GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: CSRS retirees to get 3.3 percent pension bump

• 19707
  

  Okay, last shot and I'm off my soapbox. I volunteered during the draft, (please don't calculate how long ago that was) and I understand about soldiers not getting paid much; but let's look at our current recruitment picture.

  Patriotism is what got many soldiers in after 9/11. Now they are leaving thinking, rightfully, that they did their share; many because they can do better on the "outside." Maintaining a professional Army means getting people to stay; those benefits or "freebies" are part of a comprehensive package, the entirety of which keeps soldiers in the service.

  Perhaps troops are unhappy. Additionally, soldiers being forced to relocate their families every two to three years don't have the same opportunities to grow equity as more sedentary civilians. The costs are higher and more frequent. But "Senior Inspector" is right; they volunteered just like I did.

  That is a different issue than getting them in the service in the first place; and that is what I should have expressed initially. The monetary draw is, evidently, insufficient to recruit new troops; and most experts agree, we need 40 to 60 thousand more at a minimum. I feel we can solve our short term problems of retention and recruitment, but we'll have to have something on the plate to attract the young people. High school graduates do not understand the entire benefits package the military offers, and most new recruits do not receive all those benefits like BAH and BAQ.

  I just think that we, as a nation, are failing to grasp the trepidation most young folks are looking at the military situation with. I think that bonuses (there's those freebies again) can help both retention and recruitment; but they are selective and they do not incur lasting debt by raising the retirement cost.

  As for comparing stateside duties, military to civilians, I've seen E-5s and E-6s doing the same work of a GS-11 so I don't really think we're relatively under compensated.

  Perhaps we'll agree to disagree, but just wait. Something's going to have to be done in the next two years, so the wait won't be long. Don't blink.

  Tip off.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 17, 2006 1:01 PM
• 19498
  

  Sounds like there are unhappy troops out there? Well, as another poster said, there's no draft, so joining the military is similar to joining a company. The only people who deserve a large increase are those in frontline units, combat or sea duty. Most of the support jobs are similar to civilian jobs, and entail no risk. Historically, the military has never paid well in any nation. If a person wants to serve his/her country, fine. But they would do much better financially in private industry. I stand by my previous point -- many of the benefits given to all military personnel (including dependents) are free. Those of us who worked in the civilian part of the government received no such extras.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 3, 2006 3:36 PM
• 19485
  

  I agree with you Tip, I had to read some of the comments twice -- hard to believe. I guess ignorance really is bliss.

  Rick Posted November 3, 2006 2:50 AM
• 19453
  

  I can't believe some of the things I'm reading.

  "Do we deserve more than the military? Heck yes! " I can hardly believe my eyes. And yes, I checked: "Taxpayer," you're off the hook this time.

  If this is the average sentiment, then perhaps my perspective is tainted by having been on both sides of the fence. I could vent my emotions also but let's try to keep this logical.

  All of us, military and civilian alike, work an honest day for an honest dollar. That is my basic assumption, and I'll stand by it. So saying, my second assumption is that for much of our careers we work side by side. We both receive "packaged" compensations; that is a combination of base pay and other disbursements (e.g. locality pay).

  We work for the total package. Our perception of fair pay is the work we do for the amount (net) we receive. As a green-suiter, I remember reading my LES and seeing "If all your pay was taxable, you would receive this much less." Like Uncle Sam was doing me a favor. As stated before, we work for the total package; and without the draft, it's a negotiation normally based on a standard of living.

  Free housing and food. Yes, the tents are free, BAQ is not. Soldiers living in housing lose that particular allowance. BAS is similar. Soldiers living in barracks normally eat in dining facility, while married soldiers balance their food and housing budgets against the allowances received. I've never seen any civilian deliberately ask for either.

  Medical? Hey, if they get shot for us... Well, 'nuff said there. As for stateside healthcare for non-combat, please forgive the example but soldiers are tools. If they're broke, they can't do their job. It's a fact of life, we must keep them in shape.

  The criticality of a soldier's performance in a hostile environment is enormous, if infrequent during most careers. Since that frequency has increased, so must the cost of recruitment. If we don't offer that potential enlistee a decent living wage for the opportunity to live and work in dirty dangerous environments, they will not join up. Has anyone seen the current enlistment rates? They are dismal.

  If we were paying the soldiers all that much, trust me, they'd be signing up in droves.

  Tip off.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 1, 2006 9:10 AM
• 19370
  

  As a future CSRS retiree, I say bravo! And I feel sorry for all the FERS employees out there. It's too bad they changed the retirement system in 1983. Your only consolation is that Congress intended for FERS to be a "portable" retirement system. In fact, it's so portable, that since the creation of ICE in 2003, people are voting with their feet, and are either leaving this disaster for other agencies, or retiring in droves. Hey, Government Executive, how about a story on the huge attrition at ICE, and the rest of DHS?

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 26, 2006 3:54 PM
• 19316
  

  Do we deserve more than the military? Heck yes! Why? It's simple -- we retirees don't have free housing, the PX, medical care, etc. for our families. Also, thanks to the Congress, we can't collect the Social Security that we paid into. Remember the Windfall Provisions Act? So, when the younger federal workers retire, I wish them the same standard of living, if there's any money left.

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 24, 2006 11:13 AM
• 19290
  

  I don't fully understand the explanation on why FERS retirees benefit is 1 percent less than that for CSRS retirees. To my knowledge the government does not contribute to my TSP as a retiree.

  Phil Bennett Posted October 23, 2006 11:45 AM
• 19259
  

  Mark Wiste and others who wonder the same thing are forgetting: The grey vote!! Retirees vote a lot more than we do.

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 19, 2006 3:16 PM
• 19253
  

  How come the final amount was determined by falling "fuel prices" when they weren't included in the previous months' costs?

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 19, 2006 9:52 AM
• 19252
  

  Let's see -- retirees get a 3.3 percent raise in 2007 -- military and federal civilians get a 2.2 raise. Where's the logic on this proposal? Does it cost more to be retired than to work? I don't think so.

  Mark Wiste Posted October 19, 2006 9:43 AM
• 19250
  

  Whoopie! That ought to put a dent in my heating bill that has gone up 30 percent since last year. I feel so much better that I think I'll run right out and buy myself a whole new outfit out the Goodwill store. I'll be able to buy marked down chuck instead of marked down hamburger come January. Oh, the luxuries I'll have since being ripped off by DOL-OWCP.

  Robert M. Posted October 19, 2006 8:21 AM