The incredible arrogance of public employees

[OEF_VET]

I can't, for the life of me, see how an armed private security guard can be present in the building, because 18 USC Sec. 930 doesn’t have an exception for armed guards, whose only authority to carry firearms comes from CA, not Federal law, and who are not directly employed by either.

I don't know how it works in CA, but I imagine it's not too different than here in TN. That security guard does work for a private company, that much is true. However, the Social Security Administration contracts with that company to provide armed security at their facilities. Therefore, that security guard is a contracted employee of the Social Security Administration. He may not draw a Federal paycheck, but he is paid with funds recieved from a Federal agency.

 

[Quartus]

I've been both and I've seen all kinds, and I categorically state that there're good and bad in both camps.

Whoa! REALLY? Good AND bad???? Whoda thunk!


From the description, I don't think that guard sounded arrogant - just doing his job. The RULES are the problem, not his arrogance.

 

[Master Blaster]

About a month ago I was called for and served on a Federal Jury in the District court of Delaware, Justice Kent A. Jordan Presiding.

The security at the federal building in Wilmington, was very good, there were three Armed federal Marshalls manning the entrance, with an Xray machine and a metal detector (handheld and walkthrough).

The marshalls were carrying glocks in .40 s&W, I asked one who was guarding our deliberation room on the last day, and he was very nice and polite.

At the entrance and before the metal detector was a very clearly worded and posted sign, that quoted federal law and stated that no weapons or firearms were permitted, even with a valid state CCW which I have.

I asked and was told very politely that they could lock my CCW up for me while I was in court, But they would prefer that I not bring it.
So I honored their request and I locked it in my trunk, unloaded, in accordance with state law.

the armed security at the Social Security office was most likely either a federal marshall, or a GSA security employee, all of whom are law enforcement officers and are well trained, not mall ninjas as some would suggest.

 

[DadOfThree]

That's plain ingnorant. I've worked for a state government for 29.5 years and WE GET PAID BY THE YEAR. You could make us work 365 days a year and it would cost the same thing

I still contend that's it's a silly statement and easily disproved.

OK. I'll give it a shot. If all the state employees work on the 2 holiday days instead of taking them off the amount of work done would increase. For example, 50,000 employees x 16 hrs of extra work per year = 800,00 extra man hours of work accomplished. Average of $17.50 per hour x 800,000 hrs = $13,600,000.00 worth of extra work accomplished. The State could then eliminate 800,000 hours worth of jobs and accomplish the same amount of work for 13.6 million dollars less. I have no idea what state or how many workers are being referred to here but that is how you would save the money.







You're not contending that it won't make any difference how many days a week the state employees work, they still won't get any more work done. That's not what you're saying is it?

 

[Eskimo Jim]

Master Blaster,

Quote
_________________________________________________________
As a government Employee, I would have to say that there are a great many of us who do a very important job and provide excellent services to the public. Most of the public think that we are lazy and unnecessay, that we should never get a raise, that we are arrogant and dont deserve any respect.

Now I dont know any of you but, I could say the same about most of the private sector folks I run across. When was the last time you walked into a large corporate outlet like the bank, or the grocery store or Walmart and were given fast and curteous service by friendly knowlegeable staff who were concerned with your satisfaction? Have you called the credit card company or the cable company lately to get a problem straightened out?
Hows the service at your doctors office or in the emergency room?
Have you hired a Contractor lately, How about a plumber or electrician?
Have you had your car repaired lately??
__________________________________________________________

You're right in taht there are incompetent people working in the public AND private sector.

The attitude of some public employees ticks me off because typically I don't have a choice to bring my business else where. If I want a driver's license, and the clerks at the Deparment of Motor Vehicles would rather stand there gabbing than help me, then I'm out of luck. If two cashiers at the local store want to gab rather than collect money for the items I want to buy, then I can take my business elsewhere either get the services or buy the goods at another store.

Government, by its very nature doesn't allow me to do that. If I want a building permit, register to vote, get a driver's license, etc, I have not choice but conduct with a bureaucrat that may decide not to provide the service that they are supposed to be hired to provide.

Don't get me wrong though. I have worked with some very good folks that work for government agencies. All of them aren't incompetent.

-Jim

 

[JohnBT]

"You're not contending that it won't make any difference how many days a week the state employees work, they still won't get any more work done. That's not what you're saying is it?"

Now that you mention it.

Some of them won't do anything now, but that's true just about anywhere I go, so I ignore them all.

