Federal Civilian Employee Pay Freeze

• se-alum

  

  Writerbuckeye;582374 wrote:I notice you didn't answer my question about what the percentages were. I can only guess why (it probably doesn't help you make your case).
  
  Your link tells me nothing in the way of real information, other than how the steps are spaced out.
  
  I did go to the home page and click in "secretary" to see what the pay ranges are. I got back "miscellaneous clerk and assistant" with a salary range of $30,000 to $44,000 in a number of geographic areas, including Ohio.
  
  Are you kidding me? A basic clerk STARTS at $30,000 with the federal government, and it goes up regularly from there?
  
  That's waaaaay out of whack. I suspect just about the job classifications are equally out of touch with what's happening in the private sector.
  
  And don't tell me it's a livable wage and people need a livable wage...because not EVERY job is (or should be) intended to support a family.

  Yes, IF you receive a step increase, it's right at 3%. So over 30 yrs, you get 1% year. Whoa buddy, I'm gonna buy a new Yacht with my insane pay increase over my career!!!
  I can guarantee you that in the Department of Veteran Affairs, there are no clerks near $44,000/yr.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Well, it is the federal government. Why would I expect it to make sense.
• LJ

  

  Writerbuckeye;582398 wrote:Well, it is the federal government. Why would I expect it to make sense.

  
  They are just a tenure based system
• believer

  

  CenterBHSFan;582357 wrote:Ptown lives and works in DC. He's out of touch with reality already!

  You're right Center. Sorry Ptown. I forgot you live too close to the Land of Oz to know what it's like in Fly-over Country.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;582411 wrote:You're right Center. Sorry Ptown. I forgot you live too close to the Land of Oz to know what it's like in Fly-over Country.

  
  lol, yeah. Dammit, I'm out of touch.
  
  Actually, I think my friends and family back in Ohio as well as some of my friends here and even here on the chatter keep me sane and "in-touch". haha.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  se-alum;582396 wrote:Yes, IF you receive a step increase, it's right at 3%. So over 30 yrs, you get 1% year. Whoa buddy, I'm gonna buy a new Yacht with my insane pay increase over my career!!!
  I can guarantee you that in the Department of Veteran Affairs, there are no clerks near $44,000/yr.

  
  Sooooo missing the point (deliberately, I assume).
  
  You get a 9 percent increase your first three years PLUS whatever raises Congress authorizes on top of that. That is way more than most folks get in the private sector, especially during a time when the economy is poor and inflation is all but nonexistent. This isn't about what it averages out to against your overall salary so much as showing how out of touch economically the federal government (and most governments) are.
  
  That wouldn't be so bad except they depend on tax dollars to keep up a pace that is not sustainable and because it's government, is inflationary in its own right.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;582797 wrote:You get a 9 percent increase your first three years PLUS whatever raises Congress authorizes on top of that. That is way more than most folks get in the private sector, especially during a time when the economy is poor and inflation is all but nonexistent.

  True. Private sector cost of living adjustments tend to be in the 1 to 3% range right now. I haven't seen an annual increase of more than 2% for 7 years not including bonus in the years we hit our goal sharing numbers.
  
  But then again private pay is usually tied to performance and merit absent union meddling.
• se-alum

  

  Writerbuckeye;582797 wrote:Sooooo missing the point (deliberately, I assume).
  
  You get a 9 percent increase your first three years PLUS whatever raises Congress authorizes on top of that. That is way more than most folks get in the private sector, especially during a time when the economy is poor and inflation is all but nonexistent. This isn't about what it averages out to against your overall salary so much as showing how out of touch economically the federal government (and most governments) are.
  
  That wouldn't be so bad except they depend on tax dollars to keep up a pace that is not sustainable and because it's government, is inflationary in its own right.

  
  You have completely ignored the fact that the private sector is already making significantly more than gov't employees.
  
  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-finds-public-sector-employees-earn-less-than-comparable-private-sector-employees-92304034.html
  
  Perhaps those in the private sector should be taxed at a higher rate, you know, to bring everyone closer to even.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Your link did not work for me.
  
