The Week in Comments: Interns, porn and the Gulf of Mexico
The best in reader reaction to recent articles.
A roundup of some of the comments received this week in the GovExec.com Mailbag. All comments are presented in their original, unedited form.
On Hiring reform could signal end of federal internship program
Another example of cutting off our nose to spite our face. If there are abusers of the intern programs, punish them, not the youngsters coming out of college. The intern program gives the college graduate an opportunity that hiring through other means does not - a training program that prepares them for their job rather than showing up one day, set down at a computer and told to start working. Again, punish those that are abusing the system.
If the FCIP is deemed unfair and is done away with, the legalized discrimination of veterans' "preference" should also be repealed.....
FCIP has resulted in expedited hiring of a very strong cadre of new federal employees. It needs to be balanced with veterans preference but should not be scrapped.
Of course the Union is scared of the internship program. They realize that the individuals being hired through this program and mostly recent educated, college grads that are anti-union that will not join the union ranks. The Union sees their power slipping away as they become more irrevelant as time more forwards. They attempt to keep the government in the dark ages and make everyone believe you cannot trust anyone in management.
Can anyone explain to me why unions are needed when employed by the Federal Goverment with as many rights and avenues available? And why do they control what happens to all employees, to include non-bargaining?
The FCIP program that I have observed in my agency has been run with extreme nepotism. The administrator of our program perpetuates this nepotism by using the position as a personal platform to recruit/retain certain people and deny deserving candidates based on personal bias. It is this type of abuse that causes me to believe that it should be abolished. If the gov't really wants a great team of employees, make the the level of training reserved for interns available to all existing employess.
I think the FCIP is to provide diversity in the workforce. While in some instances it isn't always fair, that is applicable to other federal vacancies. How can a program that promotes education be bad?
FCIP is a good, but so is chocolate cake. Everything has to be done in moderation. By agencies using only FCIP, prevents internal promotions of those that have served the agency for years. They too need opportunity. And as far as the Vet program goes,that's the lease we can do for them. Don't knock the Vet program! Thank you.
The argument against the FCIP fails to point out the major problem: some agencies use this program as intended while some don't. Agencies like EPA have used the FCIP to eliminate opportunities for existing employees, to hire qualified people at ridiculously low grades, and to avoid OPM hiring rules. They do this while gutting highly-competitive and successful intern programs such as the (formerly known as) EPA Intern Program and the PMF (which is impossible to get into unless you know someone). If the Administration really cared they would address the problems with the hiring process so that agencies would not need to abuse the FCIP.
On Defense opts for multiyear F/A-18 deal
Makes sense to me.
Gosh Goodyear offered to cut the prices on their Blimps and Ford their Bi planes they are just as useful as this buy
On Obama blasts oil execs, MMS over spill
Instead of talking, Obama needs to take action. Give control of the situation to the military and let the Navy or Coast Guard bury the well. He can't wait while BP keeps trying to figure out ways to capture the oil and make profits.
Obama says BP will pay but we all know who will pay. BP as always will simply pass it along to the consumer at the pump. A VERY good reason to boycot BP.
A followup comment..."Jay Bander" makes an excellent point. Do whatever it takes as soon as possible to stop the oil flow. Nuke it if necessary. Then send the bill to BP, Halliburton and Cameron.
On Feds almost pay a price for porn
I guess Rep. Bart Gordon doesn't want anyone messing with his porn.
Why these executives were not fired. A blue collar worker here a my duty station was fired for watching porn on government computers. Why the double standard?
Like most private companies, can't government IT just block the sites? The truth, of course, is that this Amendment had nothing to do with pornography on government computers--it had everything to do with bringing down this technology bill--a bill the affects the folks who line Republican coffers with lots of money.
While I see nothing wrong with firing government employees for watching porn at work or on government equipment, I'm concerned with how this would be enforced. What if one opened an email not recognizing that it contained porn? I see serious problems with that. Someone could set up an innocent person to be fired.
DoD computers ARE blocked from even a hint of sexual terminology. There are even valid sites we cannot get to because of IT intervention. The article seems to carry a negative attitude from the beginning against the Republicans. This is why Newsweek & the NY Times subscriptions have decreased, buddy. Just the facts, please.
I'm so sick of the hypocrisy! Just look at the current election rhetoric!
Plus, we're becoming a police state! I say get the Government out of our private lives and back pockets. Look at the latest--after a sex offender serves their sentence, the Government can unilaterally keep them locked up. This is not trial by a jury of peers. This is imprisonment by the ruling tsar! Rule of emotion rather than law!
And the Government wants to regulate the internet? Sound like the KGB to you? What happened to freedom of speech? What happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On Forward Observer: Gates' Swan Song?
