Op-ed on GOP's proposed federal hiring freeze
In case you missed it: A leading proponent of the federal workforce struck out at Republican proposals to freeze the federal workforce in an op-ed published in Saturday's Washington Post. Max Stier, president of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, called the proposals, "counterproductive," adding they "would handcuff our government's ability to effectively fulfill important functions."
The congressional focus in these difficult times should be on the goal everyone presumably wants: an efficient and competent government. "Rightsizing" the federal workforce requires careful analysis and prudent choices. Some agencies may need fewer employees, but other places may need more. The Republican plan for uniform cutbacks would eliminate such flexibility and preempt strategic decision-making.
Does the public want the Interior Department, for example, to be automatically barred from hiring additional inspectors to guard against more devastating oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico or applying leverage where other potential disasters may be brewing? When the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in April, there were just 60 inspectors to cover nearly 4,000 facilities in the region.
Do we want to stop the Food and Drug Administration from hiring scientists and experts it may need to prevent food-borne illnesses like the recent outbreak of salmonella from eggs?
Max has written similar essays before, but the argument remains a good one. Or does it?
Read the full column and leave your thoughts in the comments section below
| September 27, 2010; 11:00 AM ET
Categories: Congress, From The Pages of The Post, Workplace Issues
Save & Share: Previous: Eye Opener: Obama's green czar leaving? Defense contractors regroup, Filipino flag flap
Next: FBI cheating confirmed by Justice Department
The comments to this entry are closed.