Is Joe Sestak Too Difficult To Work For - And Why Should Anyone Care?
Interesting story in the L.A. Times about Joe Sestak's campaign to win the Democratic nomination for Senate in Pennsylvania. Looks like the campaign is inoculating themselves about the single biggest negative about Sestak - the nagging rumor that he's impossible to work for:
Sestak is, at times to the chagrin of his staff, unfailingly accommodating -- to the media, to lobbyists and to constituents. He boasts that his aides handled 10,000 constituent cases in his first two years in office.
Not everyone he hires can stand it. Sestak lost staff at a staggering rate during his first two years in office. He went through nearly half a dozen press secretaries alone in the first year. Chiefs of staff came and went almost as fast.
He asks aides to work six days a week, 12-plus hours a day. Staff salaries are among the lowest on Capitol Hill, according to congressional records. No one in Pennsylvania's 19-member congressional delegation had a smaller payroll than Sestak in the 18-month period that ended June 30, records show, while only two members had larger staffs.
Chief of Staff Bibiana Boerio, who took over in February 2008, said that the office likes to hire recent college graduates in part because of the energy they bring to the job. She said they are paid in line with their experience.
Job applicants are given six reading and research assignments before their interviews. Among them is a review of a book by entrepreneur Guy Kawasaki, who espouses the belief that success comes in 80-hour work weeks.
"I try to let them know what the expectations are," Sestak said. "We don't try to measure ourselves by other offices."
The money Sestak saves on staff salaries is in part devoted to constituent mailings and brochures highlighting his positions on issues. Sestak last year spent more on mail than anyone in the delegation.
His reputation as a demanding boss predates his time in Congress. He was relieved as a deputy chief of naval operations in 2005 for what Navy sources called "poor command climate," an assessment Sestak disputes. He retired six months later. He said his departure had to do with Pentagon politics. His job at the end of his career involved providing an "alternative analysis" about the Navy's infrastructure, and he'd recommended a leaner operation, which he said had upset others at the top.
Those who stick around Sestak's congressional and district offices quickly learn that he likes employees who embrace his work ethic, immersing themselves completely in their jobs, mastering the details of legislation and following up with everyone who writes or calls the office or meets with the lawmaker. The reward is a quicker-than-usual path up the organizational ladder.
"He wanted us to dig deep in the substance of the issues," recalled Clarence Tong, 27, who spent 19 months in Sestak's office before leaving to get his master's degree in public policy. "While he expects a lot, he gave me every opportunity to learn."
The workaholic image is one Sestak is eager to portray, particularly in a contest against Specter, whose reputation as a tireless lawmaker is legendary on Capitol Hill.
"He is trying to make that point that he won't be out-hustled, he won't be outworked," said Franklin & Marshall College political science professor G. Terry Madonna. "He is going at Specter's historic strength by making it an endurance test."
When Philadelphia-area bloggers get together, this is a not uncommon topic: Is Sestak too difficult to work for? I can confirm he's cheap, and it certainly predates constituent service (I applied for the position of press secretary when he was running against Curt Weldon and they wanted me - an experienced journalist and campaign spokesperson, someone who was more familiar with his opponent than he was - to work for free.) I don't know about you, but I believe paying people well for their work is a progressive value.
It's a legitimate question since, as Howard Dean pointed out, the Senate is a gentlemen's club and your effectiveness is closely tied to your ability to build relationships. Can you sustain personal relationships with other Senators when you can't maintain them with your own staff?
Keep in mind that no one on the Hill works 40-hour weeks. These are not slackers, and compared to most people, they're off-the-charts workaholics. They're driven people who have chosen a political career and know they have to work damned hard to get there. Even in that workaholic culture, Sestak's developing a reputation.
And it's not just relationships. The most experienced Hill staffers have an enormous amount of institutional knowledge. If you're a Member who's constantly churning staff, and you get a reputation that makes the best people reluctant to work for you, how effective are you going to be?
I've asked Joe about this and he turns the question aside quickly with statistics about his constituent service and "high standards." His response reminds me one of something you'd say during a job interview: "Well, Fred, I'd say my weakest point is that I'm often impatient when coworkers don't meet my exceptionally high standards, and I really need to accept that not everyone cares about their job as much as I do." Uh huh.
Keep what in mind? That he is demanding of his staff? That he is a workaholic? I don't see how that would make him a bad Senator.
In all honesty, I am trying to figure out what this article was really about.
"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers
www.phoenixjustice.com
Many statements being made in the article with little substance.
