all for eliminating the full time union reps - they are a complete waste of time and only involve themselves with either their buddies or the latest and greatest social issue. Outside of that they are clueless, their leadership is worthless, and there is no enduring benefit to joining one.
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!
Re: I am
AFGE UNION LOCAL VP-CT SSA and AFGE Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:07 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
lr specialist civilian agency Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:12 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
AFGE UNION LOCAL VP SSA and AFGE Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:28 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
analyst dod Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:05 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
LRO HHS Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:48 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
Beach Bum Retired DoD Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:53 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
worker Fed Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:30 PM
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
IRS Agent IRS Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:24 PM
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
Retired 6 years at age 68 DoC Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:52 PM
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
Local Union Pres FAA Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:17 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.
Retiring before the age of 62
Biological Scientist USDA APHIS Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:12 AM
This comment is about to the sentence, "Preliminary estimates indicate that the early retirement benefit costs taxpayers $267 million a year." Who made this preliminary assessment, and how were the results derived? I ask because the value of the retirement package these early retirees get is significantly less than what they would have received if they stayed and collected a full paycheck. Furthermore, once they leave, the government will most likely hire people at a lower payscale to replace them, or to replace the person who takes the retiree's place. In my view, encouraging early retirement results in an overall net benefit for the government, not a cost to the government. Whoever is doing these "preliminary assessments" needs to do some reassessing.
Re: Retiring before the age of 62
IT Specialist VA Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:07 AM
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
AFGE UNION LOCAL VP SSA and AFGE Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:40 AM
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
worker Fed Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:34 PM
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
Retired USPS Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:47 AM
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
General Engineer DOT Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:23 AM
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?
Federal Pay
Management & Program Analyst GSA Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:17 AM
It is unfair to compare average wages of federal employees to average wages in the private sector because the lower paid employees have been outsourced to such an extent that the average is no longer valid.
I can understand that the general media doesn't understand this dynamic, but I would expect better from journalists that specialize in federal employment issues.
Re: Federal Pay
LRS DOD Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:52 AM
"Journalists?" LOL! There is no more "journalism" - only opinion and propaganda.
Re: Federal Pay
AFGE UNION LOCAL VP-CT SSA and AFGE Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:02 AM
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
editor fedsmith.com Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:04 AM
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
HR manager DoD Agency Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:08 AM
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
GEO FED Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:30 PM
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
editor fedsmith.com Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:48 PM
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
hr manager civilian agency Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:54 PM
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
GEO FED Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:20 PM
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
IT Specialist USDA Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:22 PM
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
QA Specialist DoD Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:47 AM
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
General Engineer DOT Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:39 AM
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.
Cut Federal Spending
Retired DOD Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:19 AM
Here is a crazy idea, stop the waste in government. Operate within budget. Eliminate paper exercises that only waste time when the decision has already been made. Stop duplication of work. In other words streamline government as it should have been done, but never got done years ago. It is very easy to look at a retirement program that is not broke but the government is broke. No pun intended.
Re: Cut Federal Spending
AFGE UNION LOCAL VP SSA and AFGE Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:12 AM
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
H.R. Specialist VA Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:08 AM
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
Clown Around Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:45 PM
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
Editor DoD Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:21 PM
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!
Betrayed
Inventory Manager Homeland Security Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:20 AM
I am within 2 years of retirement with 31 years and 55 years of age. So now when I am looking forward to retirement the same government that I have worked for wants to change the rules. That is absurd. This country is in a bad economic mess. There are young people that need jobs. Making folks work longer only delays possible position to a younger generation. When FERS came along that basically did away with CSRS retirement. Eventually the government system will all be FERS. So why penalize the remaining CSRS workers?
Re: Betrayed
Fed US Gov Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:04 AM
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
HR Mgr Interior Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:56 AM
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
IT NPS Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:36 AM
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?
Cutting Federal Spending
Concerned Retired Fed DOD Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:23 AM
Another option for reducing federal spending is to merge agencies that have redundant missions. One example would be to merge the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Energy, Corps of Engineers, etc. All of these agencies have huge planning, design/engineering, and construction services and staff. It only makes sense to have one "federal engineer" to perform these functions. The cost savings would be huge. From the consolidation, the federal government could affort to have a "federal" engineering office in each state [sized accordingly] and be able to better leveragel both human capitol and other resources.
Re: Cutting Federal Spending
GEO FED Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:24 AM
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.
Cuts to federal employee benefits
Mgt Army Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:25 AM
I really don't get it. What's cheaper? To let me retire at 55 at a portion of the salary I'm making now, or keep me on the rolls for another 7 years and paying me full salary? It doesn't add up in my mind.....
Re: Cuts to federal employee benefits
Andy DoD Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:41 AM
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.
Cutting federal benefits
Social Insurance Specialist SSA Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:27 AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!!!
Federal Spending Cuts
Soon to be Retired DVA Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:43 AM
Cost of living pay increases over the past 30 years have been minimal and now retirement pay will be lowered by refiguring using the high 5 instead of high 3. You can't take anymore meat off the skeleton. Agree with not paying full time union reps. There are plenty of other places to cut spending without any repercussions. Let's explore those areas first.
Benefits
HR USDA Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:44 AM
Something needs to be done. Every retiree and employee is out screaming more, more, more. We set up an environment of expectation and nobody is happy with what they have. Now that there is a Medicare Part "D" let's do away with the 5 years/62 years of age rule - a 10 year retirement minimum. Top 5 pay makes sense - to many get promoted for the sole reason of spending last 3 years fattening retirement pay.
Health Benefits need to be seriously looked at for both retirees and employees (remember the govt contributions). For retirees the costs are hugh for what amounts to supplemental coverage at 65. Why not create a FEHB Supplemental coverage for just those at 65 and above. AARP offers some very good products that run circles around FEHB. How about a Congressional Review into our providers pricing models. Providers say that 2/3rds of every dollar goes out the door for services, questionable for sure but why doesn't anyone question the 1/3 margin.
Re: Benefits
IT Specialist VA Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:37 AM
Why not have universal health care where every American has health benefit? There is always a place for additional or supplemental coverage in addition to universal heath care for the insurance industry that fears loss of business.
Re: Benefits
worker Fed Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:34 AM
The writer makes no sense. What does retire at age 62 with 5 years have to do with medicare part D? And why change age 62 with 5 years because of promotions? I am unclear on your reasoning. Also, management controls promotions, not the promotee.
I agree that medicare supplemental coverage should be offered, but not mandated, for those over 65. However, the government should make the appropriate contribution that it makes for employees.
Want to Cut Federal Spending? Here Are Proposals t
Contracting Officer USAF Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:53 AM
Alexander Hamilton well said, "States, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct." This is another example of elements in the government trying to dishonor the government's contract with those who have spent our lives "working for America", to borrow Bush 43's phrase.
Competing Interests
Command Operations Navy Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:53 AM
Given recent concerns about losing an experienced Gov't work force to retirement and about an overabundance of contract workers, is this really the right time to propose retroactive changes to retirement programs for workers, many of whom have given 30+ years of dedicated service?
taking benefits
SSS USDA Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:56 AM
GREAT! But at the same time employees are being paid maternity/paternity leave, and are being granted benefits for same sex partners. Kinda makes you go hmmmmm!
Proposal to cut government spending
Voucher Examiner Dept. of Veterans Affairs Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:57 AM
I think cut backs in government spending should start at the top - Congress should take a look at themselves because they are nothing but a bunch of OVERPAID fat cats. They haven't had a problem giving themselves fat raises over the years. I don't think they should be allowed to vote on raises for themselves. Let the public do it and see how many raises they get!
Re: Proposal to cut government spending
Soon to be Retired DVA Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:11 AM
I totally agree with this one. If we cut them back 2% then we won't have to refigure the retirement and we probably won't have to look anywhere else to cut either.
Employee benefit
IT Specialist VA Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:03 AM
I am not among those optimist that cuts are not coming. President Obama did say that "a dollar save here is a dollar spend somewhere". In the current funding difficulties, I do believed that these changes are coming. How soon and when is the question. I don't believe federal employee get pay more than the private sector, our salary might appear more in some position, but in a good year, private sector emplyee may end up with more lucritive stock option that would elevate their income. If the federal government take away the benefit and decrease salary range, what else is there that would make government job an attractive alternative to private sector?
CUT FEDERAL SPENDING
Human Resources Specialist DOT Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:12 AM
where was all of these suggestions when republicans was in power and who made these mess.
Federal Cost Savings
retired fed DHHS Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:23 AM
Based on my experience at the IRS and HCFA/CMS, two proposals to help the federal budget are: collect unpaid taxes (hire additional staff to accomplish this - tens of billions go uncollected every year), and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare (hire enforcement staff to go after the mioney). In the 1990s the feds acknowledged Medicare fraud losses as high as 14%, but employees knew it was closer to 30%. About $100 billion (with a "b") every year. The money is out there. Go get it. Republicans will oppose either initiative. In fact, they already have. Guess which party corporate tax cheats and for-profit health care crooks identify with.
Here we go again!
HR Specialist DOD Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:24 AM
If they do away with the SS Suplement, the only employees that affects are FERS employees. Once again, the FERS folks get the shaft. You suppose the person that was complaining about CSRS people not getting matching TSP contributions wants to switch to FERS now? I started out as a Clerk Typist making $13,000 a year when the contractors sitting next to me were making $26,000 a year. I worked my way up and with 8 more years until I am 56 with 30 years of service to go, this information is very dismaying. If I wanted to work until I was 65, I'd have stayed with the private sector so I could get those lovely LARGE bonuses at the end of the year, negligible red tape, state of the art computer equipment, company provided cars and phones, private jets to fly me around.
All of this because our leaders couldn't allow several large corporations to go out of business (which happens to small business all the time!) hoist by their own petard? What American thought this was a good idea?
Re: Here we go again!
Editor DoD Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:30 PM
AMEN - couldn't agree with you more HR Specialist! I'm in the same boat!
Retirement calculation change & retirement change
Management Assistant Internal Revenue Service Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:26 AM
It is being said that the government benefits are better than the private sector. This may be true with a few smaller companies, but the large companies are much more generous that the government.
We as lower graded employees, cannot live on what we would draw with the calculations being based on the average of 3 years. Now if they change it to 5 years they will definatelly not be able to live.
I am still having to work because we cannot make it on what I will draw at a grade 7 (unable to get a higher grade, because of age) and have 35 years with the government. I along with others are being penalized because we worked outside the government before coming to work here. Now this not fair. They are already making it hard by cutting off 400. or 500. dollars from what we should be able to draw on social security and not talking about changing the calcualtion on retirement funds.
If this is about to pass let me know and I will leave and take all my expertise with me.
Get real
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DON Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:26 AM
The CSRA employee is becoming an rare and ever rarer species of civil servant. ALL of us are close enough to retirement age to deserve a grandfather clause to whatever change is made. Even if not granted, and the final CSRA cohort is forced to work an additional 7 years to retire, or force the last of us to take a cut in retirement by changing the formula, well, there just aren't enough of us left to make more than a token savings...bought at the breaking of the promise that kept us in civil service when the time was good to make a move out.
If you want to save some real $$ with this, you would have to recalcualte EVERY living CSRA annuitant's payment based on high 5...
Don't take an infintemeal portion of the trillions of dollars being recklessly spent out of our hides. Certainly not while going on a hiring fest.
Re: Get real
worker Fed Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:39 AM
I am a CSRS employee who can retire at any time. I am also reaching a point where it is questionable for me to stay. If this were to pass, I would quit before it became effective.
120 Million for Union
Forester US Forest Service Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:30 AM
120 Million for Union sounds like a lot, but is it? How much does the government spend on Human Resources Management (HRM) for all the federal agencies. I'll bet you my agency alone spends somewhere between 30 and 60 Million on HRM alone and if you add up all the costs for HRM for all government agencies you are talking close to 100 times as much as the total Union costs.
As for the comment about taking care of their buddies only, by federal law unions have to represent all bargaining unit employees, regardless of whether they are "dues paying union members". Consequentially there is little incentive to be a dues paying member. If your local union is not representing you, then maybe you should get active in your local union. I don't know of many local unions in the federal sector that have an over abundance of active members It is always easy to sit back and throw stones. It is a different thing to step up to the plate and do something to make a difference.
Re: 120 Million for Union
HR Specialist DOD Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:50 AM
Dear Forrester: I worked for an agency that had a private sector HR contractor doing most of the work. Hope you are not a veteran, one of my employees should have come on with the agency as a 6 hour employee but because the private sector "Specialist" didn't know veterans rules, he worked for 6 YEARS before he came to me and begged me to re-do his SCD. This was my 1st DAY on the job. I did my research and spent 6 MONTHS arguing with the private sector HR people who finally saw the light and said that the employee and I were correct, here is your 5 YEARS of annual leave accrual back. Another veteran was in imminent danger of being RIF'ed because the private sector HR folks had made a mistake about his veterans preference. By and large, the HR Specialists private sector hires are people off the street who have NO federal HR experience. I can say proudly that the employees I service have have the correct SCD and get all of their benefits correctly. Be careful what you ask for.
Free Stuff
Retired Fed None Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:32 AM
FTA: "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that moving to a five year average (in retirement calculations) would save taxpayers $1.2 billion over five years."
That's chump change in these days. Yes, Bush ran up the credit card; Obama is wearing it out. But who cares? Pretty soon even cash money will be free - as in worthless. Don't forget, the only backing is the "full faith and credit" of our profligate government.
IR Specialist
Clerical Homeland Security Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:36 AM
Just so you know, I made more money in the private sector doing what I do and it has taken me 5 years to catch up to what I made back then. We do not all make 60,000 and even if we did, we are on call 24/7 with a phone glued to us. My benefits were much better in the private sector, and they are still better at that company today.
Cutting pentions etc.
Letter carrier USPS Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:41 AM
I resent this article completely. Im a federal worker, retired and I dont need e-mails from someone wanting me and my co-workers to be the sacrificial lambs. Why not take a look at congress who get their full soc. sec. and other pentions while they cut us with the likes of WEP and GPO. ? Cant they start with themselves to set an example? I bet not.
How to Cut Federal Spending
IT Specialist TREASURY Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:41 AM
I am amazed and puzzled that our Feredral Government pays workers to come to work. I am referring to the Public Transportation Subsidy Program.
In the private sector, no one paid me to come to work. The worker assumed the costs of his employment. As a Federal employee, I refuse to ask the government to pay me to come to work. Logically, it should be my investment in me and my career.
Eliminating this boondoggle, could only reduce federal spending
Re: How to Cut Federal Spending
worker Fed Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:47 AM
Please be more accurate. We are given vouchers and not money. These are to be used to purchase public transportation items and not gas for a car. The purpose is to encourage public transportation to reduce the use of energy and to reduce pollution. It is not a boondogle.
Since I do not live and work in locations that allow me to efficiently use this benefit, I am not affected by its elimination. However, it is a good idea to keep it.
Keep Working
Accountant Air Force Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:43 AM
No retirement until 62. Let's look at CSRS employees. The latest Air Force figures show 21,035 CSRS employees are still working whereas in 1994 that figure was 87,494. Yet, one 85 year old has been working for 65 years - IMAGINE THAT! This particular proposal is going to save how much? I suppose there are a few CSRS employees that would rather bail out before 62 rather than be forced to keep working. I would not be one of those since I was planning to work until 62 anyway (38 years of service). Now the high five would give me reason to pause and rethink my retirement date. For FERS employees these proposals would cause many to grumble and disparage the prez and congress for being cruel employers.
Join NARFE
HR Specialist DOI/NBC Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:57 AM
This article is a clarion call for ALL federal employees to join and support NARFE, the only organization dedicated to protecting our earned benefits and entitlements.
At a time that a budget for the previous administration's war of choice is over $100 Billion, mostly going to Cheney's military/industrial cash cow, why even bother messing with the lives and welfare of dedicated Civil Servants?
I proudly voted for Obama and will hold his administration accountable for changing the direction imposed by the Bush regime. That change includes a different dialoge when discussing ways to cut the deficit. We should not be penalized and expected to bail out a mess caused by the cynical right wing of the GOP that wanted government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub. I suggest the budget gurus get some of the deficit funding out of the overpaid CEOs of the private sector that we the people have bailed out.
Want to Cut Federal Spending
Regional HR Manager DOL Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:28 AM
I completely agree with Ralph Smith's comments, but add that he did not go far enough. I completely agree that Union officials ought to have their salaries paid for that portion of their time that is spent in representational activities. In fairness though, if employees wish to have a Union, which is their choice, then they MUST pay dues. Too much time and money is spent on frivilous grievances and appeals. The government should operate under the very same standard as industry - employment at will. The idea that if I do not produce or I do not want to be a model employee could lead to my dismissal would change the workplace immeasurably for the good. Lastly, Congress should have the same benefits as other federal employees, and not the gilt they reserve to themself, and there must be term limits.
Re: Want to Cut Federal Spending
Analyst DOD Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:09 PM
Regional HR Manager DOL
There are term limits, it's called voting.
Government Cost Cutting and Employee Benefits
Internal Revenue Agent Internal Revenue Service Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:40 AM
The downturn in the economy and the growing federal deficit have largely been attributed to the greed of a few in the private sector and the reduction of government oversight, supporting and encouraging them, occuring largely under Republican administrations. Any "cost cutting" should be accomplished by increasing government revenues by taxing and penalizing those in the private sector who helped cause the problem, not by reducing benefits of government workers or private sector workers who are not the direct cause. I find it very ironic that Republicans who have historically been for less oversight and regulation now want to penalize those who had nothing to do with a problem they themselves helped to create. This from a staunch Republican supporter for the past 30 years until 2005. Not anymore!
What is going on?
Administrator Department of Agriculture Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:49 AM
Why is always the little guy who has to pay for the mistakes made by our politicians? Instead of reducing payments and benefits to the Federal workforce, politicians should cut all the pork and control all the money we all pay in taxes.
Government employees might have "better" benefits when compared to the private sector, but the private sector pays a lot better thasn the government. That has been the norm as far as I can remember.
Bewildered! Betrayed! (continued)
Engineer FAA Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:50 AM
I believe that all federal employees should volunteer to wait until age 65 to retire. That would save untold billions of dollars (sorry Army Mgt - when you retire, the gove pays your retirement and the salary of the person that replaces you, so it does add up).
any federal employee who doesn't agree is obviously disloyal to this great country and doesn't deserve a pension.
Re: Bewildered! Betrayed! (continued)
Fed/Fake? you decide Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:56 PM
I don't believe you are an engineer from FAA - I think you are a Republican senator's aide posing as a fed trying to use the "patriot" card.
While you are volunteeering, why don't you just set the example and retire upon death?? That way you could save the gov everything they would have paid for your pension - no wait - why don't you contiue working for $0 salary and retire upon death - now that is a true loyal patriot!!
Re: Bewildered! Betrayed! (continued)
Tech FAA Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:17 PM
The disloyal traitor is the one who would spit on the words "Full Faith and Credit of the United States Treasury".
Proposals to Cut Federal Spending
Retired DOL Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:14 PM
I am CRS retired at age 55 with not quite 40 years of service but if I had continued another 7 years to reach 62, calculate the difference. I would be using 47 years of service, 62 years of age and at a GS 12 Step 12 for my last 5 years. I'd be raking in the bucks! It doesn't seem to me that there would be a savings...just a delay in paying me more. Also, Mr. Editor, does the amount of $$ estimated on the Federal Employee's pay include the contract workers? There are a lot of different ways to cut down federal spending. At the top! There are very few Union Representatives on 100% official time and those are the National Union Representatives. The rest still have to do their work and meet there standards and do their union work using an estimate of 25 - 30%. The rest is on their own dime.
Federal Pay
QA Specialist DoD Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:30 PM
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.
Work for Free!
Fed Employee DHS Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:19 PM
Maybe our congress will ask us to work for free for a month just like the CEO of British Airways asked his employees to.
Cutting Federal Spending
Forester USDA Forest Service Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:42 PM
The President, his staff, and Congress need to lead by example. If we take a hit, then they need to take the hit first. Especially since they seem to exempt themselves all the time from the sacrifices that they expect the rest of the federal employees to make.
Cutting Federal Benefits
Postal Inspector Retired) US Postal Inspection Service Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:45 PM
To work for the federal government or not to work for the federal government. That is the question. A graduate in the top ten percent of his/her graduating class sees the private sector as very competitive, offers higher compensation packages, but their retirement benefits are not as good. The federal government, on the other hand, strives to higher that top ten percent graduates, not with via compettitive salaries, but by the benefits it offers, especially retirement benefits. Play with this and you will loose tens of thousands of top candidates. If you feel the government offers bad to mediocre service, wait until you loose possibly highering the talented ones.
Savings???
Contracting Officer DOD Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:22 PM
"Preliminary estimates indicate that the early retirement benefit costs taxpayers $267 million a year."
"Congressional Budget Office has estimated that moving to a five year average would save taxpayers $1.2 billion over five years."
Doesn't Congress realize how miniscule these amounts are in relation to the federal budget or federal deficit? You're talking a few pork barrel proects worth of money here. Federal employees have always been an easy target because, with the exception of Virginia and Maryland, we are not concntrated enough in any given Congressional District to make a diffference to the pols.
If these changes are enacted, it will be for show, not for their real impact.
Uninteded(?) consequences
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DON Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:44 PM
Then again, changing the rules without a grandfather clause would definitely cause a mass exodus by all who could manage it. The 2% per year reduction (but with actual colas after that !) would start looking more and more attractive. My personal plan IS to work until about age 60, although at 50 I already have 25 years, to help my bottom line. But if the math changes...I am out as soon as possible!
Now, as to pay rates...I consistently make (currently about $1,000) LESS than my demographics suggest for this area. (not overpaid!) and I work very intelligently and hard.
Perhaps all bankm, investment, and wall-street workers in the private sector were getting the outrageous paychecks? Or maybe just a notorious few, who then proceded to give the entire industry a bad name?
Soo, we want to emulate them?
Sooo, maybe most of government isn't outrageously paid and should be punished?
But, we are vulnerable and will be made villians
Grandfather
Clown Around Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:51 PM
The only way this will pass the sniff test is to grandfather and apply the rules to new hires.
Just in case, I have requested my retirement figures for 08/01/2009, when my default plan is 01/03/2012.
STOP Making Feds the Scapegoats!
Retired LR Manager Retired Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:32 PM
This president and congress are spending immorally and want to take it out of the hide of fed employees and retireees. Unions take a stand on this nonsense. Obama is stealing from the coffers for bailouts of car companies while their unions protected rights of its workers. The trillions Obama has spent and now more for a pie in the sky health plan that will ruin us and health care in this country. I'm sick of these incompetents. Our nation needs to STOP spending..call and write to your reps like I do...that's the answer..not the ruin of fed employment and this country.
Federal employee benefits
Retired government employee Treasury Dept. Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:25 PM
All republicans and Obama haters who respond to this issue, you see what your congress republicans are proposing. These republicans are proposing a complete turnaround of the federal retirement program and changes in active employees workforce. If these proposals are approved and passed by congress, you can blame your republicans. They may not necessarily have your best interest at heart. Personally, I do not agree with any of the change to the federal retirement program. Hopefully, President Obama and the democrats will provide a better proposal that will not hurt active federal employees and their retirement.
official time
PDS DLA Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:32 PM
when i worked for the phone company, when i was on union time, the union had to pay me, not the company (called recompense for lost wages) and i'd get a W-2 from the Local, also.
High 5
Budget Analyst DOD Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:43 PM
When workers are so close to be able to taste retirement it would not be fair to change the rules and tell us oh by the way your benefits will be based on the high 5 years. Again less money. Many outside of the government seem to not even know that us CSRS workers don't get to cash in on Social Security as those in congress do. Our spouses pay the same into the SS system but they don't get as much out since we can't get 50% as a spousal benefit. We pay a lot for our "generous" benefits. No one knows how much we pay for our health insurance either.
Federal benefits
Director Unemployed Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:49 PM
Look into the Workman Comp program and abuse by Fed employees.Agencies do not have a clue and HR and Dept of Labor is useless in resolving concens of managers. Needs a RN or Nurse Practitioner to provide oversight and provide case management of workload.
cut federal spending, not federal benefits
clerk usps Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:11 PM
The min. age for retirement is 56 with at least 30yrs of service. At that age for myself, I'll have 37 yrs. with the first 8 yrs in Marine Corps / government work. I paid money to the gov. so that I could utilize the first 8 yrs towards usps retirement. The fers offset is number of years divided by forty, equals the percentage of what the payment you'd receive at age 62 with soc.sec.
I've listed my personal status to show some background for my concerns.
My best memory has disputed a few things in your article.
1) fers offset is already funded by usps
2)If you served on active duty on csrs, you would have to pay money back into soc. sec. to have that time count w/fers
3)union official time is paid by usps management.
4)majority of usps workers are fers not csrs. Majority of csrs retirement would be at the burden of usps and taxpayers.
5)the usps doesn't receive tax money for it's operations. The American citizen pays our wages without tax dollars.
Thank you American citizens
retirement cuts
CSI USDA-Food Safety & Inspection Service Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:12 PM
I guess I'm just old enough to have seen enough changes that nothing surprises me anymore. First they mess around with the TSP, now they want to pay us less than a poverty level income after we have given them 25+ years of public service. On top of that they want to say, "Oh by the way, you won't get a check until age 62 and when you do get it the amount will be significantly less than the estimate we supplied you with when you requested your retirement package." Tell me again....how much do our agencies value our service to our government?
Democratic Waste In White house and Congress
Safety Manager US Army Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:23 PM
This what you get when you give the Democrats all the power and throw away the checks and balances. They are known for never seeing a tax they didn't like. This is just another step in the direction of socialism and government control of everything. You who voted for these people deserve everything get, don't get or are denied.
Cut Federal Spending
Instructor Federal Law Enforcement Training Center DHS Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:12 AM
The government oversight needs to take a hard look @ all of the SES positions here @ the FLETC as well as other agencies and realize the excessive titles being awarded at great tax payer expense and loaning an Assistant Director SES position to a local community college with no real date of return to their official duties and this position is being paid by taxpayer dollars.
Now where is the excessive waste of government resources?
LIVID!
HR Specialist DOD Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:22 AM
Well, I guess us HR Specialists can take it easy now that the majority of FERS employees will not be retiring at 56 or 57 years of age now, we'll all have to stay until we're 100. I'm sure that 40 years of service is not enough, the next great idea President O will have is increasing the retirement age again.
PEOPLE! If you have never written your Congessperson before, DO IT NOW and tell them to leave our FERS retirement alone, we know that our retirement is no where near as good as CSRS, this would make it that much worse!!!!! It would be one thing if they grandfathered in all of the current FERS employees and new employees would be subject to this "new and improved" retirement, that way, you would know going in what the "rules" were.
If I were a CSRS person that transferred to FERS, I'd be absolutely LIVID over this !!!
Benefits
physical scientist BOR Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:20 AM
Life ain't fair and having a lot of experience in that department, if I get a retirement at all, I am doing better than a lot of people. Many workers lost 50% of their retirement funds in the greed fest of the last bull market. What corporate greed has done is going to cost ALL of the "little people" and the CEOs of greed still believe they deserve what they "worked" so hard for.. a job well done for them. As a Fed, I want the best retirement I can get; but as a taxpayer, reality is the greed fest trashed the retirement plans of all the "little people." Put the blame where it belongs and put leashes back on the corporation pit bulls. The little people have lost their "government for the People" to the "gov. for the best corporate lobbyist." The bank is robbed - your money's gone. When you put the job on the janitor, all he can do is clean up the bloody mess. WallStreet has lost credibility... without the gov. backing corporations, where do you trust to put your future money???
Saving money
engineer USACE Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:55 AM
we have $3.6 trillion budget and you are proposing saving about $300 Million dollars are .00083333% another way of looking at this if you go to buy a $200,000 house would saving $16.67 or buying the house for $199,983.30 make a difference in your family budget? If you want save real dollars and bring government spending under control you make big cuts these programs, defense, Social security, Medicare / Medicaid. Keep this budget in place and allow the economy to grow until we have a balanced budget. The government departments would do what is necessary to keep existing programs funded at present levels and that may mean freezing the number of people receiving SS, freezing the total amount of money for medical services so doctors would make less per procedure, defense would need to continue programs at current funding levels if a program needed more money then it could cut or eliminate another program. When income equaled expenders then congress could look at cutting taxes.
Cutting federal spending
financial tech DOD Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:04 AM
End of the year spending on items the agencies don't need. Here at DOD. August and September they go on a rampage spending on things they don't need. But the reasoning behind it is "we will get a smaller budget next year if we don't spend this year's funds. Stop messing with federal workers wages and benefits.Imagine the savings if all government agencies spent on things they really need, especially in these bad economic times
retirement benefits
Secretary VA Hospital Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:30 AM
I have just passed the 20 year service mark and I am 67. This article indicates there may be some new benefits in the near future and other than the possible pay for sick leave, do you have any idea of what the neew benefits would be. I am sure the change to last high 5 will be approved and will want to retire before that happens. Due to that I am thinking of retiring in July of this year.
I have enjoyed your column. It has/is very helpful in many areas. Thanks
Cutting Federal Benefits
Revenue Officer IRS Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:40 AM
Are federal workers overpaid? Who knows? The article sited is one man’s opinion. It’s no lie that recent economic policies have driven down real wages in the private sector. The consequence is higher wages in the federal sector. The government attracts talented workers, not by offering a higher starting salary (because it is substantially lower than most private starting pay), but by offering the promise of secure benefits in the form of pay increases, health care and retirement.
Is the answer to our current economic problems to allow the government to renege on that promise? The government makes an economic contract with its workers that it should not be allowed to break after 30 years of service on the basis of a bad economic business cycle.
A misrepresentation in the article is the notion that all government retirees receive supplemental pay until age 62. This is only true of FERS retirees and is not an entitlement shared by CSRS retirees. This supplement was put
Want to Cut Federal Spending? Here Are Proposals t
manager federal aviation administration Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:47 AM
The peanuts in $$$'s that may be saved, while politically popular with some and certainly newsworthy for a short time, will make little or no difference in the large scheme of things. In fact, there will be such a mass exodus of senior managers/employees that the real effect of such an action may cripple some agencies. There are already programs in place that attempt to keep senior employees from retiring due to these concerns. How about doing a little research in this area and reporting on these programs and concerns?
Benefits
Program Analyst BOR Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:55 AM
If they want to save money, then why are they handing out benefits to the "partners" of gay and lesbian federal employees? It seems to me that there is no way to track that, and it is super unfair to those of us in regular relationships that aren't married yet. So someone who cannot legally get married can get health benefits compliments of the federal government, but because someone in a heterosexual hasn't gotten married they are denied these same benefits. If you want to cut government spending start there. These same sex marriages are slowly costing America lots of money with their court cases and now health insurance.
Sacrifice pay raise 2010
tools & parts attendant dept of defense Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:21 AM
I would gladly sacrifice my pay raise in 2010 if Congress can do the same. That includes everyone at Capitol hill and judges too. Matter of fact, Congress is always taking care of themselves first, have a freeze of their raises for 2 years and have them accountable for more days on the job instead of always absentee.
Saving Federal Money
Finance & Budget DOD Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:41 AM
Why is it that they would look within the country taking away again from the people that support the Governement. Why don't they look at Foreign Aid to countries that the leaders stick in thier pockets? And other places as well.
Cut Federal Spending
DoD Employee DoD Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:06 AM
Where do you begin with all the ways? Fiscal years - why not allow agencies to maintain the ability to carryover money versus closing out a fiscal year which results in needless spending versus returning money. Disability for veterans - why do individuals who have situations such as a hereditary degenerative disc disease or a hysterectomy qualify for a disability rating and money. Shouldn't the disability be tied to a war/conflict or at least work-related? Government contractors - enough said. Workers compensation fraud - ask any HR office for an approved case which they believe is fraudulent and be prepared to receive multiple cases. Tie compensation to time-limits and require extension requests in the form of a well-documented and informed medical package.
Proposals to Cut Federal Spending
secretary USACE Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:38 AM
These proposed cut are comparable to a drop of water in a lake....how about significant cuts to government spending? How about forgetting to police, feed, and/or finance the rest of the world? How about making laws against warfare against nations that have not attacked us; i.e. filling greedy rich mens pockets? How about mandating that agencies that can't pass their audits lose the difference in funding the next fiscal year. How about eliminating TIF financing for businesses, funding for Big Oil exploration and research, etc. etc. etc.?
Ways To Cut Federal Spending
IH Technician DoD Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:59 PM
Why don`t we cut out Senate and Congressional retirements altogether. That ought to be a pretty good savings for the Government. As for health care, why not put everyone on the same healthcare plan that they have. This would take care of two problems at once.
Don't change rules in mid stream
General Engineer DOT Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:21 PM
HR Specialist from the OPM, I think changing the rules for people who have been with the government with the expectation of retiring at the age of 55 with 30 years or 60/20 or 62/5 is a breach of contract, plain and simple. if you want to change the rules to reflect reality, begin that with new employees who know what they are getting into.
Union Time
Boney Fingers USPS Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:26 PM
A better way to cut Union on-the clock expenses would be for managerment to actually HONOR contracts that they have signed.
To Retiree Treasury Dept
Retired LR Manager Retired Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:36 PM
Retired government employee
Treasury Dept.
Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:25 PM
Post Reply
Ref: "All republicans and Obama haters ..." Why is it that when educated people like me express a view we are labeled "Obama haters." Treasury guy, I do not hate Obama --what I do not AGREE with is his factual running of this country into a hole financially--econ 101--we do not have the money to spend more trillions. What do you not understand...you and others will not silence people like me who have a right to express their views..I do not recall using the word "hate" but you did and so do your cohorts. The liberal view is that there is NO tolerance for those that disagree. So I guess it's too bad that I cannot glorify your perfect administration.
It's an annuity!
Soon to retire Dhs Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:00 PM
What these Senators and in fact most folks do not understand that at least for CSRS, the retirement is as much an annuity as a pension. CARS employees have funded their retirement with 7 percent of their after-tax dollars. So if the good Senators change the rules for CSRS retirement, then 50% of any savings needs to be returned to the employee. After all if we share in the expense of funding our retirement annuity, we should share in any savings as the result of rule changes. Once that is realized, maybe cutting benefits won't result in as much savings. But me thinks the Senators forgot that fact, and will want it all.
This would save a bundle ............
Retired Retired Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:20 PM
If they really want to cut retirement expenses, just base retirement benefit on the number of years the person has worked for the government.
Oh, before you think that is the way we do it now, remember, I said the number of years the person WORKED for the government, not the number of years they were employes.
FED Benefits
Team lead USACE Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:10 AM
Another piece of garbage intended to upset the troops. I did not make any changes in my committment ot the Govt when I signed on or in any form since then. I think the govt should be held to the same standard. With over 30 years faithful and successful service I am committed to seeing that my end of the govt is executed to the best standards possible. This kind of backdoor dealing is the bean counter's solution to everything. Why don't you just force prisoners to work here? Pay them about $0.15/hour and really save money. Typical budget and accounting solutions to everything. I feel the govt has the same committment to me as I made to them and I expect them to honor it.
More unintended consequences
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DON Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:19 AM
If the congresscritters, (of any color or pattern,) fool around with retirement benefits, what makes them think that they will be able to draw the young talent to work for Civil Service? Unless it is a politically connected job that might lead them to other ways of lining their pockets, why would a college grad come to government for less wages AND reduced benefits?
Sure, for the next year or two government looks better because of the recession. Use the recession as an excuse to further shred what is good about civil service then wonder why the new talent left or won't come.
62?
Industrial Specialist NAWCADLKE Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:58 AM
I am 55 yrs old with 36 1/2 years of service, if I have to work until I'm 62 that would give me 42 1/2 yrs worked to collect my pension. I believe congressman and senators can work 4 yrs and get a pension! Why don't they work 40+ years to get a pension that might help the budget.
Want to Cut Federal Spending?
Operations/ Policy/Planning HHS Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:04 PM
I know! Do NOT pass $100 BILLION budgets for wars!
Just a thought...what the heck...
Re: Want to Cut Federal Spending?
Supervisor DOA Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:38 PM
So you would prefer we fight the wars without adequate funding huh?
Re: Want to Cut Federal Spending?
Revenue Agent IRS Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:15 AM
The United States is responsible for 45% of all military spending in the world.
Our defense-related spending for fiscal year 2009 was approximately $1 trillion.
So "adequate" means spending close to the amount spent by the rest of the world combined? Why are we even starting wars to begin with?
Oh yeah, oil, that's why.
Military spending is the place to look for budget cuts. But that won't happen, because there are too many high-paid jobs related to the defense. The Defense Department is receiving funding for projects it does not even want, because of jobs in the districts of the particular members of congress. Dems and Republicans are playing the same game.
We can dominate the world, but we can't seem to be able to take care of each other. Now we are looking to take chump change out of the hides of lowly, faithful GS workers.
That we as a society put up with this state of affairs is evidence that we deserve it.
To Retired LR Manager
Retired government employee Treasury Dept. Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:59 PM
Retired LR Manager
Retired
If you do not fall in the Obama hater catagory, fine. So, evidently you fall in the Republican catagory. I am speaking to both the Obama haters and Republicans. There are some people who responds on Fedsmith who really hates President Obama. I realize some people don't like his policies, but they are not Obama haters. I didn't like Bush policies, but I didn't hate him. Its good that you and I live in a country that allows us to express our views. I have no desire to silent you or anyone else. I love hearing others views and also I love responding to views. I am glad you don't glorify President Obama administration, because all glory should go to the perfect Almighty God and not man, woman, or government. I don't glorify no one but Almighty God.
2% pay raise cut
Firefghter BLM Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:16 AM
Has the big guy up in the white house evr heard lead by example is the president going to take that 2% cut on the pay raise and all the rest of those washington white house people like the senators and the rest of the legislative personnel I would say no the president will let the little people suffer before he does...
