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.
mowotlarx OP t1_iz6fenq wrote
The irony is that despite the Mayor obviously trying to reduce headcount on purpose, he's simultaneously promising agency plans to promise higher productivity and new programs. But there's nobody to run the programs or hit those numbers. You can't cut city offices and then demand massive speed improvements and more services to the public. They lost massive amounts of institutional knowledge that ran those programs. Public services, especially social services, will suffer. He just refuses to acknowledge that.
Square_Rabbit65 t1_iz6gbzg wrote
Unfortunately that's called politics my friend, and a large reason as to why I left.
mowotlarx OP t1_iz6gxc2 wrote
Oh, I know. I. Know.
Which is why I'll always regret Kathryn Garcia not winning. Electeds don't understand how the city works (truly, many of them have no idea how anything works) and often treat staff with contempt. She actually had experience as a real city agency staffer who understood what works and what doesn't. Eric Adams and perpetual elected officials use city workers as pawns, they don't really care about how things work or whether things break when they're term limited out.
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.
mowotlarx OP t1_iz6ww1g wrote
>Once confronted with the complexity of intergovernmental affairs
...They pass a local law requiring a Task Force and the creation of a new agency/department that is supposed to wrangle information from every agency that inevitably does a bad job because it's staffed by people who themselves also don't understand how the city works. It's a tale as old as time.
arrogant_ambassador t1_iz6ji2n wrote
Do you see any future for those of us employed with the city who aren’t looking to leave?
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.
sanjsrik t1_iz6ybic wrote
Non profits that pay executives really well and the average worker shit you mean?
arrogant_ambassador t1_iz6lyfe wrote
The thing is I feel like I’d be trading up a low workload and benefits and security for a private org that’ll care equally little about me.
supermechace t1_izjfcsz wrote
Most corporations are made up of people who also worked their way up so they more likely to care to varying degrees about employee satisfaction. If pay is too low and doesn't adjust, you're also facing being affected by toxic culture and skill atrophy. In addition I don't know what NYC rules are on unpaid overtime, if you get into that situation you're basically working for free. The only situation I can see that would work is if you're disabled or physically unhealthy to work most jobs, if you can get a union desk job it might be tough for the city to fire you.
supermechace t1_izjg2m7 wrote
It sounds like NYC jobs would be ideal if you have health issues. If the pay is too low and doesn't rise much it's worst than having to bounce around companies. Also job skill atrophy and danger of adopting toxic culture as a norm. Most companies aren't the stereotypical founder/owner driven fiefdoms, they're staffed by people who also know what's it like to be an employee and care about employee satisfaction to a degree.
arrogant_ambassador t1_iz8eyu3 wrote
Curious to hear your thoughts - what makes the non government entities superior?
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.
arrogant_ambassador t1_izb2yo7 wrote
I understand that issue, but how does directly affect me?
Square_Rabbit65 t1_izbjmac wrote
The effect that a dysfunctional organization has on its employees is similar to the impact a dysfunctional family has on its children.
arrogant_ambassador t1_izbkr41 wrote
And you haven’t found that in other sectors? You seem very knowledgeable and I’m just trying to weigh my options.
supermechace t1_izj89zn wrote
I've never worked in govt but the op's descriptions sound similar to family owned(or majority share) companies Ive worked for. In addition to being stingy with pay and employee career training, it was a toxic environment. Many companies have toxic environments also but a decent company will adjust or at least recognize the balance of keeping employees happy and productive or at least the pay and experience is market rate. Below average pay and experience will hurt you longer term than a stable job in a low pay and toxic environment where leadership is unaccountable
arrogant_ambassador t1_izj9mp3 wrote
I’m trying to make sense of your last sentence - are you advocating for or against government work?
supermechace t1_izji1at wrote
In terms of working for NYC gov, against unless you have no other options. I wouldn't be surprised if Adams started outsourcing govt jobs, as increasing employee attrition ignoring morale while increasing pursuit of pet projects is usually a pretext to outsource jobs
arrogant_ambassador t1_izjkmtw wrote
Thank you for offering up your thoughts. It’s definitely something I will take into consideration as I begin to look for work again.
supermechace t1_izjlx9q wrote
I've been helping some people out with advice. Basically despite the drop in stock and real estate values, they still represent the only investment paths for financial security in retirement. But to invest you need spare finances. It sounds like city pay is so low that you may wind up broke or in debt by the time your pensions kick in at retirement.maybe it's ok if your spouse gets a city job while your job is the main income. In addition health care benefits are a big target for the city to cut costs. But outside of your finances, it's important to build up your skill set whether it's training or classes. Try to find a job that has the best balance between work your passionate about and your financial goals. Recognize the market is pretty cyclic and it appears even govt jobs like NYC is no longer a real safe haven from economic cycles due to politicians not believing in rainy day funds.
supermechace t1_izjgli8 wrote
Sounds like a setup for future outsourcing or subcontracting government operations. "Smaller govt"
rioht t1_iz63fi6 wrote
Good thing we've got a new Mayor working hard in the trenches and getting stuff done!
also /s
okktou13 t1_iz6er9p wrote
In essence, the vacancy issue is going as planned. I highly doubt the City will implement any WFH solutions and the City will be hesitant to increase wages for the foreseeable future unless something catastrophic happens. However, the consequences of this is that it will continue to be drained of talent.
jswimmer2010 t1_izg9033 wrote
I understand for some jobs the government will never be able to compete with the private sector, but they are letting engineers for example leave city employment left and right. They end up going private but it's the city that awards contracts to those private companies, so essentially they end up paying the person who just left the city a higher salary to work someplace else.
supermechace t1_izjgefm wrote
It almost sounds like NYC setting itself up to outsource more operations. The common refrain before such happens is that there's not enough skilled employees and it will fit the budget
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments