9:18 am, April 20, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 33
       

  • Furlough the Money Takers
    vetdude
    Furlough the money takers that allowed this debacle called "sequester" to happen and ironically are unaffected by it: the President, members of Congress.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • The fallacy of counting employees
    UmbratilisFed
    When you compare the efficiency of an organization by counting the people employed you are leaving out a huge component of the equation. Its called IT. When I started in the Government my program had about 50 employees in five offices nationally. When I left in 2012 the program had 20 employees in 3 offices. Secretaries, clerks and administrative functions were eliminated. What work could be centralized was centralized freeing up the regional folks to do more productive work. These 20 people probably do 5 times the work that the original 50 did becuse they are using state of the art computers and communication systems. The same is true with the IRS.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Agreed
    ben
    When, I started, each Army Audit region had its own print shop and printer, a steno pool, and secretaries for GS14's and above. Now, only secretaries for GS15s, no print shop, and no steno pool.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • IT
    FederalEmployee
    I am amazed at the sheer number of GS-14 IT positions available on USA Jobs. I guess accounting was the wrong field...I should have gone into IT. Like I said in my earlier post, the IRS has decreased its direct front line employees, but has greatly increased the number of support positions. Many of these positions are GS-13 and GS-14 positions, and many require no college degree. What is also equally as amazing is the fact that group secretaries are only GS-5 positions. The pay is is so extremely low, and management refuses to upgade the position. The grading structure in this agency needs to change to fairly reflect the educational and skill requirements needed to perform the duties. There are plenty of places to cut. Cutting or greatly trimming unnecessary programs and realigning the grading structure means reducing the number of executives and their co-hort of GS-14 and GS-15 analysts, executive assistants, and program managers...in other words, the people who decide what stays and what goes. A note to UmbratilisFed - I know of no computer, even a state of the art computer, that is capable of examining a multi-billion dollar company, or of interviewing witnesses in a criminal case, or of collecting trust fund money from employers who decide to spend their employees' withholding tax. Believe it or not, some jobs still require a human being. Before anyone else comments on how the IRS should or should not be run, please make sure you get your facts straight.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • IT
    UmbratilisFed
    I don't believe I cited any facts about the IRS to get straight. Nor did I imply that computers can take the place of human insight and experience. I did point out that computers have made entire work forces more efficient and productive and therefore comparing the size of the work force today versus that of another time must take computers into account.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • IT
    CareerIRS
    As the IRS tries to keep pace with the ever-changing world of technology, these IT support positions become more and more critical. A lot of the IRS IT work has historically been performed by contractors, and as contract dollars have diminished, these positions have to be filled. I do believe these positions have either an educational or experience requirement. To those who have a college degree and have worked hard to get it, you have everyone's utmost respect. I have worked for the IRS for over 35 years, and without a college degree, was given wonderful opportunities to begin as a clerk and advance to a much higher graded business analyst position. I believe secretaries are appropriately graded in today's technology-driven work environment. I do agree that many of the GS-14/15 executive assistants are doing work that was formerly done by secretaries. So the grading structure is accurate today. The distribution of work needs some serious realignment, and a grading structure would then follow. As I'm sure you know, wholesale organizational structure changes are extremely difficult to implement. However, as attrition takes place, some hard decisions have to be made for the IRS to focus on what's needed. Customer service is our main charge, and we need to rethink how salary dollars are being spent. I will be retiring at the end of 2013 and in all honesty, my work could be absorbed by existing employees. Even with a hiring freeze in place, though, I am afraid someone will send in an exception to fill my job. The top executives have a tough job but with the executive pay comes responsibility. Somebody has to learn when it's time to say "no".
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Speaker Denied Efforts
    ben
    The Speaker offered the President legislation allowing Departmental secretaries the ability to move funds around their Departments, while keeping within the sequestration limits. The President stated he did not want such authority. How can a leader and CinC not wish such a palliative measure, except for political reasons.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Re: Government Employees
    GetOffYour Butts
    The total number of government employees is 20% lower today than it was way back in 1962 at a time when the total population was only 1/2 of what it is now. source: OBM
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Government Employees
    UmbratilisFed
    The reduction was entirely in the military. The Executive branch has increased from 2.49 million in 1962 to 2.75 million in 2011. Source again: OPM In 1962 there were no computers, no copying machines, no email and none of the other efficiencies that exist today. Making the case that the productivity of the work force of 1962 is comparable to today and therefore the size of the work force should equal the increase in population is irrational.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • He's right
    Linbob
    http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ Between 1962 (population 186,538 million) and 2011 (population 308,745,538 million), the executive branch increased in size. However, total federal employment was 5,354 million - it is still fewer employees in the federal government in 2011 ( 4,403 million) than there were in 1962. Additionally, the executive branch during the Reagan years was larger than is was in 2011, fluctuation between 2,806 million in 1981 to 3,054 million in 1989. Total federal employment in 1962 was 5,354 million and in 1980 it was 4,965 million, whereas in 2011, it was only 4,403 million to serve a population of 308,745,538 million people. That sure looks like a reduction to me.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Government Employees
    Mr Ed
    Difference is that we were working with abacuses then, and now have PCs. Do you think the comparison with 1962 relevant?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Its the programs, not the people.
    ben
    Its the expensive programs, not the number of employees, that is driving the record deficits.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • How much could be saved?
    contrarian
    By bringing the troops home?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }