Pay raise for federal workers in 2010!?

[Linda Spencer]

This is unbelievable. After giving federal civilian workers an average 3.9 percent raise for 2009, lawmakers are already working on plans to give them more of our money, with a proposed 2 percent raise in 2010 - a time when the economy is expected to still be in a deep recession.

The 2009 raise slipped through. Let's STOP the 2010 increase!

[Linda Spencer]

And it gets worse - there's now a move to boost the proposed raise to 3.9 percent!
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42195&printerfriendlyvers=1

This arrogance in spending our money is absolutely obscene.

[Chucky]

A few points:

First, fed workers have always lagged in cost of living increases. Reagan got a law put in to ensure increases to match inflation, but had a clause to allow less if there is economic hardship. Lo and behold, EVERY president used that loophole EVERY year to stiff the fed workers from a full increase - even in Clinton's "surplus" years (that never actually materialized anyway). So, federal workers are already way behind inflation - I don't begrudge them a decent increase.

Second, even if you consider all bureaucrats to be leeches on society, which they're not, you can think of them as kind of a works-program welfare: we're getting something from them - and certainly more than just gathering paychecks like regular welfare.

Third, the percentages are typically in flux until the new budget is finalized late in the year, so if the economy continues to tank, you can probably count on the number dropping, or even going negative (unprecedented, but not illegal)

Fourth, the current spending spree likely includes a realization that it's all just paper money anyway, and inflation is about to spike: meaning a 3.9% raise in January 2010 will be in the face of Carter-like inflation.

Lastly, I'd also point out that there is also talk of major layoffs across the board. So any increase will probably be offset by the force reduction.

[stoked]

They all need to take a 20% pay cut now.

[jmb6]

I wish I got a 3.9% raise every year.

[smyrna]

This is unbelievable. After giving federal civilian workers an average 3.9 percent raise for 2009, lawmakers are already working on plans to give them more of our money, with a proposed 2 percent raise in 2010 - a time when the economy is expected to still be in a deep recession.

The 2009 raise slipped through. Let's STOP the 2010 increase!

It's the Senate and Congressmen that gave themselves a cost of living raise that is insulting, while the rest of America is suffering primarily from their mistakes.

[Linda Spencer]

It's the Senate and Congressmen that gave themselves a cost of living raise that is insulting, while the rest of America is suffering primarily from their mistakes.

I fully agree that it's wrong for Congress to give itself a raise in these times, but that's not a justification for the federal worker raises - both raises are wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

I think ANY increase for ANYONE (except active-duty military) paid with taxpayer money in these economic times is offensive. Step back and look at the big picture - 650,000 people lost their jobs just last month. Why give raises, from taxpayer funds, to people who have secure jobs?

[Reform2009]

Across the board raises during these tough economic times just sends a wrong message and will be frowned upon the public and the citizens of this country. Individual merit raises for doing their job beyond the call of duty, I do not think Americans would mind. Layoffs and less bureacracy would be more in order until the Obama administration finally figures out what they are doing.

[Bananimal]

They are probably acutely aware of the hyper inflation that they are creating. With their obvious plans for growing the government they want to make sure that all government workers will be able to survive it.

[Mrrbby]

I fully agree that it's wrong for Congress to give itself a raise in these times, but that's not a justification for the federal worker raises - both raises are wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

I think ANY increase for ANYONE (except active-duty military) paid with taxpayer money in these economic times is offensive. Step back and look at the big picture - 650,000 people lost their jobs just last month. Why give raises, from taxpayer funds, to people who have secure jobs?

What if you are Guard/Reserve, and work full time for your unit as a dual status technician? Would my raise, at any percentage, offend you? Does your current job offer the excitement of getting a call telling you to pack your bags, you're going to the sandbox for a year? Mine does.

That's exactly why I get paid what I get paid. By the way, an AGR (Active Guard & Reserve) doing the same job would take home DOUBLE what I do, after taxes. Most dual status technicians do the same job as their active counterparts for less money. Yes, the AGR's also earn every last dime.

If you think that we don't work hard enough for our pay and benefits, I invite you to apply for a crew chief position. Our unit needs full time crew chiefs. We've hired a few people right out of tech school. So, after a couple of winters freezing out on the flightline, and multiple desert deployments, you too can look forward to that 2%-3% raise that people find offensive:mrgreen:

I'd give up the "raises" if entitlement spending cut.

[Linda Spencer]

Across the board raises during these tough economic times just sends a wrong message and will be frowned upon the public and the citizens of this country. Individual merit raises for doing their job beyond the call of duty, I do not think Americans would mind. Layoffs and less bureacracy would be more in order until the Obama administration finally figures out what they are doing.

Well then, it's time to write to your congresspersons! Let them know this is the wrong thing to do. Ask them why federal workers are a privileged class, getting raises at a time when hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens have lost their jobs.

After all, wouldn't you rather keep your money than have the government take it and give it to its own people? Last year's raise slipped through under the radar. This time around, we can stop it.

Yes we can! :D

[Linda Spencer]

I wish I got a 3.9% raise every year.

Yes - of course the feds will tell you that their raises lag behind the private sector in good times, but so what? It's a free market - if the private sector is really so much better, why don't they move there?

I really think the average taxpayer would be outraged to see that negotiation over the amount of next year's federal raise has already begun, at a time when few private-sector workers have any hope of a raise, and are probably more concerned about just keeping their jobs.

I'm surprised this issue hasn't gotten more "traction" among the general public. Again, I'd urge everyone to contact their congresspersons. A lot of them are in the pockets of the federal unions, of course, but there are still a lot of us non-feds whose votes still count!

I'd also be interested to hear Sean bring up this topic.

[Kathi52]

Linda,

I see you are on a roll again. I don't think you understand that what you are speaking of is and was a COLA. It is law and every year it is determined just how much or if any monies a federal employee will receive. This may frost your butt; my COLA and being a RETIRED fed was 5.8% for 2009. I know it was mentioned that it was the highest in MANY years. There were MANY years the very men and women that protect and defend your rights didn't receive crap. You say we are a privileged class. I wouldn't say that. HOWEVER, we provide a service whether it be militarily or in the civilian sector and YOU and others DERIVE A BENEFIT. What is it about that that you don't understand? And you speak of taxpayer dollars. Hello! Do you not think WE pay taxes. Let me tell you something...my husband and I combined paid out $33,000+ in 2008 federal and state income taxes! That DOES NOT factor in what we pay out for Medicare and our own individual health insurance policies. So, wouldn't you think if you had to say so, that we paid out enough to potentially care for ONE underprivileged family? I would say so! And then add in what we pay out in Medicare and the FEHBP; those monies also go into a coffer.

As mrrbby stated, try having a job where you are told to pack your bags and get moving...TDY that is. I have had to so in the past and let me tell you the work we did was backbreaking yet by private sector standards we didn't get paid NEAR what someone in the private sector did. Besides, our pay was based on grades. I know they have NSPS now but back in my day it was GS. I was doing base closures at one point and on a GS-5 salary; single mom with child in tow. It wasn't easy! I stuck it out though and eventually moved up to GS-12. So, hey, I KNOW I earned my way and so too did others and especially the military. Do NOT begrudge them.

And you can offer up a Congressional calls all you want to. But before you do you might want to go to the Fedsmith website and read up on some breaks the Feds will be getting and deservedly so.

And again, I agree with mrrbby, I'd give up my COLA's too if the "entitlement spending" or rather welfare spending Obama is doing would stop. Why should I feel sorry for the very people who want to take and take and take from the "achievers"?

Do as mrrbby suggests, GET A JOB WITH THE FEDS instead of harping. My God, they are hiring by the thousands! Then you, too, could achieve and get the same BENEFITS PACKAGE we have.

So what is stopping you?

[Linda Spencer]

Call it what you will - COLA, raise, whatever - most people are smart enough to see it for what it is: a bigger number on your paycheck, which most Americans won't be seeing anytime soon.

If federal workers feel they are underpaid, they're welcome to come on over and take their chances in the private sector, where most people don't get raises (oops, COLAs!) just for putting in their time.

[Linda Spencer]

Hey, at last this thing is getting "legs"! Check out this article in USA Today, and read the comments - looks as though people have finally had enough:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-03-government-pay-raises_N.htm

Write your congresspeople - tell them NO to any federal civilian pay raise!

[egs21]

This is unbelievable. After giving federal civilian workers an average 3.9 percent raise for 2009, lawmakers are already working on plans to give them more of our money, with a proposed 2 percent raise in 2010 - a time when the economy is expected to still be in a deep recession.

The 2009 raise slipped through. Let's STOP the 2010 increase!

Linda, technically every person who works for the government pays all the regular taxes an employee in the private sector does. So, its not just "our money" as you put it. Lastly, most cost of living raises are around 3-4%. I got a similar raise in my private sector job. These people support their families like anyone else. Granted, if the agency they are working for is not efficient, then changes need to be made. But lets not get all crazy about a modest cost of living increase. Or, you could get a government job and try to benefit from it personally.

[sanscleverusername]

they're welcome to come on over and take their chances in the private sector, where most people don't get raises (oops, COLAs!) just for putting in their time.

This is a rude and insulting comment. If you think all government employees are just putting in their time, you are mistaken. Most people, when hired to do a job, strive to do the best they can. This is the case in BOTH the public and private sectors. Sure, there a small percentage who become complacent, but no more in the public sector than in the private. It is just a far more involved process to terminate under or non-performing individuals from public employ.

I agree that current economic conditions dictate restraint when considering wage increases, and that government on all levels should adopt a performance-based compensation policy. But I don't agree that merely because someone is a public employee they are not worthy of a wage increase.

[Linda Spencer]

This is a rude and insulting comment. If you think all government employees are just putting in their time, you are mistaken. Most people, when hired to do a job, strive to do the best they can. This is the case in BOTH the public and private sectors. Sure, there a small percentage who become complacent, but no more in the public sector than in the private. It is just a far more involved process to terminate under or non-performing individuals from public employ.

I'm truly sorry that you found my comments insulting. Actually, I agree that most federal employees are hard-working and competent. You'll notice that I was replying to one of the ineviable "we federal employees are underpaid" comments, and was merely a stating a fact: COLAs *are* given to federal employees without regard to performance. Is that not correct?

Again, my point is that no federal civilians should be getting raises, COLAs, whatever while the economy is in such dire condition. There's simply no rational justification for such action. It's an insult to the people out here who are facing job loss or pay cuts through no fault of their own. I suspect the proposal is just an attempt by elected officals to buy the votes of a large constituency.

[sanscleverusername]

I'm truly sorry that you found my comments insulting. Actually, I agree that most federal employees are hard-working and competent. You'll notice that I was replying to one of the ineviable "we federal employees are underpaid" comments, and was merely a stating a fact: COLAs *are* given to federal employees without regard to performance. Is that not correct?

Again, my point is that no federal civilians should be getting raises, COLAs, whatever while the economy is in such dire condition. There's simply no rational justification for such action. It's an insult to the people out here who are facing job loss or pay cuts through no fault of their own. I suspect the proposal is just an attempt by elected officals to buy the votes of a large constituency.

I understand your point, especially that of the proposal being an attempt to buy votes. It seems that it is now SOP to pander to those whose votes can keep a politician in power.

My brother is a civilian employee of the DOD, and works in the substance abuse testing facility at Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Ohio. In addition to testing for banned substances, part of his responsibilities include testifying before Courts Martial as to the results of blood and urine tests conducted on enlisted personnel. He would be included in your "no federal civilian" comment. I am in no way saying he is more or less worthy of a wage increase than any other tax-paying American, but I ponder what could occur without his efforts. I'm sure he would be the first to agree to a wage freeze, not because of public sentiment, but because he understands current economic conditions, and is passionate about the service he provides to the armed services. He does not want to allow an impaired service member to endanger the lives of others due to something he failed to do.

I must discourage you from making such blanket statements. Please choose your words carefully.

[Linda Spencer]

Again, I want to make very clear that I'm not impugning the work ethic of federal employees or the importance of the work that many of them do. But keep in mind that there are many in the private sector, as well as state and local government, who also work hard and perform vital services - and lots of them are facing layoffs or cuts in hours.

Conservatives should be getting the word out about the federal raises. This could be a *great* issue in the fight to take back Congress - I think a lot of people will be outraged when they find out. Look at the responses to the USA Today piece; a large majority oppose the raises.

[Mrrbby]

I fully agree that it's wrong for Congress to give itself a raise in these times, but that's not a justification for the federal worker raises - both raises are wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

I think ANY increase for ANYONE (except active-duty military) paid with taxpayer money in these economic times is offensive. Step back and look at the big picture - 650,000 people lost their jobs just last month. Why give raises, from taxpayer funds, to people who have secure jobs?

You never did answer me. Since I'm not active duty, does my raise offend you?

[CaptPops]

I think ANY increase for ANYONE (except active-duty military) paid with taxpayer money in these economic times is offensive. Step back and look at the big picture - 650,000 people lost their jobs just last month. Why give raises, from taxpayer funds, to people who have secure jobs?

That is not what Carter thought in the 70s. With inflation in double digits, he said that 'the military' would lead the way on raises and we would receive a just a 5% cost of living raise.
Then he did the same thing the next year...

[Linda Spencer]

You never did answer me. Since I'm not active duty, does my raise offend you?

If you have the same obligation as active-duty military - to go wherever they send you under penalty of prosecution - then by all means enjoy your raise, with my thanks.

As for all other federal workers: with unemployment heading toward double digits (today 500,000+ jobs were reported lost in May), tell me again why the taxpayers should be giving them raises at this time.

[DuoSoft]

This is unbelievable. After giving federal civilian workers an average 3.9 percent raise for 2009, lawmakers are already working on plans to give them more of our money, with a proposed 2 percent raise in 2010 - a time when the economy is expected to still be in a deep recession.

The 2009 raise slipped through. Let's STOP the 2010 increase!

Most of the fed workers I know ( and I know a lot!) are well worth what they are getting. Most are truely underpaid compared to their civilian counter parts and deal with long hours and huge responsibilities -- that's not even including the additional duties often assigned to them.

I can tell you this.... when a government employee is replace by a "contractor", you the tax-payer are paying up to 2 to 3 times the amount you would have paid to keep the fed employee working. Often with contractors.... they are bound to a statement of work and do not have the flexibility as fed workers do to take on additional duties and roles. This usually ends up with more costs to the tax payer and poor performance from the contractor.

Just food for thought.

[Army Wife]

They all need to take a 20% pay cut now.

Sure we will take a 20 % pay cut right after ALL welfare checks, benefits, Medicaid/care are cut 20% across the board. The Husband works for the Army (is also retired Army) and his work week averages out to 60-70 hours a week. He does NOT want the overtime but because of the type of work they do there is no choice in doing it.


Linda you need to take a step back and walk a few miles in our shoes before you start running off at the mouth about what you have little knowledge of. COLA is a Cost Of Living Allowance. A perk like the pound of coffee a week I get from my job with SBUX. By offering that perk like MANY companies do (with employee discounts and health insurance at a group rate) they attract better trained and more skilled workers. The Husband is doing what he was trained in the military to do so that is saving the Government money because they are not having to train someone from the ground up. That COLA is actually not all that much.
As for paying us with taxpayer monies DUH what do you think comes out of OUR check every week?! Do you think we get a free ride with taxers?? We lose almost 1/3 of EVERY paycheck to taxes, this year alone we had to pay over $1200 MORE in taxes because they are working so many overtime hours due to the LACK of TRAINED and QUALIFIED personal to do what The Husband does.

Reading posts like yours reminds me of every January when the Army would mail out these letters telling us how great we had it and how much we were earing in "benefits" (most of which we never saw or used do to lack of them being provided where we were posted) telling us how that as an 88M The Husband was making about $10,000 (if I remember correctly),more than his civilian counterpart. My response to those letters were if we are getting all these extra "benefits" even though we could not access them the by gawd I want a refund for all the ones we were not able to use.

So my point is before you point your bone-y finger in MY direction because MY husband works for the government why not point it at the fraud in the social programs where abuse is unchecked.

...but hey its your time and when the soldiers deployed are lacking for bullets and bombs you can warm the cockles of your heart knowing you killed off a GS worker's position who did the paperwork to fill the trucks and trains with bullets and bombs to save you a few pennies instead of fighting where the greatest waste in Government is.

