George Bush & Senior Citizens - Screw The Gray Hairs!!

The BBQ Pit
1

Today our local office had to let go six senior citizens. The figures are still coming in but I believe our larger office had to let go more than 30 senior citizens. All told, I’m betting more than a thousand were let go nationwide by our federal agency today.

Fired. Gone. There’s the door; don’t let it hit you on the way out.

Our agency utilized a program administered by the Department of Labor:

"Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), funded under Title V of the Older Americans Act, serves persons with low incomes who are 55 years old or over and have poor employment prospects. The program has two purposes: to provide useful community services and to foster individual economic self sufficiency through training and job placement in unsubsidized jobs. Services provided include:

"* Up to 20 hours a week of part-time employment in community service assignments
"* Job training and related educational opportunities
“* Opportunities for placement into unsubsidized jobs”

Our seniors worked in the office, field offices and literally out in the field doing clerical work, assisting engineers, lawyers, other specialists and the public. It wasn’t makework at our location. They provided needed support.

For example, we had a retired engineer (in his 70s but looks/acts in his 50s) assist road engineers with data collection in the field, research back in the office and share his years of experience offering insight and guidance. He’s gone.

We had a little old lady – literally! – greeting visitors to the home office, doing clerical work, sales, and all sort of office minor jobs. She’s gone.

We had another lady with a mind as sharp as a tack doing legal research for us. Her work meant the more highly skilled legal beagles could devote their time (and your tax dollars) to their work, supported by the research this lady did. She’s gone.

All the SCSEP folks I knew we had for years. They proved themselves over and over again. We renewed their contracts because they performed, and their employment prospects in the general workforce nonexistent. As required by the program we tried to get them back into the workforce. But the reality is, who will hire senior citizens today when too many unemployed folks in their 30s, 40s, and 50s can’t get jobs, let alone folks in their 60s, 70s and 80s?

They are all gone. Funding for the program ends 30 June 2003, and we were ordered to terminate their services effective today. We had known for months through rumors the program might be cut back, but not terminated, and not with the out of the blue abruptness which occurred today.

They received no serverance, no retirement, nothing. One day being vital to us, the American People, and themselves. Today, cast to the winds. Folks I never knew who had an emotional bone in their bodies cried when they found out these folks were shown the door. They cried not just for these old folks but I think also for themselves; Bush wants almost half the current federal civilian workforce fired begining October 1 of this year, to be replaced by contractors.

Quite a bit of work will now not get done. Other work will have to be contracted out because laws and regulations require the work be done. There will be no net tax dollar savings because contractors will charge an arm and a leg to do the same work these seniors did for us, and all of you. I can guanrantee you the work done by contractors will not be done at the same quality level, nor with the same caring attitude as these senoirs did for all of us us. Bush will be able to proclaim he reduced the federal workforce today, but he can never claim there is a tax dollar savings, nor customer service will be improved as a result.

We lost something that the bean counters and Congress could care less about: We lost human beings who not only did quality work, at a low cost to the taxpayers, but human being with lives and experiences they shared with us. We lost years and years of experience, much of it relevant to the work we do, and other work that offered insight into they way things were done.

We lost lunchtime friends with the stories they told, the laughter we shared, the history they possessed.

However, our seniors lost so much more. Their self-esteem is shattered. Some might find makework but most will probably never work again. Their meager incomes probably helped to make ends meet, maybe even provide for “luxuries” at home they might never have had.

Gone will be the companionship we all gave them, a sense of worth and belonging. That whatever they did for us, no matter what it was, was important to all of us, and the greater public.

2

I posted before I could get my last thoughts in:

Thank you George Bush. Thank you Congress. Yo really do care about America don’t you? Your retirements are secure.

You can tick off on the ledger we now have fewer fedral employess on the books. Oh, I’m sure your constituents will like that. Just don’t tell them how. Don’t tell them the details.

Keep America focussed on the big picture items, while you gut the reality of it behind it. No matter. Once you have retired George Bush, the damage will have been done. No one will come after you, ready to hold you accountable for your actions while in office.

America was nickeled and dimed to death today.

And the folks who needed those nickels and dimes lost so much more.

Who is next on your list George?

3

I don;t understand. If they are providing such a valuable and needed service, why don’t you or your company just fucking hire them?

4

He doesn’t work for a company, he works for the government. The program which provided funding for those people was cut. Once the program is cut the people go. In order to hire those seniors back - or anyone, for that matter - the funding for that government agency would need to be upped. And, really - combine a war with tax cuts with cough Compassionate Conservatism cough and you get squat.

