- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why do fed workers & their supporters think they're entitled to permanent job security?
Posted on 2/15/25 at 8:45 am
Posted on 2/15/25 at 8:45 am
I am astounded how many individuals, both here and that I've spoken to in person, have this crazy notion that federal workers are somehow ENTITLED to a job for the duration of how long they choose to work.
WHY is a federal job any different than a private-sector job?!?! WHY is it so much harder to fire federal workers than private company workers?!?! WHY do feds think they're 'special' and somehow better than the rest of us?!?!
This sense of entitlement is not endearing any of these people, or their supporters, to the rest of us who are paying for their jobs (whether needed or not) and who live outside the bubble of false security they seem to think they're entitled to. Time to grow up folks!
WHY is a federal job any different than a private-sector job?!?! WHY is it so much harder to fire federal workers than private company workers?!?! WHY do feds think they're 'special' and somehow better than the rest of us?!?!
This sense of entitlement is not endearing any of these people, or their supporters, to the rest of us who are paying for their jobs (whether needed or not) and who live outside the bubble of false security they seem to think they're entitled to. Time to grow up folks!
26
Posted on 2/15/25 at 8:46 am to conservativewifeymom
Because no one has ever challenged the notion that they don't.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 8:54 am to conservativewifeymom
I remember when civil servants exchanged higher pay of the private sector for the job security of government work. They also worked in cinder block building painted that beautiful govt green color.
Now they make more than the average worker in the private sector, work in glass steel and granite buildings, have pensions, wfh and you can't fire them.
What a life.
Now they make more than the average worker in the private sector, work in glass steel and granite buildings, have pensions, wfh and you can't fire them.
What a life.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 8:56 am to conservativewifeymom
This has largely been baked into government work for decades. The concept of civil service protections isn't something new or controversial, but the same time, it is reversible. In terms of federal workers it's going to take an act of longer to fully repeal the federal civil service protections, and there's some case law that these jobs are property rights that require due process.
This post was edited on 2/15/25 at 8:56 am
Posted on 2/15/25 at 8:57 am to SlowFlowPro
Property rights?!?! Wow, just wow!
Posted on 2/15/25 at 9:21 am to conservativewifeymom
Brainwashing version of entitlement. MANY academic researchers feel everyone should listen to their opinions.
I work in academia, lots of sky screaming going on right now. Absolutely glorious! My salary is paid from nih grants, I’m perfectly fine if my job is somehow cut because I’ll find work somewhere. Not concerned, would rather lose my job for the cause of cleaning up the government than like when I was threatened to be fired for not getting the Covid vax. I try hard to celebrate the current misery of academia, but now they know how I felt when they were trying to shove a foreign substance in my arm against my will, all while threatening my livelihood.
I work in academia, lots of sky screaming going on right now. Absolutely glorious! My salary is paid from nih grants, I’m perfectly fine if my job is somehow cut because I’ll find work somewhere. Not concerned, would rather lose my job for the cause of cleaning up the government than like when I was threatened to be fired for not getting the Covid vax. I try hard to celebrate the current misery of academia, but now they know how I felt when they were trying to shove a foreign substance in my arm against my will, all while threatening my livelihood.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 9:29 am to ruzil
quote:This
I remember when civil servants exchanged higher pay of the private sector for the job security of government work. They also worked in cinder block building painted that beautiful govt green color.
Now they make more than the average worker in the private sector, work in glass steel and granite buildings, have pensions, wfh and you can't fire them.
What a life.
Stunning isn't it. The largest workforce in our country, now the federal government; their union protections [normally] preventing what is happening.
I'm so happy to see the monster created by politicians and unchecked bureaucrats slain or at least wounded.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 9:50 am to conservativewifeymom
I've worked with federal employees who were collecting military retirement, 100% disabled with the VA and clearing $100k per year from their do nothing government job. These kinds of people are addicted to government money and feel they're entitled to more and more while sitting at a computer reading emails all day and playing games on their phone.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 9:53 am to conservativewifeymom
Posted on 2/15/25 at 9:55 am to conservativewifeymom
Speaking as one within FedGov, we don't claim entitlement to "permanent" job security. Current law allows a Reduction in Force (RIF - our term for mass layoffs or closures) of up to and including entire agencies (thus, CFPB and USAID can be closed under RIF procedures).
Also, someone on probation can be terminated for nearly any reason or no reason at all. And we can remove someone for poor performance or misconduct (I know of someone let go for the latter), though it is a hard process, and many supervisors don't want the hassle.
BUT: there are rules which must be followed, and no administration can unilaterally change them; they must go through the rulemaking process. Whether that is or isn't the case is the subject of the numerous complaints and lawsuits.
Also, someone on probation can be terminated for nearly any reason or no reason at all. And we can remove someone for poor performance or misconduct (I know of someone let go for the latter), though it is a hard process, and many supervisors don't want the hassle.
BUT: there are rules which must be followed, and no administration can unilaterally change them; they must go through the rulemaking process. Whether that is or isn't the case is the subject of the numerous complaints and lawsuits.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:10 am to conservativewifeymom
You mentioned the reasons: Simple entitlement.
“the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.”
As to why?
