2 Yr Salary Freeze for Fed Employees

[Gumby]

Welcome to my world. As a state employee, not only have we been totally frozen for two years (i.e. - forgone scheduled general wage increase, no seniority increases) but we have been required to take three furlough days per year without pay and pay an extra 3% of our salary for retiree health care. In sum, about a 4.4% pay cut. About 7.5 % cut if you count the foregone raises. Given the status of our state budget, I fear this is only the beginning. It's a good thing I didn't take this job for the money. I am, however, concerned about my young colleagues who are trying to raise families.

 

[aaronc879]

As a state employee, not only have we been totally frozen for two years (i.e. - forgone scheduled general wage increase, no seniority increases) but we have been required to take three furlough days per year without pay and pay an extra 3% of our salary for retiree health care.

I hate that they give furlough days to people who don't want them. There must be plenty of people who would take extra furlough days so other people wouldn't have to take them. I'd take 50 or more a year if I could.

 

[Gumby]

I am happy to take a furlough day, especially since they have generally scheduled them for days when I would otherwise take a vacation day (like the day after Thanksgiving), but then I can afford it. For those who may be living closer to the financial edge, it is a real burden.

I think the idea of having everyone take the days off is that you can close all the state buildings on those days and achieve additional savings that way.

 

[aaronc879]

I think the idea of having everyone take the days off is that you can close all the state buildings on those days and achieve additional savings that way.

You're right. I had forgetton about that.

 

[Leonidas]

Most feds don't earn anywhere near the salaries that are being spewed.

There is all kinds of weirdness and inequality going on between federal agencies. When I supervised feds and military people I realized there were a few emotional issues about pay/rank equality (like one agency had first line supervisors at GS14, and other agencies used 13s or even 12s). I had an Army 05 working under the "guidance" of an Air Force E4, and an FBI GS11 running a surveillance staffed by mostly DEA GS13s. (One time we started looking at comparative salaries and that was just a bizarre mess from hell that I decided we would not talk about again.)

I think you could look around the federal system and find examples of people not paid anything close to what they ought to be making, and others who are incredibly overpaid. And they might even be doing very similar jobs just for different agencies.

As I recall, we had several years in which Congress could not/would not pass a budget and there were days that all the feds were "furloughed" for a day or two here and there. The LEOs still came to work because they were mission critical, and everyone eventually got paid for those days, even if they didn't come to work. Uncle Sam seemed to be pretty good about making up for such things.

 

[vicente solano]

"A few months ago, the Spanish government announced a 5% salary cut for all staff. However, they also cut their own ministerial salaries by 15%, which helped credibility greatly. (Did I read that when Obama took office, he insisted that all White House staff take a 4-year freeze, or am I imagining it?)"

Don´t get me started on our Government and its credibility. Nor on the Opposition´s!!

 

[BigNick]

At my MegaOrg, we are on a step system. People who don't have one sometimes moan that we get "automatic pay raises". I prefer to say that the going rate for the job is the top of the scale, and they underpay us for the first 14 years. Actually, we just had our intervals doubled, so now it's 28 years.

 

[emi guy]

A long, long time ago I was in the military (upon invitation from Uncle Sam), and worked alongside those of the GS rating vs. my E"x" rating, at the time.

Their salary scale was much greater than mine, even though doing basically the same tasks.

The only time I was close to what their scale was when I was getting "shift differential" (e.g. combat pay) for a year in my SEA "vacation".

IMHO, the military deserves whatever they can get (regardless of assumed employer) as far as I'm concerned.

I would agree if they were there other than by choice.

 

[Khan]

"Everybody's overpaid but me."

 

[Nords]

I would agree if they were there other than by choice.

Golly, does your civilian employer make you sign enlistment contracts too? And do they also have their own judicial system to ensure compliance with their requirements?

 

[jimnjana]

Of course the folks who do actual work for the Federal Government aren't overpaid. Its the 'policy makers' and appointees that get the real cash and perks.

