Federal wages are reduced!

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: paperfist
They have to pay the increases to retain talent.

Looks like they started too late.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: paperfist
They have to pay the increases to retain talent.

Nonsense. Only banks have talented employees.

 

[CPA]

0% raise here and I work for a Fortune 200 company.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: paperfist
They have to pay the increases to retain talent.

In the federal government? bwahahahahaahahahaahahaha

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aimster
Every year government employees move up a step or a grade. Minimum $2,000. That or they get a bonus. This is without the 2%.

Wrong. You move up a step per year initially, then a step every three years after that (starting at step 6 IIRC). And no, not every step improves your pay by $2k.

Govt employees have it all

Why not get a government job then? I find it amusing that all of the self-proclaimed economic experts and desk jockeys on AT aren't smart enough to get themselves into a government position to ride out the economic downturn that they all saw coming. I was.

Getting a government job has more to do with your race, age and demographics, than your intelligence.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Haha, government workers really have no clue. Most of them are still worrying about their regular God-given raises, oblivious to their neighbors who may very well have just lost 100% of their wage.

EDIT: I'm actually referring to the only teachers I've spoken to over this mess. They have no idea how the economy works, they couldn't care less about their paymasters (us).

Depends on the location. Government jobs ARE more secure than private industry jobs, but they are not immune to trouble. Government workers are getting laid off in most (if not all) states due to budget cuts. Granted, there is little chance of an entire agency being shut down (similar to a company shutting down), but you still stand a good chance of losing your job.

Also keep in mind that at most government jobs offer little room for advancement and that as a government employee I am paid 23% under average *starting* wage in the industry.

During this recent recession, the government hired more than it laid off.

 

[schmedy]

Originally posted by: ShockwaveVT

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
With TSP and FERS, the retirement benefits aren't nearly as wonderful as they were under the old retirement system. Now Federal employees have to plan and save for their futures just like everyone in private industry has to do, and the markets have the same dramatic effects on those savings.

I'd have given my left nut to be grandfathered into the old plan though... under that system, current GS 14/15 retirees with six-digit salaries live like kings!

All at our expense, of course... which is why they changed it.

I have no problem with Government employees receiving a 2% raise if they're doing a good job. However, one of the biggest problems in Government is in determining who is actually doing a good job, and then in getting rid of those who aren't. They tried to fix these problems with the implementation of a pay-banding system to replace the old GS scale, but every agency that switched has since gone back to the standard GS because of all the new headaches they encountered with the banding rating schemes.

But, if you think that new or recent Government employees have drastically better retirement plans than you, you're wrong. Everyone is in the same boat now -- completely dependent on savings and markets -- so private and government employees alike need to ensure that our boat doesn't sink!

Bolded text is not 100% accurate. A lot of DoD is still on NSPS, but that system is being reviewed to see if its meeting its goals of rewarding good performers with larger than average raises/bonuses while limiting overall payroll costs.

So much misinformation here, in the FAA we are under pay banding and core comp depending if mgmt or not. The sad thing is they do not give raises to the "good performers" it seems like almost everyone gets one.

[/quote]
Getting a government job has more to do with your race, age and demographics, than your intelligence. [/quote]
This is more true in nonskilled jobs or managment, not in the technical workforce. It is sad though to get fired from a Fed job it is like an actof congress unless you are a total moron.

The FAA Administrator determines the amount if any of a raise as we get on an individual level and as an agency depending on goals we meet or don't and how much Congress give us.

And most people in the work force now are FERS, we get 1% a year, pay into SS, and we get TSP.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Not really. Back in the day you could raise up a family in good circumstances on a single income. Now a days its impossible. Both parents need to work. This is a bad thing. It is a digression not a progression. Standards of living have declined. Average salary's have remained stagnant as inflation has spiraled out of control.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Not really. Back in the day you could raise up a family in good circumstances on a single income. Now a days its impossible. Both parents need to work. This is a bad thing. It is a digression not a progression. Standards of living have declined. Average salary's have remained stagnant as inflation has spiraled out of control.

That is complete bullshit. I know many people that are raising a family on a single income. Both parents working is a choice made to live a lifestyle very few families lived 30-40 years ago.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aimster
Every year government employees move up a step or a grade. Minimum $2,000. That or they get a bonus. This is without the 2%.

