Why Federal Workers Deserve What They're Paid

The Washington Post ^ | February 3, 2010 | Joe Davidson

[Poundstone]

Excerpt: The budget answers critics, including Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican senator from Massachusetts, who say federal civilians earn much more than private-sector workers. There's a reason for that. Federal workers are better educated.

"The Federal Government hires lawyers to tackle corruption, security professionals to monitor our borders, doctors to care for our injured veterans, and world-class scientists to combat deadly diseases such as cancer," the budget says. "Because of these vital needs, the Federal Government hires a relatively highly educated workforce, resulting in higher average pay."

Consider these stats: Twenty percent of federal workers have a master's, professional or doctorate degree, compared with 13 percent in the private sector. Fifty-one percent of federal employees have a college degree of some sort, but only 35 percent do in the private sector.

Frankie and Flo may not be smarter than other folks, but they do have more schooling, and they get paid accordingly. They are also substantially older, and that contributes to higher pay -- 46 percent of federal employees are 50 or older, compared with 31 percent of private-sector workers.

Although the section doesn't say so, comparing overall federal and private-sector pay is misleading in another way, because Uncle Sam doesn't employ many people at the bottom of the wage scale the way industry does.

Job-for-job comparisons tell a completely different story. In fact, government figures indicate that federal employees are underpaid by 26 percent compared with their counterparts in similar position in the business world.

[flowerplough]

With federal, state, and local government workers, about 1/4 could be die at their desks and no one would notice until quitting time.

[muawiyah]

Your typical federal personnel type let's the operating division managers slide when it comes to enforcing the "college level education" requirements listed in the job posting.

A little backbone on the part of those people would go a long way toward fixing that little problem.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Excerpt: The budget answers critics, including Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican senator from Massachusetts, who say federal civilians earn much more than private-sector workers. There's a reason for that. Federal workers are better educated.... Twenty percent of federal workers have a master's, professional or doctorate degree, compared with 13 percent in the private sector. Fifty-one percent of federal employees have a college degree of some sort, but only 35 percent do in the private sector.

Yay.

The Federal Government -- AKA, the intrinsically-bankrupt, counterproductive, wealth-destroying Vampire Sector of the Economy -- is siphoning off much of society's intellectual capital, bidding educated professionals away from employment in productive endeavors.

Everybody celebrate.

[WOBBLY BOB]

BS indeed.

Job Growth Lacking in the Private Sector (over the last decade)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/business/economy/08charts.html

Despite budget cuts and layoff warnings, California still hiring and workforce still growing
http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2094403.html
The Sacramento Bee
Aug. 9, 2009
State job number on upswing despite recession
By George Avalos
California’s state government has managed to add thousands of jobs
during this past year, defying a mammoth budget deficit and a brutal
recession.
The job growth for state workers contrasts with the loss of 759,000
jobs in California’s private industry in the past 12 months
&http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12984385?nclick_check=1&forced=true

Reform advocates are spotlighting those with extravagant pensions
— $100,000 or more — as a way to get the public’s attention and
emphasize that the current system is unsustainable.
http://www.modbee.com/editorials/story/803636.html

Perhaps the real reason why public-sector pension costs have not been tackled is that the full bill has never been revealed to taxpayers.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13988606
From The Economist print edition
July 9, 2009
EDITORIAL
Dodging the bill
The great public-sector pension rip-off
JOIN a private-sector company these days and you will be very lucky if you get a pension linked to your final salary. In Britain almost three out of four companies that retain such schemes have closed them to new employees. The cost of paying such benefits, which are partly linked to inflation and offer payouts to surviving spouses, is simply too high now that many retirees are surviving into their 80s.
Yet most new public-sector employees in Britain and America continue to benefit from pensions linked to their salaries. The pension costs facing the public sector are roughly the same as those facing the private sector; their employees are likely to live just as long. But because of the presumed largesse of future taxpayers, governments seem under much less pressure to reduce their pension costs. In 2005 a reform package in Britain raised the retirement age for new state employees, but still left existing employees able to retire at 60.

Private sector can’t afford public sector employees
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2009/jul/04/050000/ha-private-sector-cant-afford-public-sector-employ/

[muawiyah]

You wish ~ the typical COTR has to know and do his job, and also know and check on you constantly. Turn your back one second and the contractors are walking off with the office furniture and equipment.

[jessduntno]

“I put in $350 a month and the government puts in $650. It has copays and the catastrophic cap is $7500 a year.”

You pay $350 a month? That’s almost nothing, considering the costs...try paying insurance if you are in a small company or self employed...or better yet, try running a small business while paying north of $1200 a month for each employee and yourself....but withour mentioning how much your salary is, $350 a month means nothing. If you are earning $3,500, for instance, it is quite a deal. If it’s more than that, it’s a steal. If it’s above $6,000 it’s a GIFT. Above that is theft. I also doubt that the Gubmint only spends $1,000 on a policy...those numbers don’t foot. And sorry, but if you think that there is a $7500 cap on Federal insurance, someone is yanking BOTH of your legs. But if by some chance it is true, you can buy a catastrophic rider yourself for next to nothing.

When someone says “ooooohh I pay XXX dollars...” without saying what PERCENTAGE of their pay it is...it’s like the old George Carlin joke about the partial Yankees/Boston score...Red Sox 4....it means nothing.

