TOPICS
TOPICS
Pay Ploy?
Federal employees who oppose leaving the General Schedule often fear that switching systems is just a scheme to cut their pay.
New numbers from the Congressional Budget Office challenge that premise. According to a March CBO paper titled, "Characteristics and Pay of Federal Civilian Employees," those paid under the General Schedule actually make less than their counterparts in alternate pay systems.
About 80 percent of white-collar civilian employees work in the General Schedule, with the remaining 20 percent falling under a variety of alternatives. In December 2005, the average GS employee brought home $63,000, compared to $82,000 for the lucky 20 percent in other systems. For those classified as professionals, the average GS employee earned $80,000 that year, versus $92,000 outside the GS.
The CBO offers a couple of explanations for the variation. Here's one: "Salaries of employees in the various non-GS pay plans were generally higher than those of GS pay plan workers, a fact that may in part reflect the flexibility that those non-GS plans allow agencies in setting pay."
That explanation seems to suggest that if agencies only had the choice, they would pay their employees more.
But the report's footnotes tell another story: "Alternatively, those higher pay levels may reflect the differences between GS and non-GS pay systems in the mix of jobs that each covers."
And another: "Another reason for the higher pay of non-GS workers may be that such employers, unlike those governed by the GS pay system, need not seek approval from [the Office of Personnel Management] for enhanced pay when critical personnel are in short supply."
Indeed, many agencies sought Congress' permission to leave the General Schedule because they couldn't pay enough in the old system to attract and retain their high-earning breed of employees. These include financial agencies such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and scientific ones such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
As the Defense Department continues its march toward implementing an alternate pay system for tens of thousands of employees -- not necessarily in elite professions -- it will be interesting to compare these numbers again in a few years.
For now, CBO breaks the numbers down further. Analysts examined the range of pay in these systems. For GS employees, the range between the 25th and the 75th percentile of salaries is $36,000. Pay for non-GS employees is less evenly distributed, with a $52,000 range. That means there's greater volatility, and greater pay potential in alternate pay systems.
Even if new pay systems are definitively proven not to be ploys to slash federal pay, it's the volatility that will continue to discomfort some.
COMMENTS
- I just joined an organization last year which has 5 engineers doing the same job as project managers. We just converted in January 2008. The supervisor is hardly competent, and is playing the new system to be able to award his 2 favorite employees who have helped keep him reached his position in the past. Although I am the only engineer with a Masters' degree and have the most experience in the office, my work is often unfairly scrutinized to enable the supervisor to downplay my achievements and enable him to reward less deserving performers. I feel that NSPS has increased corruption by putting employees pay in the hands of corrupt supervisors. John Barret Posted March 11, 2008 7:14 AM
- I am not looking forward to the implementation of NSPS. Under the current GS system my supervisor actually had the audacity to tell me that his favored employee received a top line evaluation and the only bonus given because even though he knows she does not posess the leadership abilities or technical knowledge I do she has been loyal to him throughout the 15 plus years they have worked together. Rampant favoritism and nepotism were main reasons for the passage of The Civil Service Reform Act and I don't think humanity has had any great leaps in morality in the past 50 years, so what will happen in 5 or 10 yeaqrs from now? I'm glad I can retire in 4 more years. John Whitney Posted May 10, 2007 1:11 AM
- We get off on money because it's in such short supply, but money was not the core problem with the old system. Rather it is the lack of flexibilty to respond to the job market. 2 months to advertise a position that is only open for applicants one week, followed by another 2 months of review and approval, and a couple more months to get the person on board. A four to six month lag for an hourly-wage employee is just not agile enough. (That's better than when I was hired 25yrs ago - it took 9 months from date of application to first interview, and two more before I was on the payroll as GS-5.) With one of the demo systems I hear they can hire a critical fill on the spot. For me, I'll be retired before my position comes eligible for NSPS, which is just as well, given the nepotism around here for promotions. TechManager Posted May 3, 2007 9:20 AM
