Harryk wrote:
On 1/8/11 4:04 PM, YukonBound wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote:

You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks
and it
goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated.

You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided
numerous
examples. Sorry if you can't handle it.

Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired
as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing.
You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing
up at work.
It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the
members to strike. That is black letter law.
They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal
penalties
attached.


The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths
they go to relocate people when their agency closes.

You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up
with everyone keeping their jobs.

I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole
national
secrets.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/



Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A
few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss.
That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749

Losing their security clearance

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm



Stealing and disclosing confidential information.

You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to
not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all
the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not
impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the
"incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job.

Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is
hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post
demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss
is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a
fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest
of the work force and lowers overall productivity.

Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee.

It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it
might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and
productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies
have the same problem.

Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers.


That must be some list.
Must be. WAFA...

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote:

You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it
goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated.

You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous
examples. Sorry if you can't handle it.

Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired
as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing.
You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing
up at work.
It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the
members to strike. That is black letter law.
They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties
attached.


The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths
they go to relocate people when their agency closes.

You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up
with everyone keeping their jobs.

I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national
secrets.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/

Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A
few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss.
That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749

Losing their security clearance

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm

Stealing and disclosing confidential information.

You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to
not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all
the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not
impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the
"incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job.

Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is
hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post
demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss
is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a
fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest
of the work force and lowers overall productivity.

Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee.

It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it
might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and
productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies
have the same problem.

Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers.

Another post from you with nothing in it but stupidity.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:30:06 -0500, Spoofer wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote:

You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it
goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated.

You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous
examples. Sorry if you can't handle it.

Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired
as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing.
You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing
up at work.
It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the
members to strike. That is black letter law.
They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties
attached.


The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths
they go to relocate people when their agency closes.

You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up
with everyone keeping their jobs.

I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national
secrets.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/

Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A
few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss.
That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749

Losing their security clearance

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm

Stealing and disclosing confidential information.

You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to
not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all
the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not
impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the
"incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job.

Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is
hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post
demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss
is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a
fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest
of the work force and lowers overall productivity.

Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee.

It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it
might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and
productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies
have the same problem.

Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers.

Another post from you with nothing in it but stupidity.

I suppose he meant to say 'Scotty's' and will probably say that 'Scotties' was
just a 'typo'.

Right.

He's filterable, BTW.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:30:06 -0500, Spoofer wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote:

You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and
it
goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated.

You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided
numerous
examples. Sorry if you can't handle it.

Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired
as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing.
You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing
up at work.
It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the
members to strike. That is black letter law.
They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal
penalties
attached.


The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths
they go to relocate people when their agency closes.

You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up
with everyone keeping their jobs.

I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole
national
secrets.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/

Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A
few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss.
That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749

Losing their security clearance

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm

Stealing and disclosing confidential information.

You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to
not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all
the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not
impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the
"incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job.

Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is
hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post
demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss
is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a
fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest
of the work force and lowers overall productivity.

Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee.

It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it
might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and
productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies
have the same problem.

Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers.

Another post from you with nothing in it but stupidity.

I suppose he meant to say 'Scotty's' and will probably say that 'Scotties'
was
just a 'typo'.

Right.

He's filterable, BTW.

Hey... did you read that thread where the poster claimed the only people
interested in his sporty Chrysler/Dodge were 13 year old boys.
Same true for a yellow Mustang?

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:22:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:23:40 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:27:35 -0800, wrote:



Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee.

It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it
might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and
productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies
have the same problem.

It is very easy to get rid of poor performers in private industry. In
fact most were eliminated along with more than a few good performers
in the 90s, never to return.

Sometimes, but not always. I know, even though the economy is
improving and job growth has been pretty good, the sky is falling and
the end is near.

Are you really trying to say private industry will not fire a person
who is not making them money? (particularly in right to work states)

I worked in a division of a company that was making a profit. We were
still shutdown due to the fact that the company figured it could make
more profit with the money they spent on us in another part of the
business.

Not all profit is equal.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:52:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:22:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:23:40 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:27:35 -0800, wrote:



Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee.

It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it
might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and
productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies
have the same problem.

It is very easy to get rid of poor performers in private industry. In
fact most were eliminated along with more than a few good performers
in the 90s, never to return.

Sometimes, but not always. I know, even though the economy is
improving and job growth has been pretty good, the sky is falling and
the end is near.

Are you really trying to say private industry will not fire a person
who is not making them money? (particularly in right to work states)

No. I said that it's not always easy to get rid of such an employee in
the private sector. Great example... some of the CEOs of late.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 22:21:59 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:59:59 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:52:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:22:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:23:40 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:27:35 -0800, wrote:



Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee.

