Return to Article: Report: Federal pay, benefits double private sector's
-
18611
While an avid supporter of your publication, I was concerned by the tone of the first two paragraphs in this article. I.e. they sounded like a statement of fact that extended throughout the federal bureaucracy when, in reality, they are exclusive to a minor portion of the government (Commerce's 37,719 employees of the total 1,832,626 equal 2 percent, as per reference below). This tone seemed different from your earlier articles on the subject. Those identified the data interpretations as specific to the organizations and individuals spouting them.
The facts are there and the government/administration is the source. See the "Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics, the Fact Book." The statistically average Federal Civilian is a GS-9. And there is quite simply no way a GS-9, making a gross of $59,238, can cost the government $100,000 annually, with or without benefits being calculated in.
Many have been the pundits who spout support for the A-76 and contractors, citing the long term savings. Working at the grass roots level, I'd say that you get what you pay for. Except, when it comes to contractors, the government often doesn't get what it pays for.
While not being held responsible for personnel retirement funds, such programs put an additional layer of retail management between the producers (the contractor employees) and the consumers (the government). And the markup is averaging 100 percent of cost. The additional unaccounted for costs include the reoccurring training due to the higher personnel turnover and a relatively lower level of production. Now, I have known many contractors and do not fault them individually. It's the nature of the beast. The real and only profiteer in this mix is the contract managers.
And we now need a new type of government worker, i.e. the legal beagle, contract-smart overseer. Many are the times I've seen the letter of the contract met, without the government getting what it asked for. What did my installation do to remedy this lack? They hired a contract management contractor. Go figure.
Tip off.
-
18538
I am a bit late at responding to this discussion. I just ran into it today. I decided to check my own field. The American Chemical Society had a report on Chemist salaries that included a graph of average industrial salaries by years since degree was obtained. I discovered that the average is $15,000 higher in industry than my current salary. Most Chemists in my organization with PhD degrees and similar years of experience are at or near my current salary.
-
18410
I do believe someone has been sniffing too much glue.
-
18339
They're probably counting legislators and their "perks" like free haircuts, franking, and travel -- the last two of which are work-related. On the private side, they probably disregard executive goodies like stock options, company contribution to vacation funds, and company cars. Government statistics are unfortunately, at the current time, overly influenced by a certain group in D.C. -- look at the complaints of some of the scientists at NIH or CDC, for example.
Edwards comes out of the Cato Institute, which is hotbed of crackpots trying to influence public policy. They should get real jobs! As for "libertarian" ideas, libertarianism is related to anarchism. What kind of idiots want to have no rule of law at all? What other kind of idiots have ideas along the same lines?
-
18332
As a new government worker all I can say is don't hate government workers because they are paid a fair wage and receive adequate benefits. America needs to combat the kind of private sector (a.k.a. big corporate) greed that promotes a short sightedness emphasizing bottom-line profits while neglecting and excluding their most important resource...the people who make it happen. What we need is less offshore outsourcing and more corporate responsibility. At least our government is doing one thing right -- it appreciates and cares for its workers.
Instead of government worker-bashing, Mr. Edwards should be making the case for higher wages and better benefits for all, and using the federal government as a model.
-
18308
The salaries of federal workers are just like they are in the private sector, if people are paid for the job they are hired to do. I would imagine that if only the Defense Department average were figured, it would be a much less average salary. For the average salary to be $105,000 there are some white collar people making some really big pay because the blue collar pay is going to max out at a Step 5, and I doubt than any of them make over $70,000 a year. We have around 2,000 total civil servants and I would say that less than 100 would make more than $100,000 a year. FBI, judges, special agents, and what about the biggest business of all -- in Washington, D.C.? I am insulted for anyone to represent to the general public that the average salary for federal employees is so high. I have worked for 20 years, I have a college degree in business, I have received recognition numerous times and my annual salary is a whopping $37,000 per year. I would like to see a listing by location of where all these $100,000-plus salaries are paid.
-
18268
Why would anyone think your article provides a revelation? Those working in government know that most of the low-paying administrative jobs have been contracted out in last few years.
-
18240
I really find these reports misleading to the public. As a federal employee I can assure you that the average worker does not make the kind of money you are showing the public. When you take all the "high salaried" positions and then add them to the low-paid work force, sure it will show a high average. Why don't you show an honest report on what each "category/grade level" of federal workers make? Also, the executive level receives one type of benefit plan different from the lower level workers so do not confuse the two.
