It’s generally referred to as “a principled stance.” The same result will happen either way; this way, you get to tell your kids you made the right choice.
to me, the more principled stance would be to stay and resist until they are forced to fire you, which makes them look bad. I would have no qualms about telling my kids I made the right choice in that scenario. But others have pointed out that doing this might lead to a career civil servant losing their retirement benefits, and I can understand that that is a lot to throw away for resistance actions that will ultimately change very little.
Probably has something to do with retirement funds. If you have been paying into the system for 30+ years you need that money when you retire and don’t want to see it wiped out or reduced if you are fired.
Being principled in government jobs has a high cost.
… One could say the same of participation in the electoral process. Taking your ball and going home doesn’t work any better as a voter than as an official.
i don’t really agree that “one could say the same” because these are totally different situations. A voter is not a civil servant. A voter does not get paid to vote. Most voters did not swear an oath to defend the constitution (unless they are a naturalized citizen). A single voter also has no power to block an insurgent force from taking over key government systems, unlike a civil servant.
Also a voters pay and retirement benefits are not likely to be impacted by how they vote. Civil service it can make a huge difference in the long run if you retire vs get dismissed.
Is this being dismissive? You presented your point of view and they presented theirs. A nice exchange. You don’t have to agree and you don’t have to answer, but this end felt like an eye roll.
why are these people leaving? they should force the government to fire them and make a big stink about it.
It’s generally referred to as “a principled stance.” The same result will happen either way; this way, you get to tell your kids you made the right choice.
to me, the more principled stance would be to stay and resist until they are forced to fire you, which makes them look bad. I would have no qualms about telling my kids I made the right choice in that scenario. But others have pointed out that doing this might lead to a career civil servant losing their retirement benefits, and I can understand that that is a lot to throw away for resistance actions that will ultimately change very little.
Probably has something to do with retirement funds. If you have been paying into the system for 30+ years you need that money when you retire and don’t want to see it wiped out or reduced if you are fired.
Being principled in government jobs has a high cost.
this makes a lot of sense to me. I can understand choosing to resign if this is the case.
I’ve been wondering if either they’re being paid very well to leave or being threatened.
… One could say the same of participation in the electoral process. Taking your ball and going home doesn’t work any better as a voter than as an official.
i don’t really agree that “one could say the same” because these are totally different situations. A voter is not a civil servant. A voter does not get paid to vote. Most voters did not swear an oath to defend the constitution (unless they are a naturalized citizen). A single voter also has no power to block an insurgent force from taking over key government systems, unlike a civil servant.
Also a voters pay and retirement benefits are not likely to be impacted by how they vote. Civil service it can make a huge difference in the long run if you retire vs get dismissed.
Ooookay.
Is this being dismissive? You presented your point of view and they presented theirs. A nice exchange. You don’t have to agree and you don’t have to answer, but this end felt like an eye roll.
It is a massive eye roll.
A single voter has(had) the power to join other single voters.
Most civil servants have little power against an AR.