GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Going Private

• 34776
  

  The health benefits comparison is distorted. The federal govenment, by any standard, is a MAJOR employer, and as such should be compared with, say, Fortune 500 companies. Almost all of them pay the entire health premium. I have a number of friends, current and retired from such companies, and they pay NO monthly premium, NO deductibles, and their only co-pays are $5 for doctor visits and precriptions. Medical procedures and hospital stays have no out-of-pocket costs. Please tell me which FEHB plan compares with that.

  A Dillon Posted October 11, 2007 3:49 PM
• 34768
  

  Dear Jane,

  During this time of transition for you, I would advise you not to pine for your previous Federal employment. I'm not sure if you've kept up with many of the new NSPS personnel initiatives but we are, reluctantly, changing to a system similar to commercial enterprises.

  A couple of the tenements of NSPS is the force resizing potential and the lessened protections of employment. I.e. the entire workforce can be shrank or grown to fit the current needs of the government with shorter notice and little or no appeals. Same goes for individual employment and termination. While that may seem understandable, much depends on the method of administration. With no appeals, we are at the whim of frustrated middle managers and administration cost cutting efforts. Our pay is now dependent on Congressional election politics and cost of living increases may be reallocated at whim.

  I suggest you reconsider why you think our careers might be safer in the light of these new regulations, for we are no longer all that different.

  Good luck in your future.

  Tip Off Posted October 11, 2007 1:55 PM
• 34656
  

  I would appreciate hearing more about Tammy's advice to a CSRS employee - retire and then got a job in the private sector. Very interesting. Why does she take this position? Thank you.

  C. P. Thompson Posted October 9, 2007 4:10 PM
• 34581
  

  This piece does not tell the whole story. I wholeheartedly agree with one of the other comments regarding the BASIC PAY screw-job. It is the elephant in the room when it comes to benefits. Few HR people or other champions of federal benefits ever address the deep discount the government gets by basing their calculations of all benefits including disability and pension, on this byzantine pay structure we are forced to deal with. We are being hoodwinked. My basic pay allows for only 2/3 of my salary, and hence the benefits are all 2/3 of what I think they should be.

  Another travesty that no one cares to mention is that while the ROTH 401(k) conversion is in full swing around the country, our employer, the same entity that dreamed this beautiful investment shelter up, doesn't allow us to engage in it. They cry foul in that it would be too expensive to overhaul TSP. What a crock. Give the government employees the same incredible boon of the the ROTH 401(k) that many in the private sector get.

  Finally, I will give the nod to our sick leave and annual leave. It is tops in the federal government.

  none of your business Posted October 6, 2007 9:18 AM
• 34573
  

  Thanks Tammy for the conclusion you make in your analysis. I think there are trade offs no matter what decision you make in your career. If you depend on others to take care of you, either in government or the private sector, you're going to be frustrated and disappointed.

  Michael Posted October 5, 2007 10:29 PM
• 34567
  

  I have tried to see if you have advised on the FEHB five year requirement in your articles. The reason I ask is to get an understanding of the law that indicates that Tricare can be used with FEHB to meet the five year requirement. There are so many opinions and I do not know which to believe. Can you direct me to where I can get a straight answer on how this works? I had four years and nine months of FEHB and two years and two months of Tricare. One agency said I met the five year requirement and then some while another said I did not meet the five year requirement. Can you direct me to an answer that will give me an explaination to my situation? I retired with the understanding from one agency that I qualified to carry FEHB into retirement while another agency denied it. It is in for reconsideration but I have not seen anything legal that would make me believe that I do not qualify.

  Howard Rains Posted October 5, 2007 7:56 PM
• 34555
  

  I left federal employment after 15 years of service (CSRS GS-11) for a more exciting and gratifying work. After 13 years in the private sector, I am losing my job as a Office Manager in venture capitalist firm because of downsizing. I have enjoyed great compensation, a friendly and professional work environment along with exciting work. Now at age 55, I wonder whether the decision I made 13 years ago to leave federal employment for the private sector was the right choice. For those who think the grass is greener in the private sector better think twice.

  Jane Posted October 5, 2007 5:00 PM
• 34535
  

  Thanks for the summary of benefits. Your statement at the end of the article made me laugh though. I think the "feeling you get when you go to work every day" is the reason why many people (especially new hires) leave the governement. In the part of the governement I work, I am amazed at how much waste and inneficiency there is. It takes a long time to get anything done especially if it is an innovative idea. Technical training is basically non-existent so many of the engineers I work with feel like they are being "dumbed down" and fear that in a few years, they will no longer be marketable on the outside.

  Mark Posted October 5, 2007 1:19 PM
• 34523
  

  May be your data is obsolet. The reality is that the health plan for Federal employees is one of the most expensives one. The sick and annual leave is same or less than the private sector. Salary is the lowest because the basic salary is the one that counts for retirement and most employees gets the salary increase only from the locality pay that it is less than what the increase of normal cost of leaving each year. Holidays paid are the only ones that we get more but not than the City employees. Because they always get the day before the holidays free and with pay. It is only my comment and my opinion I hope one day the federal employees can get the real salary and benefits that they deserve because We are hard working people with low pay than they used to be before the 1970.

  Elsy Mejia-Carpio Posted October 5, 2007 11:52 AM
• 34521
  

  I came from 16 years of private sector, then a good employer with benefits comperable to the fed package today. But that changed over time and most of that is gone, except for the 'big cheeses'. To me the biggest difference in public sector is the pride of working in my agency, for the public, not to line the pockets of the upper executives. You can find good benefits anywhere if you're qualified and look hard enough. Values and ethics were more important to me.

  ss Posted October 5, 2007 11:23 AM
• 34504
  

  RE paid holidays. Many private sector operations offer "personal days" that can be used for any reason. Employees are not locked into the same set of holidays.

  J Driscoll Posted October 5, 2007 10:01 AM
• 34501
  

  Ms. Flanagan - A very interesting synopsis.

  Yes - today in many aspects working for the Federal Governement may look more enticing, however that has not always been the case or is the case today depending on the private sector employer, which you do indicate.

  For a few decades, prior to private industry in the US abandoning its employees, private industry provided much better wages and benefits than the Federal Government. Also, there are some personal restrictions that apply when working for the Federal Governmemnt that do not apply in the private sector. One such restriction has to deal with the Hatch Act. So, in a sense, people have to become "second class citizens", giving up some of their rights if they want to work for the Federal Government. Items that are not brought out in comparisons such as yours and aspects the general public knows little about.

  Again thanks for a very intersing synopsis.

  I also like and appreciate your various commentaries on Retirement Planning. As an old cliche states, "Please keep up the good work".

  William Nowik Posted October 5, 2007 9:21 AM
• 34495
  

  "federal salaries lag behind the private sector by 23 percent"

  "average compensation of civilian federal employees was about twice as high as that of private-sector workers"

  It seems intuitive that both of these numbers could not be correct - either Federal employees lag behind the private sector or they don't. Well, it depends on how you look at it.

  Under the first number, if you look at a job-by-job comparison, Federal employees do not make the same as their counterparts in the same/similiar position in the private sector.

  However, a vast number of Federal sector jobs are of the professional, high-paying variety. So when all of the Federal salaries are AVERAGED together, the average of the Federal salaries is higher than the private sector, which consists of mainly low to mid-wage jobs as compared to the professional, high-paying positions.

  If you are in one of the "low wage" jobs, you would crazy to leave the Federal sector. If you are in one of the professional positions that has a "high wage" in the Federal sector, you might consider leaving the Federal sector because these positions typically are the ones that "lag behind by 23 percent."

  Kelly Smith Posted October 5, 2007 8:36 AM
• 34494
  

  I can't see the value of the chart in this article since virtually everything in the private sector column is variable. Maybe if there were some statistical averages for the private sector the comparison would make some sense.

  Vince Riccio Posted October 5, 2007 8:29 AM
• 34486
  

  I would agree with most of the information in your list, but....... Both life insurance and long term health care insurance can be obtained cheaper in the commercial market than either FEGLI or FLTC even for federal employees. This was pointed out to us at a retirement seminar provided by our agency. Compared to most private industry, the dental and vision coverage offered by federal sources are very poor. Finally, in basic retirement, you missed early deferred retirement for FERS which is a huge benefit compared to private sector and how I retired at 55 from federal service.

  tom Posted October 5, 2007 7:37 AM