Slashdot Mirror


Why US Gov't Retirement Involves a Hole in the Ground Near Pittsburgh

Increasing automation worries some people as a danger to the livelihood of those who currently earn their livings at jobs that AI and robots (or just smarter software and more sophisticated technology generally) might be well-suited to, as the costs of the technology options drop. The Washington Post, though, features an eye-opening look at one workplace where automation certainly does not rule. It's "one of the weirdest workplaces in the U.S. government" — a subterranean office space in what was once a limestone mine, where 600 Office of Personnel Management employees process the retirement papers of other government employees. The Post article describes how this mostly-manual process works (and why it hasn't been changed much to take advantage of advancing technology), including with a video that might remind you of Terry Gilliam's Brazil. As the writer puts it, "[T]hat system has a spectacular flaw. It still must be done entirely by hand, and almost entirely on paper. The employees here pass thousands of case files from cavern to cavern and then key in retirees’ personal data, one line at a time. They work underground not for secrecy but for space. The old mine’s tunnels have room for more than 28,000 file cabinets of paper records."

142 comments

  1. Been there, Done that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  2. This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by tloh · · Score: 1

    Of course! I know where I've seen this before.

    "The X-Files" Season 3 Episode 2 "Paper Clip" /* insert witty comment about government secrecy and overreach */

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    1. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      ... insert witty comment about government secrecy and overreach */

      Government secrecy and overreach aside, I'm not certain the power of technology is ready to challenged an entrenched army of bureaucrats.

      Long after every assembly line job is automated, government functions will still be as efficient as they were in the fifties.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Have you been asleep for the whole 'NSA' thing? I'm not heartened by this; but if that isn't efficiency, I'm not sure what efficiency looks like...

    3. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by DeSigna · · Score: 1
    4. Re: This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by peragrin · · Score: 2

      The NSA is the exception. Still snowden proves the NSA relies on 50's era trust for documents. Why wasn't secure connections established for Hawaii? How many other sites does the NSA allow full access to their documents.

      Also the NSA fired 90% of their Admins shortly afterwards. If they were that overstaffed what else is their bureaucracy screwing up?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by darrylo · · Score: 1

      No, this is the cover story for the Umbrella Corporation's Hive ....

    6. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if that isn't efficiency, I'm not sure what efficiency looks like...

      The NSA may be efficient at amassing lots of data. But I doubt if that is an efficient way to achieve their real mission of identifying useful intelligence. They are efficient at creating haystacks, but that doesn't mean they are finding many needles.

    7. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brazil pre-dates The X-Files by quite a bit

    8. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by NettiWelho · · Score: 2

      The NSA may be efficient at amassing lots of data. But I doubt if that is an efficient way to achieve their real mission of identifying useful intelligence. They are efficient at creating haystacks, but that doesn't mean they are finding many needles.

      But is NSA's job really to 'idenfity useful intelligence' or create the databanks ready for when they do actually find a needle throught other means, that all they have to do is write the needles name into the search box and they get a list of needles friends and relatives and all juicy little dirty secrets as well, unabridged, in-detail history of you and your relations?

    9. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      I believe that law enforcement catches as many criminals as it can afford to catch. There are probably millions of Americans who could feel a hand on their shoulder at any moment but the simple truth is catching a criminal creates a huge expense in many cases. It is rather like an IRS auditor who can easily catch far more cheaters than the system could ever hope to deal with. It is also part of the reason that arrests are sometimes seen as racial in nature. If you were running a cop shop and knew that one segment of the public could afford good lawyers while another segment almost had to plea bargain due to lack of funds from a tax payer perspective you simply don't want to arrest those with enough money to fight back. Racial issues and money issues are welded together and it is only when a society is willing to hurt itself economically that the cops can go after well heeled citizens.

    10. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by Sique · · Score: 2

      Then the NSA does a hell of a non-job. It wasn't able to find the nadle named "Tsarnaev brothers", though there were warnings about them. Same with "Abdulmutallab", which seems to have turned up nothing despite even his own father was warning about him.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    11. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would guess their job is spending as much taxpayer's cash as possible on contractors, hardware from preferred vendors, and so on. This involves keeping tabs on the various members of Congress who have their grubby hands on the money faucet.

      And as a sort of afterthought, if there are no foreign tradesecrets to steal and pass on to same private sector, I suppose some of them might be trying to find needles in all that data. You know, when it is expedient and doesn't get in the way of its core activities, in order to be able to claim "we tried" when shit does hit the fan.

    12. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But I doubt if that is an efficient way to achieve their real mission of identifying useful intelligence."

      You're under the false understanding that there mission is just intelligence. The NSA is basically the arm of the rich to do their dirty work, I wouldn't put it past them that they are trying to gather data to perfect propaganda techniques to re-shape society.

    13. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by oji-sama · · Score: 3

      I believe that law enforcement catches as many criminals as it can afford to catch. There are probably millions of Americans who could feel a hand on their shoulder at any moment but the simple truth is catching a criminal creates a huge expense in many cases.

      Considering the prison population in the USA in comparison to many other countries, the American law enforcement would seem to be rather well funded.

      --
      It is what it is.
    14. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I believe that law enforcement catches as many criminals as it can afford to catch. There are probably millions of Americans who could feel a hand on their shoulder at any moment but the simple truth is catching a criminal creates a huge expense in many cases. It is rather like an IRS auditor who can easily catch far more cheaters than the system could ever hope to deal with.

      Yes. There's simply not enough manpower to corral all the tax dodgers, but enough of them are audited and prosecuted to create a general deterrent.

      It is also part of the reason that arrests are sometimes seen as racial in nature. If you were running a cop shop and knew that one segment of the public could afford good lawyers while another segment almost had to plea bargain due to lack of funds from a tax payer perspective you simply don't want to arrest those with enough money to fight back. Racial issues and money issues are welded together and it is only when a society is willing to hurt itself economically that the cops can go after well heeled citizens.

      Your theory on arresting folks based on their socioeconomic standing runs counter to my experience. Don't forget the police are but a small part of the legal system, and from there it goes jailers, bondsmen, lawyers, judges.... arresting merely the have-nots will not provide that greenish grease the system requires.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    15. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's better at NSA (very doubtful), but have you been paying attention to how things have gone for VA medical records?
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
      http://dailycaller.com/2014/02...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    16. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What warnings? Did they look similar to thousands of other warnings about others that never panned out into anything? If so, then it was just noise.

    17. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      General deterrents don't exist. If they did, the death penalty would be a deterrent.

