Civil Servants

[Ja'chyra]

Now this is mainly aimed at the UK people here but probably applies all around the world.

For those that don't know I'm a civil servant, MOD to be precise, and over the past 6-12 months we have come in for an increasingly hard from everything from being desk polishers and completely useless to being paid too much and having gold plated pensions.

I'd just like the view of any Orgahs who have an opinion on what they see civil servants as, paragons of virtue? Evil money wasters? Or something in between.

As the UK seems to be almost broke what do we think would actually save money?

Personally I think attacking civil servants terms and conditions isn't the way to go, funny that eh, the civil service has always been underpaid for the jobs we do and this was offset somewhat by having a slightly better pension and things like job security. Not to say that we don't have to become more efficient but I don't think 10% staff cuts per year consistently for the past 5 years is the way to do it, I would rather see a strategic look over the whole service with someone actually making a decision on what projects are needed and what ones are so horribly set up they should be scrapped and started again.

So ehat does everyone else think?

[Furunculus]

Generally -

I take the view that we ran India with a civil service that numbered in hundreds, so it is inexcusable that little old britain needs a civil service that has long since shot past half a million full time employees, not to mention the extra ~100,000 part time manequins.

I accept that we no longer live in the 1800's, and that government has many other jobs society expects sit to fulfill, but i reject the acceptance of labour governments that there is always more that can be done requiring an ever greater number of civil servants to achieve.

There is no two ways around it, the civil service represents the unproductive part of society, and to keep them in employ requires the taxation of the productive part of society, a factor that gets more out-of-whack every time a gender equality officer is employed.

Specifically -

Re: the MOD; I accept the view of another MOD civil servant who knows more about the matter than I, to whit;

"As to the MoD; of the 85000 CS, 2500 are RFA, another several thousand are MPGS / MOD GS / MOD Police. Several tens of thousands more are manual workers, labourers, nursery assistants etc. The actual number of desk bound CS in London of all grades is about 2000, of which maybe half have real influence. A 25% cut as posited by the Conservatives would merely reduce further the support provided to HM Forces. Not that i disagree that there is not waste to be cut, but not as much as people suppose."

There is certainly a case for scaling back the MOD, but i have a much more sympathy for the MOD than other less fiscally neglected corners of public spending, because those civil servants are part of the reason why Britain still maintains the range of capabilities that preserve its great power status.

[Azathoth]

Nathaniel Hawthorne thought civil service jobs would turn you into a lazy leech and shell of a man, but he was a Democrat, so, you know...

[Kralizec]

This reminds me of that thread about Norse soldiers and junkies...

The perception is mostly the same in the Netherlands. Personally I think there are quite a few areas where the state should withdraw from, and that we could manage with less government employees. I don't blame individual civil servants though (except the ones higher-up who lead deparments) and I can see that it must be frustrating to hear all these complaints on a regular basis.

[tibilicus]

Aren't most civil servants well educated folk who make a bomb? Don't really have an opinion on the civil service, maybe it's a bit to big, that's my only complaint.

[Slyspy]

Generally speaking I think the salary is on the low side, but the pension is good. Of course that might just mean another pensions blackhole in the making.

[Kralizec]

Just to be clear, in the UK "civil servants" only refers to people who work for the national government, right?

[Beskar]

No, that is Public Sector worker. They are generally paid far less than private sector equivant (and there was always the problem of people only using public sector for CV experience and paid-for-training then running off) but generally have job security.

Civil Servant in UK definition are those that are employed and work on behalf of the Crown and not parliament, though they can usually work for ministers. More information here: http://www.civilservant.org.uk/definitions.shtml

[Kralizec]

That's more or less what I meant - in practice, "the crown" is more or less the same as the government, wich doesn't include parliament. And by national I meant for the UK as such.

Point was, people who work for the Scottish government or city halls etc. don't qualify as civil servants.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Civil servants perform necessary roles, but there are too many of them and many of their jobs can be better performed by private sector employees at a better price to both the employee and the taxpayer.

My one sentence summary of my position.

[Beskar]

Civil servants perform necessary roles, but there are too many of them and many of their jobs can be better performed by private sector employees at a better price to both the employee and the taxpayer.

My one sentence summary of my position.

Though the private sector equivalent gets paid more money and is a sure way to make any more problems worse? Also private interests would destroy any public interest which ultimately makes it far worse for everyone except those exploiting this.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Though the private sector equivalent gets paid more money and is a sure way to make any more problems worse? Also private interests would destroy any public interest which ultimately makes it far worse for everyone except those exploiting this.

Obviously I don't agree with any of this, otherwise I would not have said what I did.

[Crazed Rabbit]

There's some jobs need doing by them, but here in the US, we've got too many, they're generally overpaid, and they get high benefits to boot.


Though the private sector equivalent gets paid more money and is a sure way to make any more problems worse? Also private interests would destroy any public interest which ultimately makes it far worse for everyone except those exploiting this.

If they get paid more, it's from the people using the services, not everyone being taxed. And usually the service is better, more efficient, and not worse in any way you insist it is.

CR

[Furunculus]

Generally speaking I think the salary is on the low side, but the pension is good. Of course that might just mean another pensions blackhole in the making.

the pension is so good that those 500,000 civil servants are responsible for making the taxpayer foot the bill for over £1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/peter_barnett/blog/2009/10/20/government_debt

[Husar]

They're all paper nazis. :smash:

Just kidding, I always hear how they're evil people who just want our monies but the ones I've met were mostly nice (includes the one in the OP), I guess most of them want a job like everyone else and being employed by the government ensures some security etc.
Overall it depends on the individual, as usual.

