70k Applications Lost When Federal Computer Goes Down

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The bad news...70,000 application were lost when the government's online hiring system went down. The good news...at least it wasn't a system breach that dumped your info into the hands of crooks.

The Office of Personnel Management's USA Staffing system — which posts vacancy announcements on USAJobs.gov and accepts, rates and ranks job applications — was unexpectedly taken down Aug. 9, according to an Aug. 12 listserv notice from the Health and Human Services Department. OPM brought it back online two days later, but had to revert to a backup version stored on Aug. 7, HHS said. This meant that job applications submitted between late afternoon Aug. 7 to midday Aug. 9 were lost.
Click to expand...
 
As they bloat the government, of course there will be more government jobs available. Most are redundant and useless anyway.
 
i would hate to be in THAT IT department, they must be getting a lot of heat. it doesn't matter if it was their fault or just the nature of disaster recovery, IT gets the heat anyway...
 
I understand that their apps need to have a lot of info because so many damn people apply; but to me the application process is a deterrent from even trying. It's like writing a goddamn term paper just to fill out the initial app, then it is a potentially month or years long interview process. F it, I don't need the hassle.
 
Eisenblut said:
As they bloat the government, of course there will be more government jobs available. Most are redundant and useless anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually a lot of the current spike in unemployment has been because of local and state government layoffs and with the deficit reduction efforts at the Federal level there's going to be a spike in layoffs coming years there as well.

It's great to talk about cutting government and throwing people out of work but if there aren't enough private sector jobs for these people to shift into the cuts aren't necessarily as effective as people my think. That's just more people unable to buy things, pay their bills and send more houses into foreclosure. Essentially perpetuating the mess we're in.
 
heatlesssun said:
It's great to talk about cutting government and throwing people out of work but if there aren't enough private sector jobs for these people to shift into the cuts aren't necessarily as effective as people my think. That's just more people unable to buy things, pay their bills and send more houses into foreclosure. Essentially perpetuating the mess we're in.
Click to expand...

I really find it hard to believe jobs will bounce back. Theres just no need anymore. Everyone has had to adapt to doing the same amount of work with less people. Why hire anyone back if you're getting just as much production out of your current, non-layed off employees?
 
You need to have a job in order to get a job, nearly everywhere. In the world.

Also, backups need to have their own backups. Especially for things like these.
 
jadams said:
I really find it hard to believe jobs will bounce back. Theres just no need anymore. Everyone has had to adapt to doing the same amount of work with less people. Why hire anyone back if you're getting just as much production out of your current, non-layed off employees?
Click to expand...

I COMPLETELY agree with this. LOTS of people need to get retooled and retrained for the jobs that ARE there and likely to be created in the future. That's going to take some money, money that unemployed people don't have and I don't see businesses spending a lot of resources on retraining unemployed American workers when they can import the labor or export the jobs much cheaper.
 
The thing is, no one knows what those future jobs will be. So if we start retraining everyone now, it is likely it will be irrelevant. Not that I think we should sit on our hands, but even people who advocate for retraining (Ryan Avent is an economist and writer for...The Economist) admit most studies show it is very ineffective.
 
TwistedAegis said:
The thing is, no one knows what those future jobs will be. So if we start retraining everyone now, it is likely it will be irrelevant. Not that I think we should sit on our hands, but even people who advocate for retraining (Ryan Avent is an economist and writer for...The Economist) admit most studies show it is very ineffective.
Click to expand...

Of course the future can't be predicted but I think say training for mortgage brokers and real estate agents would be a bad move. And not all educational methods are created equal, some programs work, some don't. Personally I'd love to see BUSINESSES take the lead on this. If they are clamoring for a better skilled workforce then why don't they MAKE ONE in the US.
 
Yeah, that's what I wonder too. What ever happened to training, apprenticeships, etc. Businesses want the government to provide them with tax free, trained labor.
 
heatlesssun said:
Actually a lot of the current spike in unemployment has been because of local and state government layoffs and with the deficit reduction efforts at the Federal level there's going to be a spike in layoffs coming years there as well.

It's great to talk about cutting government and throwing people out of work but if there aren't enough private sector jobs for these people to shift into the cuts aren't necessarily as effective as people my think. That's just more people unable to buy things, pay their bills and send more houses into foreclosure. Essentially perpetuating the mess we're in.
Click to expand...
well government employee salary is a big part of the issue. Its something many dont talk about but many of these government offices are like one big clubhouse where they all vote themselves nice comfy salaries and benefits... they're the government after all... they can do what they want I guess.
I see glorified paper pushing data entry positions getting paid 70K/year with full benefits that include a ridiculous pension where continue getting paid your salary after you retire.
 
Government pay is skewed. It is bottom-heavy. Non- or barely skilled positions get paid much higher than they would in the private sector, while skilled, professional and managerial positions get paid less.

If you look at the qualifications they want for, say, a bank examiner, they'll pay $100-$130k. With those same qualifications in the private sector you could easily make 2x that.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Government pay is skewed. It is bottom-heavy. Non- or barely skilled positions get paid much higher than they would in the private sector, while skilled, professional and managerial positions get paid less.