It is as I feared. The point of this article is solely to discredit Sestak. Why would a liberal blog want to do that, you ask? Because he recently came out and said that the Obama administration offered him a bribe in the form of a powerful government position if he would pull out of the Pennsylvania Senate race against Arlen Spector. If what he says is true, than Obama is guilty of a high crime and the liberals want to protect their man. Therefore, the liberal blogs begin by bashing Sestak and digging up whatever dirt they can get to discredit him. Shameful- just shameful.
normally followed by a thunderclap
I recall some other candiate who demanded long hours from staff, was frequently uncompromising, didn't put up with s..., and at times ruffled feathers by demanding that upper level staff particpate in the gruntwork of making phoncalls and knocking on doors. His campaign was about as cheap as you can get. I delivered stuff to various offices and I swear that whoever did their real estate rentals looked at the list of condemned buildings and made an offer. We aren't talking cheap desks, we are talking NO desks. Oddly enough people seemed to mostly have a good time.
You may have heard of the guy. He has a funny name and is face is everywhere these days...
Seems to me (and his campaign manager's book confirms it) that Obama's micromanaging style is quite often more of a liability.
Now, if you think half a stimulus package and an insurance mandate without a public option is a great result, then never mind. Oh, and all those open seats on the federal bench? Let's wait until the Republicans win the mid-terms, so it'll be even harder to get the nominees confirmed.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
2 regular working weeks per week, what a GREAT DEAL! Eg, 8AM till midnight 5 days a week. I'll bet that he only pays for a week's work per week. Will he compensate you when your family is destroyed? What an asshole.
It's your CHOICE to work for Sestak or not.
I'm in an industry where non-standard hours are pretty much the way things are - a 4AM start to cover the AM and Noon news, or a 3PM start to cover the evening and late newscasts. Seven days a week, and close to 365 days a year (depending on what sports franchises your station may have deals with).
But I made the choice to be in this industry. Yes, I've made choices about raising a family, too - the hours, IMHO, preclude spending the time to raise a child properly (i.e. being there, for starters).
I know people who have worked for companies like Pixar and took on the long hours and crazy pace, because having that on your resume is pure gold.
Oh, and my folks both worked jobs when I was a kid. Mom was a school teacher, and pretty much on the go before the school bell rang, so there wasn't an eight hour day there - then she came home, did shopping and put dinner on the table to boot.
You seem to be coming from some fantasy world where no one ever works hard.
Yeah, in this "fantasy world" you speak of, it's a 38 or 40 hour working week, 8 personal days per year, 20 paid annual vacation days per year, time and a half for the first 2 hours of overtime, followed by double time, with triple time for Sundays and public holidays. And the people of Australia work hard for their money.
And then there's Medicare, free medical care for everyone, plus a pension when you retire, 63 for women, 65 for men.
Americans are being treated like slaves.
Bob Lumbergh For SENATE...........yeahhhhhhhhh.
a slave driving admiral with no regard for the people that work for him. Shocking he did so well in the military...not
ho hum...another self centered me.me.me.me politician.
... uh ... hmmm ... huh?
I don't get it. Senator hires new college grads who have high ideals. Trains them, has very high expectations. Pay isn't too hot, but when they decide to leave he gives them a good send-off, and they have a head start in graduate school.
What the hell kind of way is THAT to run a country? Isn't he supposed to be setting an example ... uh ... or something.
Sheesh, next thing you know, he'll have high expectations of his fellow senators as well ... and THEN where would be?
Oh wait, he's not just a senator, he's a retired fucking ADMIRAL with a Ph.D. in Economics. Okay, got it. Must be an ELITIST. Okay, now we can criticize him fair and square.
Who have to ... My God!! ... work hard for a year and then get super recommendations from a sitting member of Congress. Dammit, that blows. I like people who graduate from Oral Roberts or Liberty or Pat Robertson U, then get Justice Department jobs from right-wing administrations. THAT'S how America should work!
Excuse me ... what was this article about again?
I hope the journalist that wrote this article was able to take several days to write it. I wouldn't want him to be overworked.
or put a crimp in his "social life".
wouldn't want him to be overworked
his "social life"
I find it hard to be moved by your opinions when you couldn't even take the time to note that the author was Susie Madrak.
this, woman will correct the other two: put a crimp in HER "social life". Either way, LarryE, the article is truly short on substance.
Sestak has a high standard and is a workaholic. His staffers suffer no more than the people who intern, paid or not, in any other field, except the recommendation they leave with carries much more weight. Big deal - it's not like he's underpaying them and denying them promotion and health benefits as required by law
The point of my correction was that it clearly indicated that in their eagerness to dismiss it, the two of them had not paid any real attention to the post. That observation stands.