[Linda Spencer]

Most of the fed workers I know ( and I know a lot!) are well worth what they are getting. Most are truely underpaid compared to their civilian counter parts and deal with long hours and huge responsibilities -- that's not even including the additional duties often assigned to them.

I can tell you this.... when a government employee is replace by a "contractor", you the tax-payer are paying up to 2 to 3 times the amount you would have paid to keep the fed employee working. Often with contractors.... they are bound to a statement of work and do not have the flexibility as fed workers do to take on additional duties and roles. This usually ends up with more costs to the tax payer and poor performance from the contractor.

Just food for thought.

I fully agree about the contractors - I could never figure out how they were supposed to be saving us money in the first place!

But as far as government employees being underpaid, I must ask: if things are so much better in the private sector, why don't they simply go there? "Underpaid" is inherently a relative term; evidently most government workers are satisfied with their pay, benefits and working conditions. Otherwise, they'd be working elsewhere.

Compensation is supposed to be determined by the need to recruit and retain qualifed personnel. In this economy, I doubt that the government (or any other employer) has much trouble doing that, at least for most positions.

Of course, we all *want* more money. But there are a lot of people right now who would be happy just to have a job - even one of those "underpaid" federal jobs! In this situation, it's absolutely unconscionable that the taxpayers are being hit to give raises to people who already have secure jobs with good benefits.

[Associa]

COLA? You think us in the private sector are entitled to this? We get no raise this year and probably none the next but you raise taxes so you can get one? Please don't insult us by calling it "insignificant".

[RTchoke]

COLA? You think us in the private sector are entitled to this? We get no raise this year and probably none the next but you raise taxes so you can get one? Please don't insult us by calling it "insignificant".

By the time they raise your insurance premium it is insignificant. My paycheck was sometimes LESS after my COLA than it was before I got it.

[Mrrbby]

Linda, despite the economy, my unit still can't fill positions out on the flightline. A few of our back shops are losing people to the private sector. We have people leaving to make more money in other agencies and companies. The base has had to convert postions to AGR (active duty) slots to fill them. So please, don't just throw out blanket statements.

Not all government jobs are cushy, overpaid, or secure. All it takes for us is another round of base closures and realignments, and we are possibly out of business. That is a concern for us, even in good times.

When you rail against these raises, who exactly are you talking about? You've said it's not active duty, and us dual status technicians. How about federal law enforcement? You know, Customs...Border Patrol...ATF...FBI...Immigration...etc? How about federal fire fighters? Should these people not get anything? Jobs too cushy, or not vital? Positions too easy to fill?

I do agree w/you on the contractors. Bad deal for everyone involved.

[rebel1776]

Call it what you will - COLA, raise, whatever - most people are smart enough to see it for what it is: a bigger number on your paycheck, which most Americans won't be seeing anytime soon.

If federal workers feel they are underpaid, they're welcome to come on over and take their chances in the private sector, where most people don't get raises (oops, COLAs!) just for putting in their time.


Not to fuel the flames or anything but those COLA increases are also given to SSI and SSD recipients each year in the same increments. All those on disabiltiy also received a 5.8% increase this year. Then again when you make $761 a month, it's really not that much.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. By 2012, Obama will have destroyed all private sector jobs and we'll all be federal employees.

[Linda Spencer]

As the bad news continues to roll in about job losses and likely high unemployment though next year (and probably much longer), the insanity of giving raises to people with some of the most secure jobs in the country becomes more and more obvious.

For those who say "it's just a drop in the bucket" (and that always seems to be the rationalization for wasteful spending), consider this:

Let's define good pay as $15/hour. Add 50% to that for benefits, giving a total compensation package of $23.50/hour or about $47,000/year.

Now, the estimated cost of the *minimum* proposed federal civilian raise (2%) is $1.3 billion. Dividing that by the $47,000/year compensation of our "good paying" job, we find that the money being spent on raises for federal civilians could fund more than 27,600 new jobs!

I'm not necessarily advocating that the federal government actually hire 27,600 more people, but if the money *is* going to be spent (it shouldn't be), I'd rather see it go to those who have no jobs at all.

This is a *great* issue for the 2010 campaigns. It won't fly in the DC region, where politicians of both parties are beholden to federal workers, but elsewhere in the country - especially in areas with exceptionally high unemployment - it's really going to resonate with a lot of angry voters.

[Mrrbby]

As the bad news continues to roll in about job losses and likely high unemployment though next year (and probably much longer), the insanity of giving raises to people with some of the most secure jobs in the country becomes more and more obvious.

For those who say "it's just a drop in the bucket" (and that always seems to be the rationalization for wasteful spending), consider this:

Let's define good pay as $15/hour. Add 50% to that for benefits, giving a total compensation package of $23.50/hour or about $47,000/year.

Now, the estimated cost of the *minimum* proposed federal civilian raise (2%) is $1.3 billion. Dividing that by the $47,000/year compensation of our "good paying" job, we find that the money being spent on raises for federal civilians could fund more than 27,600 new jobs!

I'm not necessarily advocating that the federal government actually hire 27,600 more people, but if the money *is* going to be spent (it shouldn't be), I'd rather see it go to those who have no jobs at all.

This is a *great* issue for the 2010 campaigns. It won't fly in the DC region, where politicians of both parties are beholden to federal workers, but elsewhere in the country - especially in areas with exceptionally high unemployment - it's really going to resonate with a lot of angry voters.

How can the government fund 27,600 jobs without them being government jobs? It sounds like 27,600 more people would be getting a raise next year that would offend you. Hey, this year they wouldn't though, and that's what counts, right?:mrgreen:

As for those without jobs, I do sympathize. I've been there enough times, and may be there again. Most of the time, work is available. It's a matter of what you are willing to do for work, and where you choose to live.

Instead of blindly railing against raises for federal employees in general, tell us where you would make cuts. What departments?

[Linda Spencer]

How can the government fund 27,600 jobs without them being government jobs? It sounds like 27,600 more people would be getting a raise next year that would offend you. Hey, this year they wouldn't though, and that's what counts, right?:mrgreen:

As for those without jobs, I do sympathize. I've been there enough times, and may be there again. Most of the time, work is available. It's a matter of what you are willing to do for work, and where you choose to live.

Instead of blindly railing against raises for federal employees in general, tell us where you would make cuts. What departments?

Just to be clear, I'm not really advocating that the federal government hire more people - I was just using the number of jobs to put the $1.3 billion cost of the raise into concrete terms, and to show that it's not an insignificant amount of money.

My suggestion for what to do with that $1.3 billion is simple: leave it where it belongs -in the pockets of the taxpayers!

As far as cuts in the federal budget: I agree they're needed, but that's a topic for another thread. I'm "blindly railing" against the raise because it provides no value to the country for the money spent. In this economic climate it's an unnecessary expenditure, plain and simple.

Except in specific, rare cases where an agency has proven difficulty recruiting or retaining people with hard-to-find specialized skills, the federal government is having no problem getting the people it needs. Thanks to the meltdown in the financial sector, even people with lots of experience in (formerly) "hot" fields like accounting and IT are applying for federal jobs. In fact, federal employment is extremely hard to get right now.

So I ask once again: why should we be paying more money to people who already have good jobs, and who are very unlikely to quit? Why not just let us keep our money? We need it!

[mboncher]

From my view, all federal jobs need to have their pay and compensation packages put together to find out their REAL rate of pay, then compare it to the spread for the same job in the private market if there is one. (Most jobs will have a private market equivilant) Then, the government job needs to be set at between 25%-40% percentile of the same position and training as in the private market. Too often I have seen jobs that you can't make even half of what the government job is paying when you include the benefits. But because they focus on only the cash quotient, ohhh it doesn't look so bad.

Nobody should get rich working for the government. Then again, government is doing too many jobs it shouldn't be.

[ChrisSpencer]

This is unbelievable. After giving federal civilian workers an average 3.9 percent raise for 2009, lawmakers are already working on plans to give them more of our money, with a proposed 2 percent raise in 2010 - a time when the economy is expected to still be in a deep recession.

The 2009 raise slipped through. Let's STOP the 2010 increase!


3.9% increase in nominal income doesn't really mean much of anything, and if the economy does recover coming into 2010 as is projected then a 3.9% increase in federal wages will 1. not even come close to matching the nominal increase of the average american's wage level, and 2. not even amount to inflation for a post-recovery period with fed funds still at 0-0.25%,

so your 3.9% "pay increase" is more than likely in reality a pay cut.

[ChrisSpencer]

I fully agree about the contractors - I could never figure out how they were supposed to be saving us money in the first place!

But as far as government employees being underpaid, I must ask: if things are so much better in the private sector, why don't they simply go there? "Underpaid" is inherently a relative term; evidently most government workers are satisfied with their pay, benefits and working conditions. Otherwise, they'd be working elsewhere.


False. There's a dynamic from a labour economics analysis that applies to your argument, giving much credence to the preference for public service over private employment for some people. This preference does exist, and just because someone prefers to work in the State Department for example providing services for our great nation that doesn't mean that their public service to our country has somehow earned them a lower income.

That's tantamount to saying that soldiers deserve lower pay because if they really wanted to they simply could go work for Xe or any other private military corporations, therefore they should enjoy the pay they get and not complain about it.


Compensation is supposed to be determined by the need to recruit and retain qualifed personnel. In this economy, I doubt that the government (or any other employer) has much trouble doing that, at least for most positions.


Compensation in the private sector is determined by that negotiation of demand for labour and standards of living in the area... but the public sector does not operate this way. As a means of creating fiscal policy the government has every constitutional right to temporarily increase employment during periods of high national unemployment to help the market. The keyword there is temporarily.


Of course, we all *want* more money. But there are a lot of people right now who would be happy just to have a job - even one of those "underpaid" federal jobs! In this situation, it's absolutely unconscionable that the taxpayers are being hit to give raises to people who already have secure jobs with good benefits.

Again I doubt that this raise of 3.9% will even amount to a real wage increase. The nominal 3.9% will not compare to the increase in average wages after the recovery begins in early 2010 nor will it begin to tackle real inflation rates. Thus, the pay "increase" of 3.9% is really going to turn out to be a pay cut - so you should be happy.

[RTchoke]

From my view, all federal jobs need to have their pay and compensation packages put together to find out their REAL rate of pay, then compare it to the spread for the same job in the private market if there is one. (Most jobs will have a private market equivilant) Then, the government job needs to be set at between 25%-40% percentile of the same position and training as in the private market. Too often I have seen jobs that you can't make even half of what the government job is paying when you include the benefits. But because they focus on only the cash quotient, ohhh it doesn't look so bad.

Nobody should get rich working for the government. Then again, government is doing too many jobs it shouldn't be.

Trust me. I sure as hell didn't get rich working for the government. In fact, there were many pay periods I made less than I did before my "raise" because my health insurance premium increase was more than my "raise" all the while decreasing my benefits and raising my deductible. Yeah, go me! :rolleyes:

[mboncher]

3.9% increase in nominal income doesn't really mean much of anything, and if the economy does recover coming into 2010 as is projected then a 3.9% increase in federal wages will 1. not even come close to matching the nominal increase of the average american's wage level, and 2. not even amount to inflation for a post-recovery period with fed funds still at 0-0.25%,

so your 3.9% "pay increase" is more than likely in reality a pay cut.
With the current direction our government is taking us, I'd hold off on believing the 2010 rally being much more than a "slowing of the decrease". I have complete faith in P-BO and congress to snuff out all gains with their insane spending and taxation programs that will quickly shove this nation into third world status if we don't stop them.

It's like having a bunch of drunk idiots trying to flip a truck, and they've got it rocking pretty good and are now trying to time their final "HEEEEEEAVE!" to topple it for good.

[mboncher]

Trust me. I sure as hell didn't get rich working for the government. In fact, there were many pay periods I made less than I did before my "raise" because my health insurance premium increase was more than my "raise" all the while decreasing my benefits and raising my deductible. Yeah, go me! :rolleyes:
Gotta love the government. Hurt the bottom rungs and feed the fat cats who do less than nothing.

But, what I found disturbing while I've looked for work, is that the government jobs that are similar in qualification to what I do, well, they get paid not only 10-20% more, they get benefits that no other private company would dare consider because it'd ruin them. Yes it's bottom rung work, but part time positions shouldn't pay better than full time private jobs. Then again, the government shouldn't be doing my kinda work either.

[ChrisSpencer]

With the current direction our government is taking us, I'd hold off on believing the 2010 rally being much more than a "slowing of the decrease". I have complete faith in P-BO and congress to snuff out all gains with their insane spending and taxation programs that will quickly shove this nation into third world status if we don't stop them.

It's like having a bunch of drunk idiots trying to flip a truck, and they've got it rocking pretty good and are now trying to time their final "HEEEEEEAVE!" to topple it for good.

As awful as liberal rumours have been lately I highly doubt that Obama will take the nation in a divisive liberal direction. He's proven to be more moderate than his campaign showed him to be, and far more moderate than the liberal House.

With that aside I also have far more faith in the resilience of the U.S. economy to overcome the rumours that abound. Even talk of raising income taxes - something that is entirely common in the political bickering history of this country - has failed to solely drive the economy into recessions empirically.

To scare this market into a depression you would have to do a lot - and not even the liberal House are willing to do what it would take to truly ruin this country. The economy will still recover coming into early 2010.

[Linda Spencer]

False. There's a dynamic from a labour economics analysis that applies to your argument, giving much credence to the preference for public service over private employment for some people. This preference does exist, and just because someone prefers to work in the State Department for example providing services for our great nation that doesn't mean that their public service to our country has somehow earned them a lower income.

Of course, people choose jobs for all kinds of non-monetary reasons: satisfying work, flexible hours, learning opportunities, etc. But that doesn't exempt the public sector from the laws of supply and demand. The fact is that every one of those federal workers *chose* his/her job - and I don't see many of them quitting over low pay. Especially not now. So why should they be getting more of my hard-earned money?

You mentioned the State Department. The Foreign Service is recruiting plenty of highly-qualified applicants; hiring is *extremely* competitive. Why should they get raises when many of their fellow Americans are in danger of losing their jobs? As I said, it's obscene.

The reason for those raises is simple politics: politicians of both parties see federal workers as a reliable, easily-bought voting bloc.

[Linda Spencer]

Unemployment is up yet again, with no end in sight. Anyone want to take another shot at explaining why we should be giving raises at this time to people who have some of the most secure jobs in the country?

[Kathi52]

Feel free to attempt to change the Federal Code of Regulations. Please see 5 C.F.R. Part 591 - Allowances & Differentials.

The COLA is LAW! The COLA is NOT a "raise" as you perceive it to be. If you take the time to read the LAW it will answer ALL of your questions; specifically how a COLA is arrived at FOR the Military as well as Civilians.

[jt314]

Unemployment is up yet again, with no end in sight. Anyone want to take another shot at explaining why we should be giving raises at this time to people who have some of the most secure jobs in the country?

Today, on 4July, we honor our country and those who serve it. Those abroad, wearing our nation's uniform, defending our interests, our flag, our way of life. Those within our nation, who serve with equal vigor. This includes our uniformed personnel and those without uniforms, who serve our nation as civilians doing vital tasks for our nation's defense.

Like the naval shipyard workers, who ensure our fleet is ready - they work long hours, sometimes abroad, repairing and maintaing readiness so that our sailors can do what is necessary to defend our nation.

Don't begrudge these people their salaries. They do sacrifice, and do believe in the cause that they serve. Yes, they get paid - but job security is one benefit, long hours and a willingness to do "whatever it takes" to get the job done is one detraction.

Private contractors frequently care about profit, and only profit, at the expense of quality. They hold the government, the contracting offices, to the letter of the contract, as conditions in the work change. Federal employees voluntarily adapt, for the good of the fleet - while sometimes sacrificing to do so.

I know - I've personally seen it for 22 years.

[Kathi52]

Bravo jt314 and thank you! And thank you to all who served and continue to do so.

[Linda Spencer]

Feel free to attempt to change the Federal Code of Regulations. Please see 5 C.F.R. Part 591 - Allowances & Differentials.

