TOPICS
TOPICS
Lawmakers renew fight for military-civilian pay parity
Ten House members from the Washington metropolitan area wrote to President Bush Tuesday urging him to include equivalent raises for military and civil service employees when he releases his 2006 budget proposal next month.
The group includes two Republicans, Tom Davis and Frank Wolf of Virginia, and eight Democrats: Steny Hoyer, Benjamin Cardin, Elijah Cummings, Dutch Ruppersberger, Chris Van Hollen and Albert Wynn of Maryland, James Moran of Virginia, and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington.
In his budget proposal last year, Bush asked Congress for a 3.5 percent raise for the military, but only a 1.5 percent increase for the civil service. Congress overruled the president and provided both groups with a 3.5 percent pay raise.
"We believe anything less than an equal pay adjustment in 2006 sends the regrettable message that the services civilians provide to America every day are not highly valued," the letter said.
With the government facing a potential wave of retirements, the need to stay competitive with private sector salaries is keen, the writers continued.
For more than a decade, presidents have proposed annual pay raises for General Schedule workers lower than those eventually enacted by Congress. The roots of the conflict are in the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, sponsored by Hoyer, which aimed to close a gap of 23 percent that some experts believe existed between civil service salaries and those in the private sector. The act went into effect in 1993, but no president has followed the formulas provided in the act for setting civilian pay.
To overrule the pay formulas established in the law, President Bush has each year proposed a different plan. For example, he proposed a 2.1 percent raise for 2004. Congress eventually enacted an average 4.1 percent raise. For 2003, Bush proposed 2.6 percent; Congress approved 4.1 percent. In Bush's first budget, for 2002, he proposed a 3.6 percent raise. Congress bumped it up to 4.6 percent.
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations argued that the pay formula in the 1990 act overstated the pay gap and that raises should be more closely tied to inflation. The House members in this week's letter indicated that they disagree.
"Historically, Congress has expressed strong bipartisan support for parity in pay adjustments between our military and federal civilian sectors," they wrote, "due to the essential service military and civilian employees provide to our nation and the vast wage gap that exists between public and private sector wages."
COMMENTS
- Regarding the post that addressed "the rest of the story". I believe that this is the first time I have seen this issue addressed in any of the posts on this site and it's about time. I am always hearing about the Civil Service employees who are serving right next to their military counterparts, both at home and abroad. I've even seen a post that emphasized the the "blood, sweat and tears" that gov workers expend to support our troops and then went on to emphasize the fact that all of the troops VOLUNTEERED to be there. Has the OPM instituted a draft? Perhaps lawmakers could take a different approach to the pay parity situation. A compromise where only civilian workers in DEPLOYABLE positions receive the same pay raises as the military. That should make the majority of civilian employees happy since the argument for pay parity almost always involves the fact that we civil service employees work side by side in combat zones with the military. If Federal employees want to argue for pay parity, then they should be honest with themselves when it comes the responsibilities of their position compared to that of their military counterparts. If you really want some sympathy, you need to come up with a better argument, because one of these days, the administration and the lawmakers are going to wise up and reach a compromise. Then, Fed employees who really do put their lives on the line, or spend months away from their families in the performance of their jobs are going to get the raise that they deserve and the rest of you, who road the Union driven "political bandwagon" of pay parity across the board are going to be left out in the cold. By the way it will be interesting to see how many people that argument really applies to. Proud Guard Member GovExec.com reader Posted March 1, 2005 10:39 AM
- I know that some Civil Servants give their best . . . . . BUT. . . .Now for the rest of the story. . .I worked at Redstone Arsenal for over 25 years and the majority certainly are not in that category, not to mention the one-to-two hour lunch breaks that most take on an official 30 minute lunch break, and sometimes coming in late or leaving early with no docking of their time. I never understood how supervisors could sign their subordinates' time cards certifying the employee was on the job for the required number of hours while knowing about the long lunches. I have also known some who ran a business on the side using Government copy machines, faxes, computers, telephones, and other supplies in the pursuit of their avocation. I don't see how they deserve raises. Most federal workers (Mr Owens excepted) don't stand duty or work on weekends, or on any national holiday. They don't get shot at or spend months, even years, away from their families. The current civil service pay system rewards mediocre performance. They don't have to worry about pay raises and promotions because they come along regurarly and they mostly have cradle-to-grave job security and the best health program in the world, and, politicians like pay parity because they see the number of voters it affects. Pay parity is like comparing apples to oranges and it should be a non issue. It is taking a broad brush to an issue that should affect only a few government employees. GovExec.com reader Posted January 30, 2005 5:52 PM
- How on earth do our presidents keep getting away with not complying with the "Act"? I find it amazing and appalling that the mere disagreement with the Act is enough to simply ignore it. If there is a problem with the formula or a problem regarding the percentage reported then it should have to be proven otherwise, not simply ignored based on opinion. No law maker should have the right to vote in definance of the Act, it's not supposed to be a debate as to whether they wish to comply or not. The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act was supposedly effective in 1993 yet NO president has ever complied? I'd like to know where is the accountability for compliance or is the office of the president exempt from the very laws that are meant to protect us? GovExec.com reader Posted January 27, 2005 8:19 AM
