Layoffs in government agencies

I’m sitting here listening to the radio, and apparently, the government is planning some massive layoffs in the public sector. And get this—the interview with the official sounds like they’re just picking numbers out of thin air. "We’ll cut 14,000 janitors, 5,000 maintenance workers, 3,000 cooks..."
They act like if we just trim enough of these people, we'll save billions.

It’s like they think the janitors and the kitchen staff are the ones responsible for the economic crisis. Even the politicians don't talk like this. If they were being honest, they'd say, "We're getting rid of directors, managers, supervisors, inspectors..."
Those 1,000 high-level execs make as much as 30,000 working-class employees combined. But no, they’ll just fire the people actually doing the work because they're "redundant." They never say, "I'll step down" or "The bosses will go." It's always, "We'll make sure *they* go."
Absolutely pathetic!!!!!!

Do you actually have a question or a specific point of contention to throw out there? Otherwise, I'm not sure what purpose this thread is serving.

So, looks like the white-collar crowd is still holding onto their seats...

James Hayes6 said:I’m sitting here listening to the radio, and apparently, the government is planning some massive layoffs in the public sector. And get this—the interview with the official sounds like they’re just picking numbers out of thin air. "We’ll cut 14,000 janitors, 5,000 maintenance workers, 3,000 cooks..."
They act like if we just trim enough of these people, we'll save billions.

It’s like they think the janitors and the kitchen staff are the ones responsible for the economic crisis. Even the politicians don't talk like this. If they were being honest, they'd say, "We're getting rid of directors, managers, supervisors, inspectors..."
Those 1,000 high-level execs make as much as 30,000 working-class employees combined. But no, they’ll just fire the people actually doing the work because they're "redundant." They never say, "I'll step down" or "The bosses will go." It's always, "We'll make sure *they* go."
Absolutely pathetic!!!!!!

I'm with you on this. Management has proven to be incompetent in far too many sectors to justify keeping them on the payroll. Sure, there are exceptions, but a huge chunk of those high-level positions should probably just head home. It's definitely not the custodial staff that's dragging the economy down...

Janitors, maids, and cooks actually get stuff done, unlike those bureaucrats sitting in a dozen different made-up job titles who basically just exist.

What do you call an economist, a lawyer, and a politician all rolled into one? A manager for some failed government agency...

The OP is completely mixing apples and oranges here.
The title talks about government corporations, but the rest of the post jumps to civil servants and public sector employees?

What’s even the distinction between a civil servant, a public official, and an employee at a state-owned enterprise?
Whose paycheck actually comes directly from the federal budget, and whose doesn't?

Case in point: some teacher recently posted something along the lines of: "I don't get a travel stipend, yet the NFL is handing out Mary bonuses—how is that possible? I guess I'm just a civil servant while they're out there chopping wood."
Honestly, what can you even say to that? If someone like that is responsible for educating our children, I'm genuinely terrified for my kid. And I have no choice but to enroll them in a school where people like that are teaching.

nimblelynx7 said:The OP is completely mixing apples and oranges here.
The title talks about government corporations, but the rest of the post jumps to civil servants and public sector employees?

What’s even the distinction between a civil servant, a public official, and an employee at a state-owned enterprise?
Whose paycheck actually comes directly from the federal budget, and whose doesn't?

Case in point: some teacher recently posted something along the lines of: "I don't get a travel stipend, yet the NFL is handing out Mary bonuses—how is that possible? I guess I'm just a civil servant while they're out there chopping wood."
Honestly, what can you even say to that? If someone like that is responsible for educating our children, I'm genuinely terrified for my kid. And I have no choice but to enroll them in a school where people like that are teaching.

The USPS is a public corporation... its whole job is just to generate enough revenue to cover its own staff.

So what specifically isn't she doing?

Every single company—whether it’s government-run or private—needs to operate on the same basic principles. That means profitability and staying afloat without begging for outside help.

Look, an owner shouldn't be dictating everyone's rights, but they also have zero business taking taxpayer money from the federal budget. If they take that subsidy, they lose all authority to set prices for their products (like timber, electricity, or highway tolls). And they certainly don't get to pack those companies with political cronies.

When will our politicians finally grasp this? They won't. Not now, and probably not ever.

nimblelynx7 said:So what specifically isn't she doing?

Every single company—whether it’s government-run or private—needs to operate on the same basic principles. That means profitability and staying afloat without begging for outside help.

Look, an owner shouldn't be dictating everyone's rights, but they also have zero business taking taxpayer money from the federal budget. If they take that subsidy, they lose all authority to set prices for their products (like timber, electricity, or highway tolls). And they certainly don't get to pack those companies with political cronies.

When will our politicians finally grasp this? They won't. Not now, and probably not ever.