The COLA is LAW! The COLA is NOT a "raise" as you perceive it to be. If you take the time to read the LAW it will answer ALL of your questions; specifically how a COLA is arrived at FOR the Military as well as Civilians.

Of course it's the law - every aspect of federal pay is law. That's a disingenuous argument. The amount of the COLA is set every year by Congress and approved by the President. They can - and should - set it to zero until the economy recovers.

A COLA is a bigger number on somene's paycheck. Out here in non-government America, we call that a raise. Lots of people in the private sector (and state/local governments as well) would be glad to get such a "non-raise"!

[Linda Spencer]

Today, on 4July, we honor our country and those who serve it. Those abroad, wearing our nation's uniform, defending our interests, our flag, our way of life. Those within our nation, who serve with equal vigor. This includes our uniformed personnel and those without uniforms, who serve our nation as civilians doing vital tasks for our nation's defense.

Like the naval shipyard workers, who ensure our fleet is ready - they work long hours, sometimes abroad, repairing and maintaing readiness so that our sailors can do what is necessary to defend our nation.

Don't begrudge these people their salaries. They do sacrifice, and do believe in the cause that they serve. Yes, they get paid - but job security is one benefit, long hours and a willingness to do "whatever it takes" to get the job done is one detraction.

Private contractors frequently care about profit, and only profit, at the expense of quality. They hold the government, the contracting offices, to the letter of the contract, as conditions in the work change. Federal employees voluntarily adapt, for the good of the fleet - while sometimes sacrificing to do so.

I know - I've personally seen it for 22 years.

How does that explain why a 9-to-5 clerk at the IRS (whose compensation is way more than the equivalent private-sector position) also gets a raise? We taxpayers would like to know!

[Kathi52]

The 9-5 Clerk at the IRS is ALSO a taxpayer Linda as is EVERY Federal Employee. If you had taken the time to read the CFR, you would not be asking the same question(s) again. In any case, CURRENTLY, it looks as if the Military MIGHT get 3.4% and DESERVEDLY SO! Active Civlian Feds MIGHT get 2% (also deserving) and the Retirees would get 0%. And this comes from Fedsmith not my words. Anyway, I fall into the latter category. And I don't mind at all...although I can't speak for others. Btw, the $33,000+ DH and I paid out in payroll/annuity taxes last year sure as heck went into someone's coffers didn't it? I would have to say that as a TAXPAYER WE are doing our part to the tune of around 33%. Are you?

[Linda Spencer]

The 9-5 Clerk at the IRS is ALSO a taxpayer Linda as is EVERY Federal Employee. If you had taken the time to read the CFR, you would not be asking the same question(s) again. In any case, CURRENTLY, it looks as if the Military MIGHT get 3.4% and DESERVEDLY SO! Active Civlian Feds MIGHT get 2% (also deserving) and the Retirees would get 0%. And this comes from Fedsmith not my words. Anyway, I fall into the latter category. And I don't mind at all...although I can't speak for others. Btw, the $33,000+ DH and I paid out in payroll/annuity taxes last year sure as heck went into someone's coffers didn't it? I would have to say that as a TAXPAYER WE are doing our part to the tune of around 33%. Are you?

The "federal employees are taxpayers, too" argument is nonsense. Of course they pay taxes - that simply means they give back some of their raise. But they still get a raise. Unlike other employees, federal workers have a net gain - they *receive* more money from the federal government than they pay in taxes. Pretty sweet deal!

Please, explain to us why that IRS clerk deserves a raise, when unemployment is heading for double digits and private-sector workers with similar duties and qualifications make less money, have fewer (or no) benefits, and no job security.

[RTchoke]

The "federal employees are taxpayers, too" argument is nonsense. Of course they pay taxes - that simply means they give back some of their raise. But they still get a raise. Unlike other employees, federal workers have a net gain - they *receive* more money from the federal government than they pay in taxes. Pretty sweet deal!

Please, explain to us why that IRS clerk deserves a raise, when unemployment is heading for double digits and private-sector workers with similar duties and qualifications make less money, have fewer (or no) benefits, and no job security.

...............and people here say Sarah Palin whines............ :rolleyes:

[Kathi52]

RTchoke,

LOL! Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. :):rolleyes:

Linda, several people have explained this to you throughout the whole thread. ArmyWife in particular spelled it out for you as did many others. You NEED to remember that the Civilians and Military provide a service to you. Stop and think about that for awhile. I don't know what your personal circumstances are. But if you are unhappy with your current situation and would like a so called "raise", do us all a favor and apply for a government position so that you too can reap the BENEFITS. And, btw, it is MORE than 27,600 that the Feds are hiring for. Personally, I think you just like to hear yourself complain. And if none of the above works for you, again feel free to get on the stump and run for Congress. :D Btw, YOU never answered the question. Are YOU a contributing member to society? It certainly doesn't sound like it based on your posts.

[Linda Spencer]

...............and people here say Sarah Palin whines............ :rolleyes:

Wow, I thought this was a *conservative* board. You know, concepts like smaller government, letting the taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars, etc. Guess not!

[Kathi52]

It basically IS a conservative forum. And "I" am a Conservative. And I sure as heck didn't vote for Obama and am not personally responsbile for his beefing up of the Federal Government. But, hey, ya know...there has to be STAFF to work his socialist agenda. You know as in creating and saving jobs as he promised; (cough, cough, cough, sputter)! In any case you can't blame ANYONE for looking for a job where they can find one. In other words, don't begrudge a newly hired Fed for finding employment or any Fed for that matter. And last but not least, I started my career in 1978 as a GS-3 without a college degree and made it to GS-12 over time. Yep, hard work and dedication pay off. Again, those in the Armed Forces and Civilians have worked hard and EARNED what they have today. If you were a true conservative, you would not begrudge those that provide a service to you.

[scottco]

It's doubtful they will completely eliminate the pay raise for federal employees, but it sounds like it will be lower -- like about 2%:
http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/344.cfm

[Mrrbby]

I'm sure that will still be offensive.

[CMike11]

The federal employees are taxpayers too arguement is rediculous. Obvoiusly, they pay taxes.

The problem is us taxpayers can't afford to give federal employees a raise now.

I would much rather that the money for the raise be put back in the hands paying for the raises (the taxpayers) so they can make ends meet, and to help businesses have more money for survival.

I realize the federal employees are going to protect their own fiefdom and really don't care about what is going on other than their own little world. I guess I can't blame them in a sense.

However, working for the federal government shouldn't be an entitlement program.

If the economy is going through a hard time, and the government doesn't have the money for raises, then federal employees have to knuckle under like everyone else and not get their raise. Perhaps federal employees should be reduced.

If a business isn't doing well economically, they are probably going to layoff people. They certainly aren't going to give everyone raises.

The difference is that the government just puts everything on the US taxpayer credit card and acts financially irresponsibly.

[CMike11]

It's doubtful they will completely eliminate the pay raise for federal employees, but it sounds like it will be lower -- like about 2%:
http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/344.cfm

That will probably be called a pay cut :))

[CMike11]

It basically IS a conservative forum. And "I" am a Conservative. And I sure as heck didn't vote for Obama and am not personally responsbile for his beefing up of the Federal Government. But, hey, ya know...there has to be STAFF to work his socialist agenda. You know as in creating and saving jobs as he promised; (cough, cough, cough, sputter)! In any case you can't blame ANYONE for looking for a job where they can find one. In other words, don't begrudge a newly hired Fed for finding employment or any Fed for that matter. And last but not least, I started my career in 1978 as a GS-3 without a college degree and made it to GS-12 over time. Yep, hard work and dedication pay off. Again, those in the Armed Forces and Civilians have worked hard and EARNED what they have today. If you were a true conservative, you would not begrudge those that provide a service to you.

Nobody is.


It's really simple.

We can't afford to give a raise

[CaptPops]

Feel free to attempt to change the Federal Code of Regulations. Please see 5 C.F.R. Part 591 - Allowances & Differentials.

The COLA is LAW! The COLA is NOT a "raise" as you perceive it to be. If you take the time to read the LAW it will answer ALL of your questions; specifically how a COLA is arrived at FOR the Military as well as Civilians.

