You have given me things to think about fisher of sams. I will consider thoughtfully and respond in due time.
haha...that made me laugh... What's the saying, "you can't save your way to prosperity"...the majority of Fed workers don't get paid like the senators and reps...he's got to do more than that...
Not sure about basso's statement, but this is interesting regarding what he is claiming http://www.zerohedge.com/article/federal-workers-making-over-180000-increases-2000-past-five-years
Your right about that. Many people are making less now than they were in 2008. Even if they have a small raise in salary, and didn't have to take a job with a lower salary, they have smaller bonus.
Of course, what basso chooses to ignore is the fact that several years ago, the pay cap for federal employees was $149K and change, then GWB signed in an increase to $153K, which pushed thousands of employees into the "over $150K" bracket that the original article decried. So, most of the people who are a part of the massive increase in over $150K workers got a whopping $4000 raise to put them there. Add that to the fact that it wasn't Obama that made the change and the entire premise of basso's claim is a steaming pile of FAIL.
Full disclosure: I'm a Fed. This is bad politics: Obama just gave away a potential bargaining chip for nothing in return. In doing so, he pissed a bunch of his supporters off and looks craven. It also furthers the Republican aim to diminish and discredit Federal government. (Contrary to the caricature out there, not all govt employees are Dems. In my office, the split is probably 60/40, which is what you would expect given the background of the workers combined with the demographics of the area. That said, it could make a difference, particularly in the only place there is a large enough concentration to potentially swing a state-wide election... the Virginia suburbs of DC.) This is bad economics: There will be little opportunity for stimulus available, so why decide to do something, even if it is a little thing, that is non-stimulative when the economy needs all the help it can get? This is bad government: People make a deal when they go to work for govt. They give up potential income for security and/or they give up potential income for doing something they really like and/or they give up potential income for time (normal work weeks, good sick leave, holidays, etc.). Now, you're pushing that security pillar a bit, which will make government service less attractive, which means a lower caliber of people will consider the jobs. This at a time when a huge number of people are retiring and institutional knowledge is walking out the door every day. My office has about 220 people in it (112 can retire between now and 2014). Not counting student internships, there are probably less than 10 without a college degree and I would guess at least 50% have some graduate education. On top of that are the skills we learn on the job that are not duplicated in the private sector (incident response, Hazmat response, etc.). Yet, there is nobody in my office (and only one in the office that we report to) that makes anywhere close to $150K. That one guy probably makes in the $140's and has ultimate responsibility for about 1,200 employees and their safety, a $200 million budget, protection of several billion dollars worth of private property adjacent to Federal forests and grasslands (from wildfire), aviation assets worth several million dollars, a vehicle fleet of over 500, law enforcement officers (and all the headaches that entails)... and those are just the numbers I can spout off this morning. There's also the political aspect of dealing with everything from miners and loggers and hikers and protesters to governors and senators and a host of interest groups and people who think you should be doing things differently. On top of that, there's also laws like the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, etc. that have to be implemented. It is an incredibly complex job and I daresay that if you took those same metrics to the private sector, the job would pay significantly more. What's the going rate for supervising 1,200 employees, dealing with complex issues like aviation and local economies, and administering a $200 million budget? Now, there are some in the office that probably make more than they could in the private sector (or at least have more security)... archaeologists, biologists, botanists, etc. However, while their skills aren't really needed in many places outside academia and non-profit environmental groups, they are critical to the work a Federal land management agency does... and the same probably applies to a lot of Feds in other agencies. How many patent examiner or EPA inspector jobs are there outside the Federal government? We've been conditioned to think of govt workers as being the same as those at the DMV, but that is just not the case. There is also intentional confusion between Federal employees and political appointees, many of who work under a special "Senior Executive Service" (SES) pay scale (some long-time, high-up Feds do as well). Here's the basic pay scale for the vast majority of Fed employees, which has a top rate of $148k: http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/html/RUS.asp Now, that top rate can go up based on your locality. People in high-cost areas (DC, NYC, etc.) get a little more and I suspect that if there is any truth to basso's numbers it is that the adjustments in recent years have pushed those upper levels slightly above $150k in some places. It is not that all of a sudden there are bunch of newly created jobs that pay $150k as Repubs would like to imply. It's just that the job that paid $148k a few years ago now pays $152k. (There are also different pay scales for administrative law judges and senior scientists, and a few other specialties.) Beyond the SES, of which there are about 6700 throughout the government, there is an "Executive" pay scale that includes the folks like WH staff, Secretaries, Assistant, Secretaries, etc. Still, the cap for that is only $199,000. Is the Secretary of State worth $199,000? The idea that government employees are overpaid is a simplistic and hoary cry. A few might be. Some might be based purely on private sector need, but not when you take into account the special needs of government. Others surely aren't. Ironically, the higher you go, the greater the disparity between the private and public sector. To use the Secretary of State as an example again, would the private sector consider paying anyone $199,000 to work with a $53 billion budget and supervise 22,000 people? When times are flush, you always hear the whispers of neighbors who are buying boats and crap... "That guy is too lazy to get a real job and make real money." When times are tough, you hear the whispers of neighbors sinking under their own excesses... "That guy is lucky to have such a good job." Politicians play on both sentiments, and usually it's at the same time. Fact is, I'm neither lazy nor lucky. I made a choice that best fit what I wanted to accomplish in life and I worked hard to get where I'm at... and that's why I'm one of 20 or so people in the entire Federal and state government arena qualified to do what I do on major incidents like forests fires. I didn't want to work for a somebody driven by profit, I wanted to help people, I wanted time for my family (ironically, I have almost no time in the summer when everyone else does vacations, but I am taking 3 weeks off in December). That's why I do what I do and why I'm not a lawyer like I considered or an insurance guy like my dad wanted me to be. This freeze is not a killer for me personally and I'm certainly more than willing to do my part, but I'm not pleased my part is being done this way. Anyway, to sum up this rambling post, this is bad politically and economically and it also damages the ability of government to function and draw in good people.
strangely, Obama may be doing a favour to fed workers. A two year freeze isn't such a big deal to most -- and they'll still be eligible for increases through moving up pay grade scales. What he may have done, though, is taken fed wages off the table. The alternatives being considered are cuts -- either in wage or number of staff. I'd still expect some announcement on head count reductions -- but that will likely be through attrition. With deficits at record levels -- and 'spending cuts' being the rage -- it's hard to ignore one of the biggest costs - personnel. Compared to the other cuts I've seen at the fed, and especially the local level -- this one seems the most painless...
