An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Get Off of That Lazy Butt of Yours And Start Working
Oef. This must be horrible…
Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January.The horror.
Indeed. Terrible, terrible. And not just for politicians:
“I have bad news for you,” Hoyer told reporters. “Those trips you had planned in January, forget ‘em. We will be working almost every day in January, starting with the 4th.”The reporters groaned. “I know, it’s awful, isn’t it?” Hoyer empathized.
Heh.
For lawmakers, it is awful, compared with what they have come to expect. For much of this election year, the legislative week started late Tuesday and ended by Thursday afternoon — and that was during the relatively few weeks the House wasn’t in recess.
Do they actually have to start working for a living? That is not why they ran for office! Politics is something like a retirement, without getting bored, right?
Members of the 109th Congress worked… 103 days, “that’s seven days fewer than the infamous “Do-Nothing Congress” of 1948.”
Hope they don’t get tired…
29 Responses to “Get Off of That Lazy Butt of Yours And Start Working”
I guess we are going back to the pre-1980 Democratic Party Model that when elected, politicians are suppose to move themselves and their families to Washington and become permanent residents (like Al Gore Junior). The reason for the shorter work week was that many of them travelled back to their district on the weekend and more of them keep their families back in their districts.
Of course none of those politicians ever went back to their home districts after retiring or being defeated in an election. They just all stick around DC and become lobbyist and influence peddlers.
Having a permanent ruling class living fulltime in NW DC is nothing to start crowing about.
How will they have time to do what’s really important to a congressman, raise money?
What a dream job! What other occupation allows so many benefits for part time work? Congress gets to:
Determine its own schedule-with no minimum amount of hours/days worked, and multiple lengthy recesses for holidays and summer.
Vote itself pay increases-whether or not they are deserved.
Police itself on ethics–usually with a quiet wink towards ethical lapses- (of course if these lapses become public-then they are hypocritically condemned by the opposition party)
Vote in provisions gerrymandering “safe” districts- so that they have much better chances of being reelected.
Establish contacts with the power brokers in Washington (lobbyists) who further help with re-election financing and provide free goodies like meals, trips and transportation on charter jets.
Receive a generous pension and a lifetime of perks after retirement.
Get the attention of pundits and members of the media whenever you’d like.
With such great working conditions, is it any wonder that the 109th forgot who sent them to Washington? I say let them see what working for a living feels like. Replace privilege with public service. I hope the last election was a slap in the face.
Oh you poor dear. (rolls eyes dramatically). Look, there were hired to work. There get very good money and amazing benefits. In a normal job that would mean working your ass off. If you don’t want to work hard don’t take the damn job. I appreciate that you want to see your family, that’s why MOST people keep their family where they work. Sure you can worry about them becoming disconnected from their states by living in Washington but lets be honest, they usually don’t use those idle hours to go home and listen to the needs of regular people or go fishing with their sons, they use it for fundraising.
Hmm, I can see it both ways. Perhaps they should be required to work a certain number of days in their districts: to be available to meet with constituents, etc (and somehow that would have to be tied to campaign finance reform so that these *ahem* meetings weren’t about the transfer of large checks).
A greater issue than the number of hours worked is what they are actually doing during those hours. I heard an interview with Obama recently where he said that his greatest disappointment as a new Senator was the realization that during most floor speeches, the Senate chamber is actually empty. He said that most of those speeches you see on C-Span are actually given to a camera without any audience present. And of course the reason he said this is so is that most of the Senators are back in their offices most of the time and that this is due to the need for fundraising. How appalling, in a legislative body that is meant to form policy through rigorous debate.
IMHO — When Congress is in session, its elected membership should be present. One doesn’t campaign for office at this level without understanding that a major part of one’s time will be spent in the capitol.
These folks are effectively accepting a job, and trying to renegotiate its conditions after the fact.
There are no flights out of DC on Friday evenings, or into DC on Sunday evenings? (that’s rhetorical, of course)
A number of jobs require at least some degree of travel (management consulting comes to mind). The prospective jobholder has two options in such cases: fly home for shorter periods, or don’t pursue the position.
Besides Polimom: nobody ever said that serving the people should be an easy job. I am quite serious about that. Those lazy youknowwhats are complaining about just about everything. Instead of bitching about working five days a week (FIVE DAYS I ask you!!!), they should realize that they get paid by tax payers money. They serve the people and if that means that they have to work 7 days per week, 15 hours per day, that’s what they should do.
I don’t disagree with you guys over the family issue but I’m not so sure I like them spending so much time in DC. It’s a whole other world there and it does tend to make them out of touch IMO. And again, the bigger problem to me is that when they’re in DC they aren’t doing their freaking jobs…
Michael,
You reminded me of how hypocritical the demand for work hours the house is about to start. Congress usually does not start in session until noon in DC. Yet, the staff has to come in well before that and the staff works much longer than eight hours per day.
