Re: The Worker / Employer Relationship

Ira Brodsky (
Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:13:56 -0600

Great post from James Rogers. Filled with keen observations, and a
remarkably objective analysis from someone who was there. I have seen
evidence of each of these points in my dealings with the Federal
Communications Commission.

Ira Brodsky
Datacomm Research Company
Wilmette, Illinois

>>Some people on the list, such as Davin Enigl and James Rogers,
>>seem to have had extensive experience with federal agencies. Maybe
>>we should get some input from them.
>In my experience with federal agencies (and having worked for federal
>agencies), the people who work there aren't nice because they don't have to
>be nice. Being nice has no impact on their jobs. Unfortunately, many
>federal employees are under the impression that citizens REQUIRE their
>services, often leading to a small power trip for the federal worker
>involved. From my own personal experiences, I can tell you that being nice
>or pleasant in no way impacts a federal employees job performance appraisal.
>Showing up to work is about the only requirement, and even that is kind of
>And another thing: People work for federal agencies because they are not
>capable or competent enough to get a job in the private sector. The people
>who work for the government are from the bottom of the barrel. Anyone who
>is any good quits and works for the private sector. This is the reason I
>don't work for DoD any more. What happens is you get a concentration of
>people who would *never* cut it in the private sector. The federal
>government is the employer of last resort.
>And yet another reason: People are promoted based on seniority, not
>qualification. The cream does not rise to the top in the federal government.
>And people wonder why so many government agencies are mismanaged.
>That said, there are a few agencies in the government who have their act
>together, but they are far and few between. I think many government
>employees need to be reminded that they work for *us*.
>-James Rogers