TOPICS

House panel approves military-civilian pay parity for 2004

Civilian federal employees, including blue-collar workers, will get a 4.1 percent pay increase in 2004 to match military raises, under a spending bill amendment approved by the House Appropriations Committee Thursday.

"If we don't do this, then we lose some of our best employees," said Rep. James Moran, D-Va. "We may not see it overnight, but more than half the federal workforce is eligible to retire in the next three to five years. We ought to at least provide parity between the military and civilian personnel."


RELATED STORIES

The amendment - which was also offered by Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Frank Wolf, R-Va. - passed by a voice vote. It is expected to go to the House floor in September as part of the Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill.

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., opposed the measure because it would add more than $2 billion in spending at a time the federal government faces a deficit of $450 billion. Istook distributed a chart showing that since 1996, federal civil service pay has risen at a higher rate than both the cost of living and Social Security payments.

"I'm not opposed to adjusting pay to federal workers. The president has a responsible proposal," Istook said. President George Bush has proposed a 2.0 percent increase for civilians in fiscal 2004.

The parity measure includes blue-collar workers in pay parity efforts for the first time. Hoyer said in a statement that these workers include munitions operators, instrument mechanics and other skilled craft and trade employees. "Our nation depends on these workers to maintain our planes, ships, tanks and weapon systems in at constant states of readiness."

The committee also discussed two other amendments to the bill that would affect federal workers - one on locality pay, which was withdrawn, and another on privatization, which passed by a voice vote.

Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said the Office of Management and Budget issued a directive adjusting the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The changes include redefining boundaries and creating new "micropolitan" statistical areas. Farr warned that these changes could have drastic effects on locality pay.

"This is fundamentally changing the entire criteria," Farr said. "You're changing the whole map of the United States in one fell swoop."

Farr said his amendment would delay any changes for a year to give the Federal Salary Council more time to examine the impact of using the OMB's new definitions on the workforce. But Farr agreed to withdraw the amendment after Istook agreed to work with him on the issue.

Moran complained about the "arbitrary nature" of privatizing federal jobs, and about the millions of dollars spent on outsourcing studies. He offered an amendment that would require agencies to prepare annual reports for Congress on the number of employee studies for competitive sourcing, and the cost to the agency to carry out the programs. The amendment passed by a voice vote.

COMMENTS

  • Isn't the cost of the DOD civil employees that keep the war going worth the $1B increase to the budget? The cost of the war certainly outweighs the civil service employee wages.
  • Enough, already! Debating percentages and talking about the relative tax amount is a fringe issue. The real issue is how total military pay has far outstripped civilian GS pay for the same work over several decades. Why? Because the military has to compete with the private sector for the people, and they have to pay accordingly. In 1975 I left the military as an O-3 with five years of service, to take a comparable position, doing similar work, as a GS-11. The difference in total pay, on an annual basis, was only about $100 less for the civilian position. A few years ago, I knew an O-3 leaving the service, with an advanced degree, who I really wanted to hire as a civilian. The vacancy was classified as a GS-13. Even hiring the individual at GS-13, Step 10, the O-3 would have taken a $6,000 annual cut in pay. This was before deductions for retirement, health insurance, and tax witholding. Needless to say, the "cost" was too high, and the individual went to the private sector. I don't begrudge the military their pay raises, but why should the civilian raise be any less? The only thing that has kept my standard of living comparable to my military "peers" is the financial stability of having the same house for the last 20 years. Last year's raise was very promptly consumed by the rise in health insurance premiums and the Long Term Care policies for my wife and I. Leave the percentages the same - at least.
  • In the cost comparison of the officer's pay, does he get taxed on his gross pay of $66,000.00 or his base pay of $46,602.00?