On 6/8/2022 7:35 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 7:19:08 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:13:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sort of a weasel word, 'optimized', with fuzzy borders.
>>>>
>>>> One might posit that pistols are 'adequate' but a pair of
>>>> twin .50 MA2 would be 'optimal'. Especially for crowds.
>>>>
>>>> That said, the large end of the problem are stolen pistols
>>>> wielded by career criminals. So you're probably thinking,
>>>> 'what ever could be done?'. Good question because we've
>>>> seen this movie before! We know what to do.
>>>>
>>>> NYC, under Police Commissioners Ray Kelly and Bill Bratton
>>>> with strong mayoral support, sharply reduced firearms
>>>> discharges, injuries and deaths for about 20 years[1]. DAs
>>> see
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/ray-kelly-bill-bratton-new-york-police-crime-rates/422256/
>>> there seems to be some difference of opinion there (:-)
>>>> recommended the mandatory minimum sentences for felon in
>>>> possession and for firearm in commission of a felony. It
>>>> became more dangerous for criminals to walk around with an
>>>> illegal weapon. Good police commissioners under Mr Bloomberg
>>>> continued and built on that success. It was the safest large
>>>> city in our country.
>>> It was a bit more complex.
>>>
>>> Kelly, for example:
>>> "instituting the Safe Streets, Safe City program, which put thousands
>>> more cops on the streets, where they would be visible to and able to
>>> get to know and interact with local communities."
>>> and the so called stop-and-frisk policy, a New York City Police
>>> Department practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and at
>>> times searching civilians and suspects on the street for weapons and
>>> other contraband.
>>>
>>> Not that this is bad, but rather that the reduction of crime was a bit
>>> more complex then just increases in sentencing.
>>
>> Good to know.
>>
>> Come to think of it, I believe one of the fundamentals of criminology is that harsher
>> penalties have far less effect than increased chances of getting caught. Of course,
>> the two strategies are not mutually exclusive. Best is probably a combination of both,
>> along with policies that make an honest living easier to attain.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Somewhere I have read a study that showed that a "cop on the beat" was
> the most effective crime deterrent so far discovered. But, we are
> informed, "it costs so much money". In fact I seem to remember SMS
> going on in some detail about how the town couldn't afford it.
>
> There is an old saying, "You pays your money and you takes your
> choice" that apparently dates back to at least the 1800's, which if
> true would seem to indicate that the U.S. by not being willing to"pay
> the money" has made the choice.
>

Well, it's not theoretical. The experiment has been run:

https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/487-20/in-face-an-economic-crisis-mayor-de-blasio-budget-prioritizes-safety-police

Friends and family pilfered an extra $1,000,000,000.00 of
formerly NYPD funding, and there's blood in the streets. Or
as another old expression has it, 'You can pay now. Or you
will pay later.'

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:57:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/8/2022 7:35 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 7:19:08 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:13:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sort of a weasel word, 'optimized', with fuzzy borders.
>>>>>
>>>>> One might posit that pistols are 'adequate' but a pair of
>>>>> twin .50 MA2 would be 'optimal'. Especially for crowds.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, the large end of the problem are stolen pistols
>>>>> wielded by career criminals. So you're probably thinking,
>>>>> 'what ever could be done?'. Good question because we've
>>>>> seen this movie before! We know what to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> NYC, under Police Commissioners Ray Kelly and Bill Bratton
>>>>> with strong mayoral support, sharply reduced firearms
>>>>> discharges, injuries and deaths for about 20 years[1]. DAs
>>>> see
>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/ray-kelly-bill-bratton-new-york-police-crime-rates/422256/
>>>> there seems to be some difference of opinion there (:-)
>>>>> recommended the mandatory minimum sentences for felon in
>>>>> possession and for firearm in commission of a felony. It
>>>>> became more dangerous for criminals to walk around with an
>>>>> illegal weapon. Good police commissioners under Mr Bloomberg
>>>>> continued and built on that success. It was the safest large
>>>>> city in our country.
>>>> It was a bit more complex.
>>>>
>>>> Kelly, for example:
>>>> "instituting the Safe Streets, Safe City program, which put thousands
>>>> more cops on the streets, where they would be visible to and able to
>>>> get to know and interact with local communities."
>>>> and the so called stop-and-frisk policy, a New York City Police
>>>> Department practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and at
>>>> times searching civilians and suspects on the street for weapons and
>>>> other contraband.
>>>>
>>>> Not that this is bad, but rather that the reduction of crime was a bit
>>>> more complex then just increases in sentencing.
>>>
>>> Good to know.
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, I believe one of the fundamentals of criminology is that harsher
>>> penalties have far less effect than increased chances of getting caught. Of course,
>>> the two strategies are not mutually exclusive. Best is probably a combination of both,
>>> along with policies that make an honest living easier to attain.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> Somewhere I have read a study that showed that a "cop on the beat" was
>> the most effective crime deterrent so far discovered. But, we are
>> informed, "it costs so much money". In fact I seem to remember SMS
>> going on in some detail about how the town couldn't afford it.
>>
>> There is an old saying, "You pays your money and you takes your
>> choice" that apparently dates back to at least the 1800's, which if
>> true would seem to indicate that the U.S. by not being willing to"pay
>> the money" has made the choice.
>>
>
>Well, it's not theoretical. The experiment has been run:
>
>https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/487-20/in-face-an-economic-crisis-mayor-de-blasio-budget-prioritizes-safety-police
>
>Friends and family pilfered an extra $1,000,000,000.00 of
>formerly NYPD funding, and there's blood in the streets. Or
>as another old expression has it, 'You can pay now. Or you
>will pay later.'

Or maybe, "We'll take the money now and You can pay later" (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 6/8/2022 7:53 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:27:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/2022 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:13:38 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sort of a weasel word, 'optimized', with fuzzy borders.
>>>>
>>>> One might posit that pistols are 'adequate' but a pair of
>>>> twin .50 MA2 would be 'optimal'. Especially for crowds.
>>>>
>>>> That said, the large end of the problem are stolen pistols
>>>> wielded by career criminals. So you're probably thinking,
>>>> 'what ever could be done?'. Good question because we've
>>>> seen this movie before! We know what to do.
>>>>
>>>> NYC, under Police Commissioners Ray Kelly and Bill Bratton
>>>> with strong mayoral support, sharply reduced firearms
>>>> discharges, injuries and deaths for about 20 years[1]. DAs
>>> see
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/ray-kelly-bill-bratton-new-york-police-crime-rates/422256/
>>> there seems to be some difference of opinion there (:-)
>>>
>>>> recommended the mandatory minimum sentences for felon in
>>>> possession and for firearm in commission of a felony. It
>>>> became more dangerous for criminals to walk around with an
>>>> illegal weapon. Good police commissioners under Mr Bloomberg
>>>> continued and built on that success. It was the safest large
>>>> city in our country.
>>>
>>> It was a bit more complex.
>>>
>>> Kelly, for example:
>>> "instituting the Safe Streets, Safe City program, which put thousands
>>> more cops on the streets, where they would be visible to and able to
>>> get to know and interact with local communities."
>>> and the so called stop-and-frisk policy, a New York City Police
>>> Department practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and at
>>> times searching civilians and suspects on the street for weapons and
>>> other contraband.
>>>
>>> Not that this is bad, but rather that the reduction of crime was a bit
>>> more complex then just increases in sentencing.
>>>
>>
>> Yes that's right. I had assumed most people were familiar.
>>
>> It was a broad concerted effort and with great success. One
>> detail- back then (before 'decarceration', before 'defund
>> the police') turnstile jumpers were arrested and some
>> significant proportion of those had outstanding warrants,
>> contraband or illegal firearms. Now, there's no enforcement;
>> pay the fare or not, your choice (!).
>>
>> Regarding the Bratton-Kelly tiff, even the At5lantic notes
>> that 2014/15 was a very low crime period with 335~340
>> homicides. At the end of the Dinkins administration it was
>> about 2000 per year. That reduction over 12 years counts as
>> a major victory in my opinion.
>
> I suggest, I haven't actually researched this, that the largest
> problem in crime suppression is money. Imagine a situation, even in
> your own town, when the Mayor announces that "taxes will be increases
> X% to pay for a larger police force". Admittedly I am guessing but I
> suspect that the outcry would be "heard 'round the world", so to
> speak.
>

As with everything governments do, correlation between
budgets, actual expense and results are emphemeral at best.

What's the cost of _not_ keeping civil public order? In the
NYC example, with hard data to back this, a few thousand
mostly black citizens were not killed in the period when
when police policed.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 11:38:50 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/8/2022 7:53 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:27:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/8/2022 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:13:38 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sort of a weasel word, 'optimized', with fuzzy borders.
>>>>>
>>>>> One might posit that pistols are 'adequate' but a pair of
>>>>> twin .50 MA2 would be 'optimal'. Especially for crowds.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, the large end of the problem are stolen pistols
>>>>> wielded by career criminals. So you're probably thinking,
>>>>> 'what ever could be done?'. Good question because we've
>>>>> seen this movie before! We know what to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> NYC, under Police Commissioners Ray Kelly and Bill Bratton
>>>>> with strong mayoral support, sharply reduced firearms
>>>>> discharges, injuries and deaths for about 20 years[1]. DAs
>>>> see
>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/ray-kelly-bill-bratton-new-york-police-crime-rates/422256/
>>>> there seems to be some difference of opinion there (:-)
>>>>
>>>>> recommended the mandatory minimum sentences for felon in
>>>>> possession and for firearm in commission of a felony. It
>>>>> became more dangerous for criminals to walk around with an
>>>>> illegal weapon. Good police commissioners under Mr Bloomberg
>>>>> continued and built on that success. It was the safest large
>>>>> city in our country.
>>>>
>>>> It was a bit more complex.
>>>>
>>>> Kelly, for example:
>>>> "instituting the Safe Streets, Safe City program, which put thousands
>>>> more cops on the streets, where they would be visible to and able to
>>>> get to know and interact with local communities."
>>>> and the so called stop-and-frisk policy, a New York City Police
>>>> Department practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and at
>>>> times searching civilians and suspects on the street for weapons and
>>>> other contraband.
>>>>
>>>> Not that this is bad, but rather that the reduction of crime was a bit
>>>> more complex then just increases in sentencing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes that's right. I had assumed most people were familiar.
>>>
>>> It was a broad concerted effort and with great success. One
>>> detail- back then (before 'decarceration', before 'defund
>>> the police') turnstile jumpers were arrested and some
>>> significant proportion of those had outstanding warrants,
>>> contraband or illegal firearms. Now, there's no enforcement;
>>> pay the fare or not, your choice (!).
>>>
>>> Regarding the Bratton-Kelly tiff, even the At5lantic notes
>>> that 2014/15 was a very low crime period with 335~340
>>> homicides. At the end of the Dinkins administration it was
>>> about 2000 per year. That reduction over 12 years counts as
>>> a major victory in my opinion.
>>
>> I suggest, I haven't actually researched this, that the largest
>> problem in crime suppression is money. Imagine a situation, even in
>> your own town, when the Mayor announces that "taxes will be increases
>> X% to pay for a larger police force". Admittedly I am guessing but I
>> suspect that the outcry would be "heard 'round the world", so to
>> speak.
>>
>
>As with everything governments do, correlation between
>budgets, actual expense and results are emphemeral at best.

Well (:-) You elect them (:-)

But more to the point, in most civil service positions there is no
emphasis on efficiency and, in fact, a great deal of emphasis on the
opposite as generally a supervisor's pay grade is largely dependent on
the number of people he supervises and thus if the department
supervised demonstrates a need for more people then it is quite
possible that the supervisor will be raised to the next pay grade.
Thus inefficiency may well result in promotion.
>
>
>What's the cost of _not_ keeping civil public order? In the
>NYC example, with hard data to back this, a few thousand
>mostly black citizens were not killed in the period when
>when police policed.

But from a political point of view are "mostly black citizens" really
important? Do they vote for me? Do they pay taxes? Can I expect
financial support from them at election time?
The political world is a hard cruel world and one must apportion one's
efforts toward the greatest benefits.

Cynical, but sadly true.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 6/9/2022 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
> ... in most civil service positions there is no
> emphasis on efficiency and, in fact, a great deal of emphasis on the
> opposite as generally a supervisor's pay grade is largely dependent on
> the number of people he supervises and thus if the department
> supervised demonstrates a need for more people then it is quite
> possible that the supervisor will be raised to the next pay grade.
> Thus inefficiency may well result in promotion.

All that may be true in some instances. It's certainly not true in others.

As I said recently, one person I know just changed jobs from working for
a city government to working for a rather new manufacturing company. The
city job involved long hours, representing the city after hours at
various meetings, workshops, seminars etc. This is the person who who
chipped into the city's office collection every week so people could
have bottled water in the office. (Not that I'm a fan of bottled water.)

This person now works for a company that provides free lunches, snacks
and beverages to employees. When arranging a brunch connected with aa
media event, this person was told "Just spend whatever you think
necessary. There is no budget limit. They really don't care, just spend
whatever you need to." There is no overtime work, at least for this
person, although some very occasional travel to the west coast is
expected. And the salary (for essentially the same job) is much, much
higher than the city job's salary.

And at least when times are prosperous and money is flowing, the "empire
building" effect absolutely occurs in large companies, with upper
managers seeking to hire more workers or otherwise increase the
headcount of underlings.