    18. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2

      Did they look similar to thousands of other warnings about others that never panned out into anything? If so, then it was just noise.

      With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight that warning was proved to be accurate. That means it wasn't noise, it was actually a signal lost in the noise.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    19. Re: This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the NSA fired 90% of their Admins shortly afterwards. If they were that overstaffed what else is their bureaucracy screwing up?

      You do realize that people are fired for reasons other than "we are overstaffed", right?

    20. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily.

      If smoke exhumes from 85 out of 100 houses due to burning firewood, then smoke exhuming from houses is not signal. If a house is on fire, and smoke is escaping from it, a glance at the skyline showing smoke rising from a house is not signal.

      If, however, you adjust the angle on your scanner so as to get tops of houses--and use more, staggered scanners--and find that smoke is coming from the WINDOWS of this house, THAT is signal. It's different.

      So if the "warnings" about these two jackasses were similar to "warnings" from thousands of other no-shows, nothing really distinguishing, then those "warnings" were just noise. The PETN bomber (non-threat: PETN doesn't explode without a complex detonator) was, in hind sight, so obvious for two reasons: he didn't stow a coat on his trip to Chicago and he had talked to men who were wearing suits ("well-dressed men") during a lay-over in an air port. That's right: not bringing a coat and talking to anyone who is better dressed than you are indicates you are a terrorist.

      I've talked to a lot of well-dressed men. They mingle. And as for not bringing a coat: he was flying one way from Amsterdam, potentially didn't have a coat or had his possessions shipped separately, and if he was not in possession of a coat he could have bought one at Chicago instead of buying one locally and paying air fare to ship it. These are just noise.

      It is the same with so-called "warnings" about terrorist attacks: if they're the same warnings we hear eighty billion times a year that never pan out, something was different about "this time". What is different is, by definition, not the same: if three hundred thousand individuals threaten to blow up Washington, DC and ONE actually attempts it, the fact that he THREATENED to do so is not an indicator that he's going to blow up Washington, DC. It's an indicator that he has a loud mouth. You need other evidence to draw attention to this one particularly; and if you can't effectively investigate all of them, you're better off investigating very few of them, or none, unless you have other indicators that can come up in very quick and light investigation. Without seeing those additional indicators, what you have is just noise.

    21. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by bob_super · · Score: 1

      The moment the prisons became a very profitable business, you could be sure that the cops and judges would get the money they need to keep getting convictions.
      Tolerance and prevention policies don't bring quite as much cold hard cash and jobs.

    22. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAH! HAH! Good one! AAaaaaa.heh.you know that that level of depth will allow one to build any matrix (intelligence) one wants, right? Usefulness can be scripted on the spot.

    23. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by Sique · · Score: 1
      And that's exactly the problem the NSA faces: Hindsight is 20/20. After you know who actually staged an attack, you recognize the pattern that might have raised the alarm. The NSA seems to believe that they can spot the pattern before the actual attack, but so far it didn't happen. At least that's what we know. The NSA seems to believe that more data will help spot the patterns more easily, but to me, it looks as if all it spots is noise and signals indistinguishible from noise.

      Sometimes I am reminded of the Bible code. If you look at any, even random, data long enough, you find enough seemingly meaningfull patterns, but in the end it's impossible to make a difference between signal and noise.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    24. Re:This is a glitch in the Matrix...... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No, you're wrong. You don't recognize the pattern that might have raised the alarm; you construct an imaginative story in retrospect that holds no meaning in real life. There are two explanations for this: firstly, that your story is a ball of pseudo-logical bullshit that sounds more important than it is; and secondly, that you *didn't* take notice of any of this stuff, therefor it was never going to get noticed.

      They're both interesting explanations, and both important. Through studies of history, it's been recognized that journals of events and analysis of human behavior do not line up with scholastic history. Wars are the easiest target: journals of World War 2, the Liberian Revolution, and so on tell a tale of sudden surprise at a conflict out of nowhere, and of the war being over "any day now". Liberians up and left Liberia, moved into hotels to wait out the war for a week... and stayed there for 18 years, in a hotel, on extended vacation.

      History tells us of mounting tensions, growing economic unrest, and a culmination of hostility that elevated in the preceding weeks, followed by a long and heavily-planned war; none of that shit ever happens. That's how it's told about Liberia, and that's not what happened: nobody expected the war to last more than a few days longer throughout its entire 20-year history. That's how it was told about World War 2, and that's not what happened: Germany had an idea for a sweeping victory which somehow strung out into a long campaign, and every week the allies believed they'd have the war won by the following week and would be dancing on Hitler's grave.

      The very same people whose diaries told every day of the surprise and unexpectedness of the sudden war, the sudden invasion, the sudden change in government policies, and the dying down of conflict that should end the war in the next day or three immediately came out of the settling dust talking about the mounting tensions and obvious, visible indicators of the progress of the war since the weeks leading up to its inception and throughout its entire course. Everything that happened was visible, the whole way. The human mind concocts this imaginative fantasy about the past, and it's not *real*; it is a fairy tale.

      Hindsight is not 20/20. Hindsight is functionally retarded.

  3. Mutants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mutants living below New New York? That is New Pittsburgh...

    1. Re:Mutants by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mutants living below New New York? That is New Pittsburgh...

      Actually that is the regular Pittsburgh. We call them "yinzers".

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Mutants by TimMD909 · · Score: 2

      Their pontifications about the Steelers make it an amusing town to live in 'n'at. Yinz don't even know...

    3. Re:Mutants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need I remind you the correct pronunciation of the word "Steelers" is Stillers.

  4. Been There, Done that... by sexconker · · Score: 0
  5. What could possibly go wrong? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by schlachter · · Score: 3, Funny

      remove the oxygen from the mine so things won't burn. then the people can work without fear of fire.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  6. Not surprising by Megahard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My wife worked 30+ years for two different government agencies. Getting OPM to figure out her pension correctly was a nightmare.

    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
  7. Cue The Jokes... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    ... about asses and holes in the ground.

    1. Re:Cue The Jokes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... about asses and holes in the ground.

      Isn't a "Hole in the Ground Near Pittsburgh" that is full of government employees funny enough without resorting to rectal humor?

    2. Re:Cue The Jokes... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Isn't a "Hole in the Ground Near Pittsburgh" that is full of government employees funny enough without resorting to rectal humor?"

      To be honest, I thought they fit together rather well.

  8. Awesome cover story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome cover story

    1. Re:Awesome cover story by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      I agree; I couldn't let go of the paper (also ran on Washington Post); somewhere out there is my dream job! Bringing in a chromebook would mean you are from the surface and if I brought in bottled water it would be a crime--just kidding!

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  9. Makes perfect sense by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This makes perfect sense. Who are people eligible for retiring? People who have worked for the government longer than 30 years (lesser time depending on age). Thus a lot of the records having to deal with these employees are on paper, because that was what was in use when they were hired.

    So there are two options - spend a ton of money all at once and digitize everything, or simply process the old paper records only as needed when those long-term employees retire. The first option is very inefficient because a significant number of the records will not be needed by the Office of Personnel Management for individuals who have died or no longer work for the government.

    As time goes on, more and more people retiring will have all digital records, and eventually the whole paper thing can go away. As the article quickly glosses over, only 15% of the cases require referencing the old paper records actually stored in the mine. And that number will constantly be dropping as those older employees retire.

    So the current method is more cost effective and will naturally "go away" on its own after another decade or so.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Makes perfect sense by pseudofrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did you even read what he said? Or did you just seize up with anger when you read the word "government"?

      I mean, he gave a thoughtful comment pointing out that this system is probably the cheapest way of dealing with the move to digital records. Why did you then respond with "Herp derp! Government sucks!"

      You libertarians don't seem to even care if your rants are on topic these days.

    2. Re:Makes perfect sense by guruevi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not necessarily. I know at least one institution where day-to-day purchase orders have to be submitted in writing, signed off by two or three people, in triplicate, sent by inter-office mail, typed up into a minicomputer, printed out (using a daily batch print job), sent back by inter-office mail for verification, sent back again by inter-office mail with confirmation after which they'll create a purchase order send it back by inter-office mail after which you can send it to the vendor. Then once you got the product, the vendor sends an invoice where it has to be processed again in the minicomputer, printed out, sent out for verification, sent back with confirmation after which they'll write a check, send it back to you for sending to the vendor. Then once the vendor cashes the check, there is a final verification sent out and sent back.

      Oh and none of these processes are connected with a database. If you send them anything at any step, you have to include the entire purchase order because they won't know what you actually ordered when you simply say Purchase Order Request 135595. This process is supposed to take 2 weeks however they currently have a 3 week backlog.

      Replacing the system hasn't been done because (back in the day) they decided to go with a closed source solution and all that data is forever locked in a binary system. They're attempting to replace it with a closed source cloud-based system from an Australian vendor (this is in the US) which will take 2 years and 7 Aussie developers on-site (at ~$250/h each + room and board) just to implement the business processes, data extraction is done by another vendor to the tune of ~$1M. Your tax dollars at work!

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Makes perfect sense by MacTO · · Score: 1

      Government run institutions are among the last to change, except when they are among the first to change. The thing is that there are a lot of government institutions out there. Some of them have a lot of motivation to institute change, because the scale of the problem is so large that traditional methods won't work. Some of them have a lot of motivation to avoid change, because the amount of effort required to institute change exceeds the returns. So you are in a sense right: there are cases where there is no reason to change. Yet you are also wrong: it is a feature (i.e. they aren't changing in order to control costs) rather than a problem.

    4. Re:Makes perfect sense by fermion · · Score: 1
      Someone who started work in 1985 at age 30 would be able to retire now. They would have to wait for social security and medicare, but retirement would be not only possible, but encouraged as the US tries to reduce the overcapacity built up during that time, overcapacity generated by the lack of the highest administration to understand effectiveness that would be generated by the maturing technology of the time.

      Computers had been in use for over 30 years at that time by the US governement. By the 80's computers were in wide use for many purposes. I would suggest that many records are in computers, but one issue we have seen is that the government has not be able to get the computers to work together.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:Makes perfect sense by plopez · · Score: 1

      Ummmm... nope. They work as they do primarily due to acts of Congress. They are mandated to process the records and if they want to change they need to get money from Congress and any enabling legislation which may be needed. Which may or may not be "pro forma" depending on who has their snout in the public trough and which comittee(s) have oversight.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    6. Re:Makes perfect sense by plopez · · Score: 2

      I was working for a uni. on a mainframe system doing maintenance programming. One of my co-workers had the job of getting old records off of 7 track tape and migrating them onto an IBM OS380/MVS system in EBCIDIC. It took her 6 months to figure it all out.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    7. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people would prefer they didn't talk amongst the departments. If your info is wrong in one of them, you're not as screwed as if its wrong in the one place where it matters to all. And with government, it always seems that something is screwed up due to the sheer volume of information.

    8. Re:Makes perfect sense by plopez · · Score: 1

      Better a gradual approach than an SAP, PeopleSoft, or $OtherHorridSystem. A cloudified distributed BYOD 24/7 converged SaaS mobile soultion. And the security breaches are free!

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    9. Re: Makes perfect sense by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      He comments aré thoughtfull but history tell us goverment do not change and aré not efficent.

      Should I bring a couple of counter-examples from, you know, history to counter that claim (the one I made in bold)?

    10. Re:Makes perfect sense by alen · · Score: 2

      RTFA article, it's a business rules problem
      due to lots of laws on the books calculating pensions differently for different agencies and different years of service it's almost impossible to code the business rules to take in different factors into account

    11. Re:Makes perfect sense by InvalidError · · Score: 2

      The point he was probably trying to make is that if the government wanted to make things more efficient, they should have converted most of those 30 years of paper backlog to digital form since they probably have to do that to make things fit with current administrative systems anyway.

      Doing as-needed data entry spares the trouble of converting documents before they are necessary but has more overhead for hunting down files on a case-by-case basis while bulk data entry spares the trouble of hunting down individual files at the expense of filing some data that might never get called up for. Bulk entry done right would also have the benefit of automated cross-checking to highlight discrepancies and potentially dead files.

      In other words, if the government wanted to be efficient about it, they would re-file data electronically for their primary working set and keep paper records for backup/reference purposes in case someone disputes electronic records instead of relying on paper records as their primary source.

    12. Re:Makes perfect sense by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Meanwhile in geophysics we just send the old stuff on reels to people that transcribe tapes like that onto new media nearly every month. However some current geophysical standards still have EBCDIC file headers and a lot of current software can read the old stuff, so that's probably only replacing the easiest bit of the above process.
      Vim can be used to edit EBCDIC and "dd" can convert it to ASCII.

      What is hard is getting stuff from low contrast scans of dot matrix printouts, or even from the original printouts if they have faded a lot. Reels of tape hold up better than some uses of paper.