-
18188
Geez, folks calm down. What you should really be angry at is the reporting, because the reporting is incomplete and misleading to the American public. They are talking about averages and yes, since 1990 or before the average salary -- total compensation divided by the number of employees -- is higher in the federal government than it is in the private sector.
Why, because of the nature of our federal work - regulatory, legislative, policy, procurement, law enforcement, national defense, security, technology, research, etc. The average is higher because the wages and work are higher valued in government as a percent of the total federal workforce than in the private sector. We don't have many of the custodial folks anymore, we don't have the Wal-Mart guys, lawn care guys or the pizza shop incomes in our base income figure. And it's going to get worse as security, technology, education requirements and retirements continue to make the average federal wage higher and as the base number of federal employees smaller in comparison to the economy in general. It's a meaningless number if properly reported.
-
18184
We (the supporters and readers of GovExec.com) have addressed this farce before. Remember the 1985 study by Steven Venti at the National Bureau of Economic Research as found in "Pay Gap: A Different Take" that Chris Edwards quoted?
Beyond the obvious, what concerns me is the feeling that this is all being orchestrated. First Chris comes out with his diatribe using a 20-year-old study that has been overcome by events (i.e. a new retirement system - FERS -- and the rising cost of living). Then the Commerce Department's U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis seems to have jumped on the band wagon.
The timing appears suspiciously like a disinformation ad campaign to sway the American public with pseudo facts that have no validity. Do I hear reminders of the search for WMDs? I truly hope our representative organizations (yes, the "U" word) are watching these maneuvers and realize that the NSPS is now being fought on the battleground of the American public.
Tip off.
-
18171
There seems to be some contradictory thinking coming from Mr. Edwards. On the one hand, he is an advocate of keeping federal salaries down, but on the other hand he thinks the higher level government jobs should be privatized. Does he really think those high level government management and analyst jobs will be paid less if they are transferred to the private sector? I think he needs to do an analysis of the "shadow government" before he advocates any more.
-
18164
Apparently Mr. Edwards used all areas of the country (locality pay) to reach his 5.8 percent wage increase figure which definitely skews the actual figure. I am in the rest of the U.S. area and my pay in 2005 rose by 3.25 percent. As for benefits, those under FERS investing in TSP get matching funds up to a point. I am under the old system, CSRS. People still in this retirement program do not get matching funds in any amount.
As for outsourcing our jobs to private industry, I am totally against it. We are involved in too many areas that should be off-limits to people outside. There is a reason why many of us in my agency have Top Secret clearances. Also with outsourcing (using contractors), people can quit at the drop of a hat, which many do. And, they normally do not have to meet the clearance requirements that GS employees do. They can also be foreign nationals residing in this country. U.S. civil servants (GS employees) are required to be American citizens.
-
18159
I have been employed by the VA for more than 15 years and have yet to catch up to the pay and benefits I had with a different company 18 years ago. Recently I lost two weeks of pay because of an operation, after using all my annual leave, because I could not get restricted duty. My only other choice would have been to accept someone else's annual leave, which I refused. The question I have is how many other places of employment with benefits make their employees lose pay?
One must be careful when accepting government employment to the extent you are not covered unless it is job related. There is no disability for non-job related injury or sickness. So where are the great benefits I hear so much about? If when you run out of annual and sick time you lose money.
-
18157
These salary figures are patently false. Government Executive should not print such rubbish. Government wages are well below private industry salaries and have been for quite some time.
The in-house federal employees are winning virtually every shootout with private industry under OMB Circular A-76 studies. The reason for these in-house wins is easy to identify. Federal salaries across the board are less than private industry salaries for comparable work. When contractors win, it is usually a "buy-in" with costs escalating rapidly after contract award.
-
18154
As a federal criminal investigator, many will say that, at $100,000 per year, I am overpaid. But let me offer some perspective:
1. To get to this level, it took me 15 years of federal service and three academies. I didn't get to $100,000 overnight.
2. I am constantly on call, my cell phone at my waist. Pity me the day I don't answer that phone. I can only imagine the memos I'm going to have to write, or the possible disciplinary action I might face.
3. Concurrent with the second item, I can't tell you how many dinners, vacations, romantic evenings, family hours, etc. have been interrupted having to answer that phone, and the callouts sometimes associated with them.
