Sequester 2013

[joan1984]

Change the subject, attack. Your leader has trained you well, dweeb!

 The Sequester 2013 specifically exempts all White House personnel and operations, including all the people involved with the White House Tours, a seven person office, with volunteers who lead the actual self directed tours.

  The Administration has gone far out of it's way to punish families of tourists, many of whom planned their travel by reserving a White House Tour, arranged through their Congressional Representatives offices over one month in advance.

  Schoolchildren sold candy and collected from neighbors and parents to facilitate their Spring visits to their Nation's Capitol, and this is how the President chooses to inflict pain and spite citizens, and Congress.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/tours-and-events

(Please note that White House tours may be subject to last minute cancellation.)

It's no difference than if the country was at a higher threat level.

Many national parks are opening later.  Apparently you have no concern for those tourists.

[MissBarbara]

The Administration has gone far out of it's way to punish families of tourists, many of whom planned their travel by reserving a White House Tour, arranged through their Congressional Representatives offices over one month in advance.

Schoolchildren sold candy and collected from neighbors and parents to facilitate their Spring visits to their Nation's Capitol, and this is how the President chooses to inflict pain and spite citizens, and Congress.

Blame Obama!

Funny, I thought Congress also played a role in getting us into this situation....

[MissBarbara]

So does everyone really think the bulk of federal entities don't have 5-10% of frivolous spending that could be cut? New tsa uniforms, post office clothing line, etc?

Are there any companies when faced with a financial crisis out there that couldn't cut 5-10% in costs without going under?

Closing white house tours...really?

This is a good point.

However, when corporations are faced with a financial crisis, they invariably do one thing: fire employees.

because they can survive without the employees. Costs beyond just wages to keep people on the books is mind boggling. It is no wonder so many are shifting to contractors. When I shifted to an 'evil middle manager' that doesn't work I asked a former coworker if she really wanted to keep working there. She said no and would not be angry with me if I got her fired. Problem was, with all the red tape and HR hoops to jump through it couldn't get done in the time I was there.

So, you support random mass firings in order to improve a given company's bottom line?

Please tell that to someone who was fired in this fashion and is truggling to find a new job to pay his or her mortgage and to support his or her family. I'm sure they'll find it very comforting.

[Athos131]

Change the subject, attack. Your leader has trained you well, dweeb!

 The Sequester 2013 specifically exempts all White House personnel and operations, including all the people involved with the White House Tours, a seven person office, with volunteers who lead the actual self directed tours.

  The Administration has gone far out of it's way to punish families of tourists, many of whom planned their travel by reserving a White House Tour, arranged through their Congressional Representatives offices over one month in advance.

  Schoolchildren sold candy and collected from neighbors and parents to facilitate their Spring visits to their Nation's Capitol, and this is how the President chooses to inflict pain and spite citizens, and Congress.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/tours-and-events

(Please note that White House tours may be subject to last minute cancellation.)

It's no difference than if the country was at a higher threat level.

Many national parks are opening later.  Apparently you have no concern for those tourists.

[joan1984]

So, you support random mass firings in order to improve a given company's bottom line?

Please tell that to someone who was fired in this fashion and is truggling to find a new job to pay his or her mortgage and to support his or her family. I'm sure they'll find it very comforting.

Larger employers, and any well managed company, formally or informally will maintain a key employee listing, with "reasons" why each is "essential" or not-so-much essential. Some may call that list, or one like it, a layoff list, noting who the Department Supervisor believes should be retained, and why, regardless of seniority, should there be a time to face cutbacks.

A wise manager will evaluate subordinates using the supervisor's "layoff" list as a tool, to see how that supervisor seeks to enhance each worker's worth, to see how some may improve or refine performance, so as to become of greater value in a time of stress.

"Random firings or layoffs", are often not so random. Selected employees are retained in order to best continue performance of the necessary tasks so the company may remain viable, profitable; stockholders, owners, investors must believe in the company's worth.

[Athos131]

So, you support random mass firings in order to improve a given company's bottom line?

Please tell that to someone who was fired in this fashion and is truggling to find a new job to pay his or her mortgage and to support his or her family. I'm sure they'll find it very comforting.

Larger employers, and any well managed company, formally or informally will maintain a key employee listing, with "reasons" why each is "essential" or not-so-much essential. Some may call that list, or one like it, a layoff list, noting who the Department Supervisor believes should be retained, and why, regardless of seniority, should there be a time to face cutbacks.

A wise manager will evaluate subordinates using the supervisor's "layoff" list as a tool, to see how that supervisor seeks to enhance each worker's worth, to see how some may improve or refine performance, so as to become of greater value in a time of stress.

"Random firings or layoffs", are often not so random. Selected employees are retained in order to best continue performance of the necessary tasks so the company may remain viable, profitable; stockholders, owners, investors must believe in the company's worth.

That's not how it works in the public sector.  Employee retention when layoffs are being used is strictly on seniority.