    13. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One might argue that the cost of maintaining all those records "forever" might dwarf the cost to digitize them all once. How will we know when we no longer need those records? Do we just hang onto them until 90+ years past when all of the records started being kept digitally so we make sure we don't toss 110 year old Joe Bloes paperwork because he started the day before the records went digital?

    14. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you're the only person in the world who hates government and believes that they're profligate spenders. Everybody just loves throwing their tax dollars at boondoggles. Ergo, in a democracy, with such an idiotic citizenry, it makes sense that government would be feckless and wasteful.

      Except, almost everybody thinks like you. They elect politicians who think like you. And government is nowhere near as wasteful as people believe it is, especially when you compare it to how most companies are managed. Are you going to tell me that your work place is a wonderland of efficiency and thrift?

      You wanna know where money actually gets systematically wasted? The military. Why? Because the gung-ho nut jobs want bigger guns more than they want lower taxation. That's democracy at work.

    15. Re:Makes perfect sense by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      People who have worked for the government longer than 30 years ...

      Military pensions start at 20 years. So someone can enlist at age 18, and then retire and start collecting a pension at age 38.

    16. Re:Makes perfect sense by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      due to lots of laws on the books calculating pensions differently for different agencies and different years of service it's almost impossible to code the business rules to take in different factors into account

      If that's true, I wonder how the IRS processes tax returns. I can't imagine anything more complex than our tax laws. I doubt it's that bad, more likely it's that our government is really bad at taking on big projects.

      At least they've put a new spin on the term "data mining".

    17. Re:Makes perfect sense by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thus a lot of the records having to deal with these employees are on paper, because that was what was in use when they were hired.

      So there are two options - spend a ton of money all at once and digitize everything, or simply process the old paper records only as needed when those long-term employees retire.

      Because there are no personnel-related actions between hiring and retirement which could benefit from automation?

      And, in any case, the fundamental assumption behind your argument -- that records were all paper-based 30 years ago -- is simply false. I know from personal experience that one significant federal employer, the Department of Defense, managed all personnel records electronically 30 years ago. And, in general the notion of any large organization not having digitized such record-keeping in 1984 stretches credulity. Even in 1954 automation wasn't rare in large organizations, though it was of the punched card variety (and the punched card processing was often mechanical, not electronic). In 1964 it would still have been unsurprising to find a large organization that did everything on paper. In 1974 it would have been surprising and a bit backward, but not shocking. In 1984? No.

      In fact, the article even quotes a man who oversaw the system in the early 80s and upon discovering the fact -- in 1981 -- he was shocked and dismayed, and concerned that being near such backwardness would destroy his reputation. 30 years ago was well past the point when everything of the sort was all electronic.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to agree. The big mistake was not looking at the whole legislative shebang and realising it was not economical to digitise at this time. They could have spent a fraction of the money they have spent and speeded up the processing by simply hiring and training more staff. It probably would help if they put in a more reasonable working environment as well as I'm sure they have trouble retaining competent staff who'd rather not work in the Black Hole of Calcutta.

    19. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this get tired fast, especially when the rants these crazies make are made from ignorance.

      At least with the DoD, I started with all paper records (SF86's ,etc.) and a year or so ago they switched to electronic SF86's. So they are doing exactly what what was said above and the idiot who responded to it doesn't get. Government is slow and inscrutable sometimes, but with respect to retirement records things are improving.

    20. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a fellow employee!
      i'm in cubicle 14G, where are you?

    21. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seemed to have missed a crucial part of the article:

      If they have digital records, they print them on paper and put them in a manilla folder. Then they take the manilla folder to a different department to be digitized.

      The problem will not go away without seriously overhauling the process.

    22. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguing that the military is an example of inefficient government is idiotic. When it comes to their primary mission, breaking people and things, I'd argue that the US military is second to none. Most of the useless shit the military does can be traced back to 535 self-serving assholes, most of whom have only ever seen the business end of a weapon on TV.

    23. Re: Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The core operations of our military are highly efficient. It's what makes us so formidable, more so than our technology.

      But Congress is obsessed with blowing money on new gadgets. That's where the money is wasted. Anything "security" related is a money pit.

    24. Re:Makes perfect sense by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      And, in any case, the fundamental assumption behind your argument -- that records were all paper-based 30 years ago -- is simply false. I know from personal experience that one significant federal employer, the Department of Defense, managed all personnel records electronically 30 years ago. And, in general the notion of any large organization not having digitized such record-keeping in 1984 stretches credulity. Even in 1954 automation wasn't rare in large organizations, though it was of the punched card variety (and the punched card processing was often mechanical, not electronic). In 1964 it would still have been unsurprising to find a large organization that did everything on paper. In 1974 it would have been surprising and a bit backward, but not shocking. In 1984? No.

      The DoD is probably a special case - most fhe 'employees' it manages are probably there for under 10 years, and the number of "lifers" is relatively few. Plus, DoD gets a huge budget every year and they can afford to modernize. They probably digitized the information because they found some loose change after the war, and the ones that weren't digitized mostly cleared out through attrition.

      Meanwhile, you have podunk departments who probably are staffed by people for 30, 40, 50+ years, whose budget rarely exceeds $100K, and all that, and you have to manage their information somehow. You could digitize it (it's at most 2 employees), but given it's just two people who probably know each other very well, doing it by paper is just as efficient. And they were probably there since the 70s and 80s (really, that's only 30-40 years ago) where they only time t hey saw a computer was when they bought a Commodore 64 for their kid.

      Yeah, you could digitize it all, but you'd probably need a whole new department of people whose sole purpose is entering data into a computer. For information which for 99.99% of the time, will never be looked up ever.

      Paper works just fine in that case - the probably is you don't know WHICH 0.01% will be needed, so you have to do it all, but you also know doing it all is pointless as the vast majority of it will just rot away on some hard drive somewhere.

      And really for that 0.01% case, the cost of looking it up manually probably is lower than entering in the bulk of the data.

      Especially as the problem will work itself out in the end.

      It reminds me of the xkcd that shows how much time one can spend automating something versus how much time it will save. The government probably did the calculation and saw it wasn't beneficial. The records are old, seldom looked up, and the more recent stuff is in the computer already.

    25. Re:Makes perfect sense by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Remember back before January 20, 2009? When the government was automatically bad because Bu$hitler was in charge? Yup, everyone spun on their heels and suddenly the government was a force for good and anyone who opposed it was doubleplusungood. We have always been at war with Eurasia, we have always been allied with Eastasia.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    26. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      COBOL. On a mainframe.

