I do believe that natural resource agencies are useful. My time at the Forest Service showed me that many good biologists, hydrologists, and soil scientists are working there who work hard and care.
However, my time there showed me how stupid the USDA HR is. I couldn't even log on to my computer until a month into my job and it wasn't even my first federal employment. Many such cases! Ridiculous.
Great write up. I’m a higher level federal worker and I can tell you Musk and others view of us is outdated. Those of us who don’t work hard are a certain demographic. And the things that hamstring us from getting work done are requirements imposed on us by the legislature. But I concede you could make my job easier and more efficient if you removed half of the people in the agency im at.
Thanks. People don't realize what a different beast Government is than your typical job. There's room for improvement, like anywhere, the nature of our system requires unique solutions that aren't applicable to your standard business.
I worked in the private industry for over a decade before government. Every point you make about government is true in the private industry, if not worse. The private sector feasts off the productivity of a small minority of workers. The Pareto principle is everywhere.
To add, private companies have no business criticizing the civil service. I cannot count how many vendor engagements I have been in where private companies are selling ‘B2B SaaS’ or ‘AI services’ and I’ll ask for a use case and I either get blank stares or a ‘we’ll send you some’ (they never do). Total frauds trying to rip off tax payers
Here's the thing: many of the phenomena you're talking about aren't necessarily applicable outside the context of federal acquisitions, particularly defense-related acquisitions. The entirety of the DoD is about 2.85 million employees, at every level, almost three-quarters of which are active-duty military or National Guard/reservists. Everyone involved in defense acquisitions on the Government end is going to be in the approximately 750k civilians employed by the DoD. Note that Veterans Affairs is its own, cabinet-level agency and not part of the DoD proper.
But the federal civil service, managed by the Office of Personnel Management, doesn't include any of those. At present, it manages something like 2.5 million employees. I think the single largest group is USPS, at around 600k. There are acquisitions personnel in just about every civilian agency, but the relative percentage of people involved in civilian procurement is a lot lower than in the DoD, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
The thing of it is, most of the nuance you call for in your last section do make sense for defense procurement workers (and civilian defense workers generally), but not nearly so much to civilian federal workers, particularly those not directly involved in acquisitions. The reason is simple: federal workers involved in acquisitions are, ultimately, providing a service for the Government itself. In that context, "flexibility to make judgment calls that keep the spirit of the law without causing mayhem on people trying to get work done" makes a ton of sense. Both the people imposing and following compliance obligations in this context work for the government.
But most people working in the federal civil service are involved in doing one of two things: providing services to individuals/organizations outside the government, or setting and enforcing policies that apply to people outside the government. That whole "We're just trying to get some neutral work done, doing our best under the weight of enormous bureaucracy" perspective doesn't fit nearly so well. You're not providing or making decisions about benefits to individuals. You're not deciding whether and if so against whom to bring enforcement actions. You're not drafting the rules and regulations that everyone engaged in a particular activity is going to have to try to comply with, even if they aren't doing business with the government.
So yes, by all means, sing the song of long-suffering procurement specialists everywhere. But recognize that most of the federal workforce is singing an entirely different tune.
One of my extended relatives works for the federal government and has some involvement in acquisitions. He's expressed many of the same concerns you have. My response to him is basically the same: "What you see day-to-day is not representative of the majority of federal civil servants."
You forgot about the base-level federal employees that are setting up and enforcing policies INSIDE the government. I started out as an Electrical/Electronics Engineering Technician (GS-7) for the Navy, 7 years. I spent 3 years as in the Environmental office at a Naval Shipyard (GS-10/11), and after BRAC, I was the Hazardous Waste and Materials Manager for an AFB (GS-11) for my last 22 years. I worked to identify and approve all Haz Materials, ensure their proper disposal, identify Haz wastestreams and ensure proper labeling, handling and disposal, oversaw a RCRA haz waste permit and an Open Burn/Open Detonation (OB/OD) permit including renewal and closure, as well as being Environmental Rep for any spills/releases of haz materials or waste which included jet crashes.
Yeah, bureaucracy can be irritating at best or infuriating at worst. What I learned over my 32 year federal career was most rules were made for a reason. The reason may be dumb sometimes or even outdated but there is usually a reason. Your example of not being able to use a USB in a government computer…there is a good reason for that. My late husband was a Sys Admin for the Squadron I worked at and explained the reason to me when I complained. An individual had put a USB into a government machine and there was a virus on it, which was stopped before it could cause widespread damage but it caused enough. There was no way to ensure someone wouldn’t insert just any old USB and no way to ensure every USB was clean. People take things home to work on occasionally and it would be easy for a USB to become infected that way, even if it had been previously clean.