Getting to your comment:
the article is truly short on substance
I think its aim - and result - is to raise questions about just how "progressive" Sestak is and how effective he'd be in Congress. I don't think it answers those questions, nor does it try to, but I do think it raises them.
Several commenters have said people went to work for him with their eyes open. Those who support him for office should do the same.
it's not like he's underpaying them
Um, about the largest staff and still with the smallest payroll despite expecting people to work 72-hour weeks, preferring to use the money for self-promotional mailings? Yeah, he's underpaying them. And the article says
"the office likes to hire recent college graduates ... they are paid in line with their experience."
In other words, about the cheapest people they can get.
promotion and health benefits as required by law
Meeting minimum legal requirements is hardly a high standard.
I don't live in PA so this has no direct impact on me. And it may well be that when all is said and done Sestak is worthy of full support by all and sundry. But that doesn't mean ignoring any down side, which too many here seem too eager to do.
When Sestak first talked about running against Spector, I Googled him and immediately found this information, i. e. a tremendously high turnover rate among his staff and prima donna Naval reputation. When people hate working for someone it says a lot about them, not good. If you're not decent to your staff what kind of person are you?
where I had problems with different bosses. Fortunately I was able to learn something from all of them and move on to better jobs in my lifetime. I still had occasions where I ended up working for difficult bosses. It's a life experience.
... makes a job easier, I've seen my share of the clueless and bullying, browbeating egos come through the doors and back out again.
Of course, I *did* tell off one supervisor, who made a snarky remark about his people 'standing around yakking' (I'd just handed in a stack of work, paused ten seconds to say hello to someone who was just clocking in) - loudly and in no uncertain terms. I didn't get any heat for it, from our higher ups, either.
Some people know how to command, some people are seagull-type micromanagers (fly in, make a lot of noise, shit all over everything, leave). The former are few and far between.
It's a good thing that this country doesn't train doctors like that. Or, allow entry-level lawyers work those lo-o-ong days. Oh, wait... Uh, never mind.
are actually more illuminating than this mini-expose of Sestak.
i.e., when did it become a GOOD thing for bosses to demand total loyalty and every waking hour's work for shit or no pay? Okay, so you're one of the few who can hack 80 hours a week on bread and water, with the payoff being you, too, can become a workaholic slave driver using and abusing your staff in your turn.
These politicians are people who represent, or are supposed to represent, the best interests of their constituents, including their staff. They set the standards by which the rest of the country will operate - including businesses. I mean if an employer like, say, oh, Wal-Mart were to demand excessive working hours for below a living wage, well, THAT would be... would be... um...
...what is becoming the norm for a country on its economic knees, leaving big business and politicians to treat American citizens as nothing more than a cheap and disposable labour pool to be exploited and discarded, where only the vicious survive.
And for people in this forum to say 'so what' speaks volumes. Actually, it screams it...
I'm sure that they are aware of what they are getting into when they apply for the job. I doubt very much that Sestak's requirements are a secret, so, what have the staffers got to gripe about? I would also bet that putting that job on a resume, along with a glowing referral, looks pretty sweet to prospective employers.
Isn't he a retired Admiral? The Navy works 12 hours a day, seven days a week. At least he gives his new swabbies Sunday off. Anchors away!
I met Sestak at a house party recently. His answers to questions were way overlong and much too detailed for the small, intimate setting. It was an initial meet and greet, not a policy seminar. He also stared ... and stared and stared at each person, right in the eyes, as he answered their question. I found it engaging at first ... hey, he's looking right at me and is interested ... then it got a little creepy, then it almost felt challenging.
Yeah, maybe it's me, but on the couple of occasions when I've been in the same room with Specter, I've been surprised at his warmth with people and his self-deprecating humor. Although one time when I met him as a journalist and asked him a question about a local VA hospital he called me an asshole as he walked away. But that's politician/journalist interaction, not politician/staff or politician/constituent.
It's a gut feeling, but even if it's all a put on, Specter seems to be able to connect personally with voters better than Sestak does.
A former SEAL that I worked with once remarked that I made eye contact a lot.
"There are two types of people who do that: narcs, and extremely self-confident people."
I've lived in DC for years and have friends who have worked on the Hill for years. Legislators who "can't keep staff" are then unable to hire great staff. And the staff do everything, they are often the experts on the issues. With high staff turnover, the legislator loses that expertise over and over again. Also, much of what happens is through relationships that the staff build with other staff and the public which are lost with high turnover.
