Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 30
Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 4
« Previous | Next »
2.9% or 3.4% in 2009? Here Are Our Predictions
Total Comments: 30
Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 4
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.7116 | +0.0013 | +3.51% |
| F | $12.1775 | +0.0497 | +2.07% |
| C | $9.4002 | -0.9235 | -43.24% |
| S | $10.4051 | -1.2566 | -47.42% |
| I | $12.2414 | -0.9997 | -50.56% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $11.1768 | -0.8749 | -38.72% |
| L 2030 | $11.4481 | -0.7783 | -34.24% |
| L 2020 | $11.8446 | -0.6618 | -28.86% |
| L 2010 | $13.2444 | -0.3625 | -14.33% |
| L Income | $12.4113 | -0.2200 | -7.86% |
December 2, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Not everything equal
EPA
Tue Feb 5, 2008 9:01 AM
Post Reply
This article points out several times the failure to mention what fed employees make or will make if a higher raise is approved. It also fails to mention what an equal position in the private sector would make, especially professional, scientific, and managerial, in larger cities such as NYC, San Fran, and DC (hint: it's a lot more than the GS pay). Some of us chose public service because we believe in it - we still have to pay our rent and buy groceries.
Re: Not everything equal
DOD
Tue Feb 5, 2008 9:54 AM
There is no sense in comparing two completely different scenarios and expecting equality to be the result.
Re: Not everything equal
FSA
Tue Feb 5, 2008 6:47 PM
2009 Pay Raise
USDA
Tue Feb 5, 2008 9:42 AM
Post Reply
I wish you would speak more to the fact that many federal employees do NOT receive the pay raises you mention. While I am grateful for my job and benefits, the RUS does not receive the amounts proposed. This year my raise was not 3.5% - it was 2.9%. Last year it was 1.9%. My salary is not keeping up with inflation. Although some costs in the outlying areas are lower, others are higher. Locality pay is misleading in a way. Just because you work in a low wage area does not mean the cost of living is low. In the west many areas have had weathly people move in and inflate the cost of housing, etc., however the regular people are still making a fairly low wage. Its my understanding locality pay is based on the prevailing wage, not the cost of living. Its based on the assumption that low wages mean it doesn't cost a lot to live. Ask the Forest Service folks in Jackson, WY if that holds true.
2.9% or 3.4% in 2009?
IRS
Tue Feb 5, 2008 10:02 AM
Post Reply
There are federal employees all over the country. So what does DC federal employee pay have to do with it when comparing average federal salaries with private sector pay? Private sector pay may not be keeping pace with federal pay but I would attribute that to downward pressure on wages and benefits due to globalization. On the other hand their salaries are already higher on average than federal salaries. You're going to get a lot of push back from union and other federal worker associations to continue to receive pay increases that will eventually achieve parity with average private sector pay. That is, if the administration truly wants to compete for quality workers from the available labor pool.
FEPCA
DON
Tue Feb 5, 2008 11:31 AM
Post Reply
Wasn't the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act signed in to law?
Was it ever fully enforced?
PS. In my job I can be sent in to a combat zone were my Military co-worker receives far more compensations then I do, and some people think we do not disserve the same pay raise
Re: FEPCA
DOD
Thu Feb 7, 2008 9:11 AM
Raise vs. Cost of living Adjustment
NAVAIR
Tue Feb 5, 2008 11:37 AM
Post Reply
There is a common misconception about what the proposed increases are. Properly speaking these are not "raises" but cost of living adjustments. The raise I have earned (if any) is allocated on October. The cost of living adjustment allocated in January is to protect our salaries against erosion due to inflation. If the congress believes that the military are underpayed then their pay rates need to be adjusted. Remeber tha only about 10% of the military historically have been combat troops. The typical miltary person has duty not uncomparable to the typical civil servant. The combat troops are compenstaed (you may argue that the compensation is not adequate, that's another question) by hazardous duty pay and income tax relief.
High Federal Salaries in DC vs the Average Federal
CHRA
Tue Feb 5, 2008 11:51 AM
Post Reply
Instead of harping on the average Wash DC employee, why don't you try looking at it from the average employee out in Ft. Whatchamacallit who is barely making ends meet on their salary? If you feel the Wash DC employees are paid too much, Move the Federal Agencies out of DC - set them up in other towns throughout the US where unemployment is high and housing is affordable?
As For NSPS????
Dept of the Army
Tue Feb 5, 2008 12:33 PM
Post Reply
Something less no doubt. Don't forget the 1.6% step increase factor which those covered by NSPS nolonger receive. In other words, just to stay even with those on the GS schedule, an NSPS person mjust get the same raise rate as the GS worker +plus 1.6% (to compensate for step increases). Oh by the way, bonuses don't count as they are routinely given out to GS employees and so GS and NSPS bonuses offset one another.
Re: As For NSPS????
usda
Wed Feb 6, 2008 11:06 AM
Re: As For NSPS????
IRS
Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:06 PM