Return to Article: Faking It
-
41759
I don't think anything will be done to pay FERS employees for unused sick leave. There is a proposed bill to pay 10% of high three for all sick leave over 500 hours. This would be something and might encourage some people to not abuse the time off. For more equitability between FERS and CSRS, I would personally like to see the wage cap for FERS supplement removed. If a FERS retiree makes more than the social security cap, ($13,560 in 2008) they have to pay $1 for every $2 over the cap. I can work after FERS retirement, just can't earn much, a CSRS retiree has no wage cap.
-
41241
In response to a previous comment on equitability between FERS & CSRS regarding sick leave and matching TSP funds. If you're going to take the arguement that far, then you need to also consider CSRS employees don't have social security deductions and are getting their FULL social security in their annuity when retiring at age 55 or 56 with the appropriate years of service. If I retire under FERS at age 56, then I need to wait 14 years to get my FULL social security benefit. CSRS employee can also work another job after federal service and build some social security benefits. FERS is a 3 tiered retirement: FERS annuity, TSP, & social security. Remember...while CSRS don't get matching funds, they can also benefit from IRS maximum deposits into the TSP just like FERS employees, thus vastly improving their benefits in retirement. As a manager, I also deal with employee abuse of sick leave at times. The only fair(er) thing to do is to allow sick leave balances to apply to years of service to improve FERS retirement annuities.
-
41051
As a CSRS employee for over 28 years, I had the choice of staying with CSRS or choosing FERS in 1987-88. One the major reasons I stayed with CSRS was the fact that FERS does not allow accrued sick leave to count toward retirement. However, CSRS does not provide matching TSP contributions from the employer and FERS does. It would be unfair, after the fact, 20 years later, to now offer FERS employees a benefit for accrured sick leave! If I had known that I may very well have switched to FERS!
It is also unfair to now improve or create a new benefit for FERS with out likewise creating or improveing a benefit for CSRS employees. The two systems were never intended to be the same, but if folks want FERS to be more like CSRS, than it is only fair that CSRS be more like FERS by offering matching TSP contributions to CSRS employees.
-
40530
as a csrs employee, it was very common that the last year of employment was used to "use up" as much sick leave as possible and save all the annual leave for the lucrative lump sum payment. it is very common for employees to inform their managers of this plan and to take as much as weeks/months off in one leave request. many times this requires the use of a "doctors permit" saying that they are under the doctors care. in the case of fers employees, the practice is to use the leave as soon as it is earned.
-
32332
I strongly feel that I as a FERS employee should be ABLE TO CHOOSE to donate my unused sick leave hours upon my separation/retirement from federal civil service. In my case I will retire in less than 5 years and will have well over 500 hours of accrued sick leave hours.
I want to be able to DONATE MY UNUSED SICK LEAVE HOURS TO A CENTRALIZED DONOR BANK! Why should my 500+ accrued sick leave hours GO TO WASTE and not help anyone???
Why hasn't anyone else thought of this option???
Where do I go from here to bring up my concern/issue???
-
16212
The biggest "abuses" I ever saw were at my last place of employment. There was a buyout offered, and several employees took the $25K and left. They were already retirement eligible -- that was just a bonus to them. They all sat down with the benefits/retirement specialist and figured their sick leave to the last hour. What they could not take as retirement time, (they were all CSRS), they used up in three months. Eye exams took all day. Getting a prescription filled took all day. Sinus infections became prevalent. All of these illnesses and appointments took place on Mondays and Fridays. One of these people even bragged about it, saying he would not let Uncle Sam get one hour of his hard earned sick leave. His behavior gives all civil servants a black eye.
-
16147
There is a very good point going on in these discussions. There is a perceived difference in the pay structure of federal government employees. The battle over sick leave for those under FERS and CSRS is just an example of what happens when employees in the same company (government) perceive a difference in their pay structures.
The CSRS and FERS arguments will be nothing compared with those that come when NSPS is instituted in some agencies and others continue with the general services structure of pay!
These differences in pay structure are a fact of Congress and its inability to understand how the employees function. The federal government should have a single pay structure for all federal employees and not the mix and match systems that exist and are about to become worse! There is a saying about making some of the people happy some of the time.
People will do what you pay them to do! Why are finance people paid more when they work in the Treasury Department, the FDIC and the Comptroller of Currency, and not when they work in DoD? You can see the very low level of quality in DoD financial people and in part it is because if they are competent they move to Treasury, the FDIC, etc to get the premium pay given there.
Let's have a commission established (qualified in finance and accounting) to review and get rid of those in DoD financial management who are not qualified for the positions they hold and hire people that are qualified for the positions. Only then will DoD ever get near having an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements and financial systems and processes that work and control money. In my opinion the best way to achieve this is to take the financial and accounting functions out of DoD altogether. I think the federal government should establish a federal financial and accounting office that handles the financial and accounting functions for all government agencies!
-
16124
There is no "discrepancy" between FERS and CSRS sick leave benefits! These are two different civil service systems. They are not supposed to mirror the other. If FERS employees think they should be compensated for their sick leave, then maybe CSRS employees should get the same TSP benefits as FERS employees do. Where does it end!