There are many things that could be changed and streamlined in government…but I see 2 large impediments to this currently.
1. The government is NOT a business and cannot be run as such. A business’s goal is to make a profit. The government does not make a profit, they provide a service both directly and indirectly.
2. People that no nothing about how the government operates and how it is set up, should NOT be in charge of telling anyone what is wasteful or fraudulent. I used to complain about guidance from my HQ counterparts that made no sense to me at all based on level. It was, and still is, my firm belief that no one should work at a HQ position unless they have a minimum 1year base level experience.
I'd put positions like the one you describe in the same category as those related to acquisitions. Like I said in my original comment, employees with jobs like yours "are, ultimately, providing a service for the Government itself."
But most of the positions like that are going to be in the DoD. I just don't see a ton of hardcore engineering or hazmat work being done in most civilian agencies. Again, most federal civilian jobs aren't anything like what you're describing.
As far as mystifying bureaucracy, I take your point. But I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your perspective if those rules were enforced uniformly. They quite clearly are not. If somebody like you, or one of the people I know that works in/around/for DoD agencies, were to do something like use an unauthorized USB drive, there would be draconian consequences. But when the Secretary of State can set up a homebrew, off-the-books email server in her closet specifically intended to avoid federal recordkeeping regulations with no consequences? When congressional aides can leak materials from inside a SCIF to journalists and have their charges all but dropped because to do otherwise would embarrass SSCI and expose the fraudulent construct behind Russiagate?
Things like that tend to wear my sympathy pretty thin.
“The core nature of government needs to be stability, “
That’s a real thick bubble you got there, for the rest of us outside- which is most- it’s instability and anarcho-tyranny. We care as much about the problems of the Federal workforce as they us… not at all, except you’re in our way and make us not just miserable but in constant random danger. It’s like the office but with real consequences and actual death in the deadlines-this describes the US military by the way.
The actual core of government by the way are the agencies-other agencies of course- that you suggest should be shuttered and razed.
Most keenly- there are many millions of young men in America of “fighting age” and some millions trained who have fought.
They hungry, angry, disenfranchised in all but name for being male and have nothing to lose, everything to gain.
In sum; do get out of their way, and Trump is not at all their last chance… he’s yours.
They’re rising , I can smell the blood coming off them. I have some experience in the field.
Revolutions don’t happen during repression or great suffering, they happen during rising expectations that can’t be met.
In particular when repression is lifted… it just was today.
Changing corporate culture is the most difficult thing I can imagine. This is beyond tribal. I worked in a very high drive financial services company that fancied Gucci. A “new guy” arrived from a large regional company but new to the very ruthless world of big money. Got big office and more money but, shortly later, I noticed he was walking in the parking lot for like a long time. Returning to his office, he resigned and left. Should not have bought the sports car.
On job security. Some older workers have told me the primary reason for civil service protections is so they can offer a different view/course of action that their their president/bosses might not like, and not get fired for doing so.
That cure might be worse than the disease. I'd rather be quit or be fired than trapped with a petty tyrant of a manager bent on passive-aggressive revenge. I imagine that I would tread extra carefully in public service for this reason. While it's true I wouldn't be fired, the same would be true of my boss.
It’s not as bad as people think. I have absolutely seen federal civil servants fired for poor performance. I have also had tyrant bosses in the private sector with seniority.
Also, you can’t always equate to the business world. If you argue against your boss on a way to do something different, revenue might decline from 11% this quarter to 10%. In government, we’re talking whether or not we do nafta, give china favored nation status, whether to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, whether or not to escalate and/send troops somewhere. All things of great consequence that you would hope advisors in the room can speak their mind and not just ‘quit’ because the president is hard to work with
I think that if I were working close to the president and I had a vision I wanted to realize, I probably wouldn't quit. I was talking about the cogs in the machine who implement instructions rather than formulate sweeping policy and who may find themselves under middle managers who care more about their egos and petty vendettas than the direction of the country.
Regardless, none of the agencies including the ones you listed, deserved to be abruptly and illegally fired. Adding insult to injury, they used a lie to get rid of workers in mass and without even the proper notice so people could prepare their families for an uncertain future. Why is cruelty always in the equation for you folks?
Great post, but did you complete a proper risk assessment before writing it?
I'm still waiting on some signatures since everyone is out today, but I'll keep everyone updated on my status report.
I do believe that natural resource agencies are useful. My time at the Forest Service showed me that many good biologists, hydrologists, and soil scientists are working there who work hard and care.
