wmployment system as it currently is, would save tons of tax monies?
Many agencies in the civil service are a total waste of taxpayer monies. Many of these agencies do less than an efficient job. In fact, they perform unnecessary and/or repetitive jobs that can be performed more efficiently in private industry. Besides, civil service is way too enormous which require massive taxpayer monies to support it. If civil service is eliminated completely or reduced to its most essential components, taxpayer monies will be significantly reduced. Civil service, because it is mostly non-profit, do a great disservice to the economy. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Why not?
Wastes of money like search and rescue, the police, firefighters, teachers, people who check out food for toxins, courts, local government, disaster response etc?
No, I don't want those people fired. I don't want to live in a world where kids have no education, crime never leads lead to punishment, and there are not even roads to travel on.
These things are only "non-profit" if you don't see living in a safe, peaceful and educated community as something you profit from.
I don't know about that. There are a handful of civil service jobs that seem redundant (why does the DMV need 3 people at the desk if they can only help one person at a time...?), but for the most part, I don't really see many inefficiencies.
Policemen are civil servants, but I highly doubt anyone's gonna clamor for fewer of them--it's an important job, after all.
Phone operators for places like government buildings and welfare offices are necessary because, well, people are going to make phone calls to these places, and someone has to pick up the phone. Customer service is always needed no matter where you are.
And so on, and so forth.
I don't see it as a "handful"; I see it approaching 1/2 the workforce. civil service jobs are usually plums, and the lack of work load coupled with high pay and even better "bennies" (all supplied by YOU) is the reason.
What I typically see (and hear from civil "servants") is that they have nothing to do. That half their workforce could be fired and still get the work done fine. Civil servants typically seem unwilling to go the extra; perform their written duties and that's it. Unless, of course, they can slide through doing less, which most can.
Ooooouch, right-on target as usual, couldn't said it better myself. So correct, Wilderness, many civil service workers are there unwillingly. They hate their jobs and only look forward to breaks, lunchtime, going home, holidays, PAYDAY, and RETIREMENT. You are spot on in saying that they refuse to/don't go the extra mile. They will say that their salary do not pay for them going the extra mile. In fact, they do AS LITTLE AS possible. I know civil servants who stated that they will work JUST ENOUGH not to get fired and THAT'S IT!
And I know civil servants who work long hours, many unpaid, and get treated pretty much like crap with lower salaries, longer hours and worse benefits than they would get in the private sector. Amongst the people who stop tainted meat from being sold, primary school teachers, and people who investigate and prosecute child abuse.
So maybe instead of firing all these people we should just fire the lazy ones. And then we should give the rest competitive salaries so they don't have to give up so much to work for the public good.
It is their choice to work in civil service. The few, dediicated employees who work for civil service oftentimes eventually leave for private industry where the pay is better and there is more promotional opportunities. The average civil servant is really there for the benefits, esp. health benefits, and the job security which they would not find in private industry.
A lot of civil servants state that they are working just enough to get by. There was even advice among civil service employees as to NEVER VOLUNTEER or GO THE EXTRA MILE. Another civil service mantra is that work is rewarded with more work. Many civil servants go to their union if they are given work beyond their grade level. ( I worked in civil service for 26 years, being promoted several times.) If a supervisor dares to give an employee assignments beyond their grade level, a union representative would be in his/her face.
There are civil servants who would deliberately work slow in order to avoid being given more and/or extra assignments. They would tell other workers to tone it down and pretend to be slow for that purpose. They would warn a smart employee to dumb it down and pretend to be stupid in order not to get more work.
Awesome Article. Will generation X and Y have enough in the bank to retire? I do not think so
by bulldogrocks6 years ago
I am a former U.S Marine that served during Sept 11, 2001. I feel that kids today have it easy and should get a taste of what real civil service work is like. I think this country would be better off making...
by janesix3 years ago
What is entitlement anyway? The right to something? Why does socialized health care have to be considered "bad" when we pay taxes for things that benefit everyone, like roads and education?Good health would...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=240654We need to cut trillions not billions and unless we do we should not raise the debt ceiling! Obama is spending 4 trillion dollars a year even though historically revenues don't...
by Dave McClure7 years ago
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has come to the rescue of Greece. Really? The IMF 'gives' Greece bail-out money (at interest, and with strings attached). The bail-out goes to the Financial Institutions. So they're...
by fit2day6 years ago
Do you feel that the FDA cares about the health of people in America today?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.