Fire their a$$es. Quickly.

Bring in the hatchet man. Get out the pink slips. Give ‘em their walking papers.

And hire 8 new US attorneys.

(Uh-oh. Did I let the cat out of the barn?)

Tie benefits/pay to performance.

@ Dick E

Yeah, the 8 of 93 was a dead giveaway. For the rest of the world, there's 93 US Attorneys. Bush fired 8 last week.

That would be a good analogy if the main reason for their firing had been performance issues. Instead, what has come to light so far seems to indicate that the firings sought to placate republicans who felt these attorneys were either not pursuing Democratic corruption fast enough to affect the election, or pursuing Republicans in corruption probes that hurt the party. The analogy to that would be, except for these 8 USCos, the rest continue to abet the company in pursuing questionable investments, while these eight refuse and get the ax for it.

Er... actually it didn't occur to me that people wouldn't get the analogy; the category is "Atrocious Analogies," for heaven's sake!

Not that the analogy is atrocious; I think it's pretty close. My point was that it's always a perfectly good reason to fire a senior employee, who has major responsibilities, if he refuses to head in the same direction that the capo di tutti capi is heading... even if the firee is perfectly competent.

Of course it's political. What's wrong with that? Suppose Al Gore were elected president (it's just a thought experiment -- don't panic!) and he announced a new White Horse strategy of going after big polluters with every law at the USG's disposal.

But suppose some of the U.S. Attorneys simply refuse to do so; they don't believe that's the best way to achieve pollution reduction, for example.

Would any of the usual suspects see anything wrong with canning them and putting in replacements who were good with that program? That is precisely what "serve at the pleasure of the president" means.

I like well-constructed analogies, because they remove much of the baggage found in the original situation and at least let us see the logical conclusion. The "baggage" in this case is the political hit the president takes for "politicizing" the U.S. Attorneys; but it's fairly minor, considering the previous president's precedent.

Dafydd

Nykrindc:

Instead, what has come to light so far seems to indicate that the firings sought to placate republicans who felt these attorneys were either not pursuing Democratic corruption fast enough to affect the election, or pursuing Republicans in corruption probes that hurt the party.

"Come to light?" I haven't seen any such evidence. If you could link to some reasonably authoritative source that says this, it would be very helpful.

Thanks,

Dafydd

"Come to light" = Accused by enemies

For Nykrindc, from a still unmollified Repub:

I can't get no real placation
I can't get no propitiation
'Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
When I'm watchin' my TV
And a US attorney comes on to tell me
How fine the corrupt Dems can be
But he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't support
The same administration as me
I can't get no, oh no no no
Hey hey hey, that's what I say
I can't get no satisfaction
I can't get no Dem jail action
'Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can't get no, I can't get no

Dafydd-

I too assumed everyone would get it.

The last sentence of my post -- my feeble attempt at humor -- only works if one is not surprised by the preceding paragraph.

I think anyone surprised by paragraph 2 reads paragraph 3 and says “Huh?” My assumption was that at least 98% of your readers got it. Get it?

Rather than fire them, you could use the corporate strategy of saddling them up and riding them around the office. Sometimes this works out better.

In a similar vein, say you had an employee is well spoken and chraismatic. But many other people at work hate the guy. You find out that the guy is cheating on his wife. He was also a seriel groper in the work place. One of the women at your office sues him. He is then embroiled in a trial where he commits purjury. As part of the trial it comes out that he has been having sex with a woman on his desk during work hours, in fact while talking to one our you clients on the phone.

Questions: How long would it take you to fire this employee?

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)