Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

UNI88 wrote:I voted for everyone but you just to be an azzhole.

What about the shutdown?

Does D1B get Christmas Eve off?

93henfan wrote:

UNI88 wrote:I voted for everyone but you just to be an azzhole.

What about the shutdown?

Does D1B get Christmas Eve off?

Thanks for your support. I supported Iowa tourism and paid your exorbitant sales and hotel taxes. And this is how I'm repaid?

The latest is, likely another two week CR: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/ ... ay-1064857 Trump is headed to Mar-a-Lago for two weeks, so he wants to buy time, move the fight (which he knows he'll lose - Republicans don't want to fund the wall either) until January, and then he can tie up the new Dem house on it for a little bit and claim victory even though he'll lose.

I am not in contact with D1B.

HI54UNI wrote:He should let the offices close but employees have to use a vacation day if they don't want to work. That's what my employer is doing for both Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

css75 wrote:Federal Unions should be abolished, all they do is impede faster ways to do things and their number one thing is protect incompetent and troublesome employees.

Here's the problem: when it's an actual private company doing work for profit, there's an incentive to keep costs down. When it's an actual government worker with democratic oversight, there's an incentive to keep costs down. But when you contract out to a private contractor and take both competition and government oversight mostly out of the picture, you've created a government-sanctioned monopoly - a private company basically does the work of the state but with an eye toward making profit, not through competition but through a parasitic relationship with the state. This is bad for taxpayers, obviously, but it gives politicians an opening to say they "shrunk government" and often line their own pockets. This is called cronyism in many circles, and with good reason.

89Hen wrote:No. Good way to burn a PTO day for 90% of the payroll.

css75 wrote:If they do make it a holiday, it should be done soon, so appointment schedules can be changed.

President Trump issued an executive order Tuesday evening closing federal offices and excusing employees from duty on Dec. 24.

93henfan wrote:This thread's a wrap!

President Trump issued an executive order Tuesday evening closing federal offices and excusing employees from duty on Dec. 24.

https://m.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2018 ... ve/153661/

Winterborn wrote:

93henfan wrote:This thread's a wrap!

https://m.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2018 ... ve/153661/

Bet the fine print has an exclusion clause just for you.

93henfan wrote:

css75 wrote:Federal Unions should be abolished, all they do is impede faster ways to do things and their number one thing is protect incompetent and troublesome employees.

True to an extent, but they also keep federal employees from turning into contractor employees, who end up costing the government even more in many cases. Better to keep a stable workforce in place at a meager salary than a bunch of cowboy contractors who bilk the government every chance they get.

Here's the problem: when it's an actual private company doing work for profit, there's an incentive to keep costs down. When it's an actual government worker with democratic oversight, there's an incentive to keep costs down. But when you contract out to a private contractor and take both competition and government oversight mostly out of the picture, you've created a government-sanctioned monopoly - a private company basically does the work of the state but with an eye toward making profit, not through competition but through a parasitic relationship with the state. This is bad for taxpayers, obviously, but it gives politicians an opening to say they "shrunk government" and often line their own pockets. This is called cronyism in many circles, and with good reason.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2 ... 77202e6266

Truer words were never spoken. I have more insight into this than anyone else on this board, as I'm a career federal acquisition guru.

Also, because of my position, I've never been allowed to be in the bargaining unit or join a union.

Col Hogan wrote:

93henfan wrote: True to an extent, but they also keep federal employees from turning into contractor employees, who end up costing the government even more in many cases. Better to keep a stable workforce in place at a meager salary than a bunch of cowboy contractors who bilk the government every chance they get.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2 ... 77202e6266

Truer words were never spoken. I have more insight into this than anyone else on this board, as I'm a career federal acquisition guru.

Also, because of my position, I've never been allowed to be in the bargaining unit or join a union.

That’s one perspective, and not an incorrect one...but it’s the short, or immediate view...

If one wants to take the long view, contractors can be much cheaper in the long run. Yes, a contractor costs more than a civil servant if you look at one day’s costs...but once the civil servant reaches retirement, the government is still on the hook to pay them until they die...

A contractor, on the other hand, is off the government books the moment they leave the job...no retirement annuity to worry about, no life insurance,...NOTHING...

Just another perspective...

93henfan wrote:This thread's a wrap!