Return to Article: Senate panel votes to give civilians higher raise than military
-
18616
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.
-
18481
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.
-
18069
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.
-
18055
To the poster below in response to "Ole Mac,"
Finally someone who has seen both sides of the fence clearly rings in. Let's see what responses you receive now.
-
17983
To Old Mac,
As a former Army officer and current Defense Department civilian, I can tell you that the overall military package for doing the same work as a civilian is significantly better. When soldiers are not in places like Iraq (which is about 90 percent of a typical military career), here's what they get compared to their civilian counterpart: A better pension (50 percent at 20 years versus 30 percent at 30 years for FERS employees); free health benefits versus $250 to $300 per month in premiums plus another $100 plus per month in co-pays); 30 days vacation the very first year you're hired versus 13 days; unlimited sick leave versus 13 days per year; tax-free housing and subsistence (either in-kind or cash out) versus no housing/subsistence; uniform allowance versus pay for your own work clothes and dry cleaning; no state income tax for most soldiers versus state income tax for all civilians; free use of commissary/PX/MWR versus none of that for civilian employees.
When they're not in Iraq or Afghanistan, they're not risking their necks back in the good old United States any more than FBI agents, DEA agents, federal firefighters, CIA officers, Defense Department police officers, etc. Add to this the incentives paid for enlisting and re-enlisting (GI Bill benefits, $40,000-$50,000 re-up bonuses in many cases, etc.)
When they are in places like Iraq, they get plenty of additional incentive pay (combat pay, family separation pay, etc.) -- plus their entire income is exempt from federal taxation (which, for most, is the same as a 25 percent increase in pay). Bottom line: The scales are more than balanced for the military over the civilian worker at the Defense Department, so quit your whining.
-
17947
Yeah, "risking" your life at HUD or the EPA versus risking your life in Baghdad or Kabul. Makes perfect sense why the GS crowd is pushing its way to the front of the trough ahead of the "slackers" in the military.
-
17945
Too bad the average citizen doesn't know about all the pay and allowances that the feds are paying the military. And the new pay that the military will receive. This is a backdoor pay raise and no one is aware of it. 2.7 percent is nothing.
Been BRAC'd
-
17936
Charlie, I agree with your post but please realize that a lot of us old timer civil servants did exactly what you're doing now but served in the military during a different era, like Vietnam.
Sincerely,
Soon to retire
-
17932
I also think this breaking of the pay parity is the beginning of the end for equality between the services. With this action, no longer will the parity issue have any ground to stand on as argument. The initial appearance is to create the disparity with the military rather than the civilian sector this go-round. Wait till next year when the disparity will be more than just a 0.5 percent difference with the civilians receiving the lesser.
-
17888
I can't say this is a good thing for a number of reasons. As a veteran, and the wife of a retired enlisted military member, quality raises for the military are vital, not only to give the current force a living wage, but to aid in recruiting and retention.
I, too, think this will backfire on us and we will not see future raises of much beyond 1 percent. This will also add fuel to the fire for some of our uniformed co-workers who already resent us. Another frustrating thing about the raise is the president gets to divide up how much goes toward the raise and how much is locality pay. In recent years, at least 1 percent has gone to locality pay, cutting the total raise down. If you live in an area with a high locality pay, you come out on top. I live in the Rest of the US (RUS) area, and we never see the whole raise percentage, we get less. My gasoline to drive to work does not cost less, and we don't even have a public transportation system here. I would take it if it existed, then I would be happy to accept partial reimbursement for my costs from Uncle Sam like folks in Washington get.
-
17885
Dear Charlie (Retired Navy),
Maybe your skin is crawling because the head human resource officer for the federal government is an accountant -- a bean counter from OMB. The head human resource officer before her was a program manager from a utility. I can't remember the last time a professional federal HR person headed OPM. Almost every CHCO in the federal government has little direct HR experience.
For many, many years OPM has given up any leadership role in the federal sector. My skin crawls regarding OPM only over the damage they do to federal sector HR programs, not because of anything they say. Their comments are irrelevant but their actions are dangerous. Just look at the disaster of HR reform in the Defense Department and DHS sponsored by OPM. It's laughable if it weren't so sad and didn't negatively impact so many people.
