Subject:
|
Re: How not to get fired...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:23:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
506 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm saddened that it took you a week to respond to my post, and when your
response did arrive it took the form of a personal insult.
A few days ago you said this:
==+==
Slinging names is not the way to keep this debate where it needs to be.
Because when you use even a mild one like "Losertarian" you enable ill
mannered rabble rousers to do the same (in kind, but far worse in degree). I
find the use of the term "dingus" particularly offensive and out of place in
this group, but you've (at least in part) enabled it.
==+==
I actually respected you for saying that. But now you've gone and let me down ;(
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Work for the US Federal Government, that's how!
> >
> > "Federal personnel data shows that just 434 civilian federal workers were
> > fired for poor performance in 2001." (well under 1 in a thousand... not
> > surprising since 98%+ get "fully satisfactory" performance ratings)
> >
> > from a Cato Institute screed on the Fox News site:
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69557,00.html
>
> A note to the mentally lazy: pointing out that not very many people get
> fired (compared to how for profit businesses where employee performance
> presumably matters) is not the same thing as suggesting that there ought to
> be a quota(1) on how many people get fired a year in government.
Indeed, we are not comparing like-with-like [see my final para]. My comment was
not entirely serious [note the smiley]. My real point was in the final para,
which you have chosen not to respond to.
If the federal government were to fire more than 1/1000 pa, I very much doubt
Cato[1] would herald it as a success? I’d expect a text from them decrying the
poor standard of federal employees…
>
> The point is that US government jobs are, in large part, sinecures. Once one
> secures one, one is safe from actually having to do good work. (2)
>
> 1 - While I personally would be in favour of such a quota, it misses the
> point to suggest it, and it's a tired rhetorical device to try misdirection
> like that
>
> 2 - Since no good debater responded to this post, I shall henceforth assume
> that we all agree this is true, US government workers don't have to perform.
Given the tone of your post, I find this final comment rather ironic.
Scott A
[1]BTW: Does anyone know if Jose Pinera still works as co-chair of Cato's Social
Security privatization Section?
Pinochet arrest raises new questions in Washington
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/128.html
"Pinera was a vital cog in the Pinochet dictatorship's ability to implement a
draconian labor code. It is simply outrageous for the Cato Institute to have
him as co-chair of its Social Security privatization effort. This is an example
of crime without punishment and reflects the conservative organization's
contempt for the suffering imposed on Chile's population during the Pinochet
era."
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: How not to get fired...
|
| (...) fired (compared to how for profit businesses where employee performance presumably matters) is not the same thing as suggesting that there ought to be a quota(1) on how many people get fired a year in government. The point is that US (...) (22 years ago, 21-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