I couldn't have said it better. I'm a hawk and always will be, but we can't defend a country that goes bankrupt preparing for a war that no one else will ever fight with us. Building battle groups around both carriers and LHA/LPD's make sense to me with a varied threat calling for a different response. A $2B piece of equipment you never use is not worth a dime. B-1/B-2's when we still fly B-52's because the older planes do it as well and are expendable speaks volumes to me that $60M plane can be worth more than a $200M plane only marginally better if it ever works. We better prepare for the low intensity wars and get the US budget under control or this will be the best military that ever went out of business. Remember part of the reason USSR fell is they couldn't afford to outspend us. We are on the brink of doing the same thing.
I sure hope Mr. Gates doesn't leave. He's one of the few voices of sanity on DOD spending. I suppose the real question is "does the USA want to be the muscleman resource for the world or does the USA want to resource its own brain power?"
I applaud Secretary Gates for being very direct. Too bad our congressmen cannot follow suit and do what is in the best interest of this country. Career politicians need to go. We need to put a time limit on how long a Congressman can serve. That will be the only way to stop the madness.
How dare Gates take on the military-industrial complex! It's been 50 years since that un-American Ike Eisenhower warned of the insidious powers of this unrestrained industry and yet it has survived. How can a lowly Defense Secretary, in a Democratic administration no less, hope too reign it in? 11 super carriers does seem overkill when no other country could ever dream of even one. So many carriers does especially seem excessive when our biggest security threat these days come in form of a disgruntled religious fanatics wanting to bomb Times Square. I congratulate Gates for attempting to reign in military spending, but believe he's being naive to do it alone. Where's Senator Proxmire when we need him?
A good article until I read the last paragraph that is way "over the top". Does the author believe if we ceased our attacks on terrorists home ground that they would cease to be terrorists because they would have nothing to avenge? Give me a break.
Gates is mostly WRONG. - We do have huge fleets of everything, while our allies and not-allies only have a few each. Fine. Those allies don't perfrom, AND SUSTAIN, a global presence and take responsibility. So you can see why we need more than a few. Again, we SUSTAIN that capability. As any vet knows, the turn-around time to the next deployment (in any service) is too short. Does anyone believe that cutting our forces by another third would enhance our quality of life? I would argue WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SHIPS AND DIVISIONS AND AIRCRAFT to retain our cutting edge. - We do have huge fleets of everything, WHICH DETERS ATTACK. If America had only four carriers, then I would argue that is a tempting target. IF we sustain 11 carriers, then a terrorists or enemy state knows not to consume all their resources or politcal capital to sink only one. Forensics and resiliancy, combined with vast retalitory capability, ARE DETERENTS. Hey, Gates - I speak for many when I tell you to spend a buck, rather than send a body.
On Concerns over pay loom as Pentagon returns to General Schedule
Someone needs to write about the plan to stall the movement of Defense acquisition employees back to the GS system and move them into the AcqDemo program which is no different than NSPS. We want nothing to do with it.
The intent of NSPS was never to overpay individuals for work performed. Why should an individual in a pay grade receive more than "Step 10 pay" if that is the level of work being performed?
Pay retention rules need to be followed and the system needs to get back in line by paying the proper salary based on the the grade classifiction of each position.
If they are such high performers they should be promoted into a permanent GS position way before the GS scale catches up to their pay. Oh, maybe they really aren't that high of a performer!!!
This is the first time I have seen a statistic on how many people will have to go into pay retention based on the NSPS phase-out. 25% is a lot. I hope people do the right thing and not penalize these high performers by changing the rules on pay retention. They don't deserve to get screwed like that. Sends the wrong message. PS - in case anyone is wondering - I'm already at maximum pay allowed by legislation so this doesn't affect me one way or another. I am writing this truly out of concern for the efficiency of government service and the negative morale effects this will have.
Wasn't it the unions who fought against NSPS? Now they want to ensure that the gains for the people under NSPS hold. Sounds like they want the cake and to eat it too. NSPS should have stayed and then this would not be a problem.
I received my pay retention ltr yesterday and it has made my retirement decision easy. I did quite well under NSPS and had planned to work for another 6 years. Now w/ pay retention limiting my above average performance, I will retire in 2 yrs as soon as I'm age eligible. If my agency still wants my services, I may consider returning as a rehired annuitant or more likely as a contractor. Either way it is going to cost them much more.
I think the term, pay retention, sums it all up. Managers being paid to stay. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Plenty of us have seen the rewards for hanging in there and providing the un-questioned support that so many higher-ups have come to expect. I suppose that could be thought of as performance. Those who finally had a chance to work and be rewarded accordingly, though, what's the incentive to try harder now, particularly if the managment pay they can expect now is set at GS-7 and no opportunity to move up within their agency. I know we all have our own take on the whole mess, but NSPS did have some good points.
FMA whining is a joke. Top performers getting top awards is also a joke. Rather, it is best buddies getting best pay hikes. Now that mess is stopped dead. Look, they got a pay raise when they coverted from GS to NSPS when they weren't really entitled to it. If they get topped out, so be it. They are still going to be ahead of the game..
