• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump halts hiring of federal workers, freezes pay raises

Deuce said:
Indeed. It's just other understaffed organizations I'll have to comply with but be unable to actually talk to a person regarding that compliance :)
Click to expand...

If there are fewer regulators, then you can more easily ignore the regulations.
 
poweRob said:
I'm not a fan of blanket moves like this. IMO it needs to flex. Expand areas whose devices are more in demand and contract where you can in other areas.

For example, I'd hate to have this blanket freeze in place during a viral epidemic outbreak so the CDC can't hire.
Click to expand...

22 posts and the freaking out has already begun.
 
poweRob said:
I'm not a fan of blanket moves like this. IMO it needs to flex. Expand areas whose devices are more in demand and contract where you can in other areas.

For example, I'd hate to have this blanket freeze in place during a viral epidemic outbreak so the CDC can't hire.
Click to expand...

Blanket freezes always start out with the good intentions but unforeseeable factors make it so that they have to change. I love attrition. I work for a large organization that specializes in best practices, lean, and doing more with less. There are I suspect way too many people involved in the processes in our government, and a cap on hiring and/or attrition is always a good jumping off point. If it doesn't work, these plans are usually dynamic enough in nature that they can be modified.

But then again, this is Trump, so anything is possible.
 
I worked for a federal agency for 30 years. I concur with the GOA findings that freezes are not the best way to manage the Federal workforce. What is interesting is the exemptions.
My work was in fire management (wildfires). Yes, I could hire firefighters under the public safety clause. However, when personnel who processed the paper work was understaffed, my hires did not get done in a timely fashion. Procurement for supplies, paying contractors could also be hindered because of purchasing vacancies. What is needed is for more federal programs to do a work / cost study like fire management does to determine a cost proficient level of staffing.


U.S. GAO - Recent Government-Wide Hiring Freezes Prove Ineffective in Managing Federal Employment

"GAO was requested to review the effects of across-the-board hiring freezes on federal employment levels and spending and on federal agencies' ability to carry out their programs.
Government-wide hiring freezes, regardless of how well they are managed, are not an effective means of controlling federal employment. The government-wide hiring freezes had little effect on federal employment levels and it is not known whether they saved money. Because they ignored individual agencies' missions, workload, and staffing requirement, these freezes disrupted agency operations and, in some cases, increased costs to the government. Since these hiring freezes disregarded agency workload requirements and did not cover all personnel resources used by the government, they created an incentive for managers to use alternative sources of labor. Any potential savings produced by these freezes would be partially or completely offset by increasing overtime, contracting with private firms, or using other than full-time permanent employees. Decreased debt and revenue collections also occurred as a result of hiring freezes. Government-wide hiring freezes bear no relationship to the workload that agencies are responsible for carrying out. However, GAO recognizes that there may be unique circumstances which may be beyond an individual agency's control. GAO believes employment reduction should be targeted where it can best be absorbed. Improved workforce planning and use of the budget as a control on employment, rather than arbitrary across-the-board hiring freezes, is a more effective way to insure that the level of personnel resources is consistent with program requirements."
 
apdst said:
If there are fewer regulators, then you can more easily ignore the regulations.
Click to expand...

You're suggesting that I break the law because there aren't enough people to enforce it?
 
apdst said:
22 posts and the freaking out has already begun.
Click to expand...

Rolling our eyes and pointing out that blanket freezes aren't actually a good idea isn't "freaking out."
 
tres borrachos said:
Blanket freezes always start out with the good intentions but unforeseeable factors make it so that they have to change. I love attrition. I work for a large organization that specializes in best practices, lean, and doing more with less. There are I suspect way too many people involved in the processes in our government, and a cap on hiring and/or attrition is always a good jumping off point. If it doesn't work, these plans are usually dynamic enough in nature that they can be modified.

But then again, this is Trump, so anything is possible.
Click to expand...

This.

And full disclosure, this impacts me directly.

I have no issue what so ever with a blanket temporary freeze, which is then followed up with a deep dive into the various components to determine:

1) is there fat to cut
2) is there any different ways of doing things to reduce the amount of manpower needed
3) is there an actual need for additional people to be hired

As those investigations are done, and that information is found out, then the freeze should be rolled back as needed. And those investigations should be conducted with all due haste that is reasonable to effectively perform them.

I understand a freeze to assess and then react. However, a freeze for the sake of freezing, under some assumption that no hiring what so ever is needed for an extended time and simply going with attrition will work across the board, is as utter lunacy as just hiring for hirings sake.
 