5

So, what, does the federal government owe old people jobs because they’re old?

6

Because he works for the government. DUH BRT !!!

7

Ahhh, so they are providing a valuable and needed service by government standards. That explains it.

8

Wow. I see the light. Cutting a program which provides otherwise unemployable AARP types with a taxable wage is much more draining to your tax dollars than paying them non-taxable Social Security and other government benefits.

I’m so sorry you take affront that an extra buck in tax dollars per year was taken out of your disposable income. I really am. I’m sure you could’ve done something else with that dollar - donated it to a faith-based charity, for example.

But, really, that’s besides the point. I don’t know Duckster from Adam, but I’m pretty sure that if s/he’s bitching about anything, s/he’s bitching about the loss of much-liked friends and colleagues with whom he is no longer able to work because of a stupid, insignificant, inconsequential policy change which negatively affects hundreds of real, live, living, breathing human beings. And, really, on what planet do private companies hire “retired engineer[s in his 70s]”?

I’m the last person who will ever say “I’m a Constitutional literalist”, but the preamble does contain the phrase “promote the general Welfare”, and I, for one, think that employing the otherwise unemployable is an excellent use of this nation’s resources.

9

Yes, it does. Because everyone knows employees in the private sector are stellar human beings, and no one working for a non-governmental employer has ever had a lazy, incompetent, frustrating co-worker.

10

I guess some of you didn’t catch the part that some of these old folks were doing work which must now be done by contractors. That’s because our agency is prevented from hiring “regular” federal employees in the first place. Those contractors will do the work at substantial higher costs than not only those displaced senior citizens, but “regular” federal employees had we had the authority to hire them.

At the end of the day Bush can claim there are now fewer federal employees. What he won’t tell you is that it will cost you more to do the work which must be done in the first place.

Yes, my lament is for these older workers. Yet, at the same time, at the end of the day there will be no tax savings to you (but a great tax cost), there will be no increase in productivity (but at the same and probably a decrease in overall productivity), and a knowledge and skills base will be lost (that a contractor cannot utilize to be more effective and efficient).

11

That’s a rather bankrupt economic analysis. Any money given to anyone has the potential to create wealth, whether it’s taxable or not. And since I abhor taxation to begin with, I see no particular reason why I should be upset that a tax source has been eliminated. Further, if these people are unemployable, as you claim, then I don’t see how they could possibly be providing any useful service to the government at all. Either they were paid to be the federal equivelent of a Wal-Mart front door creep, or they are providing services for which private sector employers are also willing to pay. If the former, then whoever made the decision to waste tax money on such a project should be jailed. If the latter, they can compete in the job market along with everyone else.

Yes, I could have. Or I could have bought an extra Whopper.

Ranting about the loss of much-liked friends and colleagues is understandable. But I find nothing insignificant or inconsequential about decisions regarding my money. Everything is significant. FWIW, the company at which I am employed has two workers who are at least 70. One of them is a sysadmin. I shit you not.

12

Yeah, it is, but those are the realistic options. Abhor taxation? Great. Take it to some Libertarian GD thread, cos doing away with taxes is not real life as we currently know it.

And when you say that ‘any money … has the potential to create wealth’ you’re absolutely right. But if you’re going to tell me that the taxes a Social Security recipient pays on groceries pays for the same governmental services as the taxes a wage earner pays in income tax I’m going to call you incorrect. Taxes is taxes is taxes, but you’re smart enough to know that THESE taxes are applied to THOSE areas and THOSE taxes are suppled to THESE areas.

I claim nothing. I read the DOL web site. Did you?

I still don’t see how employing those not hired by the private sector is “wast[ing] tax money”. If the hirees are/were providing a service, however small, it’s still a larger benefit to society as a whole than sitting around at the local diner playing hearts all afternoon while collecting Social Security. Yes, yes, you don’t agree with taxes and all. Your opinion on that matter is still not real life.

So…you think the unofficial doctrine of Compassionate Conservatism is a good thing? And that attitudes like “Or I could have bought an extra Whopper” are going to make that unofficial doctrine work?

How old was he when he was hired?

And. You have said not one word about the fact put forth by Duckster that cutting this government program will, in the long run, cost you more because outside contractors will now be fulfilling the jobs formerly done by low-paid elderly workers.

What is it that bothers you, anyhow? This early in the a.m. I can think of two private employers in particular who actively recruit AARP-range employees - McDonald’s and WalMart (and I’m sure there are more; I just can’t think of them). Why is it ok for those two private corporations to have a program for for hiring old folks but not the government?

