Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 3
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Total Comments: 3
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.0760 | +0.0011 | +2.63% |
| F | $13.4554 | -0.0007 | +6.95% |
| C | $12.9082 | -0.0394 | +23.71% |
| S | $15.5321 | -0.0625 | +27.24% |
| I | $18.2310 | -0.1403 | +27.89% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $15.2768 | -0.0566 | +22.32% |
| L 2030 | $15.1461 | -0.0487 | +19.99% |
| L 2020 | $15.0617 | -0.0401 | +17.13% |
| L 2010 | $15.0897 | -0.0155 | +9.09% |
| L Income | $13.7765 | -0.0111 | +7.76% |
Flexible Options would have been better...
Dept of Treasury
Mon Nov 9, 2009 05:59:32 PM
Post Reply
I agree with the messages so far. This change for many is not effective to curb unnecessary use of sick leave prior to retirement.
It does not provide enough incentive. What should have been considered is an option of 25 - 50 cents on the dollar (or more or less - something fair for the gov’t and the people) for your Pay Per HR * Sick leave hours - now that would make me want to be stringent on my sick leave if I could get $5,000 or $10,000 or $20,000 (or more) upon retirement!
I mean like come on, this way your SL would function like a work incentive, don’t unnecessarily use your SL and - you’ll be building up to a buy-out.
So when you were ready to go and it’s close to your time – you would consider not burning those hours before retirement, but collecting a fair reward for your earnest service upon retirement.
Re: Flexible Options would have been better...
Fed
Thu Nov 12, 2009 09:58:07 AM
It might be nice, but I have thousands of hours of sick leave. I am also CSRS. I doubt they would pay that much.