't government employees.
Kent Rollins
----- Original Message ----- From: Rascal
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [RT] sp500/nasdaq top
I've worked for both and they are inefficient in different ways. Government is not as efficient as the private sector.
But, government is designed to be inefficient, because we want it to be that way. For example, I had to bid out all contractual work, no matter how small. Very high overhead in developing specifications and evaluation criteria, putting together committees to review and rate all bids, etc. We did this to ensure that favoritism was eliminated (needless to say, this was not the federal government or Iraq). This was costly and inefficient, but required by law (Your elected representatives passed that law.) There are similar provisions in all aspects of government to protect the public dollar. So don't expect government to have as its highest priority efficiency. It wasn't designed that way.
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtraders/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|