Re: I am

you are calling people who protect the rights of federal employees, granted by congress, clueless? look in the mirror to see clueless!

Re: I am

Pass a law giving the federal unions the right to negotiate for wages, pensions, health insurance, promotions, etc LIKE THE REST OF AMERICA and you will have union paid full-time union officials and attorneys!

In CT all the state and local govt workers have this right and they can run for office -- in my town, the fire chief is the elected chairman of the town council!!

END THE SLAVERY SYSTEM NOW!

Re: I am

A ridiculous comment will not be taken seriously by anyone who thinks at all about an issue. "END THE SLAVERY SYSTEM NOW!" is silly when we are discussing a workforce where the average salary in Washington is about $94,000 a year and it is in the mid-60's for the rest of the federal workforce. People are trying, in droves, to become part of this "slavery system."

Ridiculous comments reflect more on the person making the comment and probably do more damage than good to any argument you may be trying to make.

Re: I am

lr obviously refers to labor relations -- management.

With full negotiation rights, pay will be more localized according to states and true localities. The ONLY reason people are trying to get in the FEDs now is the severe recession. With FERS, when things get better- they fly the coop.

In CT state employees have an Agency shop where everyone must pay a "dues" type fee regardless of joining or not.

It is hypocritical for the Congress to regulate the private labor-management section while treating its on so poorly. The highly pay D.C. workers referred to are likely management which is excluded from unions altogether.

Re: I am

I'd like to know who comes up with the "average salary" -I've worked for over 30 years and don't make what Ir specialist claims to be the average salary, nor do my friends who have worked over 30 years. We all know that using Washington's salaries would skew any average because they are all higher grades to make up for the location.

Re: I am

So you would be open to closed shops in the governement? That is what you would get because the reason there is official time in governement, was because it was a trade off. Offical time for open shop. Imagine what the unions could do when everyone working for that organization was forced to pay dues? Right now many unions can already outspend the agency when it comes to arbritration, with a closed shop the agency could not keep afloat on the cost for doing arbitrations. Eliminating the offical time would be much more costly and would require hiring more Labor Relations Officers just to handel the load. It would be a really dumb idea.

Re: I am

usda
worker
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:34 AM
you are calling people who protect the rights of federal employees, granted by congress, clueless? look in the mirror to see clueless!
-------------------------------------------------------
There is another article posted at the bottom of the hom page concerning a fight between a government agency, the SEC, and the union. The SEC implemented a pay system that gave everyone more money, "the National Treasury Employees Union…complains the SEC implemented the raises too quickly"

My point has just been made, they are clueless.

Re: I am

To IR specialist:

I agree that end slavery now comment is not appropriate. However, your comment about Washington DC's average salary is also ridiculous. That does not reflect the average salary of government workers because Washington's workers have much higher grades than the rest of the country. What is the average salary of all of the federal employees in the US?
Better yet compare the different professions in the US vs. private industry. Then you willo have a better comment.

Re: I am

This is for the beach bum. That is a pretty strong statement saying that all union leaders are useless and only out for themselves. Are they not responsible for lobbying for higher raises, 7 of the 8 years under GWB? Did they not lobby Congress for alternative work schedules? Flexi place agreements? Law enforcement status for Customs, CBP etc? You need to come in from the beach and do your research to get the proper facts. As to the statement that NTEU complained about giving the raises too quickly and to everyone you again do not have the facts. SEC had no intention of giving everyone a raise. Average and poor performers would be a lower pool, many of whom would not receive a raise. What NTEU objected to was the unilateral imposition of the system without bargaining. The bargaining was to be used for the creation of the system handing out the raises with proper checks and balances against manager biase against employees it disliked. The suit was file for the good of all.

Re: I am

Because they can't bargain for pay, benefits, and working conditions, federal unions should more accurately be referred to as federal employee lobbying organizations. This is really what they are, no more, no less. It is also highly unlikely that federal employees will ever be given the right to strike.

Someone correct me if I'm remembering wrongly, but I seem to remember that employee salaries and benefits only amounted to about 6% of the total federal budget, and that was 10-15 years ago. With the latest spending spree, that percentage should be lower now. If this is correct, why not focus on areas where major savings could be realized? Otherwise, it's not a sincere effort to cut actual costs, but just more political gamesmanship with employees as the ball.

Benefits were originally to compensate for the spartan federal working environment, lower pay, and personal sacrifices associated with govt. service. These benefits have significantly withered over the past 30 years.

Re: I am

As for beach bumb's comments you need to walk in someone else's shoes before making a comment like that. I for one put in an extra 8 - 10 hours at home daily working for my local. We work 24/7, I work and do my union business some of that I am in on my time meeting with management. If the republicans want to cut somewhere they need to look at all of this excess training being done by management. After all a survival weekend so managers can learn to work together? How much did they pay for that? Management gets "official time" to attend the FAAMA conferences or the SUPCOMM meetings. That is on taxpayer dime folks. They have a school in palm coast florida where they have multiple gyms, etc.
Typical Republican response. GO AFTER THE WORKERS!!! If they were real leaders they would cut their own budget first.

Re: Retiring before the age of 62

Agree. I have seen cost saving in allowing early retirement and the next person hired was offered the same job at a lower GS rate.

Re: Retiring before the age of 62

In my state the state and municipal govts save money by using retirement incentives- a large one in CT is when Republican Governor Jodi Rell offered (and Legislators passed) a plan that ADDED 3 years to the pension computation and froze the cost and coverage of health insurance to any state employee eligible to take the package.

Over the last decades in CT, it is ALWAYS fiscally proven that offering add-ons/extra saves more $$$ than it spends. Why the heck Uncle Sam thinks that subtracting 2 % for every year from the pension you earned to that point is much of an incentive is beyond me.

If the FEDS now offered a 3 or 5 year add on to the computation and tied it in with a no-rehiring of you for the same 3 to 5 years (to avoid abuse by high management officials), the Federal government could employ younger untainted workers who would have lower pay and less leave and a NEW attitude. IT WOULD BE A GREAT STIMULUS TO PUT MORE PEOPLE TO WORK!

Re: Retiring before the age of 62

Given the FERS computation of pension benefits, it appears to pay to wait until age 62. However, as a CSRS employee, it does not pay. More are FERS employees, but the employees should have the right to make the decision as to when to retire. I believe we should keep the system the way it is.

Re: Retiring before the age of 62

Savings of 267 million! Give me a break... while Uncle is dumping hundreds of billions on bailouts, stimulus and Cash for Clunkers (Even foreign cars)! They want to back out of their commitment to employees?

Re: Retiring before the age of 62

Even if the assessment made sense, we are talking about millions, not billions out of a Trillion Plus dollar budget. Sounds like less 1/4 of 1% savings. Is this going to rescue the country from record deficits brought on by the previous administration?

Re: Federal Pay

"Journalists?" LOL! There is no more "journalism" - only opinion and propaganda.

Re: Federal Pay

In CT, the feds are at the bottom of the barrel concering pay, pension and health insurance compared to State and city workers. The City of New Haven uses a high-5 but they give you 2% per year from year 1 and 3% for every year over 20 years! Also state and local govt workers get paid in full for any accumulated sick leave that they have when they retire- not just the annual leave like the feds. Also state and local govts have 2 more holidays than the feds (Good Friday w/ Washington and Lincoln's birthday instead of hust president's day). Also state employees get 3 personal days in addition to vacation days! ---and the health insurance- any fed whose spouse works for the state and local govts do not take FEHB as it costs more and covers less!