      I read about this several years ago - still was able to find this post from 2007. I would assume they made some progress since then but surely not that much (if I recall there was some noise last year about fraud with IRS contract to buy new mainframe but I am too lazy to find link).

    27. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Government sucks!"

      You libertarians don't seem to even care if your rants are on topic these days.

      All my conservative friends use "Government sucks" as support for deregulation and cutting public services. You think they are libertarians?

    28. Re: Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would take a revolution, or people disliking the way things are for change .

    29. Re:Makes perfect sense by Megol · · Score: 1
      No. No actually I don't remember that.

      But then I actually understand that "government" includes also the bureaucrats that actually does what the elected leaders decide. And that everything doesn't flip because a figurehead changes.

    30. Re:Makes perfect sense by Megol · · Score: 1

      COBOL. On a mainframe.

      I read about this several years ago - still was able to find this post from 2007. I would assume they made some progress since then but surely not that much (if I recall there was some noise last year about fraud with IRS contract to buy new mainframe but I am too lazy to find link).

      Why would they need to "progress" from a working system? COBOL works and mainframes works. The most used mainframe series are still developed and are in most cases more cost efficient than porting or emulating.

      So again why the need to "progress"? Try to answer that without any technical prejudices please.

    31. Re:Makes perfect sense by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      Get your logic out of here! I want to blindly hate the government and if the only way I can do it is by misinterpreting everything in order to push a narrative of inefficiency then so be it!

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    32. Re:Makes perfect sense by jimbolauski · · Score: 2

      If you cared to RTFA you would know that there were two failed attempts to digitize the records one in 1987 that was canceled in 1996 and the second in 1997 which had a delivery date of 2008 that was scrapped because it didn't work. The first attempt failed because of lack of technical oversight as an English lit PHD was in charge of the oversight. Both programs had issues processing the vast array of documents with slight variations to them. Large government IT projects have a history of failing miserably, Obama care is the most recent, a research group found only 5% of these large projects succeed. I imagine the scope of the project is not clearly defined due to lack of technical expertise when writing the requirements, the technical oversight is lacking, and the magnitude of the project is underestimated in most of these cases. Anybody that has experience managing these large projects is not going to take a huge pay cut, move to Pittsburgh, and work in a cave. It's not lack of desire that these projects fail it's lack of expertise to get these projects to succeed.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    33. Re:Makes perfect sense by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, you're insinuating that the people doing it by hand can do the "almost impossible" work easier than having it coded? Seriously?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    34. Re:Makes perfect sense by usuallylost · · Score: 1

      That assumes that the other parts of the government are actually starting to digitize the processes that input into this. They are attempting to do so but as the article states only 5% of large scale government IT projects succeed and 41% completely fail completely. Some of those other projects are very likely ones that will provide the digitized inputs into this process. So while I think your over all analysis is correct that this problem will eventually self correct I suspect your time line of "another decade or so" is probably optimistic.

    35. Re:Makes perfect sense by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Or, 17 with parental consent.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    36. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like textbook libertarian stuff, so yes?

    37. Re:Makes perfect sense by hink · · Score: 1

      ... Computers had been in use for over 30 years at that time by the US governement. By the 80's computers were in wide use for many purposes. I would suggest that many records are in computers, but one issue we have seen is that the government has not be able to get the computers to work together.

      Getting the wildly heterogeneous systems to talk together is the major sticking point. I have been REQUIRED to enter duplicate information into multiple database systems during the over 20 years I have worked in the federal government. The worst offender for this duplication is systems that track "mandatory" training requirements. A major cause of the smokestacks is that the people who pay for a system do not want to pay money so that "other groups" can use the data. Another driver is the mindset that not providing an interface makes for better security.

      --
      - speaking only for myself, as always
    38. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the joy of SEG-Y headers. Frankly I'm just glad I've had to deal with SEG-D less and less, these days...

    39. Re:Makes perfect sense by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      No, because you have multiple problems, apparently being solved in the same solutions.

      One, storing personnel records that get mailed in, on paper. Arguably another is finding those records, but stems from the first.

      Two, calculating pension rates based on the data.

      A system that solves the first may spit out bad numbers, and it has to be dropped.

      The personnel records are not being stored in a common format now, so it won't be solved on its own. The only current solution is digitizing records as they come in, which makes the problem worse.

      Step zero is getting all gvmt personnel records in the same format, storing relevant markers. And step negative one is making sure pension laws don't change, making more data required that only exists on paper today. Then it will work itself in infinity years.

    40. Re:Makes perfect sense by plopez · · Score: 1

      It wasn't even in EBCDIC. Something else.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    41. Re:Makes perfect sense by swillden · · Score: 2

      You should RTFA. The records are digitized already. A big part of what the "hole" does is turn them all into paper, then process them, then re-enter them in the computer.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    42. Re:Makes perfect sense by timbrennan · · Score: 1

      Difficult, yes, but not even near impossible. I know because I have implemented a federal pension calculator for a private sector company, twice. The first iteration was more for planning, however, I am nearing completion of a new calculator that would be suitable for both retirement processing and longer term planning. It's not a problem that can be solved with money or manpower, it's a problem that is solved with a very flexible design and intense knowledge of the business rules. You can also not rely on any sort of specification provided by the federal government or the laws themselves because there is too much grey area left to interpretation. We had rely on multiple sources of information including word of mouth to pull everything together into a unified design. We have implemented our solution with a staff of only 2 developers and a handful of subject matter experts. The development process was not a "go away and build this" but rather a constant back and forth of Q&A and testing from start to finish. I am familiar with the previous failed attempts at modernization and the inability to compute accurate retirement benefits was a big factor in the most recent failure. The company I have built this for is a small company and while they have attempted to be involved in the modernization effort they are simply overlooked. They could literally offer their calculator for free to OPM and they would be turned down. If you are not a large corporation, with a large lobbying budget, you have no chance. The other problem of getting the data in electronic format is actually a much easier problem to solve technically, however, it's a much harder issue to physically implement due to the large scale of existing data that is paper based.

    43. Re:Makes perfect sense by omnichad · · Score: 1

      "All digital" as time goes on only means that all of their paper documents will be scanned as images into a digital file system. Aside from the storage space, going all-digital saves nothing else with their current methods. It does not transcribe the data into a computer-readable format. At best, they would be manually typing data into a computer system from a digital scan instead of from physical paper. And it appears every agency has their own documents - nothing is standardized.

      Even brand new records are coming in on paper if you'd bothered to read the article.