HR Specialist
-
17882
I would probably agree that the pay raises should have been at least equal. I joined the Navy in 1960 and the first decent pay raise during that era was given by former President Kennedy. I know that things have changed a great deal in the last 46 years, and I would also admit the military are treated much better than earlier years, but I also remember how hard the former representative Mendel Rivers from South Carolina fought for the military. If not for him the military would have gone without lots of things, including pay raises. We have many, many dedicated and hard working civilians who give their all to their job and deserve recognition and a pay raise.
-
17879
Either the 2.7 percent or 2.2 percent whatever. It's all chump change anyway, but I do believe in the parity thing.
CSRS employee
-
17878
It's about time! Civilian employees should get a lot more that 2.7 percent. Calculate what we don't get in the way of housing allowances, px/commissary privileges, free meals etc., and we should get 10 percent or more. That would make it truly even. By the way, we do put or lives in danger every day working as a law enforcement officer, not just now and then when there is a conflict somewhere in the world.
-
17874
I almost always agree with Charlie's comments as I think they are well thought out and usually on the money. In this case, though, I think a fundamental and important issue has been forgotten. For the last several years, civilians have gotten the same raise as their military counterparts because Congress based its argument on pay parity. Now they've decided to go for a larger pay increase for civilians and though they may get it this time, the pay parity argument will never again be a legitimate reason to up the president's low-ball figures for civilian pay raises. I believe this is the last year civilians will see much of a raise; you'll pretty much be stuck with whatever raise the administration offers if anything. This is a bad precedent. A better argument would have been for a higher, but equal, raise for both military and civilian.
-
17868
Military or civilian, it doesn't matter; my pay raise almost pays for the increase in gas I spend commuting. It doesn't touch what my wife uses, or the increase in the cost of goods, especially utilities such as propane. So actually I am way behind the power curve, and the 2.7 percent doesn't touch it, but it is better than nothing. I figure my buying power is close to 10 percent less than it was in early 2005 when the cost of gas was around $2.00 a gallon. But let's not touch the oil fields in Alaska because we may block some animals' migration route; which isn't true, as I believe we have the ability to raise or lower the pipe lines; like dig a ditch, or raise them high enough to allow migration.
-
17866
It's ironic that last year, the fight was to get the civilian pay raise to match the military pay raise.
I think this part of a tactic to give us all the shaft.
-
17856
Springer needs a ride to Iraq and then somebody needs to forget to pick her up again. She should think about that young soldier who will never get to enjoy the "golden years" as she put it. She is thinking only of her fat pension; not the military kid who died in Iraq, or the many more who will die. No civilian should ever receive a pay raise above the men and women who fight for, and serve this country in uniform. She has run the most screwed-up system OPM has ever endured in my 40 some years of military and civilian service. When I read her comments, it makes my skin crawl and I think she should join the troops in Iraq and then when she comes back, (if she does) she can tell us about those golden years.
-
17854
I am a federal employee. I support pay parity. What is going on here?
-
17853
It must be an election year. The Republicans are doing anything they can to pander to the federal workforce voters.
It won't matter to me, I am voting against all of them.
Oh and by the way, thanks for the raise.
-
17849
2.7 percent -- what is this supposed to do for anyone? Don't you think that it's about time to really give the civilian a decent cut of the pie? Some of us have waited and worked for years in hopes that one day, one time, Congress would really take a look at who the civilians really are and what we give to this country. We have suffered for years, expected to do more with less and have survived in spite of not being paid amounts compatible with other agencies and the private industry. The majority of us could have easily taken our skills, knowledge and abilities and enter the private industry but decided that service to the country was a better thing to do. We did this in the hope that one day, Congress would wake up and take note. I see this is not the day.
-
17847
Yes, this a good step in the right direction, but I think the military should have the same pay scale as the federal employees. The only difference is that military employees have the addition of housing and commissary benefits, which they rightly deserve.
Federal Employee and Army Veteran
-
17842
Probably because it's the last one we're likely to get under NSPS.
-
17839
I applaud the pay raise for all federal employees. However, most of it we won't even see because of increased costs for health care and the amount we put in our gas tanks to go to work.
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.