I find it hypocritical that many of the Democrats who are demanding unions for all and a mandatory eight hour work day for all are now going to start asking their staffs to work 12-hour-plus days five days a week plus probably with work on the weekends.
If Congress is going to work a normal work schedule the least they could do is stop exempting itself from the work rules that Congress places on everyone else.
If Congress to design a “business process” that could accomplish their work in five, eight-hour days per week that would be beneficial but what working five days a week means 12-14 hour days for their staff.
well, one could argue that they, then, have to hire more staff or those staffers know that it comes with the territory. I cannot possibly feel bad for that.
superdestroyer so far as I can tell there is nothing in the news about demanding more hours from the staffs of Reps and Senators, just asking more out of Reps and Senators. Overworking and exploiting staffs is another issue, worthy of being addressed, but I don’t see how forcing the bosses to work more is bad for the underlings by definition.
Lynx,
It is implied that the staff will have to work long hours. Right now the staffers only have to pull three long days each week. Now they will be asked to pull five long days each week. It also means that the work that used to be done on Friday and Monday will now have to be done on the Weekends. Haven’t people heard of staff prep before?
In DC, in my limited experience, being an aide to a “power player” means coming in before the boss by at least one hour and usually much more, staying the whole day that the boss is there, and they staying on after the boss has left. It is a fairly hard life and it is why most of them do not stay at it.
You should look up the stories about Joseph Califano you will find that when he was Secretary of the old HEW he worked so many hours that HEW had to hire two complete staffs of admin workers and remodel his office so that it would have its own environmental controls. HEW is not exempt from government work rules so Califano could just not make people work long hours.
superdestroyer I’m not denying this is an issue, I’m just saying that the solution to abusive schedules for staffs isn’t making sure they only have 3 abusive days a week instead of 5. Congressmen should work a full week, period. If 16 hours of work a day is needed when they are in DC then each congressman should have two staffs working in alternating shifts. If you need 12 hours of work then hire 50% more people and have them work overlapping staffs, but the excuse of “I won’t work the full week because that FORCES me to abuse my employees even more!” is not cutting it.
I am not giving it as an excuse but as an unforeseen impact of working the longer days. And no, they will not add staff or overlap their staffs. Would you want to be the staffer who sent home on the early?
Longer work weeks will mean that the staffers will become even more extreme than they already are since fewer people will be willing to do it and thus you will get the extreme partisans. The congressional staff turnover will be even higher which will give more power to the committee staffers and less to the Congressmen.
I do agree with the sentiment that they need to return to their home districts. Whether or not they need to return to their home districts in order to see family, they need to in order to stay in touch with those who they are supposed to be representing.
That said, something doesn’t add up here. They need these 3 days work weeks so they can go back to their home districts and stay in touch with their constituents. They also need many long recesses so they can go back to their home districts and stay in touch with their constituents. I understand that there is a lot more to the job than what goes on in the halls of Congress but you either need the 3 day work week to return home and stay in touch with your constituents on the other 4 days or you need all the recesses because you can’t return home and stay in touch with your constituents when Congress is in session.
They should have two choices: either work a full week and take the recesses or work 3 day weeks and cut down drastically on the number of recesses they get.
As for the staffers, maybe if their bosses were there a little more often, the staffers wouldn’t have to do as much of the job that their bosses should be doing (like reading legislation they will be voting on) in the first place. If this would create the need for 5 days a week of long work hours, then maybe there is a need for larger staffs that could work multiple shifts, as Lynx pointed out.
I am a big fan of spending as much time as possible with people you are doing business with. Over time we build respect, rapport and an instinctive desire to want to reconcile differences. There is more time to explore subtlties and nuances that is not possible when posturing in public.
The value of NATO, OSCE and other security organizations to to provide opportunity to interact and deal with issues while they are small.
I wish there were a custom for the congressional leaders to have to dine together at least once a week and play golf or go sailing once a month.
superdestroyer — there are a number of personnel solutions to the staff working conditions. Split schedules, for instance, or half days.
Your concern is not misplaced. However, giving the Congresscritters a pass on working a “regular” schedule because we’re worried about their staffers sends a very odd message (to me).
Its my impression that although congressional staffers do most of the work, many establish invaluable connections, and use their staffing positions as a stepping stone to lucrative jobs with law and lobbying firms, or later work in the media on legislative affairs.
