Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 171
Page 2 of 17

« Previous | Next »

Want to Cut Federal Spending? Here Are Proposals to Cut Federal Benefits

Cutting federal benefits

Social Insurance Specialist
SSA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:27 AM

Post Reply

These stupid proposals would only make a tiny difference since folks would change their plans to account for the changes. For instance, if retirement is based on hi 5 instead of high 3 and one elects to work an extra 2 years, that persons annunity will be larger, not smaller.

Changing Retirement Age

Ms
DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:28 AM

Post Reply

I will attain 30 years of service, at age 57 in 2016, this is the worst news I could read. Who do I need to write?

Re: Changing Retirement Age

Analyst
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:59 AM
To Ms DoD

Your Congressman or woman, not that it will really make a difference.

Ready to Retire

Peon
Fed
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:28 AM

Post Reply

I am totally against raising the age for retirement to 62. In fact, I think they should lower it. It is not fair to those of us who started working at a young age for the federal govt. I will have 30 years next year and will only be 49 at the time. I am TIRED and worn out and cannot imagine having to stay on until I am 62.

Antoher Cost Saver

HR Type
DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:35 AM

Post Reply

When private industry is looking at large layoffs, pay freezing, and even cutbacks in pay, why does the Fed government have "save pay/save grade" that goes on for years and years? We are spending billions of dollars each year to pat ourselves on the back for no layoffs, while we continue to pay a low level clerical employee the $70,000 s/he made at their former job! There are no limits how low of a grade they can go and no limits on how long it lasts. We have one on save pay now for over a decade. That's just wrong.... Pay them for the work they do. Period.

Re: Antoher Cost Saver

Analyst
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:01 AM
HR Type, save pay, save grade only last for 2 years.

Re: Antoher Cost Saver

Editor
DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:25 PM
Even in the D.C. area I've never heard of a "low level/clerical" employee making $70,000 - please!

Re: Antoher Cost Saver

HR Specialist
DOD
Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:35 AM
Uh, DOD Analyst,

Retained grade lasts for two years, retained pay is paid until the person's salary is able to be accomodated placed into the lower grade that they have been placed in. If you were a GS 7 step 5, you would make more money as a GS 6 step 9 so no pay retention required.

HOWEVER!

If you were a GS-13 RIF'ed into a GS-7 job, you would NEVER go off pay retention.

And, if you turned down a reasonable offer, then you are no longer entitled to retention either.

Response to Federal Spending

contracting
defense logistics agency
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:36 AM

Post Reply

Cut back on not necessary travel. I see on a regular basis employees traveling for what i believe not to
be valid reasons. I also agree do away with the 100
percent union time dedication, these employees should
be performing work duties.

Cut Federal Spending on the backs of federal worke

Human Resources Office
Navy
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:37 AM

Post Reply

I find your article misleading when you say federal workers make more money then private sector workers. Maybe you missed the locality pay that was started a few years back for federal workers salary didn't keep pace with private sector workers. Maybe you don't realize how many of us started in low pay positions (GS-5), went to college (with no help from our agency) and sacrificed a lot of extra hours (that we never get paid for) for our country until we could earn a better position and move up in our field. I know many people in my field in private industry and educational institutions and their salary and benefits are greater then mine. I don't think the person getting millions who failed as CEO/Administrators/Financial Officers at any company should get anything as long as they are losing money and we are bailing them out. If I fail in my performance objectives, I get no bonus or cost of living or anything and face the lose of my job. I can live with 2%.

Re: Cut Federal Spending on the backs of federal w

editor
fedsmith.com
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:44 AM
We did not miss the items you mentioned. 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 point in the article is that the disparity in the 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.

Re: Cut Federal Spending on the backs of federal worke

AFGE UNION LOCAL VP
SSA and AFGE
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:32 AM
Federal Pay vs Private Sector is like comparing apples and oranges. The comparision should be feds to state and municipal workers.

Private Sector includes Walmart, McDonald's, etc. -- not the same

Re: Cut Federal Spending on the backs of federal worke

worker
Fed
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:36 AM
I keep on reading the editor Fed Smith comments about federal employees getting twice the pay as private industry employees.
This is not appropriate. To make a fair comparison, one must compare a federal job in the government with a comparable job in private industry. Then we will know how much government workers are underpaid.

Above article

HR Specialist
OPM
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:43 AM

Post Reply

There probably aren't many still around who will remember it, but we did have a hgh-5 rule in place for calculating retirement benefits in place until the early '70s. Returning to that would certainly save money, but as Congressmen and senators benefit personally from the current high-3 rule, don't hold your breath on any change in this regard. Regarding the proposal to raise the retirement age for optional retirement eligibility to 62, this makes sense, as the present rule allowing such retirement at age 55 is actuarily unsound and dates back to a time when life expectancy was much lower. With Americans now living on average into their late '70s - early '80s, allowing full retirement at age 55 cannot be justified. The last proposal, regarding exclusion of time on union business from the Federal payroll is long overdue, and is currently being greatly abused. The "official time" off the clock for union activities has little in the way of any positive benefits for the public.

Re: Above article

worker
Fed
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:39 AM
Actually raising the retirement age makes no sense as workers started the job under certain rules such as retirement age and its computation. Changing the rules in midstream is not appropriate.
It would be appropriate, if necessary, to make the change for new employees.

Re: Above article

Federal Employee
Federal
Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:13 AM
I agree with the reply from GEO FED!!!

After reading most of the comments from fellow FEDS that seem to believe that these "republican proposals" that have been talked about in the past, it appears that the effect upon the employees is just what was intended......

These proposals are nowhere near implementation, and if so, a class action lawsuit would be in order!!!

Re: Above article

Engineer
BOR
Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:27 PM
I have a comment about your comment on changing horses in the middle of the stream as far as retirement benefits go. Once upon a time, back in the 1980s before our good Republican President Ronald Reagan (zap) we were all under CSRS along with (if a government employee with enough credits) Social Security. Guess what? The great Pres Reagan decided that all new Federal Employees should be put under his and x-president Jimmy Carter's new and better retirement system (FERS) and all CSRS employees either change horses or drown with the new system. If you didn't change then, the Government will not give you matching funds in the TSP retirement AND you will be drowned in another system called WEP/GPO. So whatever system that you are presently in, with the jokers that are in command (Democrat and Republican), smile because the system will probably get alot worse.
Total Comments: 171
Page 2 of 17

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.