7:53 pm, July 11, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 7
       

  • OPM buyouts for the retirement unit
    mlsyes
    Why is OPM offering buyouts to its Retirement Services Unit? Is this the same unit that is behind OPM's own schedule to catch up by July 2013? While I can understand how unforeseen circumstances (e.g. sequestration) slowed down their work, it doesn't seem reasonable to offer buyouts to a unit that will only exacerbate their (and our) problem
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Agreed - OPM paperwork backlog, then promote retirement - Huh?
    Honest Broker
    I am in agreement with INTSYES and the ORIGINAL JOE S. Why is it so important for OPM to downsize when there is a backlog? I suspect it is to justify contracting out the work. In September 2011 an independent Govt watch group, POGO.ORG, did an investigation on the claims that outsourcing saved the Govt money titled "Bad Business". What they found on average that with all the Govt benefits and pay, the contractors were costing 1.83 times more. In some cases like technical fields, it was 5 times. They also looked up the commercial equivalent jobs and they were slightly less than the Govt, but no benefits for the employees. Downsizing OPM sounds like just another ploy to justify outsourcing jobs, so the politician's buddies can cash in. Rein in costs, really?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Becuase they are stupid.....
    The Original Joe S
    .
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Original joe s
    lpool
    Wrong...."stupid" left with john berry's exit. Agreed, the acting opm director is a bit light on grace, class and intellect, but I'm sure the many good career and career SES remaining at the agency are planning the early outs/buyouts appropriately, unlike the scatter-shot of the Clinton Admin which left personnel weak in many areas (not too unlike many agencies).
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Huh?
    mlsyes
    Your answer did not answer either of my questions. Whether it was scatterbrained before or not, is not the question...the question is if it is scatterbrained today.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Misyes
    lpool
    I didn't say "scatterbrained"....I said "scattershot." There's a difference. And I did respond by saying there are plenty of good career and career SES at OPM (so long as the sched Cs and Appointees don't interfere or let the unions bully them) to move expeditiously and effectively.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • scattershot vs scatterbained
    mlsyes
    You are going off on a rabbit trail and not addressing the main question/ Whether there are good senior management individuals or not is not the question, the question is how does it make sense to give buyout offers to anyone in a unit that is backlogged?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }