GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Do It Yourself

• 17409
  

  Taxpayer -

  You are a trusting soul to believe that if this "plan" ever came to pass Congress would continue to appropriate any monies for benefits after the first few years. Why don't we just drop benefits entirely, let them increase our salaries accordingly, and see where we are in 10 years. Bet your bottom dollar you'll be begging for the benefits package you used to have.

  Please, don't give Congress any ideas!

  Taxpayer too!

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 19, 2006 2:14 PM
• 17395
  

  The entire benefits package in government and many private companies is totally out of control and usually aimed at younger employees. The Congress should decide upon how much to spend on benefits and then allow the employees to pick the benefits they wish from a list. Some will want more vacation time and health benefits, others will want retirement savings matching, others will want pet insurance, dental or vision insurance. Give everyone a list of the potential benefits and the cost of the benefits and then Congress should tell each employee how much they have to spend on benefits. Each employee should be allowed to pick the benefits they want and spend the allowance each year. Additionally, employees should be allowed to exceed the amount Congress approves to pick benefits they want in return for reductions in salaries equal to the costs of the benefits selected. This will not happen because it would mean work for those in personnel that have to administer benefits!

  Taxpayer Posted June 19, 2006 8:15 AM
• 17392
  

  How does this agency get around multiple decisions by the U.S. Comptroller General in recent years that specifically forbid the purchasing of bottled water unless the local drinking water supply has been certified by the appropriate authority (public works division, environmental, etc.) as not potable and/or unsafe/undrinkable? Perhaps this publicity will cause them more harm than good in the end.

  John at DOD Posted June 18, 2006 4:29 PM
• 17366
  

  A great propaganda piece on the worker's paradise at the International Trade Commission. Most of the information included is "true," but with management's slant.

  It's also a pity, that the only people quoted work for Mr. McLaughlin, including the union vice president. It would have been nice if you had talked to some of the lawyers or professionals whose life "the managers" are trying to improve. I doubt that many would agree with the following: "At some point, managers at the International Trade Commission -- an independent, Washington-based agency that works on trade issues and American global competitiveness -- realized that the salaries and benefits of their lawyers and other professionals might never match those in the private sector ... So the agency turned to employees' creativity and initiative to come up with benefits that would make life better for them, without breaking the budget."

  You could just hear the gasps when this article was e-mailed from person to person.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 15, 2006 9:32 PM
• 17360
  

  Read and enjoy the newsletter but particularly enjoyed the following paragraph:

  Towana Braxton, vice president of American Federation of Government Employees ITC Local 2211, said the union actively solicits suggestions from employees on desired benefits, such as a room for mothers to pump breast milk, and managers generally embrace them.

  I am not sure who this perk is for -- the mothers or the managers.

  Bruce Powell Posted June 15, 2006 12:15 PM
• 17358
  

  This needs a reality check! The reality is that after thirty years of service, most lower grade employees can't live on a monthly net retirement of $1,300. Pet group health insurance? Get real!

  Myron Gross Posted June 15, 2006 11:04 AM
• 17357
  

  Speaking of benefits, I would like to know why there are only two categories for health insurance -- self and family?

  I spent 30 years in the private sector before coming to the government and I was employed by several different companies during that time, both large and small enterprises. In every instance, employees had a choice of self, family or self plus one. This third category covered newly married couples, childless couples and retired "empty nesters."

  Isn't this a much fairer method then having self and family only? Why should childless couples pay premiums that cover the cost to the insurance companies of insuring families with 3, 4, 5 or more family members? The reason cannot be to keep the premiums low, as I have compared our rates with private companies' health insurance rates and I don't see much difference.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 15, 2006 9:29 AM