Deuce said:
Rolling our eyes and pointing out that blanket freezes aren't actually a good idea isn't "freaking out."
Click to expand...

Actually it is. I'm waiting the, "the sky is falling post".
 
Samhain said:
The plan excludes the “military, public safety, and public health.”
Click to expand...

That's good. But still not a fan of blanket policies. Look at it, evaluate then move on it IMO. Making a blanket decision like this from afar could cause more problems than it solves if you don't realize exactly what you are gutting.
 
poweRob said:
That's good. But still not a fan of blanket policies. Look at it, evaluate then move on it IMO. Making a blanket decision like this from afar could cause more problems than it solves if you don't realize exactly what you are gutting.
Click to expand...

That's why I hope he has some milestones or something in place in this grand plan, and it isn't just a feel good bunch of red meat being tossed at his supporters. I'm going with #1 until he proves it's actually #2.
 
poweRob said:
That's good. But still not a fan of blanket policies. Look at it, evaluate then move on it IMO. Making a blanket decision like this from afar could cause more problems than it solves if you don't realize exactly what you are gutting.
Click to expand...

Like the drilling moratorium, huh?
 
Deuce said:
It is illegal to operate an aircraft that isn't on your charter certificate. Don't deflect this to Obama. This is about the future.
Click to expand...

Were we talking about sequestration, the cause of the problem that you are concerned about?

Deuce said:
I'll give an example from back when we had that whole sequestration thing. Non-essential functions stopped.

My company was adding a new aircraft to the fleet. This requires a certification and inspection process, and an update to our operating certificate to include this new aircraft. But because the FAA certification folks weren't at work, this couldn't happen. The plane sat, unused, costing us a crapload of money, until the FAA was able to catch up to the backlog when sequestration finally ended.
Click to expand...


dilbert2.jpg

55039027.jpg

goalposts.jpg
 
apdst said:
You don't know the law?
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that the law requires passenger aircraft operators to have their aircraft and its records inspected, and have the aircraft added to their operating certificate, before they operate it with passengers on board.

This requirement exists even when the FAA is backlogged on actually performing those inspections. If found out of compliance, I can be heavily fined.

You are suggesting I ignore the law in that situation. Very strange.
 
Deuce said:
I know for a fact that the law requires passenger aircraft operators to have their aircraft and its records inspected, and have the aircraft added to their operating certificate, before they operate it with passengers on board.

This requirement exists even when the FAA is backlogged on actually performing those inspections. If found out of compliance, I can be heavily fined.

You are suggesting I ignore the law in that situation. Very strange.
Click to expand...

That sounds like one of the agencies he isn't planning to **** with.

As the pilot, do you know if an aircraft is safe to fly?
 
apdst said:
That sounds like one of the agencies he isn't planning to **** with.

As the pilot, do you know if an aircraft is safe to fly?
Click to expand...

Yes. (edit: well, usually) I also know if it is legal to fly.
 
Deuce said:
Yes. I also know if it is legal to fly.
Click to expand...

So, if the FAA gives you a pass on the safety certificate, are you going to fly, or self-ground the aircraft?
 
apdst said:
So, if the FAA gives you a pass on the safety certificate, are you going to fly, or self-ground the aircraft?
Click to expand...

They aren't going to give me a pass on safety certificates.
 
Deuce said:
I thought it was obvious that understaffing federal agencies can lead to similar problems. I'm sorry you didn't understand that part.
Click to expand...

Why would I assume or predict that you were going to change direction in the middle of the conversation? Your direction change was as clear as mud.
 
Deuce said:
They aren't going to give me a pass on safety certificates.
Click to expand...

Then If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it, because you'll get your safety certificate on time. By the same token, if the FAA told my company that there's a temporary exemtion on safety certs, I would kick the tires and light the fires. I would talk **** to the ATC on approach too. ;)
 
apdst said:
Then If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it, because you'll get your safety certificate on time.
Click to expand...

If the FAA is understaffed, no, that's not going to happen.
 
apdst said:
Then If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it, because you'll get your safety certificate on time. By the same token, if the FAA told my company that there's a temporary exemtion on safety certs, I would kick the tires and light the fires. I would talk **** to the ATC on approach too. ;)
Click to expand...

Not a good idea. Seen that done. Didn't turn out so good.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Not a good idea. Seen that done. Didn't turn out so good.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean negative ****. I guess I should have said, "cut up", since the elites aren't able to interpret us common folk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom