Bush Cuts Pay Raises for Federal Workers, Citing National Emergency

TBo.com ^

[Sub-Driver]

Bush Cuts Pay Raises for Federal Workers, Citing National Emergency By Jennifer Loven Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - Citing a state of national emergency brought on by last year's terrorist attacks, President Bush on Friday slashed the pay raises most civilian federal workers were to receive starting in January. Under a law passed in 1990, federal employees covered by the government's general schedule pay system would receive a two-part pay increase with the new year, a 3.1 percent across-the-board increase plus a pay hike based on private-sector wage changes in the areas where they work.

This law outlining federal pay kicks in because Congress has not yet passed the appropriations legislation directing a specific increase, said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The White House couldn't say exactly how many federal employees the change would impact, but said it would be almost all.

Bush's pay decision is yet another blow to federal workers, many of whom are facing big changes in job descriptions under the Bush administration.

Earlier this month, the administration announced it wants to let private companies compete for up to half of the 1.8 million federal jobs. Also, in the new Homeland Security Department, Bush won the broad powers he sought to hire, fire and move workers in the 22 agencies that will be merged.

In a letter sent Friday to congressional leaders, Bush announced he was using his authority to change workers' pay structure in times of national emergency or "serious economic conditions" and limiting raises to the 3.1 percent across-the-board boost. Military personnel will receive a 4.1 percent increase.

That means that the additional so-called locality-based payments would remain at current levels because "our national situation precludes granting larger pay increases ... at this time," Bush said.

The White House quietly released the letter to journalists via e-mail late on Friday, the middle of a long holiday weekend when most Americans were apt to be paying little attention.

Officials of unions representing federal workers could not immediately be reached Friday night for comment.

Call said the locality-based payments have rarely gone into effect since their creation in 1990, either because former President Clinton limited them or Congress prescribed other salary increases.

"The whole locality-based adjustment ... for the most part doesn't go into effect," Call said.

The White House estimated that the overall average locality-based pay increase would amount to about 18.6 percent. Bush said granting the full raises would cost about $13.6 billion in 2003, or $11.2 billion more than he proposed for the year - a cost the nation can't bear as it continues to battle the war against terror.

"A national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001," Bush wrote. "Such cost increases would threaten our efforts against terrorism or force deep cuts in discretionary spending or federal employment to stay within budget. Neither outcome is acceptable."

The president noted that the raises still amount to more than the current inflation rate of 2.1 percent.

"I do not believe this decision will materially affect our ability to continue to attract and retain a quality federal workforce," he said.

[PhiKapMom]

That rate is for Oklahoma. The D.C. area has locality pay as does the West Coast which is added on to base pay. It is a lot cheaper living out here.

For Oklahoma, that is way above the average salary.

[yellowroses]

Well, my husband has been working 12 hour shifts for six days a week since 09/11/01, and we sure would like to get a raise. He's busted his butt..... and deserves a raise.
(He's a federal police officer)

[Our man in washington]

I'm a Federal employee. I think 3.1 percent is generous.
We have a bona fide national emergency, and I applaud Bush for making the right call.

Federal employees are paid adequately. Only a small percentage of Federal employees quit every year for jobs in the private sector, suggesting that pay is high enough to recruit and retain people.

When the Federal unions start commenting on this, they'll claim that Federal employees are underpaid 20 or 30 percent compared to equivalent private sector jobs. Such data are based on comparing what agencies claim a Federal employee does versus what a private sector employee actually does. The difference is due mostly to Federal agencies puffing up job descriptions.

Also, the data make comparisons that aren't valid. Yes, a lawyer putting in 40 hours a week working for the Justice Department is making a lot less than someone working 100 hours a week in intense private practice. Data studies will treat the two jobs as equivalent, however.

I would have gone with a 3 percent raise for those who got an "outstanding" performance evaluation, 1.5 percent for a "highly effective", a pay freeze for a "meets expectations", and termination for anything below that.

But that savings would only be a first step. I'd get to work on a plan to demand higher standards of Federal employees and to fire the deadwood and get rid of unconstitutional agencies.

[meyer]

I left private industry after 21 years to work for the government a couple of years ago.

I have to add that there are a number of reasons I left the old job, most of which I won't get into. It wasn't because it was private industry. I just found myself, more or less, disconnected from my previous employer (and that's putting it nicely). Yes, they paid well, but their goals weren't the same as the old company's goals were prior to the merger. I kept the old company's goals and the new merged company didn't. I tried to reconcile for 3 years and couldn't - we were not looking at things the same way. I put out resumes and the best offer came from dot-gov. I'm here and I'm happy again.

[RobFromGa]

Qualifications for Grade 12:

Breathing
Able to vote as directed by supervisor
Willing to service elected officials

[meyer]

:^)

I guess I should be a grade 20 or so. I can vote as I wish!!

[FreeReign]

Yes, a very good move. I wonder if this year's savings will be sufficient to cover this year's salaries of the new hires at the expanded Department of Education.

The descretionary budget of all departments except two -- Education and DOD -- went down relative to GDP. So I think the answer to your question is yes.

[meyer]

Oh yeah, and I don't have to service elected officials! I almost forgot to clear that up. LOL!

[meyer]

The descretionary budget of all departments except two -- Education and DOD -- went down relative to GDP. So I think the answer to your question is yes.

How about relative to "inflation"?

[fuzzthatwuz]

"I left private industry after 21 years to work for the government a couple of years ago. I'll stay for at least 3 more years (until my pension is vested) and probably longer."

Sounds great! What do you produce?

[Mo1]

This law outlining federal pay kicks in because Congress has not yet passed the appropriations legislation directing a specific increase, said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

Ok, stupid question .. but does this have anything to do with Dashole never passing a budget???

[Miss Marple]

Fox News at the half hour just passed went with this story, almost verbatim. Apparently they are getting a lot of their wire copy from AP.

[willyone]

Time of war? That must be why Bush has gotten serious about the invasion of illegals and is now serious about the borders. Yeah sure. And why he has cracked down on visitors from the country where most of the 9/11 hijackers and those funding the terrorism come from. He is going to milk this WOT thing for all it is worth.

[meyer]

Sounds great! What do you produce?

Reliable electricity. Just as I did before. In fact, we've been more reliable in the past year than we did for the last several years. May be due to the influx of folks from private industry that have infiltrated the organization.

[terilyn]

"You are so right! I worked there in the days where the cost of health insurance raise was more than the pay raise which meant you made less after the pay raise."

Hmmm...sounds like you used to work where I work LOL!

My health insurance costs have increased each year for the past three years while the last time we got a pay increase was March of 2001.

I know, I am happy to be employed. But reading the spin on the horror of only receiving a 3.1 increase leaves me less than sympathetic ;)

[meyer]

OK, or it may be to the merit-pay scheme we have and the fact that many insiders chose to leave the department which created the openings that we private-type folks filled in the first place.

[Revolting cat!]

Don't you worry, when our side wins (2004?) and there is no government ("like no government"), we'll remember your contribution to the fight and we'll take care of ya! Oh, wait, never mind, since there'll be no welfare state...

[willyone]

And in the same time frame a average house in most of Calif. went from $150,000 to over $300,000. Most Feds are low pay GS-5 and 6 Secretaries. The examples of outsourcing I have seen have ended up costing more than keeping the original workforce. I will agree that most of the management in the Federal area is pathetic.

[FreeReign]

How about relative to "inflation"?

GDP = inflation + population increase + real growth.

Most Descretionary Department increases were between 0% and 2.5%. I believe that inflation plus the population increase was higher than 2.5%.

[concerned about politics]

Good. It's not the government who pays their wages. It's us.