Dem aides could face massive layoffs

classicman • Sep 14, 2010 4:24 pm
Wasn't sure where to put this so ....
If Republicans sweep the House and win key Senate seats in November, it’s not just elected Democrats who will be unemployed — more than 1,500 Democratic staffers could lose their jobs, with layoffs stretching from low-wage staff assistants to six-figure committee aides.

While turnover and job loss is a fact of life for those who serve in Congress, a change in party control can be dramatic as committee funding is slashed for the party falling out of power and hundreds of high-salary jobs switch hands.

The layoffs start with election losers. Each House office employs about 18 people, and each Senate office employs about 34. But the heaviest job loss happens in committees, which employ hundreds of highly paid experts and attorneys. In the House, the majority controls 66 percent of the committee budget, meaning if Democrats shift to the minority, they would control only about one-third of committee funds, potentially leaving hundreds of committee staffers unemployed if Republicans sweep the House.

While there are no signs yet of a Hill-wide stampede, some Democratic aides say they are bracing for the worst.

“I think people underestimate how disastrous this could be,” said one House Democratic aide, whose member faces an uphill climb. “The job pool could shrink tremendously, and then the available jobs will be in very high demand. All sorts of people who are overqualified for things could be looking for jobs.”

LegiStorm, which tracks congressional salaries and staffing, estimates there are 1,500 people employed by House committees, and 1,000 of those currently work for Democrats. If the Democrats lose 40 seats and control of the House, it would shrink the party’s committee staffing percentage levels by half, eliminating roughly 500 jobs. POLITICO did not estimate committee numbers for the Senate because the Senate is not expected to change power.

When party control has changed in both chambers, the job casualties were brutal. In 2006, when Democrats won the House and Senate, approximately 5,000 to 6,000 Republican aides lost their jobs. And in 1994, when Republicans gained control, a few thousand Democratic aides — many who had spent careers on the Hill — were forced into unemployment.

Overall, there are roughly 18,000 workers on Capitol Hill, including those in nonpolitical support positions.

“It’s similar to a plant closing. About one-third of your colleagues lose their jobs,” said former Hill aide John Edgell, who lost his job as a Democratic aide when Republicans swept the Hill in 1994. He said he struggled for months to find a job. “You go through seven stages of grief ... Your two best friends become Jim Beam and Johnny Walker.”

Read more:

Interesting sidebar to the people whose lives are affected by the change in party due to elections. I hadn't really thought about it before reading this.
Lamplighter • Sep 14, 2010 5:15 pm
So, what do you think now that you've read it ?
Redux • Sep 14, 2010 5:21 pm
It happens to some degree in every election cycle.

But, most Congressional committee staff (as opposed to staff in a Congressmember's personal office) bring substantial knowledge of particularly policy issues to the table and generally find it fairly easy to find work in DC - with think tanks, public interests groups, trade associations, etc.

And not just as lobbyists. Two of the policy analysts in my organization were displaced Republican staffers from House/Senate Committees.
classicman • Sep 14, 2010 5:41 pm
Lamplighter;682389 wrote:
So, what do you think now that you've read it ?


I was really surprised at the sheer magnitude of people and the length of time some of them have been out of work. These are people with major degrees and what must be astronomical student loans.

I also thought the way the funding for the positions being broken down by party was strange.

You?
Lamplighter • Sep 14, 2010 8:37 pm
Lately, I am finding myself not wanting/willing to read links or long quotation passages
when there is no commentary by the Dwellar saying why the post is being made and/or their interest in it.
So, I've just now read your link.

I'm not seeing anything unusual in the article as that's just the way it is in government service.
The Feds are not any different than the States, the Counties, the Cities, etc.
Having been in State government, I have served "at the pleasure of the Governor" who in turn serves "at the pleasure of the People".

