5 ms·

Is it better to find short term solutions, like odd jobs, or to find new employment?

mikepurvis 8y ago
Depending what you were doing for the IRS, there may not be a ton of other employment out there for your skill set, especially on a short time frame.
surge 8y ago
"The IRS is also losing 25 IT staffers every week since the shutdown began, with many finding other jobs, one House aide said, citing the IRS officials' briefing." At least some are already doing this.
- astrodust 8y ago
  You have to wonder how many of the remaining people are dedicating their time to updating their LinkedIn profile and searching for a new job...
dragonwriter 8y ago
One possible motivation for the administration holding out on the shutdown is it encourages people to leave the civil service; they've been fairly open previously about wanting to purge he federal civil service of those not loyal to Trump, either leaving holes or backfilling with loyalists. Civil service rules make this difficult, but driving people off with no pay (and publicly characterizing staying in that situation as a noble gesture of loyalty to the President, as some admin figures have done) is one way to do some.of that in a way which avoids civil service protections.
- danielvf 8y ago
  It seems like the party of the administration is the one voting in favor of ending the shutdown? [Edit: No long as clear cut. Now both parties are voting against each other's ending bills. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll048.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll048.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll049.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll049.xml ]
  - anth_anm 8y ago
    Shutdown would be over if McConnell was willing to vote.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      Like they did yesterday?
- anon4242 8y ago
  It may work well to purge the civil service of those not loyal to Trump, but it will also work to purge the civil service of the most competent workers.
- burfog 8y ago
  It doesn't have to be "leaving holes or backfilling with loyalists". The "holes" go away if the positions are permanently discarded. Civil service rules are quite troubling. I can see the idea that it shouldn't be easy to make everything political, but the problem is that this goes only one way. If the president's predecessor hired a few million hostile partisans, what is he supposed to do? Is he just supposed to continue down that path, hiring tens of millions of his own partisans in order to win back control? Maybe the next president can hire a hundred million people, and then we're one president away from the entire population working for the federal government. There needs to be a reasonable way to toss out the partisan troublemakers who are undermining the will of the voters. Another troubling rule is that layoffs must be done according to seniority and veteran status, not performance. Performance is considered last! This is an absurdity; you couldn't run a normal non-monopoly software firm that way. The only reliable way to eliminate low-performing employees is to eliminate everybody in a given agency.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Civil service rules are quite troubling. I can see the idea that it shouldn't be easy to make everything political, but the problem is that this goes only one way. No, it doesn't, there are rules protecting against patronage hires to civil service positions; they aren't perfect, but the protections aren't one sided. > If the president's predecessor hired a few million hostile partisans Not gonna happen, since it would take not only an unprecedented politicization of hiring but also a President getting to fill half the current federal workforce. > Is he just supposed to continue down that path, hiring tens of millions of his own partisans in order to win back control? Uh, no, the President is not supposed to have partisan control of the federal civil service workforce. > There needs to be a reasonable way to toss out the partisan troublemakers who are undermining the will of the voters. If they aren't doing their legal duty competently, federal civil service workers can be fired for cause. Not being a partisan of the President, isn't cause, and that's a feature not a bug. > Another troubling rule is that layoffs must be done according to seniority and veteran status, not performance. I don't see that as troubling at all. > The only reliable way to eliminate low-performing employees is to eliminate everybody in a given agency. No, the reliable way is to set performance standards at the appropriate floor and then fire people who don't meet them for cause; civil service rules do allow for performance standards and do allow firing people who don't meet them. You know the practice of PIPs in private employment? That's directly modelled on what is required for performance-based termination in civil service employment. Layoffs fill a different purpose.
lordnacho 8y ago
I was wondering if the gig economy firms are seeing an uptick. People driving Uber, dogwalking, food delivery, etc. A fair few people don't have a lot of savings, as in will end up with no cash at all if they're not paid. Even if you wanted to keep working for deferred pay, if you're in that situation you'd need to do something quite soon. I suppose modern day loansharks are also having a great time.
ryanlol 8y ago
Wouldn’t it just be vastly easier to take out a loan?
- sethammons 8y ago
  and pay interest? Or depending on your credit? taking out debt to continue working seems crazy to me.
- evilduck 8y ago
  How many loans and for how long? The president has already stated this may take months or years. Do you have a lender willing to lend you six months to two years worth of pay? Would you even be willing to take on that amount of debt on top of all of your other financial responsibilities?
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    I guess not that many loans >Trump, Congress Reach Tentative Deal to Reopen Government for Three Weeks I’m not even in the US, but my inbox has been flooded with emails from various financial institutions offering interest-free loans to government workers.
- rickyc091 8y ago
  It's actually not that easy to take out a loan. Someone making minimum wage with a home to put up as collateral, even with perfect credit would probably only be able to take out $10,000 to $20,000. As others have mentioned, there are interest rates involved with the loan as well. It's less than a credit card, but a lot harder to get approval. If the employees are currently paycheck to paycheck, and even considering a loan then chances are they would not be eligible for a loan.