[Janus]

Athos, that is my exact bitch about UNIONS...Of which I am a member. Seems it doesn't matter if you are a quality employee, only if you are ahead of others on the seniority list. It's not the best way to trim the fat of an over sized workforce.

Janus

[Katiebee]

To paraphrase from Star Wars " your faith in management competence is touching"

Most layoffs target older workers and those who are well compensated. Layoffs are given a target of money to be saved. Efficiency, competency, and use to the company are not the primary considerations.

[joan1984]

Of course the 'public sector' has no intention, or interest, or compunction, concerning efficiency at all. Union employees are considered Premium Employees, compensated as if the individuals are "skilled" or Premium employees, supposedly so certified by the individual person's holding of the Union membership standing.

A manufacturing process engineer (Industrial Engineer) would presume a 20% difference, for instance, planning between the output, work product quantity and quality, of a premium employee and a non-premium employee. Reasonable Expectancy (RE's) standards would be the "widgets" per time unit for employees using specific layout and work methods and instruments.

Private sector Premium employees (Union or not), paid at premium wages (Union scale) are expected to maintain a 115% to 120% RE average per time unit; non-premium employee output expectation is adjusted accordingly, as is compensation. It's reasonable to receive higher expectations of output for compensation.

Living with premium pay for individuals, and lower productivity (reasonable expectancy) from a public sector workforce is the bane of the taxpayer. 

Exactly a reason to have compulsory Union Shop designations eliminated, so productivity and worth of an individual may be evaluated, for retention, and compensation.

So, you support random mass firings in order to improve a given company's bottom line?

Please tell that to someone who was fired in this fashion and is struggling to find a new job to pay his or her mortgage and to support his or her family. I'm sure they'll find it very comforting.

Larger employers, and any well managed company, formally or informally will maintain a key employee listing, with "reasons" why each is "essential" or not-so-much essential. Some may call that list, or one like it, a layoff list, noting who the Department Supervisor believes should be retained, and why, regardless of seniority, should there be a time to face cutbacks.

A wise manager will evaluate subordinates using the supervisor's "layoff" list as a tool, to see how that supervisor seeks to enhance each worker's worth, to see how some may improve or refine performance, so as to become of greater value in a time of stress.

"Random firings or layoffs", are often not so random. Selected employees are retained in order to best continue performance of the necessary tasks so the company may remain viable, profitable; stockholders, owners, investors must believe in the company's worth.

That's not how it works in the public sector.  Employee retention when layoffs are being used is strictly on seniority.

[MissBarbara]

So, you support random mass firings in order to improve a given company's bottom line?

Please tell that to someone who was fired in this fashion and is truggling to find a new job to pay his or her mortgage and to support his or her family. I'm sure they'll find it very comforting.

Larger employers, and any well managed company, formally or informally will maintain a key employee listing, with "reasons" why each is "essential" or not-so-much essential. Some may call that list, or one like it, a layoff list, noting who the Department Supervisor believes should be retained, and why, regardless of seniority, should there be a time to face cutbacks.

A wise manager will evaluate subordinates using the supervisor's "layoff" list as a tool, to see how that supervisor seeks to enhance each worker's worth, to see how some may improve or refine performance, so as to become of greater value in a time of stress.

"Random firings or layoffs", are often not so random. Selected employees are retained in order to best continue performance of the necessary tasks so the company may remain viable, profitable; stockholders, owners, investors must believe in the company's worth.

To quote myself, "Please tell that to someone who was fired in this fashion and is struggling to find a new job to pay his or her mortgage and to support his or her family. I'm sure they'll find it very comforting."

[snowm]

So does everyone really think the bulk of federal entities don't have 5-10% of frivolous spending that could be cut? New tsa uniforms, post office clothing line, etc?

Are there any companies when faced with a financial crisis out there that couldn't cut 5-10% in costs without going under?

Closing white house tours...really?

This is a good point.

However, when corporations are faced with a financial crisis, they invariably do one thing: fire employees.

because they can survive without the employees. Costs beyond just wages to keep people on the books is mind boggling. It is no wonder so many are shifting to contractors. When I shifted to an 'evil middle manager' that doesn't work I asked a former coworker if she really wanted to keep working there. She said no and would not be angry with me if I got her fired. Problem was, with all the red tape and HR hoops to jump through it couldn't get done in the time I was there.

So, you support random mass firings in order to improve a given company's bottom line?

Please tell that to someone who was fired in this fashion and is truggling to find a new job to pay his or her mortgage and to support his or her family. I'm sure they'll find it very comforting.

I know this will get me a lot of friends here but I support a company doing what it wants. It fires people for no reason, is unfair to workers, that is reflected in the market place by a reduction of sales or a reduction of job applicants.

A company is just that, a company, it is not a charity out to make people feel good.

If a family is having trouble paying to eat, mortgage, support kids, then perhaps life choices need to be reevaluated.

[MissBarbara]

I know this will get me a lot of friends here but I support a company doing what it wants. It fires people for no reason, is unfair to workers, that is reflected in the market place by a reduction of sales or a reduction of job applicants.

