Federal bureaucrats reject Bush's insistence upon a mere 3.1% annual pay raise (My title).

GovernmentExecutive.com ^ | Dec. 3rd, 2002 | Tanya N. Ballard

[End The Hypocrisy]

Though the Bush administration announced last week that it would limit the 2003 federal civilian pay raise to 3.1 percent, union leaders said Monday they will continue to fight for a 4.1 percent raise. [They're still rather impossible to fire, by the way]. In a statement released Monday, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md. said he plans to push for a 4.1 percent pay increase in the 2003 Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations bill or to try and add one to an omnibus bill. However, President Bush says that granting a pay raise larger than 3.1 percent would jeopardize homeland security efforts. Nevertheless, Hoyer says that this latest move by President Bush sends the wrong message to federal employees. “Anything less than the 4.1 percent pay adjustment sends the regrettable message that the services they provide to America every day are not valued,” he said.

“The president's decision is further evidence of the administration's low regard for the professionalism and dedication of the federal workforce, and for the vital services provided to the nation by federal employees,” says National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley. “Even more than that, however, this mistaken and unwise decision completely ignores the critical role pay plays in making the federal government a competitive employer with the private sector. Members of the 107th Congress clearly understood that, as evidenced by the bipartisan and bicameral support for a 4.1 percent raise in 2003.”

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>“The president's decision is further evidence of the administration's low regard for the professionalism and dedication of the federal workforce, and for the vital services provided to the nation by federal employees,” says National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley.<<<

If they're so dedicated, where are the tax code reform proposals that those tax-leeches used to claim they were compiling?

[End The Hypocrisy]

Most Americans feel lucky to have a job, let alone an annual raise accompanied by career guarantees and lots of tax-subsidized benefits. But that's not enough for the self-proclaimed "best and the brightest". Never mind, I suppose, that the U.S. national debt just reached an all time high of $6.3 trillion dollars:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

[GhengisKhan]

They may be impossible to fire, but their work unit can be defunded. Hint, hint.

[End The Hypocrisy]

Linda Chavez doesn't seem to think so, but admittedly she wrote this before the GOP took over the Senate again:

here's a great article by Linda Chavez (whom the media targeted to keep from becoming the new Secretary of Labor back in January of 2000)

Perpetual pursuit of government reforms

Al Gore tried it and failed. Ronald Reagan had some modest success when he attempted it. Even Jimmy Carter gave it a shot. Now President Bush is trying his hand at reforming the federal government. Let's hope he has more luck than his predecessors did. Mr. Gore tried to "reinvent government." Mr. Reagan's Grace Commission pledged to eliminate "waste, fraud and abuse." And Mr. Carter introduced "zero-based budgeting" for federal agencies to try to reduce the size of government. Despite their efforts, the size of the federal work force grew, but productivity didn't. Now Mr. Bush wants to cut the work force and improve productivity. Good luck.
The president's plan, announced during his weekly radio address, would create incentives for some current federal employees to take early retirement, out-source more jobs to contractors and base pay increases on performance rather than longevity, allowing managers to reward the best workers. If enacted -- and it will not be an easy task, especially with government employee unions fighting reform every step of the way -- the Bush plan could save a bundle.
The president complained that the federal government spends $45 billion a year on computers and technology, a huge sum, but "unlike private sector companies, this large investment has not cut the government's costs or improved people's lives in any way that we can measure."
It's no wonder why. The problem isn't lack of equipment, it's the people who are expected to use it. I've worked in government and headed two federal agencies during my career and still have many friends in government. I've encountered bright, dedicated federal workers over the years -- but unfortunately, I've encountered almost as many incompetent and just plain lazy federal employees as well.
Back in the days before voice mail, I had a secretary who refused to answer the phone. She'd let it ring 10 or 12 times, lift the receiver off the cradle and drop it back down again, disconnecting the caller. And this was in the congressional liaison office of the then Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This same woman filed a grievance against me when I asked that all members of Congress receive a response to their letters within two weeks.
When I was head of the Civil Rights Commission, I had a secretary who could barely speak English, much less read or write it well. Her job was to type the annual report to Congress on the commission's activities. When I discovered that much of the typed report was gibberish -- she didn't know what she was typing, they were just sequences of letters -- I offered to send her to classes to improve her English. That offer prompted a visit from the agency's solicitor, warning me that I shouldn't even suggest such a thing and certainly could not force her to take lessons.
Another woman in the agency -- a division manager -- would invite her assistant into her office every afternoon at 3 p.m. to play "Boggle," a board game involving dice the two would play noisily until quitting time. Now, federal employees can play computer games or surf the Internet to their heart's content all day long.
I estimate that about a third of the federal employees I worked with were hard-working, another third were competent but lacked initiative, and fully one third were unable or unwilling to do their jobs. The problem is, there's almost no way under the current system to adequately reward the first group or get rid of the last.
Mr. Bush's proposal attempts to deal with this problem, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. If we want accountability from federal employees, we've got to overhaul the entire system. It means getting rid of job protection for federal employees.
If an employee doesn't perform, there's no reason to keep him. If a program is reduced or eliminated, the staff should be cut accordingly, not just reshuffled within the agency.
If the government could hire and fire like much of the private sector does, agencies could do with fewer employees -- and afford to compensate the best ones commensurate with their talent. But don't count on it happening anytime soon.
Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist

Article formerly maintained at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20010830-99647884.htm

[End The Hypocrisy]

Isn't it revealing how bureaucrats frequently boast that they could make so much more in the private sector, but then whenever they're shown the doorway to the private sector they dig in their heels and rant about how it's their supposed patriotic duty to remain on the federal trough for the good of our country?