That’s a larger societal question and it’s a good one. Entitlement extends even well beyond federal workers. It’s an attitude that has been baked in for many decades now.
Our country is basically spoiled and no longer appreciative in many, many respects.
My guess is WWII and coming out as the victors (as we thankfully did given the alternative) had it’s negative longer term consequences in all these subsequent decades as an arrogance and cockiness settled in and caused us to eventually lose our own bearings in many respects.
“the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.”
As to why?
That’s a larger societal question and it’s a good one. Entitlement extends even well beyond federal workers. It’s an attitude that has been baked in for many decades now.
Our country is basically spoiled and no longer appreciative in many, many respects.
My guess is WWII and coming out as the victors (as we thankfully did given the alternative) had it’s negative longer term consequences in all these subsequent decades as an arrogance and cockiness settled in and caused us to eventually lose our own bearings in many respects.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:11 am to conservativewifeymom
Everyone wants job security. You can't blame federal employees for that anymore than anyone else. I am certainly not surprised at the howls coming from Washington.
What I don't understand is why people who are not federal employees have decided to take-up their cause. I've talked to a half dozen people who work in the private sector that are clutching their pearls over these layoffs and cuts. I get that they hate Trump, but no federal employee was up in arms when Google announced laying off thousands of employees just two weeks ago. LINK
Every major sector undergoes these cycles. The notion that employment is some sort of career-long contract is preposterous.
The GOP has been chirping about limited government for as long as I can remember. We elect a president that is actually doing it and people are acting like the world is ending.
The apex of this nonsense is a collection of state AGs suing the Trump administration claiming that DOGE isn't constitutional. What could possibly be unconstitutional about Executive establishing an office that oversees efficiency and effectiveness of federal agencies?
Are these blue state AGs really taking the position that the federal government can't hire/fire/adjust it's workforce without the permission of the states?
What I don't understand is why people who are not federal employees have decided to take-up their cause. I've talked to a half dozen people who work in the private sector that are clutching their pearls over these layoffs and cuts. I get that they hate Trump, but no federal employee was up in arms when Google announced laying off thousands of employees just two weeks ago. LINK
Every major sector undergoes these cycles. The notion that employment is some sort of career-long contract is preposterous.
The GOP has been chirping about limited government for as long as I can remember. We elect a president that is actually doing it and people are acting like the world is ending.
The apex of this nonsense is a collection of state AGs suing the Trump administration claiming that DOGE isn't constitutional. What could possibly be unconstitutional about Executive establishing an office that oversees efficiency and effectiveness of federal agencies?
Are these blue state AGs really taking the position that the federal government can't hire/fire/adjust it's workforce without the permission of the states?
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:14 am to conservativewifeymom
I've had discussions with U.S. postal carriers and with FedX carriers. There is a difference in their attitudes.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:28 am to Zach
Should be a “WindFall” tax on fed workers that survive the downsizing, since they have been benefitted from excessive Democrat policies for so long.. put an extra 25% income tax on all Fed workers…keep it reasonable but something to compensate for the free ride they have….
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This has largely been baked into government work for decades. The concept of civil service protections isn't something new or controversial, but the same time, it is reversible. In terms of federal workers it's going to take an act of longer to fully repeal the federal civil service protections, and there's some case law that these jobs are property rights that require due process.
Well if they work for the executive branch then those laws are unconstitutional and the SC will rule for Trump.
So they gone.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:38 am to conservativewifeymom
Ever been in close contact with career civil service employees or career government contract workers and their unions?
Civil Service and government contracts change people that would otherwise be good hard workers to a bunch of leeches in no time…
Civil Service and government contracts change people that would otherwise be good hard workers to a bunch of leeches in no time…
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:39 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
Property rights?!?! Wow, just wow!
LINK
quote:
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that the government cannot deprive an individual of their property without due process of law. The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on loss of employment, like those provided to federal employees in the CSRA, can create a property right in continued employment. Constitutional due process protections then attach to that property interest.
If you want to attack the source above, you can learn about it from The Federalist Society
quote:
According to Supreme Court precedent, some civil servants have a property interest in their job and, as a consequence, receive due process protections under the Constitution before they can be fired. In a new episode of POLICYbrief, Gregory Jacob, Partner at O’Melveny & Myers, explains three Supreme Court cases which have come to define the limits of hiring and firing civil servants in the United States.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:40 am to Guntoter1
quote:
Well if they work for the executive branch then those laws are unconstitutional
They are not, as the protections are given via Congressional authority.
quote:
and the SC will rule for Trump.
The precedent is set and uncontroversial. This is basic civics.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:41 am to SlowFlowPro
Fauci says "howdy" everyone.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:46 am to conservativewifeymom
Everyone should pursue a career or employment that has positive incentives like heath; retirement etc. if your a dumbazz and choose the wrong career or employment with a bad company that is on you.
On the other hand I agree if someone is not doing their job then there has to be something in place to get rid of these bad employees this incudes fed. Governor. This has been the main problem that needs to be dealt with.
On the other hand I agree if someone is not doing their job then there has to be something in place to get rid of these bad employees this incudes fed. Governor. This has been the main problem that needs to be dealt with.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News