However, my time there showed me how stupid the USDA HR is. I couldn't even log on to my computer until a month into my job and it wasn't even my first federal employment. Many such cases! Ridiculous.
Same for me. I think being unable to log in for a month is a rite of passage.
Great write up. I’m a higher level federal worker and I can tell you Musk and others view of us is outdated. Those of us who don’t work hard are a certain demographic. And the things that hamstring us from getting work done are requirements imposed on us by the legislature. But I concede you could make my job easier and more efficient if you removed half of the people in the agency im at.
Thanks. People don't realize what a different beast Government is than your typical job. There's room for improvement, like anywhere, the nature of our system requires unique solutions that aren't applicable to your standard business.
I worked in the private industry for over a decade before government. Every point you make about government is true in the private industry, if not worse. The private sector feasts off the productivity of a small minority of workers. The Pareto principle is everywhere.
To add, private companies have no business criticizing the civil service. I cannot count how many vendor engagements I have been in where private companies are selling ‘B2B SaaS’ or ‘AI services’ and I’ll ask for a use case and I either get blank stares or a ‘we’ll send you some’ (they never do). Total frauds trying to rip off tax payers
Here's the thing: many of the phenomena you're talking about aren't necessarily applicable outside the context of federal acquisitions, particularly defense-related acquisitions. The entirety of the DoD is about 2.85 million employees, at every level, almost three-quarters of which are active-duty military or National Guard/reservists. Everyone involved in defense acquisitions on the Government end is going to be in the approximately 750k civilians employed by the DoD. Note that Veterans Affairs is its own, cabinet-level agency and not part of the DoD proper.
But the federal civil service, managed by the Office of Personnel Management, doesn't include any of those. At present, it manages something like 2.5 million employees. I think the single largest group is USPS, at around 600k. There are acquisitions personnel in just about every civilian agency, but the relative percentage of people involved in civilian procurement is a lot lower than in the DoD, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
The thing of it is, most of the nuance you call for in your last section do make sense for defense procurement workers (and civilian defense workers generally), but not nearly so much to civilian federal workers, particularly those not directly involved in acquisitions. The reason is simple: federal workers involved in acquisitions are, ultimately, providing a service for the Government itself. In that context, "flexibility to make judgment calls that keep the spirit of the law without causing mayhem on people trying to get work done" makes a ton of sense. Both the people imposing and following compliance obligations in this context work for the government.
But most people working in the federal civil service are involved in doing one of two things: providing services to individuals/organizations outside the government, or setting and enforcing policies that apply to people outside the government. That whole "We're just trying to get some neutral work done, doing our best under the weight of enormous bureaucracy" perspective doesn't fit nearly so well. You're not providing or making decisions about benefits to individuals. You're not deciding whether and if so against whom to bring enforcement actions. You're not drafting the rules and regulations that everyone engaged in a particular activity is going to have to try to comply with, even if they aren't doing business with the government.
So yes, by all means, sing the song of long-suffering procurement specialists everywhere. But recognize that most of the federal workforce is singing an entirely different tune.
Very true. Thanks for the extensive and enlightening comment.
My pleasure.
One of my extended relatives works for the federal government and has some involvement in acquisitions. He's expressed many of the same concerns you have. My response to him is basically the same: "What you see day-to-day is not representative of the majority of federal civil servants."
You forgot about the base-level federal employees that are setting up and enforcing policies INSIDE the government. I started out as an Electrical/Electronics Engineering Technician (GS-7) for the Navy, 7 years. I spent 3 years as in the Environmental office at a Naval Shipyard (GS-10/11), and after BRAC, I was the Hazardous Waste and Materials Manager for an AFB (GS-11) for my last 22 years. I worked to identify and approve all Haz Materials, ensure their proper disposal, identify Haz wastestreams and ensure proper labeling, handling and disposal, oversaw a RCRA haz waste permit and an Open Burn/Open Detonation (OB/OD) permit including renewal and closure, as well as being Environmental Rep for any spills/releases of haz materials or waste which included jet crashes.
Yeah, bureaucracy can be irritating at best or infuriating at worst. What I learned over my 32 year federal career was most rules were made for a reason. The reason may be dumb sometimes or even outdated but there is usually a reason. Your example of not being able to use a USB in a government computer…there is a good reason for that. My late husband was a Sys Admin for the Squadron I worked at and explained the reason to me when I complained. An individual had put a USB into a government machine and there was a virus on it, which was stopped before it could cause widespread damage but it caused enough. There was no way to ensure someone wouldn’t insert just any old USB and no way to ensure every USB was clean. People take things home to work on occasionally and it would be easy for a USB to become infected that way, even if it had been previously clean.