While they may do the "actual work" there is too little actual work to justify there numbers. There is too many of them not earning what they are paid. Pay Freeze one small step, another is to cut number of Federal Employees and cut Contractors.

 

[ziggy29]

While they may do the "actual work" there is too little actual work to justify there numbers. There is too many of them not earning what they are paid. Pay Freeze one small step, another is to cut number of Federal Employees and cut Contractors.

I'd rather not screw existing Federal employees or engage in mass layoffs, but where feasible I do like the "2 for 3" approach for new hires: For every three federal employees lost through attrition or retirement, hire two replacements. If that creates workloads that lead to excessive attrition, then revisit the situation. If it doesn't significantly increase attrition or the "burn rate," then there were probably too many employees to begin with.

 

[Khan]

The big scam going on since Reagan is to replace federal employees with civilian contractors (usually former Mil & Civ & relatives) which actually costs more money and leaves less oversight.

You think there should be fewer federal employees? Great, let's work on it and see what services you want cut.
You think contracting out the functions to the buddies of congresscritters and laying on several layers of sub-contractors and profits and non-accountability is somehow an improvement?
Do you really want USAF inventory (my career) sub-sub-sub-contracted to someone in Beijing?

 

[ziggy29]

You think there should be fewer federal employees? Great, let's work on it and see what services you want cut.

Why is that a given? Private sector workforces have been getting slashed for years and trust me, there has been no expectation that less work get done to compensate for it. Why should the expectation be different just because your employer is the federal government and not Megacorp?

 

[samclem]

Why is that a given?

I guess the underlying assumption is that nothing the federal government is now doing could be done more efficiently. I wouldn't enjoy trying to defend that position.

 

[ERD50]

So the acid test is do they end up spending the same or less total $ over the next two years. Based on the step comments, I'd bet not.

-ERD50

 

[Khan]

I guess the underlying assumption is that nothing the federal government is now doing could be done more efficiently. I wouldn't enjoy trying to defend that position.

The government should not be doing the road building or trash collecting of water supplying or sewage... business.

 

[Khan]

So the acid test is do they end up spending the same or less total $ over the next two years. Based on the step comments, I'd bet not.

-ERD50

The 'acid test' is that stuff needs to be done. And we have to figure out how to get such stuff done as efficiently & economically & as allowing most human rights as possible.

 

[youbet]

The government should not be doing the road building or trash collecting of water supplying or sewage... business.

Not sure exactly what you mean Khan.......

Here in Chicagoland, trash collecting is done by private firms in most of the suburbs. One man to a truck, well paid, but a hustling, tough job. In Chicago, I believe it's still four men per truck with a "supervisor" following along in his car.

Road building is done by private firms. Road maintenance is done by a mix of private and public employees, depending on the township. In Chicago, maintenance is done by city workers. Usually six patronage employees watching one college student summer employee do all the work.

In this area water and sewer all all public. The Chicago Water Dept and its facilities are pretty impressive. Seems entirely different than the Chicago Bureau of Streets and Sanitation.

 

[ziggy29]

And we have to figure out how to get such stuff done ... as allowing most human rights as possible.

Apply that to Megacorp as well as public employment and I might be with you. But when the rest of us keep getting a worse deal year after year, the deal (and the insulation from private sector economic realities) much of the public sector expects is less sustainable.

The public sector deal can not be sustained and promised to new generations and new hires unless the private sector deal stops getting worse.

 

[ERD50]

The 'acid test' is that stuff needs to be done. And we have to figure out how to get such stuff done as efficiently & economically & as allowing most human rights as possible.

No, that is a different test (I'll address in a moment). This is being 'sold' as cost savings. And the implication is that wages will be frozen, thus a static payroll. So the acid test of cost savings is did the total cost stay the same or decrease. If it didn't it wasn't a savings, was it? It might be a 'less of an increase' kind of savings, but I don't think those are the words that come out of their mouths.

