Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote:
May 17, 2013 12:56 AM
It's ignored or not generally known that President Clinton changed the hiring rules in Federal Civil Service in 1993. He laid the groundwork for the current changing of FCS from it's professionalism and quality in 1992 to its current incompetence and political toadying. Less than half of Federal employees have the required degree for their job slots and most higher-ups were chosen for reasons other than competence. I worked for the Agriculture, Defense, and Commerce Departments. Today, I'm unhirable because I'm a white male, and worse, well-qualified. Well-qualified is now perceived as a "threat" to people who keep their jobs through affirmative action but do little or none of the actual work that their job slot is supposed to do. I was turned down more than 1500 times for race and gender by different agencies from the end of 2003 to 2012. Never mind that I was Schedule A disabled and rated as GS-4 to GS-13 in 21 specialties. I was white and male and that was the end of it. With that kind of discrimination, why would it surprise anyone that we have entire offices of the Federal government that have no competent members? There's no reason why the Feds couldn't have hired well-qualified women and minorities, but they made the deliberate choice not to. Why was that? It could have been a shining example of how everyone of any group could be hired if the government had continued to choose to hire people who had "done it right". Instead, they hired "chemists" who knew nothing of chemistry, "engineers" who had never cracked open a book on structures, "architects" that knew nothing of buildings, "foresters" who didn't know an aspen from a ponderosa, and so on. It's been a disaster. So why did they do it? Was it so that they would have a cadre of people whose continued employment depended upon the Democrats staying in power? It certainly wasn't good for the public to "waive" the requirements for job slots.