Retirement
ACI Department of Justice Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:46 AM
If there is a possibility of eliminating retirement payments for those under 62, what about the federal law enforcement and fire fighters who are required to mandatorily retire at age 57? Many would like to stay past this age and even up to age 62. If they are physically and mentally capable, let them stay longer in federal service.
However, what happens to them if they are not allowed to stay past 57 and the retirement payment does not kick in until; age 62?
Question about Retirement Cuts Proposal
Quality Assurance Manager Dept of Navy Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:54 AM
The article has a section titled "Eliminate Retirement Payments For Federal Workers Who Retire Before Age 62." Is this for FERS only? I thought the CSRS retirement annuity had nothing to do with Social Security benefits (except as earned for working outside federal service).
Cutting Federal Benefits
Admin Officer Department of Army Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:17 AM
If Congress thinks they have a "brain drain" now, just wait until they try to go from high-3 to high-5 and require workers to stay until age 62.
Proposal to Cut Federal Benefits
secretary USACE Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:43 AM
Does this mean those greedy congressmen won't receive a full pension after buying one term of service during which they are not required to attend? Does this mean we'll stop sending American citizens to other countries (as service people or diplomatic employees under federal pay systems) to mess in other country affairs, get mutilated in wars, etc? Will we stop spending $45 billion a year to occupy a base in South Korea where we never belonged and should never have stayed? Will we stop funneling money through the privately owned IMF? What a dream!
Reducing Federal Employee Retirement
Radon Program Project Officer U.S. EPA Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:56 AM
Memebers of Congress are federal employees. They get taxpayer subsidized medical care and 6 figure retirements. They NEVER take cuts in any of their entitlements and benefits - only middle-of-the-night pay increases. It's time that they are included in what they deal out to tax paying subsidizers of their lavish life styles. Do you have the nerve to print this!
Retirement Cuts
Cash Cow for Congress U.S. EPA Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 AM
Reading these comments I'm disheartened at how easily we fight with each other to get a larger piece of our small piece of the federal pie from each other. Look to the people getting the largest piece - Congress. Get some of our taxpayer money back from them. They NEVER realize any cuts, ever. They give themselves raises in the dark of night. Why so sneaky?
Rethuglican ideas on screwing federal employees
Customs and Border Protection Officer CBP Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:11 PM
First off, let me say that I have been a federal employee now for 33 years.Anyone who must work thirty years and reach the age of 55 is not 'retiring early'.FYI I will be 62 next March. I can well remember under the Reagan regime when we feds did not get colas a few times, so lets set that record straight regarding anti-federal employee anti-union member 'St.Ronnie'. Our new President, Barack Obama has proposed a 2% cola for federal employees, and I personally can live with that! How about Congress taking a pay cut for once instead of always granting themselves nice raisies? After all, are we not "all in this together"? Here'an idea from me. How about we completely and immediately CANCEL both Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now inherited by President Obama and to be paid for by our grandchildern? The savings in blood and treasure will be astonomical! How about a full investigation of the war profiteering by Haliburton et.al. that seems to continue ad nauseum? P.S. I VOTE!
Cut Federal Benefits
gruny federal Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:45 PM
I don't see anything wrong w/ the Repubs decreases, but as you stated the Demarses are driving and if the Repubs want it the Demasses will fight it
Republican
SES HHS Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:37 PM
Are these the same Republican that decided to tax Federal pensions twice. Once when we get paid bi weekly and again for thirty years or more after we retire. The congressional budget office is composed of second rate political hacks who could not forcast there way out of a wet paper sack. As a federal employee how about reinstating the rites to severance pay--no more either buyout or severance. Move the pay raises back to end of fiscal year. Increase buyouts to 1/2 the employees current total salary. How you stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of hard working americans(civil servants) and raise the graduated taxes on all incmoe, with no loop holes for dividens, stock options etc.
Republican
SES HHS Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:49 PM
Here is a real idea to save Social Security why don't you make the cut off for deductions 1.5 million dollars.
Retirement - CSRS
Lead Support Services Specialist State Department Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:44 AM
You can come out with this thought if you want to, CSRS employee will make the quickest jump out then you can count the, meaning the "money" you can count. i am 56 and I am departing Jan 2010 the 3rd with my annual leave in hand and TSP. So be careful what is said i nthe dark, the light will be the mass departure of CSRS employees. What a deficit that would cause. Thanks for the heads up message. Will pass the email message to my other friends in the CSRS thinking about retireing. Happy CSRS employee.
Retirement Benefits for FERS Employees
Program Specialist Dept of Veterans Affairs Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:11 AM
I plan on retiring in two years. My retirement benefits suck when compared to CSRS retirement.
Congress has been trying to cut our benefits for years and have been chipping away at it. If the Congress wants to cut retirement cost then they need to look at themselves first. Where in the world can an elected official serve one term and have the best retirement and health package that they voted for themselves as well as voting their own pay increases?!
This is a great country and I'm proud to be able to provide a service to our veterans, but I'm tired and angry that every time you look at the media reports someone is constantly attempting to slash us to death.
Cut Federal Spending
Federal Flunkie doesnt matter Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:31 AM
Instead of cutting wages for Federal employees, why doesn't congress stop allowing companies to send our job overseas. If the jobs that belong to American citizens were here, then we would have more American's contributing tax dollars to the treasury to run our country. We also need to stop taking on responsibility of the world such as policing Iraq (among other countries) and paying for rebuilding efforts there in a country that has a lot more wealth than the US. Also, stop borrowing from China to give to other countries. Bring American jobs back home and let China, India and other Asian country create their own jobs. IF we did this, then our country would be wealthy again. Our country seems to be more concern about the future and well being of other countries and citizens than we are about our own country and citizens. Send immigrants back to their country or make them pay taxes just like American citizens have to. You work here you pay taxes here. Take care of our own first
Cutting Benefits
Investigative Support Technician Dept of the Army Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:50 AM
First I believe the cuts should start at the TOP (Congress, Senate, etc.). Then if still needed, as new federal employees are hired they would go under the new changes, while the existing employees would be grandfathered in.
Cuts in Fed Spending
Compliance Officer OSHA Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:19 AM
Lets start with the House and Senate. Eliminate the free health benefits, free meals, recieving FULL pay for the rest of their lives. You'll save a lot more than what you'll get from us.
Cutting Benefits
Contracting officer DOD Mon Aug 3, 2009 7:54 AM
I've worked 25 years. Cutting benefits now would be like stealing. Those benefits are part of my compensation package. I did the work, now it's time for Uncle Sam to honor its commitment.
Change the terms for new hires, but once on board, the benefits should be locked in.
If spending is an issue, end these pointless wars and save 20 billion a month.
Changing benefits
Industrial Specialist NAWCADLKE Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:13 AM
Does anybody think it is acceptable for the gov't to change its agreement for retirement benefits of employees such as myself with 37 years of dedicated service. Wouldn't it be more prudent to set a limit such as employees with less than 10 years service are subject to the new requirements??
Penalizing older employees who have already served most of their lives in support of the Armed Services is JUST PLAIN WRONG!! Whats next? Take our hard earned money and bail out social security?
Time to get serious
Consultant HHS Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:36 AM
It is time to get serious about the overspending on GS employees. Several things need to be addressed.
1. Free public transportation. This benefit needs to be examined and reduced to only those employees without the means to pay for the service. Six-figure employees getting free public transportation is a travesty.
2. Work from home programs. While these are quite sensible when actual work is being oerformed, in my experience locally it has crearted a three or four day work week and no demonstrable work is being performed at home.
3. Eliminate the early retirement option for all but those in law enforcement and other positions where age is a demonstrable issue.
4. Reduce grade creep. this is the most important item. We have GS-12 and 13 emplyees doing work that barely qualifies for GS-7 ratings.
Cuts
Area Technician Rural Developmen t Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:40 AM
Instead of cutting into Federal employees benefits, why not CUT some social security and welfare benefits that are not deserved by the person. Make they take drug testing before getting their benefits - this would save a lot of $.
Cutting Federal Spending
Personnel Officer DOL Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:23 AM
All of these proposals are not unreasonable and there is nothing to prevent the Federal government from ending up like the Big 3 auto makers in terms of its legacy costs. This is an unprecedented time in our economy and no one is immune from the effects. Many states and municipalities are also having to furlough personnel to make up the shortfall, federal agencies can do the same.
The federal community can do its share starting with the Congress and the White House. Let's start with term limits to eliminate a professional legislature that is on the constant campaign and fundraising from special interest groups. Let's introduce legislation to eliminate pork spending in the appropriations acts. Let's put Congressman and Senators on the same schedule of benefits as the federal civil servants, i.e., they have to meet the same age and length of service requirements to earn a pension.
Yes with parallel changes...
Computer Specialist FAA Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:07 PM
Eliminate Retirement Payments For Federal Workers Who Retire Before Age 62 - Let's cut to the chase. If this is seriously considered, it should be done in parallel with changes to military persons getting 50% retirement at 20 years (as early as age 37) and 75% pension at 30 years (as early as 47 years old). And do it in parallel with increasing the ages for SS benefit payments. We are all living longer (on the govt dollar). My mom is 88 and going strong. I'm a retired CPO and expect to live as long with my Navy pension, FAA pension and SS.
Change "High Three Retirement Benefits" to "High Five" Calculation - OK
Eliminate Full-time Union Representatives From Federal Payroll - OK, but only if the Agencies remove all paid LR pesonnel and make management perform LR activities on their own time.
Cutting Federal Benefits
Grant Proj. Officer EPA Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:29 PM
1)Absolutely eliminate the early retirement social security "shortfall" benefit. 2)Even though I am a union member, eliminate full-time union reps. from Fed'l. payroll. 3)The new FERS retirement plan is not very large and changing to a pension based on avg. salary based on "high five" is very punitive. These cuts will not save more than a few drops in the deficit problem. 4)Cutting back on the military in Iraq, none competiive defense bids, some military bases arnd the world, etc. would save billions that we need at home. 5)Taking back from the Federal Reserve, the right to print our own money and paying interest to "the Fed" on the money it prints would save us more billions as well. 6)Cutting down on the perks that Congress gets - luxurious retirement, medical benefits, franking privileges, etc., would also save the tax payer quite a lot of federal debt.
High 3 Va High5
Mr. DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:59 AM
I have devoted over 40 years of my life to support the defense of our country. And any attempt to change my calculations for my retirement will not go down easily.
Warning leave my retirement calculations alone or be prepared.
Saving the government's money
Worker Government Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:15 AM
Why is it that whenevery the government needs to cut spending they first go to the federal employees and try to place spending cuts on our backs? Federal employees may be paid more than the private workforce but believe me, I have earned every penny of every dollar I have received in salary. I do my job and take pride in the work product I produce; but, agencies just keep on rewarding people that have no business being managers and placing them in management positions. The last coup our office went thru I had to file an EEO suite so I could keep my job and I had done nothing to cause my elimination from the work force other than I worked for previous management who were forced out (through no fault of their own). Let's take a look at congress and the raises they vote for themselves to have and continue to draw after they have left office. I think that is where the cuts need to take place.
Not Fair...
Andy DoD Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:31 AM
I am new fed gov't at age 40. I dont plan on leaving for the private industry either. I am in it for the long haul. I think that $267 million is peanuts compared to the billions wasted on the bailout and oveseas efforts such as rebuilding other countries where we have been at war.
Also, Social Security is wasting too many dollars on deadbeats sitting on their rumps at home that are perfectly capable of getting a job.
And.. way way way too many tax payer dollars being wasted on the illegal aliens especially for health care expenses which will never be recouped.
Leave our retirement system alone. Make it better if you want, but not worse. We work hard and deserve our just rewards at retirement time that we are expecting.
Retroactive Cuts?
Quality Assurance Inspector Dept. of Defense Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:17 AM
If congress does decide to impose these retirement changes, what affect will it have on current retirees? Will these changes only pertain to current employees or will they be retroactive?
fed salary vs private salary
employee fed govt Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:02 AM
Have to be carerful about comparisons...some are meaningless. For those who do not know...corporation employees have the same problem. They work like dogs only to see their executive management folks getting the unbelievable huge bonuses. These same exec's also get whatever bonus money they do not distibute the worker bees. Think about it.
Stop blaming the repubs for everything...HR folks know this: who signed the bill auth'ing fed agencies to audit employee jobs so that lowly paid contactors cxould replace them? Bill who?
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Again
IT Spec USDA Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:55 AM
As long as authors, bloggers, politicians, radio and TV personalities, etc., continue ignoring the facts and insist on comparing unlike elements as you did, their arguments, and yours, are based on falicies and inaccuracies and don't deserve serious consideration. The fact that they keep getting serious consideration does not speak well for the above-listed groups. As a specific example, we'll use your statement that,
"The federal workforce is paid, on average, considerably more than private sector workers."
