Re: Older Fed Employees don't have a CHANCE!

This is exactly the point I tried to make in my own post, which elicited such "erudite" responses. Actually, though, I think CSRS was much fairer in the way potential workers were chosen and then had to work their way into positions of responsibility. At least, that was my experience at the US Customs Service, may it rest in peace.

(No, I am not a plant. And the difference between a *woman* and a woman is that the former thinks she knows it all, and the latter -- is me. ;-) )

Re: Older Fed Employees don't have a CHANCE!

As an employee of the Federal Government for over 38 years, and eligible for retirement, I have noticed the increase of employment/promotions of family members or very close friends. We have seen directors promoting the daughter of another director, and then a reciprocal promotion for the son of the first director. We have seen persons with college degrees promoted over personnel with extensive experience only because they have their degree. The experienced employee was gaining and using experience (as well as raising families), instead of going to school. Now they are all concerned about a "brain drain". What is even worse, is that when we offer the benefit of our experience, we are told that "there is a new day dawning, and the OLD ways just won't work." The really sad part then is that if the concept that the inexperienced person put forth fails, then they try to assign blame to the experienced person...because they didn't adequately inform management of the pitfalls.

Re: Older Fed Employees don't have a CHANCE!

I am totally appalled that there are still women who believe this BS...that's probably why she is just a "Wife" and will never be anything more.

Re: Retirement

If you recruit in the high schools then you need to offer a legitimate career path that does NOT require a college degree. The military has done it for years. (Now they are screwing up by requiring degrees for NCO's.) However, I am considered well able to do the next level job by all in my office and most in my code. That won't happen, however, because I don't have that precious degree and for reasons that were good then, and hindsight doesn't see how I could have done differently, I don't have one. Therefore, we have some college educated dingbats taking up time, money, and energy...leaving just as they have milked the system for all they could. (hmm, maybe not so dumb after all?)

Re: Aging workforce

Educate me; is it your position that an individual that paid into the social security for ten years should receive the same benefits as a person that paid for full retirement (SS) for 30+ years.

Do you propose that a person that worked under the CSRS, and did not pay social security for the CSRS term of employment receive social security payments for CSRS service when they did not contribute?

If this is your position; is it not fair for me to receive CSRS payments? I have not contributed to CSRS.

Re: Aging workforce

I think that Prof may not have understood the entire scenario. Here is my situation. Maybe it will be clearer.

I went to work after high school graduation in SS covered jobs. When I joined the Army in 1967, I also paid SS. After the Army, I again worked public sector jobs, paying SS. I began my career with DoD in August 1982, under CSRS. I have also worked second jobs, under SS DURING my government career. I was a single parent during most of my career, and unable to save very much. In order to receive a full CSRS pension, I paid deposits for both Army and DoDDS jobs.

According to my recent Social Security Statement, I am entitled to a SS pension of $447 at age 62. I would like to receive what I am entitled to receive, no more, no less. Because of the current law, the Windfall Elimination Provision, my SS will be reduced or eliminated because I will be receiving a CSRS pension. That does not apply to public sector retirees, like GM, who get both.

Do you call that FAIR?