Eliminate civil service protections for ALL unionized goobermint employees.
Give ‘em a choice - civil service or union - but not both.
Unionized federal employees are a protective layer for elected “representatives.” The classic example of one hand washing the other.
In 1782, Benjamin Franklin wrote, in order to dissuade Europeans from relocating to the United States to get civil service sinecures:
“. . . it is a rule in some of the states that no office should be so profitable as to make it desirable. The thirty-sixth article of the Constitution of Pennsylvania runs expressly in these words: ‘As every freeman, to preserve his independence (if he has not a sufficient estate), ought to have some profession, calling, trade, or farm, whereby he may honestly subsist there can be no necessity for, nor use in establishing offices of profit, the usual effects of which are dependence and servility unbecoming freemen, in the possessors and expectants; faction; contention, corruption, and disorder among the poeple. Wherefore, whenever an office, through increase of fees or otherwise, becomes so profitable as to occasion many to apply for it, the profits ought to be lessened by the legislature.’ These ideas prevailing more or less in all the United States, it cannot be worth any man’s while, who has a means of living at home [i.e., Europe] to expatriate himself in hopes of obtaining a profitable civil office in America; . . . “ (Padover, ed., The World of Our Founding Fathers, New Bicentennial Edition, p. 126-127)
How far we have fallen.
There are few federal employees as a percentage of the total US workforce. I really don’t think this is worth spending much time debating.
There is NO FULL PENSION ever in the federal system ~ not at 56, not at 80, not at any time.
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.
The implications of the term "full retirement" is that you retire on "full pay". With 5 years service you can qualify for a very limited retirement payment at 62 (if you come in and leave early ~ typical of so many appointees and Congresscritters). "Full" ain't happening.
I'm sorry, once you get to that BS claim regarding federal retirement that means you are dealing with nothing more than a piece of propaganda or just sheer ignorance, or maybe even stupidity.
I take issue with these federal versus private pay comparisons, because I haven’t yet found one that didn’t have serious flaws. These studies typically have a political agenda and should be taken with a grain of salt unless the comparison involves specific jobs in a given job market. Average federal versus private hourly rate comparisons are very deceptive. Why? Here are a few reasons to consider:
Federal work doesn’t include millions of minimum or low wage, low skill jobs like fast food burger flipping. These jobs certainly distort average hourly wage comparisons.
Many federal workers work in high cost or high risk areas. An employee in Japan, for example, will have a considerably higher annual salary because of cost of living allowances. A worker in Iraq will receive higher pay due to hostile fire and/or extreme work conditions. Higher pay is typically justified in these situations, and these jobs would distort pay comparisons.
On the other hand, many federal jobs aren’t classified correctly for the skills required. For example, answering (non-technical) emails and shuffling paperwork from point A to B, essentially low skill clerk work, doesn’t really require a college degree. Reclassifying these workers into appropriate pay scales for ACTUAL work performed would save many $ billions.
Of course, many (unconstitutional) federal jobs should be completely eliminated and no public service employee should be unionized. There’s certainly a lot of room for improvement, but conservatives are NOT anarchists. Some federal jobs are necessary and even benefit the private sector. Conservatives should want the best people possible in those jobs, and that requires competitive rates of compensation.
Have you seen the hundreds and hundreds of new positions being added in Federal agencies to implement the new laws. Unreal. Many are in the highest brackets....above 100K and very often the 123-155k or up to 176K.
How is this sustainable? Especially when these folks retire and get a substantial portion of their salaries and cost of living increases.
Many of them are retiring right now at 55.
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.
“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.