Wrong. You move up a step per year initially, then a step every three years after that (starting at step 6 IIRC). And no, not every step improves your pay by $2k.

Govt employees have it all

Why not get a government job then? I find it amusing that all of the self-proclaimed economic experts and desk jockeys on AT aren't smart enough to get themselves into a government position to ride out the economic downturn that they all saw coming. I was.

Getting a government job has more to do with your race, age and demographics, than your intelligence.

Spoken like someone that knows nothing about federal gov hiring rules.


The only thing that will help a person get a job is being a Vet. either a 5pt or a 10pt that rises to the top.


Stick to the trash yard and let others do real work.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: ShockwaveVT

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
With TSP and FERS, the retirement benefits aren't nearly as wonderful as they were under the old retirement system. Now Federal employees have to plan and save for their futures just like everyone in private industry has to do, and the markets have the same dramatic effects on those savings.

I'd have given my left nut to be grandfathered into the old plan though... under that system, current GS 14/15 retirees with six-digit salaries live like kings!

All at our expense, of course... which is why they changed it.

I have no problem with Government employees receiving a 2% raise if they're doing a good job. However, one of the biggest problems in Government is in determining who is actually doing a good job, and then in getting rid of those who aren't. They tried to fix these problems with the implementation of a pay-banding system to replace the old GS scale, but every agency that switched has since gone back to the standard GS because of all the new headaches they encountered with the banding rating schemes.

But, if you think that new or recent Government employees have drastically better retirement plans than you, you're wrong. Everyone is in the same boat now -- completely dependent on savings and markets -- so private and government employees alike need to ensure that our boat doesn't sink!

Bolded text is not 100% accurate. A lot of DoD is still on NSPS, but that system is being reviewed to see if its meeting its goals of rewarding good performers with larger than average raises/bonuses while limiting overall payroll costs.

OK, correction noted -- when I left for Iraq last December, most folks in DC were saying that NSPS was going away, and many agencies had flatout rejected it from the start. It sounds like some of them may still be clinging to the NSPS pipedream though... my bad.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Not really. Back in the day you could raise up a family in good circumstances on a single income. Now a days its impossible. Both parents need to work. This is a bad thing. It is a digression not a progression. Standards of living have declined. Average salary's have remained stagnant as inflation has spiraled out of control.

That is complete bullshit. I know many people that are raising a family on a single income. Both parents working is a choice made to live a lifestyle very few families lived 30-40 years ago.

Quantitatively, real wages have been declining since the 1970s. The standard of living has been going up.

But what's changed most of all is the definition of "good circumstances." A family "back in the day" could have a car that moves, but isn't flashy, a TV of any size, eat 2000 calories a day each, have a phone (not even a cell phone for each person) and feel pretty good about itself. Today, not so much...

But back to the topic at hand...

Defense contractors make way more than the DOD employees they work alongside.
Lobbyists make way more than the Hill staffers (and often times Members of Congress) they lobby.
Mercs make way more than the service members they share a base with.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Not really. Back in the day you could raise up a family in good circumstances on a single income. Now a days its impossible. Both parents need to work. This is a bad thing. It is a digression not a progression. Standards of living have declined. Average salary's have remained stagnant as inflation has spiraled out of control.

That is complete bullshit. I know many people that are raising a family on a single income. Both parents working is a choice made to live a lifestyle very few families lived 30-40 years ago.

The truth. I know many families (some with 4+ kids!) living on a single income. It's not that hard if you can figure out the difference in life between true "wants" and true "needs".

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Haha, government workers really have no clue. Most of them are still worrying about their regular God-given raises, oblivious to their neighbors who may very well have just lost 100% of their wage.

EDIT: I'm actually referring to the only teachers I've spoken to over this mess. They have no idea how the economy works, they couldn't care less about their paymasters (us).

Depends on the location. Government jobs ARE more secure than private industry jobs, but they are not immune to trouble. Government workers are getting laid off in most (if not all) states due to budget cuts. Granted, there is little chance of an entire agency being shut down (similar to a company shutting down), but you still stand a good chance of losing your job.

Also keep in mind that at most government jobs offer little room for advancement and that as a government employee I am paid 23% under average *starting* wage in the industry.