Re: Federal Pay

The average federal employee's total compensation is now roughly twice the total compensation for the average American and is growing faster than the compensation for most Americans. (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1680/) We also noted in the article that there are good arguments for the distinction between federal and private pay differentials. This article was just to tell readers about the proposals to modify benefits; not to argue about the multiplicity of arguments on federal pay. The disparity in the average compensation figures (which are compiled by the Commerce Dept.) could have a political impact on federal employee benefits at some future time if the Congress decides to seriously try and reduce federal spending. In our view, ignoring the disparity, which will be part of a political debate on the issue, is not realistic.

Re: Federal Pay

Be careful of the argument that because Connecticut or some other state pays higher benefits, federal employees should get more money/benefits/perks, etc. There are also many states that pay considerably less than the federal government. I doubt Congress will want to automatically put us ahead of all the states in the union. It is just as likely to put us closer toward the bottom.

Re: Federal Pay

FedSmith Editor: your explanation is disengenuous and misleading. You failed to explain to your readers that these are all Republican proposals and they have all been proposed before and failed, even under a Repub congress and President.

As has become your usual practice, you are trolling for comments by using a scare article that has little to do with political reality. Apparently you do this to boost your hit ratings to the website to take in more ads. Its becoming more transparent every day. And I certainly don't expect to see this posted.

Re: Federal Pay

Comment from reader: "FedSmith Editor: your explanation is disengenuous and misleading. You failed to explain to your readers that these are all Republican proposals and they have all been proposed before and failed, even under a Repub congress and President."

It was not intended to be confusing.

The article states that "These are proposals from the budget savings proposals advanced by in an alternative budget advanced by Republicans."

We also put up the entire document so any reader can download it in its entirety and it is clearly labeled as such on the headline page of the document. The link is with the words "Republican proposals"

We also set up a link to an article we ran last year on similar proposals and that article is on the front page as well as within the article. We also included a sample comment from readers who have responded to earlier articles we have run on these topics in past years and, obviously, they were not enacted.

Sorry if you found it confusing--we tried to make it clear with statements such as those I have noted.

Re: Federal Pay

From this exchange, we can conclude that you can put the information into an article but you cannot make a person actually read it before complaining about the content

Re: Federal Pay

hr manager/fedsmith editor, my comment is not a complaint about the content, it is the response and the way FedSmith presents this which is intended to "scare" those who do not already see through this. as stated:
"We know this is proposed every year and it never happens..."If that is your view, please don't read any further. It may scare you and, if it is your view that proposals to reduce federal benefits (including the retirement program) will never happen, you will consider it to be a waste of time."

Its a standard 'spin' method in opinion 'journalism' to "bury the lead". If you read the article, the word and information that this comes from several years of dead Republican proposals is buried several paragraphs into the opinion commentary. The proof of this is in reading (now) 6 pages of comments from fed employees worried about their retirement future, who do not pick up on the buried lead that these are dead Republican non-issues for many years to come at least.

Re: Federal Pay

As the author stated, if it scares you, don't bother reading it. Some of you people are so blinded by your ideology that you are going to shoot the messenger regardless of how it's presented. I for one am grateful to know about these proposals even though I don't like them. I'd rather be informed than keep burying my head in the sand as many of my colleagues apparently would prefer to do.

Re: Federal Pay

When people are referring to the average government worker's salary as making too much money, they are unwittingly considering management or SES salaries. Worker bees are barely scraping by, yet the public has a general perception that all govt workers make 100,000 per year. They don't understand that management/SES salaries skew the average. What they should do is factor out all management/SES salaries, then recalculate the average. The average govt worker's salary will come out to a more realistic and much lower amount. We can thank the media for helping to perpetuate this stereotypical perception of the rich and lazy govt worker. Otherwise people would look for facts beyond the media hype.

Re: Federal Pay

I can tell you that New Jersey County employees also do much better than federal employees. One individual that I know, will be making twice the pension that I make in 30 years that for a nonprofessional job and will be able to do so in his mid forties.

