Originally Posted by
HPL
I'm sure that you have heard the old adage about assuming. That aside, I was not saying or even implying that civil servants are in any way inferior or not as worthy as those in the private sector. My point is that the comparison is simply not a valid one. When was the last time that you heard of a civil servant (and especially at the federal level) worrying about losing his job because his employer was going to be unable to make payroll? The public sector simply doesn't have the same market pressures driving it that the private sector does. In general there is no competition, and often little real accountability. When was the last time you heard about any real "downsizing" in the govt workforce? It certainly appears to me that a civil service job is a job for life unless one commits some truly egregious infraction. Being inefficient and spending too much of the "employer's" money seldom seems to be cause for dismissal. In the private sector, if I own a business and run it poorly, I suffer the consequences (as could my employees). In the public sector, if the managers are inefficient and run things poorly, it is the client that suffers the most (usually without an alternative for the service provided). I have plenty of friends that are educators, county agents, federal law enforcement, and military, and all are good honest, hardworking folks, but their jobs are much more secure than mine, my wife's, my brother's, or any of the folks I know in the private sector. So, I'll stand by my position that you really can't compare them.
I will also say that I'm pretty sure that the OP was referring to the real takers (those on straight up welfare) when using the term leaches, even if some wanted to interpret it as all who receive government checks.