Fed Jobs - Pros and Cons?

[freebird5825]

"generous" is a relative term. I would characterize it as a "good" or "decent" plan, but it's certainly not free & I've known folks with better and/or cheaper health insurance plans through their large company private sector employers.

I've put many dedicated career years in with a large organization (the fed govt) - one of the reasons I stuck with it was the health care plan.

It's quite important that we have a relatively stable & non-corrupt govt workforce. Reduce federal employee pay & benefits to the level of WalMart & you will soon have a govt workforce like they do in Mexico. You think you are unhappy with govt services now......

a few thoughts...

here's some hard numbers to work with...pretend you work for uncle sam and go to Office of Personnel Management Insurance Programs Main Page and put in your zip code and select a few plans to do a benefit comparison to your own.

or just to look at bare numbers, see http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/08rates/2008non_postal.pdf
find your state and see the ranges of premiums.

some real data - my current premium for medical insurance as a survivor benefit, self only, with no high deductible, is approx $100 per month, and is self paid. that's a bare bones premium level for a single person with no dependents and of course it goes up from there.

medical insurance premiums for feds tend to be less than retail (private sector) because the insurance companies all have to bid against each other for potentially 100s of 1000s of federal employees. so they have to put their best foot forward to compete for the award. hence lower rates (maybe).

fed medical insurance rates and private sector insurance rates = apples and oranges

in the same way, AARP can get better group rates by the sheer volume of their membership.

 

[Texarkandy]

However you characterize the current med plan for fed employees, I'm still curious as to whether Barack or Hillary would attempt to offer a national universal plan to the general public that offers any less or costs any more to each individual than the current fed plan does to its members. I think the opponents of a universal health plan could raise quite a ruckus with the public if fed workers received something better than the rest of the population.

My guess is that the public won't tolerate a mandated universal plan that is perceived as inferior to what fed employees have. If we're talking a universal plan, we're probably talking about gov employees being covered as they are in Canada........in the same plan as everyone else.

I'm not trying to propagate the health care plan discussion to this thread beyond the extent that OP should consider that the advantage of having a better health care plan that fed employees enjoy today might not exist some years from now. We'll have to see who our next president is, what they try to implement and how successful they are at the implementation.

There is a public perception that fed workers have this wonderful plan that is a freebie (or nearly so) paid for with their tax dollars - like I said, yes FEHB is good, but free, no.

As someone pointed out - FEHB works so well because of "competition" - imagine that!!

Private insurers agree to certain rules to be allowed to compete to cover the relatively good risk pool (a risk pool that, by the way, will be completely destroyed if the non-payer uninsurables are allowed in) of wage earning federal employees (who have a bit better track record as a group of being responsible bill-paying people than the general public at large)

Many I've spoken with about federal employment aren't aware that FEHB is actually a bunch of private insurance companies to which the fed employee & the employer (fed govt) pay premiums - they think it's totally free govt paid health care. - a pereception certain politicians (HC) like to turn to their advantage. I've had a few friend's who were surprised at how much premium I do actually pay - as well as co-pays, deductibles, etc.

People don't want to be reminded that FEHB is an "employment" benefit - just like salary - not some kind of health-care welfare. It's politically popular to attack govt employees and their employment benefits.

Since this thread is about the Pros & Cons of federal employment, I guess that's one of the Cons. Another "Con" is that the overall benefits of working for the feds are gradually being reduced administration by administration - and the influence of federal employee unions has been greatly eroded as well (particularly under the current administration)

 

[freebird5825]

There is a public perception that fed workers have this wonderful plan that is a freebie (or nearly so) paid for with their tax dollars - like I said, yes FEHB is good, but free, no.

As someone pointed out - FEHB works so well because of "competition" - imagine that!!

what he said! good answer...

 

[ziggy29]

Since this thread is about the Pros & Cons of federal employment, I guess that's one of the Cons. Another "Con" is that the overall benefits of working for the feds are gradually being reduced administration by administration - and the influence of federal employee unions has been greatly eroded as well (particularly under the current administration)

I would submit that this is another example of what I stated above -- taxpayers are getting more and more fed up over paying higher taxes to help a group of other people keep the great benefits most of us no longer get. As a result, there's just enough resistance to ratchet it down a bit -- either across the board or just giving younger/newer hires the screw job relative to older workers (sound familiar?)...

 

[youbet]

Very informative Texarkandy, thanks.

With the info you've provided showing that the fed med plan isn't quite as sweet as generally preceived/assumed by tax payers, it doesn't sound like being moved to a universal plan would be so bad for fed employees after all.

Well...... the next few years will be interesting. Lot's of "change" in the wind!

 

[ziggy29]

With the info you've provided showing that the fed med plan isn't quite as sweet as generally preceived/assumed by tax payers, it doesn't sound like being moved to a universal plan would be so bad for fed employees after all.

I don't think their health insurance is that much better than what a lot of other private sector folks get...while they are working. It's the benefits they get AFTER they stop working that sets government workers apart -- early retiree health insurance and a pretty fat pension in many cases.

 

[Texarkandy]

Very informative Texarkandy, thanks.

With the info you've provided showing that the fed med plan isn't quite as sweet as generally preceived/assumed by tax payers, it doesn't sound like being moved to a universal plan would be so bad for fed employees after all.

Well...... the next few years will be interesting. Lot's of "change" in the wind!

Everybody's looking for a bogeyman to beat on.

 

[Texarkandy]

.......... and a pretty fat pension in many cases.

Fat?

