Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Leatherneck on September 03, 2009, 07:08:48 AM
-
Federal Government Needs Massive Hiring Binge, Study Finds
Washington Post; September 3, 2009
The federal government needs to hire more than 270,000 workers for
"mission-critical" jobs over the next three years, a surge prompted in part
by the large number of baby-boomer federal workers reaching retirement age,
according to the results of a government-wide survey being released
Thursday. The numbers also reflect the Obama administration's intent to take
on several enormous challenges, including the repair of the financial
sector, fighting two wars, and addressing climate change.
"It has to win the war for talent in order to win the multiple wars it's
fighting for the American people," said Max Stier, president and chief
executive of the Partnership for Public Service, the think tank that
conducted the survey of 35 federal agencies, representing nearly 99 percent
of the federal workforce.
Speaking as a Federal employee, this makes my Libertarian persona want to hurl. Consider the source.
TC
-
Um, how about they leave "climate change" alone, until and unless they can prove it actually exists, and stop meddling in the financial sector?
They could trim the behemoth bureaucracy of the IRS by going to a flat tax.
They could save millions by reducing the BATF to the number of agents required to investigate real abuse, not minor paperwork errors like commas or misspelled words.
Maybe, too, they should take a look at the baby boomers who are coming up for retirement to see which ones are goofing off on their jobs. If they are, then the job isn't necessary.
-
they must have got the "H" and "F" keys mixed up.
-
The founding fathers would grab their muskets and revolt.
-
I'd back up a bit guys, if I'm reading this right, that massive hiring binge is simply to maintain the federal service at it's current level because the youth are underrepresented in government jobs, and a lot of people are getting up to retirement age.
I won't disagree that fewer government workers wouldn't be a good thing, but then again, I think restructuring might not be a bad thing - there's things like border patrol, immigration offices, that need more resources in order to do their jobs right.
-
...there's things like border patrol, immigration offices, that need more resources in order to do their jobs right.
Yeah, but those aren't high priorities to the current resident of the White House.
-
Firethorn is correct.
I've just declined a couple GS positions myself over the last few weeks, and they were quite persistent. (Reminding myself to remove resume' from USAJOBS) It appears that the hiring binge is indeed ramping up in anticipation of retirements/attrition in the federal civilian sector.
Less government is good, but this doesn't appear to be some big plus-up in the numbers, just an effort to fill positions that will be vacant soon.
-
Dang it. I'm now faced with a prisoner's dilemma.
EVERYONE would be better off if these government positions were not filled.
However, I'm well aware that if I landed a government job, my family would be well-cared for, especially if the government seriously screws up the economy.
Thus, it is likely in my family's best interest that I pursue one of these job openings in the Federal Government.
I'm just glad I've got a good job now, else I'd be SORELY tempted to work for the leviathan. It's still a consideration- consider it "TEOTWAWKI" preparations....
-
Mak, as my current project winds down (likely have 4-8months), I find myself in the same boat, especially considering I'm a contractor on the govt side already.
Chris
-
I'm just glad I've got a good job now, else I'd be SORELY tempted to work for the leviathan. It's still a consideration- consider it "TEOTWAWKI" preparations....
Come, Join the Dark Side...
/Bluesuiter.
-
Retired bluesuiter here, and somewhat glad I didn't go GS/GM afterwards.
Although, if that long dry spell earlier this year continued, the FDA GS position I declined would have been a definite possibility.
-
At some point both my kids will be in school all day, I might consider going back to federal employment. Not sure, though, as I'm really enjoying "retirement", too.
:lol:
As long as the dear leader doesn't make it too hard on small businesses, I might spin my own thing off from what we're doing, too.
-
Perhaps a gov't job is a way to study the messed up, jacked up system from within and formulate a better way to fix it?
-
Perhaps a gov't job is a way to study the messed up, jacked up system from within and formulate a better way to fix it?
No, that way lies insanity.
I'm a fed .gov employee. Trust me, I could write a frickin' book on what's wrong (and that's at the lowest level). How to fix it? Fire a hell of a lot of people. Will that ever be done? Don't hold your breath.
-
Perhaps a gov't job is a way to study the messed up, jacked up system from within and formulate a better way to fix it?
No. It just makes you mad. :laugh:
Good .gov workers are probably 60-70% efficient. Average .gov workers are lower. The ones who handle the paperwork seem to be 5-15% efficient, if that. :laugh:
-
The ones who handle the paperwork seem to be 5-15% efficient, if that. laugh
Don't laugh about it. Our administrative officer (handles payroll, money, other really important stuff, etc) is maybe 5% effective. She's lower than "Idiot" status. A 5 minute conversation with her will make your head hurt. The Crazy Cat Lady on the Simpsons makes more sense than this woman.
-
Taken individually, most of the govt employees I deal with in my job (IT contractor on govt project) are pretty sharp, motivated, and good people. However, it's the organizations that are a PITA.
Chris
-
As a state level .gov employee, I can say the feds are getting ready for the same problem some states (mine included) are facing. Over half of our employees will be of retirement age over the next 5-10 years. I'm not one of them, so hopefully that means my job is reasonably safe. =D
-
As a state level .gov employee, I can say the feds are getting ready for the same problem some states (mine included) are facing. Over half of our employees will be of retirement age over the next 5-10 years. I'm not one of them, so hopefully that means my job is reasonably safe. =D
I'm in the same boat except they don't seem to be wanting to retire anytime soon.