13

My company is only six years old, so he must have been pretty old when he was hired. Dude’s as sharp as a fucking razor, though.

I have not addressed Duckster’s claim about the end result costing more because I believe it is true. It is the nature of government to steal more and more resources over time until it implodes upon itself. We’ve witnessed this countless times in history and I don’t see any particular reason why it won’t happen again.

My original statement was that the government does not owe people employment by virtue of being old. You were the one who read four paragraphs into a 13-word post.

14

With respect, friedo, BULLSHIT! People like the over 70 sysadmin you talk about are people who are still with the company after many years. I worked at a company that had several employees way beyond 65. The company had no mandatory retirement. But those employees all had many years with the company. One finally retired at age 80 after celebrating fifty years with the company. These were all engineers, people with valuable expertise and experience.

But please don’t tell me that any of them could compete in today’s job market on anything like an equal basis after the age of 50, or you will have blown your credibility entirely as far as I am concerned. It just isn’t so.

I don’t really believe that conservatives are bad people, but the coldness of decisions like this certainly make me suspect their compassion…and their good sense. Throwing away good workers because they are too old is just a waste, and poor management to boot.

15

No one owes anyone anything on the virtue of age. By the same token, no private company hires a 70 year old engineer. What’s the best place for someone of that age and with that experience, part time job or retirement? A rational person would say ‘part time job’. If no private company will accept his skills or experience, what’s wrong with a government agency taking him on? Will he perform a greater service as a WalMart greeter?

16

Have you considered that the service they do is valuable to the government, and to you, and that the reason why they are unemployable in the private sector is because the private sector by and large really doesn’t give a rats ass about hiring older workers, especially right now? So an older engineer, being paid a minimum wage, is of no benefit to you as a taxpayer even though they have substantial experience in their field and in the process of assisting our engineers offers his lifelong knowledge and skills base to them? You would prefer your tax dollars are better spent by a “regular” federal employee without that skills base, or a contractor who does the job according to specs but really gives a rats ass about the work beyond the required specs, and at a higher cost to you as well?

Oh, and that older engineer will enjoy enjoy his job satisfaction at Walmart better than using a lifelong accummulation of knowledge and skills with younger engineers who are working for you.

Perhaps that Wal-Mart front door creep is a retired tradesman who used to work for a government agency in a program sharing his extensive knowledge with younger tradesmen who could not acquire that knowledge any other way. Let’s just let the knowledge die in a shopping cart provided to you.

And I’m sure these seniors have the same job hunting savvy as much younger unemployed? Have you consider why the Age Discrimnation Act only kicks in at age 40? Perhaps Congress had more crappy back in 1967 when the law was passed that older olders suffer discrimnation in hiring and employment just as groups of individuals do. While we all may not be able to file an employment discrimination complaint because we do not fit into various racial, gender or national origin pigeon holes, but practically everyone will cross that 40 years old barrier and be subject to discriminination based on physical age.

So some of the work we are required to do under law must now be done by contractors at substantially higher costs. Where is the tax savings? And these contractors will be considerably younger than the seniors let go.

I guess I am amazed at some of the posts being so cold and only thinking of their tax dollars, and nothing more. Not knowing your age or type of work friedo but I get the impression you have no firsthand experience in discrimination.

So should we eliminate all these types of government programs which help selected segments of the population and strictly employ highly qualified employees in a prime working years bracket? Let’s do it all where the tax dollar bottom line is of prime importance all the time.

17

Seems like you posted while I was answering your last one, friedo. If your company is only six years old, your 70-year-old sysadmin must be a rare exception to the rule. I still say most companies do not even consider people who look to be (or whose experience on their resume shows them to be) much over 50. For one thing, younger applicants work cheaper. Older ones cost more because of their experience, and, unless they are really extraordinary, won’t be enough better to justify the higher salaries they require. It’s kind of a point of diminishing returns. Younger applicants get the jobs because their learning curves don’t cost as much as the elder’s accustomed salaries.

18

I take great offense when government employees are trashed; I take great offense when AARP types are trashed. The reasons for both are rooted in heart-felt, close-to-the-bone issues which I prefer to discuss off-board. Not here in the Pit, because it hurts too damn much.

19

Here’s my simple question. If the loss of these seniors leaves a gap which must be filled by contractors, and there is money to pay for said contractors, why can’t at least some of the seniors be brought back to continue their work as the contractors in question??

20

Because private contractors are not bound by the same rules, regulations, and considerations as the parent company - and it doesn’t matter whether the parent company is private or public.

MTMSTMFC*

*Makes Too Much Sense To Merit Further Consideration