[End The Hypocrisy]

You might get a kick out of this:

Washington Times.com article
( http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20021023-98599048.htm ):

"The State Department official who was forced to retire because her office allowed most of the September 11 hijackers into the United States has recently won an "outstanding performance" award of $15,000... The congressional General Accounting Office said in a report this week that 13 of the 19 hijackers were given visas without ever seeing a U.S. consular official...Last summer, reports of lax visa rules for Saudis — who could apply for visas over the Internet with no questions asked — prompted Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to force Miss Ryan to retire...Thomas Furey, who was consul-general in the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and helped establish the "Visa Express," also received a bonus....[State Department spokesman Richard] Boucher, when asked whether the bonus was appropriate, accused the reporter of "attacking friends of mine, people who dedicate their lives to their government and their country — my friends." Mr. Boucher, who also received a bonus, refused to comment on the individual merits of each bonus. The awards list was compiled this summer by the 2002 Senior Foreign Service Selection Board. The State Department official would not describe the criteria on which the awards were made. "

[Bodacious]

"National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley. “Even more than that, however, this mistaken and unwise decision completely ignores the critical role pay plays in making the federal government a competitive employer with the private sector."
Why the HE*L do Federal Employees need a UNION for? I think a 10% pay reduction with a RIF of 20% should be a good start for all but those in the uniform military. The RIF people could be offered a chance to enlist(NOT APPLY FOR OFFICER CORPS!!). There should be no discrimination as to sex, sexual orientation , or previous nationality. The top rate should be GS-16 or so, so they can see what the rest of us have to live on. Better yet; scrap all the offices and start from scratch.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>a RIF of 20% should be a good start<<<

At least for the FIRST month, anyway :-) Meanwhile, how can a Maryland congressional pork-luvin' tail wag the entire American dog like this, when our own president has said the raise will be merely 3.1%? Is our governmental system that ungovernable?

[goodnesswins]

What a bunch of BULL......the PRIVATE sector they cite as trying to stay competitive with is CUTTING BACK, and NOT giving pay raises in some cases (my husband got NO raise this year).

Would be better if President Bush suggested a lay off of about 20% and NO PAY INCREASES.....

[winner3000]

Bush should give them 4.1%...if they agree to change their contract so that they can be fired.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Would be better if President Bush suggested a lay off of about 20% and NO PAY INCREASES.....<<<

You're absolutely right about the need to lay-off bureaucrats....but the Pendleton Act has to be reformed first in order to make this legally possible. The bureaucrats snuck the Pendleton Act by taxpayers over a century ago, before the telecommunications revolution made it possible for voters to stay as up-to-date about such tax-leeching abuses in Washington D.C. Do you think President Bush can make the legal reform happen?

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Bush should give them 4.1%...if they agree to change their contract so that they can be fired.<<<


I've read that ordinary Union leaders gave 92% of union dues-related 2002 campaign contributions to Democrats, even though over 40% of union members voted for Republican House candidates. They even sacrificed Homeland Security to try and preserve career guarantees. Ultimately, though, American voters spoke against such abuses on November 5th. Will Bush and the (pork-luvin') Congress remember in 2003, though?

[BlueLancer]

As a DoD civil servant (a double-dipper for all you ex-military guys out there), I am very happy to be getting a 3.1 percent pay raise. I have my job and I do it well, and I'm proud of what I do. I also don't belong to the union. In fact, my section's union rep won't even come into my office because of my large framed autographed picture of Ronald Reagan on the wall.

Now if that only worked to keep the other cockroaches (the six-legged kind) out as well.

[End The Hypocrisy]

Kudos to you! I wonder how your DOD peers respond when yet another Republican President's highly relevant remarks are invoked:

http://www.spaceprojects.com/Eisenhower

[BlueLancer]

Well, the civilians don't really care for my patriotism wall (as I call it). I've got a framed picture of Paul Revere's Ride, my autographed picture of Ronald Reagan, and my NRA "The Doorway To All Freedoms Is Framed With Muskets" Charlton Heston picture.

Most of the military that passes through loves it though.

[afz400]

Linda Chavez says she estimates "that about a third of the federal employees I worked with were hard-working, another third were competent but lacked initiative, and fully one third were unable or unwilling to do their jobs."
As a civil servant, I estimate that about a third of the government contractors I work with are hard-working, another third are competent but lack initiative, and fully one third are unable or unwilling to do their jobs. My point is that it doesn't matter who does the work (civil servants or federal employees), government work is inherently wasteful because Congress' main desire is to divert tax revenue to their districts to get elected. Until someone comes up with a way to stop that, it's pretty much hopeless to do anything about it.