I am not sure that COLA is law, or was law., because in the seventies, Jimmie Carter said, ( when we had double digit inflation), That the military would lead the way in fighting inflatio and woiuld only get a 5% cost of living raise.

[Kathi52]

Okay, as taken from the NARFE Magazine I just received:

HOW ANNUAL COLAS WORK: (For Annuitants)

"Annual COLAs help to maintain the purchasing power of Social Security benefits and other federal retirement and income-support benefits over time. The Social Security Amendments of 1972 provided for monthly cash benefits to be automatically adjusted annually for inflation. Prior to the 1972 amendments, monthly cash benefits were increased only by legislation, resulting in increases on ONLY 10 OCCASIONS. Since 1975, AUTOMATIC annual COLAs have been provided except during calendar year 1983, when the adjustment was delayted six months as a part of the compromise legislation to keep Social Security SOLVENT.

UNDER THE LAW, COLAs are indexed to changes in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which is published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a division of the US Department of Labor. The CPI-W tracks the prices of thousansds of goods and services purchased by US HOUSEHOLDS. A large "basket" of items more accurately represents the general rise in prices becoming skewed by ANY ONE SECTOR of the economy. Even though one item may increase or decrease dramatically, other items may not, offsetting the overall result.

Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) annuities, like Social Security, are based on the percentage change in the average CPI-W from the third calendar quarter (July, August and September) of the previous year to the third quarter of the current year. The COLA becomes effective in December of the current year and is payable in January of the following year.

(I want to add here that I was a CSRS-Offset employee so I DID contribute or pay into SS).

Retirees under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) also have their COLA determined using the same system, but under FERS, annuitants receive the full COLA ONLY IF inflation is less than 2 percent for the year. If inflation is between 2 and 3 percent, annuitants receive a 2 percent increase, and if the CPI-W is more than 3 percent, annuitants receive on percentage point less than the full COLA. This is sometimes called CPI-1. Because FERS participants PAY INTO and receive full Social Security benefits and COLAs, the inflation adjustments to their federal benefit is SLIGHTLY REDUCED. Additionally, under FERS, COLAs are applied ONLY to annuities of retirees who are AGE 62 AND OLDER."

(It then goes into the economy)

"Given that NO COLA AFFECTS MORE THAN JUST FEDERAL ANNUITANTS, NARFE has been working with the 53 national member organizations and key congressional committees on ways to mitigate the lack of inflation protection next year. However, with Washington increasingly focusing on deficits and debt financing, the ability to finance a COLA in 2010 for over 40 MILLION BENEFICIARIES AND RETIREES will be challenging."

(See I told you I wouldn't receive a COLA). LOL!

Now, can we put to bed the COLA debates? LOL

[scottco]

for federal workers and retirees, COLA's and pay raises are two different things.

COLA's are for retirees (adjustments to their annuities each year based on CPI)

Pay raises are for employees, are not mandatory, and are determined by Congress and then signed by the president each year.

[jbthe20th]

Good. This is a way to attract the best and the brightest back to the federal government.

[ISYairio]

Cut cut cut cut cut cut cut cut cut cut cut.

[Linda Spencer]

for federal workers and retirees, COLA's and pay raises are two different things.

COLA's are for retirees (adjustments to their annuities each year based on CPI)

Pay raises are for employees, are not mandatory, and are determined by Congress and then signed by the president each year.

Yes, exactly. I think there's been some confusion in this thread, with a divergence into two groups talking about two different things. Some participants thought that I was voicing objection to the COLA for federal *retirees*, when actually my intent in starting the thread was only to oppose the proposed pay raise for *current* federal employees. I probably perpetuated the confusion by not noticing the misunderstanding sooner.

So again, my point is simply that in these times of increasing unemployment, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to give raises to the current, active federal workforce except in rare cases where there's a genuine *need* to do so for purposes of recruitment or retention.

[Kathi52]

No, an example of a waste of taxpayer dollars is the Cash for Clunkers program. :rolleyes:

Recruitment and retention have nothing to do with it. No one signs on or stays because of a COLA or pay raise. Sorry, the federal government is not the private sector NOR Wall Street. :D As, Scottco pointed out...pay raises are not mandatory.

Federal pay raises for CURRENT employees are determined:

"...by a complex formula designed to close the pay "gap" between federal and private sector pay for similiar jobs in the same cities."

In any case, for 2010, the CURRENT federal employees should be receiving between 2% and 2.9%. The miitary...3.4%. Note that the 2% and/or 2.9% has ALREADY been adjusted for. The ORIGINAL projection was 3.4%...same as for the military and otherwise known as pay parity.

The bottom line is...they will get a pay raise and the exact figure should be out in December if not before.

[Linda Spencer]

No, an example of a waste of taxpayer dollars is the Cash for Clunkers program. :rolleyes:

Recruitment and retention have nothing to do with it. No one signs on or stays because of a COLA or pay raise. Sorry, the federal government is not the private sector NOR Wall Street. :D As, Scottco pointed out...pay raises are not mandatory.



You're right - recruitment and retention have nothing to do with federal pay raises. They're a payoff to a powerful political constituency, pure and simple. As you say, the raises are not mandatory.

How is it *not* a waste of money to give raises to people who are unlikely to quit, due to the current high levels of unemployment? They have secure jobs with good benefits -they're not going anywhere! So why give them more of my money?

[Kathi52]

Linda,

I just explained it to you. The ADJUSTMENTS have already been made and due to the economy. Obviously you are opposed and do not like our explanations. So, my recommendation is to get elected to an office, sway 50 people, then sway approximately 231 and then sway the President. THEN you can make your case and have things turn out your way. :D

[Linda Spencer]

Linda,

I just explained it to you. The ADJUSTMENTS have already been made and due to the economy. Obviously you are opposed and do not like our explanations. So, my recommendation is to get elected to an office, sway 50 people, then sway approximately 231 and then sway the President. THEN you can make your case and have things turn out your way. :D

No, sorry, you haven't answered the question: How is it *not* a waste of money to give raises to people who are unlikely to quit, due to the current high levels of unemployment?

[Kathi52]

Didn't you receive 70 cents more on the hour in July? :lol:

[Linda Spencer]

Fox News:
http://www.cato.org/mediahighlights/index.php?highlight_id=425

The Cato Institute takes a look at federal compensation:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/

Here's an older Cato report on the issue:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6611 (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6611)

Mark Levin mentioned the issue and the Cato report on Friday's show. He suggested it would be a good subject to bring up at those town hall meetings.

[Linda Spencer]

It's just one editorial in one newspaper, but it's movement in the right direction:

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x265525270/Editorial-Hold-the-line-on-federal-employee-raises

With unemployment nearing 10% and expected to remain high for years, there's no reason to be giving raises to federal civilians!

[NoVA Log Cabin Republican]

Ms. Spencer, your posts in particular have inspired me to join this forum. With all due respect as a new Federal employee and fiscal conservative myself I can recognize your concerns as being valid, but may I ask you why you're on a mission to lower employee morale for the very people who serve the public instead of suggesting strategies to improve the lives of those in the employ of the private sector? Do you honestly believe giving Federal workers a pay cut to "better reflect current economic conditions" will make private-sector workers feel any better about themselves?

You exhibit an atittude not at all dissimilar to the one I used to counter on a routine basis in my former hometown in regards to people who would downright bash public school teachers for being "lazy, underworked, overpaid, yada, yada, yada." Their allegations may have had merit if they had presented their cases more poignantly, but they lost all credibility in my eyes when their evidence was merely "I don't get three months off every year, so why should anyone else?" or "I don't have a fixed schedule, so why should anyone else?" Such justification for your opinions makes others see you as merely jealous. Do I see a fellow 22-year-old driving down the street in a BMW here in the nation's second-most affluent county and think to myself "I can't afford a luxury sedan, so why should they?" No. I don't fall under the old "Johnny got a bigger piece of cake than I did" category, and while I'm not necessarily implying this is indicative of you in particular I'm noticing a lot of people on this forum---fellow supposed "fiscal conservatives" may I add---do harbor such sentiments.