If you look at the qualifications they want for, say, a bank examiner, they'll pay $100-$130k. With those same qualifications in the private sector you could easily make 2x that.
Click to expand...

Totally agree! This is absolutely correct. There are two sides to the public misconception that everyone in the government makes 100K.

First, Gov't pay is bottom heavy. Clerical staff and other relatively low skilled jobs are paid very well compared to the private sector, but people such as medical doctors or experienced attorneys are paid significantly less than their experience would warrant in the private sector.

Second, a large percentage of workers in the federal gov't are attorneys. This necessarily warrants higher pay than the entry level jobs, due to the level of education required. I learned several years ago that over half of all FBI agents were attorneys. I had no idea.
 
eon said:
well government employee salary is a big part of the issue. Its something many dont talk about but many of these government offices are like one big clubhouse where they all vote themselves nice comfy salaries and benefits... they're the government after all... they can do what they want I guess.
I see glorified paper pushing data entry positions getting paid 70K/year with full benefits that include a ridiculous pension where continue getting paid your salary after you retire.
Click to expand...

The truth is, most of those with the big pensions are close to retiring. If you were employed by the feds before pres. Regan changed the pension plan (early 80's I think) then you get to use your three highest years as your base salary and get 2% of that per year you work up to a maximum of 80%. In other words, if you worked 40+ years and your highest average salary was 100K, then you will get 80K as a pension for life when you retire. That's pretty awesome and too generous.

After the law changed, you get only 1%, which, while nice, is much more realistic. No one is getting rich on 30-40K on retirement (and that's if you made 100K). Is it too much? I don't think so. It's more of a compensation if in your job, you were paid less than the private market would bear. However, this does break down when you have typists making 50K.
 
Jerrin said:
The truth is, most of those with the big pensions are close to retiring. If you were employed by the feds before pres. Regan changed the pension plan (early 80's I think) then you get to use your three highest years as your base salary and get 2% of that per year you work up to a maximum of 80%. In other words, if you worked 40+ years and your highest average salary was 100K, then you will get 80K as a pension for life when you retire. That's pretty awesome and too generous.

After the law changed, you get only 1%, which, while nice, is much more realistic. No one is getting rich on 30-40K on retirement (and that's if you made 100K). Is it too much? I don't think so. It's more of a compensation if in your job, you were paid less than the private market would bear. However, this does break down when you have typists making 50K.
Click to expand...

well I wasnt really talking just federal... in California pensions are higher than that. plus theres tricks and loopsholes signed in intentionally by Gov Jerry Brown to inflate your final years salary thats giving these ridiculous pensions. Its a big burden on the state's economy but when you have the entire state government in on it from the Governor down to the janitors it pretty much goes unopposed.
 
The IRS is one of the largest Federal employers, so if we move to a simpler tax system like a flat tax, we could really cut down on the size of the govt workforce. Our federal government is still so bloated and out of control it is sad. The gravy train must end and we will all suffer. The federal govt cannot provide everything to everyone, sooner or later the working people will say fuck this, why work let the govt fed me, house me, insure me, then ends the tax base. USA will end as we know it if we dont turn the shop around before it is tooooo late. It is not a republican or democrat issue, it is an issue of career politicians who don't have a fucking clue what the working tax paying people want or care about. We need term limits to keep all Senators and Congressmen to only one six year term. No pension or insurance for life, pay them very well for their term and thats it. If we dont the lobbyists and career politicians from all parties will continue to fuck us. God bless the USA!
 
Economics 101

You cannot spend your way out of deep debt. No amount of spending will ever grow the economy fast enough to offset the current debt + additional spending. Everyone should be prepared for a future of financial pain.
 
hellokeith said:
Economics 101

You cannot spend your way out of deep debt. No amount of spending will ever grow the economy fast enough to offset the current debt + additional spending. Everyone should be prepared for a future of financial pain.
Click to expand...

Of course not, the idea is that the economy begins to grow on it's own as it did after WW II where we borrowed a ton of dough and it didn't destroy the country. The key is that the economy GROWS and creates JOBS.
 
I have to wonder if someone had candidates they wanted to fill some of those slots only to have candidates with disabilities or other criteria that intitiles them to extra points in the job selection they did not want have higher points apply. So when they accidentally dumped the DB they simply called the people they wanted in filled the position as soon as only the people they wanted apply to the new position and close it, not having to deal with the trouble you normally have to go through when you pull a position and put back up something similar, which is to protect those people with the extra points toward positions because of some service they have done.
 
heatlesssun said:
It's great to talk about cutting government and throwing people out of work but if there aren't enough private sector jobs for these people to shift into the cuts aren't necessarily as effective as people my think. That's just more people unable to buy things, pay their bills and send more houses into foreclosure. Essentially perpetuating the mess we're in.
Click to expand...
When those jobs cost 3x as much as normal jobs and often produce limited tangible benefits, I would rather have that money back in MY paycheck to pay MY bills. Public sector cuts are very effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top