I suspect we can find similar examples at universities, at professional
sports teams, at hospital systems, in the military and probably at any
organization bigger than, oh, a large bicycle club.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:05:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/9/2022 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>> ... in most civil service positions there is no
>> emphasis on efficiency and, in fact, a great deal of emphasis on the
>> opposite as generally a supervisor's pay grade is largely dependent on
>> the number of people he supervises and thus if the department
>> supervised demonstrates a need for more people then it is quite
>> possible that the supervisor will be raised to the next pay grade.
>> Thus inefficiency may well result in promotion.
>
>All that may be true in some instances. It's certainly not true in others.
>
>As I said recently, one person I know just changed jobs from working for
>a city government to working for a rather new manufacturing company. The
>city job involved long hours, representing the city after hours at
>various meetings, workshops, seminars etc. This is the person who who
>chipped into the city's office collection every week so people could
>have bottled water in the office. (Not that I'm a fan of bottled water.)
>
>This person now works for a company that provides free lunches, snacks
>and beverages to employees. When arranging a brunch connected with aa
>media event, this person was told "Just spend whatever you think
>necessary. There is no budget limit. They really don't care, just spend
>whatever you need to." There is no overtime work, at least for this
>person, although some very occasional travel to the west coast is
>expected. And the salary (for essentially the same job) is much, much
>higher than the city job's salary.
>
>And at least when times are prosperous and money is flowing, the "empire
>building" effect absolutely occurs in large companies, with upper
>managers seeking to hire more workers or otherwise increase the
>headcount of underlings.
>
>I suspect we can find similar examples at universities, at professional
>sports teams, at hospital systems, in the military and probably at any
>organization bigger than, oh, a large bicycle club.

Well.... I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in California, and there were
in the neighborhood of 30,000 civilian employees at the time (I
believe) and I can assure you that every one was striving be
inefficient. In fact it was so bad that the SAC personnel attached to
the Test Program actively avoided working with them as the inefficient
and outright laziness was, well sickening.

One example:
Initially people assigned to the Test Program were sent to work in the
Base Shops as frankly there isn't all that much work to do on test
airplanes as they fly relatively seldom and I was assigned to the Base
Machine Shop, certainly the largest machine shop in the A.F. and I was
the only Military assigned there.

So I check in with the "Shop chief" and, well, new boy? "Give him
something simple to do and see how it goes", so the shop chief gave me
a work order to make some sort of little push-pull rod. Blueprint and
all. Very professional.

Well, the print didn't specify material so I scratched around and
found a short length of 1/4" square rod in the scrap, chucked it up,
faced the end square, and drilled and tapped it. and, well, "new guy
in town" I get a cup of coffee and sort of wander around talking with
the guys and all and the "Donut Wagon" came by so I had to get a donut
and another cupa and chat some more.

Anyway, time goes by and I reckon that I really ought to finish my
project so I go back and cut the rod to length and face and tap the
other end and turn it in to the Inspection section who O.K. the
project and now I have to complete the work order and there is a "Time
Spent" block.... and Damn! It is almost 11:00. Good Lord! 4 hours to
make a dinky little thing like this? So, I put 1.5 hours down as job
time reckoning that it doesn't make me look like a complete flake and
off to lunch I go.

Well, I come back from lunch and the word is out, "The Boss wants to
talk to you". So I go in to see the Boss and he is damned near in a
frenzy.DID YOU DO THIS? Well I admitted that I had, thinking "what did
I do wrong?" DID YOU FILL OUT THIS WORK ORDER? "Errr, well yes I did."
Thinking, well I'm up the creek for lying about the time spent. "DID
YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED ON THE WORK ORDER?" Well
I hadn't and confessed I hadn't. "YOU GI'S COME IN HERE AND TRY TO
MAKE US LOOK BAD! I DON'T WANT TOU HERE ANY MORE!

Well, I'm still a bit puzzled and after the "tongue lashing" I go back
and look at the work order and the "Estimate Time Required" is shown
as 8 hours... for a job that in all honesty, excepting picking over
the junk pile to find a piece of material was, probably a 10 minute
job.

In other words, the shop was showing that they were literally months
behind schedule and of course this meant that they needed more people
and this in turn meant that as the supervisor of more people the
"Boss" certainly deserved a higher pay grade. Right?

And that, after watching civilian employees of the government work is
my considered opinion. You talk about one guy and I talk about
hundreds if not thousands.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:32:44 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:05:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 6/9/2022 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> ... in most civil service positions there is no
> >> emphasis on efficiency and, in fact, a great deal of emphasis on the
> >> opposite as generally a supervisor's pay grade is largely dependent on
> >> the number of people he supervises and thus if the department
> >> supervised demonstrates a need for more people then it is quite
> >> possible that the supervisor will be raised to the next pay grade.
> >> Thus inefficiency may well result in promotion.
> >
> >All that may be true in some instances. It's certainly not true in others.
> >
> >As I said recently, one person I know just changed jobs from working for
> >a city government to working for a rather new manufacturing company. The
> >city job involved long hours, representing the city after hours at
> >various meetings, workshops, seminars etc. This is the person who who
> >chipped into the city's office collection every week so people could
> >have bottled water in the office. (Not that I'm a fan of bottled water.)
> >
> >This person now works for a company that provides free lunches, snacks
> >and beverages to employees. When arranging a brunch connected with aa
> >media event, this person was told "Just spend whatever you think
> >necessary. There is no budget limit. They really don't care, just spend
> >whatever you need to." There is no overtime work, at least for this
> >person, although some very occasional travel to the west coast is
> >expected. And the salary (for essentially the same job) is much, much
> >higher than the city job's salary.
> >
> >And at least when times are prosperous and money is flowing, the "empire
> >building" effect absolutely occurs in large companies, with upper
> >managers seeking to hire more workers or otherwise increase the
> >headcount of underlings.
> >
> >I suspect we can find similar examples at universities, at professional
> >sports teams, at hospital systems, in the military and probably at any
> >organization bigger than, oh, a large bicycle club.
> Well.... I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in California, and there were
> in the neighborhood of 30,000 civilian employees at the time (I
> believe) and I can assure you that every one was striving be
> inefficient. In fact it was so bad that the SAC personnel attached to
> the Test Program actively avoided working with them as the inefficient
> and outright laziness was, well sickening.
>
> One example:
> Initially people assigned to the Test Program were sent to work in the
> Base Shops as frankly there isn't all that much work to do on test
> airplanes as they fly relatively seldom and I was assigned to the Base
> Machine Shop, certainly the largest machine shop in the A.F. and I was
> the only Military assigned there.
>
> So I check in with the "Shop chief" and, well, new boy? "Give him
> something simple to do and see how it goes", so the shop chief gave me
> a work order to make some sort of little push-pull rod. Blueprint and
> all. Very professional.
>
> Well, the print didn't specify material so I scratched around and
> found a short length of 1/4" square rod in the scrap, chucked it up,
> faced the end square, and drilled and tapped it. and, well, "new guy
> in town" I get a cup of coffee and sort of wander around talking with
> the guys and all and the "Donut Wagon" came by so I had to get a donut
> and another cupa and chat some more.
>
> Anyway, time goes by and I reckon that I really ought to finish my
> project so I go back and cut the rod to length and face and tap the
> other end and turn it in to the Inspection section who O.K. the
> project and now I have to complete the work order and there is a "Time
> Spent" block.... and Damn! It is almost 11:00. Good Lord! 4 hours to
> make a dinky little thing like this? So, I put 1.5 hours down as job
> time reckoning that it doesn't make me look like a complete flake and
> off to lunch I go.
>
> Well, I come back from lunch and the word is out, "The Boss wants to
> talk to you". So I go in to see the Boss and he is damned near in a
> frenzy.DID YOU DO THIS? Well I admitted that I had, thinking "what did
> I do wrong?" DID YOU FILL OUT THIS WORK ORDER? "Errr, well yes I did."
> Thinking, well I'm up the creek for lying about the time spent. "DID
> YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED ON THE WORK ORDER?" Well
> I hadn't and confessed I hadn't. "YOU GI'S COME IN HERE AND TRY TO
> MAKE US LOOK BAD! I DON'T WANT TOU HERE ANY MORE!
>
> Well, I'm still a bit puzzled and after the "tongue lashing" I go back
> and look at the work order and the "Estimate Time Required" is shown
> as 8 hours... for a job that in all honesty, excepting picking over
> the junk pile to find a piece of material was, probably a 10 minute
> job.
>
> In other words, the shop was showing that they were literally months
> behind schedule and of course this meant that they needed more people
> and this in turn meant that as the supervisor of more people the
> "Boss" certainly deserved a higher pay grade. Right?
>
> And that, after watching civilian employees of the government work is
> my considered opinion. You talk about one guy and I talk about
> hundreds if not thousands.