[Beskar]

If they get paid more, it's from the people using the services, not everyone being taxed. And usually the service is better, more efficient, and not worse in any way you insist it is.


They get paid more because they don't have to answer to the Tax Payers who want them paid as little as possible. Also, in many cases, they don't have enough in the right areas and because they have far more work than the private counterparts, they have a larger workload and a bigger backlog.

Also, having private removes the impartiality and honesty they are meant to have, as their money comes from private and not public, thus they will presue a more private interest aligned agenda. Also, working in the public sector myself, I have seen what happens when things go to the private sector and they get far worse. Especially when it comes to care and otherthings. The whole called Private bidding war for public sector areas usually mean they can actually be paid cheaper, but how this works out, is that they are very incompenent and even more short-staffed and from an area that has seen this happen in neighbouring areas, it is quite disgusting.

[KukriKhan]

...Personally I think attacking civil servants terms and conditions isn't the way to go, funny that eh, the civil service has always been underpaid for the jobs we do and this was offset somewhat by having a slightly better pension and things like job security. Not to say that we don't have to become more efficient but I don't think 10% staff cuts per year consistently for the past 5 years is the way to do it, I would rather see a strategic look over the whole service with someone actually making a decision on what projects are needed and what ones are so horribly set up they should be scrapped and started again.


I agree with this. ^^

Even in the US, Congress sometimes decides to decrease the manpower of a Department, rather than examine, then approve/disapprove the missions given to the Dept. That's unnecessary meddling into resources I think, potentially crippling the agency's ability to perform its mandate.

Making seniority portable among government agncies would go a long ways to more manpower flexibility, IMO. As it is now (in the US), transferring from Treasury to Defense, despite being employed by the gov't for 20 years, involves starting at the bottom rung in the new agency's ladder (we're not talking Executive level jobs here, just career worker-bees), in terms of assigned tasks, leave bennies, weekly schedules, and those other day-to-day concerns that seem minor taken alone, but add up to a major reason why careerists "homestead", and then fight for their position - and leads to a percentage of older ones who have "retired, on active duty" - that the public sees and scorns.

[rory_20_uk]

I've a few friends in the Civil Service and related areas.

One on the Fast Track in the DoH (physics degree - go figure) was telling me a recent breakthrough where the DoH had started to cost items in the NHS. That's right - for years deals were struck with the Civil Servant who was negotiating had no idea what they service they were negotiating for was worth... :wall:

Another friend was seconded to the DoH for 1 year in the area of A&E. As she has a City background she asked when they were goin to visit some front line A&E departments to find out what was going on. Not only was this request refused, but her boss could not see the utility of attendig a department that they were overseeing and providing guidance for...

The Civil Service per capita is very large. Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of work to do - as a beaurocracy is there to produce work, not results. Canada about a decade showed that it can be radically cut without reducing the useful part, as the back office can just mushroom for ever. A bigger department = more kudos.

Promotions are usually on time served, not on ability or results. Status quo beats free thought. Failure means a further review rather than sorting anything out.

I'm so sick of it I'm off to the Private Sector for a break.

~:smoking:

[TinCow]

There's some jobs need doing by them, but here in the US, we've got too many, they're generally overpaid, and they get high benefits to boot.

Overpaid? Speaking as a civil servant, almost all of us are paid less than people doing equivalent jobs in the commercial sector. Yes, the benefits are very good, but I consider that a fair trade-off for the lower pay.

Some of the criticism about civil servants is based on reality, but some is also mixing up civil servants with bureaucracy itself. It's true that there are a lot of lazy people working for the government, who don't do much work and only keep their jobs because it's hard to get fired from a federal job. However, in my experience, those people are in the minority. The vast majority of civil servants work hard for the same reasons everyone else does: we take personal pride in being good at our jobs and we want to earn promotions or other forms of advancement.

In addition, there are realities to the way the government operates that make it look sluggish and lazy even when the employees are working hard. First, the laws governing what we can do and how we can do it are extraordinarily complex and specific. Common sense often takes a back seat to proper procedure, but that's not our fault, it's the fault of Congress and the Executive Branch. We have to operate in the ways we are told to operate, and no individual can simply choose to violate protocol even when we know it's absurd. At the same time, a lot of us are over worked. Take my agency, for example.

I work for an appellate court that handles disabilities claims for veterans. It takes, on average, about 2 years for us to process a claim after it's originally been filed, which is a very long time. However, most cases are completed within 24 to 48 hours of an attorney receiving them. The problem isn't with the employees working slow, it's with the amount of work we have. Last year, my agency worked through 48,000 cases, which works out to over 182 cases per attorney. At the beginning of last year, we had a backlog of 18,000 cases to process. Our goal was to get through 41,000 cases, which was 156 cases per attorney. My entire agency was 117% over our production goal... but our backlog still grew to 20,000 cases. Why? Well, more cases came in than we could process. No matter how fast we work individually, there is more work than we're capable of completing. There are many, many reasons why we're not capable of completing this work with our current staff size, but laziness is not one of them.

[HoreTore]

I find it hilarious how some people hate bureaucrats, especially when they state claims like "people like that won't have a job in a private company!".

Yeah right. They should get a job in Shell and see the glorious bureaucracy of private companies for themselves. Or any other larger company, I suppose.

The truth is that there's simply no way around it, any larger organization will have a bureaucracy. Probably an inefficient one too.

[Beskar]

I think TinCow summed up the majority of my points in a better well-written way and also can speak far more from personal experience.

Problem is, a lot of people want to cut your team down for being "lazy" and make them do more work. As you obviously said TinCow, it is a case where you are over-worked, a big back-log and expected to perform miracles.