First you're two posts back trying to correct some educator's statement,
and now you're just dumping this absolute nonsense here.
Who else is going to decide these things besides the owner (assuming we're even talking about actual ownership) through selection processes and management decisions? (And honestly, that's irrelevant because the owner is either draining the company dry or constantly pumping cash into it just to keep the lights on.)

Or do you seriously think a board of directors should have zero limits when it comes to running the show?

Simply letting people go without a plan isn't going to fix anything—mostly because you eventually have to outsource those same tasks to private contractors anyway. It’s true, there are certainly too many employees in some places, and that surplus needs addressing. However, any actual savings end up being negligible when you're either paying a contractor or hiring someone else to do the job. I've seen this happen with janitorial services; the amount you pay a specialized firm to handle cleaning is often nearly identical to the cost of keeping a full-time staffer on the payroll. The only real difference I've noticed is when a private company manages to clean a space using significantly fewer people. But we all know why there's such an excess in government agencies. Now, there’s all this talk about privatizing specific services within public institutions—it seems like a dozen different companies and small businesses are just sitting around, waiting for someone to announce that things like catering or cleaning are no longer part of the official agency budget, but are instead put out to tender. Given how things tend to operate in this country, I find it hard to believe we'll see any genuine, meaningful savings from this...

graniteviper37 said:First you're two posts back trying to correct some educator's statement,
and now you're just dumping this absolute nonsense here.
Who else is going to decide these things besides the owner (assuming we're even talking about actual ownership) through selection processes and management decisions? (And honestly, that's irrelevant because the owner is either draining the company dry or constantly pumping cash into it just to keep the lights on.)

Or do you seriously think a board of directors should have zero limits when it comes to running the show?

My point was that the same rules apply to both private and state-run companies—whether it's an electric utility or a local bakery. That power company needs to be just as profitable as the bakery.
Obviously, the goal is for every owner to treat their company like a mother would, not some wicked stepmother.

The real issue is that we can't decide if state corporations are meant to be social services and political tools, or actual businesses that need to operate realistically.

James Hayes6 said:I’m sitting here listening to the radio, and apparently, the government is planning some massive layoffs in the public sector. And get this—the interview with the official sounds like they’re just picking numbers out of thin air. "We’ll cut 14,000 janitors, 5,000 maintenance workers, 3,000 cooks..."
They act like if we just trim enough of these people, we'll save billions.

It’s like they think the janitors and the kitchen staff are the ones responsible for the economic crisis. Even the politicians don't talk like this. If they were being honest, they'd say, "We're getting rid of directors, managers, supervisors, inspectors..."
Those 1,000 high-level execs make as much as 30,000 working-class employees combined. But no, they’ll just fire the people actually doing the work because they're "redundant." They never say, "I'll step down" or "The bosses will go." It's always, "We'll make sure *they* go."
Absolutely pathetic!!!!!!

From what I can gather, they aren't actually going to get fired; instead, they'll just be moved over to the private sector so they aren't hanging off the taxpayer's coattails anymore...

For instance, if a private corporation takes over the cafeteria at a hospital, everything keeps running exactly as it did before, except it’s way more efficient, and at the end of the month, you don't have two tons of meat going to waste.😁

Not a chance. This is America. What’s actually going to happen is those two tons of meat—or whatever cash value they assign it—is just gonna end up in someone else's pocket. I've seen enough to know how this game is played when private companies start cutting deals with the government. 😁

hollowmoose21 said:Not a chance. This is America. What’s actually going to happen is those two tons of meat—or whatever cash value they assign it—is just gonna end up in someone else's pocket. I've seen enough to know how this game is played when private companies start cutting deals with the government. 😁

Exactly. It's always the same pattern—government employees are nothing but thieves, while the private sector acts like pure saints, right up until they pack their bags for London after making a killing in the States.🙂.

I’m sitting here reading the news, and it’s the same old story every morning: the US population is shrinking by 200,000 people every decade.
We’re out here building New Apartments while Old Apartments are just left to rot, all while the birth rate hits rock bottom. We build massive office towers only to watch them sit empty because there isn't any work to go around. Retirement age is pushed up to 67, yet we’ve got young people facing 50% unemployment... where the hell are we headed? Straight into the gutter!!! We’re importing food—everything from livestock to produce—while our own farmland sits idle and our people go hungry!!
ah

We go out and build these massive interstate highways—charging us crazy tolls just to drive on them—and then we end up avoiding them entirely because they’re such a rip-off... then there's this whole thing with tourism developments where they push local folks right out of the picture. They sell off the most stunning stretches of land to developers, claiming it's all for "progress," but what's the point? Once those massive luxury resorts are finished, the actual natural beauty is just... gone. It’s totally gutted. Just devastated.