If running the government requires so little effort, and elected officials devote in reality most of their time to fundraising, maybe they don’t need to be so well compensated for their minimal efforts. In the past 6 years we have had little oversight from Congress. Much of our legislation is actually written by lobbying firms and corporate interests as our energy bill was. That is why they were able to work a 2 1/2 day work week, and take many other weeks off for holidays and vacations. If they have to go back to doing the actual work of the institution, it would require a larger time commitment. If they aren’t prepared to put in a 4 1/2 day week about 26 weeks a year, why are they there? They could work a 4 1/2 day week and still have plenty of time to connect with constituents back home.
I don’t see how we can expect them to work afternoons after a three martini lunch.
And mornings, well, they’re for sleeping off boozing with lobbyists the night before.
Come on people, be reasonable!
Paul in Austin said: “I wish there were a custom for the congressional leaders to have to dine together at least once a week and play golf or go sailing once a month.”
There was a custom of GOP and Dem leaders regularly golfing and socializing together…back in Tip O’Neill’s time.
Those were the days of Dem. hegemony. It is easy to get along with your opponent when he/she is not a threat. Look at how well Clinton and Dole got along.
Why is no one considering the politics of this? The Democrats scored a huge hit with this…representing the GOP on the Hill as a bunch of lazy fat asses who don’t do anything (and look at the conservative blogs who are agreeing).
Score: Pelosi 1 – GOP 0 (negative numbers, would be more realistic)
I think you are right about the political issues, Marlow, and if Pelosi continues along this track she will hit a grand slam on Congressional reform issues. The real test will be over earmarks IMO.
superdestroyer posted “I find it hypocritical that many of the Democrats who are demanding unions for all and a mandatory eight hour work day for all are now…”.
Prove it. Where have they demanded that?
Kim,
In my limited work with staffers, I was totally unimpressed with them. Most of them are well connected before they ever get to DC since they are mainly the children of rich parents back in the district. The model for too many staffers are kids of politically active parents who attended second and third tier universities back in the district, majored in political science or government, and all want to be president. However, many of them sour of DC pretty quickly and want to leave.
They were some of the most disorganized people I have had to work with. They also had horrible work habits because they all started so late in the day and just could not show up on time to anything. When working on the contractor side with a group of hill and executive department political staffers, we always had meetings at 4:30 PM because it was the end of the day for us but the middle of the working day for them. The best thing was that the meetings were alway catered and the food was pretty good.
What is also amazing is how many of the staffers are being supported by their parents while living in DC. There is no way that they can afford to live in DC in a neighborhood fit for upper middle class white kids on the pay of an entry level staffer. Thus, their parents subsidize them. I find that the parental subsidy more than anything else affects their political beliefs.
Congressional salaries aren’t that amazing given the cost of maintaining a residence in DC. I know someone who was transferred there many years ago and was appalled at how much it cost them. They’ve moved on since then but I know that the cost of living in the DC area has only gotten worse. Put things in context, folks.
As far as staying in touch with their constituents might I suggest using things such as a heavily publicized 800 number to allow constituents to call for free and two way communications through the internet for much of that contact?
Jack Kingston’s “Anti-Family” comment is especially egregious considering the situation in Iraq. Many guys are on their fourth deployment, staying a half a year at a time and every day serving up yet another chance to be killed.
For Kingston to whine about losing his 4 day weekends and calling it Anti-Family is just sick. If so, Iraq must really be “Anti-Family”, no?
Hey, none of the Congresscritters has to show up for work. They can skip all the voting they want. If the Republicans are too tired to vote, they can just head over to Morton’s for a relaxing steak and stogie.
Jim,
Look at progressives and the left of the poltical spectrum’s support for adopting European labor laws. Look at the suppport by Democrats for Barbara Ehrenreich’s books for employement. The books propose very tough labor regulation. Look at the Democratic party’s unquestioning support for labor unions.
There are not many on the Progressie left who are proposing creating more exempt positions.
But many Congressmen become overly reliant on their staffers. They are often unfamiliar with the details of legislation they are voting on. If they actually had to do the work we are paying them to do, maybe they would see working in Washington as the public service it is supposed to be, instead of the pot ‘o’gold at the end of the rainbow. Maybe we wouldn’t have legislators in office for life- like Strom Thurmond, Sen. Byrd, Sen. Kennedy, Sen Burns- before his untimely defeat, LOL!
I have read accounts where ex-Senators who have returned home are depressed for a month, because they are no longer treated like royalty. When they call, no one jumps.
Once again someone on the right takes the most extreme positions from the opposing part of the political spectrum and tries to make it sound like the mainstream position. Sorry, superdestroyer, I don’t buy it. Saying that there should be stricter rules that don’t let employers get away with mistreating their employees or making certain they pay overtime is not the same thing as a mandatory 8 hour work day.