Larry, you have certainly shown that some contract employees make more than
some federal employees and that they somehow managed to score benefits.
That doesn't mean on a whole that contractors are more expensive in
general. The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, certainly
thinks t
I'm lost as to your point. The government is smaller but it's bigger?
Contractors are bad because they get the same retirement package as employees?
Sounds like a shell game
.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> Number of Federal Workers since Kennedy:
>
> http://voices.wa
Holy Shit, the government even fucked that up?
I need a retirement package. This working shit is getting played.
.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
>>You do realize contractors in every sector get more because they don't
>>get benefits. It's cheaper to pay 20 percent more
Number of Federal Workers since Kennedy:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html
Contractors:
from 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501782.html
from 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/world/americas
>You do realize contractors in every sector get more because they don't
>get benefits. It's cheaper to pay 20 percent more in wages for a year
>or two than it is to pay a retirement package over 30 years.
>
Really:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/10/taxpayers-pay-retiree-costs-for-fed
Hey, i resemble that remark! :)
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> it's cheaper not to have so many people working for the govt.
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:19 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > yeah, i don't understand that either.
> >
> > i thought the whole reason the Fe
it's cheaper not to have so many people working for the govt.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:19 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
>
> yeah, i don't understand that either.
>
> i thought the whole reason the Fed gov used so many contractors, is that
> when all was said and done, they were cheaper.
>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "They cost much more than does a federal employee."
>
> I'd like to see your resources for this and for you to define what you mean
> by cost. Is that including the start up cost the government would incur if
> it had to build some of the
You do realize contractors in every sector get more because they don't
get benefits. It's cheaper to pay 20 percent more in wages for a year
or two than it is to pay a retirement package over 30 years.
.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> You whine and moan about federal e
"They cost much more than does a federal employee."
I'd like to see your resources for this and for you to define what you mean
by cost. Is that including the start up cost the government would incur if
it had to build some of these services up from scratch?
J
-
The short memories of American
You whine and moan about federal employees and the costs. You forget that there
are still almost 4 times the number of contractors to federal employees. They
cost much more than does a federal employee. And the bulk of that cost doesn't
go into the pockets of that contractor, but into the coffe
You do realize that contractors are fired at will and don't get a pension?
That reminds me, did you notice Texas didn't have a recession?
.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> What you also seem to forget is that the federal workforce has been steadily
> decreasing. Accor
What you also seem to forget is that the federal workforce has been steadily
decreasing. According to the Dept. Of Labor Statistics, and the Office of
Management and Budget, currently its at it's lowest proportion of the
population since before President Eisenhower. According to the same source
What you also seem to forget is that the federal workforce has been steadily
decreasing. According to the Dept. Of Labor Statistics, and the Office of
Management and Budget, currently its at it's lowest proportion of the
population since before President Eisenhower. According to the same source
Well this a great example of how 90% of all statistics are wrong: how do we
know that the fed workers aren't just dying faster than the rate of normal
attrition. I think I've made my point.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> Death
> I dunno...just seems like the pendulum has swung entirely too far
> in one direction.
I have a cousin who works for the Department of the Interior in D.C.
and he has told numerous horror stories of how difficult it is to get
rid of people that need to be gotten rid of, regardless of the reason
I'd agree with that. However, the primary reason that people are
trumpeting the study that Jerry put out there is that they want to say
that the attrition rate is low because of unions and no one can ever
get fired. That isn't actually true. If you look at the sectors of the
federal workforce that
ttrition.
>
> Judah
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, GMoney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jerry Barnes
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Death More Common Than Layoff in Fed. Agencies
> >>
> >> Excerpt:
> >&g
air traffic control). Fundamentally, however, I don't
believe that it is the primary cause behind the statistics cited
regarding attrition.
Judah
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
>>
>> Death More Com
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> Death More Common Than Layoff in Fed. Agencies
>
> Excerpt:
>
> Job security is hard to come by for many Americans but not for federal
> employees, USA Today reports.
>
> Rather than poor performance, miscondu
Death More Common Than Layoff in Fed. Agencies
Excerpt:
Job security is hard to come by for many Americans but not for federal
employees, USA Today reports.
Rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs, death is the primary
threat to job security in the federal government, the paper
21 matches
Mail list logo
