Re: FedSmith is Biased

As there were approximately 500 comments submitted in conjunction with the survey and we only published a small number that generally reflected the tenor of the comments sent in by readers. Many of our surveys lead to comments that are skewed in one direction. My guess is because some readers with a particular point of view may have a stronger opinion or are more interested in voicing an opinion. We try to reflect this when publishing the comments. This process, expecially on controversial topics such as the subject of this recent survey, often results in more comments similar to yours or others that are popping up from people who may not have liked the comments from other readers or don't like the fact that more comments were received and published reflecting one particular point of view.

The controversy and free exchange of ideas is actually what makes the site interesting. We are often accused of being too liberal/conservative or favoring Democrats/Republicans or being to prounion/antiunion depending on the news items that are on the site or the opinion of the person commenting. We post most comments as you will see from the FAQ's on our site. Check out the older article at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/291/

Re: All Or Nothing

"Executive Order 13087, issued on May 28, 1998, prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation within Executive Branch civilian employment. The Executive Order states this policy uniformly by adding sexual orientation to the list of categories for which discrimination is prohibited." Many of the responses here have been discriminatory and homophobic.

Denying benefits for the LGBT community smacks of discrimination based on this Order's statement that "It is the policy of the Federal Government to provide an equal opportunity for all of its employees."

Re: Why Stop There!

To the Supervisor Customs and Border Protection (with your bigoted outlook, you should not be in the role of a supervisor).

Applying your logic we should cut the benefits of people who are over weight, drink too much, smoke, etc. As you said in your title, "Why stop there!".

Or, perhaps we should just end spousal benefits all together, that way we could really save money.

Re: Why Stop There!

Your comment makes no sense - what in the world makes you assume that being gay puts you in a "high risk" population? If anything, the gay folks that I work with have much healthier lifesyles than the heterosexuals - they eat better, exercise, aren't overweight, etc. Also, perhaps it didn't occur to you that gay women who aren't IV drug users have virtually no chance to contract AIDS, unlike heterosexuals or gay men. Also, they are probably less likely to need expensive maternity care (although many are having kids these days, it's still a lot fewer than heterosexual women).

Re: Why Stop There!

IT Spec, DOE: Today it seems people are quick to call others with different view points bigots, racists, etc. Please don’t try and put words into my mouth. I never suggested cutting benefits for anyone. As I stated, we do not live in a socialist country. If you want the benefits that come through hard work (beyond basic welfare), or your significant(s) others’ hard work, then you pay for them ($). When I was in my early 20’s, I had to pay a higher premium for auto insurance because I was in a high risk category. Those who were not in a high risk category did not have to supplement the cost of my insurance, it was covered by my (my risk groups’) increased premiums. Insurance companies also do the same for flood and other kinds of insurance. By creating a high risk benefits category/group, coverage can be extended to those who are of “close significance” to the hard working federal employee, not just domestic partners.

As a supervisor, I try to never “should” on people.