The problem with working 7 days a week, to use your example, would be that the highway crews would be spending two days' extra worth of gas in their trucks, two days' extra every week on paving material, bridge construction, whatever, etc.

In my line of work the vocational rehabilitaion counselors would have 2 extra days every week to order power wheelchairs, authorize tuition for training and authorize diagnostic evaluations to pinpoint diagnoses, limitations and recommendations for treatment so 'experts' like me can do job and/or career counseling and vocational planning with our clients.

I doubt if working a 7-day-a-week schedule would result in layoffs or cutbacks - there are just too many folks to work with/too many roads to build and potholes to fill/too many polluted rivers to monitor/too many crooks to arrest. It sounds good, but it won't play that way.

$17.50 an hour average ?????? Not in this state.

A better solution would be to fire every other manager/supervisor and most of those higher up.

And we could start by firing the entire Virginia General Assembly - those rotten, bickering, do-nothing, good for nothing, can't agree on a budget so they all went home for the week idiots.

John...we're just trying to do a day's work.

Gee, I got my afternoon break at 4:44 p.m. Another hour or so and I'll go home - and be back at 7 in the morning. Not a bad job. With any luck it won't be another 3 or 4 years until we another 2% cost of living increase. They never give the so-called merit or longevity increases. Good thing I like my job and don't have any debts after working all these years. I have monthly production quotas, but they never add them up until the end of the year so it's up to me to get the work done.

 

[Mr. Clark]

So, do you agree or not with the claim that eliminating 2 holidays for state employees would save that state $20,000,000?

At the risk of drawing the ire of the moderator...

Not all government employees are salary. I worked briefly for the state (only worked one holiday) but I got paid for the day as I would have if I worked it or not and then got paid time and a half for actually working it. Basically double time and a half. It was sweeeet! Company I work for now has the same benefit only now I get paid a salary instead of by the hour.

If your state government is approx. medium in size (somewhere between Wyoming and California) and has the same policy for non-salary employees, 20 million seems about right.

[Edited: I changed it from a "little low" to "about right". I thought about it and changed my mind, what can I say?]

 

[Dex Sinister]

I should point out that while I am obviously aware that there are bad and good federal employees, just like there are bad and good other employees and every other business type in the country, there are distinct differences between government employees and businesses in the private sector:

• Non-government businesses do not presume to think that they can insist that their customers disarm themselves of all manner of pointy objects before being sanctified to deal with them.
• Non-government businesses do not hold a legal monopoly on their field of endeavor.
• Non-government businesses cannot compel you to deal with them.
• Non-government employees are not protected against the mere presence of "dangerous" objects by Federal Law.
• Non-government employees do not keep their jobs regardless of the usefulness of their business – money that is confiscated from others and spent at the government’s whim.

All these factors, plus an armed guard or two, improperly trained to not even correctly know the limits of their authority, add up to a situation where people who used to be called “public servants†are obviously raised to a different, special, and paranoid class of person above the rest.

After all, the 2.3†knife that I habitually carry, I carry into the butcher, the baker, the car repair shop, the grocery, and all the other places I go, and it is utterly harmless in all of those places – as is, of course, my CCW Kahr K40.

But in a federal building, the mere presence of an inanimate object is somehow “evil†even when the law being used specifically exempts my knife from consideration as a “dangerous weapon,†and even when the law clearly and distinctly does not apply to “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to […] lawful purposes.â€

Frankly, I’m tired of being lied to by government employees: While it is true that the lie is one of omission – they simply “forget†to mention to mention the legally proscribed limits of their own authority, while implying that it is absolute and hiring people with guns who aren’t instructed in the difference – it is a bald face lie nonetheless, and the employees who walk in and out of the building every day at the expense of the taxpayers are complicit in it.

 

[Dex Sinister]

Incidently, this also goes for the friendly sherrifs at the metal detector of my local courthouse, who "don't allow" any guns in the courthouse - even though the state law clearly exempts CCW carry from the prohibition.

It's the "We're armed agents/employees/contractees of the government, and we're making the law up as we go," that pisses me off. Or perhaps more correctly, "We're armed agents/employees/contractees of the government, and even though we don't actually have the authority we claim we have, we still have guns and you can't do that."

Dex }:>=-

 

[Master Blaster]

.

Non-government businesses do not hold a legal monopoly on their field of endeavor.

Non-government businesses cannot compel you to deal with them.

So you have electric lines from several competing utilities running into your house?

You can choose who processes your sewerage (if private cos are involved?)