Re: Cut Federal Spending

10 or more years ago, Shirley Chater was Commissioner of Social Security, she proposed cutting millions $$$ by condensing 10 Region Offices down to 5 which would have sent the extra positions down to direct service jobs which are lower paying. The ROs and management ganged up and before you know it she was no longer Commissioner. When I tried to get a copy of the plan and the related memos and correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act-- they wanted to charge me $400 to start! So much for free.

Re: Cut Federal Spending

Agree whole-heartedly. Why is it that our representatives only look at salary dollars when trying to reduce spending? How about some of the following:
-> Stop air conditioning our buildings to 60 degrees so everyone wears sweaters (or, in the winter, heating them to 80 degrees). The plug-in heaters hidden furtively under desks suck up even more energy.
-> Ration paper. Even today, it's amazing how many reams of copier paper are piled into the shredder by the end of a typical work day.
-> Turn off the lights. Seriously, who does this any more?
-> Embrace and find ways to take advantage of the alternative workplace concept.
-> Stop building offices with shoddy but expensive cubicle furniture with a 5-year life span. Remember wooden desks? They lasted forever.

Re: Cut Federal Spending

AFGE-SSA Rep

If you met the requirements for a request for information under the labor law, you would be charged nothing. Why go FOIA? Were you fishing or did you demonstrate a representation purpose for the information?

Re: Cut Federal Spending

I fully agree with "Retired DoD" and "H.R. Specialist
VA" - federal salaries and benefits should be the LAST area slashed! Do people forget we actually WORK for this package (pay and benefits)? How about looking at welfare or the current administration's fanatical obsession with taking over everything and forcing this debt on everyone (including federal workers)? Also, to the point of "retiring early" - those of us who came into the Government as youngsters have to have the age as well as years - so, retiring "early" for me will still mean I put in 35 years ... at least!

Re: Betrayed

Why penalize the remaining CSRS workers indeed... take that one step further - why penalize any FERS employees that have worked 15 - 20 - yes 25 years under FERS - don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

I for one am an employee who has worked for 20++ years in a job that I believe I am good at but basically hate and one of the PRIMARY motivators keeping me here is the fact that I can retire at 56++ - take that away and I might as well hit the road - I am sure I am not alone in those sentiments...

Bunch of hypocritical republicans - spend spend spend during the Bush years then all of a sudden say "we are the responsible ones"........

Re: Betrayed

Consider yourself one of the lucky ones that is eligible to retire immediately if a change to the retirement system looks imminent. Think about the poor individuals with 29 years of service and age 54 that would not have the option to walk away and would have to stay on for another 8 years.

Re: Betrayed

I too feel betrayed - but only hope that this is just another bad idea that will soon go away. I switched from CSRS to FERS - knowing that the 'gap' coverage would allow me to retire at 56. That's 2 more years - with 33 years of service. With a husband that is 10 years older - it was almost a guarantee we would have retirement time together. So - folks. What do we do - start writing our congressmen or what?

Re: Cutting Federal Spending

Concerned Ret'd Fed - part of your idea -to merge the COE and BOR has been kicked around in the past. It makes some sense for water and dam projects -which DOE has no experience or expertise in. But the BOR is many times smaller than the Corps. The BOR annual budget has been less than a billion bucks (800-900 mill) for over 10 years. The Corps could absorb that as a 'rounding error' in its $4+ billion budget. But the savings would amount to much less obviously. The Corps and DOE contract out most of their engineering work. The BOR contracts work also, but maintains some expertise and engineering capability, although its being 'rightsized' out of existence all the time. If the BOR mission and 300-400 dams were absorbed by the COE I suspect the Corps civil works budget would be increased susbstantially because contracted engineers on the outside do not make the 'Fedsmith-Repub' touted 1/2 the avg. salary of the fed employee, they make 1/3 or more than the avg. fed engineer.

Re: Cuts to federal employee benefits

If you retire, they have to replace you with a new employee. So they will now be paying that person plus your retirement. That is the disadvantate to the gov. and taxpayers.