GovernmentExecutive.com

Ten House members from the Washington area on Wednesday kicked off discussions over the 2009 federal pay raise by sending President Bush a letter calling for civilian-military pay parity.

The lawmakers asked Bush to incorporate the principle of pay parity in his fiscal 2009 budget request, scheduled to be released on Feb. 4. The appeal was similar to those issued during past budget cycles, and noted that civilian federal employees and military members have received equal raises almost every year for the past two decades.

"We cannot express strongly enough the importance of continuing the tradition of pay parity between military and civilian employees in the coming fiscal year," the lawmakers wrote. "As we fight the war on terrorism at home and abroad, both the armed services and the federal civilian workforce are integral in fulfilling the role of government for the American people."

As in past years, the lawmakers said parity also is necessary to recruit and retain quality employees in the face of an upcoming retirement wave.

A 2004 law mandates military pay raises equal the change in the Labor Department's annual Employment Cost Index for the private sector's wages. That change was 3.4 percent, according to figures released in late October.

The signatories of the letter were House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.; Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.; and Reps. Tom Davis, R-Va.; James Moran, D-Va.; Frank Wolf, R-Va.; Elijah Cummings, D-Md.; C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-Md.; John Sarbanes, D-Md.; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; and Albert Wynn, D-Md.

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, on Monday issued a statement supporting the call for pay parity.

Pay parity "is a vital step in securing the kind of fair pay raise critical to attracting and retaining in government service the skilled, dedicated women and men who form the backbone of every federal agency," she said.

COMMENTS

• my question is I have 9years army service 4 years veterans hospital civil service how many years must I do to retire either I continue with the amry or in go back to civil service SS#452376313 Im 45 years old and I have no family I must take care of myself please tell me where to go are what to do how can I combine the years I have all the paperwork from my civilservice and military Iam on my 3rd dd214. please help me! tina jackson Posted March 3, 2008 10:12 AM
• “Land crabs”: And what does that make a curmudgeon with nothing to do but snipe in fights where he has no dog? Well, we all know where that individual comes from. Beware the sea change, Scruffy! Back to the article: Again with the perennial topic and squabble. Here are some points both pro and con: 1. Hardships endured by military personnel earn them ADDITIONAL TAX-EXEMPT compensation, and rightfully so; NOT we civilians. Any increase designed to alleviate deployment hardships should be directed towards those deployed (both military and civilian); which would encourage more to go overseas. Today, all these discussions herein should be confined to stateside non-deployed personnel and base pay. The military work side-by-side with us civilians; except during Christmas Exodus and the myriad time-off events they receive. 2. While we work side-by-side, we are paid differently. All military are salaried and we are hourly; that makes a huge difference in public service and/or private business. Hours worked by the salaried increase and decrease with need. Hours worked by those paid hourly increase and decrease with the budget. And still, I remember working 60 – 80 hour weeks in both occupations. 3. I’ve seen some VERY low-income civilians, with families, working next to military; both in extremely high-cost areas and often as single head-of-household. 4. All this may be overcome by events, since NSPS means both military AND civilians can be deployed into hostile zones against their will; and BOTH will be subject to the US Code of Military Justice. Only saving grace here is the recent passing and signing of the bill that restored our (civilians’) bargaining rights. I don’t know what’s right and/or wrong here. I’ve been 20 years on the green side and 10 with the civvies (and you, DK?), and there were pro’s and con’s to both. If you want to distinguish compensation by mission, then speak honestly. This article is not about that. Sometimes, and in certain places, a G.I. has it made in the shade; sometimes, it sucks to the extreme. But I used to think that government service was non-political and non-profit oriented; well, IF you are in either service (and they both ARE services), you know you have to play too much politics and justify ever cent you expend. Remember, sister services are supposed to stand side-by-side. Tip off Posted February 6, 2008 2:28 PM
• I love all these land crabs trying to sound as if they contribute as much to national defense as our grunts the answer is "NO" you do not never will so stop trying to compare your self to these guys and gals. Your a civilian because you don't have the backbone to do what these young men and women do so please stop trying to justify your selves it rings hollow dan ketter Posted February 4, 2008 10:22 PM