Also, yes, there is the prodecure that has to be followed, you can't just stick cases into the shredder like private companies which can just wash their hands from it, you need to follow it by the book and the letter because the public demand it, also to eliminate and minimise risk from America's sue culture.

[Furunculus]

i'm looking forward to some Canada style slash-n-burn in the public sector from 2010 onwards.

[Beirut]

i'm looking forward to some Canada style slash-n-burn in the public sector from 2010 onwards.

My woman is a civil servant in a my small town and I like it.

Lotsa perks. :2thumbsup:

[Ja'chyra]

Not got much time atm so I'll try and post again later but just something to consider when talking about all the perks we get.

I checked my pension forecast this morning and my projected pension for if I work for 40 years with the MOD is £12899 a year, don't know about you but I'd hardly call that gold plated and I am hardly at the bottom of the career ladder either.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Government workers in the U.S., whether they are teachers, police officers, clerks, etc are wildly overpaid as a general rule. Of course none of them feel that they are. I've read that a tremendous majority of people, when asked, say that they are the best workers in the office and deserve higher pay. Hell, even these turd CEO's beleive 10 million makes them look like chumps. People tend to be greedy and base their beliefs on impulse, naked self interest and poor reasoning.

They have powerful unions, many days off, stellar cookie cutter pension plans (which have ceased to exist in the private sector) and tons of other benefits.

In addition to this, they are paid very competetively in relation to similar jobs in the private sector. Add all of this up and you get incredible job security coupled with a competetive wage.

I think cuts are in order all around and that the voting public is beggining to realize this. Bloated goverment employment has become the last refuge of the welfare mom and dad.

[Beskar]

Bloated goverment employment has become the last refuge of the welfare mom and dad.

:laugh4: and there you have it, Public Sector workers are now tax thieves. Teachers are tax thieves, Soldiers are tax thieves, Police are tax thieves, Doctors are tax thieves, Social Workers are tax thieves, Garbage Men are now tax thieves, Road Maintence are tax thieves, Postmen are tax thieves ... insert even longer larger list.

Thanks for your ignorant post.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In general, every country the costs and quality of civil servants it deserves.

For example, tax payers too shortsighted to pay for the public services they request? Simple, decrease wages for civil servants, and increase their pensions. This means the true costs of employment are for future generations.
This is why in many countries wages in the public sector are lower, and pensions are higher, than in the private sector.



~~-~~-~~-<<oOo>>-~~-~~-~~


As to the UK in particular.
I think the public sector is much too small. Privatisation in the past two decades has ruined services. Trains, electricity, waste management - upon privatization, costs increased and service decreased.
http://www.tni.org/article/privatisation-failures-uk





The UK currently employs 25% less civil servants than it did under Thatcher.

There are also less CS's now than there were when Labour took over form the Cons in 1997.

This despite the means to cut employment by the Conservatives having consisted mainly of privatization. (Or, of selling off the crown jewels). Whereas Labour incorporated HMCS into the crown - which added a whopping 17% extra CS's, but still managed to decrease the total number of CS's through increased efficiency.

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/facts/statistics/index.aspx#

Cursed Labour and their expansive government. :beam:

[Beskar]

As to the UK in particular.
I think the public sector is much too small. Privatisation in the past two decades has ruined services. Trains, electricity, waste management - upon privatization, costs increased and service decreased.
http://www.tni.org/article/privatisation-failures-uk

Won't convince the hero's of the market who would argue that it was lack of profit, compared to the actual fact of exploitation by the market which is do as little as possible for the most money they can get.


Cursed Labour and their expansive government. :beam:

Shhh, let them dream. They probably think Thatcher was a great prime-minister.

[Furunculus]

Won't convince the hero's of the market who would argue that it was lack of profit, compared to the actual fact of exploitation by the market which is do as little as possible for the most money they can get.



Shhh, let them dream. They probably think Thatcher was a great prime-minister.

she was.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Some civil servants are extremely powerful. Take the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan in Canada:


The OTPP maintains a prominent role as one of Canada's largest investors, owning investments across Canada. Through its fully owned subsidiary Cadillac Fairview, the OTPP owns properties including the Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto Eaton Centre, and the Rideau Centre in Ottawa. Through its investment arm, Teachers' Private Capital, the OTPP owns or has interests in companies such as Bell Canada (BCE), Samsonite, Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, Maple Leaf Foods, Parmalat Canada, Doane Pet Care, Shoppers Drug Mart, and Worldspan. In 2006 it acquired a 20% stake in CTVglobemedia.

Meaning it owns one of Canada's largest financial complexes, two of the largest malls in Canada's capital and Ontario's capital, the largest sports team in Ontario, one of the largest food companies in Ontario, stakes in one of the largest drug store chains in Ontario, and a fifth of Canada's most reliable newspaper and one of the largest private television networks in Canada. And more.

EDIT: That's another thing - high ranking civil servants usually have political/administrative power as well.

[Beskar]

she was.

She was one of the worst. Only good thing she probably did was organise the rebate from the EU.

Shutting down all the coal mines, including the profitable ones - Bad Idea.
Stripping Britain of all her assets to fund a mismanaged economy - Really Really Bad Idea.
Poll tax - Really Bad Idea.
and it continues.


EDIT: That's another thing - high ranking civil servants usually have political/administrative power as well.

I dislike the quango's as well, unfortunately, the right won't let us change the system.

[Furunculus]

In general, every country the costs and quality of civil servants it deserves.

For example, tax payers too shortsighted to pay for the public services they request? Simple, decrease wages for civil servants, and increase their pensions. This means the true costs of employment are for future generations.
This is why in many countries wages in the public sector are lower, and pensions are higher, than in the private sector.