  And I don't believe there is a gap between government pay and the private sector, anymore.
  
  When you factor in all the benefits given by government (yes they have a cash value), government is doing as well or better than most in the private sector these days. That's even more true in some states (think California or New Jersey) to the point that they've all but bankrupted themselves because of it.
  
  This insanity has to stop. I'd like to see a thorough comparison of jobs, salaries and benefits done with adjustments made accordingly. If there are government jobs that pay too low, increase them. If there are some too high (as I suspect) cut them back.
• se-alum

  

  Writerbuckeye;583278 wrote:Your link did not work for me.
  
  And I don't believe there is a gap between government pay and the private sector, anymore.
  
  When you factor in all the benefits given by government (yes they have a cash value), government is doing as well or better than most in the private sector these days. That's even more true in some states (think California or New Jersey) to the point that they've all but bankrupted themselves because of it.
  
  This insanity has to stop. I'd like to see a thorough comparison of jobs, salaries and benefits done with adjustments made accordingly. If there are government jobs that pay too low, increase them. If there are some too high (as I suspect) cut them back.

  
  I fixed the link.
  
  There just isn't as much money in a government job as you think. Compare the director of a VA hospital, and the director of a privately owned hospital. Guarantee the pay is nowhere close to the same. The director at a VA, if topped out, is only making around $150,000/yr. Doctors are around $100,000. Way below what a doctor would make in the private sector. It's hard for VA's to recruit physicians because the pay is so good in the private sector. Looking at the big picture, there isn't nearly the money in government jobs as there is in the private world.
• derek bomar

  

  se-alum;583310 wrote:I fixed the link.
  
  There just isn't as much money in a government job as you think. Compare the director of a VA hospital, and the director of a privately owned hospital. Guarantee the pay is nowhere close to the same. The director at a VA, if topped out, is only making around $150,000/yr. Doctors are around $100,000. Way below what a doctor would make in the private sector. It's hard for VA's to recruit physicians because the pay is so good in the private sector. Looking at the big picture, there isn't nearly the money in government jobs as their is in the private world.

  
  you do know that just because on average the Private Sector makes more than the Public Sector, it doesn't give the Public Sector a pass when it comes to shared responsibility, right? We're all in this together dude. Everyone needs to pitch and be willing to make tough choices and sacrifices. A pay freeze isn't that huge of a sacrifice to accept, considering you probably couldn't even get a job in the private sector right now (I don't know what you do - so take that FWIW).
• se-alum

  

  derek bomar;583374 wrote:you do know that just because on average the Private Sector makes more than the Public Sector, it doesn't give the Public Sector a pass when it comes to shared responsibility, right? We're all in this together dude. Everyone needs to pitch and be willing to make tough choices and sacrifices. A pay freeze isn't that huge of a sacrifice to accept, considering you probably couldn't even get a job in the private sector right now (I don't know what you do - so take that FWIW).

  Very valid points. I'm just saying, there's a fallacy out there that all government employees are grossly overpaid, and it's just not true at all. To be honest, the pay freeze will be passed down the line. The $1,200 a year that I contribute to CFC will have to be put on hold for a couple years. So it's those charities that will feel it more than I will. Unfortunately, that's the way it will end up.
• I Wear Pants

  I think se-alum is speaking in a more broad view than just this recent pay freeze. There has been and still is this idea that government jobs have these big paydays and it is largely untrue. Granted, they do have some nice benefits that sometimes aren't found in the private sector but it isn't as if they are making insane salaries which is what you'd expect if you listened to a lot of people.
• se-alum

  

  I Wear Pants;583428 wrote:I think se-alum is speaking in a more broad view than just this recent pay freeze. There has been and still is this idea that government jobs have these big paydays and it is largely untrue. Granted, they do have some nice benefits that sometimes aren't found in the private sector but it isn't as if they are making insane salaries which is what you'd expect if you listened to a lot of people.