[kamikaze2000]

I’m not slamming you personally, but I bet the Fed and State Governments could cut their workforce by 50% and nobody would really notice.

It’s just make-work with some exceptions...The Post office is useful.

I’m not including the military in that equation.

Now if someone takes a cushy job with the government, more power to them. Get it while the gettin’ is good. I just think it’s much too bloated and needs to be cut...

[jwalsh07]

Truth is your friend. The truth is that federal employee compensation is double the private sector when benefits are included. IOW's the benefits package of a federal worker is only 10K less than the average salary for an American in and of itself. 40K in benefit package for fed worker and 50K average salary in private sector.

You and the state workers are killing the golden goose friend. Sooner, rather than later, the goose will keel over and die.

[flowerplough]

“could be die”? could die

[RFEngineer]

“It is what they are working on that is not needed. “

I started to define this exception in my previous post, but then I decided that it also qualifies as “Doing Nothing”.

Your point is well taken though.

The concept that we hire MORE federal workers during an economic downturn is basic proof that there is a disconnect between the real world and club-fed.

No matter how little work they do, it’s too much. No matter how much they are paid, it’s too little.

I am amused at the gov’t types that deny this. The other forgotten scandal of a few years ago - that “diploma mills” are part of the government “more educated” fraud. Remember Laura Callahan (I think that was her name) who was CIO of DHS? She was very highly credentialed from non-existent institutions. This is widespread in government. Go figure? get a diploma by doing nothing and get a raise....PERFECT for a government employee.

[Frantzie]

A lot of them have BS mickey mouse degrees from diploma mills. If someone is really smart - they are not going to work for the Feds. Who would want to be in a stifling environment - people who want security and want to goof off.

[PeterPrinciple]

I would also point out that graduate degrees in areas such as “education” and anything with a “studies” in the name have a negative value and are warning signs of credulous minds stuffed with things that aren’t true.

---

Repeat LOUD and OFTEN............

[tx_eggman]

Assuming the above numbers are true, the fact that in 1988 there was one FED per 110 residents (notice they did not use the word citizens) and today there is one FED employee per 155 residents, the comparison ignores the tremendous strides made in computers during the past 20 years.

You also have to take into account the fact that a thousands and thousands of Civil Servants have been replaced by contractors in the past 20 years. Fedzilla still pays for them with our tax dollars ... they're just not federal employees any more.

In 2006 there were 10.5 million people on federal contracts or working with federal grant money - and it's gone up since then. The ratio of people funded by Fedzilla per citizen hasn't gone down, it's gone up.

[cartan]

Twenty percent of federal workers have a master’s, professional or doctorate degree, compared with 13 percent in the private sector. Fifty-one percent of federal employees have a college degree of some sort, but only 35 percent do in the private sector.

A degree in what? I bet that the guy in the private sector with a PhD in Physics or Electrical Engineering is compared here with a public sector paper pusher with a degree in Marxist Sociology or Advanced Queer Studies.

In fact, government figures indicate that federal employees are underpaid by 26 percent compared with their counterparts in similar position in the business world.

The devil is in the details here, again. How exactly do they determine who “their counterparts” are? Some paper pusher who is leading a department of 20 other paper pushers in the Department of Education is in their estimation probably equivalent to a manager in the private sector running a department of 20 people generating hundreds of millions of revenue for their company every year (all of whom would be fired once they stop bringing in any more profit). But we know better, don’t we?

[USNBandit]

So you never go to a doctor?

[pappyone]

Agree. I am retired Army, now a federal employee. I came to my fed job with 22 years of experience in a very high tech field. How much would private industry pay for that kind of experience?
Also, forget about the “90%” retire pay. Since 1985 the fed retirement system, FERS, is similar to a 401k, you get out what you put in. Still, there are a very few (old) folks still covered by the old CSRS system which is indeed an unblieveably generous retirement plan. Also, I make a monthly payment for health/dental/life insurance just like most folks.
Although not a union member, I do have pretty good job security. Bottom line: I try to earn my pay every day just like anyone else. After spending a career in the uniformed Army I am very happy to be working for the Department of the Army as a civilian.

[Terabitten]

Is this factoring in their cadillac insurance plans, insane retirement benefit packages and job counseling, “golden parachutes” when they get bumped for political reasons and virtually fire-proof employment contracts? No, huh?

Go do some research about the difference between SES (Special Executive Service) and GS/WG (General Service and Wage Grade) employees, then post. With all due respect, you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.

[TChris]

All government is overhead.

The only value a government employee has, in terms of productivity, is the degree to which he protects, enhances or otherwise enables a private sector worker to produce.

[Terabitten]

FACT: With few exceptions, they're working for the government because they can't make it in the private sector.

If that's a fact, then you should easily be able to back it up with a source, or multiple sources.

If it's an opinion, well....

[DennisR]

If the people in the Federal government are so smart and talented, why do we need so many of them?

Really - there should be a limit on how many people the Federal government can hire. Something like, oh, I don’t know, half of what it is now. I believe there are over 2,000,000 Federal government employees (excluding the Post Office). So that is about 0.67% of the population. That should be cut in half over the next 10 years and we will see how things go. Probably would not notice a bit of difference. In fact, things would probably improve.

http://pushbackuntil.com