As far as getting stuff done, I don't think we know what is required to be as' efficient and economical as possible'. But something tells me that giving raises over and above the private sector in a time of high unemployment is not required. If someone can't work just as efficiently on last year's pay, I'm sure some unemployed person would be glad to take their spot. And that sounds pretty humane to me - why shouldn't the (qualified) person with the biggest need (and therefore generally the highest motivation) get the job?

I've had my salary frozen in bad times (Mega-Corp wide). No one went on a work slowdown, and if they didn't like it they were free to look elsewhere. One of our competitors had a 10% pay cut rather than a freeze - I guess they could send their resume there.

Sorry, I'm getting a bit worked up so don't take it personal Kahn, but whenever I hear people say that a business or government should pay a "humane" wage, or do this or that, I just want to say they should start their own business and pay whatever wage they feel appropriate. No one is stopping them (applies to forums w/o ads too )


-ERD50

 

[jimnjana]

I'd rather not screw existing Federal employees or engage in mass layoffs, but where feasible I do like the "2 for 3" approach for new hires: For every three federal employees lost through attrition or retirement, hire two replacements. If that creates workloads that lead to excessive attrition, then revisit the situation. If it doesn't significantly increase attrition or the "burn rate," then there were probably too many employees to begin with.

Most of the job cuts could come from simply not hiring to fill positions vacated, with large #s of federal employees eligible to retire, it would be pretty painless.

 

[Khan]

Most of the job cuts could come from simply not hiring to fill positions vacated, with large #s of federal employees eligible to retire, it would be pretty painless.

Then what functions should be discontinued?

I maintained computer programs that tracked USAF inventory.

Should that function be discontinued?

 

[leyland]

This is a purely political play by Obama. Since most people's math skills are poor, most people won't realize that it amounts to essentially nothing from a budgetary point of view. I suspect it only applies to COLA and automatic step increases will likely still occur.

$2B doesn't put much of a dent in the $1.3T deficit. And I have to think that preemptive, unilateral, concessions like this will actually make a real bi-partisan deal on the budget a bit harder. If you concede all the things you're willing to give up before you even get to the bargaining table, there is nothing left to bargain over. This seems like a pretty boneheaded, and ultimately counterproductive, tactical move.

 

[ziggy29]

Most of the job cuts could come from simply not hiring to fill positions vacated, with large #s of federal employees eligible to retire, it would be pretty painless.

I don't think one size can fit all functions and all departments. The "2 for 3" I mentioned would be a general goal with the understanding that some departments and functions might shrink more than that and some may not shrink at all. And to some degree there might also be interdepartmental transfer opportunities to assist in the overall "rightsizing" of the federal work force. But I think private sector experience has proven that the same amount of work can be done with fewer employees (within reasonable limits as I describe below).

Note also that "2 for 3" does not mean shrinking the work force by 33%. It merely means slowly reducing the size through attrition until the work can no longer get completed within reasonable expectations on the remaining workers.

Then what functions should be discontinued?

I maintained computer programs that tracked USAF inventory.

Should that function be discontinued?

I don't think there was a reference to "discontinuing" anything. I've also been a programmer for a long time, and when we endured layoffs and staffing cuts we didn't discontinue any of the work -- we all had to do more of it, working longer and harder than before by picking up additional responsibilities. That's been the private sector SOP for 15-20 years now as I've seen it.

Having said that, there should be some limit at which people can not readily endure having more work thrown at them (with frozen/cut pay and slashed benefits) and a point at which it becomes abusive and inhumane. The private sector seems intent on testing this limit and perhaps even using high unemployment as an excuse to bust through it. Indeed, as long as the response to getting screwed is "at least I still have a job," the shafting won't stop as it shows people will continue to put up with working more and getting less for it -- and the "race to the bottom" is well underway.

I can certainly understand why those in public sector employment want no part of that shafting, but unless the current trends change for the rest of us there will be no way to continue buffering the public sector from private sector economic reality -- which for some was the main reason they chose (or chose to stay in) government work.