You can make your own gasoline, or you really think that the oil business is competitive?????

You have more than one cable company in your area?

More than one local phone company offers you hard wire service?

Folks in neighboring Pennsylvannia, have private inspections of their motor vehicles, but all of the choices are mechanics or car repair shops, and of course they dont make any money when they force you to have a repair, before you can get your registration renewed.
Folks I know in Pa, wish that their inspection ($60-$120 plus any repairs) was free at the DMV like here in DE, last time I had my car inspected it took 30 minutes from start to finish.

As far as not allowing guns into the courthouse by private citizens, thats one I agree with, why? because many of the private citizens and their friends are dangerous crimminals, and allowing anyone to ccw there is a serious danger to the judge and others who work in court

 

[Dex Sinister]

Folks I know in Pa, wish that their inspection ($60-$120 plus any repairs) was free at the DMV like here in DE, last time I had my car inspected it took 30 minutes from start to finish.

Having lived in both places, I'd have to agree.

So you have electric lines from several competing utilities running into your house?

You can choose who processes your sewerage (if private cos are involved?)

You can make your own gasoline, or you really think that the oil business is competitive?????

You have more than one cable company in your area?

More than one local phone company offers you hard wire service?

Yes, obviously there are government-mandated monopolies, however there are also free-market alternatives to them, abet generally more expensive ones. Whether they would remain monopolies if the government let the market sort if out is another question.

And what of the other points?

Dex }:>=-

 

[gunsmith]

Amen Dex

Non-government employees do not keep their jobs regardless of the usefulness of their business – money that is confiscated from others and spent at the government’s whim.

I am an armed guard that subcontracts to the city of SF,some
city employees are arrogant "sons of female dogs"

The ones I work with routinely destroy city property,run red lights,
menace pedestrians and cyclist...and these are the nice ones!

Sometimes it does allow me a little fun though,when I am asked "why is this taking so long" for instance I sometimes reply "this is what happens when extreme left wing bureaucrats run a city"
Another fave reply is "SF is a dictatorship of the proletariat,thats why"
The sad thing is though,is I am telling the truth!
City employees get away with all kinds of things that would get you fired in heart beat,like destroying your employers property for instance.

 

[dwkennedy]

OK. I'll give it a shot. If all the state employees work on the 2 holiday days instead of taking them off the amount of work done would increase. For example, 50,000 employees x 16 hrs of extra work per year = 800,00 extra man hours of work accomplished. Average of $17.50 per hour x 800,000 hrs = $13,600,000.00 worth of extra work accomplished. The State could then eliminate 800,000 hours worth of jobs and accomplish the same amount of work for 13.6 million dollars less. I have no idea what state or how many workers are being referred to here but that is how you would save the money.

If you hire an employee at X dollars per year for Y days of work... he's making X/Y dollars per day.

If you then ask him to work Y+2 days per year, I think it's reasonable for him to ask for 2*(X/Y) dollars extra pay (perhaps more, if he valued the two days off more than the extra money.)

Extra work with no extra pay is a minor form of slavery... otherwise, why not chain them to a desk and make them work 365 days/year for no extra pay? Think of how much money that would save!

If you believe that certain government workers aren't being productive enough to justify their salary (NFA branch examiners come to mind) they certainly deserve a pay cut. I don't think we can say that across the board-- and cutting vacation days w/o paying more is essentially a pay cut for every employee that effects. You'd punish the performers as well as the slackers. It's up to the managers, the elected representatives, and ultimately the people to ensure they get a bargain for their tax dollars. I think it makes a good argument for privatizing formerly governmental services, you can 'vote' directly with your own dollars for the provider that gives the best service.

And one last idea: once the state workers figure out the government is cutting benefits without adjusting their pay to compensate, anybody with decent skills is going to start looking for another job, rather than see their standard of living swirl down the pot. Leaving all the true hard-core slackers on the payroll. Better just to purge the slackers.

 

[Dex Sinister]

As far as not allowing guns into the courthouse by private citizens, that's one I agree with...

The question of whether it is a good idea to allow CCW in a courthouse is completely distinct from whether they possess the legal authority to exclude CCW permitted guns from the courthouse. One does not in any way imply the other, even if one agrees.

My point is, the government cannot pass laws, and then just allow its agents to enforce the parts of a law that they find convenient to notice, ignoring the limitations of the law.

