Can we just shut the government down already?
-
sleeper
Sorry but no. I'm of the opinion you could eliminate right now 20% of federal government jobs and see ZERO decrease in work being performed. In fact, that's exactly what the government is trying to do; never replacing anyone that moves on.cbus4life;1540892 wrote:My work brings me into contact with quite a few "non-essential" US government employees. Things weren't terrible over the few weeks they were gone, but it would have gotten pretty rough if the shutdown had lasted any longer. Lots of worry amongst my community about when they would be back. In my line of work, they absolutely were essential.
And, i give a MASSIVE amount of credit to the numerous US federal employees i know who did tons of work during those 2 weeks in whatever way that they could, because they care about their job and service they provide to the US and numerous countries around the world. A credit to their department and country.
Of course, not all are like this, but just wanted to say, in my personal field, US federal employees are vital and incredibly important members of the international community, and are as good as it gets in the field. A bargain to the federal tax payer, considering what they are paid.
US federal employees are world leaders in a variety of different fields and disciplines, and when they can't work...it quite frankly makes us look like shit.
So much good comes out of what our government does. It isn't all bad and pointless. Allow folks to do their job, and the US will be just fine. Sure, regulation and proper checks and the like are needed, and cutting dead weight is necessary, but shutting the entire place down was just absurd. Lazy and selfish, to be blunt. -
WebFire
Ok, that's where are conversation went awry. I thought you were asking him that for all the time, not just during the shutdown.O-Trap;1541179 wrote:I'm not making anything difficult. Glory implied that without those essential employees (or whatever we're calling them now), the travel plans and expenses couldn't get done. My point was, and is, that that's ridiculous, as those things are not that time-intensive, and that there are too many examples of people who are able to keep a full plate AND do those things on top of it. -
O-Trap
Well, theoretically, I'd maintain that those things, specifically, could still be done long-term. However, I agree that if an admin is busy 6-7 hours a day or more with other things as well, trying to do all of that without the admin isn't reasonable. I think we agree on that part.WebFire;1541185 wrote:Ok, that's where are conversation went awry. I thought you were asking him that for all the time, not just during the shutdown. -
Glory Days
Sorry I wasn't detailed enough. yes I do coordinate my own specific travel. but the Admin/HR people who process the paper work and do the book keeping in DC weren't working. so basically the money to pay for it wasn't available(technically it wasn't available anyway because of the shutdown).O-Trap;1540903 wrote:If I may ask, why is such specialization necessary? Why could you not coordinate your own travel or run your own expenses?
we also didn't have money to maintain our vehicles. my government vehicle is an extension of my office. repairs couldn't be made, but we could still buy gas with our credit card. but eventually the government would have missed payments if the shutdown continued.
This.WebFire;1540965 wrote:Probably takes too much time away from what he is actually supposed to be doing. There is a reason the hire people and pay them less to do those tasks.
and if your productivity/level of efficiency didn't go down because of this, your lying.wkfan;1541063 wrote:That is an hourly employee, union member mentality.
I worked for one of the worlds largest and most repected corportions back in the lat 80's and early 90's. When finances got tight, all exempt employees were to make all of their own travel arrangements, fill out expense reports themselves, etc. These tasks were completed in addition to completing the requirements of their position....not in place of competing the requirements of their position.
That's how it works in the free-enterprise system....
and I am not hourly. -
O-Trap
How do you know this? Do you know wkfan? I have no idea what he does for a living.Glory Days;1541420 wrote:and if your productivity/level of efficiency didn't go down because of this, your lying.
Technically, should it have an effect on productivity? If so, how? -
Glory Days
common sense. the only way it wouldn't effect productivity is if you weren't working at 100% efficiency before more work was added to your task list.O-Trap;1541422 wrote:How do you know this? Do you know wkfan? I have no idea what he does for a living.
Technically, should it have an effect on productivity? If so, how? -
O-Trap
Or you put in more time after, yes?Glory Days;1541441 wrote:common sense. the only way it wouldn't effect productivity is if you weren't working at 100% efficiency before more work was added to your task list.
If I work at 100% efficiency for 9 hours a day prior to the temporary government cutback, and then I work at 100% efficiency for 9.5 hours during it, I'm still working at 100% efficiency. I'm working a half-hour more, but the efficiency hasn't changed. And too, if I'm salary, then it isn't as though more money is going into me working that extra half hour, right?
Perhaps I'm missing something you mean, though. If so, do help me see what you mean. -
WebFire
Why is it ok for you to make a generalization based on your experience, but he is not?O-Trap;1541422 wrote:How do you know this? Do you know wkfan? I have no idea what he does for a living. -
O-Trap
I made a generalization about the effort it takes to carry out an activity which requires below-average physical and mental exertion. I may as well have called into question how much time it takes to tie one's shoes, and simply used my experience as a reference. My "generalization" appeals to the assumption that Glory Days is able-bodied and of sound mind, capable of using any equipment necessary to carry out those functions. If you disagree, please let me know on what grounds. I'm more than willing to change my view if the reason given to do so is weighty. As it stands, I claimed that it took little time because there is nothing special or rare required to do so.WebFire;1541489 wrote:Why is it ok for you to make a generalization based on your experience, but he is not?