There are many things that could be changed and streamlined in government…but I see 2 large impediments to this currently.
1. The government is NOT a business and cannot be run as such. A business’s goal is to make a profit. The government does not make a profit, they provide a service both directly and indirectly.
2. People that no nothing about how the government operates and how it is set up, should NOT be in charge of telling anyone what is wasteful or fraudulent. I used to complain about guidance from my HQ counterparts that made no sense to me at all based on level. It was, and still is, my firm belief that no one should work at a HQ position unless they have a minimum 1year base level experience.
I'd put positions like the one you describe in the same category as those related to acquisitions. Like I said in my original comment, employees with jobs like yours "are, ultimately, providing a service for the Government itself."
But most of the positions like that are going to be in the DoD. I just don't see a ton of hardcore engineering or hazmat work being done in most civilian agencies. Again, most federal civilian jobs aren't anything like what you're describing.
As far as mystifying bureaucracy, I take your point. But I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your perspective if those rules were enforced uniformly. They quite clearly are not. If somebody like you, or one of the people I know that works in/around/for DoD agencies, were to do something like use an unauthorized USB drive, there would be draconian consequences. But when the Secretary of State can set up a homebrew, off-the-books email server in her closet specifically intended to avoid federal recordkeeping regulations with no consequences? When congressional aides can leak materials from inside a SCIF to journalists and have their charges all but dropped because to do otherwise would embarrass SSCI and expose the fraudulent construct behind Russiagate?
Things like that tend to wear my sympathy pretty thin.
Sir,
“The core nature of government needs to be stability, “
That’s a real thick bubble you got there, for the rest of us outside- which is most- it’s instability and anarcho-tyranny. We care as much about the problems of the Federal workforce as they us… not at all, except you’re in our way and make us not just miserable but in constant random danger. It’s like the office but with real consequences and actual death in the deadlines-this describes the US military by the way.
The actual core of government by the way are the agencies-other agencies of course- that you suggest should be shuttered and razed.
Most keenly- there are many millions of young men in America of “fighting age” and some millions trained who have fought.
They hungry, angry, disenfranchised in all but name for being male and have nothing to lose, everything to gain.
In sum; do get out of their way, and Trump is not at all their last chance… he’s yours.
They’re rising , I can smell the blood coming off them. I have some experience in the field.
Revolutions don’t happen during repression or great suffering, they happen during rising expectations that can’t be met.
In particular when repression is lifted… it just was today.
Welcome to Instability.
Happy Liberation Day.
Changing corporate culture is the most difficult thing I can imagine. This is beyond tribal. I worked in a very high drive financial services company that fancied Gucci. A “new guy” arrived from a large regional company but new to the very ruthless world of big money. Got big office and more money but, shortly later, I noticed he was walking in the parking lot for like a long time. Returning to his office, he resigned and left. Should not have bought the sports car.
Eliminate every single department and function not absolutely mandated by the Constitution and let the states pick up what they will.
Start with Ed and keep going.
On job security. Some older workers have told me the primary reason for civil service protections is so they can offer a different view/course of action that their their president/bosses might not like, and not get fired for doing so.
That cure might be worse than the disease. I'd rather be quit or be fired than trapped with a petty tyrant of a manager bent on passive-aggressive revenge. I imagine that I would tread extra carefully in public service for this reason. While it's true I wouldn't be fired, the same would be true of my boss.
It’s not as bad as people think. I have absolutely seen federal civil servants fired for poor performance. I have also had tyrant bosses in the private sector with seniority.
Also, you can’t always equate to the business world. If you argue against your boss on a way to do something different, revenue might decline from 11% this quarter to 10%. In government, we’re talking whether or not we do nafta, give china favored nation status, whether to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, whether or not to escalate and/send troops somewhere. All things of great consequence that you would hope advisors in the room can speak their mind and not just ‘quit’ because the president is hard to work with
I think that if I were working close to the president and I had a vision I wanted to realize, I probably wouldn't quit. I was talking about the cogs in the machine who implement instructions rather than formulate sweeping policy and who may find themselves under middle managers who care more about their egos and petty vendettas than the direction of the country.
Regardless, none of the agencies including the ones you listed, deserved to be abruptly and illegally fired. Adding insult to injury, they used a lie to get rid of workers in mass and without even the proper notice so people could prepare their families for an uncertain future. Why is cruelty always in the equation for you folks?
What was confused about this artice?