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

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

[Joe Hadenuf]

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.

What services are they referring to? Services like when the people of Califoria voted 3-to 1 in favor of prop 187, it passed, we won, and it was going to put a stop to much of the tax paid support of illegal aliens, then the federal government services steps in and burned our ballots and declared our free election illegal, after we won.

WTF services are they talking about? The only thing I want the federal government to do is to protect our borders, and they can't even do that!

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Can't they supplement their incomes by selling all those "lost" guns and laptops we've been hearing about?<<<

Newt Gingrich has an idea for how bureaucrats can make more money in the private sector if they're truly good: offer competitive prizes (as opposed to cost-plus contracts) to those who come up with, for instance, a cure for cancer or AIDS, or who develop cheaper access to space, or develop worthwhile missile defense. No yield means no reward. NASA is already seriously discussing Newt's approach, as http://www.spaceprojects.com/prizes documents. Go Newt Go! :-)

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Does anyone think the federal govt is 100% efficient?<<<


Yes! At converting each dollar into a dime, or less.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Services like when the people of Califoria voted 3-to 1 in favor of prop 187, it passed, we won, and it was going to put a stop to much of the tax paid support of illegal aliens, then the federal government services steps in and burned our ballots and declared our free election illegal, after we won. <<<


Arnold Schwarzenegger. is supposed to be a conservative, but didn't he just push through some initiative to spend even MORE money on them during after school hours? I'm all for sports programs but I wonder if he'd ever support something like Prop 187 someday, if elected governor?

[Stand Watch Listen]

Wherein most, in not all the USA Armed Services are involved in a mission, or systems. One service takes the lead for the others. Also, there may be British, Taiwanese, Turkish, German, Australian, Spanish, New Zealand, Italian, (Army, Navy, Air Force) personnel involved in various briefings/planning.

[HamiltonJay]

Inflation has been well under 2% for last few years, there is no reason to be griping about a 3.1% increase. Lots of people out in the real world have been getting pay cuts.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those who are attacking federal workers prefer the mythology which makes them feel superior I suppose. Most of what they believe is false but they will never be convinced that it is not true.

[buffyt]

My husband has been a chem. engineer with Dow Chem. since May 1973. His project in Calif. was just cancelled and we are back in Texas. The company announced No Raises or Bonuses next year. [Dow is doing badly, due to lawsuits, coming Iraq war, increased oil prices, low stock market] We are just grateful to have a paycheck coming, with three kids in college and no loans or scholarships, yet. Dow got sued for breast implants although all medical studies proved they do not cause all the autoimmune diseases that the lawyers claimed. [We didn't make them, Dow Corning did, but we bought Corning after the fact...] Now we are being sued for asbestos, even though WE NEVER MADE THE SH*T! We bought Union Carbide and THEY used to make it. But WE are being sued for it. I wonder if these people know that the people they are really punishing are kids like mine, totally innocent, just trying to make it through college.

[rintense]

Cry me a river. My company has had two years of only 3% increases in salaries- across the board. Everyone is hurting, including our government.

[unixfox]

This is what happens when you have 51% of Americans working for the government. Aint no goin back either, consider it over. They have obtained the goal and will control it until the other 49% decide to take it back from the leeches.

[RightWhale]

I wonder if these people know

Short answer: Yes, they know. They are cut from the same cloth as barroom lawyers and jailhouse lawyers. You can take it from there.

[anymouse]

what you are saying about federal workers is not very freeper like.

No, whining civil servants are not FReeper like. Buddy, thanks for your service and all, but you work for us, not the other way around.

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.

Well maybe you should compair paychecks and career prospects with commercial airline mechanics. I'm sure not a few of them would trade places with you. Why the heck is a civil servant working as a mechanic anyway? That job should be outsourced to a contractor.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for you that you work in a grease pit? You are after all a mechanic. If you are inspecting F-15s, I'm betting that it isn't too greasy.

And for the sake of our pilots, I hope that you take more care in your inspections than you do in your typing. :)

[anymouse]

Your company had across the board increases? Feel lucky. Many others feel lucky to still be employed after the economic downturn of the last 2 years.

It's about time that civil servants started sharing some of the economic pain. Frankly they should be taking pay cuts and being laid off in proportion to the number of private sector jobs lost.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Why the heck is a civil servant working as a mechanic anyway? That job should be outsourced to a contractor. <<<


Is the answer to that classified, or something?

