I wanted to write a little about the possible consequences for the labor pool that come as a result of restricting the political activities of state workers. Undoubtedly this restriction will prevent some people from applying for civil service jobs or cause them to leave those jobs.
I came up with a hypothetical to explain how a restriction impacts the states ability to hire workers. There will be some numbers but I promise no brain hurting ones.
Imagine the state needs to hire 300 people. There are 1000 possible workers in their pool of candidates.
In any group of candidates, some will be terrible, some average, some great. For the sake of this example, in a normal group 15% of candidates are great, 15% terrible and 70% average. That means there are 150 great people for the jobs, 700 average ones, and 150 who would be terrible. So in hiring 300 workers from that 1000 the state gets to pick 150 great people and the top 150 average people.
Now imagine that 5% of people are unwilling to apply for or to remain in civil service jobs partly because of the restrictions on their political activity. Because of this, your total number in your pool drops down to 950. Of those 50 people you lost, on average in this situation 7 of them would have been great workers. Suddenly the state gets to pick 143 great workers and 157 average ones. Sure you lost 7 terrible workers as well, but they were not going to be picked regardless.
These 7 great workers you lost and replaced with average ones? One of those could have been an accountant who would have caught a mistake that ended up costing the state money. One of them could have been a child welfare worker who gets better than average outcomes on their cases. Driving away a percent of workers will inevitably drive away some workers who could have been a great asset to the state.