Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Inside the News


Post your thoughts and opinions here about current federal employee related news topics. This forum is for U.S. federal government news topics only -- specifically, news that directly affects federal employees, their jobs, pay, benefits or other workplace issues.

Please refrain from posting topics on general current events, U.S. or world politics, etc. FederalSoup is a FREE forum site dedicated to serving the needs of federal employees, so keeping forum topics focused to those readers and members here is what makes this community valuable. Thanks for your cooperation.

To read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues visit FederalDaily.com.

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
someoldguy  
#1 Posted : Monday, February 12, 2018 3:12:54 PM(UTC)
someoldguy

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2013(UTC)
Posts: 3,554

Thanks: 242 times
Was thanked: 796 time(s) in 657 post(s)
From Federal News Radio:

Trump proposes pay freeze, new and familiar retirement cuts in 2019 budget

You read this article, and it all sounds reasonable (except the part about pay-for-performance while freezing everybody's pay) and it is hard to argue with the overall proposal...

Except one thing: most white-collar workers could be making a lot more money in the private sector but they decided to pursue employment in government service IN EXCHANGE FOR more stability, steady pay raises, a decent pension, and some of the other things that the administration wants to get rid of.

If you want to implement all these policies which the private sector has, then you will need to raise pay to what the private sector is paying. Yes, I'm sure there are some fields where federal employment pays better but in most fields, especially the 21st century workforce technology specialties, you can make a lot more money in the private sector... IF you are willing to give up some stability, security, and embrace the vagaries of "pay for performance."

Because if you don't increase pay at the same time you cut all these other benefits, people will just vote with their feet. Or their checkbooks. Or whatever the right analogy might be.

Edited by user Monday, February 12, 2018 3:16:47 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

DISCLAIMER: You read it on an open internet forum :)
SD Analyst  
#2 Posted : Monday, February 12, 2018 3:36:40 PM(UTC)
SD Analyst

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 2,148

Thanks: 1888 times
Was thanked: 386 time(s) in 331 post(s)
"it all sounds reasonable..." What?! It sounds like a concerted effort to destroy the Civil Service, in my opinion, as a 35+ year Fed. Here are just a few of the proposed cuts:

Pay freeze for 2019 for all Feds
High 5 for retirement calculations
FERS - increase of 1% a year contributions for the next 6 years from your salary (an effective pay cut)
Lengthen the time between step increases
FERS - no COLA in retirement, ever
CSRS - reduce COLA by 0.5%
FERS - no more Annuity Supplement

Why freeze pay when the economy is doing so well, according to the Administration?? There is also a proposal to end the defined pension, no more FERS. All you will get in retirement is what you are able to save in the TSP. Don't think they will increase your pay or the percentage the GOVT kicks in, either. Never happen. Another proposal ends the ability of retirees to have FEHB. No more health benefits in retirement, period.

FERS was established to be self-funding, and it is. There is no reason to add an additional 6% of Federal employees pay to the CSRDF fund, except to give Congress more money to steal.

It is my belief that this is being done to cause people to retire or resign, and to disincentivize good people from choosing to be a Fed. They will then contract out our job functions to private companies, at a much higher cost to the GOVT. I also believe this Administration wants to get rid of knowledgeable people who could say, "that isn't legal" when they take actions. Federal jobs will be awarded as political thank you's, just like in the pre-Pendleton Act days. It is disgraceful and disgusting. I am glad I can retire, and that I am CSRS.
thanks 7 users thanked SD Analyst for this useful post.
FS0201 on 2/12/2018(UTC), Go saints on 2/13/2018(UTC), JDSIII on 2/13/2018(UTC), Karenl1920 on 2/18/2018(UTC), MATMAN14 on 2/20/2018(UTC), appicant1776 on 3/7/2018(UTC), delphis on 3/12/2018(UTC)
GWPDA  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:29:52 AM(UTC)
GWPDA

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,070

Thanks: 198 times
Was thanked: 427 time(s) in 357 post(s)
It sounds like a concerted effort to turn the Civil Service into an at-will, contractor resource. The whole business is so cutely framed that it is apparent that this is a deliberate, long term effort rooted in a political philosophy that believes that government consists solely of one thing - the military. How could anyone not recognise the objective is to eliminate any and all other governmental action?
thanks 3 users thanked GWPDA for this useful post.
SD Analyst on 2/13/2018(UTC), mc0111 on 2/15/2018(UTC), delphis on 2/18/2018(UTC)
DroneBee  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:52:42 PM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 425

Thanks: 167 times
Was thanked: 94 time(s) in 80 post(s)
This is SCARY! "This administration believes in pay for performance" is horrible, among other things including messing with leave!