The only real structural impact of elections that bothers me comes from the fall out of "limited term" elections.
That is, when a politician is allowed to serve only 2 terms (e.g., 2 yrs each)
there is a significant loss of "institutional memory" as person after person leaves office,
and it's only the peripatetic members of their staff who keep some aspects of government
from falling into the most recent fad(s) of populist black holes.

It's sort of fun to watch politicians campaign by promising to serve for only one or two terms,
but then see them change their stripes when it comes time to step down.
With experience comes the wisdom of how the government really works,
and most politicians are not smart enough to learn everything
they need to know in their 1st or even their 2nd term in office.
xoxoxoBruce • Sep 14, 2010 8:40 pm
With experience comes the wisdom of how the government really works
And forgetting how it should work.
Lamplighter • Sep 14, 2010 8:43 pm
:)
classicman • Sep 14, 2010 8:59 pm
Thanks Lamp - that was a very thoughtful response.

Many times I cannot articulate my personal beliefs on a subject as well as others here. I am certainly not a writer.
At times I post things which I agree with, others that enrage me and still others that I just want to bring to the table. The latter of which most times I have not drawn a conclusion upon.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2010 9:19 pm
The layoffs start with election losers.
Oh good God, I hope every one of them has to go on food stamps. Tough shit.
xoxoxoBruce • Sep 14, 2010 10:47 pm
I believe you. :yesnod:
squirell nutkin • Sep 15, 2010 3:04 pm
"...Susan, I don't know how to say this, but either I'm going to have to lay you or Jack off..."


[COLOR="White"]"You're just gonna have to jack off, because I've got a wicked headache."[/COLOR]
xoxoxoBruce • Sep 15, 2010 11:28 pm
Please jack off, I've got a headache.
spudcon • Sep 16, 2010 2:05 am
For those staff members who were instrumental for this dismal failure our economy is experiencing, I have no problem with them losing their jobs. Most of the unemployed weren't fired because they totally screwed up.
Spexxvet • Sep 18, 2010 9:34 am
spudcon;682783 wrote:
For those staff members who were instrumental for this dismal failure our economy is experiencing, I have no problem with them losing their jobs. Most of the unemployed weren't fired because they totally screwed up.


Those staff members already lost their jobs, on Jan. 20, 2009.
TheMercenary • Sep 19, 2010 6:00 pm
spudcon;682783 wrote:
For those staff members who were instrumental for this dismal failure our economy is experiencing, I have no problem with them losing their jobs. Most of the unemployed weren't fired because they totally screwed up.

:thumb:
Urbane Guerrilla • Sep 23, 2010 11:43 pm
Spexxvet;683187 wrote:
Those staff members already lost their jobs, on Jan. 20, 2009.


Such tosh tells me you are proud to be an economic illiterate -- just like every Democratic voter this election cycle. Raving, wild bigotry against Republicans should embarrass you beyond endurance.

I'm so glad I have more wisdom than you. It tells me when you are mistaken, and when you desire to be mistaken, and how you will always hew to the mistaken. Your friends must be proud of and awed at you. I tell you you need better friends. I have such; they are around.
classicman • Nov 29, 2010 11:42 pm
Spexxvet;683187 wrote:
Those staff members already lost their jobs, on Jan. 20, 2009.


Well some more will be unemployed in January 2010...

