Return to Article: Bush moves to limit pay raise to 3.1 percent next year
-
172
Wa, wa, wa. This is the anthem of many federal workers in this day. You have a job. Count yourself fortunate and suck it up. Many of my neighbors are ex-Sprint, ex-Farm Land, ex-airline, ex-this and that. These people wonder how they will keep their homes and feed their families. Many are at an age where they will be lucky to find new employment. The federal worker is fortunate to have good pay, health and life insurance, and a secure retirement program while others have neither. You are in a much more stable environment than many others. So put a sock in it.
-
128
As a 29-year federal employee, I am appalled by the comments berating the 3.1 percent pay raise as inappropriate. We are not entitled to a raise every year, although I do appreciate them. It is apparent that the "me" generation is in full force in the federal workplace.
Furthermore, federal employees as a whole do not wake up in the middle of the night wondering if they will still have a job next week. They do not worry about salary cuts or loss in benefits - although we may gripe a bit about insurance costs, etc.
But most importantly, when the economy is slow or in recession, federal employees do not participate as our neighbors in the private sector do. We still have our jobs and or pay is not reduced.
Sign me as one who truly appreciates the president recognizing the work that dedicated federal workers perform by approving a 3.1 percent pay raise.
-
127
I read with interest the letter from the SESer who decided that the difference between a 3.1 percent and 4.1 percent raise was insignificant for most federal workers. In the short term, he's pretty much correct. Unfortunately, President Bush announced a 2 percent raise for 2004 (a .7 percent decrease). This takes all creditability away from the SESer's argument because, over time, the impact of these reductions can be costly. Let's look at an example:
Assuming a worker is a GS-12 step 1 with 25 years of service remaining and receives a 4.1 percent increase in each year resulting in career earnings of $2,825,084. If the worker received a 3.1 percent increase this year and an increase of 4.1 percent for the remaining 24 years they would earn $2,798,483, a difference of $26,602. Not real significant? What if the same worker received a 1% reduction each year for 25 years (3.1 percent instead of 4.1 percent)? Career earnings would be reduced to $2,478,431, a difference of $320,051.
Of course this analysis does not cover the effects of locality pay, lost pension contributions or the time value of money. You can juggle the numbers all you want, but the bottom line is that to ensure their long-term financial health, federal workers should fight for every percentage point.
-
126
I've worked for the federal government for more than 36 years. I'm a GS-11, logistics program specialist. I have a lot of responsibility and a lot of pride in the job I do. I work with a group of people who are the BEST IN THE BUSINESS. I realize the economy is sick right now, but we work hard and deserve the 4.1 pay raise. If President Bush was ever down in the trenches with us, he'd see what we do and change his opinion of federal workers.
-
125
It seems to me that the noise about 3.1 percent compared to 4.1 percent is more symbolic than fiscally real to individuals, while in total, the amount is significant to the federal budget. I am at the top of the SES with a salary of over $138,000. An additional 1 percent pay raise for me would mean about $1,380 or $50 per pay period before taxes. That means about $20 a week take-home pay. Since I am at the top of the pay scale, the amount would be much lower for most government employees, probably about $10 to $15 a week. I understand a good number of employees may plan to recoup that much by lowering their CFC [Combined Federal Campaign] donations, which is a shame. However, $10 to $20 per week might buy a dinner or two, but that is about it. It will not have a very significant effect on most people's finances, while overall, it may mean millions to the Federal budget. A I said at the start, it is mostly a symbolic issue which should not get as much press as it is getting, or as many people upset as the media seems to be doing. 3.1 percent is far better than zero. A reduction of 1 percent is not that significant.
-
124
I am a government employee. I have worked for the government for 20 years. I just want SOMEONE to know that I'm willing to accept whatever pay raise we get; I'm not interested in fighting for more. If anyone deserves to get more, it's the military! They're fighting to defend our freedom!
And I'd like to give NTEU President Colleen Kelley a piece of my mind about her comments that "the smaller pay raise illustrates the president's low opinion of federal employees...blah, blah." Give me a break! The money has to come from somewhere! Folks like her and Rep. Steny Hoyer need to get off their campaign boxes and look around at what's happening in the real world.
In a day where people are losing their jobs left and right, business are closing before our eyes, I count it a privilege to have a job, and I'm not going to whine that I didn't get an extra percent or two on my paycheck! My goodness, we're at war! I'm willing to make a tiny sacrifice.
-
123
Well Gosh Mr. President,
As a federal employee I just can't tell you how much I appreciate all your efforts on our behalf to insure we receive the appropriate raises we should have received over 10 years ago. Makes me want to just jump right up from behind my desk and hurry about all the duties and responsibilities to insure the "Job Gets Done" in a timely manner.
I'd like to finish what I am doing now, but I guess I'm going to have to go over to the water cooler and talk about how, instead of just coming out and saying we didn't have your support, you just slid it under the door at 1600 Friday, like "Maybe no one would see it until after you were gone for the weekend." And who knows. With a little luck, it might all blow over before Monday!
-
122
Does the phrase "one-termer" sound familiar? I've been a Republican all life, but what the current administration has done to government workers and the budget is criminal. The Department of Homeland Security will forever be a joke. I'm glad I'm near retirement. Not since Vietnam has our government looked so ridiculous.
-
121
I have no objection to the military who are actually fighting in hazardous duty zones: the field, at sea, etc., getting a higher pay raise than I receive. However, that higher pay raise should be limited to those military, and should not be provided to the "military desk jockeys" who do the same or lesser job in non-hazardous duty zones: program offices, Pentagon, etc., that I do. If they are doing the same job I am, getting to go to the gym during the hours when I am working, getting housing allowances to live in more costly homes in my neighborhood, and not having to pay personal property car taxes, etc., they should get the same pay raise as I am getting. Equal pay for equal work.