I agree with Tony:

“It appears that the administration is throwing every harmful proposal it could gather at the civil service system and federal employees,” National Treasury Employees Union President Tony Reardon said in a statement. “Taken together, these proposals represent a full-scale assault on what has been a bedrock of our democracy: a civil service made up of skilled professionals who are committed to the taxpayers they serve, not the politicians.”
thanks 1 user thanked for this useful post.
delphis on 2/18/2018(UTC)
someoldguy  
#5 Posted : Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:58:05 PM(UTC)
someoldguy

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2013(UTC)
Posts: 3,554

Thanks: 242 times
Was thanked: 796 time(s) in 657 post(s)
Some of these changes will require legislation to implement, and that will be more difficult. But we've seen many years with 0% pay raises (most recently when a Democrat was in the White House).

But just the fact that these things are brought up at every opportunity will encourage more folks to leave and cause more people to reconsider federal employment.

"Pay for performance" is another one of those things that sounds reasonable at first but ends up being a mess.

Each of these proposals (which SD Analyst summed up nicely) results in savings to the government. But unless some of that savings is funneled back to the worker in the form of higher salaries, the "savings" will end up costing more in the long run.
DISCLAIMER: You read it on an open internet forum :)
thanks 1 user thanked someoldguy for this useful post.
SD Analyst on 2/17/2018(UTC)
Go saints  
#6 Posted : Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:10:30 PM(UTC)
Go saints

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/18/2013(UTC)
Posts: 146

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Originally Posted by: someoldguy Go to Quoted Post


"Pay for performance" is another one of those things that sounds reasonable at first but ends up being a mess.



Yep, I was part of the DoD's NSPS debacle. Became a GS-xx/00 after the smoke cleared. What a circus.

Edited by user Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:12:43 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

someoldguy  
#7 Posted : Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:46:50 PM(UTC)
someoldguy

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2013(UTC)
Posts: 3,554

Thanks: 242 times
Was thanked: 796 time(s) in 657 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Go saints Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: someoldguy Go to Quoted Post
"Pay for performance" is another one of those things that sounds reasonable at first but ends up being a mess.

Yep, I was part of the DoD's NSPS debacle. Became a GS-xx/00 after the smoke cleared. What a circus.

So what's the difference between NSPS and the "Acquistion Demo" pay banding? I'm not in that system but I see a number of jobs listed as 'NH-03' or something like that.

Fortunately they realized that NSPS was a bad idea. But there are other hare-brained schemes aplenty out there.
DISCLAIMER: You read it on an open internet forum :)
Go saints  
#8 Posted : Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:59:07 PM(UTC)
Go saints

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/18/2013(UTC)
Posts: 146

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Originally Posted by: someoldguy Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Go saints Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: someoldguy Go to Quoted Post
"Pay for performance" is another one of those things that sounds reasonable at first but ends up being a mess.

Yep, I was part of the DoD's NSPS debacle. Became a GS-xx/00 after the smoke cleared. What a circus.

So what's the difference between NSPS and the "Acquistion Demo" pay banding? I'm not in that system but I see a number of jobs listed as 'NH-03' or something like that.

Fortunately they realized that NSPS was a bad idea. But there are other hare-brained schemes aplenty out there.


Sorry, I'm not in Acquisition and know nothing about their pay system.
Rikaku  
#9 Posted : Friday, February 16, 2018 6:29:43 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/3/2011(UTC)
Posts: 263

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Originally Posted by: someoldguy Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Go saints Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: someoldguy Go to Quoted Post
"Pay for performance" is another one of those things that sounds reasonable at first but ends up being a mess.

Yep, I was part of the DoD's NSPS debacle. Became a GS-xx/00 after the smoke cleared. What a circus.

So what's the difference between NSPS and the "Acquistion Demo" pay banding? I'm not in that system but I see a number of jobs listed as 'NH-03' or something like that.

Fortunately they realized that NSPS was a bad idea. But there are other hare-brained schemes aplenty out there.



In short, NSPS didn't have a good system of controls and people ended up getting huge raises. Acq Demo is a revisit of NSPS but is much stricter on how raises are doled out to prevent the disaster of what happened under NSPS.
DroneBee  
#10 Posted : Saturday, February 17, 2018 7:40:25 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 425

Thanks: 167 times
Was thanked: 94 time(s) in 80 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Rikaku Go to Quoted Post

In short, NSPS didn't have a good system of controls and people ended up getting huge raises. Acq Demo is a revisit of NSPS but is much stricter on how raises are doled out to prevent the disaster of what happened under NSPS.


No way! Lab Demo also allows for managers to give themselves HUGE bonuses.

JBTWINZ  
#11 Posted : Monday, February 19, 2018 4:56:04 AM(UTC)

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 9

The changes to the federal retirement system have been popping up every year since there was a commission put is place several years ago to go about reinventing guidelines for retirement.

Except for new FERS employee contributing more up front pretty much everything has else has fallen by the wayside each year.

I like a few of my co-workers have decided to go at 62 as this is where our numbers play out to the best of retirement scenario's for us.

Now I also have friends that are from 1-3 years from the retirement age of 56 and they have planned accordingly through TSP and having paid their houses of to be able to go at 56 and use the supplement to breeze through financially to 62.

From what I read if the supplement goes away it will be a one and done........meaning at the end of the year the bill passes it goes away. Why they would penalize those so close to retirement is beyond me. If they must make changes they should grandfather those in with twenty years at age fifty, much like the rule for involuntary retirement.

Not saying we are entitled but for those with 1-3 years from retirement who had planed on taking the supplemental this adds six years to their career now as they will stay until 62.

Correct me if I am wrong but letting those go at 56 saves Uncle Sam paying them their full salary, 5% matching TSP, COLA's and both SL and AL. That would be significant savings rather than pay them full time until 62.
someoldguy  
#12 Posted : Monday, February 19, 2018 7:27:09 AM(UTC)
someoldguy

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2013(UTC)
Posts: 3,554

Thanks: 242 times
Was thanked: 796 time(s) in 657 post(s)
Originally Posted by: JBTWINZ Go to Quoted Post
Correct me if I am wrong but letting those go at 56 saves Uncle Sam paying them their full salary, 5% matching TSP, COLA's and both SL and AL. That would be significant savings rather than pay them full time until 62.

They would have to hire somebody else to replace the person who leaves, so it would not be a 100% savings.

But they'd probably pay that person less than someone that was around long enough to retire at 56. And that new hire would be hired under the current FERS plan so they'd be contributing more to the pension fund than a retiree who was almost certainly contributing less than 4.4%. New hire probably earning less SL and AL. etc etc etc. So I'd agree they'd be saving money.

As for 'grandfathering' folks I know my previous employer got rid of the early retirement supplement and there was no grandfathering, just an announcement several months ahead of time. A few people retired to take advantage of the supplement while it was still being offered. But anyone who stayed past the switchover got nothing.

DISCLAIMER: You read it on an open internet forum :)
chappy  
#13 Posted : Monday, March 05, 2018 8:12:41 PM(UTC)

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/25/2008(UTC)
Posts: 69

Last time I checked, these proposals would require 60 votes in the Senate. Not happening this year or the next or the next. This stuff is floated to shake the tree.
someoldguy  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, March 06, 2018 1:57:49 AM(UTC)
someoldguy

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2013(UTC)
Posts: 3,554

Thanks: 242 times
Was thanked: 796 time(s) in 657 post(s)
Originally Posted by: chappy Go to Quoted Post
Last time I checked, these proposals would require 60 votes in the Senate. Not happening this year or the next or the next. This stuff is floated to shake the tree.

One proposal that does not require any vote is the pay freeze. I think President Obama had at least one year with no increase to the GS pay scale. And President Trump was able to override the "law" requiring a certain minimum pay increase just by executive order.

You are right, they are shaking the tree for political theater. But if you keep shaking the tree, who knows what will eventually fall out.
DISCLAIMER: You read it on an open internet forum :)
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.769 seconds.