-
This seems like a non-story to me.
A lot of major corporations have the exact same problem. A huge portion of their experienced staff is hitting retirement age. Before the crash, HR planned to hire about 50% of company again (~50,000 employees) in the next 5-10yrs. Now they give buyouts for people to retire early.
-
More on the story from the IT side:
--------------
Help wanted: Agencies will need 11,000 more IT workers
Aging workforce and new administration's goals to add to agency IT labor crunch
* By Joab Jackson
* Sep 03, 2009
Federal agencies will need to hire more than 270,000 new employees for mission-critical jobs over the next three years, including more than 11,549 IT pros, according to a survey released today by the Partnership for Public Service think tank.
The nonprofit surveyed 35 federal agencies and found they need additional help over the next three years, both to meet the Obama administration's goals and to replace a rapidly retiring workforce. The organization identified more than 277,000 positions that these agencies will need to fill by 2012. Among the areas where talent is most needed include medical and public health (54,114 projected hires), security and protection (52,077 projected hires), and compliance and enforcement (31,276 hires).
In the field of IT, the survey identified 11,549 positions that will need to be filled by 2012. At present the 35 agencies have a total of 56,463 IT employees, about 16,454, or roughly 29 percent, of whom will be eligible for retirement by 2012. The average age of IT employees working at these agencies is 48. The Partnership defines IT positions as those covering systems analysis, security, application software, data management and network services.
The Justice Department, which currently has 2,737 IT workers, will need 428 new recruits by 2012. About 532 IT workers at the agency will be eligible for retirement by 2012. The Defense Department, excluding the individual services, will need 1,408 new recruits for its 5,746-strong IT workforce, from which 1,892 employees will be eligible for retirement by 2012.
Some contractors have complained that federal agencies are poaching contractor employees to fill their thinning ranks, according to reports.
-
Some contractors have complained that federal agencies are poaching contractor employees to fill their thinning ranks, according to reports.
Actually, there's a lot of traffic in both directions.
Chris
-
You hear about this a lot in healthcare, where there is a huge bolus of nurses reaching retirement age in the next ten years. We worry a lot about the nursing shortage growing even worse, since the US does not produce enough nurses each year to equal retirements and expansion. There are not enough open student slots in the nursing schools.
-
Actually, there's a lot of traffic in both directions.
Chris
I could definitely see that with higher level gov employees. Fed.gov has a "special" IT salary that runs through GS-12 that's higher than equivalent grade salaries in other fields to help with employee retention (though not all IT employees are in an "IT salary" category. Nothing like that for GS-13 and above (generally management grades) unless the agency is participating in Pay for Performance.
-
You hear about this a lot in healthcare, where there is a huge bolus of nurses reaching retirement age in the next ten years. We worry a lot about the nursing shortage growing even worse, since the US does not produce enough nurses each year to equal retirements and expansion. There are not enough open student slots in the nursing schools.
Not to worry!
Obama and his minions have promised they will make everything better so don't worry about silly demographic problems like that!
-
You hear about this a lot in healthcare, where there is a huge bolus of nurses reaching retirement age in the next ten years. We worry a lot about the nursing shortage growing even worse, since the US does not produce enough nurses each year to equal retirements and expansion. There are not enough open student slots in the nursing schools.
Hey, I'd love to go into that field (either nursing or as a paramedic) but...I'm squeamish as I can be.
-
Hey, I'd love to go into that field (either nursing or as a paramedic) but...I'm squeamish as I can be.
In that case, allow me to suggest a healthcare field that is expanding, well-paid and doesn't require working with icky bodily fluids: physical therapy.
As the baby boomers get older, they are requiring more physical therapy. Much like nursing, the demand exceeds the supply. Some PT schools, in an attempt to "raise the standards of the profession" (i.e.: reduce the supply and increase the demand) are now only offering a doctorate in physical therapy. But there are still schools out there that provide a bachelor's. I suspect that sooner or later, PT will follow the lead of the pharmacists and only offer a 5 or 6 year doctorate degree as the only means of entry into the profession. Pharmacy did that years ago, and it has been very, very successful in raising salaries due to the decreased supply. A new pharmacist right out of school can make $ 90,000/year working at Walgreen's, Rite Aid or the like.
-
I've often thought pharmacy would be a great gig, but all the chemistry and calculus sounds daunting to the non-mathy.
-
I'm in the same boat except they don't seem to be wanting to retire anytime soon.
Yeah. There's one lady I know who's got a 40 year plaque on her desk. She won't retire because staying home with her husband all day would drive her nuts.
-
I'd back up a bit guys, if I'm reading this right, that massive hiring binge is simply to maintain the federal service at it's current level because the youth are underrepresented in government jobs, and a lot of people are getting up to retirement age.
I won't disagree that fewer government workers wouldn't be a good thing, but then again, I think restructuring might not be a bad thing - there's things like border patrol, immigration offices, that need more resources in order to do their jobs right.
You're reading what they want you to read. If you READ it, you'll perhaps notice this little zinger, right after the bit about "replacing mission-critical workers":
The numbers also reflect the Obama administration's intent to take
on several enormous challenges, including the repair of the financial
sector, fighting two wars, and addressing climate change.
You don't take on enormous challenges with existing work force, unless you are prepared to stop carrying out other tasks. Which, as we all know, good bureaucrats never even consider.