 

[youbet]

I don't think their health insurance is that much better than what a lot of other private sector folks get...while they are working. It's the benefits they get AFTER they stop working that sets government workers apart -- early retiree health insurance and a pretty fat pension in many cases.

Well..... hard to compare since private plans vary so much. I'm sure the fed med plan for both active and retired fed workers is better than the worse private plans and worse than the best private plans.

My curiosity remains that if we elect a president that wants to implement universal health coverage for both working and retired Americans, will that universal coverage be modeled after the existing fed plans? If not, will fed workers, like private workers, be forced to a universal plan dissimilar to their current plan?

BTW, no resentment (as implied by an earlier poster) on my part to public sector employees. Our extended family is thick with public sector job holders. Teachers, Post Office employees, City of Chicago employees, FBI, etc. In fact, I worked for the State of Illinois for a short time and also was extremely active in the Chicago patronage job scene working for our Democratic precinct captain to keep my dad and uncle employed at their city jobs! No anti-public sector prejudice here.

I'm just curious about the idea of universal health coverage and what it will look like. I think a plan similar to what fed gov employees have is a likely guess. That seems to be what's happened in Canada and Great Britain.

 

[ziggy29]

Well..... hard to compare since private plans vary so much. I'm sure the fed med plan for both active and retired fed workers is better than the worse private plans and worse than the best private plans.

My curiosity remains that if we elect a president that wants to implement universal health coverage for both working and retired Americans, will that universal coverage be modeled after the existing fed plans? If not, will fed workers, like private workers, be forced to a universal plan dissimilar to their current plan?

That could be interesting. I know I have a good health plan with my employer, probably the equal of (or better than) most federal health care plans. Of course, the minute I sever employment, other than COBRA at over $700 a month for 18 months, it's over.

Most "universal health care" plans I've seen (except for the "Medicare for All" proposals advocated by Dennis Kucinich) don't force you into a particular plan, but simply mandate coverage (and subsidizing it for those who have lower incomes). Anyone with employer coverage, whether the employer is public or private, would not be affected while in said employment and while the employer is offering the benefit.

 

[BunsGettingFirm]

I don't recall specifically which posters mentioned more politics in a fed job. Can someone tell me why this is the case?

 

[Enuff2Eat]

I don't recall specifically which posters mentioned more politics in a fed job. Can someone tell me why this is the case?

Non Profit. Yup, anytime you are in a NON profit meaning no real money is being make, your company main income is totally from tax payer or donation. Your existence is based on how big your organization are. the only way to get "ahead" is playing politics.

 

[Bimmerbill]

I've found federal employment to be very secure. I could probably make more money in the IT industry in private sector, but I'd have to work many more hours so I don't consider it a fair trade.

Lots of politics. People higher up have "earned" their way there by working 25-30 years and being promoted many times (paying their dues). So, if you try to get a good promotion you most likely won't get it since you haven't been there long enough and paid your dues yet.

Where I work, some of these long time employees are in pretty high positions. I consider them incompetent managers. They got their by putting in their time tho.

So, you need to have patience. Patience to progress slowly up the ranks and patience to deal with the red tape and incompetent managers (not always, but I've seen lots of it).

Plus, the new pay plan (NSPS) that replaces the General Schedule is built to save taxpayer money. I'm trying to keep an open mind to make it thru the first year and see how my raise compares but I've gotten some distressing news from my boss about how they will dole out the salary increase/bonus.

I'd prefere it as all salary increase, as my pension is based off salary and subsequent raises will compound. They prefer to pay it as bonus, keeping my salary level.

Overall, tho, I like it. I work for the Dept of the Navy, previously for the Dept of the Army.

 

[Bimmerbill]

Forgot to mention that budgets are tight in the DoD. No training budget, no budget for tuition, not much travel.

I work 40 hours only. I won't work longer unless compensated. If I can't get my job done in 40 hours then they need to hire more help. I'm sure this may limit my next promotion, since at that level they consider it a salaried job, with unlimited hours. I don't think that would hold up with the HR office tho...

 

[donheff]

I don't recall specifically which posters mentioned more politics in a fed job. Can someone tell me why this is the case?

I didn't see the original reference but I can tell you from experience that there are a lot of politics as in democratic and republican. Every 4 or 8 years there is a transition and a topmost layer of management is replaced with a new bunch who vary from very smart and highly qualified to dumb hacks. Along with them come a cadre of political helpers at lower levels. The one thing that distinguishes them all is that they are dedicated to whatever political transformative vision the new administration has and they assume the existing bureaucrats are their enemies. Withing a year or two most of them tend to like and respect their bureaucrats but then it is time to rinse and start over again. I dealt with a couple of transitions as an HR director and it can be hair raising.

 

[GoodSense]

I didn't see the original reference but I can tell you from experience that there are a lot of politics as in democratic and republican. Every 4 or 8 years there is a transition and a topmost layer of management is replaced with a new bunch who vary from very smart and highly qualified to dumb hacks. Along with them come a cadre of political helpers at lower levels. The one thing that distinguishes them all is that they are dedicated to whatever political transformative vision the new administration has and they assume the existing bureaucrats are their enemies. Withing a year or two most of them tend to like and respect their bureaucrats but then it is time to rinse and start over again. I dealt with a couple of transitions as an HR director and it can be hair raising.

Sounds like all elected offices are the same. We deal with this every four/eight years with a new mayor, as well as City Council elections every two years (alternating wards). A new campaign platform, a new director, new funding priorities, a new strategic plan, but the same dysfunction.