Civil Service equity edged out for cronies

[nordskoven]

The Brits invented the civil service system of competitive examinations in 1855 to insure the very best workers and the biggest bang for the…pound. America adopted the same system of competitive examinations. But as Vice-President, Al Gore insisted we “reinvent government.” Catchy. How that has played out in the Federal government is: no more testing the abilities of extremely competent, highly talented if under-educated [poor black] workers in favor of simply hiring [rich white] people who have any kind of degree. And now managers are able to promote from within without benefit of any objective testing. This means that wildly talented “commoners” are back-burnered in favor of the wealthy and well-educated; and managers can now promote fellow cronies, the very thing that the civil service was started to stop. Greater waste, fraud and abuse is guaranteed in this milieu of mediocrity.

Where once an hour+ long test was administered at a federal facility like an open casting call, suburban computerites get on-line, maneuver past the kinks and crashes in the USA Jobs system, and simply (name removed by moderator)ut their resume without any objective testing. In-house promotions of cronies are done by a clique of managers who select kindred spirits to get fast-tracked into management training programs without any objective testing to show that they are psychologically fit or verifiably skilled for the position. These manager-committees themselves have no special human resource training. If they like the cut of your jib, you’re in. So now the federal work force looks Barbie-ish and Snow Whiter where once an amalgam of the best and brightest–whether giants, dwarves, obese, skinny, rural, ghetto, shy or outspoken–formed the backbone of a government you once had to compete to serve. C’mon. Wake up. We’re paying for this re-invented, re-institutionalized prejudice. We need to get the most bang for the buck and gain the social justice America once promoted.

Most High God, make us hunger and thirst for justice and, by Your mercy and grace, be sated; all for Your honor and glory. AMEN

 

[JimG]

Entry into the U.S. Federal Civil Service was at first subject to taking the FSEE—the Federal Service Entrance Exam—and it had a good record of selecting well qualified candidates.

But in 1972, suit was filed against the use of the FSEE on the grounds that it was biased against minorities. A new exam—PACE—replaced the FSEE. (I don’t recall what the acronym stood for.) Still, it was still contended that PACE selected minorities at a less than expected rate, and suit was filed to abolish PACE. Pres. Carter signed a consent decree in 1981 agreeing to abolish PACE.

As far as I know, no test replaced it, and Federal hiring is now based on a sort of resume type factors. But in any Federal agency it is quite common for hiring decisions to be second guessed by EEOC complaints alleging non-selection on the basis or race, sex, or age. A lot of hiring decisions are routinely followed up with a series of EEOC hearings from complaints brought by those who were not selected. And while hiring decisions are seldom overturned, cash settlements to EEOC complaints are frequently made, so it is a sort of a win-win for those filing; they have nothing to lose and something to gain.

 

[TheDoors]

Don’t the feds use Affirmative Action as part of their standards?

 

[JimG]

Don’t the feds use Affirmative Action as part of their standards?

I’m not sure if they do now. Actual practices may vary from one agency to another. Even if affirmative action is taken into consideration, it is supposed to be considered only among a pool of qualified candidates. A candidate who is not qualified could not be selected simply on the basis of affirmative action.

 

[TheDoors]

I’m not sure if they do now. Actual practices may vary from one agency to another. Even if affirmative action is taken into consideration, it is supposed to be considered only among a pool of qualified candidates. A candidate who is not qualified could not be selected simply on the basis of affirmative action.

But it’s still a preference based on race. My current job has on their HR website that they give preferential treatment to minorities. As a straight white christian middle-class male, I found that to be pretty offensive.

 

[JimG]

But it’s still a preference based on race. My current job has on their HR website that they give preferential treatment to minorities. As a straight white christian middle-class male, I found that to be pretty offensive.

Well, I don’t know what agency policies are currently. In the agency I worked for it was explained that when it came to affirmative action, the application of it would be at the end of the process. That is, if we had several equally well qualified applicants, one of whom could help us meet affirmative action goals, that might tip the decision. But I never had anyone question a hiring decision just because it didn’t advance affirmative action goals.

On the other hand, there might have been 15 “qualified” applicants. (HR rates them as qualified even before they are referred to the selecting official.) After exhaustive interviews and reviews of records, one makes the best decision possible. That doesn’t stop EEOC complaint filings, because every one not selected usually has some basis to claim discrimination–age, sex, gender–and the chances of obtaining a monetary settlement, though not the job, are pretty good, because the agency’s cost of defending the hiring decision is more than the cost of settlement.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

The Brits invented the civil service system of competitive examinations in 1855 to insure the very best workers and the biggest bang for the…pound. America adopted the same system of competitive examinations. But as Vice-President, Al Gore insisted we “reinvent government.” Catchy. How that has played out in the Federal government is: no more testing the abilities of extremely competent, highly talented if under-educated [poor black] workers in favor of simply hiring [rich white] people who have any kind of degree. And now managers are able to promote from within without benefit of any objective testing. This means that wildly talented “commoners” are back-burnered in favor of the wealthy and well-educated; and managers can now promote fellow cronies, the very thing that the civil service was started to stop. Greater waste, fraud and abuse is guaranteed in this milieu of mediocrity.

Where once an hour+ long test was administered at a federal facility like an open casting call, suburban computerites get on-line, maneuver past the kinks and crashes in the USA Jobs system, and simply (name removed by moderator)ut their resume without any objective testing. In-house promotions of cronies are done by a clique of managers who select kindred spirits to get fast-tracked into management training programs without any objective testing to show that they are psychologically fit or verifiably skilled for the position. These manager-committees themselves have no special human resource training. If they like the cut of your jib, you’re in. So now the federal work force looks Barbie-ish and Snow Whiter where once an amalgam of the best and brightest–whether giants, dwarves, obese, skinny, rural, ghetto, shy or outspoken–formed the backbone of a government you once had to compete to serve. C’mon. Wake up. We’re paying for this re-invented, re-institutionalized prejudice. We need to get the most bang for the buck and gain the social justice America once promoted.

Most High God, make us hunger and thirst for justice and, by Your mercy and grace, be sated; all for Your honor and glory. AMEN

Everything listed appears to be true. Except, the end result. Quite the opposite. But, lets focus on the problem. Subjective promotions hurt everyone. Testing, to establish an eligability list. Followed by promotions, based on senoirity is the fairest system.

ATB

 

[JimG]

Everything listed appears to be true. Except, the end result. Quite the opposite. But, lets focus on the problem. Subjective promotions hurt everyone. Testing, to establish an eligability list. Followed by promotions, based on senoirity is the fairest system.

ATB

But seniority in one job is not an indication of competence for a different job. Plus, many jobs require human relations skills as well as technical skills. That has to be evaluated on an individual basis.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

But seniority in one job is not an indication of competence for a different job. Plus, many jobs require human relations skills as well as technical skills. That has to be evaluated on an individual basis.

Jim, the testing process is to establish qualifications, and or aptitude. The Senoirity list, just ensures the fairest path to promotion.

ATB