If you look at the demographics of the workforce, almost 50% (49.6% as of 2008) are in jobs that have no equivalent in the Fed, either because they aren't relevant or, frequently, because they've been outsourced to the private sector. Over 50% of that group is in three occupations: Sales and Related, Food Service and Prep, and Production. In many cases, particularly the Food group, 2d highest percentage of the workforce, are paid well below other jobs. Please, get it right.
cost cutting
Forestry Tech USDA Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:22 PM
In addition to cutting the proposed Federal programs, it should be unlawful for the White House to employ 20 "assistants" ($1.4mm) for the First Lady, as well as appointing an unlimited number of "czars". Total cost of the current 64 additional personnel well exceeds $5mm per year.
Changing Retirement eligability
Management Assistant Internal Revenue Service Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:22 AM
Those of us who have given many years service to the government and are still giving good service should not be penalized by reducing what we have worked for all these years.
We as CSRS are already being penalized with the offset and windfall on our social security we earned in previous years. Now the talk of even penalizing us more by changing the rules on the salary average in years service.
What else is this government going to do to us the people who are not having a say so in the changing of the rules.
Government is suppost to be "BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE" that is not happening.
QUITE GIVING to those who have not every put in a dime into the Social Security program (mainly those from other countries, who we seem to be providing for better than our own people) and provide for us as native americans.
I am
Retired DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:57 AM
all for eliminating the full time union reps - they are a complete waste of time and only involve themselves with either their buddies or the latest and greatest social issue. Outside of that they are clueless, their leadership is worthless, and there is no enduring benefit to joining one.
Re: I am
worker
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:34 AM
Re: I am
SSA and AFGE
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:07 AM
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
civilian agency
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:12 AM
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
SSA and AFGE
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:28 AM
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
dod
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:05 AM
Re: I am
HHS
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:48 AM
Re: I am
Retired DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:53 AM
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
Fed
Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:30 PM
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
IRS
Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:24 PM
Re: I am
DoC
Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:52 PM
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
FAA
Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:17 AM
Typical Republican response. GO AFTER THE WORKERS!!! If they were real leaders they would cut their own budget first.
Retiring before the age of 62
USDA APHIS
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:12 AM
This comment is about to the sentence, "Preliminary estimates indicate that the early retirement benefit costs taxpayers $267 million a year." Who made this preliminary assessment, and how were the results derived? I ask because the value of the retirement package these early retirees get is significantly less than what they would have received if they stayed and collected a full paycheck. Furthermore, once they leave, the government will most likely hire people at a lower payscale to replace them, or to replace the person who takes the retiree's place. In my view, encouraging early retirement results in an overall net benefit for the government, not a cost to the government. Whoever is doing these "preliminary assessments" needs to do some reassessing.
Re: Retiring before the age of 62
VA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:07 AM
Re: Retiring before the age of 62
SSA and AFGE
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:40 AM
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
Fed
Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:34 PM
Re: Retiring before the age of 62
USPS
Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:47 AM
Re: Retiring before the age of 62
DOT
Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:23 AM
Federal Pay
GSA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:17 AM
It is unfair to compare average wages of federal employees to average wages in the private sector because the lower paid employees have been outsourced to such an extent that the average is no longer valid.
I can understand that the general media doesn't understand this dynamic, but I would expect better from journalists that specialize in federal employment issues.
Re: Federal Pay
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:52 AM
Re: Federal Pay
SSA and AFGE
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:02 AM
Re: Federal Pay
fedsmith.com
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:04 AM
Re: Federal Pay
DoD Agency
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:08 AM
Re: Federal Pay
FED
Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:30 PM
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
fedsmith.com
Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:48 PM
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
civilian agency
Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:54 PM
Re: Federal Pay
FED
Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:20 PM
"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
USDA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:22 PM
Re: Federal Pay
DoD
Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:47 AM
Re: Federal Pay
DOT
Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:39 AM
Cut Federal Spending
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:19 AM
Here is a crazy idea, stop the waste in government. Operate within budget. Eliminate paper exercises that only waste time when the decision has already been made. Stop duplication of work. In other words streamline government as it should have been done, but never got done years ago. It is very easy to look at a retirement program that is not broke but the government is broke. No pun intended.
Re: Cut Federal Spending
SSA and AFGE
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:12 AM
Re: Cut Federal Spending
VA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:08 AM
-> 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
Around
Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:45 PM
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
DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:21 PM
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!
Betrayed
Homeland Security
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:20 AM
I am within 2 years of retirement with 31 years and 55 years of age. So now when I am looking forward to retirement the same government that I have worked for wants to change the rules. That is absurd. This country is in a bad economic mess. There are young people that need jobs. Making folks work longer only delays possible position to a younger generation. When FERS came along that basically did away with CSRS retirement. Eventually the government system will all be FERS. So why penalize the remaining CSRS workers?
Re: Betrayed
US Gov
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:04 AM
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
Interior
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:56 AM
Re: Betrayed
NPS
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:36 AM
Cutting Federal Spending
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:23 AM
Another option for reducing federal spending is to merge agencies that have redundant missions. One example would be to merge the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Energy, Corps of Engineers, etc. All of these agencies have huge planning, design/engineering, and construction services and staff. It only makes sense to have one "federal engineer" to perform these functions. The cost savings would be huge. From the consolidation, the federal government could affort to have a "federal" engineering office in each state [sized accordingly] and be able to better leveragel both human capitol and other resources.
Re: Cutting Federal Spending
FED
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:24 AM
Cuts to federal employee benefits
Army
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:25 AM
I really don't get it. What's cheaper? To let me retire at 55 at a portion of the salary I'm making now, or keep me on the rolls for another 7 years and paying me full salary? It doesn't add up in my mind.....
Re: Cuts to federal employee benefits
DoD
Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:41 AM
Cutting federal benefits
SSA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:27 AM
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
DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:28 AM
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
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:59 AM
Your Congressman or woman, not that it will really make a difference.
Ready to Retire
Fed
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:28 AM
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
DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:35 AM
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
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:01 AM
Re: Antoher Cost Saver
DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:25 PM
Re: Antoher Cost Saver
DOD
Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:35 AM
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
defense logistics agency
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:36 AM
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
Navy
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:37 AM
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
fedsmith.com
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:44 AM
Re: Cut Federal Spending on the backs of federal worke
SSA and AFGE
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:32 AM
Private Sector includes Walmart, McDonald's, etc. -- not the same
Re: Cut Federal Spending on the backs of federal worke
Fed
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:36 AM
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
OPM
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:43 AM
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
Fed
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:39 AM
It would be appropriate, if necessary, to make the change for new employees.
Re: Above article
Federal
Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:13 AM
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!!!
Federal Spending Cuts
DVA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:43 AM
Cost of living pay increases over the past 30 years have been minimal and now retirement pay will be lowered by refiguring using the high 5 instead of high 3. You can't take anymore meat off the skeleton. Agree with not paying full time union reps. There are plenty of other places to cut spending without any repercussions. Let's explore those areas first.
Benefits
USDA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:44 AM
Something needs to be done. Every retiree and employee is out screaming more, more, more. We set up an environment of expectation and nobody is happy with what they have. Now that there is a Medicare Part "D" let's do away with the 5 years/62 years of age rule - a 10 year retirement minimum. Top 5 pay makes sense - to many get promoted for the sole reason of spending last 3 years fattening retirement pay.
Health Benefits need to be seriously looked at for both retirees and employees (remember the govt contributions). For retirees the costs are hugh for what amounts to supplemental coverage at 65. Why not create a FEHB Supplemental coverage for just those at 65 and above. AARP offers some very good products that run circles around FEHB. How about a Congressional Review into our providers pricing models. Providers say that 2/3rds of every dollar goes out the door for services, questionable for sure but why doesn't anyone question the 1/3 margin.
Re: Benefits
VA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:37 AM
Re: Benefits
Fed
Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:34 AM
I agree that medicare supplemental coverage should be offered, but not mandated, for those over 65. However, the government should make the appropriate contribution that it makes for employees.
Want to Cut Federal Spending? Here Are Proposals t
USAF
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:53 AM
Alexander Hamilton well said, "States, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct." This is another example of elements in the government trying to dishonor the government's contract with those who have spent our lives "working for America", to borrow Bush 43's phrase.
Competing Interests
Navy
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:53 AM
Given recent concerns about losing an experienced Gov't work force to retirement and about an overabundance of contract workers, is this really the right time to propose retroactive changes to retirement programs for workers, many of whom have given 30+ years of dedicated service?
taking benefits
USDA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:56 AM
GREAT! But at the same time employees are being paid maternity/paternity leave, and are being granted benefits for same sex partners. Kinda makes you go hmmmmm!
Proposal to cut government spending
Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:57 AM
I think cut backs in government spending should start at the top - Congress should take a look at themselves because they are nothing but a bunch of OVERPAID fat cats. They haven't had a problem giving themselves fat raises over the years. I don't think they should be allowed to vote on raises for themselves. Let the public do it and see how many raises they get!
Re: Proposal to cut government spending
DVA
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:11 AM
Employee benefit
VA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:03 AM
I am not among those optimist that cuts are not coming. President Obama did say that "a dollar save here is a dollar spend somewhere". In the current funding difficulties, I do believed that these changes are coming. How soon and when is the question. I don't believe federal employee get pay more than the private sector, our salary might appear more in some position, but in a good year, private sector emplyee may end up with more lucritive stock option that would elevate their income. If the federal government take away the benefit and decrease salary range, what else is there that would make government job an attractive alternative to private sector?
CUT FEDERAL SPENDING
DOT
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:12 AM
where was all of these suggestions when republicans was in power and who made these mess.
Federal Cost Savings
DHHS
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:23 AM
Based on my experience at the IRS and HCFA/CMS, two proposals to help the federal budget are: collect unpaid taxes (hire additional staff to accomplish this - tens of billions go uncollected every year), and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare (hire enforcement staff to go after the mioney). In the 1990s the feds acknowledged Medicare fraud losses as high as 14%, but employees knew it was closer to 30%. About $100 billion (with a "b") every year. The money is out there. Go get it. Republicans will oppose either initiative. In fact, they already have. Guess which party corporate tax cheats and for-profit health care crooks identify with.
Here we go again!
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:24 AM
If they do away with the SS Suplement, the only employees that affects are FERS employees. Once again, the FERS folks get the shaft. You suppose the person that was complaining about CSRS people not getting matching TSP contributions wants to switch to FERS now? I started out as a Clerk Typist making $13,000 a year when the contractors sitting next to me were making $26,000 a year. I worked my way up and with 8 more years until I am 56 with 30 years of service to go, this information is very dismaying. If I wanted to work until I was 65, I'd have stayed with the private sector so I could get those lovely LARGE bonuses at the end of the year, negligible red tape, state of the art computer equipment, company provided cars and phones, private jets to fly me around.
All of this because our leaders couldn't allow several large corporations to go out of business (which happens to small business all the time!) hoist by their own petard? What American thought this was a good idea?
Re: Here we go again!
DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:30 PM
Retirement calculation change & retirement change
Internal Revenue Service
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:26 AM
It is being said that the government benefits are better than the private sector. This may be true with a few smaller companies, but the large companies are much more generous that the government.
We as lower graded employees, cannot live on what we would draw with the calculations being based on the average of 3 years. Now if they change it to 5 years they will definatelly not be able to live.
I am still having to work because we cannot make it on what I will draw at a grade 7 (unable to get a higher grade, because of age) and have 35 years with the government. I along with others are being penalized because we worked outside the government before coming to work here. Now this not fair. They are already making it hard by cutting off 400. or 500. dollars from what we should be able to draw on social security and not talking about changing the calcualtion on retirement funds.
If this is about to pass let me know and I will leave and take all my expertise with me.
Get real
DON
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:26 AM
The CSRA employee is becoming an rare and ever rarer species of civil servant. ALL of us are close enough to retirement age to deserve a grandfather clause to whatever change is made. Even if not granted, and the final CSRA cohort is forced to work an additional 7 years to retire, or force the last of us to take a cut in retirement by changing the formula, well, there just aren't enough of us left to make more than a token savings...bought at the breaking of the promise that kept us in civil service when the time was good to make a move out.
If you want to save some real $$ with this, you would have to recalcualte EVERY living CSRA annuitant's payment based on high 5...
Don't take an infintemeal portion of the trillions of dollars being recklessly spent out of our hides. Certainly not while going on a hiring fest.
Re: Get real
Fed
Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:39 AM
120 Million for Union
US Forest Service
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:30 AM
120 Million for Union sounds like a lot, but is it? How much does the government spend on Human Resources Management (HRM) for all the federal agencies. I'll bet you my agency alone spends somewhere between 30 and 60 Million on HRM alone and if you add up all the costs for HRM for all government agencies you are talking close to 100 times as much as the total Union costs.