Depending what you were doing for the IRS, there may not be a ton of other employment out there for your skill set, especially on a short time frame.

surge 8y ago

"The IRS is also losing 25 IT staffers every week since the shutdown began, with many finding other jobs, one House aide said, citing the IRS officials' briefing." At least some are already doing this.

astrodust 8y ago
You have to wonder how many of the remaining people are dedicating their time to updating their LinkedIn profile and searching for a new job...

dragonwriter 8y ago

One possible motivation for the administration holding out on the shutdown is it encourages people to leave the civil service; they've been fairly open previously about wanting to purge he federal civil service of those not loyal to Trump, either leaving holes or backfilling with loyalists. Civil service rules make this difficult, but driving people off with no pay (and publicly characterizing staying in that situation as a noble gesture of loyalty to the President, as some admin figures have done) is one way to do some.of that in a way which avoids civil service protections.

danielvf 8y ago
It seems like the party of the administration is the one voting in favor of ending the shutdown? [Edit: No long as clear cut. Now both parties are voting against each other's ending bills. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll048.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll048.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll049.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll049.xml ]
- anth_anm 8y ago
  Shutdown would be over if McConnell was willing to vote.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Like they did yesterday?
anon4242 8y ago
It may work well to purge the civil service of those not loyal to Trump, but it will also work to purge the civil service of the most competent workers.
burfog 8y ago
It doesn't have to be "leaving holes or backfilling with loyalists". The "holes" go away if the positions are permanently discarded. Civil service rules are quite troubling. I can see the idea that it shouldn't be easy to make everything political, but the problem is that this goes only one way. If the president's predecessor hired a few million hostile partisans, what is he supposed to do? Is he just supposed to continue down that path, hiring tens of millions of his own partisans in order to win back control? Maybe the next president can hire a hundred million people, and then we're one president away from the entire population working for the federal government. There needs to be a reasonable way to toss out the partisan troublemakers who are undermining the will of the voters. Another troubling rule is that layoffs must be done according to seniority and veteran status, not performance. Performance is considered last! This is an absurdity; you couldn't run a normal non-monopoly software firm that way. The only reliable way to eliminate low-performing employees is to eliminate everybody in a given agency.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Civil service rules are quite troubling. I can see the idea that it shouldn't be easy to make everything political, but the problem is that this goes only one way. No, it doesn't, there are rules protecting against patronage hires to civil service positions; they aren't perfect, but the protections aren't one sided. > If the president's predecessor hired a few million hostile partisans Not gonna happen, since it would take not only an unprecedented politicization of hiring but also a President getting to fill half the current federal workforce. > Is he just supposed to continue down that path, hiring tens of millions of his own partisans in order to win back control? Uh, no, the President is not supposed to have partisan control of the federal civil service workforce. > There needs to be a reasonable way to toss out the partisan troublemakers who are undermining the will of the voters. If they aren't doing their legal duty competently, federal civil service workers can be fired for cause. Not being a partisan of the President, isn't cause, and that's a feature not a bug. > Another troubling rule is that layoffs must be done according to seniority and veteran status, not performance. I don't see that as troubling at all. > The only reliable way to eliminate low-performing employees is to eliminate everybody in a given agency. No, the reliable way is to set performance standards at the appropriate floor and then fire people who don't meet them for cause; civil service rules do allow for performance standards and do allow firing people who don't meet them. You know the practice of PIPs in private employment? That's directly modelled on what is required for performance-based termination in civil service employment. Layoffs fill a different purpose.

lordnacho 8y ago

I was wondering if the gig economy firms are seeing an uptick. People driving Uber, dogwalking, food delivery, etc. A fair few people don't have a lot of savings, as in will end up with no cash at all if they're not paid. Even if you wanted to keep working for deferred pay, if you're in that situation you'd need to do something quite soon. I suppose modern day loansharks are also having a great time.

ryanlol 8y ago

Wouldn’t it just be vastly easier to take out a loan?

sethammons 8y ago
and pay interest? Or depending on your credit? taking out debt to continue working seems crazy to me.
evilduck 8y ago
How many loans and for how long? The president has already stated this may take months or years. Do you have a lender willing to lend you six months to two years worth of pay? Would you even be willing to take on that amount of debt on top of all of your other financial responsibilities?
- ryanlol 8y ago
  I guess not that many loans >Trump, Congress Reach Tentative Deal to Reopen Government for Three Weeks I’m not even in the US, but my inbox has been flooded with emails from various financial institutions offering interest-free loans to government workers.
rickyc091 8y ago
It's actually not that easy to take out a loan. Someone making minimum wage with a home to put up as collateral, even with perfect credit would probably only be able to take out $10,000 to $20,000. As others have mentioned, there are interest rates involved with the loan as well. It's less than a credit card, but a lot harder to get approval. If the employees are currently paycheck to paycheck, and even considering a loan then chances are they would not be eligible for a loan.