Square_Rabbit65

Square_Rabbit65 t1_izb2dx3 wrote

Adaptability.

Government entities are usually much slower to adapt. Because there are few metrics one can use to analyze the "productivity" of a government org, its difficult to highlight successes and failures. And even then those are subject to misrepresentation by campaigns, media etc.

Thus, governments become a breeding ground for career bureaucrats who continuously pull the levers of power in the wrong direction. You cant get rid of them because they are either elected and aren't going anywhere for the next 2-4 years or they are appointed govt officials (commissioners, directors etc) and are covered by collective bargaining agreements so they aren't getting fired.

3

Square_Rabbit65 t1_iz6l2ie wrote

If you are comfortable with mediocrity then yes. But if you have higher aspirations I would recommend looking elsewhere.

The City does not care about you. It does not care about your financial well being, your mental health or your life and priorities outside of work.

All of which would be better off by leaving City service for other government entities, non-profits or the private sector.

13

Square_Rabbit65 t1_iz6jgai wrote

You're on the right track there.

Having worked for both the legislative and executive branches of government I can attest to the fact that most elected officials have no idea what's going on at a macro scale.

Once confronted with the complexity of intergovernmental affairs and policy issues they realize their campaign promises probably aren't as realistic as they thought them to be.

12

Square_Rabbit65 t1_iz5z6bv wrote

Former employee of the New York City Mayor's Office of Management and Budget here. I'd like to take some time to shed light on current recruitment and retention issues that municipal employers in NYC are now facing, how we got to this point and possible solutions.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a whistle blower. Everything that I am about to state is public knowledge. I am simply conveying my perspective as an individual who was responsible for overseeing the hiring decisions of several City agencies.

First are foremost, the City of New York is flirting with a massive budget gap in the next few fiscal years. I don't think its incredibly controversial to highlight the effect that COVID policy had on the City's finances. A massive black swan event and cultural shift was not included in the City's budgeting forecasting in 2019...obviously.

In order for the City to have a balanced budget, the Expense budget must be equal to the Revenue Budget. The Expense budget is comprised of operating expenditures such as salaries, overtime, equipment, supplies, contracts etc. While the Revenue budget is a reflection, and future forecasting, of all of the revenues the City will collect in a given fiscal year, such as sales tax, property tax, income tax, transportation fares, fines, fees, forfeiture, State and Federal grant funding etc. Since COVID the actual and forecasted future City revenues have plummeted, leaving the City in a deficit. In order to plug this hole the Federal government has stepped in and provided States, including NY, with funding to help bridge budgetary gaps. This funding is billed as revenue as used by OMB and the agencies to schedule out payments for operating expenses that the City would otherwise not be able to pay for. The problem is that in the next few fiscal years this funding is running out. Leaving the City with a gaping hole in its budget.

There are only two ways to bridge a budget gap. Either increase revenues, which is unlikely given the current economic conditions or cut expenditures. What is the City's biggest overhead you ask....salaries. Salaries can't be lowered due to protections from collective bargaining agreements. These agreements also protect employees from mass layoffs/firings.

So, why are there large numbers of vacancies you ask? In short, it is the intent of the City to gradually lower the number of City employees.

How are they doing so?

  • 2 for 1 Hiring Freeze
    • Citywide policy requires agencies to abide by guidelines which only allow them to hire one employee after two separate service. This creates artificial vacancies and ensure that agencies will never be a full headcount.
  • Budget Cuts
    • During budget planning, because of the 2 for 1 hiring freeze, agencies have a number of vacancies. OMB will then pressure agencies to cut vacancies which they cannot fill, thus lowering the City's operating budget.
  • OMB Oversight of Agency Hires
    • OMB micromanages agency hires. Virtually all of the relevant data in regards to new hires and promotions is scrutinized. Agencies do not have the full discretion to make hiring decisions related to proposed salaries, promotions, title and rate of hire etc. All of these decisions are made by OMB and are designed to offer the bare minimum so the City doesn't accrue as much in salary expenses. This process is done monthly and can take additional months before an analysis and approval is complete, therefore delaying the hiring process and leading candidates to accept other more lucrative offers elsewhere.
  • No WFH Options
    • Enough said. The City is experiencing unprecedented rates of attrition due to the fact that they cannot compete with employers in the private sector. Private sector institutions are offering higher salaries, WFH/Hybrid models, better opportunity for advancement, more PTO and more comfortable workloads due to proper staffing. Due to the factors listed above, the City is also having difficulty hiring. Just as current employees are making this assessment and leaving, prospective employees are looking from the outside in and doing the same. There's just not enough people who want to do the work.

What are some possible solutions?

Some obvious solutions would be a WFH/Hybrid option, higher salaries and expedited hiring process. But I believe I did a decent job explaining why the City DOES NOT want that to happen and how they benefit from lowering headcount amongst the workforce. Quite simply, its by design.

57