Posted on 07/09/2010 1:25:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
Growing up in Chicago, it seemed everyone knew the route to a safe, secure future: Get a government job. Such jobs offered lower pay but greater security; once on the payroll it was virtually impossible to get fired from a government job.
Well, that last part remains true -- red tape still makes it extremely difficult to get rid of a federal “civil servant,” even if that employee is no longer serving the public well (or at all). But in recent decades, the other half of the equation has changed. Now, federal employees make more -- much more -- than their private sector counterparts.
A recent survey by economists at The Heritage Foundation found that “the average federal employee earns $28.64 an hour compared to $18.27 an hour in the private sector.” That’s more than half-again as much.
Of course, it’s not always easy to compare federal jobs with private sector jobs. There are many federal jobs that don’t exist in the “real world,” (and many that probably shouldn’t exist at all). Still, the Heritage analysis uses two different methods to control for the differences, and finds that federal employees are comparatively overpaid.
And it’s not simply better pay. Federal workers also enjoy better benefits.
These include excellent coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, which contributes 33 percent more toward health care costs than private-sector programs do. Federal workers also enjoy a defined-benefit pension program, something that’s almost unheard of these days in the private sector. Plus, federal employees can retire at age 56, take another job and still collect their full pension.
There’s one more benefit it’s impossible to put a price tag on: job security. “Civil service rules make it difficult to fire federal employees for bad performance once they pass their probationary period,” writes labor expert James Sherk. Probation usually lasts just a single year. Once hired, feds “keep their jobs unless their supervisor works through an arduous process of exhaustively documenting their performance and working through a complex appeal process,” Sherk notes.
And in these recessionary times, Uncle Sam’s about the only one doing much hiring. The federal government has added almost 200,000 jobs since the recession started, while private employers have pared some 8 million net jobs. Federal employees seem to have been protected from the recession.
Federal over-compensation is bad enough simply because we taxpayers are stuck with the bill. But our government is also sending the wrong message. Since it over-pays, it encourages people to work for it even though most federal jobs don’t contribute much to overall economic growth. “Overpaying government employees means less economic growth and fewer jobs for everyone else,” as Sherk writes.
None of this is to claim that all federal employees are overpaid. There are high-performing federal workers who earn less than they would in the private market. Still, lawmakers should begin to apply market principles to the federal payroll, a process that could save up to $47 billion each year -- enough to fund the Departments of Commerce, Interior or Energy.
First, Congress should get rid of the General Schedule, which rewards employees based on their length of service, and replace it with performance-based pay, which would encourage workers to excel.
The federal government should also hire private contractors. Rather than hire, for example, staff assistants who can advance through the ranks and eventually earn $80,000 per year, Washington should contract such jobs out. They’ll be done just as well, and at far less cost.
Congress should also pare back federal benefits to bring them in line with what private sector workers earn. This seems only fair, since it’s private workers who pay the taxes that fund government jobs.
Americans should expect our federal government to be efficient and effective. Reforming the way it pays civil servants would be a good first step.
Really? How many federal employees are there?
“The CSRS retirement system, which is not applicable to anyone hired after 1987, topped out at 80% of your high-three years average salary, and you needed 40 years work.
The federal government, on average, hires people who are 35 years of age. At 56 the employee would have only 21 years service, and his CSRS retirement would have been about 35% of his high three.”
And most hired after 1983 are covered by the FERS retirement system in which the annuity is 1% per year. Work 40 years and you get 40% of your high-three base pay.
I wonder why the author isn’t aware that they did get rid of GS for many employees, put them under NSPS for a few years, and now they are back under GS?
I looked at the study more closely, and it appears the author did a pretty good job of it. My point about not comparing similar jobs was wrong. The author did take that into account. My other point about some federal employees serving in high risk or high cost (overseas) areas is still valid.
Poster utax’s comment concerning FERS is accurate. I don’t know why the Heritage Foundation focused on CSRS, a generous pension system by today’s standards, because most federal employees are FERS.
Your father’s federal retirement plan (CSRS) no longer exists. It was pretty generous. The present federal pension plan (FERS) pays 1% per year served. That’s not bad, but it isn’t as generous as some seem to think. Most FERS employees save for their own retirement using the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a program similar to private 401K pension plans.
Without unionized govt workers, the democrats wouldn’t be able to finance political campaigns using our tax dollars - in order to (later) take MORE of our tax dollars, meaning more campaign contributions - and etc, rinse & repeat.
The whole point of the piece is to make a claim that federal government employees earn more than their private sector equivalents ~ to wit, 45 year old accountants and lawyers, and letter carriers, and postal clerks, and field agents for USDA, and NHS doctors!
Since his data on pay disparities doesn't support his contention he swifts to "generous retirement benefits".
In general Heritage Foundation doesn't do a good job in this particular debate for a very simple reason ~ they hired on entirely too many retired federal employees who have an axe to grind about the way they were treated.
I know a fellow who got canned for misrepresenting a certain important management factor for several decades. I'm the guy who pointed out what he'd done. He needed fired. Heritage Foundation picked him up like he was the sweetest rose in the field.
We have several Freepers here who could put together a far more meaningful report if we were given the resources Heritage makes available to their clowns.
Too bad Heritage Foundation, you're wasting the old man's money just like your far leftwingtard counterparts at the Annenburg Foundation.
I think a restart is in order. Kick out the current management. Hire in a new management. Hire on new fellows. Start up some real studies that are truly meaningful.
Frankly, I don't care for propaganda from any foundation ~
“First, Congress should get rid of the General Schedule, which rewards employees based on their length of service, and replace it with performance-based pay, which would encourage workers to excel.”
If you think the current Civil Service System is flawed, wait until the screw-job that is “performance-based” pay.
Former military members DO NOT get their military time counted toward their federal employee retirement unless they pay into the system. They must pay 3% of their total base pay for their military time into the FERS system in order to receive retirement credit for it.
There are approximately 2 million federal civilian employees, excluding the post office. And we know that number has been growing at a steady clip.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm
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.