- This topic has 10 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 19, 2013 at 10:33 AM #20888December 19, 2013 at 10:54 AM #769294spdrunParticipant
Say you have a good dispatcher (who’s not a sworn officer). Can you really let her go due to her choice of husband, especially if the marriage only happened after she was hired?
December 21, 2013 at 12:48 AM #769314CA renterParticipantWas she doing this prior to being hired? If she started only after being hired, then she was fired when they found out about it and confirmed the situation.
Also, as spdrun has already noted, most dispatchers are civilians earning between $40K and $55K per year (CHP); they are usually not sworn officers. Some departments scrutinize applicants for dispatcher positions almost as thoroughly as they do for sworn officers, but some do not.
http://www.chp.ca.gov/recruiting/psdpay.html
Edited to add…
If a Qualcomm employee (or employee of any private company not doing govt work or under strict govt regulations) had a spouse who was a memeber of the Hells Angels, would they launch a full-on investigation of their employee?
It looks like it was this woman’s job with the CHP that caused LE agencies to step up the investigation. Would a Qualcomm employee’s case be treated the same way? No, of course not. Why? Because those who work for the government have access to greater power. They are in positions of trust; therefore, they are held to higher standards, as they should be. In other words, yes, they have more stringent hiring and employment standards for these positions.
Your examples are proving my point, nsr, not disproving them.
December 21, 2013 at 8:18 AM #769334CDMA ENGParticipant[quote=CA renter]Was she doing this prior to being hired? If she started only after being hired, then she was fired when they found out about it and confirmed the situation.
Also, as spdrun has already noted, most dispatchers are civilians earning between $40K and $55K per year (CHP); they are usually not sworn officers. Some departments scrutinize applicants for dispatcher positions almost as thoroughly as they do for sworn officers, but some do not.
http://www.chp.ca.gov/recruiting/psdpay.html
Edited to add…
If a Qualcomm employee (or employee of any private company not doing govt work or under strict govt regulations) had a spouse who was a memeber of the Hells Angels, would they launch a full-on investigation of their employee?
It looks like it was this woman’s job with the CHP that caused LE agencies to step up the investigation. Would a Qualcomm employee’s case be treated the same way? No, of course not. Why? Because those who work for the government have access to greater power. They are in positions of trust; therefore, they are held to higher standards, as they should be. In other words, yes, they have more stringent hiring and employment standards for these positions.
Your examples are proving my point, nsr, not disproving them.[/quote]
Only to you…
CE
December 21, 2013 at 5:56 PM #769336joecParticipantThis whole discussion of public employees vs. private and hiring requirements is just missing the point that for a private enterprise and corporation, it is OK and known that their goal is to ONLY serve shareholders, employees and their customers. They don’t have to do shit for the public and if they want to dump toxic waste or hire criminals, they can certainly try to do that since the public doesn’t pay their salary.
For a public position in the government, ALL tax paying citizens PAY their salaries so the people or their elected representative should have a say in who is hired.
It’s not so much the government has more stringent hiring and employment standards, it’s just that they SERVE A DIFFERENT GOAL/PURPOSE is why they NEED different and not necessary stringent or better/higher standards. This whole discussion of “stringent/higher” is missing the point.
The government could just hire some joe shmo who is an idiot (quite a few politicians are), but if his job requires him to not have embezzled money from public sources, so be it and now (it’s perceived in this discussion that’s he was rated under a more stringent system just because the public doesn’t want someone who was a rapist or a sexual harasser (think Bob Filner). There are plenty of playboy execs who no on cares if they fool around or harass people as long as it’s not compromising the company.
For some wall street types, maybe that’s a benefit and job requirement to know how to screw people over.
Bottom line is that it’s a TOTALLY different environment purely because again, the government worker is PAID and serves the PUBLIC.
December 21, 2013 at 8:45 PM #769337paramountParticipant[quote=joec] This whole discussion of “stringent/higher” is missing the point.
[/quote]
Agreed and let’s face it; the bar is set pretty low when it comes to being a gov’t thug.
December 22, 2013 at 12:37 AM #769339CA renterParticipant[quote=joec]This whole discussion of public employees vs. private and hiring requirements is just missing the point that for a private enterprise and corporation, it is OK and known that their goal is to ONLY serve shareholders, employees and their customers. They don’t have to do shit for the public and if they want to dump toxic waste or hire criminals, they can certainly try to do that since the public doesn’t pay their salary.
For a public position in the government, ALL tax paying citizens PAY their salaries so the people or their elected representative should have a say in who is hired.
It’s not so much the government has more stringent hiring and employment standards, it’s just that they SERVE A DIFFERENT GOAL/PURPOSE is why they NEED different and not necessary stringent or better/higher standards. This whole discussion of “stringent/higher” is missing the point.