As for the comment about taking care of their buddies only, by federal law unions have to represent all bargaining unit employees, regardless of whether they are "dues paying union members". Consequentially there is little incentive to be a dues paying member. If your local union is not representing you, then maybe you should get active in your local union. I don't know of many local unions in the federal sector that have an over abundance of active members It is always easy to sit back and throw stones. It is a different thing to step up to the plate and do something to make a difference.
Re: 120 Million for Union
DOD
Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:50 AM
Free Stuff
None
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:32 AM
FTA: "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that moving to a five year average (in retirement calculations) would save taxpayers $1.2 billion over five years."
That's chump change in these days. Yes, Bush ran up the credit card; Obama is wearing it out. But who cares? Pretty soon even cash money will be free - as in worthless. Don't forget, the only backing is the "full faith and credit" of our profligate government.
IR Specialist
Homeland Security
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:36 AM
Just so you know, I made more money in the private sector doing what I do and it has taken me 5 years to catch up to what I made back then. We do not all make 60,000 and even if we did, we are on call 24/7 with a phone glued to us. My benefits were much better in the private sector, and they are still better at that company today.
Cutting pentions etc.
USPS
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:41 AM
I resent this article completely. Im a federal worker, retired and I dont need e-mails from someone wanting me and my co-workers to be the sacrificial lambs. Why not take a look at congress who get their full soc. sec. and other pentions while they cut us with the likes of WEP and GPO. ? Cant they start with themselves to set an example? I bet not.
How to Cut Federal Spending
TREASURY
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:41 AM
I am amazed and puzzled that our Feredral Government pays workers to come to work. I am referring to the Public Transportation Subsidy Program.
In the private sector, no one paid me to come to work. The worker assumed the costs of his employment. As a Federal employee, I refuse to ask the government to pay me to come to work. Logically, it should be my investment in me and my career.
Eliminating this boondoggle, could only reduce federal spending
Re: How to Cut Federal Spending
Fed
Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:47 AM
Since I do not live and work in locations that allow me to efficiently use this benefit, I am not affected by its elimination. However, it is a good idea to keep it.
Keep Working
Air Force
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:43 AM
No retirement until 62. Let's look at CSRS employees. The latest Air Force figures show 21,035 CSRS employees are still working whereas in 1994 that figure was 87,494. Yet, one 85 year old has been working for 65 years - IMAGINE THAT! This particular proposal is going to save how much? I suppose there are a few CSRS employees that would rather bail out before 62 rather than be forced to keep working. I would not be one of those since I was planning to work until 62 anyway (38 years of service). Now the high five would give me reason to pause and rethink my retirement date. For FERS employees these proposals would cause many to grumble and disparage the prez and congress for being cruel employers.
Join NARFE
DOI/NBC
Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:57 AM
This article is a clarion call for ALL federal employees to join and support NARFE, the only organization dedicated to protecting our earned benefits and entitlements.
At a time that a budget for the previous administration's war of choice is over $100 Billion, mostly going to Cheney's military/industrial cash cow, why even bother messing with the lives and welfare of dedicated Civil Servants?
I proudly voted for Obama and will hold his administration accountable for changing the direction imposed by the Bush regime. That change includes a different dialoge when discussing ways to cut the deficit. We should not be penalized and expected to bail out a mess caused by the cynical right wing of the GOP that wanted government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub. I suggest the budget gurus get some of the deficit funding out of the overpaid CEOs of the private sector that we the people have bailed out.
Want to Cut Federal Spending
DOL
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:28 AM
I completely agree with Ralph Smith's comments, but add that he did not go far enough. I completely agree that Union officials ought to have their salaries paid for that portion of their time that is spent in representational activities. In fairness though, if employees wish to have a Union, which is their choice, then they MUST pay dues. Too much time and money is spent on frivilous grievances and appeals. The government should operate under the very same standard as industry - employment at will. The idea that if I do not produce or I do not want to be a model employee could lead to my dismissal would change the workplace immeasurably for the good. Lastly, Congress should have the same benefits as other federal employees, and not the gilt they reserve to themself, and there must be term limits.
Re: Want to Cut Federal Spending
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:09 PM
There are term limits, it's called voting.
Government Cost Cutting and Employee Benefits
Internal Revenue Service
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:40 AM
The downturn in the economy and the growing federal deficit have largely been attributed to the greed of a few in the private sector and the reduction of government oversight, supporting and encouraging them, occuring largely under Republican administrations. Any "cost cutting" should be accomplished by increasing government revenues by taxing and penalizing those in the private sector who helped cause the problem, not by reducing benefits of government workers or private sector workers who are not the direct cause. I find it very ironic that Republicans who have historically been for less oversight and regulation now want to penalize those who had nothing to do with a problem they themselves helped to create. This from a staunch Republican supporter for the past 30 years until 2005. Not anymore!
What is going on?
Department of Agriculture
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:49 AM
Why is always the little guy who has to pay for the mistakes made by our politicians? Instead of reducing payments and benefits to the Federal workforce, politicians should cut all the pork and control all the money we all pay in taxes.
Government employees might have "better" benefits when compared to the private sector, but the private sector pays a lot better thasn the government. That has been the norm as far as I can remember.
Bewildered! Betrayed! (continued)
FAA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:50 AM
I believe that all federal employees should volunteer to wait until age 65 to retire. That would save untold billions of dollars (sorry Army Mgt - when you retire, the gove pays your retirement and the salary of the person that replaces you, so it does add up).
any federal employee who doesn't agree is obviously disloyal to this great country and doesn't deserve a pension.
Re: Bewildered! Betrayed! (continued)
you decide
Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:56 PM
While you are volunteeering, why don't you just set the example and retire upon death?? That way you could save the gov everything they would have paid for your pension - no wait - why don't you contiue working for $0 salary and retire upon death - now that is a true loyal patriot!!
Re: Bewildered! Betrayed! (continued)
FAA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:17 PM
Proposals to Cut Federal Spending
DOL
Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:14 PM
I am CRS retired at age 55 with not quite 40 years of service but if I had continued another 7 years to reach 62, calculate the difference. I would be using 47 years of service, 62 years of age and at a GS 12 Step 12 for my last 5 years. I'd be raking in the bucks! It doesn't seem to me that there would be a savings...just a delay in paying me more. Also, Mr. Editor, does the amount of $$ estimated on the Federal Employee's pay include the contract workers? There are a lot of different ways to cut down federal spending. At the top! There are very few Union Representatives on 100% official time and those are the National Union Representatives. The rest still have to do their work and meet there standards and do their union work using an estimate of 25 - 30%. The rest is on their own dime.
Federal Pay
DoD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:30 PM
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.
Work for Free!
DHS
Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:19 PM
Maybe our congress will ask us to work for free for a month just like the CEO of British Airways asked his employees to.
Cutting Federal Spending
USDA Forest Service
Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:42 PM
The President, his staff, and Congress need to lead by example. If we take a hit, then they need to take the hit first. Especially since they seem to exempt themselves all the time from the sacrifices that they expect the rest of the federal employees to make.
Cutting Federal Benefits
US Postal Inspection Service
Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:45 PM
To work for the federal government or not to work for the federal government. That is the question. A graduate in the top ten percent of his/her graduating class sees the private sector as very competitive, offers higher compensation packages, but their retirement benefits are not as good. The federal government, on the other hand, strives to higher that top ten percent graduates, not with via compettitive salaries, but by the benefits it offers, especially retirement benefits. Play with this and you will loose tens of thousands of top candidates. If you feel the government offers bad to mediocre service, wait until you loose possibly highering the talented ones.
Savings???
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:22 PM
"Preliminary estimates indicate that the early retirement benefit costs taxpayers $267 million a year."
"Congressional Budget Office has estimated that moving to a five year average would save taxpayers $1.2 billion over five years."
Doesn't Congress realize how miniscule these amounts are in relation to the federal budget or federal deficit? You're talking a few pork barrel proects worth of money here. Federal employees have always been an easy target because, with the exception of Virginia and Maryland, we are not concntrated enough in any given Congressional District to make a diffference to the pols.
If these changes are enacted, it will be for show, not for their real impact.
Uninteded(?) consequences
DON
Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:44 PM
Then again, changing the rules without a grandfather clause would definitely cause a mass exodus by all who could manage it. The 2% per year reduction (but with actual colas after that !) would start looking more and more attractive. My personal plan IS to work until about age 60, although at 50 I already have 25 years, to help my bottom line. But if the math changes...I am out as soon as possible!
Now, as to pay rates...I consistently make (currently about $1,000) LESS than my demographics suggest for this area. (not overpaid!) and I work very intelligently and hard.
Perhaps all bankm, investment, and wall-street workers in the private sector were getting the outrageous paychecks? Or maybe just a notorious few, who then proceded to give the entire industry a bad name?
Soo, we want to emulate them?
Sooo, maybe most of government isn't outrageously paid and should be punished?
But, we are vulnerable and will be made villians
Grandfather
Around
Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:51 PM
The only way this will pass the sniff test is to grandfather and apply the rules to new hires.
Just in case, I have requested my retirement figures for 08/01/2009, when my default plan is 01/03/2012.
STOP Making Feds the Scapegoats!
Retired
Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:32 PM
This president and congress are spending immorally and want to take it out of the hide of fed employees and retireees. Unions take a stand on this nonsense. Obama is stealing from the coffers for bailouts of car companies while their unions protected rights of its workers. The trillions Obama has spent and now more for a pie in the sky health plan that will ruin us and health care in this country. I'm sick of these incompetents. Our nation needs to STOP spending..call and write to your reps like I do...that's the answer..not the ruin of fed employment and this country.
Federal employee benefits
Treasury Dept.
Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:25 PM
All republicans and Obama haters who respond to this issue, you see what your congress republicans are proposing. These republicans are proposing a complete turnaround of the federal retirement program and changes in active employees workforce. If these proposals are approved and passed by congress, you can blame your republicans. They may not necessarily have your best interest at heart. Personally, I do not agree with any of the change to the federal retirement program. Hopefully, President Obama and the democrats will provide a better proposal that will not hurt active federal employees and their retirement.
official time
DLA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:32 PM
when i worked for the phone company, when i was on union time, the union had to pay me, not the company (called recompense for lost wages) and i'd get a W-2 from the Local, also.
High 5
DOD
Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:43 PM
When workers are so close to be able to taste retirement it would not be fair to change the rules and tell us oh by the way your benefits will be based on the high 5 years. Again less money. Many outside of the government seem to not even know that us CSRS workers don't get to cash in on Social Security as those in congress do. Our spouses pay the same into the SS system but they don't get as much out since we can't get 50% as a spousal benefit. We pay a lot for our "generous" benefits. No one knows how much we pay for our health insurance either.
Federal benefits
Unemployed
Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:49 PM
Look into the Workman Comp program and abuse by Fed employees.Agencies do not have a clue and HR and Dept of Labor is useless in resolving concens of managers. Needs a RN or Nurse Practitioner to provide oversight and provide case management of workload.
cut federal spending, not federal benefits
usps
Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:11 PM
The min. age for retirement is 56 with at least 30yrs of service. At that age for myself, I'll have 37 yrs. with the first 8 yrs in Marine Corps / government work. I paid money to the gov. so that I could utilize the first 8 yrs towards usps retirement. The fers offset is number of years divided by forty, equals the percentage of what the payment you'd receive at age 62 with soc.sec.
I've listed my personal status to show some background for my concerns.
My best memory has disputed a few things in your article.
1) fers offset is already funded by usps
2)If you served on active duty on csrs, you would have to pay money back into soc. sec. to have that time count w/fers
3)union official time is paid by usps management.
4)majority of usps workers are fers not csrs. Majority of csrs retirement would be at the burden of usps and taxpayers.
5)the usps doesn't receive tax money for it's operations. The American citizen pays our wages without tax dollars.
Thank you American citizens
retirement cuts
USDA-Food Safety & Inspection Service
Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:12 PM
I guess I'm just old enough to have seen enough changes that nothing surprises me anymore. First they mess around with the TSP, now they want to pay us less than a poverty level income after we have given them 25+ years of public service. On top of that they want to say, "Oh by the way, you won't get a check until age 62 and when you do get it the amount will be significantly less than the estimate we supplied you with when you requested your retirement package." Tell me again....how much do our agencies value our service to our government?
Democratic Waste In White house and Congress
US Army
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:23 PM
This what you get when you give the Democrats all the power and throw away the checks and balances. They are known for never seeing a tax they didn't like. This is just another step in the direction of socialism and government control of everything. You who voted for these people deserve everything get, don't get or are denied.
