ERD50 said:
LKH - get a grip. Just to be sure it was not bias on my part, I went back through the posts. Not a single one 'belittles what you do' (let me know if you find one, I'm on my first cup this AM). And it would be meaningless if they did, since they don't know you or your job personally.
What I do is work for the government. And yes, people have belittled that.
People *are* entitled to have the opinion that govt workers serve them worse than the private sectors. All of us deal with both, so don't say that we 'don't know shinola'. Odd how it is OK for you to generalize about us, isn't it?
People are entitled to any opinion they like, but I'm entitled the opinion that they don't know shinola.
Most people who think government service is that bad don't really understand what MAKES it that way. They bag on the workers, as if it's their fault, as if they don't care about doing a good job, as if they don't work hard, rather than make any effort to understand why things might be as PIA as they are. Some of the stuff I have to ask people to do is, I admit, horribly bureaucratic. I don't like asking, but I am a slave to the statute. I wasn't elected to make policy, I have to live with what the guys under the gold dome write, just like everyone else. And unfortunately, because politicians almost never have any idea how things work in the trenches, the law of unintended consequences comes into play all too often. If the statute says that I have to require XYZ, then I have to make sure people provide XYZ, even if it doesn't make sense. I do an awful lot of hand-holding to get full compliance, because people think that they can just provide X, take a half-hearted swipe at Y and forget Z altogether and they should get what they need because it should be obvious to anyone that they qualify. Now, I try hard to be helpful rather than let my frustration show through but sometimes, after about the 100th time I deal with someone who barely makes an effort, then cops an attitude when I ask for more (try being cursed at by a PASTOR), it's hard. What I see with most agencies I deal with is people doing their best NOT to live down to the government worker stereotype, and I think they ought to get credit for that.
OK, so you ARE finally telling us (even though you don't seem to want to admit it) that the TOTAL COMPENSATION package for your job is better than what you can get in the private sector. Thanks for clearing that up for us - we were wondering why you would want to stay in a job that offers such poor compensation. BTW, my pension (if I wait until 65) - ~40% NON-COLA. Wow, that is a big diff in NW required to retire at a 4% SWR.
You must have misread something. TOTAL COMPENSATION is
85% of prevailing. Clearly NOT better than private sector, or it would be better than 100%. And that does include the pension, BTW. So yes, the pension is great. But the other stuff stinks enough to bring the whole package well below prevailing.
Also, WRT the pension, don't get the idea that this is some big taxpayer-funded handout. Compared to what private sector employers contribute to FICA, pension plans, and/or matching 401k accounts, my employer probably pays less. I contribute about 12% of my income, and have for going on 30 years - if I could've wisely invested that same amount on my own, I'd probably be able to FIRE at about the same percentage of my pay.
The private sector is phasing out and eliminating many benefits also. The mega-corp I retired from is a very, very different place (with regards to benefits for new hires) than it was just a few years ago. No pension - nada, and other cuts.
I know that's happening everywhere. Plus too many employers are raiding pension plans with impunity. And yet our compensation package is 85% of prevailing. Shouldn't that tell you that I'm not concerned for nothing?
They didn't look at the compensation package *before* they accepted the job? And quit immediately - before they could see what compensation they could get elsewhere? That story is either fishy, or those people were not too bright, or very impulsive. The state is probably better off without them?
What they get to see is the pay SCALE - they don't know where they're going to fall in the scale until they get the offer, and they may assume that while the initial salary is going to be "entry-level" they can expect raises. They may not realize until they get to orientation that raises haven't been forthcoming for ages, and probably that won't change. As for benefits, I've NEVER seen a job that told me what the benefits were before they offered the position.
There you go - the free market will solve this (eventually). If they can't fill the positions, they will need to do something.
They haven't been filling positions for several years now, and they've had this turnover for several years. But because of the constitutional budget constraints, and because (hate to make this political) we have had a Republican governor who didn't mind screwing the workers, nothing has been done yet. The thing is, so long as the State has the experienced workers, there are ways to compensate for being somewhat understaffed - maybe you don't get everything on the mandate accomplished, but you can get the important stuff done if you know the shortcuts and priorities. But that's about to change as well.
Ultimately, you totally ignored the main point of my message, and that's my concern about how this is going to affect services in the future, if something doesn't change very soon.