My point was certainly not that such inefficiency isn't common. My point is
that it's not confined to civil service, which is a common implication here.

This is a repeated tale, but at my first engineering job I would sometimes stop
and chat with the machinists. That was before I learned to run machine tools and I
was interested in learning what I could. Anyway, I asked one guy about how he
chose speeds and feeds for the lathe. He said "I just set the machine as slow as
it will go. Then I get to relax while it cuts. If one of the bosses asks about it, I just
say that's as fast as this material can be cut."

That was not a government position of any kind. It was a large factory belonging
to a large American corporation.

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:32:44 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:05:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 6/9/2022 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> ... in most civil service positions there is no
>> >> emphasis on efficiency and, in fact, a great deal of emphasis on the
>> >> opposite as generally a supervisor's pay grade is largely dependent on
>> >> the number of people he supervises and thus if the department
>> >> supervised demonstrates a need for more people then it is quite
>> >> possible that the supervisor will be raised to the next pay grade.
>> >> Thus inefficiency may well result in promotion.
>> >
>> >All that may be true in some instances. It's certainly not true in others.
>> >
>> >As I said recently, one person I know just changed jobs from working for
>> >a city government to working for a rather new manufacturing company. The
>> >city job involved long hours, representing the city after hours at
>> >various meetings, workshops, seminars etc. This is the person who who
>> >chipped into the city's office collection every week so people could
>> >have bottled water in the office. (Not that I'm a fan of bottled water.)
>> >
>> >This person now works for a company that provides free lunches, snacks
>> >and beverages to employees. When arranging a brunch connected with aa
>> >media event, this person was told "Just spend whatever you think
>> >necessary. There is no budget limit. They really don't care, just spend
>> >whatever you need to." There is no overtime work, at least for this
>> >person, although some very occasional travel to the west coast is
>> >expected. And the salary (for essentially the same job) is much, much
>> >higher than the city job's salary.
>> >
>> >And at least when times are prosperous and money is flowing, the "empire
>> >building" effect absolutely occurs in large companies, with upper
>> >managers seeking to hire more workers or otherwise increase the
>> >headcount of underlings.
>> >
>> >I suspect we can find similar examples at universities, at professional
>> >sports teams, at hospital systems, in the military and probably at any
>> >organization bigger than, oh, a large bicycle club.
>> Well.... I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in California, and there were
>> in the neighborhood of 30,000 civilian employees at the time (I
>> believe) and I can assure you that every one was striving be
>> inefficient. In fact it was so bad that the SAC personnel attached to
>> the Test Program actively avoided working with them as the inefficient
>> and outright laziness was, well sickening.
>>
>> One example:
>> Initially people assigned to the Test Program were sent to work in the
>> Base Shops as frankly there isn't all that much work to do on test
>> airplanes as they fly relatively seldom and I was assigned to the Base
>> Machine Shop, certainly the largest machine shop in the A.F. and I was
>> the only Military assigned there.
>>
>> So I check in with the "Shop chief" and, well, new boy? "Give him
>> something simple to do and see how it goes", so the shop chief gave me
>> a work order to make some sort of little push-pull rod. Blueprint and
>> all. Very professional.
>>
>> Well, the print didn't specify material so I scratched around and
>> found a short length of 1/4" square rod in the scrap, chucked it up,
>> faced the end square, and drilled and tapped it. and, well, "new guy
>> in town" I get a cup of coffee and sort of wander around talking with
>> the guys and all and the "Donut Wagon" came by so I had to get a donut
>> and another cupa and chat some more.
>>
>> Anyway, time goes by and I reckon that I really ought to finish my
>> project so I go back and cut the rod to length and face and tap the
>> other end and turn it in to the Inspection section who O.K. the
>> project and now I have to complete the work order and there is a "Time
>> Spent" block.... and Damn! It is almost 11:00. Good Lord! 4 hours to
>> make a dinky little thing like this? So, I put 1.5 hours down as job
>> time reckoning that it doesn't make me look like a complete flake and
>> off to lunch I go.
>>
>> Well, I come back from lunch and the word is out, "The Boss wants to
>> talk to you". So I go in to see the Boss and he is damned near in a
>> frenzy.DID YOU DO THIS? Well I admitted that I had, thinking "what did
>> I do wrong?" DID YOU FILL OUT THIS WORK ORDER? "Errr, well yes I did."
>> Thinking, well I'm up the creek for lying about the time spent. "DID
>> YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED ON THE WORK ORDER?" Well
>> I hadn't and confessed I hadn't. "YOU GI'S COME IN HERE AND TRY TO
>> MAKE US LOOK BAD! I DON'T WANT TOU HERE ANY MORE!
>>
>> Well, I'm still a bit puzzled and after the "tongue lashing" I go back
>> and look at the work order and the "Estimate Time Required" is shown
>> as 8 hours... for a job that in all honesty, excepting picking over
>> the junk pile to find a piece of material was, probably a 10 minute
>> job.
>>
>> In other words, the shop was showing that they were literally months
>> behind schedule and of course this meant that they needed more people
>> and this in turn meant that as the supervisor of more people the
>> "Boss" certainly deserved a higher pay grade. Right?
>>
>> And that, after watching civilian employees of the government work is
>> my considered opinion. You talk about one guy and I talk about
>> hundreds if not thousands.
>
>My point was certainly not that such inefficiency isn't common. My point is
>that it's not confined to civil service, which is a common implication here.
>
>This is a repeated tale, but at my first engineering job I would sometimes stop
>and chat with the machinists. That was before I learned to run machine tools and I
>was interested in learning what I could. Anyway, I asked one guy about how he
>chose speeds and feeds for the lathe. He said "I just set the machine as slow as
>it will go. Then I get to relax while it cuts. If one of the bosses asks about it, I just
>say that's as fast as this material can be cut."
>
>That was not a government position of any kind. It was a large factory belonging
>to a large American corporation.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