  Exactly!! The way to explain government salaries is, you're never going to be at the bottom nor at the top of your profession.
• I Wear Pants

  I do support this pay freeze however despite the fact that I understand that it puts people in uncomfortable financial spots. If only because it sends a good message. Though I think it should definitely apply to congress as well.
• gut

  queencitybuckeye;581684 wrote:Any company in the private sector hemorrhaging a tiny fraction of the money the federal government is losing has already taken this step. Sorry about your personal situation, but big picture it's the right call.

  
  ^^^This. I can appreciate that federal employees would like to make more money now, but the pay has gotten out of control. It used to be many positions paid less than corporate but made up for it with very generous retirement benefits. But now the pay has equalized (and in more than some cases, surpassed corporate) while the retirement benefits have also continued to go up. A govt job is now one of the best paying positions for many careers out there.
  
  Sure, there are exceptions, but you can find postings for hundreds of govt jobs paying $60, $70 even $100k with pensions equal to something like 1/2 to 2/3 (while corporate pensions are mostly a thing of the past, if you're lucky they may match up to $5k in 401k contributions).
  
  It may only amount to a few % off of govt expenditures, but they need to really squeeze the lemon tree. The bottom line is both govt pay AND govt headcount has gotten way out of control.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;583454 wrote:I do support this pay freeze however despite the fact that I understand that it puts people in uncomfortable financial spots. If only because it sends a good message. Though I think it should definitely apply to congress as well.

  
  On one hand, it's kind of comical. Millions of Americans who have had their pay CUT or lost their job all together would be tickled pink over merely a pay freeze. In many private/corporate jobs pay "freezes" or, more accurately, a lack of raises is the norm. You count yourself lucky if you get the occasional paltry COL adjustment.
• gut

  se-alum;583435 wrote:Exactly!! The way to explain government salaries is, you're never going to be at the bottom nor at the top of your profession.

  
  If you put pencil to paper I think you will find that govt pay, including benefits & pension, is generally well above average of comparable private/corporate positions. Sure, you won't get rich, you won't get the big CEO/VP salaries but neither do 99% of the people in comparable positions. It used to be the case that govt pay was more likely in the bottom quintile, but with pension & benefits it was probably overall near the average. And like many things, it could be viewed as a fair trade-off for job security, excellent work hours and generous vacation and holidays allowances.
• gut

  Writerbuckeye;583278 wrote:And I don't believe there is a gap between government pay and the private sector, anymore.

  Used to be a bit below average and now is considerably above average. To be fair, benefits is a tricky thing that muddies the picture. Not all benefits have equal value to a person - a healthy individual would much prefer a less premium health plan and more salary. That same single worker also "subsidizes" the worker with a family of 5, and it's accurate to say that benefits make up a larger portion of that comp than comparable industry jobs.
  
  http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/public-employees/public-vs-private-pay/chart-graph/historical-comparison-public-and-private-sector-compensation-levels
  
• se-alum

  

  gut;583510 wrote:^^^This. I can appreciate that federal employees would like to make more money now, but the pay has gotten out of control. It used to be many positions paid less than corporate but made up for it with very generous retirement benefits. But now the pay has equalized (and in more than some cases, surpassed corporate) while the retirement benefits have also continued to go up. A govt job is now one of the best paying positions for many careers out there.
  
  Sure, there are exceptions, but you can find postings for hundreds of govt jobs paying $60, $70 even $100k with pensions equal to something like 1/2 to 2/3 (while corporate pensions are mostly a thing of the past, if you're lucky they may match up to $5k in 401k contributions).
  
  It may only amount to a few % off of govt expenditures, but they need to really squeeze the lemon tree. The bottom line is both govt pay AND govt headcount has gotten way out of control.

  Again, gov't jobs range from 30k-150k, private sector jobs range from 20k-Millions. Not buying that gov't salaries are out of control. It's a myth. It's the private sector(ie Wall Street) that contributed largely to the down economy, not median gov't salaries.
• gut

  se-alum;583527 wrote:Again, gov't jobs range from 30k-150k, private sector jobs range from 20k-Millions. Not buying that gov't salaries are out of control. It's a myth. It's the private sector(ie Wall Street) that contributed largely to the down economy, not median gov't salaries.

