DOGE

Carp said:
Tens of thousands???

Try again home slice. There are millions of federal government employees.

I don't want a model determining usefulness and authenticity. Not to mention, the results STILL have to be personally vetted.

The time, energy, and money being used outweigh the potential benefits of finding non useful employees, which by the way, you aren't even guaranteed to replace that production with a better employee.
Click to expand...

This exercise is to cut the clear waste in the form of employees who either aren't working or have a useless role.

That can easily be sorted out with a model and those that are cut I'm sure will have a human review.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoT
thethe said:
Who do you rely on to understand who and what can be cut?
Click to expand...

The people the executive branch (aka the president) puts in charge of these organizations. If the CIA has bloat tell the head of the CIA to figure out what's thebest and safest way to cut a billion from their budget, so on so forth.
 
thethe said:
This exercise is to cut the clear waste in the form of employees who either aren't working or have a useless role.

That can easily be sorted out with a model and those that are cut I'm sure will have a human review.
Click to expand...

But the point is what's the point.

I could put enough floury bull**** into an email to make me sound important. Imagine

I maintained the facilities that were left in disrepair by another coworker vs. I cleaned the toilet someone clogged. THey're the same thing, one just sounds more impressive because of bull ****.
 
zitothebrave said:
The people the executive branch (aka the president) puts in charge of these organizations. If the CIA has bloat tell the head of the CIA to figure out what's thebest and safest way to cut a billion from their budget, so on so forth.
Click to expand...

So the entrenched people that clearly have no interest in serving st the will of the chief magistrate are the ones to go to? The very same people that sat idly by as government got worse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoT
zitothebrave said:
But the point is what's the point.

I could put enough floury bull**** into an email to make me sound important. Imagine

I maintained the facilities that were left in disrepair by another coworker vs. I cleaned the toilet someone clogged. THey're the same thing, one just sounds more impressive because of bull ****.
Click to expand...

That’s great! Now you’re on record and future performance evaluations have a baseline. All “lies” eventually come home to roost when it’s time to produce.
 
thethe said:
Who do you rely on to understand who and what can be cut?
Click to expand...

You could perhaps use the same exact system every other employer has used since the dawn of time: determining the expectations of a given role and basing your headcount on the expected productivity of that employee. Do you think layoffs are typically planned by asking all employees to send an email to some guy in HR?
 
thethe said:
This exercise is to cut the clear waste in the form of employees who either aren't working or have a useless role.

That can easily be sorted out with a model and those that are cut I'm sure will have a human review.
Click to expand...

This just means AI isn’t doing the process and we’re still using government payroll to perform this task about wasted government payroll.
 
mqt said:
You could perhaps use the same exact system every other employer has used since the dawn of time: determining the expectations of a given role and basing your headcount on the expected productivity of that employee. Do you think layoffs are typically planned by asking all employees to send an email to some guy in HR?
Click to expand...

No but it identifies which department heads aren't properly managing their teams.
 
Tapate50 said:
One goes on forever and increases one might be a one time cost.

Which is better for the country
Click to expand...

But it doesn’t have to? Imagine a board meeting where the CEO tells investors that labor costs will not be controlled in the 4th Quarter because they just can’t figure out who actually works there or what they’re doing unless the employee personally responds to an email outlining what they did that week.

Honestly, if I didn’t see Elon Musk himself bitching about it, I’d think this task were a hoax or satire to make DOGE look bad. Nobody gives a damn about the plight of the employee having to send an email with 5 sentences. The issue is that it’s pointless busywork that serves no good purpose beyond letting Elon get some Twitter engagement.
 
thethe said:
No but it identifies which department heads aren't properly managing their teams.
Click to expand...

How though? If they tried this exercise by having all the managers explain to their next-level leaders what they’ve assigned to their teams this week and what got done, you might actually get information that’s usable. If a random guy lies to Elon Musk about what he did last week, does that mean the department is running efficiently?
 
mqt said:
How though? If they tried this exercise by having all the managers explain to their next-level leaders what they’ve assigned to their teams this week and what got done, you might actually get information that’s usable. If a random guy lies to Elon Musk about what he did last week, does that mean the department is running efficiently?
Click to expand...

Except those managers are part of the entrenched governemtn that is the whole problem.

You can't exactly trust the people that have contributed to the waste for this exercise.

Thats what you guys don't see.
 
thethe said:
Except those managers are part of the entrenched governemtn that is the whole problem.

You can't exactly trust the people that have contributed to the waste for this exercise.

Thats what you guys don't see.
Click to expand...

Did Trump just not select cabinet members that can effectively manage the payroll of their department or something? The suggestion isn’t to take everyone at their ****ing word. Actually, taking them at their word is what this essentially causes, because if you go back to validate they did what they said, you’re likely going to talk to the managers next to see if they did that and apparently we can’t trust that.
 
mqt said:
Did Trump just not select cabinet members that can effectively manage the payroll of their department or something?
Click to expand...

Thats at a much higher level and how would the incoming people know the performance of the team?

I would wager that these are the people that will end up reveiwing the results of these exercises.
 
thethe said:
Thats at a much higher level and how would the incoming people know the performance of the team?

I would wager that these are the people that will end up reveiwing the results of these exercises.
Click to expand...

How would DOGE? How would the employee? Again, once you move past the step of “this email will save us so much money and wasted payroll *somehow*” you quickly learn the somehow is just the standard performance management they should have been doing to begin with.
 
mqt said:
How would DOGE? How would the employee? Again, once you move past the step of “this email will save us so much money and wasted payroll *somehow*” you quickly learn the somehow is just the standard performance management they should have been doing to begin with.
Click to expand...

It is actually outing all levels of governemtn who weren't doing their jobs.

What does it say about a manager when their team is outed as doing very little? That manager can be trusted to do evaluations?
 
thethe said:
It is actually outing all levels of governemtn who weren't doing their jobs.

What does it say about a manager when their team is outed as doing very little? That manager can be trusted to do evaluations?
Click to expand...

If I’m a government employee who can string some words together and doesn’t like being fired, I can pass this test without doing anything but lie to Elon Musk. What does it say about a performance validation when it doesn’t actually validate that a worker had performed anything but rather took them at their word that they are great?

And what does it say about a director of a government agency that they cannot put together basic guidelines on performance management?
 
mqt said:
If I’m a government employee who can string some words together and doesn’t like being fired, I can pass this test without doing anything but lie to Elon Musk. What does it say about a performance validation when it doesn’t actually validate that a worker had performed anything but rather took them at their word that they are great?

And what does it say about a director of a government agency that they cannot put together basic guidelines on performance management?
Click to expand...

First level is rooting out the absoulte worst of the worst - Then when you have a more manageable workforce that understand the current group in charge is serious then you can move on to other areas.

You just don't seem to grasp the sheer scope of the people that do little to nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top