A better question to ask would be why are some (not all) private sector employers not providing annual COLAs to their employees. I happen to work for a Federal agency that is cognizant of a major privately-held contractor, and I can safely assure you that their annual wage increases exceed my annual wage increase, even though I'm already compensated less to do similar work and feel as if I am more devoted to my job than some of those private sector counterparts. Do I begrudge them? No. Why should I? After all, I chose to pursue this path to serve the public, and if I had wanted to become independently wealthy then I would have instead pursued an opportunity with a private-sector employer such as the one I'm referencing. What are the chief executives of some of these companies that are not providing COLAs earning? What are these businesses doing poorly that has caused their bottom lines to falter?

Life is all about choices. When you were all 16 you all could have chosen to pursue a college degree or professional certification that would make you very marketable in the future for a high-paying career path. You all could have chosen to pursue a college degree or professional certification that would knowingly yield a lower salary than some of your peers but would involve work that you loved. You could have decided to continue working at the restaurant or retail store you worked at to partially support yourself throughout high school and college, eventually rising the ranks to a managerial or administrative position with more authority. You all could have become teachers---or joined the ranks of we oft-maligned Federal employees for that matter. It is very unappealing and unattractive when someone exudes such an aura of pettiness and jealousy towards their common man for making their own wrong choices in life that set them at a disadvantage in relation to their peers.

Every position has benefits and drawbacks. My new Federal career has endowed me with a flexible work schedule and job security, but I'm earning a salary $15,000 less than many of my private sector peers, which means that while I can barely afford a 1-BR apartment in this over-priced housing market they can live much more comfortably. They have greater potential for more rapid career progression since they can be promoted due to exceptional performance while under the GS schedule I can't advance as quickly, regardless of job performance. Some private sector employers even extend benefits to same-sex partners of employees and invest in many morale-boosting activities such as Christmas parties, summer picnics, or trips for employees and their families. Some offer on-site fitness facilities and day-care services. The contractor I'm particularly aware of even has yoga classes. As I said each employer is different in its positive and negative offerings for its workforce.

Perhaps I'm just jaded or a cynic, but can someone please give me a better reason to oppose the proposed Federal pay increase for 2010 other than "I won't be getting a raise in 2010, so why should anyone else?" or "Just be happy you have a job." There are still numerous job openings to be had, even during the recession. Instead of saying to Federal workers "If you want a raise then go work somewhere else" can't I also be saying to YOU "If YOU want a raise, then why don't YOU go work somewhere else?"

[sideview]

Ms. Spencer, your posts in particular have inspired me to join this forum. With all due respect as a new Federal employee and fiscal conservative myself I can recognize your concerns as being valid, but may I ask you why you're on a mission to lower employee morale for the very people who serve the public instead of suggesting strategies to improve the lives of those in the employ of the private sector? Do you honestly believe giving Federal workers a pay cut to "better reflect current economic conditions" will make private-sector workers feel any better about themselves?

You exhibit an atittude not at all dissimilar to the one I used to counter on a routine basis in my former hometown in regards to people who would downright bash public school teachers for being "lazy, underworked, overpaid, yada, yada, yada." Their allegations may have had merit if they had presented their cases more poignantly, but they lost all credibility in my eyes when their evidence was merely "I don't get three months off every year, so why should anyone else?" or "I don't have a fixed schedule, so why should anyone else?" Such justification for your opinions makes others see you as merely jealous. Do I see a fellow 22-year-old driving down the street in a BMW here in the nation's second-most affluent county and think to myself "I can't afford a luxury sedan, so why should they?" No. I don't fall under the old "Johnny got a bigger piece of cake than I did" category, and while I'm not necessarily implying this is indicative of you in particular I'm noticing a lot of people on this forum---fellow supposed "fiscal conservatives" may I add---do harbor such sentiments.

A better question to ask would be why are some (not all) private sector employers not providing annual COLAs to their employees. I happen to work for a Federal agency that is cognizant of a major privately-held contractor, and I can safely assure you that their annual wage increases exceed my annual wage increase, even though I'm already compensated less to do similar work and feel as if I am more devoted to my job than some of those private sector counterparts. Do I begrudge them? No. Why should I? After all, I chose to pursue this path to serve the public, and if I had wanted to become independently wealthy then I would have instead pursued an opportunity with a private-sector employer such as the one I'm referencing. What are the chief executives of some of these companies that are not providing COLAs earning? What are these businesses doing poorly that has caused their bottom lines to falter?

Life is all about choices. When you were all 16 you all could have chosen to pursue a college degree or professional certification that would make you very marketable in the future for a high-paying career path. You all could have chosen to pursue a college degree or professional certification that would knowingly yield a lower salary than some of your peers but would involve work that you loved. You could have decided to continue working at the restaurant or retail store you worked at to partially support yourself throughout high school and college, eventually rising the ranks to a managerial or administrative position with more authority. You all could have become teachers---or joined the ranks of we oft-maligned Federal employees for that matter. It is very unappealing and unattractive when someone exudes such an aura of pettiness and jealousy towards their common man for making their own wrong choices in life that set them at a disadvantage in relation to their peers.

Every position has benefits and drawbacks. My new Federal career has endowed me with a flexible work schedule and job security, but I'm earning a salary $15,000 less than many of my private sector peers, which means that while I can barely afford a 1-BR apartment in this over-priced housing market they can live much more comfortably. They have greater potential for more rapid career progression since they can be promoted due to exceptional performance while under the GS schedule I can't advance as quickly, regardless of job performance. Some private sector employers even extend benefits to same-sex partners of employees and invest in many morale-boosting activities such as Christmas parties, summer picnics, or trips for employees and their families. Some offer on-site fitness facilities and day-care services. The contractor I'm particularly aware of even has yoga classes. As I said each employer is different in its positive and negative offerings for its workforce.

Perhaps I'm just jaded or a cynic, but can someone please give me a better reason to oppose the proposed Federal pay increase for 2010 other than "I won't be getting a raise in 2010, so why should anyone else?" or "Just be happy you have a job." There are still numerous job openings to be had, even during the recession. Instead of saying to Federal workers "If you want a raise then go work somewhere else" can't I also be saying to YOU "If YOU want a raise, then why don't YOU go work somewhere else?"

Why should federal employees be any different then anyone else. There is no money, it is all gone! You don’t think everybody else’s morale is low, join the club.

The Government continues to hire more people when most everybody else is cutting back and we have to pay for it. No it’s not your fault but that doesn’t change the fact that continuing to print money to give out raises isn’t helping to make things better but worse.

[Kathi52]

BravoNovaLogCabin and congrats on your new career. :D

You are correct that life is about CHOICES. I am retired but I and my fellow active and retired feds made our choices a long time ago. I started myself (full time) in 1978 as a GS-3 with nothing other than a high school degree. And I know what it is like to live hand to mouth; my original yearly salary was $7,000 a year! But, with time and effort, it eventually paid off. And it will for you too....just hang in there. You will hear denigrating remarks about federal employees for the rest of your career. But keep in mind one thing they are usually from people who have never stepped foot in an any Agency, let alone worked in one. They have no clue...so just remember that. And there is no need to justify your occupation; be proud of what you do.

And this is just not about the economy; people are just plain jealous even if you point out the rules, regulations, laws, ad nauseum LOL! I have said many, many times, if you don't like the job you are in, then apply for a federal job and you too can have the same benefits. And that's the part they don't get; our salaries were or are lower because our benefits are part of our compensation package which makes it LOOK like we are taking home a slew of cash in our take home pay. That couldn't be farther from the truth. By the time all the deductions are made we are actually making less than our private counterparts. And, well, there is an article on Fedsmith right now that address this...and states more or less, "...the piggies AREN'T in the Federal Government".

[RTchoke]

Why should federal employees be any different then anyone else. There is no money, it is all gone! You don’t think everybody else’s morale is low, join the club.

The Government continues to hire more people when most everybody else is cutting back and we have to pay for it. No it’s not your fault but that doesn’t change the fact that continuing to print money to give out raises isn’t helping to make things better but worse.

Bet you will be the first to bitch when there aren't enough fed employees at a certain agency to take care of you when you need it and have to wait in line "forever", or wait an additional 3 weeks for some information because the employees are back logged.

You think their raise is gonna cover the premium increase in their health insurance? You think they will make enough to cover that additional amount they will need to pay in their now increased deductible? I remember many "raises" I received that resulted in my paycheck being less than before I got the raise due to everything else being raised substantially more.