  
  Look at the average comp in the chart posted. You are comparing apples to oranges when you say "pay ranges from 20k- Millions" in the private sector. The top 1% in the private sector earn an average of $400k. Go look at postings for govt jobs and there are hundreds paying $60, $70 even $100k in salary along with very generous benefits and pension.
  
  In 2008, 5% of individuals earned 160k or greater. You won't get rich working in govt, but you are comparatively well-off vs counterparts in the private sector. Make an argument for me why govt workers should make more than the average of their counterparts in the private sectors, counterparts who typically work longer hours and have considerably less job security.
  
  I'm not saying govt salaries are out of control, but I would argue they may be overpaid by 20% or so, on average. Of course, some might say that's semantics as 20% on average is a pretty large number, especially when you consider the ballooning headcounts.
• se-alum

  

  gut;583541 wrote:Look at the average comp in the chart posted. You are comparing apples to oranges when you say "pay ranges from 20k- Millions" in the private sector. The top 1% in the private sector earn an average of $400k. Go look at postings for govt jobs and there are hundreds paying $60, $70 even $100k in salary along with very generous benefits and pension.
  
  In 2008, 5% of individuals earned 160k or greater. You won't get rich working in govt, but you are comparatively well-off vs counterparts in the private sector. Make an argument for me why govt workers should make more than the average of their counterparts in the private sectors, counterparts who typically work longer hours and have considerably less job security.
  
  I'm not saying govt salaries are out of control, but I would argue they may be overpaid by 20% or so, on average. Of course, some might say that's semantics as 20% on average is a pretty large number, especially when you consider the ballooning headcounts.

  In my example, i'm not exempting part of the demographic to make my point. I'm sure you could pick out different pay ranges and show advantages in the public sector for some, and advantages for gov't employees in some. Take it on the whole, and there is much more money in the private sector, even though they are statistically less educated. It is what it is, I'm not saying gov't employees should make more money or private sector workers should make less, as I don't have the Democrat train of thought that it's not fair if we aren't all equal. All I'm saying is, the stigma that all gov't employees are well off is assinine.
• gut

  se-alum;583566 wrote: All I'm saying is, the stigma that all gov't employees are well off is assinine.

  
  Comparatively speaking, yes, absolutely they are well-off compared to the average, not obscenely but considerably more comfortable. Total comp close to 15% above the averages, averages which include those multi-millionaire CEO's and the like.
  
  If it's such a bad gig, then why don't you leave for the higher paying private sector job that supposedly exist in bunches? Like I said, I've looked at govt job postings and was SHOCKED by how much better the comp is than comparable industry jobs. As it stands right now, a given worker is much more likely to do better for himself in the govt job than in the private sector. A 15-20% gap in average compensation is very significant. Sure, you can find jobs and industries where the private sector pays more, and that just means that the disparity in the bulk of the rest of the jobs is just that much greater to get that average disparity where it is.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  But, the private sector should never have to compete with government.
• BoatShoes

  gut;583525 wrote:Used to be a bit below average and now is considerably above average. To be fair, benefits is a tricky thing that muddies the picture. Not all benefits have equal value to a person - a healthy individual would much prefer a less premium health plan and more salary. That same single worker also "subsidizes" the worker with a family of 5, and it's accurate to say that benefits make up a larger portion of that comp than comparable industry jobs.
  
  http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/public-employees/public-vs-private-pay/chart-graph/historical-comparison-public-and-private-sector-compensation-levels
  

  
  Part of this is because private sector wages for the average worker have not been rising and all of the economic growth during that time period in your graph has been going to the very top income brackets. I'm not arguing against the freezes. But let's take a step back and wonder, perhaps those wages that are higher than private sector jobs are normatively what private sector wages ought to have been during that time period.