“Government work was once synonymous with job security and stability. But these days furloughs, pay freezes and threats of further cuts are fomenting discontent. Some federal employees also say that public criticism of the federal government is also taking a toll.”—Furloughs Only The Latest Blow To Federal Worker Morale
Federal pay vs. private pay: conservative will continue to argue feds are overpaid
HOWEVER, CONSERVATIVE GROUPS CONTINUE TO ARGUE that federal workers are overpaid. Here’s Matthew Yglesias’ full explaination of that rationalization, and my summary:
- The federal government needs to fill some jobs. But it offers salaries that are less than the salaries that a person doing a similar job could get in the private sector.
- Naturally, this means that the federal government ends up attracting less-experienced applicants.
- Hiring is then done from this less-experienced pool.
- And since the people who are hired are doing jobs they’d be [initially] underqualified for in the private sector, they are making more money than they would be in the private sector.
- CONCLUSION: federal workers are overpaid!
IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE REPUBLICAN TEAPARTY TO CONTINUE BATTERING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES though. It’s part of the “The Republican Strategy,” which is – in part:
The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class – pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don’t believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class.
By splitting working America along these lines, Republicans hope to deflect attention from the big story. That’s the increasing share of total income and wealth going to the richest 1 percent while the jobs and wages of everyone else languish.
Occupy Wall Street now. Occupy the Voting Booth in 2012.
“White-collar federal employees are underpaid on average by about 35 percent compared with the private sector, a widening of the “pay gap,” which stood at about 26 percent last year, an advisory group said Friday.”—Pay gap widens for federal workers, panel says - The Washington Post
Federal Workers Overpaid, and CBO Agrees
Here’s some news that federal bureaucrats in Washington — and indeed around the country — don’t want to hear: According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released this week, federal workers are paid higher than their private-sector counterparts.
The “alarming news” hit the national media yesterday, but there’s a funny thing about the report. None of it is really “news” — in fact, The Heritage Foundation long ago uncovered the truth about federal pay. The CBO’s report this week was spurred in part by two years of work on federal compensation conducted by Heritage and the American Enterprise Institute.
In July 2010, Heritage’s James Sherk explained that Americans are overtaxed to pay the civil service.
Obama Orders Raise For Biden, Members Of Congress, Federal Workers
While many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, these assholes get raises??
They aren’t even doing their damn jobs!!!
President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.
According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he’ll now make $231,900 per year.
Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.
Here’s the list of new wages, as attached to President Obama’s executive order:
“A new executive order has been issued providing for a new pay schedule beginning ‘on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after March 27, 2013,’” reports FedSmith.com. “The pay raise will generally be about 1/2 of 1%.”
Jeryl Bier points to an example of the pay increase for average government executives:
“Not much of an increase, but an increase all the same,” Bier notes.
And the timing isn’t great either: Just as President Obama and Congress try to avert going over the “fiscal cliff,” he doles out pay increases to federal workers.
Federal Employees, Take Note: Congress Wants To Screw You--Again
On the House floor this week. Here’s is NARFE’s warning:
February 14, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
On behalf of the 4.6 million federal employees and annuitants represented by the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), I urge you to oppose the highway funding bill, H.R. 7, and specifically to vote against the provisions in the bill derived from H.R. 3813, a bill that threatens federal employee retirement security. NARFE will score this vote.H.R. 3813 would substantially reduce the retirement income security provided by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and effectively provide a pay cut for all federal employees – those covered by both FERS and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), who have experienced a pay freeze for the last two years.
For new employees with less than five years of service, H.R. 3813 would create a new retirement system that would base retirement annuities on the average of the highest five years of consecutive service instead of the highest three years and would reduce the accrual rate by more than 36 percent, to 0.7 percent. The resulting 41 percent reduction in FERS annuities would produce a new median annuity of only $425 per month ($5,098 annually). That is barely over a third of what a minimum wage earner would make per year ($15,080), working 40 hours per week for $7.25 per hour.New employees also would face a 3.2 percent increase in retirement contributions, while other current employees (covered by both CSRS and FERS) would face a 1.5 percent increase in retirement contributions over three years.
Additionally, H.R. 3813 would eliminate the FERS annuity supplement for employees who have planned for retirement relying on the promise of receiving it. This provision would result in a substantial reduction in the annuities for early retirees – federal employees who have dedicated their entire careers to public service and are counting on receiving this supplement as part of their retirement compensation. It also threatens to create a significant, disruptive wave of federal employee retirements before the end of the year.
The cuts to retirement benefits proposed by H.R. 3813 stand in stark contrast to those contained in President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. First, the president’s proposal does not reduce basic federal retirement annuities at all, let alone by more than 41 percent. Second, the president’s proposal eliminates the FERS annuity supplement only for new hires, not for those who are on the verge of retirement. Third, the president proposes a smaller increase in retirement contributions for current employees and a significantly smaller increase for the new employees that the government needs to recruit.
Of course, all of these proposed cuts to federal retirement benefits and continued pay freezes would harm hardworking federal employees and their families, who are struggling in this economy just like their private-sector counterparts.
Apart from the personal toll these cuts take on dedicated civil servants, these actions will undermine the federal government’s ability to attract and retain the talent this nation needs to overcome the challenges we face. Shared sacrifice is fair, but singling out federal employees and retirees for disparate treatment threatens to do permanent harm to a federal civil service tasked with meeting the increasingly complex and critical functions of government. The American public deserves an engaged and efficient federal workforce, not one characterized by members of Congress as the source of our country’s problems.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote against H.R. 7, and particularly to vote against the provisions derived from H.R. 3813.
Joseph A. Beaudoin
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE)
State Workers Don’t Want To Play By Same Rules As Federal Employees
by Personal Liberty News Desk
Liberals across the United States are up in arms about several State proposals that would limit collective bargaining rights for public worker unions. Legislation has been filed, and protested, in Ohio, Tennessee, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas and Indiana.
However, FOX News reported that the public outcry against these bills might be much ado about nothing. The Republican model being considered by many State legislatures is quite similar to the set of limitations placed on Federal employees. The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978, which was passed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter, limited the collective bargaining rights of Federal workers.
No President or legislature has since overturned the CSRA because, according to a USA Today report, Federal employees are doing just fine. The news provider estimated that Federal workers out-earn their private-sector counterparts in the same jobs by an average of $7,000 per year. In regards to benefits, Federal employees, on average, earned approximately $30,000 more than their private-sector peers.
In addition, some GOP lawmakers are calling for the end of “closed shops,” which require State employees to join a union. According to FOX News, the elimination of this system has alarmed many liberal politicians because a percentage of union dues, which are mandatory contributions from employees, fund Democratic election campaigns.
For example, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the 14 Democratic State Senators who have fled Wisconsin to protest Governor Scott Walker’s budget have benefited from union dues in the past. Approximately 20 percent of all campaign funds raised by these lawmakers during the last two election cycles came from public employees, according to the news source.