[FreedomCalls]

It seems one William Jefferson Clinton did the same thing (though he wanted only a 2.7% raise and actually gave a 3.7%) each year he was in office. He even had the gall to "declare a national economic emergency" at the height of the NASDAQ and DOW stock bubble. Where was the criticism then?

-----

For Immediate Release December 1, 2000
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

November 30, 2000

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

I am transmitting an alternative plan for Federal employee locality-based comparability payments (locality pay) for 2001.

Federal employees are the key to effective Government performance. During the last 8 years, the number of Federal employees has declined while their responsibilities have stayed the same or increased. Nonetheless, recent surveys show the American public believes it is now getting better quality and more responsible service from our Federal employees. We need to provide them fair and equitable compensation to recognize their important role, and to enable the Federal Government to continue to attract and retain a high-quality workforce.

Under title 5, United States Code, most Federal civilian employees would receive a two-part pay raise in January 2001: (1) a 2.7 percent base salary raise linked to the part of the Employment Cost Index (ECI) that deals with changes in the wages and salaries of private industry workers; and (2) a locality pay raise, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' salary surveys of non-Federal employers in local pay areas, that would cost about 12.3 percent of payroll. Thus, on a cost-of-payroll basis, the total Federal employee pay increase for most employees would be about 15 percent in 2001.

For each part of the two-part pay increase, title 5 gives me the authority to implement an alternative pay adjustment plan if I view the pay adjustment that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate because of "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare." Over the past three decades, Presidents have used this or similar authority for most annual Federal pay raises.

In evaluating "an economic condition affecting the general welfare," the law directs me to consider such economic measures as the Index of Leading Economic Indicators, the Gross National Product, the unemployment rate, the budget deficit, the Consumer Price Index, the Producer Price Index, the Employment Cost Index, and the Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditures.

Earlier this year, I decided that I would implement -- effective in January 2001 -- the full 2.7 percent base salary adjustment. As a result, it was not necessary to transmit an alternative pay plan by the legal deadline (August 31) for that portion of the pay raise.

In assessing the appropriate locality pay adjustment for 2001, I reviewed the indicators cited above along with other major economic indicators. As noted above, the full locality pay increases, when combined with the 2.7 percent base salary increase, would produce a total Federal civilian payroll increase of about 15 percent for most employees. In fiscal year (FY) 2001 alone, this increase would add $9.8 billion above the cost of the 3.7 percent increase I proposed in the fiscal 2001 Budget.

A 15 percent increase in Federal pay would mark a fundamental change of our successful policy of fiscal discipline, and would invite serious economic risks -- in terms of the workings of the Nation's labor markets; inflation; the costs of maintaining Federal programs; and the impact of the Federal budget on the economy as a whole.

First, an across-the-board 15 percent increase in Federal pay scales would be disruptive to labor markets across the country. This increase would be three to four times the recent average annual changes in private-sector compensation, built into the base of the pay structure not just for 2001, but for subsequent years as well. With job markets already tight and private firms reporting great difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled employees, this increase in Federal salaries could pull prospective job seekers away from private employment opportunities.

Second, in the face of such a large Federal pay increase, private firms would almost certainly react by increasing their own wage offers. Thus, beyond the labor-market disruption of such a Federal pay increase, there would follow a serious risk of inflation; and that risk would far exceed the direct effects of the Federal pay raise taken in isolation. Pay rates economy-wide have already enticed a record percentage of the adult population into the labor force and paid employment. There are few unemployed or underemployed workers available for hire; if private firms need additional labor, they must raise their wage offers to attract workers from other firms. Such bidding wars for labor -- which constitutes roughly two-thirds of business costs in this economy -- have been at or near the core of all inflationary outbursts in our recent history. To date, intense competitive pressures have prevented private firms from allowing their wage offers to step out of line with productivity gains, and inflationary pressures have remained contained. However, a shock arising outside of the competitive labor market itself -- such as an administratively determined Federal pay increase -- could convince private business managers that they must increase their offers beyond the current norms. In the past to reverse accelerating inflation, the Nation paid an enormous toll through policies designed to slow the economy and reduce the pressure on prices. In numerous instances, the result was recession and sharp increases in unemployment. With labor markets as tight as they are we should not undertake a policy likely to shock the labor market.