If you'll notice, I did not say he cannot do any such thing. What you're accusing me of not allowing him to do is out of thin air, as I have not said he could not do it. All I did was ask him how he knew that wkfan was indeed slowed down by the circumstances in question. Asking a question as to how one knows something is hardly equitable to assuming he is unable to do so. It's merely asking him to clarify his statement.
His statement was far more nebulous. He stated that wkfan could not have remained equitably efficient. I merely asked how he knew this to be so. I did not disallow him to make this claim. I merely asked him to clarify it.
And I didn't even touch on the fact that we're dealing with virtually opposite implications: My claim was that any nominally competent person can do 'X'. Assuming he doesn't know wkfan, his claim was that nobody, regardless of competency level, can do 'X'.
Claiming the absence of something (an ability, in this case) as knowledge requires, as a logical rule, more evidence than claiming the presence of something (again, an ability).
I could also bring up the distinction between his example and my own by comparing variables. Assuming his job and wkfan's jobs are different, they contain different requirements, and there exists no guarantee that the requirements are equally effected by any outside source.
I, on the other hand, spoke to a single activity ... a closed system, so to speak ... whereby each would engage in precisely the same activity, at least in theory. As such, the two are easily compared.
All that, as stated above, is why I justify my point, why I asked him the question I did, and why your accusation is unfounded. -
Glory Days
how is that more productive? it now takes you 9.5 hours to do the work that used to take 9 because you took on tasks that you didn't do before. now your "TPS" reports are 30 minutes late to your boss. by your theory, correct me if I am wrong, why stop at an extra 30 minutes? if we all work 18 hour days, we could eliminate even more jobs correct?O-Trap;1541443 wrote:Or you put in more time after, yes?
If I work at 100% efficiency for 9 hours a day prior to the temporary government cutback, and then I work at 100% efficiency for 9.5 hours during it, I'm still working at 100% efficiency. I'm working a half-hour more, but the efficiency hasn't changed. -
believer
It's not about working more hours and putting others out of work. It's about being efficient with the hours in which you do work.Glory Days;1541636 wrote:how is that more productive? it now takes you 9.5 hours to do the work that used to take 9 because you took on tasks that you didn't do before. now your "TPS" reports are 30 minutes late to your boss. by your theory, correct me if I am wrong, why stop at an extra 30 minutes? if we all work 18 hour days, we could eliminate even more jobs correct?
I believe that most people reach their point of marginal returns on efficiency once they hit 10 hours. After that you lose efficiencies and productivity. -
WebFire
It's not more productive nor efficient. But you'll never "win" an argument with o-trap.Glory Days;1541636 wrote:how is that more productive? it now takes you 9.5 hours to do the work that used to take 9 because you took on tasks that you didn't do before. now your "TPS" reports are 30 minutes late to your boss. by your theory, correct me if I am wrong, why stop at an extra 30 minutes? if we all work 18 hour days, we could eliminate even more jobs correct? -
O-Trap
It's not more productive. Rest assured, I wasn't suggesting it was. It's equally as productive, because it's not taking 9.5 hours to do the same amount of work as it used to take 9 hours to do. It's taking 9.5 hours to do MORE work than you were doing with 9 hours.Glory Days;1541636 wrote:how is that more productive? it now takes you 9.5 hours to do the work that used to take 9 because you took on tasks that you didn't do before.
If x = 9 hours of work at 100% efficiency, and y = .5 hours of work at 100% efficiency, then:
x + y = 9.5 hours working at 100% efficiency
IF it was taking a half-hour longer to get only the same amount of work done, I would completely agree with you, but you're getting more done.
This "TPS" report (excellent reference) wouldn't have to be late. Technically, you could simply be doing your additional work ... the travel planning and such ... at the end of the day. It doesn't seem as though it would have to affect anything during the day prior to that point.Glory Days;1541636 wrote:now your "TPS" reports are 30 minutes late to your boss. by your theory, correct me if I am wrong, why stop at an extra 30 minutes? if we all work 18 hour days, we could eliminate even more jobs correct?
As for the idea of 18 hours, sure, that would theoretically get more done in a 24-hour period, and with a salaried employee, it wouldn't necessarily add cost. The problem would be that you significantly limit your applicant pool, and you would have a hell of a turnover rate. Plus, and this is my own bet (not objectively true, but a hunch), I daresay it would be difficult to maintain the same level of efficiency over 18 hours as you'd see over 9 hours. A half-hour difference seems as though the efficiency difference is more likely to be negligible than double the load, but you're technically correct, assuming it could be done.
However, ideally, if we could find people happy to work 18 hours doing the job, able to maintain the efficiency, and willing to take the same salary, that would be one hell of a competitive employee, and it would lessen the financial burden on those footing the bill to cover the salary of all such employees.
So, in theory, you're absolutely right on that. -
O-Trap
I never said it was more efficient. I just said it wasn't necessarily less efficient.WebFire;1541695 wrote:It's not more productive nor efficient. But you'll never "win" an argument with o-trap.
As for arguing, if you'd like, and if it's important enough to you, I can actually show times in which I have indeed conceded an argument on here, because I was simply wrong.
I don't here because I see no logical reason to think it is so.