Seems like bad business to me. Money is a demotivator. Putting a freeze on is a morale-killer. If it's the money he wants, quietly reducing the % increase to something slightly above zero would be a de facto wage freeze without the soul-crushing hopelessness of a declaration of one. If it's the political effect he wants, it'll be at the cost of demotivating workers and losing your best performers to attrition.
Is it really that bad being denied an annual raise? It isn't like they are taking your pension(If you have one outside of your TSP), and they aren't taking you job. This isn't some dramatic change on the individual level. If you are indeed taking less to work in the public sector in exchange for security, how does this really change that? Do you think people are going to go to the private sector because they didn't get a 1.4% raise this year? If workers decide the pastures are so much greener in the private sector, then they should come join us.
Money isn't a very good motivator. <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6XAPnuFjJc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6XAPnuFjJc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Similar to what most companies have done since the economy went into the crapper. Where I work we've been on a salary freeze for 3 years.
State Employee Pay Is Significantly Lower Than Comparable Private and Public Employee Pay. Information from the LBB shows that average state employee pay is 15 to 20 percent below what other public and private employers in Texas pay for comparable work. According to the State Auditor, the average state employee salary was $4300 below the average private sector salary in 2006. And U.S. Census data show that non-higher education state employees in Texas earn only 82 percent of the national average, with Corrections employees earning only 69 percent of the national average. By comparison, average pay for faculty at state higher education institutions is the fourth highest among the 50 states, with average pay at 118 percent of the national average according to Census data. Every source of comparative data clearly demonstrates that salaries at general government state agencies are significantly below what other employers pay for comparable work both within Texas and nationally. State Employee Salaries Are Overly Concentrated At The Bottom Of State Pay Ranges. In a healthy compensation system individual employee pay levels are distributed fairly normally around the salary midpoint for their respective pay ranges. By contrast, state employee salaries are overwhelmingly clustered near the bottom of their pay ranges. According to the State Auditor, nearly half of all employee salaries, 46 percent, are in the bottom quartile of their pay range, and fully 82 percent of salaries are below the midpoint. Failure to adequately reward high performing employees reduces incentives for productivity and lowers employee morale. Inadequate State Compensation Is Causing Employee Turnover And Other Workforce Problems. Results of the FY 2007 State of Texas Employee Exit Survey show that poor pay/benefits is again the primary reason cited by employees voluntarily leave state employment. Inadequate pay has been the leading cause of turnover in every year since the employee exit survey was reinstituted in 2001. Retirement is the next most commonly cited reason for employees leaving the state workforce. Similarly, results of the both the Survey of Organizational Excellence and TPEA’s 2007 large scale employee survey both show that, among all their benefits, employees are least happy with their pay, and by a large margin. All available evidence indicates that inadequate employee compensation is the major cause of employee turnover in the state workforce. Texas State Government Is Efficient. According to the State Auditor, during the past ten years the total number of non-higher education state employees (FTEs) has decreased by 6 percent, while the number of higher education employees has increased by more than 25 percent since FY 1998. 2006 Census data also show that all of the net growth in the state workforce during the prior ten years was attributable to staffing increases at state institutions of higher education. During this period service demands on state agencies have increased substantially, so state government is doing more with less. A State of Florida report found that Texas was among the highest rated states in rankings of public workforce efficiency. Texas had the seventh lowest ratio of state employment (FTEs) per 10,000 population, and the fifth lowest payroll cost per state resident. http://www.tpea.org/legislation/raises.html
Question (curious not trying to argue)...what about vacation days/time off? What about a pension? How long do you have to work before you are eligible for your pension (if you have one) and what rate of return on that pension are you promised? A friend is an Assistant DA here in Houston, and while he is paid less than many private sector attorneys, he gets an amazing pension promising 6% rate of return after I think 20 years of work, early retirement, a boatload of time off as well as a ton of other perks that you don't get in the private sector that make his job a lot more attractive. Curious if the Federal gov't is the same way...
From my experience (I used to work at NASA and my wife is a Texas State employee), federal and state workers are definitely underpaid a la Rashmon's post above. The counterpoint is that you get good/great benefits and considerable job security. And wages are definitely skewed to the bottom of the pay ranges. I know for a fact that a certain large Texas institution advertises salary ranges well beyond what they are actually able to offer - vaguely fraudulent actually.
I don't think this move will do much for the deficit but like FB I think this move is a political move designed to put pressure on the Republicans regarding the extension of the tax cuts. While I can understand that Fed employees are upset by this I don't think compared to the private sector they are that bad off. Consider that while Fed employees make on average less than those in the private sector they get benefits that are better than many private sector jobs. I say this as someone who worked as a gov. employee, state not Fed but my benefits were comparable, and the benefits I got then were far better than what I got working privately, especially as a small business owner, even if the pay wasn't always as good.
Well, what the heck you doing wasting so much time here in the D&D? Stop wasting our tax dollars and get back to work!