I think NoVA Log Cabin Republican hit it a little close with jealousy being a big factor. If you only knew the reality you would probably rethink the jealousy part. I really liked how people let me know how lucky I was to have a cushy job with great pay. Of course, they didn't see me working my fed job then going to my second job until 9 pm every night and all day Saturday to make enough money to pay the few bills I had since my cushy fed job barely paid enough to rent a small apt.

[RTchoke]

BravoNovaLogCabin and congrats on your new career. :D

You are correct that life is about CHOICES. I am retired but I and my fellow active and retired feds made our choices a long time ago. I started myself (full time) in 1978 as a GS-3 with nothing other than a high school degree. And I know what it is like to live hand to mouth; my original yearly salary was $7,000 a year! But, with time and effort, it eventually paid off. And it will for you too....just hang in there. You will hear denigrating remarks about federal employees for the rest of your career. But keep in mind one thing they are usually from people who have never stepped foot in an any Agency, let alone worked in one. They have no clue...so just remember that. And there is no need to justify your occupation; be proud of what you do.

And this is just not about the economy; people are just plain jealous even if you point out the rules, regulations, laws, ad nauseum LOL! I have said many, many times, if you don't like the job you are in, then apply for a federal job and you too can have the same benefits. And that's the part they don't get; our salaries were or are lower because our benefits are part of our compensation package which makes it LOOK like we are taking home a slew of cash in our take home pay. That couldn't be farther from the truth. By the time all the deductions are made we are actually making less than our private counterparts. And, well, there is an article on Fedsmith right now that address this...and states more or less, "...the piggies AREN'T in the Federal Government".

Shhhhhhhhhhhh.............you will ruin their fantasy. :cool:

[sideview]

Bet you will be the first to bitch when there aren't enough fed employees at a certain agency to take care of you when you need it and have to wait in line "forever", or wait an additional 3 weeks for some information because the employees are back logged.

You think their raise is gonna cover the premium increase in their health insurance? You think they will make enough to cover that additional amount they will need to pay in their now increased deductible? I remember many "raises" I received that resulted in my paycheck being less than before I got the raise due to everything else being raised substantially more.

I think NoVA Log Cabin Republican hit it a little close with jealousy being a big factor. If you only knew the reality you would probably rethink the jealousy part. I really liked how people let me know how lucky I was to have a cushy job with great pay. Of course, they didn't see me working my fed job then going to my second job until 9 pm every night and all day Saturday to make enough money to pay the few bills I had since my cushy fed job barely paid enough to rent a small apt.

Jealousy, not likely, I retired when I was fifty though I still like to keep involved in what is going on in the company.

I want most government agencies closed, simply because they don’t add value to the nation and are a drain on the economy. I have great respect for those in law enforcement and the military, pay increases in the ranks there are needed and deserved.

My attitude is somewhat tainted by the fact I have worked with a few agencies in my day and for the most part wasn’t impressed with the level of competence among other things.

[Kathi52]

RTchoke,

LOL! Exactly!

Sideview,

The word would be "involved" and that's coming from an incompetent federal retiree LOL! Btw, who do you think services the military? The Federal Government purchases everything and anything the private sector produces. And be sure to tell your postman that he or she is a drain on the economy and adds no value to the nation...geesh...need I go on? Btw, I saw more incompetence from the private sector while working in Accounts Payable. Care for me to describe those scenarios?

[sideview]

RTchoke,

LOL! Exactly!

Sideview,

The word would be "involved" and that's coming from an incompetent federal retiree LOL! Btw, who do you think services the military? The Federal Government purchases everything and anything the private sector produces. And be sure to tell your postman that he or she is a drain on the economy and adds no value to the nation...geesh...need I go on? Btw, I saw more incompetence from the private sector while working in Accounts Payable. Care for me to describe those scenarios?

I didn’t say all agencies should be closed or all government employees are incompetent but that I wasn’t impressed with the level of competence in most cases. I’m also well aware of the level of incompetence in many areas of the private sector.


Having worked in the defense industry and serving in the military for some time I’m aware of supply chains.

And, yes I do make a lot of typos and the spell checker does the best it can but considering I have very little flexibility or feeling in my fingers anymore and my eyesight is not what it used to be, I don’t do to bad.

[Bulldog1]

Well, your point depends on the employee. I am a judge who works for Uncle Sam, and I can tell you that we haven't been treated fairly at all. We have gone a decade with annual pay adjustments less than than the inflation rate. What happens is that the Congress hammers the judges whether the economy is good or bad. In good times, they take the position that they have other spending priorities so the judges should forego raises. In bad times they use the excuse that times are, well, bad.

It takes six traits for a person to be great judge. These are: strong academic skills, common sense, good temperment/people skills, integrity, work ethic and the type of good judgment that can only come from working years and years in the trenches as a lawyer. People that have all six of these qualities could make far more in the private sector. Now the judges understand that they are to be paid less than private attorneys, but to stick them with de facto pay cuts for decades is ridiculous. As a result I have seen the quality of the judiciary decline because many top potential applicants just refuse to be subjected to these abuses pay practices. The truth is, the judges have had their pay serious eroded over the past 15 years. In fact, in the 1990's the Volker Commission cited the pay practices involving federal judges as the greatest abuse of federal pay policies.

So, in response to your position, I would see any wrong at all in this economy with giving the judges a decent raise in order to make up for past failures to give raises. Furthermore, keep in mind that a federal judge, with just one bad decision, could squander the taxes a multimillionair paid into the system over his or her entire life. An incompetent judge can seriously add to the deficit. So, for judges the government should not skimp. Not that they should pay them some exhorbitant amount, but the judges should not have their pay so seriously eroded as it has been in the past. That's why I say the judges should get at least a small raise annually to help them catch up on what they have lost over the past 20 years.

[sideview]

Well, your point depends on the employee. I am a judge who works for Uncle Sam, and I can tell you that we haven't been treated fairly at all. We have gone a decade with annual pay adjustments less than than the inflation rate. What happens is that the Congress hammers the judges whether the economy is good or bad. In good times, they take the position that they have other spending priorities so the judges should forego raises. In bad times they use the excuse that times are, well, bad.

It takes six traits for a person to be great judge. These are: strong academic skills, common sense, good temperment/people skills, integrity, work ethic and the type of good judgment that can only come from working years and years in the trenches as a lawyer. People that have all six of these qualities could make far more in the private sector. Now the judges understand that they are to be paid less than private attorneys, but to stick them with de facto pay cuts for decades is ridiculous. As a result I have seen the quality of the judiciary decline because many top potential applicants just refuse to be subjected to these abuses pay practices. The truth is, the judges have had their pay serious eroded over the past 15 years. In fact, in the 1990's the Volker Commission cited the pay practices involving federal judges as the greatest abuse of federal pay policies.

So, in response to your position, I would see any wrong at all in this economy with giving the judges a decent raise in order to make up for past failures to give raises. Furthermore, keep in mind that a federal judge, with just one bad decision, could squander the taxes a multimillionair paid into the system over his or her entire life. An incompetent judge can seriously add to the deficit. So, for judges the government should not skimp. Not that they should pay them some exhorbitant amount, but the judges should not have their pay so seriously eroded as it has been in the past. That's why I say the judges should get at least a small raise annually to help them catch up on what they have lost over the past 20 years.

So let me get this straight. Judges have been abused by the government so you think the tax payers should pay for it even though there is nothing left to take. The logic really escapes me.

You haven’t even suggested fixing the system and getting politicians to stop spending money on buying votes so they can pay judges what they are worth, just have the tax payers give you a pay raise because you want it.

[Bulldog1]

Its hard to say how you fix the system. For sure, however, we don't need additional trillion dollar wealth transfer programs. However, I do know that its bad for the business of government to single out a group of federal employees to give a de facto pay cut every year for 2 decades. It hurts the integrity of the job because it will definitely impact quality of the applicant pool. The government has a money problem. One of the key ingredients to fixing that problem is to have federal judges that approach the job as a sacred trust. We don't want ones who make rulings that throw away billions of taxpayer dollars because they have an agenda. To insure the best of the best apply the government must have reasonable and fair pay policies.