Upon reflection of a life lived, you probably won't proclaim, "Gee honey, I wish I spent more time at the office and less time with the family."*

*-unless you have a really dysfunctional family, and then you'll make your work your life. I'm not sure if anyone dreams of growing up to be a career state bureaucrat, but if they did, I would think that they would try to be the best they can be. That's why I'm confused at these DLSE career bureaucrats that are doing their job half-ass. If their job is performed at the half-ass level, then what else is performed at that same intensity? Do they mow the lawn half-ass, do they hunt or shoot themselves half-ass, do they wash the dishes half-ass, are their relationships half-ass, are their diets & nutrition half-ass, and are their performance evaluations of others half-ass?

It goes against the grain of common sense to observe a person's work ethic as half-ass, but other areas of that same person's life are in stark contrast. I'm not concerned with their lives outside of work: if they want to drink, cheat, smoke or eat themselves into oblivion, then that's their choice and not anyone's business but their own. I'm concerned with the personality traits that affect the bottom line, and in public service the bottom line represents how we efficiently & effectively serve our public. You can't cure lazy because that's a behavior trait; someone can be taught to become smarter. Contrary to poular belief, one can fix stupid. Lazy is a behavior trait, not a skill set.

Behavior traits follow patterns: the sloth at work is the sloth at home and is the sloth at the restaurant. I see these career bureaucrats, I observe their actions (or in most cases-inaction), and I always question why they continue to feed off the public trough when their 5-year resume highlight is merely self-preservation; they are doing a disservice to the public by remaining on payroll. These career do-nothings should really question why they continue working, and they should either start doing their jobs better, or put themselves out to pasture so others can do it better than them. Susan had her chance at making the DLSE better had she focused on public service. Had she concentrated on doing her job, she might have had a shot at Assistant Chief.

It's the same thing with Greg Rupp; had he made the public his priority, then he might have had a chance at the next promotion, but he blew it. Petty personality conflicts and fiefdom/control issues ranked higher than providing opportunities to make the DLSE a better place for helping the people of California. People who are "passed over" for promotion sometimes resign or lateral to another agency, but not Rupp. He comes to work every day and collects that check. To him, making Labor Standards better for the people of California means that he should try to get rid of a Garden Grove Mayor or terminate some blogger exercising the First Ammendment.