4. I can't begin to discuss the aggravation, stress and sensitivity associated with what I do. If a 9 to 5 clerk screws up, he or she hides and goes home. If I screw up, you can bet your sweet GS-13 behind I'm going to be answering to a 14, 15 or SES about it.
5. Many agents I know have left government service, and make far more in the private sector than what I make in government service.
-
18151
I guess Mr. Edwards would have everyone in the United States working for Wal-Mart wages. His figures are so obviously skewed, as other writers have pointed out, it is almost a joke. Except there are those who will believe him. It will be used as further ammunition for this administration to propose little or no COLA and to further contract out federal jobs.
Fed-up in Chicago
-
18150
This is another reason we need to keep current on issues. If this attempt to mislead the country was not countered, the federal workers would lose what little they have. With NSPS trying to do that, and the Defense Department's arrogant disregard for court rulings of illegality, it's a constant battle. I sure wish we were still governed by the people, instead of by the Lords and Masters.
-
18141
Good evening,
Your story is incomplete. During the last 10 years, federal jobs have changed significantly. IT and government law have revolutionized the way we do our assigned duties. Our position descriptions have been re-written to keep up with technology, and law. They have absorbed parts of other positions, which make them more complex, and our workload has doubled. We are doing the work of three former employees, in a different way.
You should know it's very difficult to find an entry level position GS-1 or 2 or 3, because those positions have been deleted. We were told, when the budget was good, that there wasn't anyone interested in taking those jobs, because no one can live on a GS-1, 2 or 3 salary. So the duties were re-distributed and added higher graded positions, or outsourced.
Each agency underwent a major reorganization. With the reorganization, new positions were created, and most of them started at a higher grade level and salary. Most of the positions were filled by career employees, who had been doing the duties, but not given credit. Most of the new positions were based on the private sector position or a new law. How can someone compare a government position with a private sector position? Is there a national private company that will make sure our air is clean to breathe, and our water safe to drink. (Lately, they've been given the green light to pollute.) The nurses who work in the VA medical centers usually work short staffed and long hours. What nurse, in the private sector will work 4- to12-hour shifts and take care of total care patients for less than $18,000 a year?
I would also question the formula and the mathematics this person uses when he created the report. It would not be the first time creative mathematics was used so someone could make a political point.
Thank you for your time.
-
18139
Well I make $105,000 a year, but I've been working for 34 years and I really don't care about the private sector. On average most of my employees make around $70,000 and they have at least 25 years themselves.
-
18138
I believe what they are comparing is the CEOs of major companies against the congressmen and senators. Then you can say yes to everything that is printed. But the average federal worker makes less than half of the quoted figure. Anyone can play games with the figures, especially the Republicans in an election year.
-
18137
Perception is more important than reality. To the public, federal employees are overpaid. As average private industry workers face their 50s and 60s without a pension, they will become increasingly resentful of federal benefits.
Don't expect the coming decade to be filled with 5 percent pay raises. Instead I predict more pay banding type systems to keep down the federal payroll. The pendulum is starting to swing that way.
-
18134
A good GovExec.com article is one that gets your blood pressure up; this was an outstanding article and a rousing success. Where did the "stink tank" find this Edwards person? He has to have his head screwed on backward. Anyone who believes his crap will be found at the window/counter asking, "Do you want that super-sized?" The submitters of these comments told it like it was. I used to "copy-paste" these strong column comments and forward them to Senator Bennett to read. Never heard much back, his chief of staff probably isolated him from them. GovExec.com, once one of these public interest columns with lots of meaningful comments (like this one) plays out, could you please bundle up the article, and the readers' comments, and forward it to members of Congress who should care about it and their constituents. I see the problem as senators who are too insulated from real comments by their staff, and staffers too busy, lazy, or opinionated (pick one) to really brief their bosses on what we care about.
-
18133
The figures are correct. It's how they are presented in this article that is questionable. The reason why the average federal employee compensation is high is because the government is grossly top heavy with management where as the private sector has a huge number of low wage, service industry jobs.
The government is trying to sell federal employment to an ever more skeptical skilled workforce that wants nothing to do the mess. The Internet is making it very difficult for OPM to sell federal employment. If the government compared the starting wage for incoming workers with college degrees, the numbers would swing in the opposite direction.
Maybe the government should start trimming some off the top to get those figures down.