~~-~~-~~-<<oOo>>-~~-~~-~~


As to the UK in particular.
I think the public sector is much too small. Privatisation in the past two decades has ruined services. Trains, electricity, waste management - upon privatization, costs increased and service decreased.
http://www.tni.org/article/privatisation-failures-uk





The UK currently employs 25% less civil servants than it did under Thatcher.

There are also less CS's now than there were when Labour took over form the Cons in 1997.

This despite the means to cut employment by the Conservatives having consisted mainly of privatization. (Or, of selling off the crown jewels). Whereas Labour incorporated HMCS into the crown - which added a whopping 17% extra CS's, but still managed to decrease the total number of CS's through increased efficiency.

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/facts/statistics/index.aspx#

Cursed Labour and their expansive government. :beam:
your objections are somewhat misplaced, in that it is the size of the public sector that is objected to, rather than the civil service itself.

She was one of the worst. Only good thing she probably did was organise the rebate from the EU.

Shutting down all the coal mines, including the profitable ones - Bad Idea.
Stripping Britain of all her assets to fund a mismanaged economy - Really Really Bad Idea.
Poll tax - Really Bad Idea.
and it continues.


that is a matter of opinion and perspective.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I dislike the quango's as well, unfortunately, the right won't let us change the system.

No, the right won't let you uproot the system and replace it with a socialist paradise. We are quite open to reform.

[Beskar]

No, the right won't let you uproot the system and replace it with a socialist paradise. We are quite open to reform.

I didn't know democracy was so against your interests.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I didn't know democracy was so against your interests.

Daniel Hannan.

An effective rebuttal in two words.

[Beskar]

Daniel Hannan.

An effective rebuttal in two words.

The guy who preaches in an empty room? I never heard him say anything about Quango's or anything related so the rebuttal as effective as me referencing Malaysian poetry.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The guy who preaches in an empty room? I never heard him say anything about Quango's or anything related so the rebuttal as effective as me referencing Malaysian poetry.

Do you even read his column? No, the right isn't opposed to democracy, it is opposed to socialism. We, you see, do not view socialist democracy as a good thing. We prefer free democracy.

[Beskar]

Do you even read his column? No, the right isn't opposed to democracy, it is opposed to socialism. We, you see, do not view socialist democracy as a good thing. We prefer free democracy.

Though "free" democracy is incorrect term to use and no, I don't read his column, this is why I said saying his name was as effective as referencing Malayasian poetry.

As for your free statement, I will quote this -

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production.

If your idea of free is infact allowing entities which exploit people and control the means of information and production away from the people. Then is it really free? Or should it be labelled at least "Free to be Exploited" democracy ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If your idea of free is infact allowing entities which exploit people and control the means of information and production away from the people. Then is it really free? Or should it be labelled at least "Free to be Exploited" democracy ?

:laugh4:

Socialists are amusing.

[Beskar]

:laugh4:

Socialists are amusing.

Says the democratic monarchist. :laugh4:

Can tell you are a big hit with the rights of man and equality there.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Can tell you are a big hit with the rights of man and equality there.

Considerably.

[HoreTore]

Considerably.

Yes. Everyone is born equal. Except that guy. And that guy. And those people over there... And that guys aunt and sister is the same person, so obviously he's royalty, bow before him!!

Who needs wisdom or intelligence when you have birth rights?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes. Everyone is born equal. Except that guy. And that guy. And those people over there... And that guys aunt and sister is the same person, so obviously he's royalty, bow before him!!

Who needs wisdom or intelligence when you have birth rights?

Abolish inheritance! Eliminate private enterprise! Allow children to vote! Rule the supreme worker's state, where all wealth is shared equally from birth to death!*

Everybody is born equal, but not everybody is born into an equal position under this system, my ideal systems, or under any other system that actually stands a chance of working. I believe that the two should not be confused.

*In other words, where nobody actually has anything at all.

EDIT: Of course, now we are moving rather off topic.

[Furunculus]

The guy who preaches in an empty room? I never heard him say anything about Quango's or anything related so the rebuttal as effective as me referencing Malaysian poetry.

These are just the ones that directly reference "quango" in the title, there are many others that discuss the failings of a particular quango:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100019342/the-quango-state-were-in/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100015466/we-have-overthrown-the-divine-right-of-kings-only-to-fall-down-before-the-divine-right-of-experts/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100013942/give-mps-responsibility-and-they-will-behave-responsibly/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100009552/home-office-quangos-lead-the-resistance-to-democracy/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100008847/more-quangos-for-the-chop/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100008601/david-cameron-will-cull-the-quangocrats/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100004793/will-the-conservatives-scrap-the-equality-commission/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100002277/david-cameron-promises-a-bonfire-of-the-quangos/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100001418/mps-are-about-to-relinquish-whats-left-of-their-supremacy/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/9252493/David_Cameron_proposes_a_revolution/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/8235144/Bar_quangocrats_from_the_House_of_Lords/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/8176138/Eight_ways_to_clean_up_Parliament/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/6138623/How_quangos_pay_lobbyists_to_subvert_democracy/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/6077678/How_the_government_pays_to_lobby_itself/

that is just the last twelve months.

[rory_20_uk]

She was one of the worst. Only good thing she probably did was organise the rebate from the EU.

Shutting down all the coal mines, including the profitable ones - Bad Idea.
Stripping Britain of all her assets to fund a mismanaged economy - Really Really Bad Idea.
Poll tax - Really Bad Idea.
and it continues.

I dislike the quango's as well, unfortunately, the right won't let us change the system.

To rephrase, was Thatcher better than the Labour government she replaced?
They ruined the manufacturing sector along with the unions with a collapse of quality and productivity
3 day week
First developed nation going to the IMF cap in hand

Did the following leaders fair any better? Tony and Brown have managed to increase the Public Sector by the most ever - and on a completely related note we're still in recession and have a massive structural deficit.

