politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The idea is that military and federal law enforcement are required to move for the needs of the organization. As such, their spouses tend to get their careers uprooted frequently.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is the government trying to minimize the damage to these families.
It’s hard for me to see how this difficulty they have, which plenty of non-military and non-law enforcement families also have, makes them a special class uniquely qualified for remote positions based on who they decided to shack up with.
I think it's the idea that military families have the issue at higher rates, not that no one else does.
I guess this is where I sound like an asshole, but…so what?
No one is drafted into the military. You volunteer for a term and they pay you (like shit, but I digress). Most of them never leave the US and most don’t see combat over corporate interests, so it’s basically like any other shitty job apart from being able to be put in jail if you try to quit before your term is up.
Why do we have this fascination with treating this one shitty employer’s employees better than we treat everyone else?
I'll be the first one to criticize militaries and the interests that control them (and I'm not even American)... but I do acknowledge the fact that not having a good army can fuck your life up big time. Well, just look at the three conflicts around us and how each one of those countries is surviving.
Yes, most soldiers might never see a war, but is it possible to measure how many countries would've tried to invade your country, or your allies, if you didn't have that large army to act as a deterrent? That's why this one shitty employer gets special treatment.
Rules that make joining the army attractive/mandatory to people who have other options is obviously good for the nation at large. This is just a move in that direction, and I totally get it.
As you’re not American, I’ll assume you’re unaware of all the attractive benefits this employer already gets. Here’s a few:
*if you rack up 100% of disability, this does not necessarily mean you can’t do anything, it just means you’ve hit a combination of government disability math that thinks you can’t
And those benefits? I’m all for them. I wish everyone got them, since there are far more useful things a person can do instead of joining the military-industrial complex, but whatever, at least someone gets them.
What bothers me about this one is that it’s at the expense of the competitive service, and thus at the expense of the public — Americans will get poorer service from their public servants because they didn’t have to compete against the best-qualified to get their jobs. They just got plonked in there because of who they decided to shack up with.
Fair enough, and I do agree that everyone should have free (or reasonably cheap) access to healthcare, education and shelter. (I'm "commie" as fuck, depending on whom you ask)
That said, if all the existing benefits aren't enough to attract good people into the army, I see why the government would want to keep increasing benefits till they get their fill of soldiers -- all in the name of national security.
Also, these things tend to have knock on effects, no? If private sector starts losing out on his employees because they'd rather work for the government as long as it's a remote job, then the private sector is welcome to change rules to attract employees too! It's a "free market" of labour after all.
I really like your last point, and I hope that’s the effect of this. I just also hope that it’s not to the detriment of the competitive service.
We’re already seeing a decrease in quality hires due to direct-hire authority — without checks on the hiring authority, they have a tendency to just hire fast without actually determining if someone is qualified for a role.
~~It's a point preference, not absolute deference.~~
Don't think of it as a benefit for the spouse, anyway. It is a benefit for the federal employee because their family will encounter less hardship when they are asked to relocate. The federal government tries to hire the best people for each position in the most fair way it can. If a candidate has to choose between a career and a well-supported family, you will get less quality candidates.
It’s not a point preference. It says that they can be appointed non-competitively if the head of the Executive agency thinks they’re qualified.
We saw the same thing with direct-hire authority — people abandon the competitive hiring practices because direct-hire is faster.
Ah, my mistake. I made an assumption, and I only skimmed the article. Thanks for the correction.
I'm still not sure this is a bad thing, surely it doesn't apply to every job? Obviously you wouldn't want this to apply to a job that requires a great deal of expertise, but that's not every federal job.
It’s totally possible that it’ll be an amazing thing, but past practices don’t give me a lot of faith in that. The competitive process exists to weed out one or two people being able to hire who they want to without checks and balances. Removal of that for certain classes of people just makes it easier to skirt those checks as long as someone is in a special class.
The problem we run into is what the government considers jobs that require expertise — for example, the people who write rating decisions for disabled veterans have an immensely important job that requires substantial training and skills, but much of the aptitude for learning these is tested for in the panel and interviewing process. They aren’t specific degrees or certifications. Under this rule, those tests would never happen for these people. They’d just be hired, plonked into a training class they might have no ability to pass, and start creating financial obligations for the government in as little as six weeks.