Skip to comments.Federal employees' union head: Obama pay raise proposal 'simply not enough'
Posted on 02/09/2013 3:09:51 PM PST by Libloather
The president of the American Federation of Government Employees says a one-percent increase is "absolutely unconscionable."
The head of the largest federal employee union said Saturday that President Obama's proposal to increase pay for federal employees by 1 percent was "absolutely unconscionable" and "simply not enough."
"It is not enough to allow federal employees to make up lost ground from two-plus years of frozen pay. It is not enough to allow workers, most of whom earn very modest salaries ranging from $24,000 to $70,000, to maintain living standards. And it is not enough to send a message with any kind of clarity that the administration values the federal workforce and doesn't believe it should continue to bear an enormously disproportionate share of deficit reduction," David Cox Sr., the president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), said in a statement.
The White House told labor leaders of the proposed increase in the 2014 fiscal year budget in a phone call late Friday night. That raise would come on top of the half-point pay hike, scheduled to take effect in late March, which has been delayed as part of the "fiscal cliff" deal struck last month. Federal salaries have been frozen since 2011.
AFGE pledged in its statement to "work with friends in Congress who truly value the federal workforce," a signal that the union will likely lobby liberal members of Congress to oppose the president's budget.
Other union leaders have also voiced concern over the president's proposed pay raise, saying that the minimal increase over three years does little to compensate for the rising cost of living.
While the presidents proposal for a 1 percent pay increase for federal workers in 2014 is better than a pay freeze, I dont feel like jumping and shouting for joy, Carl Goldman, executive director of the AFSCME Council 26 told Government Executive.
There are a number of unanswered questions concerning the proposal: Will there also be locality pay increases that reflect the higher cost of living in many areas? Will there be a raise in federal employees contributions to the health insurance program, which could have the net effect of a pay cut? It is difficult to know exactly how to react until these and similar questions are answered," he said.
Still, other labor groups applauded the president's budget request.
After all that federal workers have sacrificed the past three years, they have earned a raise, William R. Dougan, national president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, told CNN. I repeat, they have earned a raise. We are pleased to see the president take a bold stance and advocate for this badly-needed pay adjustment."
Despite the president's request for a raise, the likelihood that federal workers see an actual increase is very much in doubt. Congressional Republicans are unlikely to support the president's budget, and voted earlier this year to freeze the salaries of lawmakers and federal employees.
In a statement in January, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) characterized Obama's push for a pay increase as "not necessary to retain talented employees and just wastes taxpayer money.
Federal employees have continued to receive promotions and within-grade pay increases over the past few years of the supposed pay freeze, and voluntary separations from the federal government are near all-time lows, he said.
“Our Federal servants need to take a 10% hit to share the pain.”
While I don’t agree with the AFGE spokesman about the raise, and think federal employees, at this time, need to be thankful they are still employed. I also, think blanket idiotic statements like yours show deplorable ignorance. You really need to be quiet in that you don’t bring anything usefull to the discussion other than to show the tired old “I hate government workers” nonsense.
Just like the private sector, there are productive employees of the federal government, and there are unproductive ones.
Obviously, the time has come to reduce the federal workforce. I believe that a 10% reduction in employees, primary obtained by attrition, is the best idea put forward.
Let’s compromise 15% fewer positions, 15% pay cut. !!!!SOLD!!!!
I think we can come to some kind of an agreement on this.
I say fire 95% of them, then cut their pay and benefits to minimum wage, especially nappy and his/her buddy napscoordinator.
Then apply their pension fund in a rebate/refund to the tax payers.
Oops, meant to add excluding Military.
I really wouldn't have a problem with government "workers" collectively bargaining against the evil departments of the executive branch...
...if only a bunch of conservatives were allowed to participate in the negotiation process on behalf of the taxpayers.
Well why not just go on strike?
$70,000 is modest????
The US Department of Education has more than 6,000 employees and spends more than $70 billion a year. Nobody would even notice in their day to day lives if it was completely eliminated. It is one of the most useless agencies out there.
Completely Eliminate this one.
Even the liberal hero FDR was a gainst public sector unions:
Can you count to zero?
Fire 3/4 of ‘em. They are nothing but a gigantic drag on the economy and not one of them produces anything remotely useful.
I will repeat to all government employees who think they are entitled to a raise in this economy - “F. U.”
There are something like 70 different federal entitlement programs, I bet we could merge about 60 of them into a single agency and lay-off the excess, duplicate workforce. Make welfare a single monthly cash benefit, same benefit nationally (states can throw in something if they want) and we could probably save $25 or so billion dollars a year without even cutting the actual benefits. Overhead eats up a third of the budget anyone so we cut that overhead down to the bone.
maybe a PT janitor but if you throw in the benefits it jumps to $50,000
Four of the five richest counties in this country...and seven of the ten richest...are suburbs of Washington DC,the one major city that produces nothing of value.
Yes, exclude the military but all those mandates and non-military projects under the DoD budget those sneaky politicians put in there can be taken out!
It is one of the most useless agencies out there.
As is the remaining unconstitutional alphabet agencies with their unions and their pension plans.
This subject really chaps my hide.
Goes for the States too.
do we need a Constitutional Amendment to forbid the government from funding non-government organizations?
I used to be a Fed employee, twice!
They are supposed to be our servants and they can do what I did, jump to the private sector to maximize my value from both the return to society and the return to me (they are related).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.