Change is easiest in times of adversity as eventually most realise things can't continue. Fingers crossed Quangos will be reduced. But they are so useful in times on Media hype - "it's all sorted, we've got the Commission to Narrowly Supervise Today's Cock-Up so move along..."

Yesterday I had to attend a course on Child Protection - as do ALL NHS employees. Per week 2 children die due to abuse (on average). Over the last decade we've been deluged with reports, plans, action points and reforms to reduce this. "Oddly", the reports and plans have coincided with episodes of media frenzy...

It's increased over the last 5 years.

Not only was this not mentioned at the teaching, but the fact that unless all parents are supervised 24/7 there will always be some deaths because of this.

It's the appearance of doing something - the proceedure rather than the outcome that is important. That boxes are ticked, events are highlighted, the right agencies are informed etc. In the Private / Charitable sector it is outcomes that are important. Within reason, the how is far less important.

Oh, and no training / time is spent on young men who commit suicide every week. On average there's 80/week. But then I can't remember the last news story that focused on this stat.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Overpaid? Speaking as a civil servant, almost all of us are paid less than people doing equivalent jobs in the commercial sector. Yes, the benefits are very good, but I consider that a fair trade-off for the lower pay.

The average federal employee pay is about twice what the average American makes. So I don't think you're underpaid. In my small hometown one city position is paid $100k - and doesn't require a college degree. I don't think public employees should be able to unionize either; they have no real opposition to keep costs low based on profitability. They also strive to support the worst employees.


Also, yes, there is the prodecure that has to be followed, you can't just stick cases into the shredder like private companies which can just wash their hands from it, you need to follow it by the book and the letter because the public demand it, also to eliminate and minimise risk from America's sue culture.

Um, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? The public certainly does not demand it - if anything it's the opposite. From Tincow:


First, the laws governing what we can do and how we can do it are extraordinarily complex and specific. Common sense often takes a back seat to proper procedure, but that's not our fault, it's the fault of Congress and the Executive Branch. We have to operate in the ways we are told to operate, and no individual can simply choose to violate protocol even when we know it's absurd.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

The public certainly does not demand it - if anything it's the opposite.The public at large demands their government to resolve issues quickly, cheaply, with a 'single stroke of the pen', and not wastefully involving four civil servants going over the same case.

The private citizen individually demands his government to meticulously go over his every point of contention. Taking into account every single rule, his personal story how he is the exception to the rule, and countless appeals.

[Ja'chyra]

Taken from the PUS's own speech:

Sir Bill said that over the last 12 years, partly as a result of the efficiency programme, the number of MOD civilians has fallen from 133,290 to 86,200, a reduction of more than 45,000

And now they are talking about, and in fact doing, further cuts. As I said before I am all for efficiency but you can only cut manpower so far before you can't do the job anymore. Privatising the civil service jobs doesn't work because guess which companies consistently get those types of contracts? Yep, the suppliers, so you end up with contractors assigning themselves work and contrary to what MP's tell you it is never cheaper, it only moves money from one budget to another, ask the NAO.

As for wages I earn £35k a year and for that I run a £50m project that directly supports front line troops with one other member of staff, the contractors who are bidding on my project earn double what I do.

Some people also argue we are lazy and not committed to the job, I have almost 30 hours of flexi built up, and cannot claim for overtime or travelling time, even though I took 2 days flexi leave last month and worked during both those days. My other half also works for the MOD and loses flexi hours every month because she cant afford to take the time off. Another project in my team is currently working at 60% understaff and still attempting to stick to timescales.

But that is all about the MOD, I agree some civil servants get paid too much and I don't agree with any civil servant being paid more than the prime minister but believing everything you hear in the media about what we do and get paid is a bit unfair.

I still believe that just cutting funds and people are the wrong way to go, read the Haddon-Cave report and you see what happens when you arbitrarily impose cuts without proper thought, what we should be doing is identifying projects that are not essential and scrapping them and stopping inefficient contracts that are already placed. Maybe the upcoming strategic defence review will do this.

[TinCow]

The average federal employee pay is about twice what the average American makes. So I don't think you're underpaid. In my small hometown one city position is paid $100k - and doesn't require a college degree. I don't think public employees should be able to unionize either; they have no real opposition to keep costs low based on profitability. They also strive to support the worst employees.

Yes, the average federal employee is paid more than the average American. I do not claim otherwise. What I'm talking about is an equivalent position in the commercial sector. Most federal jobs are white-collar deskjobs which on average have a higher level of pay than the average non-federal job. It's inappropriate to compare a federal salary to that of a waiter or retail job, because the federal government does not employ people in those positions. That's like saying that doctors are overpaid because they make more than the average American. The proper comparison is with equivalent jobs in the commercial sector, not with the entire commercial sector.

[Beskar]

Yes, the average federal employee is paid more than the average American. I do not claim otherwise. What I'm talking about is an equivalent position in the commercial sector. Most federal jobs are white-collar deskjobs which on average have a higher level of pay than the average non-federal job. It's inappropriate to compare a federal salary to that of a waiter or retail job, because the federal government does not employ people in those positions. That's like saying that doctors are overpaid because they make more than the average American. The proper comparison is with equivalent jobs in the commercial sector, not with the entire commercial sector.

Maybe CR is a secret communist who plays everyone should be paid the average wage?

But yes, as TinCow said, you need to compare the some one of a similar position and job.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

:stare:

That **** is crazy.

CR

[Beskar]

Looks startling, but it doesn't look quite right. Why did they say 170,000 plus and not the same 150,000 as before? It could be things like inflation, which could have tipped the balance to over the mark.

Though, you have to remember, a Doctor makes $300,000 or even more in wages.

[KukriKhan]

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

Apparently I'm doing something wrong, or failing to do something right, with my $56K salary after 21 years. I knew I shudda gone DOT instead of USPS. Stupid me :wall:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Apparently I'm doing something wrong, or failing to do something right, with my $56K salary after 21 years. I knew I shudda gone DOT instead of USPS. Stupid me :wall:

Whoops:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Also, I tend to think of postal workers/firemen/library staff as a much better value than the bureaucrats in DC or state capitols.


Though, you have to remember, a Doctor makes $300,000 or even more in wages.
:stare: :wall:

Doctors go to years of schooling that costs hundreds of thousands, and put in long years of study and work. There's no comparison.


Why did they say 170,000 plus and not the same 150,000 as before? It could be things like inflation, which could have tipped the balance to over the mark.

Different departments.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Though, you have to remember, a Doctor makes $300,000 or even more in wages.

It is also an awful lot harder to become a doctor.

[Husar]

Not to forget doctors are usually held to a high standard as they're often directly responsible for a person's (quality of) life. More responsibility, stress etc.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not to forget doctors are usually held to a high standard as they're often directly responsible for a person's (quality of) life. More responsibility, stress etc.

They don't make the "thick slice of the pie" that they used to, so we're seeing fewer of our "best and brightest" pursuing medicine. Probably the biggest single restriction there is the decrease in net income by the physician resulting from higher costs (mostly mal-practice insurance).

By contrast, we have a steadily increasing number of personal injury and social security lawyers.

[Beskar]

Doctors go to years of schooling that costs hundreds of thousands, and put in long years of study and work. There's no comparison.

How about those football players getting $50,000 per week? All they do is kick a ball around. Why aren't you angry about those wages?

[KukriKhan]

How about those football players getting $50,000 per week? All they do is kick a ball around. Why aren't you angry about those wages?

I guess cuz his taxes aren't paying them.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Doctors go to years of schooling that costs hundreds of thousands, and put in long years of study and work.But that would pretty much sum up federal employees. Federal employees are much more educated than the national average. And they are employed mostly at the managerial and professional level.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

The Fed Gov't is also more efficient than private industry: they make do with less office and administrative support. :beam:


To say that Fed employees earn twice the national average is as relevant as saying that in a hospital, mnagement rewards its own employees better than those it hires as outsourced workers, when the first are mostly medical staff and the latter an outside cleaning agency.

[Crazed Rabbit]

How about those football players getting $50,000 per week? All they do is kick a ball around. Why aren't you angry about those wages?

Like Kukri said, I ain't paying them. I oppose taxpayer funded stadiums, and I don't go to football games because it's way to expensive.


To say that Fed employees earn twice the national average is as relevant as saying that in a hospital,

I wonder how many hospitals increased by astronomical percentages the number of highly paid positions they had, the number of employees they had, since the recession began.
:rolleyes:
CR

[Strike For The South]

Like Kukri said, I ain't paying them. I oppose taxpayer funded stadiums, and I don't go to football games because it's way to expensive.

CR


Communist

[Beskar]

Communist

If he was a communist, he would nationalise the Stadiums and lower the wages so they are fairer, he would lower the prices so more people could go and enjoy the games. He would open community intatives to help young people get into sports with the profits he would rake in and assist in other community led ventures, etc.

[Strike For The South]

If he was a communist, he would nationalise the Stadiums and lower the wages so they are fairer, he would lower the prices so more people could go and enjoy the games. He would open community intatives to help young people get into sports with the profits he would rake in and assist in other community led ventures, etc.

O rly?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meh, 'merican sports ARE communist. What with their tight regulations, salary caps, egalitarianism, drafting of young players. :smug:

[Husar]

Like Kukri said, I ain't paying them.

So you don't buy any of the products advertised there either?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So you don't buy any of the products advertised there either?

If the company has a large bureaucracy and their prices go up, he won't have to buy the product. He always has to pay the government.

[Husar]

If the company has a large bureaucracy and their prices go up, he won't have to buy the product. He always has to pay the government.

So you mean if he thinks Coca cola pays too much for their advertisement, he can switch to Pepsi because they uhm, advertise there, too?
I was just saying he probably pays for them in some way or another, of course it might be possible to live in a remote mountain and grow your own cattle and vegetables to save on the advertising costs so you only pay taxes anymore but I doubt many people really care enough.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So you mean if he thinks Coca cola pays too much for their advertisement, he can switch to Pepsi because they uhm, advertise there, too?

Or he can buy generic supermarket cola at less than half of the unit price of Coca Cola. Or just not buy cola altogether. That's the thing - it's his choice.

[Furunculus]

So you mean if he thinks Coca cola pays too much for their advertisement, he can switch to Pepsi because they uhm, advertise there, too?


yes you can. i don't watch TV, i don't have a TV, i don't pay for a TV license.

we had a plymouth brethren kid when i was in school, he didn't watch TV and we thought he was a freak, now it doesn't seem so much of a big deal.

off course i don't think TV is evil, but the point stands

[Husar]

yes you can. i don't watch TV, i don't have a TV, i don't pay for a TV license.

we had a plymouth brethren kid when i was in school, he didn't watch TV and we thought he was a freak, now it doesn't seem so much of a big deal.

off course i don't think TV is evil, but the point stands

I don't have TV either, but Coca cola isn't the only thing they advertise there so are you trying to say that Crazed Rabbit goes to the supermarket with a list of things they advertise in sports games where he thinks the athletes are overpaid and consciously avoids buying anything on that list so that he does not support their high wages? I'd like to hear that from himself. ~;)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I don't have TV either, but Coca cola isn't the only thing they advertise there so are you trying to say that Crazed Rabbit goes to the supermarket with a list of things they advertise in sports games where he thinks the athletes are overpaid and consciously avoids buying anything on that list so that he does not support their high wages? I'd like to hear that from himself. ~;)

No, but if he wanted to he could. Perhaps he likes Coca Cola. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to buy it. Our point is entirely that one is mandatory and one is not.

[Husar]

No, but if he wanted to he could. Perhaps he likes Coca Cola. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to buy it. Our point is entirely that one is mandatory and one is not.

And my point was entirely that, mandatory or not, he pays for it anyway.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And my point was entirely that, mandatory or not, he pays for it anyway.

Yes and no. He pays for the products he wants and only those he wants, which has the positive side effect of keeping the economy going, which allows other people to make the same choices.

[Husar]

Yes and no. He pays for the products he wants and only those he wants, which has the positive side effect of keeping the economy going, which allows other people to make the same choices.

Paying your taxes has the positive side effect of keeping people alive, which allows those people to make choices in the first place. Of course he could pay only for those he wants to be alive and only those, but he couldn't pay me enough to tell a soldier to go to war naked because someone chose not to pay for his gear. ~;)

[Ironside]

New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

•Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.

EMFM should you recommend that you can choose which airports to use or which kind of national defense CR should personally use?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

EMFM should you recommend that you can choose which airports to use or which kind of national defense CR should personally use?

I can choose which airports or airlines to use, and indeed I do. When airport tax becomes prohibitive I will simply move my business to the airport nearby with slightly less airport tax if that makes the overall cost cheaper. National defense is another matter, and obviously some things should be handled by government, but that does not necessarily invalidate my argument.


Paying your taxes has the positive side effect of keeping people alive, which allows those people to make choices in the first place. Of course he could pay only for those he wants to be alive and only those, but he couldn't pay me enough to tell a soldier to go to war naked because someone chose not to pay for his gear. ~;)

Which brings me back to my first point that I have to pay those taxes, whereas I can choose from where I acquire food, water, luxuries, and shelter.

[Fisherking]

Well, back to civil servants.

Everyone has this stereotype of the surly person behind the counter who treats you like dirt and won't deal with your problem.

That is a very convenient stereotype for the politicians. It is even true of a very few places...Usually the DMV...

Anyway, the average civil servant is anything but overpaid for the work they do and most of the retirement plans are a shadow of what they once were.

There is waste in government, beyond any doubt! And it to a great extent stems from bureaucracy.

But the biggest part is political patronage and how it is funneled back into the privet sector.

Government is top heavy with administrators and managers who increase costs and the guy at the bottom gets all the blame.

Worthless studies of everything from traffic to how to reduce costs are a major factor in what you pay too.

Government contracts to privet firms cost you an arm and a leg, and but for accounting reasons and high managers’ salaries could be done cheaper by the public sector.

I once worked as a federal employee. In one organization, a workforce of 600 personnel supported a top level management force of 280 managers, not to mention their office staff and equipment.

All those people had to justify their jobs by writing requirements and regulations governing the work being done.

Now when costs are too high, guess who gets eliminated... They find new places for those managers and eliminate the workforce.

They can show a cost savings on paper but what was the service worth...and then they have a privet firm perform the task at only double the cost.

So by all means save your money and privatize...

Except that the reason for civil service is because the privet sector could not be trusted with the quality of work...

[Louis VI the Fat]

New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

•Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.Hang on...

So a Republican congress increases the wages for Federal employees. Does this by increasing the wages for the higher ups and by higher defense spending pork. This will be reversed by a Democrat congress, but in the statistics it will show up for 2009-2012 as the period of increased federal spending?

The Republicans are the most deviously clever political force on the planet.


Edit: Also, might as well repeat that: federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.

[Ironside]

I can choose which airports or airlines to use, and indeed I do. When airport tax becomes prohibitive I will simply move my business to the airport nearby with slightly less airport tax if that makes the overall cost cheaper. National defense is another matter, and obviously some things should be handled by government, but that does not necessarily invalidate my argument.


I should've added that the closest other airport is 130 km away... Or why not 340 km to take another airport.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So a Republican congress increases the wages for Federal employees. Does this by increasing the wages for the higher ups and by higher defense spending pork. This will be reversed by a Democrat congress, but in the statistics it will show up for 2009-2012 as the period of increased federal spending?

The Republicans are the most deviously clever political force on the planet.

Edit: Also, might as well repeat that: federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.

According to a federal employee who has a vested interest in making us think that.

Also, the Congress has been Democratic since 2006 - it was the Democratic congressmen who raised the salaries.


Except that the reason for civil service is because the privet sector could not be trusted with the quality of work...

In America we have a saying, "Good enough for government work".

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I should've added that the closest other airport is 130 km away... Or why not 340 km to take another airport.

Take another airline then, the one with the most competitive rates.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Also, the Congress has been Democratic since 2006 - it was the Democratic congressmen who raised the salaries.One more bout of reason like that and I'm putting you on ignore.

[Ironside]

Take another airline then, the one with the most competitive rates.

Not going well here so I rather spell out my point. Airports, roads, rails, sanitation and several other infrastructures are of monopolistic nature due to obvious inefficiency for having multiple systems. Monopoles are by nature not free market, thus not having the benefit of competition.

So the only classical capitalistic driving force is profit, putting a non-regulated road stuck at the mercy of the stock market, who have the attention span of a four year old, the long term planning of a gold fish and the company loyalty of a leaf in a tornado.

Or is goverment regulated/owned, who need employees.


In America we have a saying, "Good enough for government work".