    44. Re:Makes perfect sense by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The DoD's "huge budget" as you call it is organized into a wide variety of areas by Congress. The DoD doesn't get to apply it as they see fit. When items are large enough in the budget, they receive their own recognition, becoming a "program of record" with Congressional oversight, and specific funding. That would likely be the case here.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    45. Re:Makes perfect sense by Amazing+Proton+Boy · · Score: 1

      The dirty little not-so-secret-anymore is that the IRS simply does not do anything with about 90% of returns other than cash your check or send you a refund for whatever you ask for. They simply are forced to trust that the numbers are right. This is now out in the open and has resulted in a new type of scam where criminals simply fill out bogus returns for hundreds of SSN's claiming refunds. The IRS then happily sends them the money, to the tune of $millions of dollars to single addresses. The US Post office sometimes has to rent bigger trucks just to deliver the thousands of checks.

      Sad.

       

    46. Re:Makes perfect sense by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      The DoD is probably a special case - most fhe 'employees' it manages are probably there for under 10 years, and the number of "lifers" is relatively few.

      Perhaps my little corner of the DoD is an exception, but from what I can tell, nearly all DoD employees are very much lifers. Very, very few of my former coworkers have went off into private industry, and very, very few of the new hires come from private industry. I'm assuming that since you single-quote the word employees, you're not actually talking about their employees?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    47. Re:Makes perfect sense by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You're sure about that? I distinctly remember that the government was bad, bad, bad. This was repeated daily for eight years. You sure you don't remember it? You couldn't get away from it even if you tried. It was on these very pages of Slashdot...again, daily. How old are you, anyway?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    48. Re:Makes perfect sense by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      The laws are complicated as hell, but very few individual returns are terribly complicated. The ones that are complicated tend to be the same complicated year after year, so if they get audited once and an IRS agent sits down with the paperwork and verifies it's all cool in 2007 then nobody human needs to look at it for a decade or two.

      OTOH we have checks and balances, a small-c-conservative form of government, and a Legislature where every legislator has a lot of power. That means that if in 1975 Congressman Dingell decides to help retirees he can probably get that done, but only if he helps a limited number of retirees (because helping a lot would be expensive). So some department gets a tweak boosting their pensions. If in 1995 Congressman Souder decides Federal pensions are a too expensive then he can probably do something about that, but (again) only by gently tweaking the rules for a small number of retirees.

      And since the only guy with the power to force the system to be rational is the President himself, and the President himself generally has a bigger vision then rationalizing Federal retirement benefits, it all ends up crazier then the tax system.

      At least with the tax system the Congressman who invented the 1040EZ can boast about doing something most people actually liked.

    49. Re:Makes perfect sense by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      This is largely because the IRS has to send out refunds as quickly as possible. It does some checks that can be automatic quite quickly (for example you can't send in a return with wrong W2 or SSN information because the Social Security database is quite good), but other info simply can't be checked in any reasonable time-frame.

      For example a lot of people have businesses that aren't big enough to require full-scale accounting services. Their income is fully taxable, but the IRS has no idea which bank account is used for the business, or even if a bank account is used for the business at all. I know a nanny in NYC. Her business is a purely cash affair, she's got no bank account, and she doesn't keep very good records; so how the fuck could the IRS verify whether her income is $15k or $50k?

      Which means they can either take her at her word (which is almost certainly wrong, because she doesn't know what the real numbers are, even tho she isn't actually trying to cheat them), and send her check or they can delay her check and send an accountant to grill her for a few hours. Since they don't have the budget for the accountant, they go with the first option.

      Which means that if I have a scam filing fake returns I can file a whole lot of the damn things before the real people involved notice their name/SSN has already been used and the IRS realizes there's a fucking problem. It's very hard to get away with this for more then a year or two because the IRS knows exactly which house got the damn check for that guy, but until I get caught I can have a lotta fun.

      BTW, combating this was part of the reason the IRS tried to make all paid tax preparers take an official exam last year. Professional tax preparers (like me IRL) are unlikely to file 80 returns for the same scammer because we know that the IRS will get our asses eventually, OTOH some dude who took a class and now has a business opening up accounts on Turbotax for all his buddies is not likely to deal with the poor schmuck who tried to stiff the IRS of $15k 7 years ago and didn't realize he'd been caught until 2/3 of his pay check disappeared. The Courts ruled the IRS did not have the statutory authority to do this.

      Note that all these problems are actually Congress's fault, because it's Congress that decided sending the nanny a check was preferable to sending her an accountant; and it's Congress that wrote the statute that did not allow the IRS to force people to take the Tax Professional exam.

    50. Re:Makes perfect sense by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      So, you're insinuating that the people doing it by hand can do the "almost impossible" work easier than having it coded? Seriously?

      Keep in mind this is the Federal Government.

      If they screw up the pension because that guy's six years in the Spokane-area EPA didn't count due to his having to take a demotion after using the n-word in paperwork then it's a fucking disaster. Whereas the private sector would see that extra $5-$10k a year as a rounding error, learning experience, and potential lawsuit; the Federal government sees it as a potential CNN or Congressional investigation and freaks the fuck out.

      In other words the problem is not calculating the benefit given the proper data inputs. That is probably done automatically already. The problem is almost certainly getting the data that needs to be fed into the system verified. If you read the article the waste the workers mention is not that they couldn't figure out the pensions easily, it's that they couldn't start paying the pensions as long as this one asshole hadn't sent in a paper signature.

      The paper signature thing makes me think that some of these pension rules haven't been amended in the past 20-30 years, which is kinda what happens when you have Checks and Balances and Congress that doesn't agree with the President.

    51. Re:Makes perfect sense by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Reading the article it didn't seem like the actual math was the problem. The problem seemed to be that the verification requirements were diverse, sundry, and obsolete.

      So you might now this guy studied fish for x years with the EPA, transferred over to managing the rivers with the Corps of Engineers, moved to Interior (which manages commercial fishing regulations), did a stint in the Park Service, and then had a job evaluating NSF Grant proposals studying fish. That's five institutions you have to get paperwork from verifying precisely how long this guy worked with each one, some of that verification may be able to be emailed to you, but others may need paper forms signed.

      The private sector could probably pull this off without making too many mistakes, but the private sector's definition of "too many mistakes" tends to be several orders of magnitude higher then the Federal governments. This is because people take the Federal government very seriously, and really hate it when they fuck up.

