GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Lawmakers stand ground on Pentagon job competition rules

• 8394
  

  So just out of curiosity, are any of you 'journalists' asking these folks (Donald Rumsfeld, Philip Grone, Joe Sikes, Cathy Garman) about THEIR benefits? It is a safe bet they haven't stopped coming to the trough and taking THEIR share of the taxpayer's money they claim to want to save. If these people feel SO strongly about this, why not ask THEM if they are willing to eliminate THEIR benefits. After all, if it is such a wonderful idea for everyone else...

  Y2 Posted February 22, 2005 2:33 AM
• 8252
  

  I suggest that we wordsmith the constitution to restart slavery. A poly-racial, equal opportunity kind.

  We will declare all employed people below the rank of CEO to be the property of their employers. We can dispense with all compensation save that which the employer wants to give. I read in a turn-of-the-century editorial against strikers that "Good Christian men of property know what is best...."

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 9, 2005 1:33 PM
• 8251
  

  May I propose that the federal government cost for providing fringe benefits like healthcare be made a cost element that must be met by bidding contractors. By allowing the dollars to be expended cafeteria style, private employees could choose their own package of benefits while all bidders (govt. and private sector bidders) would have a level playing field as to benefit packages thus allowing efficient and effective service to determine competitions.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 9, 2005 12:46 PM
• 8250
  

  Garman's comments/polemics are beyond ludicrious. It should not be mandatory for private agencies to provide health insurance for their employees because they might not need it. Oh, really? This has got to be the weakest argument I've ever heard in my life. How many people fall into this category, may I ask? I would be it's less than 2%. So, Garman is advocating that A-76 should be able to screw 98% of employees and justifies it by saying that 2% don't require health insurance. Is it just me, or has logic TOTALLY gone out the window on this one? I know first graders who could come up with better arguments than that!

  DSR

  David Posted February 9, 2005 12:31 PM
• 8249
  

  Working both sides of the fence I know what it feels like to be able to "serve" my government as opposed to being "used" by some corporation. I've witnessed the low pay (almost non-living wage), and low benefits for employees with college degrees. I've seen the CEO spend big bucks to build his 4,000 sq ft riverside mansion, provide Mercedes' for his family members, but see his highly skilled and college degreed workers making far below industry wages with miniscule annual pay increases, and having minimal health care coverage. I wholeheartedly support requiring contractors to offer comparable health benefits that federal employees have to level the playing field. The arguments in this article are ridiculous and incredibly slanted. So you admit that the private sector doesn't provide fair health care coverage (and you're correct). Hey, that's their problem then. Let the CEOs give back/abstain from taking some of their overpaid salary earnings so that they can contribute more to improve their health care plans! CEOs reward themselves with (multi)-million dollar salary/bonus combinations, yet are unwilling to provide decent health care coverage to their employees. This is oppressive to the average worker who I suppose will just have to go on Medicaid should a major illness occur. Besides, the FEHB plan isn't the greatest plan for coverage either; a lot comes out of my pocket for copays and deductions from my salary. Look at the health care coverage that public school teachers get. BTW, WHY DOESN'T ANYONE EVER DISCUSS THE ISSUE THAT THE TEACHER'S UNIONS HAVE MANAGED TO GET PREMIUM HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR YEARS AT ALMOST NO COST FOR TEACHERS, BUT AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE! Here's an expense that could be managed. Then we read: "You're basically forcing employers to provide benefits that maybe (maybe?, that's sure a convincing argument backed up by sound facts and data!) employees don't need," said Cathy Garman. OK, Ms. Garman, so now we're discriminating against those who don't fall into the category of retired military employees who already have health insurance, or employees with spouses who have family benefits. What about working singles for example? BTW, What's your health care coverage plan?? Would YOU accept a lesser plan? No double standards now.

  Under Attack Again Posted February 9, 2005 10:42 AM