Poll

Which of these would you be comfortable doing in ER?

Collecting welfare benefits and/or SNAP
Having you child get free or reduced lunch
Claiming the EIC
Having your child use a Pell grant or other income-based funding for college
None of the above

Author Topic: Ethics of ER  (Read 61328 times)

RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 43
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #200 on: December 02, 2013, 09:49:09 AM »
I've done exactly that over the past 5 years.  I will hit 5 years of service a week from today and will be giving notice a month later.  When I took this job, it was one of the few available so it was a case of the prettiest horse in the glue factory. However, 18 to 24 months in I could have hopped to a new place for far higher compensation.  If I were contemplating a career of another 20 years, I would have done so with alacrity.  It was clear that the place tended to collect career dullards while the brightest and most ambitious either never showed up or did very short tours of duty. IOW, I saw exactly what RootofGood described.  Consequently, the place does hugely important work that really needs far better talent than what they usually get, but they struggle to attract and retain good people.  I would actually be willing to stick around and help them do what I think is their important work, but there appears to be no way they could make it worth my while.

Gross, pervasive incompetence throughout your organization and systemic antipathy toward doing a good job?  Were we coworkers?  No one in seniority wants to speak up because, guess what, they are all sucking on the pension teat and are skeered to death to say anything. 

Typical day: CFO or one of his directors: "Uh, hey Root, we're going to approve this $26 million transfer of funds.  Cool?  Our financial trustee says we have to".  Me: "Hell no, that's totally incorrect and you are going to blow up our entire financial model and we'll be in default and what will Moody's and S&P and Fitch do to our credit rating?  Look, read the bond covenants and fiduciary agreements - it shows exactly what we have to do with our funds"  CFO: "Let's take this offline.  I don't want this in email".  WTF?! How many days can you put up with it?  The only reward you get is more work because you are identified as somewhat more competent within the organization, and no one else cares to pay attention to extremely important details. 

It was disgusting to watch what people were willing to do (or rather, omit doing) just because they wanted that sweet gubmint pension and didn't want to risk termination for speaking up.   

Maybe knowing how much waste and incompetence exists at the top level of government organizations leads me to think these ethical discussions about free lunches or EIC or SNAP benefits are irrelevant drops in the bucket. 
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 09:51:10 AM by RootofGood »

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #201 on: December 02, 2013, 10:17:27 AM »
I've done exactly that over the past 5 years.  I will hit 5 years of service a week from today and will be giving notice a month later.  When I took this job, it was one of the few available so it was a case of the prettiest horse in the glue factory. However, 18 to 24 months in I could have hopped to a new place for far higher compensation.  If I were contemplating a career of another 20 years, I would have done so with alacrity.  It was clear that the place tended to collect career dullards while the brightest and most ambitious either never showed up or did very short tours of duty. IOW, I saw exactly what RootofGood described.  Consequently, the place does hugely important work that really needs far better talent than what they usually get, but they struggle to attract and retain good people.  I would actually be willing to stick around and help them do what I think is their important work, but there appears to be no way they could make it worth my while.

Gross, pervasive incompetence throughout your organization and systemic antipathy toward doing a good job?  Were we coworkers?  No one in seniority wants to speak up because, guess what, they are all sucking on the pension teat and are skeered to death to say anything. 

Typical day: CFO or one of his directors: "Uh, hey Root, we're going to approve this $26 million transfer of funds.  Cool?  Our financial trustee says we have to".  Me: "Hell no, that's totally incorrect and you are going to blow up our entire financial model and we'll be in default and what will Moody's and S&P and Fitch do to our credit rating?  Look, read the bond covenants and fiduciary agreements - it shows exactly what we have to do with our funds"  CFO: "Let's take this offline.  I don't want this in email".  WTF?! How many days can you put up with it?  The only reward you get is more work because you are identified as somewhat more competent within the organization, and no one else cares to pay attention to extremely important details. 

It was disgusting to watch what people were willing to do (or rather, omit doing) just because they wanted that sweet gubmint pension and didn't want to risk termination for speaking up.   

Maybe knowing how much waste and incompetence exists at the top level of government organizations leads me to think these ethical discussions about free lunches or EIC or SNAP benefits are irrelevant drops in the bucket.

One of my coworkers (who has since moved on) once told me something that turned out to be very wise: "Its not a bad idea to publicly screw up on something minor occasionally.  That way you will not be identified as competent and in line for extra work."

He was exactly right, but I could never do it due to my own personal demons/professional pride.  Ah well.  I vest on Friday and am a month away from bailing, so it is all water under the bridge at this point.

RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 43
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #202 on: December 02, 2013, 12:44:17 PM »
I've done exactly that over the past 5 years.  I will hit 5 years of service a week from today and will be giving notice a month later.  When I took this job, it was one of the few available so it was a case of the prettiest horse in the glue factory. However, 18 to 24 months in I could have hopped to a new place for far higher compensation.  If I were contemplating a career of another 20 years, I would have done so with alacrity.  It was clear that the place tended to collect career dullards while the brightest and most ambitious either never showed up or did very short tours of duty. IOW, I saw exactly what RootofGood described.  Consequently, the place does hugely important work that really needs far better talent than what they usually get, but they struggle to attract and retain good people.  I would actually be willing to stick around and help them do what I think is their important work, but there appears to be no way they could make it worth my while.

Gross, pervasive incompetence throughout your organization and systemic antipathy toward doing a good job?  Were we coworkers?  No one in seniority wants to speak up because, guess what, they are all sucking on the pension teat and are skeered to death to say anything. 

Typical day: CFO or one of his directors: "Uh, hey Root, we're going to approve this $26 million transfer of funds.  Cool?  Our financial trustee says we have to".  Me: "Hell no, that's totally incorrect and you are going to blow up our entire financial model and we'll be in default and what will Moody's and S&P and Fitch do to our credit rating?  Look, read the bond covenants and fiduciary agreements - it shows exactly what we have to do with our funds"  CFO: "Let's take this offline.  I don't want this in email".  WTF?! How many days can you put up with it?  The only reward you get is more work because you are identified as somewhat more competent within the organization, and no one else cares to pay attention to extremely important details. 

It was disgusting to watch what people were willing to do (or rather, omit doing) just because they wanted that sweet gubmint pension and didn't want to risk termination for speaking up.   

Maybe knowing how much waste and incompetence exists at the top level of government organizations leads me to think these ethical discussions about free lunches or EIC or SNAP benefits are irrelevant drops in the bucket.

One of my coworkers (who has since moved on) once told me something that turned out to be very wise: "Its not a bad idea to publicly screw up on something minor occasionally.  That way you will not be identified as competent and in line for extra work."

He was exactly right, but I could never do it due to my own personal demons/professional pride.  Ah well.  I vest on Friday and am a month away from bailing, so it is all water under the bridge at this point.

I had a sticky note on my office wall.  "No sea demasiado competente".  No one ever noticed my secret note.  I wonder if all the other people I worked with were secretly highly competent but had learned long ago to feign ignorance?  Maybe they were smarter than me after all.  I feel like a sucker now.  :)  Underwater bridges indeed.

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #203 on: December 02, 2013, 01:03:16 PM »
I've done exactly that over the past 5 years.  I will hit 5 years of service a week from today and will be giving notice a month later.  When I took this job, it was one of the few available so it was a case of the prettiest horse in the glue factory. However, 18 to 24 months in I could have hopped to a new place for far higher compensation.  If I were contemplating a career of another 20 years, I would have done so with alacrity.  It was clear that the place tended to collect career dullards while the brightest and most ambitious either never showed up or did very short tours of duty. IOW, I saw exactly what RootofGood described.  Consequently, the place does hugely important work that really needs far better talent than what they usually get, but they struggle to attract and retain good people.  I would actually be willing to stick around and help them do what I think is their important work, but there appears to be no way they could make it worth my while.

Gross, pervasive incompetence throughout your organization and systemic antipathy toward doing a good job?  Were we coworkers?  No one in seniority wants to speak up because, guess what, they are all sucking on the pension teat and are skeered to death to say anything. 

Typical day: CFO or one of his directors: "Uh, hey Root, we're going to approve this $26 million transfer of funds.  Cool?  Our financial trustee says we have to".  Me: "Hell no, that's totally incorrect and you are going to blow up our entire financial model and we'll be in default and what will Moody's and S&P and Fitch do to our credit rating?  Look, read the bond covenants and fiduciary agreements - it shows exactly what we have to do with our funds"  CFO: "Let's take this offline.  I don't want this in email".  WTF?! How many days can you put up with it?  The only reward you get is more work because you are identified as somewhat more competent within the organization, and no one else cares to pay attention to extremely important details. 

It was disgusting to watch what people were willing to do (or rather, omit doing) just because they wanted that sweet gubmint pension and didn't want to risk termination for speaking up.   

Maybe knowing how much waste and incompetence exists at the top level of government organizations leads me to think these ethical discussions about free lunches or EIC or SNAP benefits are irrelevant drops in the bucket.

One of my coworkers (who has since moved on) once told me something that turned out to be very wise: "Its not a bad idea to publicly screw up on something minor occasionally.  That way you will not be identified as competent and in line for extra work."

He was exactly right, but I could never do it due to my own personal demons/professional pride.  Ah well.  I vest on Friday and am a month away from bailing, so it is all water under the bridge at this point.

I had a sticky note on my office wall.  "No sea demasiado competente".  No one ever noticed my secret note.  I wonder if all the other people I worked with were secretly highly competent but had learned long ago to feign ignorance?  Maybe they were smarter than me after all.  I feel like a sucker now.  :)  Underwater bridges indeed.

heh, as one of my favorite authors stuck in his books," we've all passed a lot of water since then."