All of which says something about the management, doesn't it?
Never happen in, the military, for example, where supervisors all
"came up the hard way" and can do the job as well as the workers (:-)

But in civilian life the company I worked for had a project somewhat
like that. Things going slowly, etc. The client started bitching about
progress so the company looked into the matter and terminated all but
one guy on the project and hired all new people. Needless to say
things went quicker from then on.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 6/10/2022 10:40 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:32:44 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:05:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/2022 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> ... in most civil service positions there is no
>>>>> emphasis on efficiency and, in fact, a great deal of emphasis on the
>>>>> opposite as generally a supervisor's pay grade is largely dependent on
>>>>> the number of people he supervises and thus if the department
>>>>> supervised demonstrates a need for more people then it is quite
>>>>> possible that the supervisor will be raised to the next pay grade.
>>>>> Thus inefficiency may well result in promotion.
>>>>
>>>> All that may be true in some instances. It's certainly not true in others.
>>>>
>>>> As I said recently, one person I know just changed jobs from working for
>>>> a city government to working for a rather new manufacturing company. The
>>>> city job involved long hours, representing the city after hours at
>>>> various meetings, workshops, seminars etc. This is the person who who
>>>> chipped into the city's office collection every week so people could
>>>> have bottled water in the office. (Not that I'm a fan of bottled water.)
>>>>
>>>> This person now works for a company that provides free lunches, snacks
>>>> and beverages to employees. When arranging a brunch connected with aa
>>>> media event, this person was told "Just spend whatever you think
>>>> necessary. There is no budget limit. They really don't care, just spend
>>>> whatever you need to." There is no overtime work, at least for this
>>>> person, although some very occasional travel to the west coast is
>>>> expected. And the salary (for essentially the same job) is much, much
>>>> higher than the city job's salary.
>>>>
>>>> And at least when times are prosperous and money is flowing, the "empire
>>>> building" effect absolutely occurs in large companies, with upper
>>>> managers seeking to hire more workers or otherwise increase the
>>>> headcount of underlings.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect we can find similar examples at universities, at professional
>>>> sports teams, at hospital systems, in the military and probably at any
>>>> organization bigger than, oh, a large bicycle club.
>>> Well.... I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in California, and there were
>>> in the neighborhood of 30,000 civilian employees at the time (I
>>> believe) and I can assure you that every one was striving be
>>> inefficient. In fact it was so bad that the SAC personnel attached to
>>> the Test Program actively avoided working with them as the inefficient
>>> and outright laziness was, well sickening.
>>>
>>> One example:
>>> Initially people assigned to the Test Program were sent to work in the
>>> Base Shops as frankly there isn't all that much work to do on test
>>> airplanes as they fly relatively seldom and I was assigned to the Base
>>> Machine Shop, certainly the largest machine shop in the A.F. and I was
>>> the only Military assigned there.
>>>
>>> So I check in with the "Shop chief" and, well, new boy? "Give him
>>> something simple to do and see how it goes", so the shop chief gave me
>>> a work order to make some sort of little push-pull rod. Blueprint and
>>> all. Very professional.
>>>
>>> Well, the print didn't specify material so I scratched around and
>>> found a short length of 1/4" square rod in the scrap, chucked it up,
>>> faced the end square, and drilled and tapped it. and, well, "new guy
>>> in town" I get a cup of coffee and sort of wander around talking with
>>> the guys and all and the "Donut Wagon" came by so I had to get a donut
>>> and another cupa and chat some more.
>>>
>>> Anyway, time goes by and I reckon that I really ought to finish my
>>> project so I go back and cut the rod to length and face and tap the
>>> other end and turn it in to the Inspection section who O.K. the
>>> project and now I have to complete the work order and there is a "Time
>>> Spent" block.... and Damn! It is almost 11:00. Good Lord! 4 hours to
>>> make a dinky little thing like this? So, I put 1.5 hours down as job
>>> time reckoning that it doesn't make me look like a complete flake and
>>> off to lunch I go.
>>>
>>> Well, I come back from lunch and the word is out, "The Boss wants to
>>> talk to you". So I go in to see the Boss and he is damned near in a
>>> frenzy.DID YOU DO THIS? Well I admitted that I had, thinking "what did
>>> I do wrong?" DID YOU FILL OUT THIS WORK ORDER? "Errr, well yes I did."
>>> Thinking, well I'm up the creek for lying about the time spent. "DID
>>> YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED ON THE WORK ORDER?" Well
>>> I hadn't and confessed I hadn't. "YOU GI'S COME IN HERE AND TRY TO
>>> MAKE US LOOK BAD! I DON'T WANT TOU HERE ANY MORE!
>>>
>>> Well, I'm still a bit puzzled and after the "tongue lashing" I go back
>>> and look at the work order and the "Estimate Time Required" is shown
>>> as 8 hours... for a job that in all honesty, excepting picking over
>>> the junk pile to find a piece of material was, probably a 10 minute
>>> job.
>>>
>>> In other words, the shop was showing that they were literally months
>>> behind schedule and of course this meant that they needed more people
>>> and this in turn meant that as the supervisor of more people the
>>> "Boss" certainly deserved a higher pay grade. Right?
>>>
>>> And that, after watching civilian employees of the government work is
>>> my considered opinion. You talk about one guy and I talk about
>>> hundreds if not thousands.
>>
>> My point was certainly not that such inefficiency isn't common. My point is
>> that it's not confined to civil service, which is a common implication here.
>>
>> This is a repeated tale, but at my first engineering job I would sometimes stop
>> and chat with the machinists. That was before I learned to run machine tools and I
>> was interested in learning what I could. Anyway, I asked one guy about how he
>> chose speeds and feeds for the lathe. He said "I just set the machine as slow as
>> it will go. Then I get to relax while it cuts. If one of the bosses asks about it, I just
>> say that's as fast as this material can be cut."
>>
>> That was not a government position of any kind. It was a large factory belonging
>> to a large American corporation.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> All of which says something about the management, doesn't it?
> Never happen in, the military, for example, where supervisors all
> "came up the hard way" and can do the job as well as the workers (:-)
>
> But in civilian life the company I worked for had a project somewhat
> like that. Things going slowly, etc. The client started bitching about
> progress so the company looked into the matter and terminated all but
> one guy on the project and hired all new people. Needless to say
> things went quicker from then on.
>