Third, Federal program managers are already under considerable pressure to meet their budgets, while still providing quality service to the taxpayers. Increasing the Federal employment costs at such an extraordinary rate would render those budgets inadequate to provide the planned level of services. Appropria-tions for the coming fiscal year have already been legislated for much of the Federal Government, and all sides hope that spending bills for the remaining agencies will pass in the very near future. In particular, agencies that have the greatest responsibility for person-to-person service -- the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Veterans Affairs healthcare programs, to name just three -- could not be expected to bear double-digit pay increases without the most thorough review and adjustment of their budgets.

Finally, despite the current budget surpluses, the Federal Government continues to face substantial budgetary challenges.

When my Administration took office in January 1993, we faced the largest budget deficit in the Nation's history -- over $290 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1992. By the projections of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and every other authority, the deficit would only get bigger. Furthermore, under both of these projections, the public debt, and the interest burden from that debt, were expected to be in a vicious upward cycle.

While we have pulled the budget back from this crisis, and in fact we have enjoyed the first budget surpluses since l969, adverse budgetary forces are just a few years away. The Social Security system will come under increasing pressure with the impending retirement of the large baby-boom generation. In addition, the aging of the population will increase costs for Medicare and Medicaid. If we become complacent because of the current budget surplus and increase spending now, the surplus could well be gone even before the baby-boom generation retires.

My Administration has put these budgetary challenges front and center. A 15 percent Federal pay increase, built into the Government's cost base for all succeeding years, would be a dangerous step away from budget discipline. The budgetary restraint that produced the current budget surpluses must be maintained if we are to keep the budget sound into the retirement years of the baby boom generation.

Therefore, I have determined that the total civilian raise of 3.7 percent that I proposed in my 2001 Budget remains appropriate. This raise matches the 3.7 percent basic pay increase that I proposed for military members in my 2001 Budget, and that was enacted in the FY 2001 Defense Authorization Act. Given the 2.7 percent base salary increase, the total increase of 3.7 percent allows an amount equal to 1.0 percent of payroll for increases in locality payments.

Accordingly, I have determined that:

Under the authority of section 5304a of title 5, United States
Code, locality-based comparability payments in the amounts set
forth on the attached table shall become effective on the first day
of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1,
2001. When compared with the payments currently in effect, these
comparability payments will increase the General Schedule payroll
by about 1.0 percent.

Finally, the law requires that I include in this report an assessment of how my decisions will affect the Government's ability to recruit and retain well-qualified employees. I do not believe this will have any material impact on the quality of our workforce. If the needs arise, the Government can use many pay tools -- such as recruitment bonuses, retention allowances, and special salary rates -- to maintain the high-quality workforce that serves our Nation so very well.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

[rintense]

Exactly. I'm just glad we even got 3%. Of course, we've lost over 3000 employees in the past two years too.

[RooRoobird14]

Aerophixer, i've tried to be careful about not slamming ALL federal workers--there are good ones, but there are far too many incompetent, lazy, and worthless ones, too.

As Linda Chavez pointed out in a recent article, she was completely powerless (in her very senior position!!!) to fire or hold accountable blatantly incompetent and insubordinate workers in her office. She also had no discretion in what a star performer was paid versus what a a worthless, unproductive slug was paid.

According to Chavez, she observed about one-third competent workers who showed initiative, one third who were competent but lazy, the remaining third being both incompetent AND lazy. Under the current system all these people are paid the same--if you live another year, you get a pay raise.

I for one am THRILLED that President Bush is trying to cap pay raises (which have nothing to do with merit or accountability). I'm also thrilled that President Bush is trying to out-source 850,000 federal jobs so taxpayers have a better chance of getting their money's worth.

[Eva]

>>>“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

I think she got this statement about right. It's a lesson that many of our state governors need to learn. A more efficient government is needed more than ever to make up for fiscal deficits.

[Consort]

Everything described here so far is not even the tip of the iceberg.

[Area51]

When I hear a civil servent tell about working for 5 years without a pay increase AND having health benefits cut like some close to me have I will pay attention. A lot of everyday Americans don't even come close to the gravy the Civil Servents are handed. They perhaps should walk a few days in those shoes...

Until then, they can quityerbitchen!