The government could just hire some joe shmo who is an idiot (quite a few politicians are), but if his job requires him to not have embezzled money from public sources, so be it and now (it’s perceived in this discussion that’s he was rated under a more stringent system just because the public doesn’t want someone who was a rapist or a sexual harasser (think Bob Filner). There are plenty of playboy execs who no on cares if they fool around or harass people as long as it’s not compromising the company.
For some wall street types, maybe that’s a benefit and job requirement to know how to screw people over.
Bottom line is that it’s a TOTALLY different environment purely because again, the government worker is PAID and serves the PUBLIC.[/quote]
CEOs are also paid by the public. Not only do we pay as consumers (and we do NOT have a choice in many cases), but taxpayers pay for the infrastructure and other subsidies that most large corporations benefit from.
We also pay the long-term costs when corporations pollute, or bring in undocumented workers, or when they pay their employees so little that the employees are forced to take public aid. There are HUGE societal costs that we have to pay — financially, socially, etc. — because of the actions of corporations and their executives.
December 22, 2013 at 2:27 PM #769342ucodegenParticipant[quote=CA renter]If a Qualcomm employee (or employee of any private company not doing govt work or under strict govt regulations) had a spouse who was a memeber of the Hells Angels, would they launch a full-on investigation of their employee?[/quote]Strawman – not apples/apples comparison. A dispatcher can tell her husband that a raid was coming..
December 22, 2013 at 5:05 PM #769344CA renterParticipant[quote=ucodegen][quote=CA renter]If a Qualcomm employee (or employee of any private company not doing govt work or under strict govt regulations) had a spouse who was a memeber of the Hells Angels, would they launch a full-on investigation of their employee?[/quote]Strawman – not apples/apples comparison. A dispatcher can tell her husband that a raid was coming..[/quote]
That wasn’t the main issue in this case. Would an employee of a private company (not a govt contractor or a company under strict govt regulations) be under this kind of scrutiny? No, they would not.
BTW, people can buy police scanners and do the same thing that she did. You can buy them on Amazon.
December 22, 2013 at 6:07 PM #769346joecParticipant[quote=CA renter]
That wasn’t the main issue in this case. Would an employee of a private company (not a govt contractor or a company under strict govt regulations) be under this kind of scrutiny? No, they would not.
[/quote]I don’t know why you are defending this so hard, but it’s pretty clear this debate/discussion just won’t make it through to you and you aren’t seeing the point.
I, and I don’t think MANY people really CARES or WANT the private company to go through the scrutiny of a government position. It’s just not needed FOR THE JOB. It DOESN’T MAKE THE GOVERNMENT job better or more stringent or tougher to get. They just have a DIFFERENT requirement!
In short the SCRUTINY isn’t to check anything skill based, but more so on specific job requirements for a government job. NOT BETTER. You call it more STRINGENT. I call it checking for different things.
Like maybe you can’t have embezzled money if you work in government finance. Maybe in the corporate world, they WANT people who know how to embezzle to minimize taxes or loopholes? Get it?
If some CEO who’s 50 and wants a different hooker who’s exactly 18 every single night, good for him…no skin off my back. A public position might be against this since it’s public and mom’s might not want to encourage girls or have this “public” guy behaving like this.
Public jobs serve the public…if you don’t like it, don’t do it and don’t go through the special checks. The checks aren’t special or “stringent”. They’re just different checks for different positions.
I used to work in HR as well in the pass and had to go through a “test” I was told to see if I could see fellow co-worker salary/stock options, etc…I passed I was told so did work in it, but using the word stringent like in all your examples is not the right word. They just wanted to make sure for that job, I had certain character or characteristics ok for that position. Stringent or more skilled isn’t the right term…
In the end, most people view “government” not as the most financially lucrative as top CEO/corporate jobs so I think MOST people feel private jobs are tougher and more stringent/skill based to get than public work…
Me included…You don’t see ANYONE in government making 5 billion in a day on a stock move (our friend Zuck)…
People LEAVE government to make the super bucks.
EVERYONE who is on the top billionaire’s money list is all companies they started. Not gov…
except maybe North Korea…
December 23, 2013 at 12:18 AM #769351CA renterParticipantMy apologies, Joe, but many of us are carrying forward a theme from multiple other threads from over the years.
Most of the people who take the opposing side (from mine) of this argument would disagree with what you’ve written.
Many of these anti-govt/anti-union threads are started because somebody is trying to continue the debate from other threads. This would obviously be confusing for those who come in mid-stream. I apologize for my part in adding to this confusion.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.