GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Three agencies reveal results of revamped hiring process

• 11266
  

  Dear six,

  You have to be under FERs for retirement so you are vested. That means you get a pension annuity when you reach 62 (reduced benefits) or full benefits at 65. This does not require you to work for the government - the benefit you get is based on the 6 years you have worked. That is one of the beauties of FERs. You do not have to wait to qulaify for the retirement annuity. Your qualified and can start the annuity when you reach 62. sme is probably true for the HR guy that says he needs 14 more years - if he is under FERs. Both of your probably are better off from a retirement point of view if you go elsewhere and start another retirement plan before you get too old. That is what the military people do! They get their military pension and go get another job to build another retirement annuity.

  taxpayer Posted July 28, 2005 8:22 AM
• 11150
  

  Dear 6 years of Federal Service,

  I know it is real tough now but hang in there-- I have 16 years of service and am looking at another 14 years. It will get better because half the government will either be retiring between now and January 2008 or be RIFed since the government has no money left to pay salary and benefits. Each budget just gets worse and worse-- did I hear another tax cut for the top 1% wage earners???? :-))))

  In either case- retirements and RIFs, change of this magnitude will lead to great opportunity and perhaps a better and leaner government. Or the end of the federal civil service-- in the latter case we will both end up in the private sector by default.

  So hang in there and just be patient. After the civil service has just hit this current administration's iceberg it will take a while to see whether the ship sinks because we are a big and heavy ship. I'm waiting in the life raft just in case. :-)))

  Oh I can't stay in the life raft--I forgot, I'm HR-- it's my job to make sure the band keeps playing as the ship goes down.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 22, 2005 12:07 PM
• 11108
  

  And Marcia should add that DoD and others do not need to change their entire salary and personnel structure to achieve the same thing. The pay for performance move is an attempt to avoid establishment of the "discipline and commitment" in DoD. This totally is a reflection of the bad management in DoD - political, military and civilian!

  Congress should require that DoD make the current system work rather than subject everyone to changes that are designed totally to increase the political power of apointees in DoD to do as they want and spend where they get votes for their party.

  taxpayer Posted July 21, 2005 6:34 AM
• 11106
  

  We'll see how many of those applications stay longer than 5 years with the federal government. Right now, I'm at 6 and wondering how much longer I'll put up with it!

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 21, 2005 12:23 AM