It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it
might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and
productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies
have the same problem.

It is very easy to get rid of poor performers in private industry. In
fact most were eliminated along with more than a few good performers
in the 90s, never to return.

Sometimes, but not always. I know, even though the economy is
improving and job growth has been pretty good, the sky is falling and
the end is near.

Are you really trying to say private industry will not fire a person
who is not making them money? (particularly in right to work states)

No. I said that it's not always easy to get rid of such an employee in
the private sector. Great example... some of the CEOs of late.

And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done.

I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it
up.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:08:38 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:41:08 -0800, wrote:

And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done.

I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it
up.

You have moved from how easy it was to fire a civil service worker to
how hard it is supposed to be to fire a private industry worker (there
are about 15 million of them who would disagree) and ended up at how
hard it is to get rid of a CEO.
CEOs aren't even that hard to get rid of. Most don't last 5 years,
particularly if they can't keep up the stock price. They just get a
better buyout than the rest of us.

I never said it was easy. Heck, it's not easy to fire a corporate
worker. Even corp. layoffs can invoke a lawsuit if it's not handled
properly.

So, if CEOs aren't hard to get rid of, how come it takes forever, and
they end up running the company into the ground even though it's
obvious that they did that. They still get their bonuses, no problem.
Then, maybe they take their parachute and go sailing.... um... like
BP's guy???

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:01:38 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:59:00 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:08:38 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:41:08 -0800, wrote:

And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done.

I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it
up.

You have moved from how easy it was to fire a civil service worker to
how hard it is supposed to be to fire a private industry worker (there
are about 15 million of them who would disagree) and ended up at how
hard it is to get rid of a CEO.
CEOs aren't even that hard to get rid of. Most don't last 5 years,
particularly if they can't keep up the stock price. They just get a
better buyout than the rest of us.

I never said it was easy. Heck, it's not easy to fire a corporate
worker. Even corp. layoffs can invoke a lawsuit if it's not handled
properly.

It is clear you have never worked in a right to work state.
All they need to do is say they don't need you anymore and tell you to
stop coming in. The worst case is they have to pay your unemployment
if they can't make a "with cause" case. (basically 3 strikes will do
it)

I've only worked in Cali. It's only ranked #1 in population, so it
must be an exception. It's at-will employment, and firing someone
without cause can get you in trouble.

All you really need to do is write someone up twice and you can fire
them "with cause" on the 3d infraction. (take your stuff and go)
There are a number of infractions that are considered a condition of
employment and you can fire you on strike one.

Even IBM in the northern states could let you go with 2 weeks notice
and pay your severance. That could be as small as 2 weeks pay up to 6
months (one week for every year you worked there up to 26)
Even that was just a handshake deal. It was not a contract ... as a
lot of people found out in the 90s.
If they rolled you into early retirement, you didn't get anything not
even unemployment. You better be ready to live on about 40% of your
salary.

When my wife got laid off she got the "good" severance package (about
3 months base pay) and no notice. Basically she got called into the
office "Turn in your phone, Palm Pilot, ID card and go home now".
Six months later the people who got laid off got the same treatment
and 2 weeks pay.
If you are a trade, they just say, "we don't need you tomorrow".


So, if CEOs aren't hard to get rid of, how come it takes forever, and
they end up running the company into the ground even though it's
obvious that they did that. They still get their bonuses, no problem.
Then, maybe they take their parachute and go sailing.... um... like
BP's guy???

Exactly like Hayward. What did it take? 2-3 weeks?

You think he doesn't work for BP? Think again..

http://www.usatoday.com/money/topsto...63110359_x.htm

When they decide to dump a CEO the board can have security carry their
stuff out in a box but the terms of their contract will probably cost
the company millions. We are not talking about CEOs tho.

The government equivalent of that is an appointed position, not Civil
Service and those guys serve at the pleasure of the president.
One bad joke can send them packing off to the private sector where
they triple their salary.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:41:08 -0800, wrote:

And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done.

I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it
up.

You have moved from how easy it was to fire a civil service worker to
how hard it is supposed to be to fire a private industry worker (there
are about 15 million of them who would disagree) and ended up at how
hard it is to get rid of a CEO.
CEOs aren't even that hard to get rid of. Most don't last 5 years,
particularly if they can't keep up the stock price. They just get a
better buyout than the rest of us.

dePlume is an idiot. She doesn't understand the concept of at will
employment. For someone who is supposed lawyer she doesn't understand
the basic concepts of contracts or contract law.