This article made me very sad. I was really hoping that a great liberal would give Specter a run for his money. But now, Sestak is getting no money or support from me.
I'm still sitting on the wall as to whether I will support Sestak or Specter. This past election, instead of coming out to vote, the Democrats stayed home. Those that did come out, were the older generation DINOs, Reagan Democrats. Pennsylvania could use someone that can excite the young Democrats to come out and vote and I don't see Specter as someone that would motivate younger voters. I've met Sestak and he has a great deal of energy and he may be able to excite the younger voters.
I've heard a similar story about Sestak from a friend about 6 weeks ago. I took it with a grain of salt. Perhaps I should take this a bit more seriously. The citizens of this country deserve better than having Toomey get elected to the Senate. He is the male version of Sarah Palin and will probably be the GOPer candidate.
or Slestak? He sounds very lizardy!
And that does show his business values, We need this trend of cutting benifits,cutting pay , ending vacation time and sick leave to be reversed. This country has become a stress out underpaid workforce for the rich.
The Macintosh Way, Selling The Dream, How To Drive Your Competition Crazy, and Rules for Revolutionaries, and I don't remember the 'working 80 hours a week' part.
I think Rules for Revolutionaries has some good food-for-thought for Progressives, BTW.
On 25 July, 2005 Vice Admiral Joesph Sestak was reassigned due to "poor command climate."
"A Navy official said that while the CNO truly appreciates and supports the analytic rigor Vice Adm. Sestak brought to the his job, CNO feels a change is needed during this critical time."
Source: http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-...
This is Navy-speak for being difficult to get along with. When you get to be the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, and get "reassigned" it's a clue that you have some serious issues.
He wasn't a Vice Admiral long enough to retire with 3 stars. He retired with only 2 stars. So, assuming he had 20 years in, he would be getting something in the neighborhood of $11,000 a month.
Apparently, not enough to improve his social skills. Never met the man, only know what I see on television, but he comes across as a smarmy sleaze ball, with a forced, fake smile.
I think he's extremely uncomfortable around people and overcompensates with scripted behavior, the way some of the Aspergers people I know do.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
Washington isn't a culture steeped in the work ethic is it? Sestak isn't being accused of being abusive. There's no allegation of "bait-and-switch". New hires are informed of the job, perhaps they don't understand. But you can only explain things to people you cannot undertand things for them.
D.C. is a city of workaholics. I have never known people who worked such long hours as Hill staffers. As I mentioned in the post, if those people are complaining, I have to wonder just how demanding Sestak is.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
Said he went through a half dozen of them. My thoughts about that was if these people were trained by the same people that taught the MSM news people no wonder he had to let them go. The were most likely incompetent. Besides most of them work for fox now. There they don't have to have any journalistic integrity, or honesty, or morality, or honor, all you have to do is repeat after ailes. Twist, spin, lie, obfiscate.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness that is killing America@!
The Hill is a very closed-door place to work. Staffers are usually not brought in from the outside except very low-level staff assistants and interns (lowest rank and unpaid help). Jobs are always posted in internal places first like the Tickets List and The Hill and Roll Call newspapers (religiously read). People who already work up there are given first consideration and let me tell you the pay is crap and always has been. If he is paying less than normal then I'm not surprised they work long hours- they probably cannot afford to have an apartment to go home to.So no wonder he hires recent graduates - they have no idea what it's like to work in the real world where you get treated with some kind of respect. And believe me you don't always get time and a half or overtime pay. Lots of offices promise paid time off at a later date in lieu of extra pay. But it is a job that opens a lot of doors - I wouldn't take my time up there off my resume for anything.
For those who don't care because they don't work for Sestak: He is helping to create your labor laws.
Yea, I consider this to be a good reason to vote against him.
For those talking about how great it is on the resume... yea that's part of why this kind of thing is so bad. It means that only certain kinds of people can get onto the political insider ladder: those who can deal with this kind of bullshit. Single mothers need not apply, or need neglect their children, etc.
The industry I work in has the long hours problem, it also sometimes has the unpaid internship problem. I believe the news industry has made one or more unpaid internship pretty much a prerequisite for getting in. Seems to me it is a great way to make sure that only the upper middle class and above can join.
Wasn't Senator (then president) Johnson also very abusive to his staffers? I recall some excerpt from a biography of him about how he would dictate to his staff while on the toilet as a way of humiliating them.
Comments are closed on this entry