During a period of prolonged unemployment, the only resource one enjoys in abundance is time.
I lost my job in 2007. I worked for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR), a state agency charged with regulating insurance companies, currency exchanges, state-chartered banks, real-estate brokers, and host of professionals ranging from physicians to security guards. It was a dull job. Dull, but reasonably well-compensated. It also gave me a privileged vantage point into the inner workings of state government. Because I find myself with time on my hands, I've decided to take this opportunity to debunk a few widely-held myths about state government.
Myth: The state is inefficient because it is overly centralized.
Fact: The state is inefficient because it is not centralized enough.
Many people reading this statement are probably scratching their heads right now, so let me explain.
State agencies come into being as a result of laws being passed by the state legislature. There is no point in passing a law unless an agency exists to enforce it. So, a new act is passed in Springfield and--presto!--a new agency needs to be organized.
The state grows agencies the way people in South Texas build houses. In South Texas, when a new child is born to a family, or when an aged abuelita moves into the home, father and sons build a new room onto an existing house. Rooms are added as the need arises, instead of conforming to some overall plan. Over time, houses built this way come to look awkward and ungainly. They may still serve their basic function; however, they appear unsightly from the street, and their interiors become difficult for strangers to navigate successfully.
The state has the same problem. The term, "State of Illinois" is in fact a fiction, an umbrella term used to refer to a scattering of totally disconnected agencies. Each agencies has its own policies and procedures, its own traditions and internal culture. No one from any one agency has any idea what any other agency is doing. No one is ever told who regulates what. There is no integration of any kind. It is this lack of centralized integration that makes navigating the state such a headache for its citizens.
Myth: The state is overstaffed with unneeded patronage workers.
Fact: This is not so much a myth as a gross exaggeration. There is a certain amount of bloat in the system, but it exists overwhelmingly at the top of the hierarchy, not at the bottom. At ground level, where state employees interact directly with the public, there is a massive, chronic staffing shortage.
For example, say you have an auto accident and your insurance company refuses to pay. IDFPR has exactly four people whose job it is to take your complaint. That is, four people in the entire state. Think about how many people live in Illinois, then think about how common disputes with insurance companies are. You get the picture.
Myth: State employees are lazy, surly, and rude because their union makes it impossible to fire them.
Fact: State employees can be, and sometimes are, fired. To say otherwise is pure hyperbole. Being covered by a union contract simply means state workers have to be fired for cause, rather than at the whim of a supervisor. Union employees can be fired, but only at the end of a clearly defined grievance process. In many countries, this is the norm. The United States is unusual in that the overwhelming majority of workers here are employed "at-will."
In an at-will employment situation, an employees are entitled to quit their jobs at any time, for any reason, with or without notice. Needless to say, this is not much of a "right" as far as employees are concerned. However, the rules of at-will employment also allow employers to fire employees at any time, for any reason, with or without notice. If an employee feels he or she was fired unjustly, they must prove the firing was unjust in a court of law. Employers carry no such burden; their right to fire is honored automatically while the case is being adjudicated. Since many employees lack the time, money, and legal savvy to take on their employers in court, the "at will" employment relationship gives employers near-dictatorial power over their workforce.
Because unions in the US are so weak, with so few workers covered by union contracts, American employers (and most workers) see the at-will employment relationship as normal and natural. They don't question it. American employers are so accustomed to totally controlling their workforce, they tend to regard any other arrangement as an outrageous infringement on their rights. In fact, however, at-will employment is no more or less "natural" than other other arrangement. It is simply one of many possible models for employer-employee relationships, one that heavily favors the rights of employers.
As far as the accusations of rudeness and laziness go, my co-workers at the state were the same mixed bag of people you'd expect to find in any workplace. Some were surly and lazy; some were energetic and helpful. I think people who find all state workers incompetent or unhelpful have fallen prey prey to a phenomenon psychologists call confirmation bias. Simply stated, confirmation bias is our tendency to interpret new experiences in ways that confirm what we already believe.
For more than a generation, US political culture has been permeated by right-wing, pseudo-populist, anti-government propaganda. This propaganda campaign has been so successful most Americans now accept its key tropes as "common sense." For example, most people accept, axiomatically, the notion that government can't do anything right. Many also accept the corollary to this belief: that everything can be, and should be, run like a business. After marinating for 25+ years in a stew of neoliberal orthodoxy, is it surprising we often regard the boorish man at the DMV as typical, while forgetting all about the pleasant woman at the Social Security administration? When a clerk at Walgreen's treats us rudely, we don't blame it on the fact he or she work for a for-profit company. However, when we get similar treatment at a public agency, the experience immediately activates our stereotype of the sluggish government bureaucrat.
That said, I will concede the point that some government workers could be a lot nicer and more helpful than they are. Why the rude behavior? That leads me to my next, and last, point.
Myth: The state has plenty of money; they just need to tighten their belt more.
Fact: One of the most shocking discoveries I made while working at the state was how utterly impoverished it is. Illinois ranks fifth in the nation in terms of its population size, yet has one of the lowest state income-tax rates (3%). What this means, at ground level, is that most state workers cannot possibly do their jobs effectively. Whatever their level of commitment, they simply lack the resources.
I already cited the example of IDFPR's staffing shortages. I can give others. For example, investigators at the Illinois Human Rights Commission have to pay travel and other expenses out of pocket; reimbursement by the state can take three months to four months. Meanwhile investigators need to travel every week. This means they are always behind financially. Their employer, the state, always owes them money. The state is so poor, it requires its own employees to subsidize its day-to-day operations.
As a result of these and other problems arising from the chronic lack of resources, we have a state system heavy with demoralized, dispirited, disgruntled employees. When one's job seems hopeless, not caring becomes a rational response. Is it any wonder some of them become rude and indifferent?
