This makes me sick.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/se ... ht/?hpt=T2

I work for the government so I know how this type of situation can arise with years of incompetence followed up by years of white washing, no accountability and no reprisals. The easiest way to rid an agency of an incompetent employee is to promote them out of their current position.

I see it happen on a regular basis here. The Peter/Paul principle at its finest.

Did you catch that general saying that he found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing?

I don't give a shit if a guy fucks up deliberately or not, a fuckup is a fuckup and you terminate the idiot.

Is this the standard by which malfeasance is judged, whether or not it was deliberate or not?

I was asked about some very tough hiring standards I had, it wasn't the hiring itself that was tough, it was the standard to stay working.

I would run an ad in the paper for assembly/hand bindery work. When an applicant came in I sat them down, showed them how to do some taping and folding, and watched while they did it. I could usually see if the person was careful enough in a few minutes. I hired them on the spot and put them to work whenever they were ready. Those who didn't make that decision were done. The work was closely scrutinized for a week or two and any time I saw something marginal going on they were done. If after months or even years I ever saw substandard work I would tell them to pack up their shit and go.

I had people who thought that this was tough when the person had a good attitude or was trying, I maintained trying wasn't good enough where perfect is the bottom line standard.

Marking graves properly is undoubtedly crucial, if you fuck that up you are not suitable for that job or probably any other. I wonder how many federal and state workers I'd get rid of if I used my standard of acceptance? If a person can't or won't do the job they were hired for they should be gone.