A company is just that, a company, it is not a charity out to make people feel good.

If a family is having trouble paying to eat, mortgage, support kids, then perhaps life choices need to be reevaluated.

Well, I already assumed all of this about you from reading your previous posts, both here and elsewhere.

And "fuck everyone and everything in your quest for profits" is certainly an outlook shared by many these days, so your beliefs will, if not here, win you a lot of friends on Conservative boards. In fact, you'll fit in very well there.

[Katiebee]

You do not seem to understand two things about companies.

1. The board if directors and the senior management are only concerned about lining their pockets. Many make decisions that adversely affect the stockholders and the goal and function of the company they work for.

2.  Ego is central to most senior executives, not efficient and profitable polices, not ensuring that they have the proper staffing to accomplish the company's goals.

Assuming that senior management is competent is an error many make. They are often not competent. Many fail to understand that they are not the Pope. Most don't understand General Staff theory, which is the basis for modern management of large organizations.

[Katiebee]

I know this will get me a lot of friends here but I support a company doing what it wants. It fires people for no reason, is unfair to workers, that is reflected in the market place by a reduction of sales or a reduction of job applicants.

A company is just that, a company, it is not a charity out to make people feel good.

If a family is having trouble paying to eat, mortgage, support kids, then perhaps life choices need to be reevaluated.

so would you then support repealing such things as child labor laws, laws against prostitution, so that these parasites can be gainfully employed?

You really need to read a few analyses of the social conditions of places like 1700's France and early 20th century czarist Russia to understand what you are advocating. Laissez faire capitalism, which is a very short distance from your apparent position is not something that can long exist with severe social upheaval.

[Partner]

This thread is intriguing.  The amount of Othering going on is really interesting.

[snowm]

I know this will get me a lot of friends here but I support a company doing what it wants. It fires people for no reason, is unfair to workers, that is reflected in the market place by a reduction of sales or a reduction of job applicants.

A company is just that, a company, it is not a charity out to make people feel good.

If a family is having trouble paying to eat, mortgage, support kids, then perhaps life choices need to be reevaluated.

so would you then support repealing such things as child labor laws, laws against prostitution, so that these parasites can be gainfully employed?

You really need to read a few analyses of the social conditions of places like 1700's France and early 20th century czarist Russia to understand what you are advocating. Laissez faire capitalism, which is a very short distance from your apparent position is not something that can long exist with severe social upheaval.

Unfortunately it is not the 1700s so your premise doesn't apply. In this age of social media and the way news stories can go viral, companies cannot get away with what was done in the 1700s. It is a different world now. The same protections as have been needed in the past are not AS NECESSARY. Yes some protections still need to be in place to prevent the most unscrupulous from taking advantage of the worker, but it simply is not the same world now as when unions were born and desperately needed.

I am not sure what you mean by child labor laws and prostitution. Are you implying my statement about life choices is saying that women need to be hookers to make ends meet? Quite the opposite, if a family cannot pay a mortgage, sell the house and rent or move into a smaller house, give up internet, cable, iphone, take some responsibility and stop having kids.

and Barbara, oh Barbara, please do not confuse my personal beliefs on economics with my thoughts on how businesses operate. The two are separate by quite a bit. A company is out to profit plain and simple. I do not lead my life in such a fashion that I am out to get mine and fuck everyone else.

[Katiebee]

Your experience in business is remarkable, not to have run into the poor excuses for management that I have.

And the comparison of social situations between the 1700's and today, while not exactly congruent is still valid. Your ideas of protection fail to take into account the constant efforts to circumvent or remove those protections.

I do not claim that some unscrupulous people or institutions shit in the nest and make things more difficult for others, that is a condition of humanity. The problem is that leverage by unscrupulous employers to do nasty things to their employees is much more prevalent than you think. The Pilgrim Chicken processing scandal of a few years ago is an example.

[Athos131]

It would sure be amusing to see how the people supporting a corporate free for all react when they get a case of the flu and get fired for needing a day off.

Some people might occasionally work well under stress, but in the end job security leads to more of a productive company than the threat of being replaced on a whim.

[MissBarbara]

and Barbara, oh Barbara, please do not confuse my personal beliefs on economics with my thoughts on how businesses operate. The two are separate by quite a bit. A company is out to profit plain and simple. I do not lead my life in such a fashion that I am out to get mine and fuck everyone else.

And snowm, oh snowm, since you conflated the two in your post -- linking companies and families, and applying the same standards to both -- how could I not conflate the two in my response?

[coacheric]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/03/08/obama-sequester-white-house-tours/1972887/


Friday marks the final day for public tours at the White House -- at least temporarily -- and critics are taking it out on the Obama administration.

Congressional Republicans, Twitter users, and even a sixth grade class in Iowa are demanding the White House resume public tours, which end on Saturday because of the sequester.

And my kids get screwed on their Washington trip next month