Which has never happened at any government agency, bureau or
department. Nor ever will.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 5:20:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/10/2022 10:40 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:32:44 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:05:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/9/2022 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> ... in most civil service positions there is no
> >>>>> emphasis on efficiency and, in fact, a great deal of emphasis on the
> >>>>> opposite as generally a supervisor's pay grade is largely dependent on
> >>>>> the number of people he supervises and thus if the department
> >>>>> supervised demonstrates a need for more people then it is quite
> >>>>> possible that the supervisor will be raised to the next pay grade.
> >>>>> Thus inefficiency may well result in promotion.
> >>>>
> >>>> All that may be true in some instances. It's certainly not true in others.
> >>>>
> >>>> As I said recently, one person I know just changed jobs from working for
> >>>> a city government to working for a rather new manufacturing company. The
> >>>> city job involved long hours, representing the city after hours at
> >>>> various meetings, workshops, seminars etc. This is the person who who
> >>>> chipped into the city's office collection every week so people could
> >>>> have bottled water in the office. (Not that I'm a fan of bottled water.)
> >>>>
> >>>> This person now works for a company that provides free lunches, snacks
> >>>> and beverages to employees. When arranging a brunch connected with aa
> >>>> media event, this person was told "Just spend whatever you think
> >>>> necessary. There is no budget limit. They really don't care, just spend
> >>>> whatever you need to." There is no overtime work, at least for this
> >>>> person, although some very occasional travel to the west coast is
> >>>> expected. And the salary (for essentially the same job) is much, much
> >>>> higher than the city job's salary.
> >>>>
> >>>> And at least when times are prosperous and money is flowing, the "empire
> >>>> building" effect absolutely occurs in large companies, with upper
> >>>> managers seeking to hire more workers or otherwise increase the
> >>>> headcount of underlings.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect we can find similar examples at universities, at professional
> >>>> sports teams, at hospital systems, in the military and probably at any
> >>>> organization bigger than, oh, a large bicycle club.
> >>> Well.... I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in California, and there were
> >>> in the neighborhood of 30,000 civilian employees at the time (I
> >>> believe) and I can assure you that every one was striving be
> >>> inefficient. In fact it was so bad that the SAC personnel attached to
> >>> the Test Program actively avoided working with them as the inefficient
> >>> and outright laziness was, well sickening.
> >>>
> >>> One example:
> >>> Initially people assigned to the Test Program were sent to work in the
> >>> Base Shops as frankly there isn't all that much work to do on test
> >>> airplanes as they fly relatively seldom and I was assigned to the Base
> >>> Machine Shop, certainly the largest machine shop in the A.F. and I was
> >>> the only Military assigned there.
> >>>
> >>> So I check in with the "Shop chief" and, well, new boy? "Give him
> >>> something simple to do and see how it goes", so the shop chief gave me
> >>> a work order to make some sort of little push-pull rod. Blueprint and
> >>> all. Very professional.
> >>>
> >>> Well, the print didn't specify material so I scratched around and
> >>> found a short length of 1/4" square rod in the scrap, chucked it up,
> >>> faced the end square, and drilled and tapped it. and, well, "new guy
> >>> in town" I get a cup of coffee and sort of wander around talking with
> >>> the guys and all and the "Donut Wagon" came by so I had to get a donut
> >>> and another cupa and chat some more.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, time goes by and I reckon that I really ought to finish my
> >>> project so I go back and cut the rod to length and face and tap the
> >>> other end and turn it in to the Inspection section who O.K. the
> >>> project and now I have to complete the work order and there is a "Time
> >>> Spent" block.... and Damn! It is almost 11:00. Good Lord! 4 hours to
> >>> make a dinky little thing like this? So, I put 1.5 hours down as job
> >>> time reckoning that it doesn't make me look like a complete flake and
> >>> off to lunch I go.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I come back from lunch and the word is out, "The Boss wants to
> >>> talk to you". So I go in to see the Boss and he is damned near in a
> >>> frenzy.DID YOU DO THIS? Well I admitted that I had, thinking "what did
> >>> I do wrong?" DID YOU FILL OUT THIS WORK ORDER? "Errr, well yes I did."
> >>> Thinking, well I'm up the creek for lying about the time spent. "DID
> >>> YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED ON THE WORK ORDER?" Well
> >>> I hadn't and confessed I hadn't. "YOU GI'S COME IN HERE AND TRY TO
> >>> MAKE US LOOK BAD! I DON'T WANT TOU HERE ANY MORE!
> >>>
> >>> Well, I'm still a bit puzzled and after the "tongue lashing" I go back
> >>> and look at the work order and the "Estimate Time Required" is shown
> >>> as 8 hours... for a job that in all honesty, excepting picking over
> >>> the junk pile to find a piece of material was, probably a 10 minute
> >>> job.
> >>>
> >>> In other words, the shop was showing that they were literally months
> >>> behind schedule and of course this meant that they needed more people
> >>> and this in turn meant that as the supervisor of more people the
> >>> "Boss" certainly deserved a higher pay grade. Right?
> >>>
> >>> And that, after watching civilian employees of the government work is
> >>> my considered opinion. You talk about one guy and I talk about
> >>> hundreds if not thousands.
> >>
> >> My point was certainly not that such inefficiency isn't common. My point is
> >> that it's not confined to civil service, which is a common implication here.
> >>
> >> This is a repeated tale, but at my first engineering job I would sometimes stop
> >> and chat with the machinists. That was before I learned to run machine tools and I
> >> was interested in learning what I could. Anyway, I asked one guy about how he
> >> chose speeds and feeds for the lathe. He said "I just set the machine as slow as
> >> it will go. Then I get to relax while it cuts. If one of the bosses asks about it, I just
> >> say that's as fast as this material can be cut."
> >>
> >> That was not a government position of any kind. It was a large factory belonging
> >> to a large American corporation.
> >>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > All of which says something about the management, doesn't it?
> > Never happen in, the military, for example, where supervisors all
> > "came up the hard way" and can do the job as well as the workers (:-)
> >
> > But in civilian life the company I worked for had a project somewhat
> > like that. Things going slowly, etc. The client started bitching about
> > progress so the company looked into the matter and terminated all but
> > one guy on the project and hired all new people. Needless to say
> > things went quicker from then on.
> >
> Which has never happened at any government agency, bureau or
> department. Nor ever will.