-
16074
I'm CSRS, my wife is not. She is FERS, per an AFGE agreement with the FAA, if FERS employees have at least 240 hours sick leave at time of retirement they get 40 percent payout lump sum.
-
16070
DOD, how about working the last two years then cashing in the sick leave for the increased annuity, then you would have 41 years? Even though I'm CSRS, I find it hard I would be able to take a year's worth of sick leave.
-
16034
I think many people are missing a rather obvious flaw in this debate. There is just as much motive for CSRS employees to falsely use sick leave as FERS employees. How you say? Let's say that you were a CSRS employee with 38 years of service and 2,000 hours of sick leave in the bank, and were looking to retire in two years. Sure you can work that year and then get another year of "constructive credit" tacked on to my retirement calculations -- for a grand total of 39 full-salary years followed by a pension based on 40 years. But what if you were to fake sick leave and run your balance down to zero? Over the next two years, you can actually work one year and be out sick for a year. The advantage? You'll get 40 full-salary years (not 39) followed by a pension based on 40 years. The difference: If you use all my sick leave, you get paid full salary while I'm doing it (not just my 80 percent pension), plus you still get credit for the whole year of sick leave toward your pension. While this method forces you to retire two years from now instead of one, you will still have only actually gone to work one year. You also build up another five or more weeks of annual leave solely by taking sick leave. You also increase your "high 3" average by a thousand dollars or more, making your pension even higher.
-
16026
I guess the only comment I have is they lump all the different types of sick leave into one and then suggest it's being abused. My other comment is that ever since this administration and congress have gotten into office, they have done nothing for the middle class citizen, so they are abusers in their own sense. So get off the sick leave smokescreen and get to work and do something for a change, last time I checked us peons aren't breaking for the next two weeks.
-
15971
This is not a comment intended to degrade any managerial personnel; however, I have only one comment to make since I am FERS. Since FERS personnel are the ones who seem to be taking the heat concerning what has been termed "abuse of sick leave," I would like to ask any manager what you would do if you suddenly discovered a manager (or even several) abusing sick leave, by not charging it off as they use it, thereby having it for retirement purposes. This would seem to constitute being paid twice.
-
15970
Like most, I have accumulated enough hours to get myself through a catastrophic illness if it should ever happen. However, if it doesn't, then I too am going to be frequently ill as I near retirement. Do they really expect people are going to give back sick leave with no return incentive?
-
15968
If they want to solve the perceived problem, then just grant FERS employees the same as CSRS.
-
15962
I am a federal employee covered under the FERS program. I do not agree with the contention that FERS employees are faking it and abusing the sick leave system. I have seen many CSRS employees use annual leave or work when totally sick, thus being completely non-productive while infecting the rest of the office, all so that they won't spend that sick leave. From my experience, FERS employees use sick leave when they are sick. Some FERS employees also use annual leave when sick/doctor's appointment etc. because they are trying to save sick leave for maternity or emergency/disability purposes.
I do not agree with reducing the amount of leave unless the federal government starts providing some basic maternity and disability benefits.
One thing many people don't realize is that the federal government has zero maternity leave for its civilian employees (active duty military get 6 weeks with full pay). Female civilian federal employees are also ineligible for state disability/maternity benefits. There is an inequity between the sexes and between military and civilian in federal employment. Females cannot save sufficient sick leave to cover illnesses/disability/family emergencies until after their childbearing years. Myself and other women have not had a single vacation in five to 10 years because we have had to use our annual leave as well as the sick leave in order to start a family (for many of us, even the advanced leave was not enough and we had to use leave without pay).
Whatever is decided will only exacerbate this inequity. Male coworkers will get more retirement/lower health premiums in retirement but females will not because they had to cash in four years worth of sick leave per child.
-
15960
Many private companies and other public employers have gone to giving employees "paid time off." There is no more sick leave, there is just leave. The employee uses it as necessary for vacation or illness. Because of that, employees tend to bank this leave because it is compensable at retirement. It is an option worth considering. Many of these employees in their first year of employment earn a month of vacation this way. However, there is no carry-over of any of the leave past 240 hours, and the employee sometimes is given the option to sell the PTO time back if it can't be used in the year given. More thoughts for consideration ...
-
15959
Sick leave is supposed to be an accrued form of short-term disability insurance. However, the way it is set up for FERS employees, it is a use-or-lose benefit. Therefore, if OPM wants employees to use it for "short-term disabilities," then I would recommend that they change the accrual system so that they convert some of it to annual leave and increase the use-or-lose limit by 104 hours (i.e., the equivalent of the 13 days of sick leave currently accrued annually). Employees would use annual leave for medical appointments and taking care of sick kids. Then, the government would apply the cost/value of the remaining leave towards a short-term disability program similar to what is commercially available (e.g., http://info.insure.com/disability/shorttermdisability.html). Current sick leave accruals would be grandfathered instead of converted to annual leave. Since nobody would need donated annual leave anymore, the value of unused use-or-lose would go to reduce the costs of this program. However, that being said, I think that they're really just looking for a way to capitalize on the sick leave they want employees to accrue and not take ... though maybe I'm just being cynical.
