why are these people leaving? they should force the government to fire them and make a big stink about it.
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2025
49 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10255 readers
25 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's generally referred to as "a principled stance." The same result will happen either way; this way, you get to tell your kids you made the right choice.
to me, the more principled stance would be to stay and resist until they are forced to fire you, which makes them look bad. I would have no qualms about telling my kids I made the right choice in that scenario. But others have pointed out that doing this might lead to a career civil servant losing their retirement benefits, and I can understand that that is a lot to throw away for resistance actions that will ultimately change very little.
Probably has something to do with retirement funds. If you have been paying into the system for 30+ years you need that money when you retire and don’t want to see it wiped out or reduced if you are fired.
Being principled in government jobs has a high cost.
this makes a lot of sense to me. I can understand choosing to resign if this is the case.
I've been wondering if either they're being paid very well to leave or being threatened.
.. One could say the same of participation in the electoral process. Taking your ball and going home doesn't work any better as a voter than as an official.
i don't really agree that "one could say the same" because these are totally different situations. A voter is not a civil servant. A voter does not get paid to vote. Most voters did not swear an oath to defend the constitution (unless they are a naturalized citizen). A single voter also has no power to block an insurgent force from taking over key government systems, unlike a civil servant.
Also a voters pay and retirement benefits are not likely to be impacted by how they vote. Civil service it can make a huge difference in the long run if you retire vs get dismissed.
A single voter has(had) the power to join other single voters.
Most civil servants have little power against an AR.
Ooookay.
Is this being dismissive? You presented your point of view and they presented theirs. A nice exchange. You don't have to agree and you don't have to answer, but this end felt like an eye roll.
It is a massive eye roll.
Jesus fuckin christ. Quitting still gets them what they want. Force them to fire you and be an obstructionist little shit the whole way out.
As much as that is a wonderful sentiment. Retirement vs firing might make a substantial difference in their quality of life i. Retirement whereas getting fired is a symbolic gesture that may or may not have any impact at all. I can understand trying to make sure that personally you come out as on as possible.
Hmm, yeah, I suppose that's a good point. Thanks for the perspective.