Cut Federal Spending
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center DHS
Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:12 AM
The government oversight needs to take a hard look @ all of the SES positions here @ the FLETC as well as other agencies and realize the excessive titles being awarded at great tax payer expense and loaning an Assistant Director SES position to a local community college with no real date of return to their official duties and this position is being paid by taxpayer dollars.
Now where is the excessive waste of government resources?
LIVID!
DOD
Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:22 AM
Well, I guess us HR Specialists can take it easy now that the majority of FERS employees will not be retiring at 56 or 57 years of age now, we'll all have to stay until we're 100. I'm sure that 40 years of service is not enough, the next great idea President O will have is increasing the retirement age again.
PEOPLE! If you have never written your Congessperson before, DO IT NOW and tell them to leave our FERS retirement alone, we know that our retirement is no where near as good as CSRS, this would make it that much worse!!!!! It would be one thing if they grandfathered in all of the current FERS employees and new employees would be subject to this "new and improved" retirement, that way, you would know going in what the "rules" were.
If I were a CSRS person that transferred to FERS, I'd be absolutely LIVID over this !!!
Benefits
BOR
Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:20 AM
Life ain't fair and having a lot of experience in that department, if I get a retirement at all, I am doing better than a lot of people. Many workers lost 50% of their retirement funds in the greed fest of the last bull market. What corporate greed has done is going to cost ALL of the "little people" and the CEOs of greed still believe they deserve what they "worked" so hard for.. a job well done for them. As a Fed, I want the best retirement I can get; but as a taxpayer, reality is the greed fest trashed the retirement plans of all the "little people." Put the blame where it belongs and put leashes back on the corporation pit bulls. The little people have lost their "government for the People" to the "gov. for the best corporate lobbyist." The bank is robbed - your money's gone. When you put the job on the janitor, all he can do is clean up the bloody mess. WallStreet has lost credibility... without the gov. backing corporations, where do you trust to put your future money???
Saving money
USACE
Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:55 AM
we have $3.6 trillion budget and you are proposing saving about $300 Million dollars are .00083333% another way of looking at this if you go to buy a $200,000 house would saving $16.67 or buying the house for $199,983.30 make a difference in your family budget? If you want save real dollars and bring government spending under control you make big cuts these programs, defense, Social security, Medicare / Medicaid. Keep this budget in place and allow the economy to grow until we have a balanced budget. The government departments would do what is necessary to keep existing programs funded at present levels and that may mean freezing the number of people receiving SS, freezing the total amount of money for medical services so doctors would make less per procedure, defense would need to continue programs at current funding levels if a program needed more money then it could cut or eliminate another program. When income equaled expenders then congress could look at cutting taxes.
Cutting federal spending
DOD
Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:04 AM
End of the year spending on items the agencies don't need. Here at DOD. August and September they go on a rampage spending on things they don't need. But the reasoning behind it is "we will get a smaller budget next year if we don't spend this year's funds. Stop messing with federal workers wages and benefits.Imagine the savings if all government agencies spent on things they really need, especially in these bad economic times
retirement benefits
VA Hospital
Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:30 AM
I have just passed the 20 year service mark and I am 67. This article indicates there may be some new benefits in the near future and other than the possible pay for sick leave, do you have any idea of what the neew benefits would be. I am sure the change to last high 5 will be approved and will want to retire before that happens. Due to that I am thinking of retiring in July of this year.
I have enjoyed your column. It has/is very helpful in many areas. Thanks
Cutting Federal Benefits
IRS
Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:40 AM
Are federal workers overpaid? Who knows? The article sited is one man’s opinion. It’s no lie that recent economic policies have driven down real wages in the private sector. The consequence is higher wages in the federal sector. The government attracts talented workers, not by offering a higher starting salary (because it is substantially lower than most private starting pay), but by offering the promise of secure benefits in the form of pay increases, health care and retirement.
Is the answer to our current economic problems to allow the government to renege on that promise? The government makes an economic contract with its workers that it should not be allowed to break after 30 years of service on the basis of a bad economic business cycle.
A misrepresentation in the article is the notion that all government retirees receive supplemental pay until age 62. This is only true of FERS retirees and is not an entitlement shared by CSRS retirees. This supplement was put
Want to Cut Federal Spending? Here Are Proposals t
federal aviation administration
Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:47 AM
The peanuts in $$$'s that may be saved, while politically popular with some and certainly newsworthy for a short time, will make little or no difference in the large scheme of things. In fact, there will be such a mass exodus of senior managers/employees that the real effect of such an action may cripple some agencies. There are already programs in place that attempt to keep senior employees from retiring due to these concerns. How about doing a little research in this area and reporting on these programs and concerns?
Benefits
BOR
Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:55 AM
If they want to save money, then why are they handing out benefits to the "partners" of gay and lesbian federal employees? It seems to me that there is no way to track that, and it is super unfair to those of us in regular relationships that aren't married yet. So someone who cannot legally get married can get health benefits compliments of the federal government, but because someone in a heterosexual hasn't gotten married they are denied these same benefits. If you want to cut government spending start there. These same sex marriages are slowly costing America lots of money with their court cases and now health insurance.
Sacrifice pay raise 2010
dept of defense
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:21 AM
I would gladly sacrifice my pay raise in 2010 if Congress can do the same. That includes everyone at Capitol hill and judges too. Matter of fact, Congress is always taking care of themselves first, have a freeze of their raises for 2 years and have them accountable for more days on the job instead of always absentee.
Saving Federal Money
DOD
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:41 AM
Why is it that they would look within the country taking away again from the people that support the Governement. Why don't they look at Foreign Aid to countries that the leaders stick in thier pockets? And other places as well.
Cut Federal Spending
DoD
Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:06 AM
Where do you begin with all the ways? Fiscal years - why not allow agencies to maintain the ability to carryover money versus closing out a fiscal year which results in needless spending versus returning money. Disability for veterans - why do individuals who have situations such as a hereditary degenerative disc disease or a hysterectomy qualify for a disability rating and money. Shouldn't the disability be tied to a war/conflict or at least work-related? Government contractors - enough said. Workers compensation fraud - ask any HR office for an approved case which they believe is fraudulent and be prepared to receive multiple cases. Tie compensation to time-limits and require extension requests in the form of a well-documented and informed medical package.
Proposals to Cut Federal Spending
USACE
Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:38 AM
These proposed cut are comparable to a drop of water in a lake....how about significant cuts to government spending? How about forgetting to police, feed, and/or finance the rest of the world? How about making laws against warfare against nations that have not attacked us; i.e. filling greedy rich mens pockets? How about mandating that agencies that can't pass their audits lose the difference in funding the next fiscal year. How about eliminating TIF financing for businesses, funding for Big Oil exploration and research, etc. etc. etc.?
Ways To Cut Federal Spending
DoD
Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:59 PM
Why don`t we cut out Senate and Congressional retirements altogether. That ought to be a pretty good savings for the Government. As for health care, why not put everyone on the same healthcare plan that they have. This would take care of two problems at once.
Don't change rules in mid stream
DOT
Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:21 PM
HR Specialist from the OPM, I think changing the rules for people who have been with the government with the expectation of retiring at the age of 55 with 30 years or 60/20 or 62/5 is a breach of contract, plain and simple. if you want to change the rules to reflect reality, begin that with new employees who know what they are getting into.
Union Time
USPS
Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:26 PM
A better way to cut Union on-the clock expenses would be for managerment to actually HONOR contracts that they have signed.
To Retiree Treasury Dept
Retired
Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:36 PM
Retired government employee
Treasury Dept.
Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:25 PM
Post Reply
Ref: "All republicans and Obama haters ..." Why is it that when educated people like me express a view we are labeled "Obama haters." Treasury guy, I do not hate Obama --what I do not AGREE with is his factual running of this country into a hole financially--econ 101--we do not have the money to spend more trillions. What do you not understand...you and others will not silence people like me who have a right to express their views..I do not recall using the word "hate" but you did and so do your cohorts. The liberal view is that there is NO tolerance for those that disagree. So I guess it's too bad that I cannot glorify your perfect administration.
It's an annuity!
Dhs
Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:00 PM
What these Senators and in fact most folks do not understand that at least for CSRS, the retirement is as much an annuity as a pension. CARS employees have funded their retirement with 7 percent of their after-tax dollars. So if the good Senators change the rules for CSRS retirement, then 50% of any savings needs to be returned to the employee. After all if we share in the expense of funding our retirement annuity, we should share in any savings as the result of rule changes. Once that is realized, maybe cutting benefits won't result in as much savings. But me thinks the Senators forgot that fact, and will want it all.
This would save a bundle ............
Retired
Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:20 PM
If they really want to cut retirement expenses, just base retirement benefit on the number of years the person has worked for the government.
Oh, before you think that is the way we do it now, remember, I said the number of years the person WORKED for the government, not the number of years they were employes.
FED Benefits
USACE
Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:10 AM
Another piece of garbage intended to upset the troops. I did not make any changes in my committment ot the Govt when I signed on or in any form since then. I think the govt should be held to the same standard. With over 30 years faithful and successful service I am committed to seeing that my end of the govt is executed to the best standards possible. This kind of backdoor dealing is the bean counter's solution to everything. Why don't you just force prisoners to work here? Pay them about $0.15/hour and really save money. Typical budget and accounting solutions to everything. I feel the govt has the same committment to me as I made to them and I expect them to honor it.
More unintended consequences
DON
Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:19 AM
If the congresscritters, (of any color or pattern,) fool around with retirement benefits, what makes them think that they will be able to draw the young talent to work for Civil Service? Unless it is a politically connected job that might lead them to other ways of lining their pockets, why would a college grad come to government for less wages AND reduced benefits?
Sure, for the next year or two government looks better because of the recession. Use the recession as an excuse to further shred what is good about civil service then wonder why the new talent left or won't come.
62?
NAWCADLKE
Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:58 AM
I am 55 yrs old with 36 1/2 years of service, if I have to work until I'm 62 that would give me 42 1/2 yrs worked to collect my pension. I believe congressman and senators can work 4 yrs and get a pension! Why don't they work 40+ years to get a pension that might help the budget.
Want to Cut Federal Spending?
HHS
Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:04 PM
I know! Do NOT pass $100 BILLION budgets for wars!
Just a thought...what the heck...
Re: Want to Cut Federal Spending?
DOA
Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:38 PM
Re: Want to Cut Federal Spending?
IRS
Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:15 AM
Our defense-related spending for fiscal year 2009 was approximately $1 trillion.
So "adequate" means spending close to the amount spent by the rest of the world combined? Why are we even starting wars to begin with?
Oh yeah, oil, that's why.
Military spending is the place to look for budget cuts. But that won't happen, because there are too many high-paid jobs related to the defense. The Defense Department is receiving funding for projects it does not even want, because of jobs in the districts of the particular members of congress. Dems and Republicans are playing the same game.
We can dominate the world, but we can't seem to be able to take care of each other. Now we are looking to take chump change out of the hides of lowly, faithful GS workers.
That we as a society put up with this state of affairs is evidence that we deserve it.
To Retired LR Manager
Treasury Dept.
Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:59 PM
Retired LR Manager
Retired
If you do not fall in the Obama hater catagory, fine. So, evidently you fall in the Republican catagory. I am speaking to both the Obama haters and Republicans. There are some people who responds on Fedsmith who really hates President Obama. I realize some people don't like his policies, but they are not Obama haters. I didn't like Bush policies, but I didn't hate him. Its good that you and I live in a country that allows us to express our views. I have no desire to silent you or anyone else. I love hearing others views and also I love responding to views. I am glad you don't glorify President Obama administration, because all glory should go to the perfect Almighty God and not man, woman, or government. I don't glorify no one but Almighty God.
2% pay raise cut
BLM
Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:16 AM
Has the big guy up in the white house evr heard lead by example is the president going to take that 2% cut on the pay raise and all the rest of those washington white house people like the senators and the rest of the legislative personnel I would say no the president will let the little people suffer before he does...
Retirement
Department of Justice
Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:46 AM
If there is a possibility of eliminating retirement payments for those under 62, what about the federal law enforcement and fire fighters who are required to mandatorily retire at age 57? Many would like to stay past this age and even up to age 62. If they are physically and mentally capable, let them stay longer in federal service.
However, what happens to them if they are not allowed to stay past 57 and the retirement payment does not kick in until; age 62?
Question about Retirement Cuts Proposal
Dept of Navy
Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:54 AM
The article has a section titled "Eliminate Retirement Payments For Federal Workers Who Retire Before Age 62." Is this for FERS only? I thought the CSRS retirement annuity had nothing to do with Social Security benefits (except as earned for working outside federal service).
Cutting Federal Benefits
Department of Army
Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:17 AM
If Congress thinks they have a "brain drain" now, just wait until they try to go from high-3 to high-5 and require workers to stay until age 62.
