So, the question makes a lot of sense. If you are essential to the operation of your company or organization, then that is self-explanatory. Without you, your company can't do what it's supposed to do, period. So, why have non-essential workers (excluding brothers-in-law and uncles, of course)?
National review puts it this way - One reason some cited against allowing a shutdown to occur is how it might encourage or otherwise aid in attempts to eliminate positions if they were deemed “essential” or not. As one who has gone through the “who is essential” exercise in a senior management position at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), here are some general thoughts.
The distinction between the two categories of essential versus non-essential can have very different meanings: is the function important, significant, or necessary? The most significant might be the senior executive charged with making decisions, relying on input from the important senior scientist with the subject-area expertise, and neither can get into the building or work at their desk unless someone lower in the hierarchy opens the doors or turns on the operations of the computer system. In this example, all positions might be “essential” to allowing the organization to function.
Does that make sense to you? Are doormen essential to your workplace or could you - gof forbid - opent the fucking door yourself? Inquiring minds don't care. Juss' sayin'...
I didn't make this up, it's old news. The "Program" is to crash the US for a Commie take over. More than Dems are in on it.
ReplyDelete