This story on the front page of the Albany Time’s Union both appalled and fascinated me. I guess I will start with the appalling.
With this state of the economy a worker is complaining that he is discriminated against, yet he makes over $90,000 per year to do what he describes as no work. That is more than 90% of American’s make. He also points out that he has a protected civil service position and cannot be fired without process (e.g. realistically he cannot be fired) and he cannot be layed off. He admits he has done almost no work for the past 10 years. Most American’s (including me) would count themselves as lucky to be so oppressed.
NYS has 2600 employees involved in administering the state workman’s compensation and disability insurance program. Conservatively I will assume the average salary is $50,000 (we will just forget the obscene benefits given to state workers in NY), that works out to $130 million per year just in salaries. Just another example of why NYS taxes are so high. What was even more interesting was the article mentioned that they subcontract out investigations. So what do the 2600 employees do? If this guy is typical, apparently not much.
This guy is complaining about political appointees getting multi-year positions (that he wants). Okay, political appointees are a problem, but they pale in comparison to this guy and the 2600 employees in this bloated boondoggle of an agency.
So now the fascinating. The ethics of this whole situation. This guy went public, because he thinks he is being unfairly treated and I guess he figures he is doing a public service by exposing the problem. There is some credibility to that point of view. But who is really more guilty, him for doing nothing or his boss for letting him? If he acknowledges it is wrong to do nothing at work for 10 years, isn’t he just as guilty for the abuse? He was offered other positions (that might have provided an opportunity to do actual work), but he refused because he felt they were beneath him. If it was really so bad, why not quit, that is always an option. I mean a lot of people get treated a loss worse at their job than being paid $90,000 a year (and accruing a generous pension) to not work.
I am not condoning discrimination if that is what is really happening. However, my experience over 10 years in the workplace is usually that the people who complain the most are just malcontents who are lucky to have a job. Unfortunately the legal liability with firing anyone these days is so high, many companies just endure the bad employees rather than terminate them. Unless they are violent, make threats, or are blatantly caught lying or stealing, the behavior (using 4 weeks of sick time every year, complaining all the time, doing little to no work or doing it incompetently) is tolerated. At least that is what I have observed.
I honestly think he should be fired and the state should go after his pension. Obviously the organization should be investigated/audited and his manager potentially terminated as well. He is claiming he has been discriminated against because he is a Native American and this may be true. He also may only have gotten a job in the first place because he is a Native American (NY has lots of initiatives to hire minorities). There would be real irony if the only real discrimination was that he was given a job in the first place over a more qualified non-minority (no good deed goes unpunished).
What do you think? Is the guy a dirtbag? Is it just that the agency is totally screwed up? What would you do to this guy?
Extreme, but not unusual for state employment. In private industry he would have been forced out of the company. But in government jobs when a worker gets tagged as a troublemaker or misfit, he/she is usually forced into a crappy job with no chance of ever moving up. It could be hard to land another job elsewhere if the prospective employer figures out the he was demoted or is working below what would be expected of his age and qualifications.
yet, most people support Obama and want more programs. i don’t understand it!
I by no means support Obama’s policies, but I just don’t get how people make such correlations at every turn as if Obama is to blame for every thing wrong in government right now.
I just don’t see any good coming from the whole Obama bashing any more than the good that came from the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter…bashing in the past.
When you consider there are people who work very, very hard and earn very little- barely a subsitance wage- the unfairness of this is almost too boggling to ponder.
One thing we can hope for is that our new national leadership will sork consistently toward resolving some of these inequities. Hopefully. It’s a big job.
juric, pay attention! i wasn’t blaming obama for everything wrong. didn’t you read my response?
i was saying that the OP’s post is a perfect example of the problem with increased government. and unfortunately, our new president wants MORE of that, MORE government (so we can have MORE of the same problems).
Seems to me that the biggest rise in debt (aka: government overspending) occurred during the 80’s and early 90’s. It then dipped a little for a period of 8-10 years, then skyrocketed again.
If I could predict the future, I wouldn’t be worried about things like graphs…
I find it hilarious that people “knee-jerk” and say things like, “Oh man, we’re going to go broke with (insert democrat name) in office! Their spending is out of control!!!”
Yet history shows us different. I loved Reagan, but man, between him and Shrub Sr, our debt increased 3x in just 12-15 years. That’s scary.
Right. Because the President passes anything he wants and doesn’t need Congress to approve anything…oh wait. That’s right. Congress passes the budget, not the President.
Remind me who controlled COngress during those times?
Right. Because the President passes anything he wants and doesn’t need Congress to approve anything…oh wait. That’s right. Congress passes the budget, not the President.
Remind me who controlled COngress during those times?
There, fixed it for you.
Thank you for making my point - why blame Obama for spending that might happen, when as you’ve just pointed out it’s COngress that passes the budget?
Gotta’ play fair, folks - can’t blindly blame Obama for everything simply because he’s a Democratic president, and then use the excuse that it’s NOT the president’s fault for past economic issues.
Never understood why government sector employment policies are not the same as private companies. If you do not meet performance expectations, then that is grounds for dismissal. 10 years of sitting around and doing nothing and getting paid $90K is a sad waste of tax payer money.
Have’nt Obama, Clinton, and Biden been in Congress the past few years? i feel that one can rightly blame them for past woes and the worst that is to come because of them.
Remind me again, what does John McCain do for a living? If he were president, wouldn’t the same potential blame fall on his shoulders?
I’m not arguing that during Obama’s time in office we won’t spend money, or that we won’t go farther into debt. It will happen. I’m just trying to point out that it’s a two-way street. Lots of debt under republican presidential watch.
Kittycat, I know I’m sort of off point here, but I find this fascinating. Weren’t you all gung ho Hillary during the primary season? Do you think as a Democrat president that she would have advocated for LESS government? You’d be in the exact same position with Hillary in the White House.
Did anyone actually read the story? This is not one about an underperforming employee. The employee claims he sued the State for discrimination, and as part of the settlement he was placed in his current position, but the State refused to give him any assignments of substance in retaliation for his original lawsuit. Whether his claims are true, this is not representative of government employment. I’ve seen private sector employers get into a similar pickle about what to do with a “problem” employee that has obtained a protected status from having been a whistleblower or a complainant.
Then why use the current president at all as this has been the trend in government for decades.
Why not leave Obama out of it and indite large government and pretty much all politicians from the local to the federal level? Supporting Obama is not the problem, people want more from the government rather than doing it for themselves. Has been this way for decades and thru pretty much every administration.
I am paying attention and isntead of people pointing out what the problem is they typically try and pin it on a few people.
This isn’t indicative of the public sector, just more telling of American society today. It makes sense that the bigger the bureaucracy, the more this will happen. The same thing can and does happen in the private sector.
As far as 2,600 employees administering workmans comp and disability, that’s not so many. How many New Yorkers use those programs? If its is 5-10% of the possible workforce you are talking up to a million people, or one functionary (thanks Francois) per 400 people receiving benefits. That would be like employing 2 or 3 people in HR, payroll & benefits in a company of 500 to 1,000 employees. Sounds like state government is pretty efficient, if you look at it that way
Blago appoints a guy on Jan 15th to the Head of the DNR. The appointment basically boots his pension by 40K. He’s fired on Feb 4th by the new Governor. So for a whopping 19 days of work he gets an additional 40K a year for his retirement. Not a bad deal.
There was some rumor of Quin trying to reverse the appointment, not heard if that happened or not.