CR

I'm not surprised. It's elementary, my dear Watson, sayings are always built on facts and never at all on perception.

Anyway. If I get you right, the goverment suck out your money and employes stupid people that get payed the highest salaries, while the private sector are stuck with all those smart people who get payed much less.

Wait a minute, doesn't high salaries usually be the recruiment tool for competence? :thinking2:

[Fisherking]

According to a federal employee who has a vested interest in making us think that.

Also, the Congress has been Democratic since 2006 - it was the Democratic congressmen who raised the salaries.



In America we have a saying, "Good enough for government work".

CR

When I did that job I was working for the Defense Department.

Yes, Good enough for Government Work meant that you could take the shortcuts and not make it a quality product because the government would pay you anyway...it was a contractors attitude and exactly why the first civil service was founded. To build quality products for Defense.

What was said from the Federal Managers Association actually comes from the GAO.

To a certain point it is true, particularly for clerks and aidmin which is the bulk of employees.

There are many specialists though and they are better paid.

[TinCow]

:stare:

That **** is crazy.

CR

That article gives absolutely no information on which positions are earning those salaries. How can you call those salaries crazy when you have no idea what the jobs are? Are you insinuating that there's no job in the entire federal government that warrants a $150-$170k salary?


Also, the Congress has been Democratic since 2006 - it was the Democratic congressmen who raised the salaries.

Federal employees get their salaries raised every year by between 1 to 3 percent, it's called a cost of living adjustment and is intended to compensate for inflation. It happens every year, regardless of who is in office in Congress. Republicans approve it annually just as much as Democrats do, and there's never any opposition to it by the minority party, regardless of who's in power. Considering that most federal employees are not eligible for bonuses, a 1 to 3 percent pay rise isn't very much.

FYI, federal salary information is not secret. The basic GS scale (which the vast majority of us are on) is freely available here (http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/indexGS.asp). Pick an individual city to see the local cost of living adjustment, or use the 'Rest of United States' option if you want to see what the pay levels are outside of those cities. As you'll see, there are a lot of positions that aren't paying a whole lot, and it's only at the highest GS levels where anyone is making a 6 figure salary.

To give you a comparison, my agency hires attorneys at either the GS-9 level if they're fresh out of law school and at GS-11 if they've had at least 2 years of legal experience. On the DC pay scale (http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/dcb.asp), that's $50k for a new grad and $60k for an experienced attorney. Not only is that less than half of what big firms pay brand new attorneys, it's also in a city that's extremely expensive to live in. Keep in mind that the average person (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0202/060.html) graduates law school with over $100k in debt due to student loans. The same is true for a lot of the other higher-pay scale jobs, which require Masters or PhDs. $100k isn't as much as it seems when you've got to pay $2k on loans every month on top of all your other living expenses, and those loans often can take 20+ years to pay off AND you can't get rid of them by bankruptcy.

Also, if you want to know much much money any single Federal employee makes, that information is also available to the public by law. You can get salary info through 2008 right here (http://php.app.com/fed_employees/search.php). Go look up the people you know in your area, I'm sure you'll find they're not stupendously wealthy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Pay isn't everything. Civil servants also have job security, and the higher ranking ones have essentially unaccountable levels of power. Yes, things must be done in the proper way, but in effect bureaucrats often end up with a fair amount of power. They are not accountable to the taxpayer, as the taxpayer cannot remove them from office. They aren't really accountable to politicians, since politicians come and go, and in practice the civil service is probably as powerful as they are anyway. Money isn't everything.

[Ja'chyra]

Pay isn't everything. Civil servants also have job security,

Not in this country

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not in this country

Here it is almost impossible to fire a Beamter, and in your country I believe it is difficult also difficult to fire high-ranking civil servants especially, but also teachers, for example.

[al Roumi]

Here it is almost impossible to fire a Beamter, and in your country I believe it is difficult also difficult to fire high-ranking civil servants especially, but also teachers, for example.

Difficult to fire, yes, but not difficult to move around and ruin their career.

In the UK, civil servants serve. They are meant to be impartial to politics and the government in power. Their objectivity is what aids a smooth (ha) transition of power between governments (unlike the US for example, where a whole swathe of mid/high ranking civil servants are appointed by the government in power).

I utterly refute EMFM's assertion that Civil Servants have as much power as politicians. Some will, by nature of their skill and success gain the ear of ministers in power, but otherwise there is a strict chain of authority where ultimately everything that happens or is approved is done so with a ministers approval or guidance. The elected MPs are those who take decisions, civil servants implement them on their behalf.

Having worked in both private secor and civil service, I am happy to say that both have their advantages and disadvantages. To argue otherwise, or that one is simply better is the height of ignorance and idiocy. Yes, that is intended as potentially insulting.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Difficult to fire, yes, but not difficult to move around and ruin their career.

So they can still maintain a good salary, benefits, and job security. My point exactly.


In the UK, civil servants serve. They are meant to be impartial to politics and the government in power. Their objectivity is what aids a smooth (ha) transition of power between governments (unlike the US for example, where a whole swathe of mid/high ranking civil servants are appointed by the government in power).

I utterly refute EMFM's assertion that Civil Servants have as much power as politicians. Some will, by nature of their skill and success gain the ear of ministers in power, but otherwise there is a strict chain of authority where ultimately everything that happens or is approved is done so with a ministers approval or guidance. The elected MPs are those who take decisions, civil servants implement them on their behalf.

You're right. In theory.

[Watchman]

You're right. In theory.Elected representatives and the like - you know, politicians - are also supposed to represent the interests of their voters and work for the common good.
In theory.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Elected representatives and the like - you know, politicians - are also supposed to represent the interests of their voters and work for the common good.
In theory.

I didn't say I disagreed with that.