[Stand Watch Listen]

FYI...I believe the Government has IGNORED all recommentdations made pursuant to the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act and in Office of Personnel Management regulations. I believe every president has cited some form of national budgetary considerations as an exception.

Panel sets 2003 locality pay rates
Source: Government Executive Magazine; Published: October 1, 2002

Federal employees would receive pay increases ranging from 4.02 percent to 4.87 percent in January under recommendations that will be submitted to the Bush administration and most likely adopted.

The proposed raises, endorsed by the Federal Salary Council at a meeting Tuesday, would include a 3.1 percent across-the-board increase plus locality-based raises ranging from an additional 0.92 percent to 1.71 percent.

President Bush could ultimately reject the proposed raises, but recent history suggests that the council’s recommendations will take effect in January. As part of the 2003 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, Congress is likely to approve a 4.1 percent average pay increase for federal workers. Following a formula in federal law, Bush is then likely to set the 3.1 percent across-the-board increase and then follow the council’s recommendations for the locality raises.

Federal workers in 31 metropolitan areas, ranging from Atlanta and Washington to Huntsville, Ala., get special locality pay, based on the cost of labor in each city. Outside the 31 areas, federal workers in the 48 contiguous states are covered by the “Rest of the U.S.” locality pay category.

The Federal Salary Council, a commission of government representatives and federal employee union leaders, oversees locality pay. It also recommends pay raises based on formulas set in the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act and in Office of Personnel Management regulations.

The council’s endorsed 2003 raises reflect the fact that the government has largely ignored the formula for locality pay set out in the 1990 law. Under the formula, the government was supposed to close an estimated 30 percent gap between private sector and federal pay to 5 percent. The pay gap is down to about 19 percent, a council report issued Tuesday said. Getting the gap down to 5 percent would require double-digit raises.

Critics of the locality pay system say it doesn’t accurately portray pay differences among occupations. Standard locality rates mask the widely varying salaries that different types of professional employees can demand. Critics have also questioned the methodology used to estimate the pay gap.

Next year, the salary council, headed by new Chairman Sam Wallace, plans a top-to-bottom review of the locality pay system. The council will review the structure of the system, the number of locality pay areas, the precision of pay gap measurements and the salary surveys used to estimate locality pay differences.

Federal Salary Council Recommended
2003 Percentage Pay Raises, By Locality

Atlanta 4.14%
Boston 4.40%
Chicago 4.51%
Cincinnati 4.34%
Cleveland 4.19%
Columbus 4.11%
Dallas/Ft. Worth 4.22%
Dayton, Ohio 4.09%
Denver 4.40%
Detroit 4.50%
Hartford 4.41%
Houston 4.77%
Huntsville, Ala. 4.03%
Indianapolis 4.03%
Kansas City 4.02%
Los Angeles 4.57%
Miami 4.35%
Milwaukee 4.18%
Minneapolis/St. Paul 4.28%
New York 4.53%
Orlando 4.03%
Philadelphia 4.31%
Pittsburgh 4.04%
Portland 4.33%
Richmond 4.12%
Sacramento 4.30%
St. Louis 4.06%
San Diego 4.35%
San Francisco 4.87%
Seattle 4.34%
Washington, D.C. 4.27%

Rest of U.S. 4.03%

[JackOfVA]

The pay increases are actually greater than 3.1%, in that there are automatic step increases built into the system.

The white collar folks, under the "GS" schedule qualify for periodic "step increases" within their GS level. The step increases happen every 52 weeks, 104 weeks or 156 weeks, depending on the step. (Earlier steps come quicker) There is roughly a 3% step increase between each step.

For example, a particlar job might be a GS-11 classification (say an engineer) and the employee starts as a GS-11, Step 1 but will eventually be a GS-11, step 10. (GS-11 Step 1 = $43K; GS-11, step 10 = $$56K.)

So, many federal workers will get a 6% increase, representing 3.1% COL plus about a 3% step increase just for employment longevity.

Jack

[aerophixer]

look, I have not posted here for along time,but some of you may have known me as jetmech19. what you are saying about federal workers is not very freeper like. I am a WG-10 step 2 and work everyday in the grease pit of an F-15 eagle phase inspection dock.to just give you a look at how much we are paid,Im going to tell you that I make 17.51 per hour which after taxes brings me home a whopping $1081.00 every 2 weeks, so please be careful how you post, on what you think you know.most federal employees I am around vote bush and are solid republicans take care and be safe

[lavaroise]

union leaders said Monday they will continue to fight for a 4.1 percent raise.

I wish we had union leaders for tax payers!!!

THEIR JOB IS NOT A PRIVILEGE! DAMN IT! Our jobs and our money is our right, their jobs will not go before our jobs. Enough said.