It would be possible to write a law that stated, "It is a felony to drive an automobile or be a passenger in an automobile traveling at over 20mph, except that this law shall not apply to any automobile having round wheels, or an ignition lock." Stupid, yes, but possible. What authority would this give to the police? None whatsoever that they don't already possess, as it is self-refuting.

But what happens when the police (or towns, if you like) start posting only the first clause on signs: "It is a felony to drive an automobile or be a passenger in an automobile traveling at over 20mph," and begin using this as an excuse to pull people over?

The prohibition against weapons in California public buildings is Penal Code 171b. This covers Courts as well. I'll grant you that it begins, (a) "Any person who brings or possess...any of the following...in a public building...is guilty of..."

But there are a couple of problems:

1. The list, while containing firearms and dangerous weapons, lists "any knife with a blade length in excess of four inches." IOW, it utterly fails to apply to any knife under four inches in length.
2. The law continues: (b) "Subdivision (a) shall not apply to, or affect, [...] a person holding a valid licence to carry the firearm pursuant to (CCW licence code # is cited).
   [/list=1]
   
   So - regardless of whether having guns or knives in Court is a good idea, on what legal basis do the sherrifs at the courthouse exclude all knives whatever their length, [I have a keychain knife that is all of 3/4" long that I've had to take back to my car] and CCW licenced firearms???
   
   If they don't like the existing law, then they may certainly seek to amend it by lawful process: But if they can't get it amended lawfully, then they are not entitled to simply make it up to please themselves, and lie to the public about what it says.
   
   Most public buildings in California do the exact same thing: They post a sign that says "No knives or firearms are allowed in this building." Last time I checked, there was a big difference between "no knives are allowed" and "all knives up to 3.99" in length are allowed."
   
   
   

   Why? Because many of the private citizens and their friends are dangerous crimminals, and allowing anyone to ccw there is a serious danger to the judge and others who work in court

   
   Oh pu-leasssse. That is conflating people with a federal and state background check, and saying that they are no more responsible than common criminals. Am I going to shoot a judge, because other people in court are criminals? I don't think so.
   
   That is the same argument that silly anti-gunners use against CCW in public in the first place: "They'll shoot people randomly!!!"
   
   
   We've become a nation of cowards, who mindlessly toady to the dictates of people who do not even have the law behind their whimsical dictates and demands.
   
   Dex }:>=-

 

[Taipei Personality]

As far as not allowing guns into the courthouse by private citizens, thats one I agree with, why? because many of the private citizens and their friends are dangerous crimminals, and allowing anyone to ccw there is a serious danger to the judge and others who work in court

The same can be said about any location where there are people. How does this sound:

As far as not allowing guns into the grocery store by private citizens, thats one I agree with, why? because many of the private citizens and their friends are dangerous crimminals, and allowing anyone to ccw there is a serious danger to the manager and others who work in the store

Why do government employees warrant special treatment? Or, are you against CCW in all situations?

 

[R.H. Lee]

And one last idea: once the state workers figure out the government is cutting benefits without adjusting their pay to compensate, anybody with decent skills is going to start looking for another job, rather than see their standard of living swirl down the pot. Leaving all the true hard-core slackers on the payroll. Better just to purge the slackers.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! ROFLMAO!

That is SO funny I don't know where to begin!

In the small rural county where I live (and I'll bet in most of the country), .gov IS the primary employer. Better pay, better benefits, almost IMPOSSIBLE to get fired, etc., et yada. .gov employee are, for the most part, skilled labor. Self directed entrepeneur types are not going to be working for government.

The notion that private enterprise is going to offer pay or benefits as some kind of incentive to draw public employees into the private sector is just plain nonsense.

 

[dwkennedy]

I don't see what's so funny. You cut somebody's pay or benefits and they'll start looking around, government employee or not. People who are not competetive in the market place may decide to stick where they are. This is why I believe cross the board paycuts drive away capable workers with other career options, not the peter-principle slackers that do nothing but fill a hole in somebody's org chart.

Any employer, private or not, has to offer a competitive package of pay and benefits to 'win' in the market of good employees. Why would a private employer offer a special benefit to a government worker, beyond what he would offer to another individual with the same skills?

I think the perception that government employees are impossible to fire is overstated. I know a couple personally that were let go in the last 6 months.

 

[Dex Sinister]

If you hire an employee at X dollars per year for Y days of work... he's making X/Y dollars per day.
If you then ask him to work Y+2 days per year, I think it's reasonable for him to ask for 2*(X/Y) dollars extra pay (perhaps more, if he valued the two days off more than the extra money.)