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #204 on: December 05, 2013, 06:38:45 AM »
I honestly don't think it is nonsense.  I'd throw collecting government pensions in there with the other government handouts.  I mean if you don't really "need" the government pension, should you take it and deplete the funds of the pension plan?  Part of the pension funding comes straight out of the public treasury (ie taxpayers' pockets).  Why not withdraw your contributions (plus interest) and forfeit your pension if you are highly principled?  I see no one opting for that choice.

Yes, it is nonsense.  You are only partly right.  The old federal retirement system (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS) was a 100% defined benefit plan, and pretty generous (something like 80% of salary benefit), and a portion of that system remains an unfunded liability, until those people and their beneficiaries die off.  But CSRS was phased out in 1984, and replaced with the Federal Employees Retirement System, of FERS.  FERS is a part defined benefit (pension), part defined contribution (TSP, the Fed's "401k") plan, and FERS employees also contribute to Social Security.  The FERS pension system is 100% funded (for at least the next 80 years), by a combination of employee and employer contributions made every two weeks.  See for yourself: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42741.pdf

Now, you can argue about whether federal employees are paid too much for what they do (evidence suggests that in more menial jobs, they are), but the federal workforce is dominated by people with advanced degrees doing high-skill functions like lawyers, scientists (think NASA, CDC, etc), engineers, doctors (VA), etc., many of whom are paid salaries that are well below what their private sector counterparts receive.  But the tradeoff for accepting that lower current salary is accepting a portion of their compensation in the form of deferred salary.  Calling a deferred benefit earned from one's labor a handout is highly disingenous and patently false.

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #205 on: December 05, 2013, 06:42:11 AM »
Maybe knowing how much waste and incompetence exists at the top level of government organizations leads me to think these ethical discussions about free lunches or EIC or SNAP benefits are irrelevant drops in the bucket.

And if you believe that similar levels of waste and incompetence don't exist in the private sector, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Reue

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #206 on: December 05, 2013, 06:42:32 AM »
Could someone briefly explain what SNAP, EIC and a Pell Grant are for us non-US people please so I can covert it into a UK equivalent and vote? Thanks :)

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #207 on: December 05, 2013, 07:06:40 AM »
Could someone briefly explain what SNAP, EIC and a Pell Grant are for us non-US people please so I can covert it into a UK equivalent and vote? Thanks :)

SNAP = food/nutrition assistance for low-income families.
EIC = Earned Income Credit which applies to low income families and generally results in them paying no income tax, or actually receiving a refund on taxes they didn't pay.
Pell Grant = needs-based government higher education grants for students from low-income backgrounds.

Reue

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #208 on: December 05, 2013, 07:21:51 AM »
Could someone briefly explain what SNAP, EIC and a Pell Grant are for us non-US people please so I can covert it into a UK equivalent and vote? Thanks :)

SNAP = food/nutrition assistance for low-income families.
EIC = Earned Income Credit which applies to low income families and generally results in them paying no income tax, or actually receiving a refund on taxes they didn't pay.
Pell Grant = needs-based government higher education grants for students from low-income backgrounds.

Awesome, thanks.

simonsez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Ethics of ER
« Reply #209 on: December 05, 2013, 08:15:34 AM »
I honestly don't think it is nonsense.  I'd throw collecting government pensions in there with the other government handouts.  I mean if you don't really "need" the government pension, should you take it and deplete the funds of the pension plan?  Part of the pension funding comes straight out of the public treasury (ie taxpayers' pockets).  Why not withdraw your contributions (plus interest) and forfeit your pension if you are highly principled?  I see no one opting for that choice.

Yes, it is nonsense.  You are only partly right.  The old federal retirement system (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS) was a 100% defined benefit plan, and pretty generous (something like 80% of salary benefit), and a portion of that system remains an unfunded liability, until those people and their beneficiaries die off.  But CSRS was phased out in 1984, and replaced with the Federal Employees Retirement System, of FERS.  FERS is a part defined benefit (pension), part defined contribution (TSP, the Fed's "401k") plan, and FERS employees also contribute to Social Security.  The FERS pension system is 100% funded (for at least the next 80 years), by a combination of employee and employer contributions made every two weeks.  See for yourself: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42741.pdf

Now, you can argue about whether federal employees are paid too much for what they do (evidence suggests that in more menial jobs, they are), but the federal workforce is dominated by people with advanced degrees doing high-skill functions like lawyers, scientists (think NASA, CDC, etc), engineers, doctors (VA), etc., many of whom are paid salaries that are well below what their private sector counterparts receive.  But the tradeoff for accepting that lower current salary is accepting a portion of their compensation in the form of deferred salary.  Calling a deferred benefit earned from one's labor a handout is highly disingenous and patently false.

Well said dude.  Just a general note about CSRS to those who may not know, to get the full 80% based on your highest paid 1095 calendar days (called hi-3 {years}) that would require 42 years of federal service.  Didn't want people to think all those under the CSRS system received an automatic 80% pension, haha.