I am increasing angry with the mis-characterization that Federal employees are losing pay when the transition back to GS. They are not losing pay; they got to a higher level sooner than they ever would have under the GS system. If you want more pay increases, get a higher GS level position. If you don't qualify, upgrade your skills or education.
On Budget analysts put a price tag on domestic partner perks
The benefits would cost the same if the couples were allowed to marry, so what is the problem?
I thought this was all about getting health insurance for their partners. Now they want everything else? I don't think so. Until Gay marriages [not partner] are legal in the US, federal funding should not go for more than the health insurance. I emphasized with them but they are not legally recognized and taxpayers have enough of a load for 'special groups' to pay for. Their own jobs should provide benefits for the work they do.
Let's see, would a budget analysis be necessary if those same individuals that would be claiming same sex partners for their health insurance instead were marrying members of the opposite sex and claiming them? The numbers would be the same, but the participants are just "different" in this case. Get a grip!
This is a very small cost that will allow the Federal government to compete with the private sector for top talent. It is just good business sense.
Have they determined a definition for "domestic partner?" Does that include folks that are traditionally known as "shacking up?" I believe that if the so-called gays are allowed to shack up the straight should be allowed as well. Sounds like an issue for the so-called employee unions should they find the sand, you know the current congress will not touch the issue. Yes, I am anti-gay.
Is this a ruse to get same sex marriages recognized in all states? Will gay couples have to show some type of proof? Can straights who live together get the same perk? What is if a person has a different partner (gay or straight) every month? Where does the line get drawn? Bucket of worms.
On Interior chief says department shares responsibility for cleanup
Not that I am pro or anti-tea party, but smaller government leads to less governmental oversight and a general increase in situations like this one. The knee jerk reaction will be to throw more money at it by dividing and re-organizing MMS, and then giving them a ton more oversight resposibilities. So the taxpayers have to pay to police big business because they can't seem to do it themselves?
Is the Navy going to use tactical nuclear weapons or something to blow up the oil leak? What technical expertise would they bring to this problem? They do possess a large number of ships, many of them thousands of miles away from the area of the oil leak. More regulations mean bigger government, wonder where the tea baggers from the Gulf area stand on big government. Will these same folks expect to get "bailed out" by the politician they are currently ridiculing for previous bail outs?
The problems with Public Land Leases for grazing, mining, drilling and logging has been around from the start. Election Contributors were given sweetheart deals, costing the tax payers billions of dollars in royaltees. Before we point at either party to blaim, try looking at who the Congressmen and women are from those states, they set up the deals for their buddies, MMS did as they were told.
Why don't you idiots put your bozo brains together and stop the flippin leak for crying out loud!!
On Senate probe finds 14 failures in Christmas bomb attempt
I could have sworn I read where Janet Noideawhatsheisdoing said that the system worked as designed.
Look on the brite side Mark. At least none of the terrorists civil liberties have been violated.
So far you'd have to give this administration an F when it comes to protecting the homeland. All the warning signs were there to prevent the Fort Hood massacre and the TERRORISTS attempts to blow up the airplane on Xmas and car bomb in NYC. If either of the latter two attempts were successful Obama would be through. He lucked out, not because of our efforts, but because the terrorists were incompetent. I'd go a step further and say this Administration has been incompetent in dealing with our enemies. I agree with the senator. What a dangerous policy we have; hope the terrorists' bombs fail and/or pray some alert citizen spots the bomb before it explodes.
Obama needs to learn from the Bush administration on how to handle these problems. Let's invade his country !! then spend the next ten years teaching them democracy. While were at it lets invade Somalia, South Africa, Ethiopa, ....
On Vets preference tops list of concerns about hiring reform
What do you suggest when an agency or office is committed to hiring veterans and does so (e.g., 9 out of 10 veterans on a cert from a job fair are hired or choose to drop out) but one veteran who is not qualified blocks all other candidates and no one is willing to request an exemption to bypass that veteran? The whole process then becomes a joke. That is why agencies resort to programs such as FCIP. This is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about. No one wants to not hire veterans. We want to hire qualified candidates regardless of their background.
i've seen nothing on disabled workers. Lately i've seen nothing about Schedule A either in any job announcements.
And what about the spouses of disabled veterans? None of the federal agencies acknowledge or even consider the 10-point spousal VA preference when it comes to hiring! ! ! And we, for the most part, are the head of households and primary bread winners for honorably discharged disabled veterans who by the way served and protected us.
I am the Local Hiring Coordinator at my agency and we recently held an assessment to interview potential new hires. I am concerned that some of the younger vets we interview are ill equipped to be successful in the interview process due to their lack of experience in applying for jobs. When I retired from the military, I went through a program designed to help with transition to civilian life. I want to ensure our veterans get the opportunity they deserve to start a civilian career. Are we short changing the combat vets, who get out of the service after 1 or 2 tours? I hope not!
NEXT STORY: Heckuva Job on Those Brownie Regulations