Same with the FAA. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/podcasts/the-daily/boeing...
Same with any other part of the US government. It doesn't pay people what they're worth, so they can't attract enough good talent.
Same with any other part of the US government. It doesn't pay people what they're worth, so they can't attract enough good talent.
In my neck of the woods, there are departments that have to make do with whole teams of low-skill employees because, while a more skilled person could do the work of at least four lower-skill workers, they would also require two lower-skill workers' worth of salary, and you just can't be paying any one person that much money because that would be Government Waste.
We know that Unions don't oppose salary caps, but they oppose differentials in compensation based on job performance. Seems like that amounts to the same thing? Unless you're suggesting we just pay government workers more and see if we get any marginal productivity out of them.
I think it's an interesting question how a government workers' union would be likely to feel about a hypothetical restructuring that lost 75% of existing jobs while doubling or tripling wages. I tend to suspect that if the union already existed and represented those low-skilled jobs, it would be adamantly against the restructuring.
Doubling wages while not cutting jobs would obviously be fine with the union, but what would the point of that be?
Whenever that first part isn't true for a union, then the market pressure is for the top performers to leave the union for free-market wages, until it is.
They also have more bargaining power when they represent skilled workers compared to unskilled ones.
...and they have no real way to evaluate the talent they DO attract, so they're doubly-screwed.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-agree-th...
Also, I think that a honest reading of that chart would be that there is the Vietnam War (with very low justification), WW2 (with high justification) and then two subgroups: WW1 & Civil War with moderate justification, and Korea, Gulf War 1 and Afghanistan with lower levels, but still significant levels of justification.
For instance, I joined and served in the military during the second Iraq war despite disapproving of the invasion.
This holds especially for career civil servants, as political winds shift and one may not always agree with the policies of the current government.
One does not serve because the nation is perfect, one serves to strengthen the nation and to have the opportunity to make it better for future generations.
And after your experiences would you recommend the same path to your children if they were thinking of doing the same?