-
120
Even though his position didn't surprise me, I think the administration's proposal to cap the civilian pay raise in 2003 is outrageous, not to mention callous and mean-spirited. Congress had the audacity to sneak in a $4,000 raise to themselves before slinking out of town until the new year leaving much needed budgetary work undone.
This administration shows a consistent disregard and disdain for the public servants who do the "grunt" work on a daily basis to carry out the missions of various departments in serving the needs of our citizens. This administration has no problems with shifting much-needed dollars from the people to the military and ultra-conservative corporate supporters. This is the most anti-human administration in my memory. I didn't think they'd find a trump to Reagan/Bush I, but sadly enough they did.
-
119
As a federal employee, I would like more money, but as an American, I have to be realistic. My safety and the safety of all Americans have cost us dearly. Is it worth it? You bet it is. We can't have another day like 9/11/02 and 04/19/95. We demand protection in the air, on the seas, and as we go about our daily business, but we don't want to pay for it. Wake up America!
-
118
I've been a federal employee for almost a decade and a half, and am about half-way through my career. I work in labor and employee relations for the federal government. I have never experienced such low morale and great feelings of job helplessness as currently exist in the federal government.
The young employees we just recruited are looking for private-sector work. We just lost dozens to an early buy-out, and I think many more before this winter is out, and I'm starting to hear from mid-level employees like myself that it is time to leave.
The rhetoric and nasty actions out of this administration toward federal career employees is disgusting and reprehensible, especially when asking employees from 22 separate agencies to make sacrifices and to accept change on an unheard of level. The attitude of this administration is "we are going to do this; we don't care what you think, and if you don't like it, you can leave."
-
117
Dear Mr. President:
Please, how about some consistency? As a DoD civilian, I was disappointed that you want to give me a 3.1 percent raise, instead of 4.1 percent raise, like you are espousing for the military. But ok, my days of going into harm's way ceased when I returned from Vietnam so many years ago, so I can sort of understand that. And since the Social Security and other government pensions are only receiving 1.4 percent cost-of-living raises, I guess I understand your rationale.
But Mr. President? If you need my 1 percent difference from the military for the War on Terror, why are you giving bonuses to the appointees? As a rank-and-file employee, it looks like just more of the same to me, the higher-ups always get theirs first.
Sorry, Mr. President, you're losing me.
-
116
The 2003 federal pay raise is acceptable. It is above the cost-of-living increase, so that there is an element of catch-up for past disparities with the private sector. Radical pay raises in any one sector of the economy could trigger a wage-price spiral; something that we have not seen in decades. I am very satisfied.
-
115
While I disagree with the president on limiting the federal civilian pay raise to 3.1 percent and do believe that a raise in line with that given our military members would be more fair, I also understand that the current federal civilian employees have not done a good job establishing their value to this administration. The administration sees value in our military (as they should), especially in fighting the terrorist threat to our country. What has not happened is the administration seeing the same level of value in the civilian workforce. They see too much turf protection and not enough flexibility from the civilian employees.
I think not only do the rank-and-file employees need to work to address this misperception but their leadership needs to do some work in that area. The employee unions have more openly supported the Democratic opposition than in the past which has hurt their reception from the administration and have done little or nothing to mend their fences with the Bush White House. The management groups like FMA and the Senior Executives Association also need to pitch the value of the civilian work force.
Until the civilian workforce establishes itself as a valuable part of the "team," I believe this administration will not see a reason to invest limited resources into enhancing pay.
-
114
The president's father got legislation passed which was to give federal employees the current CPI each year minus 1 percent plus a 5 percent catchup each year until we caught up with our private sector counterparts.
Then the Clinton Administration came in and found a loop hole in that legislation and gave us far less each year in the form of COLAs. In addition, Al Gore, the fomer Vice President, was in charge of reinventing the government... He was tasked with getting federal employees to do more with less and better compensate those that remained. It seems he forget the compensation part.
President Reagan gave the military substantial pay raises while actually proposing pay freezes for civil servants. In addition, it was during the Reagan years that the Omnibus Reconciliation Act was passed which dramatically reduced what federal retirees could receive in Social Security benefits if they qualified, in addition to making it virtually impossible to receive Social Security benefits on their spouses Social Security account. I, As a Vietnam era veteran, have to pay back the Social Security taxes for the two years I was in the Army, starting at a salary $80 a month, just so I can receive my full civil service annuity without a substantial reduction. Also, OPM decided several years ago that there are 2,087 hours in a work year. (40 X 52 = 2,080 according to my calculations.) This was done to save the government money supposedly to pay down the existing budget deficit. This was to be done only for one year, but once they get their hooks into you it never goes away, and it hasn't.
I know that Congress corporate memory is aware of all that the federal workers have had to endure for the past 16 years or so under the guise of fiscal austerity and are planning a 51 percent catchup in the middle of the night for us like they, as federal civil servants, did a few years ago.
-
113
I didn't have a problem with it [the 3.1 percent pay raise], feeling that everyone has to give a little to secure our freedoms. I have just changed my mind. I just read in that political appointees will be provided a bonus by George W., breaking a Clinton-era change in the policy.
What a bunch of double-talk!!
-
112
As long as whatever raise we receive covers the increased cost in health insurance and related expenses, the government workers should be satisfied for the current year. We have enjoyed job security in a very unsteady economy; we can do our part by not rallying for an additional increase this year.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.