That doesn't really hold up. You hire workers for an annual salary, specifying a given number of vacation days. State holidays, though one does have them off, are not part of the contractual basis for employment - they're a gratis gimmie that the legislature thinks up that happens to affect state workers most strongly. But normally they wouldn't serve as part of most employees expectations of paid holidays, except that we're talking about salaried government employees.

And of course you don't hire salaried employees on an expectation that the salary works out to a specific daily wage - that's why salaried managers in non-government jobs often work 50-60 hours a week to get their job done.

Of course if any government employees were motivated to work in the real world because they didn't get Cesar Chavis day off, I'd personally say it was a fine thing.

Dex }:>=-

 

[Quartus]

So, anybody interested in getting back on topic?



.
.
.
.
.
.
.



Just a thought.....

 

[Dex Sinister]

So, anybody interested in getting back on topic?

Well, you could help!

A series of federal lawsuits for illegal deprevation of civil rights would be amusing.

Dex }:>=-

 

[Master Blaster]

Am I going to shoot a judge, because other people in court are criminals? I don't think so.

Its not you thats the concern.

Why do we deny convicts in prison or folks who come to visit them a firearm? If you go visit a convict in jail shouldn't you have your gun with you in the visiting room? after all its full of dangerous crimminals????
Why dont prison guards carry a sidearm when they are mingling with the general population in prison?????

Often in court they bring in dangerous felons who are incarcerrated, the courtroom is open to the public, this is the only time the felon is outside of a secure facility. It may be the only time a witness or victim is in close proximity to the felon as well. The felons fellow crimminals may well also be in attendence. A courtroom is a much different situation from a grocery store.

How ever if the owner of the Grocery store is opposed to firearms being carried, in some states he may legally prohibit customers from bringing them in to his property with appropriate signage. The CCW holder can either decide to keep it concealed and carry anyway, facing any potential legal consequences, or can shop elsewhere.

It all boils down to the laws that are inplace, and laws are passed by elected officials, youcan lobby to have them changed.

In the case of the Federal cout I was in for Jury duty there were armed guards (US marshalls) providing security, so I didnt feel to unsafe without my CCW.

I usually dont go anywhere else without it.

 

[Dex Sinister]

Its not you thats the concern.

I realize that. But it is me whom they are illegally applying a law that doesn't cover my behavior, and which specifically exempts me from its provisions.

Often in court they bring in dangerous felons who are incarcerrated, the courtroom is open to the public, this is the only time the felon is outside of a secure facility. It may be the only time a witness or victim is in close proximity to the felon as well. The felons fellow crimminals may well also be in attendence. A courtroom is a much different situation from a grocery store.

Yes, but this is irrelivant: The law states, "no knives over 4 inches in length," quite regardless of criminality, so under law that is all they can exclude. The idea of the rule of law requires its minions to obey the actual laws, not ones that may be a good idea.

However if the owner of the Grocery store is opposed to firearms being carried, in some states he may legally prohibit customers from bringing them in to his property with appropriate signage. The CCW holder can either decide to keep it concealed and carry anyway, facing any potential legal consequences, or can shop elsewhere.

Ironically, California has no such provision.

It all boils down to the laws that are in place, and laws are passed by elected officials, you can lobby to have them changed.

EXACTLY!! And if they don't like they laws in place, they can certainly lobby to get them changed. But until they do they are misusing their authority and usurping power they do not have, and violating my civil rights by "enforcing" laws that don't authorize the powers that they are already using.

Dex }:>=-

 

[SemperFi83]

Low Station Syndrome

 

[Dex Sinister]

Low Station Syndrome

Ooooh, a new syndrome!

 

[Dex Sinister]

SemperFi83 said: Low Station Syndrome

Okay, since no other comments seem forthcoming, I’ll bite: What IS Low Station Syndrome, exactly?

Is that where taxpayers expect [or demand that] non-elected government officials obey the laws that are their only authority for actions?

Or would that be where non-elected government officials steal authority they were never given, and then lord it over taxpayers?

Funny – it used to be that "A government of laws, not of people," meaning "a government strictly limited to actions for which it had actual written lawful authority, rather than whimsical edits" was a critically important concept that distinguished America from other lesser governments.

I’d expect most former Marines to know what they were fighting to defend, so I’m a bit puzzled.

SemperFi83's Sig Line: "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Noah Webster

Or do you mean that we should just expect such behavior, and ignore it as "business as usual"?

Dex }:>=-