-
18131
I have read other articles of this nature. The question now remains: How do we erase from the general public's mind this erroneous impression and replace it with true facts? My father has been retired from the civil service for more than 30 years (he is 86 years old). He stated that at one time, it was with pride that he stated he had more than 30 years of civil service work, but now you almost want to hide. This type of propaganda is destructive and creates problems where there should not be any. Maybe it is time federal employees make these people responsible for their own actions.
-
18129
The purpose of articles like these are to fulfill an agenda -- that is, to eliminate or squeeze middle class government workers by distorting facts and figures emphasizing half truths. I worked at the Defense Department for a long time. During my last year there I had access to all the salary records -- especially of those whose job descriptions were less regulated by OPM because they went under a pay banding system -- and who were unofficially known to be part of the "ole boy and gal" network. The ole boys and gals, especially ones that had been at the agency for a real long time, were overpaid. For example, the top SES had a secretary with an inflated title and pulling in more than $90,000 a year. Another secretary got promoted to GS-12 by reinventing her past on her revised SF-171. Many of these favorites didn't have any training past high school, but made at least $80,000 a year anyway. A few were called engineers without actually finishing school so that they could be placed on a higher pay scale and even manage degreed engineers. My ex-boss was making more than $130,000 a year two years ago - way over the topped out GM-14 salary he would have been making under the GS system.
No wonder he worked to get rid of the union (which was against paybanding) On the other hand, for all these stories above, there are many more government employees are expected to get college degrees and start out as GS-5 And, big deal. A master's will get you a GS-9 without any foot dragging from the personnel office, no matter how much relevant experience you have!!!! These people often don't ever get enough increases to make up for what they lost by not taking private sector employment. And they get held down by the old boy and gals network. This is my two cents worth.
Dis-gruntled
-
18127
Actuaries who are my counterparts charge $425 to $800 per hour to perform the same work I do, and their annual salaries (and benefits) are at least double. Another younger actuary we hired had to take a cut in pay. Flip-side: I work about 40 hours per week on average, and my private sector counterparts work can have periods of 60 hour weeks -- That's one reason I left the private side.
There is a choice between quality of life versus wealth accumulation.
-
18124
Here is my question: How much does this Chris Edwards guy make per year? How much is he being paid off by Republicans to spread lies and propaganda? Is his salary covered by the Bush administration, either over or under the table? My taxes had better not be filling this guy's pockets!
DSR
-
18123
My first thought when I read the headline was "You've got to be kidding!" But, no, these people truly believe that anyone working for the government is overpaid. Period.
Anyone who tries to tell people that taking the salaries of more than 100 million workers, full- and part-time and regardless of years of experience, skill-sets, or anything else, and comparing them to the salaries of less than 2 million workers, most of whom have been on their jobs for more than 30 years, is always going to come out with the lower salary in the higher person count. On the other hand, how many minimum wage people with no benefits must there be out there to counter all the high- and astronomically-paid executives with embarrassing benefit packages to come out with such a low number?
Privatized and still not paid well.
-
18122
It is obvious that anyone can manipulate the data they choose to slant the outcome. I believe this article is doing just that. The average federal workers here in the Los Angeles area are struggling to make ends meet. On the average wages have not kept up with the cost of living in this area. Housing costs in most large urban areas like Los Angeles are now out of the reach of most federal employees. In my opinion the author is making a deliberate attempt to provide incorrect information.
-
18121
These figures are absolutely meaningless. It would be necessary to make a line by line comparison for each specific occupation to truly determine where any discrepancies may be found. How does this study take into account private sector compensation such as large private sector bonuses, use of company vehicles, stock options, huge cash bonuses, profit sharing, country club memberships, vacation homes/vacations, generous housing/rental/moving benefits? I would venture to say that an analysis which utilized "principles of scientific integrity" by an unbiased entity would show exactly the opposite! I could rattle off a tremendous number of Fortune 500 companies with vastly superior benefits.
-
18120
It's like the response in the story said -- the blue collar jobs have been outsourced (gardeners, mechanics, laborers, etc.) while professional/technical jobs have been trimmed but still remain. The study is pretty meaningless, but a good headline-grabber for those who want to dis the feds.
-
18119
I would like to see the details of this report. Did the private sector jobs include part time workers, illegal immigrants, etc?
I think the figures for average federal compensation are quite high. How did they compile them? Did they include Congress and the military?
Very interesting. Please do follow up articles.