I wonder what they do now. Do they actually join the real world?
Does anyone know? Does anyone really care?
Clodfobble • Nov 30, 2010 12:55 am
They get different jobs on Capitol Hill, usually. Friend's husband was an aide to a Democrat senator who lost his seat several election cycles ago; he just went and became a lobbyist instead.
glatt • Nov 30, 2010 8:22 am
My cousin's husband was a fairly high level republican staffer who lost his job when his Senator retired 2 years ago. He was unemployed for about a year before he finally landed a lobbyist job. It was hard for him to be so powerful and then to be nothing, and the family had a hard time financially.
classicman • Nov 30, 2010 9:58 am
Interesting, thanks.
Lamplighter • Nov 30, 2010 10:12 am
Glatt, I do feel for any family that has hardships.
But isn't working in Congress a lot like teaching...
You know you're not going to get rich teaching,
and you know that everything in DC is going to change,
not always for the better.
glatt • Nov 30, 2010 10:40 am
I'm not trying to paint him as a victim. He knew his job was only as secure as the next election. He had successfully played the Washington game for about 20 years, bouncing from position to position, and then hit a dry spell when his guy retired at the same time that his party lost power temporarily. But these are real people with families, and they don't always land in cushy jobs right away. My cousin's husband is doing OK now at a lobby firm.
xoxoxoBruce • Nov 30, 2010 11:49 am
Lamplighter;697204 wrote:

But isn't working in Congress a lot like teaching...
You know you're not going to get rich teaching,

Does not compute. :headshake
Lamplighter • Nov 30, 2010 12:13 pm
I'd like an introduction to your wealthy teacher-friends.
xoxoxoBruce • Nov 30, 2010 12:18 pm
You think those working in Washington aren't making very good money? Of course your idea of wealthy, considering your opinion that you should just send every child off to get a PhD if they want, might be slightly askew.
Lamplighter • Nov 30, 2010 12:31 pm
Sorry Bruce, there's some mis-communication here.
Please read my posting as:

Teachers don't expect to get rich
Congressional workers should not expect to be permanently employed, That is, nothing about what DC workers earn.

Also sorry, I'm not seeing a connection to your comment about PhD's.
xoxoxoBruce • Nov 30, 2010 12:42 pm
Only wealthy people would consider it a given, that all their children should go for a PhD if they desire. That's a huge financial commitment for even one, for multiple kids its committing over a $million. Be they liberal or conservative, people that have those resources are generally out of touch with what is the real world for most people.
TheMercenary • Nov 30, 2010 12:50 pm
Hey, as long as someone else pays for it then it should be perfectly acceptable! Whatever anyone wants.

zero liablity voters...:p:
xoxoxoBruce • Nov 30, 2010 12:56 pm
Yeah, but he didn't say anything about someone else paying for it.
Lamplighter • Nov 30, 2010 1:05 pm
Hey Bruce, please fill me in on this discussion.
Where did I say this stuff, my memory is failing me

(maybe I'll even agree with you !)
Lamplighter • Nov 30, 2010 2:46 pm
xoxoxoBruce;697259 wrote:
You think those working in Washington aren't making very good money?
Of course your idea of wealthy, considering your opinion that you should just
send every child off to get a PhD if they want
, might be slightly askew.


xoxoxoBruce;697272 wrote:
Only wealthy people would consider it a given,
that all their children should go for a PhD if they desire.
That's a huge financial commitment for even one, for multiple kids its committing over a $million.
Be they liberal or conservative, people that have those resources are generally out of touch
with what is the real world for most people.


Lamplighter;697296 wrote:
Hey Bruce, please fill me in on this discussion.
Where did I say this stuff, my memory is failing me

(maybe I'll even agree with you !)


OK, I found a thread with postings that may be where you are starting from. Is this it ?

Contrary to your remarks above, I don't believe and haven't said that all children
(with wealthy parents or not) should go for a PhD or any other degree,
based only on their wants/desires.
It's obviously dependent on each student's abilities and desires and resources.

My posts in that thread were concerned with avoiding credit card and student loan debts.
I did advise my G-kids in college to not accept student loans,
but instead to use grants that were available to them.

I'm not seeing how you get from there to not being in touch with the real world.
xoxoxoBruce • Dec 1, 2010 3:45 am
No not that thread, that one makes you sound semi-attached. Abilities are a prerequisite for graduate studies.
Lamplighter • Dec 1, 2010 9:31 am
OK, fill me in. Where are you coming from ?
xoxoxoBruce • Dec 1, 2010 4:20 pm
Massachusetts.