      Let's say you ran a multi-billion company, and you had a program cutting prices for non-profits. Your program has rules designed to weed out the most political non-profits. The program administrator filters applications based on criteria targeting one of the main political parties. No non-profit actually has it's application denied (or loses it's price-cut) based on these criteria, but they do have to jump through a bunch of pain in the ass hoops to get approved. That's not a huge scandal. But when the IRS failed to approve applications from the Tea Party quickly enough manner Congressman started talking indictment.

      In this case the risk would be that a pension applicant shades the truth a bit, and before you get official verification you start paying out, which leads to a 20/20 investigation of corrupt Federal retirees.

    52. Re:Makes perfect sense by timbrennan · · Score: 1

      Yes, the article is primarily focused on the lack of electronic data and only briefly mentions the business rules complexity. I was responding the to the comment that the business rules were impossible to implement.

      The business rules for federal pensions are incredibly complex. Each new wrinkle/law that was passed exponentially increases the number of permutations of rules that need to be handled. There are exceptions on top of exceptions--within exceptions. The inability to implement these business rules was a large factor in the failure of the most recent modernization effort (see link).

      http://fcw.com/articles/2008/0...

    53. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they're temporarily offering (reduced) early retirement to some as early as 15 years. So it is feasible that a 32 year old could retire sometime this year, allbeit with probably no more than $1500/month.

    54. Re: Makes perfect sense by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      It would take a revolution, or people disliking the way things are for change .

      So, by your own admission, governments do change. Now, again, should I bring counter-examples that do not involve a revolution?

  10. Does the video play for anyone by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 1

    Does the video play for anyone (without Windows?) Won't load flash on Firefox, Chrome or Safari...

    1. Re:Does the video play for anyone by scarboni888 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Played for me in FF 28 under 64-bit UBUNTU Desktop 13.10.

      Check your add-ons. Sometimes I have issues with Ad-block plus or No-Script blocking stuff.

    2. Re: Does the video play for anyone by mexsudo · · Score: 0

      Android works

    3. Re:Does the video play for anyone by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      I played for me in safari, but it was larger than my fullscreen window, so I gave up on it immediately.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  11. Flaw? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You presume too much to say this system is flawed. I trust the longevity of information on paper in a file cabinet stored in a subterranean cave far more than anything requiring electricity and magnets. Sure, you can save vastly more information more densely if you do it digitally. But I really don't have that many important bits to store. Just a few essential pieces of information will do just fine, thank you very much, and I'd rather keep them safely and well. And I don't much care about instantaneous retrieval either.

    1. Re: Flaw? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Paper files last longer but the basics of updating, storage, and retrieval sucks majorly. In fact error rates as high as 30% are not unheard of. Digital files tend to be updated more frequently and access is generally easier.

      Not to mention storage space is considerably smaller

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  12. already posted on soylent news by El_Oscuro · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I submitted this to solyentnews.org yesterday. soylentnews is a fork of /. after the beta fiasco. If you hate dice, check it out. No ads or trackers either. My ghostery seems to look lost whenever I go there. :)

    --
    "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    1. Re:already posted on soylent news by Gertlex · · Score: 1

      Alrighty. Bookmark replaced.

    2. Re:already posted on soylent news by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Nah, they suck. I tried that site...within DAYS of being founded, it posted a dupe. No I'm not kidding. It's also a hostile environment unless you agree with the left-wing groupthink. They're not real big on tolerating dissent.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:already posted on soylent news by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Perfect! More trolling opportunities.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  13. what it means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All DVD's of Brazil will have to be reclassified as nonfiction.

  14. Disaster recovery by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I am not shocked by the use of paper. It works, and it has a very good record on the data leak front.

    However there is a problem with disaster recovery. What happens if paper burns or is flooded?

    1. Re:Disaster recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government thinks an EMP is more likely than water and fire damage. Scary stuff.

    2. Re:Disaster recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. They should have TWO old mines to keep this stuff in. They could even have some kind of long-distance Xerox machine that would take in the papers at one end and send the copy printouts to the other mine for safekeeping. A long row of high-res fax machines would be ideal for this job.

  15. non-pork spending by meglon · · Score: 1

    At least they didn't invest (aka: give a private company) billions to provide them with a completely useless computer system over the course of a decade that was totally outdated before the first dollar was spent, and wasn't compatible with anything.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    1. Re:non-pork spending by rhodie · · Score: 1

      RTFA.

      they rent the space in the mine...

  16. Not exactly throwing money at the problem by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    "During the past 30 years, administrations have spent more than $100 million trying to automate the old-fashioned process in the mine and make it run at the speed of computers."

    Stating the obvious, that's is chump change for the Government. Which isn't a bad thing, the article mentions other services money was tossed at to no avail.

    1. Re:Not exactly throwing money at the problem by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      $100M over the past 30 years is about 0.00016% of total federal spending over that period. It's really pretty trivial.

    2. Re:Not exactly throwing money at the problem by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  17. Why do something once when you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get paid for doing it over and over.

    Maybe it keeps a congress person in office.

    It's really tough to have to figure out how to apply the complex set of laws covering retirement.
        Plan a: Figure it out once, and code it up in S/W and then don't have to worry about it.
        Plan b: Hire folks to figure it out for each case.
        Plan c: Get the folks who did the Affordable helath care site to code it up and hope the paper records are still around to do plan b.

    Well, at least they didn't do plan c.
        And the folks have to show up to work to get their check.
        And the system, for the most part, pays out retirement benefits.

    I guess I should be thankful that at least a part of my tax dollars are actually sort of working?

  18. Raiders of the Lost Ark by leighklotz · · Score: 1

    Probably looks like this.

  19. Not that bad by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This clerical shop processes once in a lifetime events. Once the retirement data for an employee has been calculated, it goes into a pension payout system that automatically generates the checks every month. So it's not bad that it's mostly manual.

    Some years ago, I got a look at the USAF Satellite Control Facility, which until the mid-1990s controlled all USAF satellites from a big blue building in Sunnyvale, CA. They "drove the bus" - handled orbital insertion and adjustment, stabilized the satellite orientation, monitored solar panels and batteries, and handled operational problems. (Payloads, such as cameras, radars, and such were controlled elsewhere by the owning agency over separate data links. Very USAF.) The systems used were so antiquated that one was a custom-built emulator for a tube computer. For each satellite pass, physical patchcords had to be set up to interconnect three computers (one to buffer data, one to decode it, and one to compute orbital mechanics) to process the data for the pass. The consoles looked and worked exactly like the 1960s ones from the Apollo program. The operation took about 600 people to run.

    Yet they never lost a satellite through an error made at that faciilty. The USSR has lost satellites through such errors. NASA has. COMSAT has. But not all those old guys in Sunnyvale.