-
18118
Unlike private industry, most federal agencies have had a hiring freeze for 10 to 20 years. We have around 950 employees in our building and only 14 of them are in their twenties and 33 of them are in their 30s. The largest number of federal employees at our agency fall in the age 50 to 54 category (236 employees), followed by age 45 to 49 (193 employees), and then 55 to 59 (172 employees). I am looking at a chart that our agency put out on 2005 employment. How can you compare the salaries of workers with many years experience with those of private industry with a wide range of greater to lesser pay scales? The Defense Department would have more young people than the typical agency!
-
18117
If the average federal salary hovers around the $71,000 mark, that might lead one to hypothesize that there are an awful lot of federal employees graded GS-12 or higher and that as a workforce maybe we're a little on the top-heavy side, like our corporate counterparts?
-
18115
I don't know where they got the figures. We got 3.1 percent. Who got the big raises? I don't understand how some got such high raises in Washington. We could really cut down by stopping them from getting these very high raises. Stop them from using taxpayers' money for their own use and gain. Start giving the federal worker higher raises to catch up with the rest of the world.
-
18114
I hate when these so-called facts are published. The general public already thinks we are all on the gravy train, and this adds to their resentment and distrust. After 20 years federal service (only 3 as military), I finally broke the $40,000 threshold. I don't even make what my civilian counterpart is supposed to be making, and I imagine they have less than 20 years on the job. Yet they portray all federal civil servants as being overpaid and underworked. Just more fodder for the push to privatize our jobs.
-
18112
The figures in the article are ridiculous. Who are these "federal employees"? What sector are we talking about? I don't know anyone who earns this amount as retirement pay. Under the CSRS, in order for you to earn $100,000 as retirement pay (with 80 percent maximum), you would have to have earned an average of $125,000 a year. My wife is a GS-12 and I am a GS-9, and between both of us we don't earn that amount.
-
18111
Actually, as a GS-12, Step 6 drawing IT special compensation (which is above regular GS-12 pay), I thought I was making well above the salary of the average federal employee. Based on this story, I see that I am in actual fact making considerable less than the average federal employee. Yes, Virginia, I am including all the "benefits," such as the matching TSP 5 percent, FEHBP, etc.
-
18110
Chris Edwards is the tool of yet another conservative think tank. The only reason that feds are making more is because King George has ripped the middle-class so bad over the last six years. This idiot Edwards is just another misguided minion of the Republicans who think that taking pay and benefits away from the middle class and giving it to the rich elite is a good thing. Contractors are not the answer people. They are costing the taxpayer three times the money while making yet another millionaire even richer at your expense. Wake up and smell the coffee. King George does not love you or anyone making less than a million dollars a year. This article is propaganda designed to make you angry with federal workers when you should be angry with this administration's continued assault on the middle class. If you believe this Edwards guy, then you have a deep rooted desire to work at Taco Bell or Wendy's.
-
18109
This reminds me of an old saying. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Another attempt to spread nonsense by this administration to degrade the federal workforce.
-
18108
I really can't comment on whether the figures are correct or not. Will anyone ever know? But I think Ms. Kelley needs to get out of Washington and look around and realize that a general statement like "The federal workforce is a white-collar work force...." is very misleading. This is an insult to the many who are working in responsible, blue collar (as we call it) positions both here in Washington and outside the metropolitan area(s).
-
18103
This story represents simply bad reporting! This is misleading. Compare the average salary of the president with CEOs of publicly traded firms and see what the ratio is. You have to compare apples with apples not apples and oranges.
-
18101
A decrease or stagnation in private sector wages and benefits seems to be more the issue these days. Much attributed to the obscene earnings, bonuses, retirement for the CEOs who continue to grab a larger and larger slice of the pie for themselves. 30-plus years ago, the average CEO's earnings to the average paid employee of a company was about 10:1, today it is about 100:1. If we are talking about comparable private sector and government positions, the government employee receives his/her pay per a regulated pay system. The SES (government equivalent of the CEO) gets his/her regulated pay; this prevents these obscene CEO type salaries for SESs. The private sector employee has to deal with what his CEO and company will give him/her (a sort of middleman situation). I worked for a private company (contractor) and a huge chunk of my pay went to the president and upper management who thought nothing of it. In the government, I get more of the pay for the work (no middleman).
-
18095
I have just read that federal compensation is double the private sector's. What I would like to know are these figures coming from? Which federal workers are we talking about? Management or GS-9 and below? It also stated that federal works earned an average of $106,579. If that is the case, show me the money. No wonder the federal worker is getting a bad rap with false figures.
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.