GovernmentExecutive.com

In a break with tradition, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a higher 2007 pay raise for civilian federal employees than for military service members.

On the same day committee members voted for a 2.7 percent civilian pay hike as part of the fiscal 2007 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, they backed a 2.2 percent pay raise for members of the military as part of the Defense spending bill.

The 2.7 percent figure for civilians matches a mid-June vote by the full House. The 2.2 percent military raise also matches a House floor vote on the Defense appropriations bill, although that vote went against the House's earlier position to provide a 2.7 percent military raise as part of separate legislation - the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill.

For years, federal employee advocates have fought for the principle of pay parity between the two groups after the Bush administration has proposed larger raises for the military, but this year the concept has been turned on its head.

"The appropriate pay raise for both civilian and military employees is 2.7 percent," National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley said. "NTEU will support all efforts to provide a 2.7 percent pay raise to both civilian and military personnel."

Kelley added she expects Congress to grant a 2.7 percent increase to the military at the end of the process, which it could do on the Senate floor and then in conference negotiations.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said, "The difference will be negotiated as the bills move to the Senate floor."

President Bush proposed a 2.2 percent raise in his fiscal 2007 budget for both groups, marking the first time he did not suggest a higher raise for military service members than for civilian government employees. But members of Congress said soldiers deserve a higher raise, especially in a time of war; soon the House passed the 2.7 percent raise as part of the Defense authorization bill.

That prompted a pay parity movement from pro-federal worker lawmakers.

In a June statement of administration policy, the White House said it "strongly opposes" a 2.7 percent increase for federal employees, arguing it would cost an additional $600 million on top of the Bush proposal and that "any recruitment or retention challenges facing the federal government are limited to a few areas and occupations and are not addressed by arbitrary across-the board increases."

As part of the Transportation-Treasury measure, the Senate Appropriations Committee also retained competitive sourcing provisions from last year's bill that are in line with those governing the Defense Department.

The provisions would prevent the direct conversion of functions involving more than 10 federal employees to contractor performance, and would require that contractors show savings of at least 10 percent over the in-house team or $10 million, whichever is less, before work is awarded to the private sector.

Mikulski introduced that language in conference last year, and competitive sourcing foes were glad to see it included earlier in this year's bill.

American Federation of Government Employees lobbyist John Threlkeld said his organization "is particularly pleased that the committee's retention of the competition requirement will prevent agencies that are carrying out OMB's controversial lines of business initiatives from perpetrating direct conversions, giving away work performed by federal employees without public-private competition. The competition requirement ensures that agencies can get the quality they need, but at the lowest price to taxpayers."

"This language helps to level the playing field for federal employees and continues my fight to protect them against unfair contracting out policies," Mikulski said.

Also included in the Transportation-Treasury bill was funding for an Office of Personnel Management initiative to automate the federal employee retirement system, which the House rejected.

OPM Director Linda Springer urged the House to support the Senate's decision as the appropriations process moves forward "so that current and future federal employees will enjoy a smooth transition from their jobs to their golden years."

COMMENTS

• The standard pay and benefits paid to servicemen are necessary to recruit and retain professionals in a tough career and, evidently, are not currently sufficient. This is evidenced by the stop-loss policies and the failure to maintain recruitment levels. While these failures seem to have faded from the public view, they are evidenced by the recent change to the initial recruitment age maximum of 42. Special conflict pays are temporary in nature and only apply for that 10 percent (using previously quoted figure) of the soldier’s career spent deployed. I feel the 10 percent is currently low and only applicable to career active duty soldiers. Regardless, the functions they provide in that environment, like lawyers on a retainer, are the critical make-or-break tasks that no one else wants. There is the true difference between soldiers and civilians. And, please remember, those do not impact on tax signatures or long term retirement costs. Additional benefits such as healthcare, vacation, and commissary privileges are necessary for the mental and physical health of soldiers and their dependents, often stationed in foreign countries without American services or amenities. Those non-taxable pays, i.e. housing and subsistence allowances, actually benefit the government. Those are not paid across the board to every soldier and if taxed, the cost of giving all soldiers the same net pay 100 percent taxable would be a lot higher. I’ve never seen a sane soldier jump at living in the barracks or eating in the dining facility if he or she could afford otherwise. Pay parity is valid; a good day’s work for a good day’s pay. The difference in lifestyle, deployment, and criticality should be addressed by special impact pays. This would shorten the financial burdens to the nation and taxpayers to times of conflict and provide additional incentives to our warrior-citizens. Tip off. Tip Posted September 7, 2006 4:17 PM
• This is to the person who was not even brave enough to put a signature on his e-mail. First you need to get your facts straight. As a recently retired senior NCO and Civil Servant, I am appalled at your lack of knowledge on retirement benefits and entitlements. First, the 90% of a military career spent in a war zone is probably not the case. I have friends who have served 3 tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some soldiers that I have talked to have been in the Army 3 years and have spent 2 of them overseas. Secondly, the 50% retirement that you speak of no longer exsists. I am not sure of the dates but I entered active duty in 1984. Then that was the case, 50% at 20 years. Around 1996 or 7 that changed (of course my retirement changed as well). When I retired I am in the High Three category. This means the government gives me under 50%. Think of the money saved there. If you came in after 1986, you could choose, at 15 years of service, to get 30K (of course after a 28% tax right off the top). Then at twenty years you get 35%(not sure if that is right, just trying to be honest) and that percentage raises with each year after 20. Now for the health benefits. I get my Tricare but with a price, I am 70% VA Disabled. This was from my "easy years" serving this great country. I am 40 years old and have the body of a 60 year-old. I think I deserve the benefit. Now on to things like sick leave and annual leave. I earn 4 hours per pay period for sick and annual leave. This will go up but from what I am told that will be at my ten year mark. By the way I have not had a vacation in 4 or 5 years. Tax-free housing? If a soldier lives on post, his BAQ goes to the CIVILIAN contractor that runs the post "privatized housing". No state income tax! Where did you dig this up? If you are from a state that has no state income tax then you are OK. If you do not then you pay. On Fort Polk the civilians, and contractors have limited MWR priviliges. So with all of that said, do some homework! The soldiers and civilians that serve today should get all that the government can give. They are sacrificing LIVES and unrecoverable time away from their families. I am glad that you are retired! If I were you I would not tell anyone that I am a retired officer. GovExec.com reader Posted August 29, 2006 11:44 PM
• Former Army officer/DoD civilian has it right. After World War II, we felt, rightly, that we owed a great deal to veterans. Unfortunately, this has turned into a sense of lifelong entitlement in those who have come later. During World War II, people were pulled out of established careers to fight; today, one of the big draws is the chance to learn marketable skills while being paid, and getting "free" money to study anything you want after you get out. (The employee contributes and the government puts into the account also. No other employer I know of does that.) We are a wealthy nation and can and should compensate service people for actual injuries and losses, but we do not owe them a lifetime free ride. Thanks, former Army officer and current DoD civilian, for telling the truth. Thanks for being realistic. GovExec.com reader Posted August 3, 2006 12:50 PM