    There were two attempts to modernize the facility; one using mainframes, and one using VAX computers. Both failed. It was finally replaced, cautiously, with a new facility at Falcon AFB. I have no idea what they're using. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the old software for some of the older satellites is still running in emulation.

    1. Re:Not that bad by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2

      Yet they never lost a satellite through an error made at that faciilty. The USSR has lost satellites through such errors. NASA has. COMSAT has. But not all those old guys in Sunnyvale.
      How'd they do all that while being on top of a Hellmouth? Didn't the frequent vampire attacks make their jobs difficult?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    2. Re:Not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So close, you're thinking of Sunnydale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnydale

  20. Welcome to LesterCorp. by schreiend · · Score: 1

    How may we meet your filing needs?

  21. I wonder what world that author lived in by Casandro · · Score: 2

    I mean paper doesn't have to be inefficient, in fact it rarely is since paper based workflows are often optimized. Everybody working with paper understands the process and can therefore come up with ways to optimize it.
    I once worked at a hospital which had paper files. It makes sense since the documents in there can be in a lot of different types. The process of dealing with it was rather efficient on the paper side, you had some numbers and got the file with that number from a cabinet. The actual bottleneck was the computer based indexing system. We had something similar to E-Mail called "Outlook/Exchange". We ended up printing out those pseudo E-Mails, looking up each number individually in the indexing system, and writing the number of the file next to it. There was no way of sorting the entries to be able to reach them efficiently, nor was the system well designed. (it had SQL injection bugs!)
    This is just one example of how badly designed computer based workflows can be.

    Then there is the other point of governments being supposedly less efficient than companies. I have no idea where that idea comes from. I have 2 retirement funds, one run by a private company, the other one run by the government. While the government one manages to pay out millions of pensions every month and flawlessly adapts to any changes in my life, the private one can't even get a simple address change right, twice in a row!

    Why should companies change? Companies mainly act to self-preserve. Any change is not just constructive, but also destructive. For a company to change it would need to have a vital reason, without that reason it cannot change.
    Some people claim that there is the magic hand of the market which will somehow fix the problem though something called "competition". Those people go on citing exotic areas where their dogma actually worked and there was competition. However look around you. Go to an electronics store with a list of brands that come from the same manufacturer and then look at how many different prices exactly the same product gets sold. If there was competition, everyone would buy the cheapest of the otherwise identical products. There is no competition on many markets.

  22. Corporate Lobbying and reform sabotage? by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1

    The reason this relic still exists is likely explained at 0:41 into the video where you can see the words "Iron Mountain" above the entrance. What can be processed with a few low power computers in a rack for a few hundred dollars a year is generating a mountain of cash for Iron Mountain in rental and consulting "fees".

    Follow the money.

  23. walmart meat burgers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your eating ass boys.....

    1. Re:walmart meat burgers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your eating ass boys.....

      My what???

  24. Subterranean workers probably need extra vitamin D by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...

    Of course, that goes for most indoor workers in general, from lack of direct sunlight. But it might be a bit more extreme for those working underground, who might be less likely to take lunch breaks up in the sunlight.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  25. This is NOT a glitch in the Matrix...... by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    It is merely a branch of L-space. If you encounter an ape, please pass him my greetings and give him a banana.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  26. Don't retire them by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Just keep paying them their salary for life and beyond. It's cheaper that way.

  27. I'm here all week... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Wow. What was it like before you implemented SAP?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:I'm here all week... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That!

      Too funny because it's too true.

      Hognoxious - I look forward other insights :-)

  28. The system worked perfectly for me by gmfeier · · Score: 1

    I retired from the Federal Government at the end of 2006. I never had any problems getting the information I needed about my upcoming retirement and the money started coming in right on time. Given all the failed modernization efforts I witnessed during my government career, I would hope they get a new system up and running before they do anything to the current one.

  29. Centralia by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Why US Gov't Retirement Involves a Hole in the Ground Near Pittsburgh

    My first thought was that this was related to Centralia somehow...

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  30. My cousin used to work there by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    Nothing nefarious. Just a record repository. She hated it. She worked there about 3 years and finally wrangled a transfer to another government job in a real building.

  31. Re:Subterranean workers probably need extra vitami by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    I think someone would have noticed this in miners long ago if there was a serious issue. I've personally spent the majority of my 38 year career working away from sunlight. The only side effect being that I have trouble seeing myself in the mirror, and a couple of pointy teeth.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  32. Just out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they have a 27B Stroke 6?

  33. A modest proposal. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Don't let government employees retire. Problem solved.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  34. Go figure... by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    US government agencies are too conservative to increase their efficiency, while conservatives are lambasting US government agencies' inefficiency...

    Disclaimer: don't flame me bro, just playin' with words.

  35. Sounds worse than the Spice Mines of Kessel! by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

    I get the idea of keeping records in a mine. Mines are great places. There are just a lot of things in the article that don't make any sense to me. Let me stick to the sob story of what a bad work environment it is...

    In the winter, employees enter the mine in the dark and leave in the dark. [...] "People are crabby. They're miserable. I mean, you can't blame them. They never see any sunlight," Armagost said.

    Just like when I worked at a large electronics firm in Illinois. In the winter I'd go in before the sun was up, be in a sea of cubicles in an interior room until evening, leave after the sun went down. There are lots of jobs where you're indoors all day with no windows.

    It doesn't say anything about going outside for lunch or breaks. Are the employees locked in or something? I've been in mines, I can believe that the ride up and down the elevator might take more than the time allotted for lunch. Then again, it's "230 feet below the surface". That's about 23 stories. Lots of office buildings are taller than that, and people manage to get up and down without undue stress.

    Food must be brought in from outside, because you can't have an open flame in a mine. So there is a pizza guy, with a security clearance, who arrives every day at 11:30 a.m. Another vendor, Randy Armagost, trucks in hot lunches and an assortment of at least four deep-fried items every day.

    They have these new things now, called microwave ovens. You don't have to stoke the ol' Franklin stove anymore to heat your food. I have never worked in a place which had flame-cooked food. Even the places with cafeterias used electric heat. At least this place has pizza delivery and a food truck. Lots of people brown-bag it every day around here. Maybe these paper-mine workers should consider it.

    And if the food prospects are really so bad I see a great private-sector opportunity for some other food delivery service. Jimmy John, you're up!

    It's still a major WTF that the whole thing is still literally shuffling paper around, but the article loses all credibility for me when they try to make it sound like hell on earth for the workers.

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.