One of the most inefficient things in the entire world is college. Most particularly those ultra progressive colleges that believe that teaching morons to espouse on Shelly and Keats, makes of them "gentlemen".

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:20:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/10/2022 10:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:32:44 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:05:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/2022 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> ... in most civil service positions there is no
>>>>>> emphasis on efficiency and, in fact, a great deal of emphasis on the
>>>>>> opposite as generally a supervisor's pay grade is largely dependent on
>>>>>> the number of people he supervises and thus if the department
>>>>>> supervised demonstrates a need for more people then it is quite
>>>>>> possible that the supervisor will be raised to the next pay grade.
>>>>>> Thus inefficiency may well result in promotion.
>>>>>
>>>>> All that may be true in some instances. It's certainly not true in others.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said recently, one person I know just changed jobs from working for
>>>>> a city government to working for a rather new manufacturing company. The
>>>>> city job involved long hours, representing the city after hours at
>>>>> various meetings, workshops, seminars etc. This is the person who who
>>>>> chipped into the city's office collection every week so people could
>>>>> have bottled water in the office. (Not that I'm a fan of bottled water.)
>>>>>
>>>>> This person now works for a company that provides free lunches, snacks
>>>>> and beverages to employees. When arranging a brunch connected with aa
>>>>> media event, this person was told "Just spend whatever you think
>>>>> necessary. There is no budget limit. They really don't care, just spend
>>>>> whatever you need to." There is no overtime work, at least for this
>>>>> person, although some very occasional travel to the west coast is
>>>>> expected. And the salary (for essentially the same job) is much, much
>>>>> higher than the city job's salary.
>>>>>
>>>>> And at least when times are prosperous and money is flowing, the "empire
>>>>> building" effect absolutely occurs in large companies, with upper
>>>>> managers seeking to hire more workers or otherwise increase the
>>>>> headcount of underlings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect we can find similar examples at universities, at professional
>>>>> sports teams, at hospital systems, in the military and probably at any
>>>>> organization bigger than, oh, a large bicycle club.
>>>> Well.... I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in California, and there were
>>>> in the neighborhood of 30,000 civilian employees at the time (I
>>>> believe) and I can assure you that every one was striving be
>>>> inefficient. In fact it was so bad that the SAC personnel attached to
>>>> the Test Program actively avoided working with them as the inefficient
>>>> and outright laziness was, well sickening.
>>>>
>>>> One example:
>>>> Initially people assigned to the Test Program were sent to work in the
>>>> Base Shops as frankly there isn't all that much work to do on test
>>>> airplanes as they fly relatively seldom and I was assigned to the Base
>>>> Machine Shop, certainly the largest machine shop in the A.F. and I was
>>>> the only Military assigned there.
>>>>
>>>> So I check in with the "Shop chief" and, well, new boy? "Give him
>>>> something simple to do and see how it goes", so the shop chief gave me
>>>> a work order to make some sort of little push-pull rod. Blueprint and
>>>> all. Very professional.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the print didn't specify material so I scratched around and
>>>> found a short length of 1/4" square rod in the scrap, chucked it up,
>>>> faced the end square, and drilled and tapped it. and, well, "new guy
>>>> in town" I get a cup of coffee and sort of wander around talking with
>>>> the guys and all and the "Donut Wagon" came by so I had to get a donut
>>>> and another cupa and chat some more.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, time goes by and I reckon that I really ought to finish my
>>>> project so I go back and cut the rod to length and face and tap the
>>>> other end and turn it in to the Inspection section who O.K. the
>>>> project and now I have to complete the work order and there is a "Time
>>>> Spent" block.... and Damn! It is almost 11:00. Good Lord! 4 hours to
>>>> make a dinky little thing like this? So, I put 1.5 hours down as job
>>>> time reckoning that it doesn't make me look like a complete flake and
>>>> off to lunch I go.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I come back from lunch and the word is out, "The Boss wants to
>>>> talk to you". So I go in to see the Boss and he is damned near in a
>>>> frenzy.DID YOU DO THIS? Well I admitted that I had, thinking "what did
>>>> I do wrong?" DID YOU FILL OUT THIS WORK ORDER? "Errr, well yes I did."
>>>> Thinking, well I'm up the creek for lying about the time spent. "DID
>>>> YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED ON THE WORK ORDER?" Well
>>>> I hadn't and confessed I hadn't. "YOU GI'S COME IN HERE AND TRY TO
>>>> MAKE US LOOK BAD! I DON'T WANT TOU HERE ANY MORE!
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'm still a bit puzzled and after the "tongue lashing" I go back
>>>> and look at the work order and the "Estimate Time Required" is shown
>>>> as 8 hours... for a job that in all honesty, excepting picking over
>>>> the junk pile to find a piece of material was, probably a 10 minute
>>>> job.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the shop was showing that they were literally months
>>>> behind schedule and of course this meant that they needed more people
>>>> and this in turn meant that as the supervisor of more people the
>>>> "Boss" certainly deserved a higher pay grade. Right?
>>>>
>>>> And that, after watching civilian employees of the government work is
>>>> my considered opinion. You talk about one guy and I talk about
>>>> hundreds if not thousands.
>>>
>>> My point was certainly not that such inefficiency isn't common. My point is
>>> that it's not confined to civil service, which is a common implication here.
>>>
>>> This is a repeated tale, but at my first engineering job I would sometimes stop
>>> and chat with the machinists. That was before I learned to run machine tools and I
>>> was interested in learning what I could. Anyway, I asked one guy about how he
>>> chose speeds and feeds for the lathe. He said "I just set the machine as slow as
>>> it will go. Then I get to relax while it cuts. If one of the bosses asks about it, I just
>>> say that's as fast as this material can be cut."
>>>
>>> That was not a government position of any kind. It was a large factory belonging
>>> to a large American corporation.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> All of which says something about the management, doesn't it?
>> Never happen in, the military, for example, where supervisors all
>> "came up the hard way" and can do the job as well as the workers (:-)
>>
>> But in civilian life the company I worked for had a project somewhat
>> like that. Things going slowly, etc. The client started bitching about
>> progress so the company looked into the matter and terminated all but
>> one guy on the project and hired all new people. Needless to say
>> things went quicker from then on.
>>
>
>Which has never happened at any government agency, bureau or
>department. Nor ever will.

Another story (:-)

A friends wife went to work in the "Unemployment Office. Kids getting
up there, not so much to do at home, why not, and she was a "do
gooder" so a job to help the unemployed is just the thing.

After about 6 months she quit and in wide eyed amazement told us that,
"Nobody in the place was interested in getting those poor people a
job!" The poor folks had no interest in getting a job as then their
"dole" would stop and the people that worked there had no interest as
if the was 100% employment then their jobs would stop.