Proposal to Cut Federal Benefits
USACE
Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:43 AM
Does this mean those greedy congressmen won't receive a full pension after buying one term of service during which they are not required to attend? Does this mean we'll stop sending American citizens to other countries (as service people or diplomatic employees under federal pay systems) to mess in other country affairs, get mutilated in wars, etc? Will we stop spending $45 billion a year to occupy a base in South Korea where we never belonged and should never have stayed? Will we stop funneling money through the privately owned IMF? What a dream!
Reducing Federal Employee Retirement
U.S. EPA
Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:56 AM
Memebers of Congress are federal employees. They get taxpayer subsidized medical care and 6 figure retirements. They NEVER take cuts in any of their entitlements and benefits - only middle-of-the-night pay increases. It's time that they are included in what they deal out to tax paying subsidizers of their lavish life styles. Do you have the nerve to print this!
Retirement Cuts
U.S. EPA
Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 AM
Reading these comments I'm disheartened at how easily we fight with each other to get a larger piece of our small piece of the federal pie from each other. Look to the people getting the largest piece - Congress. Get some of our taxpayer money back from them. They NEVER realize any cuts, ever. They give themselves raises in the dark of night. Why so sneaky?
Rethuglican ideas on screwing federal employees
CBP
Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:11 PM
First off, let me say that I have been a federal employee now for 33 years.Anyone who must work thirty years and reach the age of 55 is not 'retiring early'.FYI I will be 62 next March. I can well remember under the Reagan regime when we feds did not get colas a few times, so lets set that record straight regarding anti-federal employee anti-union member 'St.Ronnie'. Our new President, Barack Obama has proposed a 2% cola for federal employees, and I personally can live with that! How about Congress taking a pay cut for once instead of always granting themselves nice raisies? After all, are we not "all in this together"? Here'an idea from me. How about we completely and immediately CANCEL both Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now inherited by President Obama and to be paid for by our grandchildern? The savings in blood and treasure will be astonomical! How about a full investigation of the war profiteering by Haliburton et.al. that seems to continue ad nauseum? P.S. I VOTE!
Cut Federal Benefits
federal
Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:45 PM
I don't see anything wrong w/ the Repubs decreases, but as you stated the Demarses are driving and if the Repubs want it the Demasses will fight it
Republican
HHS
Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:37 PM
Are these the same Republican that decided to tax Federal pensions twice. Once when we get paid bi weekly and again for thirty years or more after we retire. The congressional budget office is composed of second rate political hacks who could not forcast there way out of a wet paper sack. As a federal employee how about reinstating the rites to severance pay--no more either buyout or severance. Move the pay raises back to end of fiscal year. Increase buyouts to 1/2 the employees current total salary. How you stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of hard working americans(civil servants) and raise the graduated taxes on all incmoe, with no loop holes for dividens, stock options etc.
Republican
HHS
Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:49 PM
Here is a real idea to save Social Security why don't you make the cut off for deductions 1.5 million dollars.
Retirement - CSRS
State Department
Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:44 AM
You can come out with this thought if you want to, CSRS employee will make the quickest jump out then you can count the, meaning the "money" you can count. i am 56 and I am departing Jan 2010 the 3rd with my annual leave in hand and TSP. So be careful what is said i nthe dark, the light will be the mass departure of CSRS employees. What a deficit that would cause. Thanks for the heads up message. Will pass the email message to my other friends in the CSRS thinking about retireing. Happy CSRS employee.
Retirement Benefits for FERS Employees
Dept of Veterans Affairs
Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:11 AM
I plan on retiring in two years. My retirement benefits suck when compared to CSRS retirement.
Congress has been trying to cut our benefits for years and have been chipping away at it. If the Congress wants to cut retirement cost then they need to look at themselves first. Where in the world can an elected official serve one term and have the best retirement and health package that they voted for themselves as well as voting their own pay increases?!
This is a great country and I'm proud to be able to provide a service to our veterans, but I'm tired and angry that every time you look at the media reports someone is constantly attempting to slash us to death.
Cut Federal Spending
doesnt matter
Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:31 AM
Instead of cutting wages for Federal employees, why doesn't congress stop allowing companies to send our job overseas. If the jobs that belong to American citizens were here, then we would have more American's contributing tax dollars to the treasury to run our country. We also need to stop taking on responsibility of the world such as policing Iraq (among other countries) and paying for rebuilding efforts there in a country that has a lot more wealth than the US. Also, stop borrowing from China to give to other countries. Bring American jobs back home and let China, India and other Asian country create their own jobs. IF we did this, then our country would be wealthy again. Our country seems to be more concern about the future and well being of other countries and citizens than we are about our own country and citizens. Send immigrants back to their country or make them pay taxes just like American citizens have to. You work here you pay taxes here. Take care of our own first
Cutting Benefits
Dept of the Army
Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:50 AM
First I believe the cuts should start at the TOP (Congress, Senate, etc.). Then if still needed, as new federal employees are hired they would go under the new changes, while the existing employees would be grandfathered in.
Cuts in Fed Spending
OSHA
Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:19 AM
Lets start with the House and Senate. Eliminate the free health benefits, free meals, recieving FULL pay for the rest of their lives. You'll save a lot more than what you'll get from us.
Cutting Benefits
DOD
Mon Aug 3, 2009 7:54 AM
I've worked 25 years. Cutting benefits now would be like stealing. Those benefits are part of my compensation package. I did the work, now it's time for Uncle Sam to honor its commitment.
Change the terms for new hires, but once on board, the benefits should be locked in.
If spending is an issue, end these pointless wars and save 20 billion a month.
Changing benefits
NAWCADLKE
Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:13 AM
Does anybody think it is acceptable for the gov't to change its agreement for retirement benefits of employees such as myself with 37 years of dedicated service. Wouldn't it be more prudent to set a limit such as employees with less than 10 years service are subject to the new requirements??
Penalizing older employees who have already served most of their lives in support of the Armed Services is JUST PLAIN WRONG!! Whats next? Take our hard earned money and bail out social security?
Time to get serious
HHS
Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:36 AM
It is time to get serious about the overspending on GS employees. Several things need to be addressed.
1. Free public transportation. This benefit needs to be examined and reduced to only those employees without the means to pay for the service. Six-figure employees getting free public transportation is a travesty.
2. Work from home programs. While these are quite sensible when actual work is being oerformed, in my experience locally it has crearted a three or four day work week and no demonstrable work is being performed at home.
3. Eliminate the early retirement option for all but those in law enforcement and other positions where age is a demonstrable issue.
4. Reduce grade creep. this is the most important item. We have GS-12 and 13 emplyees doing work that barely qualifies for GS-7 ratings.
Cuts
Rural Developmen t
Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:40 AM
Instead of cutting into Federal employees benefits, why not CUT some social security and welfare benefits that are not deserved by the person. Make they take drug testing before getting their benefits - this would save a lot of $.
Cutting Federal Spending
DOL
Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:23 AM
All of these proposals are not unreasonable and there is nothing to prevent the Federal government from ending up like the Big 3 auto makers in terms of its legacy costs. This is an unprecedented time in our economy and no one is immune from the effects. Many states and municipalities are also having to furlough personnel to make up the shortfall, federal agencies can do the same.
The federal community can do its share starting with the Congress and the White House. Let's start with term limits to eliminate a professional legislature that is on the constant campaign and fundraising from special interest groups. Let's introduce legislation to eliminate pork spending in the appropriations acts. Let's put Congressman and Senators on the same schedule of benefits as the federal civil servants, i.e., they have to meet the same age and length of service requirements to earn a pension.
Yes with parallel changes...
FAA
Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:07 PM
Eliminate Retirement Payments For Federal Workers Who Retire Before Age 62 - Let's cut to the chase. If this is seriously considered, it should be done in parallel with changes to military persons getting 50% retirement at 20 years (as early as age 37) and 75% pension at 30 years (as early as 47 years old). And do it in parallel with increasing the ages for SS benefit payments. We are all living longer (on the govt dollar). My mom is 88 and going strong. I'm a retired CPO and expect to live as long with my Navy pension, FAA pension and SS.
Change "High Three Retirement Benefits" to "High Five" Calculation - OK
Eliminate Full-time Union Representatives From Federal Payroll - OK, but only if the Agencies remove all paid LR pesonnel and make management perform LR activities on their own time.
Cutting Federal Benefits
EPA
Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:29 PM
1)Absolutely eliminate the early retirement social security "shortfall" benefit. 2)Even though I am a union member, eliminate full-time union reps. from Fed'l. payroll. 3)The new FERS retirement plan is not very large and changing to a pension based on avg. salary based on "high five" is very punitive. These cuts will not save more than a few drops in the deficit problem. 4)Cutting back on the military in Iraq, none competiive defense bids, some military bases arnd the world, etc. would save billions that we need at home. 5)Taking back from the Federal Reserve, the right to print our own money and paying interest to "the Fed" on the money it prints would save us more billions as well. 6)Cutting down on the perks that Congress gets - luxurious retirement, medical benefits, franking privileges, etc., would also save the tax payer quite a lot of federal debt.
High 3 Va High5
Defense Contract Management Agency
Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:59 AM
I have devoted over 40 years of my life to support the defense of our country. And any attempt to change my calculations for my retirement will not go down easily.
Warning leave my retirement calculations alone or be prepared.
Saving the government's money
Government
Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:15 AM
Why is it that whenevery the government needs to cut spending they first go to the federal employees and try to place spending cuts on our backs? Federal employees may be paid more than the private workforce but believe me, I have earned every penny of every dollar I have received in salary. I do my job and take pride in the work product I produce; but, agencies just keep on rewarding people that have no business being managers and placing them in management positions. The last coup our office went thru I had to file an EEO suite so I could keep my job and I had done nothing to cause my elimination from the work force other than I worked for previous management who were forced out (through no fault of their own). Let's take a look at congress and the raises they vote for themselves to have and continue to draw after they have left office. I think that is where the cuts need to take place.
Not Fair...
DoD
Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:31 AM
I am new fed gov't at age 40. I dont plan on leaving for the private industry either. I am in it for the long haul. I think that $267 million is peanuts compared to the billions wasted on the bailout and oveseas efforts such as rebuilding other countries where we have been at war.
Also, Social Security is wasting too many dollars on deadbeats sitting on their rumps at home that are perfectly capable of getting a job.
And.. way way way too many tax payer dollars being wasted on the illegal aliens especially for health care expenses which will never be recouped.
Leave our retirement system alone. Make it better if you want, but not worse. We work hard and deserve our just rewards at retirement time that we are expecting.
Retroactive Cuts?
Dept. of Defense
Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:17 AM
If congress does decide to impose these retirement changes, what affect will it have on current retirees? Will these changes only pertain to current employees or will they be retroactive?
fed salary vs private salary
fed govt
Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:02 AM
Have to be carerful about comparisons...some are meaningless. For those who do not know...corporation employees have the same problem. They work like dogs only to see their executive management folks getting the unbelievable huge bonuses. These same exec's also get whatever bonus money they do not distibute the worker bees. Think about it.
Stop blaming the repubs for everything...HR folks know this: who signed the bill auth'ing fed agencies to audit employee jobs so that lowly paid contactors cxould replace them? Bill who?
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Again
USDA
Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:55 AM
As long as authors, bloggers, politicians, radio and TV personalities, etc., continue ignoring the facts and insist on comparing unlike elements as you did, their arguments, and yours, are based on falicies and inaccuracies and don't deserve serious consideration. The fact that they keep getting serious consideration does not speak well for the above-listed groups. As a specific example, we'll use your statement that,
"The federal workforce is paid, on average, considerably more than private sector workers."
If you look at the demographics of the workforce, almost 50% (49.6% as of 2008) are in jobs that have no equivalent in the Fed, either because they aren't relevant or, frequently, because they've been outsourced to the private sector. Over 50% of that group is in three occupations: Sales and Related, Food Service and Prep, and Production. In many cases, particularly the Food group, 2d highest percentage of the workforce, are paid well below other jobs. Please, get it right.
cost cutting
USDA
Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:22 PM
In addition to cutting the proposed Federal programs, it should be unlawful for the White House to employ 20 "assistants" ($1.4mm) for the First Lady, as well as appointing an unlimited number of "czars". Total cost of the current 64 additional personnel well exceeds $5mm per year.
Changing Retirement eligability
Internal Revenue Service
Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:22 AM
Those of us who have given many years service to the government and are still giving good service should not be penalized by reducing what we have worked for all these years.
We as CSRS are already being penalized with the offset and windfall on our social security we earned in previous years. Now the talk of even penalizing us more by changing the rules on the salary average in years service.
What else is this government going to do to us the people who are not having a say so in the changing of the rules.
Government is suppost to be "BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE" that is not happening.
QUITE GIVING to those who have not every put in a dime into the Social Security program (mainly those from other countries, who we seem to be providing for better than our own people) and provide for us as native americans.
Thanks