During this recent recession, the government hired more than it laid off.

Maybe if you read the news, you'd read that the government is set to grow even more in the next couple years because the government as a whole is moving away from outside contractors who perform essential government functions, instead hiring permanent government employees to do those jobs (at a cost savings in many cases).

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ShockwaveVT

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
With TSP and FERS, the retirement benefits aren't nearly as wonderful as they were under the old retirement system. Now Federal employees have to plan and save for their futures just like everyone in private industry has to do, and the markets have the same dramatic effects on those savings.

I'd have given my left nut to be grandfathered into the old plan though... under that system, current GS 14/15 retirees with six-digit salaries live like kings!

All at our expense, of course... which is why they changed it.

I have no problem with Government employees receiving a 2% raise if they're doing a good job. However, one of the biggest problems in Government is in determining who is actually doing a good job, and then in getting rid of those who aren't. They tried to fix these problems with the implementation of a pay-banding system to replace the old GS scale, but every agency that switched has since gone back to the standard GS because of all the new headaches they encountered with the banding rating schemes.

But, if you think that new or recent Government employees have drastically better retirement plans than you, you're wrong. Everyone is in the same boat now -- completely dependent on savings and markets -- so private and government employees alike need to ensure that our boat doesn't sink!

Bolded text is not 100% accurate. A lot of DoD is still on NSPS, but that system is being reviewed to see if its meeting its goals of rewarding good performers with larger than average raises/bonuses while limiting overall payroll costs.

All of DoD is moving to NSPS or has already done so. The last employees to move under the pay banding were under DCIPS, which has just recently been implemented in the Army, for a similar pay banding. The push is being made at DoD (read: Secretary Gates) despite pressue from Congress to hold off further implementation while those studies are being conducted. The President has not weighed in on the issue, but considering his support for unions in general, who hate NSPS and pay banding, most people assume he's not in favor of NSPS.

The central problem that needed to be addressed was a way to eliminate non-productive employees, which by necessity eliminates their drain on organizational resources and makes regular raises for those employees a moot issue. However, NSPS goes WAAAYYY beyond that (and doesn't even really fix that problem) and makes the life of managers a nonstop evaluation-fest, particularly in larger organizations. There were mechanisms to reward high-performers (step increase, bonus), but many of the high performers were leaving for the private sector where they could do the same job as a contractor, often in the same office, for more money. NSPS doesn't fix that.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aimster
Every year government employees move up a step or a grade. Minimum $2,000. That or they get a bonus. This is without the 2%.

Wrong. You move up a step per year initially, then a step every three years after that (starting at step 6 IIRC). And no, not every step improves your pay by $2k.

Govt employees have it all

Why not get a government job then? I find it amusing that all of the self-proclaimed economic experts and desk jockeys on AT aren't smart enough to get themselves into a government position to ride out the economic downturn that they all saw coming. I was.

I do work for the government

You usually go from 9-1 to a 11-1 then a 12-1 then a 13-1. Then when you get your 13 you stay a 13 and move up a step.

And everyone gets their 13 eventually. 14s and 15s is hard to get

Also your chart is kind of not right. For example in the D.C area that pay scale is not including the 20%+ pay raise D.C area employees have for living expenses.

Obviously, you're working in a developmental position which is not what the majority of people are doing (there are also 5-7-9 developmental positions). Most jobs are hired at specific GS levels, and the job progression is through the Steps, not Grades. Steps 1-4: Start at 1 and increase by one every year; Steps 4-7: Increase every two years; Steps 7-10: Increase every three years.

-13 is considered the journeyman level and is the typical level for a professional position (FBI Field Agent, Engineer, Intelligence Analyst, Physical Security Specialist, etc.) while a -14 is a supervisor (division level), and a -15 is a director level. 14/15 is hard to get because there aren't many of them out there, and the people tend to sit tight when they have them. Beyond 15 is Senior Executive Service -- the civilian equivalent to a flag officer in the military.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aimster
Every year government employees move up a step or a grade. Minimum $2,000. That or they get a bonus. This is without the 2%.

Wrong. You move up a step per year initially, then a step every three years after that (starting at step 6 IIRC). And no, not every step improves your pay by $2k.