-
15956
Actually, the first thing is -- managers need to get over the term "sick leave abuse." Most workers don't abuse sick leave and never will. Managers who punish everyone to get the real abuser(s) are not doing their job.
And secondly -- it might be time to start encouraging people to take a day or two off when they're sick to keep any pending epidemic (re: bird flu pandemic) from wiping out entire offices.
-
15954
"This discrepancy is causing FERS employees to use substantially more sick leave than their CSRS counterparts ..." Well, duh. People don't always realize that the message they are sending is not always what was intended. The message, I am sure is at odds with the intent. When I heard that I as a FERS employee would have no benefit to retire with sick leave on the books, I thought I was expected to use it. One huge benefit of having more than 800 hours of sick leave on the books is the buffer against long-term illness. Between my sick leave and my annual leave on the books (I carry over the maximum each year) I could be ill for 6 months and still receive my full wage. (One of the real benefits left to being a federal employee.) However, there's no real incentive for me to come in when I'm only marginally ill -- I'm somewhat prone to migraines and I stay home with a lesser attack than I would if there were extra incentive not to use my leave.
-
15953
I am a FERS employee and just returned from a retirement seminar where the topic of the use of sick leave was a major discussion point. Managers reported they were really starting to feel the pinch of employees taking their sick leave prior to retirement rather than "giving it up," leaving them short staffed. All agreed the issue will continue to grow. The reality of it is most government employees are not willing to give up 1,300 or more hours of leave. I hope Congress realizes the inequity between CSRS and FERS and works to correct it. I learned there is already precedent, since VA nurses under FERS can add their sick leave to their retirement just like CSRS. It is time this benefit is extended to the thousands of hard working government employees covered by FERS.
-
15949
As a FERS employee I resent the implication that when I call in sick I'm faking it. I have watched the CSRS people use their annual leave for sick leave because they want to save the sick leave to add to their retirement. It's a good deal for them.
Why should I use my annual leave when I am sick -- having 2000-plus hours of sick leave doesn't do me any good? I have almost 6 months of leave in case of a major illness. But when I am sick I will use my sick leave.
It's a given fact that supervisors look the other way when CSRS employees start using their sick leave that is over an even month -- the days they will lose when the retire. Eight months and 24 days means the employee is going to "Fake it" for 23 days. They just schedule Monday and Friday off to burn the sick leave.
There is no incentive for me to not use sick leave. With eight hours of annual a pay period I could use some of that time when I'm sick but why should I? I can't even donate the extra sick leave in a leave sharing program.
Not an abuser
-
15948
This entire argument centers around the first rule of management -- people do what you pay them to do!
Federal employees are paid to take sick leave -- for the older employees in the form of increased service time for pension determination or time off, for newer employees you have to take the leave to benefit, you have no option. The data demonstrates that civil servants follow the first rule of management -- they take sick leave because that is what you pay them to do!
In my opinion sick leave, annual leave and holidays should all be combined into paid days of leave. Christians may take off for Easter and Christmas but Jews and others may not because they would rather take some other days. Those that are sick may choose to work holidays and use the leave to cover the time they are out ill.
The entire federal leave policy needs to be restructured to reflect the times. Employees should accumulate total days off and be allowed to take them to fit their life style -- as long as the work is done on schedule.
The same reasoning applies to flextime and telecommuting.
All this assumes good managers, which is the real problem for such programs -- particularly in DoD!
-
15946
Sick leave is part of the overall compensation package for recruitment and retention of quality employees and, currently, FERS employees have no incentive to save such leave.
While a case exists for banking a significant sick leave balance for a catastrophic illness, most folks don't plan that far in advance and even CSRS employees don't have sufficient leave for the bad cases. So saying the difference in use is not due to the looming threat of long periods of critical illness.
The only thing that can be done to change this attitude is to show the FERS employees some benefit for not using an entitlement that is otherwise useless or lost. Some options are:
1. Change the FERS system to the same as the CSRS. The likelihood of this is slim to none.
2. Make smaller incremental changes such as:
a. Allow transfer of sick leave balances between individuals. This would allow spouses and coworkers to contribute to each other, shrinking agency-wide unused leave balances and addressing the needs of worker having a critical need.
b. Cash-out options, either periodically like the military or and career closure. Even at a discount, this offers a tangible return.
c. Time credit toward retirement. This is as likely as option one unless discounted. Still, something is better than nothing.
My difficulty with the New York program is my feeling that, similar to Tricare, increasing health care costs will ultimately change its desirability in the eyes of the legislatures.
All I can hope is that Uncle Sam will consider the consequences and, despite the recent trends, throw FERS employees a bone, perhaps to ease the pain of other initiatives. My major worry is that this issue will be addressed in the same thoughtless and draconian manner as the NSPS program has been.
Considering the current attitude of the executive branch, what is most likely is an annual cap on accrued leave numbers; in effect yet another case of "use or lose."
Uncle Sam, say it isn't so. Tell us you care.
Tip off.
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.