The effects of giving goverment workers lifetime jods?

Answer 1

Life term position holders are prone to curruption and less flexibility in the office for political change, which could include adaptability to current situations such as war, economic droughts, people's rights, and much more. Liftetime jobs restrain the people from voting for the candidates they would like to have work for the general good, especially every few years when the wants and needs of the people change. However, the purpose of giving government workers lifetime jobs is for political independence. Just like how the Supreme Court Justices have life terms, these indefinite terms allow the office holders to make decisions that are less politically influenced, since they do not have to worry about re-election. Although this sounds like a bad idea, it actually has benefits. The needs and wants of the people change constantly. This year, people might want to buy a home and ask for legislation to lower home purchase taxes, and the next year they might want a car and want just the same. Or perhaps one year they're working for the mining industry and the next they're working for textile: their political interests will reside with what would benefit them the most, which change from time to time. The purpose of life terms for a few govnerment workers is to allow them to make long-term decisions that would benefit the country in the long run without the fear of being ousted from office. They direct the country in a general direction, allowing the nation to commit to a purpose and allowing the nation to accomplish it. Life terms save the nation from rapidly changing public opinions that may hinder national development, and the good of everyone within.

Again, the Supreme Court has shown that a life term system is effective. The justices fear no political retaliation and so can make unbiased decisions.

Answer 2

I don't believe anyone should be "given" a job. If they don't have the right qualifications, it would be stupid to hire them. It shouldn't matter if it's government or any other position. If the person is qualified for the job, then they should be considered for hire. If you "give" a government worker a lifetime job, the worker may get lazy, thinking he's got it made with a lifetime job. If he screwed up, no one would be able to fire him, allowing him to continue screwing up. I think, as long as you're doing your job well, you should be able to work at your job for as long as you're able. If that be for the rest of your life, then so be it. If you fail to perform up to the standards that the job has always required, then you need to be replaced. Now, if you're talking about elected officials, I do think they need to step out of their position after a certain number of years. It was never meant that a person who got elected was to stay in that position for the rest of their lives. They were to serve a certain number of years, then step down and allow someone else a shot, going back to the jobs they had before they were elected. This gives the people some fresh ideas. <*)))><

Answer 3

They get richer for doing no work, and the middle class worker get poorer, because of all the tax levied against them to make the politicos rich.

Answer 4

Unfortunately.
Low productivity and less responsabilities taken by the workers.

Answer 5

Although you get loyalty in the position, you run the risk of having slack-offs and people who do not pull their weight basically getting sinecure.

Answer 6

NO CHANCE FOR ADVANCEMENT FOR THE OTHER CO-WORKERS