Govt employees have it all

Why not get a government job then? I find it amusing that all of the self-proclaimed economic experts and desk jockeys on AT aren't smart enough to get themselves into a government position to ride out the economic downturn that they all saw coming. I was.

Getting a government job has more to do with your race, age and demographics, than your intelligence.

Never worked for the Government, eh?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Not really. Back in the day you could raise up a family in good circumstances on a single income. Now a days its impossible. Both parents need to work. This is a bad thing. It is a digression not a progression. Standards of living have declined. Average salary's have remained stagnant as inflation has spiraled out of control.

That is complete bullshit. I know many people that are raising a family on a single income. Both parents working is a choice made to live a lifestyle very few families lived 30-40 years ago.

The truth. I know many families (some with 4+ kids!) living on a single income. It's not that hard if you can figure out the difference in life between true "wants" and true "needs".

Last post in this topic since I'm getting a hat trick...

We live on one income and have done so for the past seven years. We don't have the nicest cars (2005 Jeep and now a 2009 Ford), and we live in a townhome instead of a single family house. Our daughter goes to public school, but we deliberately chose the townhome in this school district so she would have a good school -- we couldn't afford a decent SFH in this district since we didn't have equity from a previous home. If we had two incomes, we'd have a much nicer home, nicer cars, better electronics, better vacations, etc., but our daughter would be worse off for it.

It's VERY possible to live on one income, but you can't keep up with the Joneses. Actually, I suppose you could say that we have two incomes because I'm in the Air Force Reserve. The end result is only one of us works for pay, however.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: waggy
no goverment employees should recieve any pay raise.they are refusing to give older people on SS a pay raise this year so they shouldnt get one either.

LOL, and the people on SS that I know received nearly a 5% raise this year (start of 2009). How much did most other people receive then (I received ZERO % plus lost another 5% in a paycut (of course I work in the private industry thoguh)? It's (SS) tied to the CPI...nothing about refusal to give anyone anything...it's the rules.

this year they did. next year they won't.

personaly i think if people on SS (retired/handicaped) arent getting a pay raise nobody in the goverment should either.

 

[Kirby]

I just got a 9% raise and I work for the Fed.

Then again I'm an intern and probably make less than the contract janitors.

 

[piasabird]

How much did they cut the pay of the president and the house, etc.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aimster
Every year government employees move up a step or a grade. Minimum $2,000. That or they get a bonus. This is without the 2%.

Wrong. You move up a step per year initially, then a step every three years after that (starting at step 6 IIRC). And no, not every step improves your pay by $2k.

Govt employees have it all

Why not get a government job then? I find it amusing that all of the self-proclaimed economic experts and desk jockeys on AT aren't smart enough to get themselves into a government position to ride out the economic downturn that they all saw coming. I was.

Getting a government job has more to do with your race, age and demographics, than your intelligence.

You sound like another bitter old conservative who's angry that black people are getting jobs on public money.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: waggy
no goverment employees should recieve any pay raise.they are refusing to give older people on SS a pay raise this year so they shouldnt get one either.

LOL, and the people on SS that I know received nearly a 5% raise this year (start of 2009). How much did most other people receive then (I received ZERO % plus lost another 5% in a paycut (of course I work in the private industry thoguh)? It's (SS) tied to the CPI...nothing about refusal to give anyone anything...it's the rules.

this year they did. next year they won't.

personaly i think if people on SS (retired/handicaped) arent getting a pay raise nobody in the goverment should either.

I might tend to agree with you except that the people in government didn't get anywhere near the same pay raise on average as the last SS raise. If they had gotten the same raise, I could live with it. But to an extent, it doesn't seem fair that government employees get a raise while the rest of us seem to be getting cut...but you've got to start somewhere in digging this economy out. I can think of no better place for the stimulus than paying it directly to the people.

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: waggy
no goverment employees should recieve any pay raise.they are refusing to give older people on SS a pay raise this year so they shouldnt get one either.

Yes, I'm sure that every single government employee voiced their opinion that retired folks on social security did NOT deserve a COLA increase, and should therefore be punished by being denied a pay increase themselves!! :roll:

Or, perhaps, could it be the politicians did it? Gosh......who'da thunk??

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: paperfist
They have to pay the increases to retain talent.

bwahahahahaha, good one.