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 1:59:55 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 9:57:15 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 9:48:37 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 8:27:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > On 6/8/2022 10:14 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > On 6/8/2022 2:41 AM, John B. wrote:
> > > > >> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT),
> > > > >> "russell...@yahoo.com"
> > > > >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:54:28 AM UTC-5,
> > > > >>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>> I got an email saying that it wasn't Russell who was
> > > > >>>> complaining about my showing that the USA isn't the only
> > > > >>>> country with mass shootings but Frank Kragowski.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I'm told that he thinks that gun control in Mexico is so
> > > > >>>> lackadaisical because of the proximity of the USA.
> > > > >>>> 1. The Mexican border patrol is NOT that of Kragowski's
> > > > >>>> favorite President, Biden, they shoot to kill people
> > > > >>>> crossing the border illegally into Mexico. So gun
> > > > >>>> traffickers so not as is Franks fondest desire move
> > > > >>>> across a supposedly porous border which only works on
> > > > >>>> way - gun trafficking is via ocean and while
> > > > >>>> Lockheed-Martin is the world's largest gun manufacturer
> > > > >>>> 90% or more of their business is directly to the US
> > > > >>>> Government. That leaves the largest gun manufacturers in
> > > > >>>> the world in Europe and shows that Frank, as usual is so
> > > > >>>> ignorant of the world around himself that it is
> > > > >>>> surprising that he ever thought himself educated.
> > > > >>>> 2. The Gun Control in Mexico is TOTAL and only the
> > > > >>>> "chosen few" can obtain weapons of any sort. The idea of
> > > > >>>> Frank that anyone at all could get a gun in Mexico
> > > > >>>> without being virtually a government insider shows just
> > > > >>>> how foolish he is.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> And yet there were 33 mass shootings in 45 days. Gee you
> > > > >>>> stupid ass Frank - it looks like mass shootings aren't
> > > > >>>> that unusual at all.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Because the Slime Stream Media is in on the false Biden
> > > > >>>> claim that only in the USA do mass shootings occur, if
> > > > >>>> you do a search for Mass Shootings in Central or South
> > > > >>>> America, all you get is articles about mass shootings in
> > > > >>>> the US.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Moreover the mythology that mass shootings are common is
> > > > >>>> also a complete lie.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> " the public is led to believe that random incidents of
> > > > >>>> mass murder happen all the time in America. So far in
> > > > >>>> 2021, the Gun Violence Archive has recorded 156
> > > > >>>> incidents that it defines as “mass shootings.â€
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I find it really sad that Wikipedia has a "Mass Shootings
> > > > >>> in the USA in 2022" page. This is in addition to the
> > > > >>> Biggest Mass Shootings in USA History pages. The mass
> > > > >>> shootings, and killings, are so frequent that we need a
> > > > >>> day by day upkeep on them. Gosh.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Use different wording "massacre" will find a substantial
> > > > >> number from
> > > > >> 1777 to 2022.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's interesting to click the "Date" column heading and sort
> > > > > this by date:
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure it's not a complete list. But note the increasing
> > > > > frequency as time goes on. The last couple decades witnessed
> > > > > so many "massacres!"
> > > > >
> > > > > Also (and obviously related): Early massacres in the list
> > > > > tend to involve groups of assailants. Those in the past 30
> > > > > years are almost all solo efforts, enabled by
> > > > > combat-optimized gun technology.
> > > > >
> > > > >> But perhaps it is human nature?
> > > > >
> > > > > Since those were all perpetrated by humans, I'd say that's
> > > > > self-evident. But I'd also say one of the main functions of
> > > > > society is to control harmful aspects of human nature.
> > > > >
> > > > Oh, single actor massacre?
> > > > https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing trivial about these tragedies, but they are
> > > > outliers. Something like 99% of firearm homicides are urban
> > > > pistol events. But hey keep ignoring the elephant while
> > > > hunting that mosquito.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andrew Muzi
> > > > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > > > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> > > Google in a try to eliminate the idea that the US people are the only one's in the world that kill people or that insanity is strictly a US condition will NOT show you the rather common "mass shootings" around the globe and even in Europe. You had better hold tightly to your guns and start shooting Google employees and Slime Stream Media writers until they get the idea that it isn't safe for them to lie to us.
> > >
> > > https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/world/paris-shooting/index.html
> > >
> > > The question is - why are we being lied to in such a continuous stream? Central and South America are FAR more dangerous than the USA and Brazil makes the US look friendly - Brazil is a giant ghetto and that is what causes murders to arise when people can only get ahead by taking what is yours - sort of like what Frank wants to do in the USA.
> > Do you think that the Paris attack was unusual?
> >
> > attacks 13 November 2015 Paris 130 (+368 injured) ISIL Eight radical Islamists men of ISIL perform coordinated attacks upon the French public at various locations in Paris using assault rifles and explosives;[20]
> >
> > 2016 Nice truck attack 14 July 2016 Nice 86 (+434 injured) Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel A Tunisian/French radical Islamist man attacks the French public celebrating Bastille Day, he drives a 19 tonne cargo truck through the public on the street thereby killing indiscriminately.
> > Carcassonne and Trèbes attack 23 March 2018 Trèbes and Carcassonne 4 (+15 injured) Redouane Lakdim Islamist terrorist Redouane Lakdim shoots and stabs four people to death.
> >
> > 2018 Strasbourg attack 11 December 2018 Strasbourg 5 (+12 injured) Chérif Chekatt
> > (29 years old) Islamist terrorist Chérif Chekatt shoots five people to death with a revolver and injures several people by stabbing with a knife. Chekatt was killed 2 days later by the police, after a razzia in Strasbourgs district Neudorf. He was shot after opening the fire on several police officers.
> >
> > February 2019 Paris fire 5 February 2019 Paris 10 (+36 injured) Unknown Arson at an apartment block.
> > Paris police headquarters stabbing 3 October 2019 Paris 4 (+2 injured) Mickaël Harpon Police employee stab four colleagues to death.
> >
> > Toulouse summer 2020 attacks[21] 13 July 2020 - 7 September 2020 Toulouse 5 (+3 injured) Unknown 1 (+1 injured) in September, 2 (+2 injured) in August, 2 in July.
> >
> > Since the push is on to condemn the US as the most dangerous place in the world, Wikipedia isn't publishing how dangerous the rest of the world is..
> The plain facts are the the ISA is a GREAT DEAL safer than most of the rest of the world. I'm sure that people like Frank, Russell, Scharf and Flunky won't agree but then that is their problem.
>
> The US actually ranks 83rd in the world in murders per capita (out of 193 UN-recognized countries), while its 5.35 murders per 100,000 residents is well below the world average of 7.03.