Return to Article: House members press for military-civilian pay parity
-
44815
my question is I have 9years army service 4 years veterans hospital civil service how many years must I do to retire either I continue with the amry or in go back to civil service SS#452376313 Im 45 years old and I have no family I must take care of myself please tell me where to go are what to do how can I combine the years I have all the paperwork from my civilservice and military Iam on my 3rd dd214. please help me!
-
43137
"Land crabs": And what does that make a curmudgeon with nothing to do but snipe in fights where he has no dog? Well, we all know where that individual comes from. Beware the sea change, Scruffy! Back to the article: Again with the perennial topic and squabble. Here are some points both pro and con:
1. Hardships endured by military personnel earn them ADDITIONAL TAX-EXEMPT compensation, and rightfully so; NOT we civilians. Any increase designed to alleviate deployment hardships should be directed towards those deployed (both military and civilian); which would encourage more to go overseas. Today, all these discussions herein should be confined to stateside non-deployed personnel and base pay. The military work side-by-side with us civilians; except during Christmas Exodus and the myriad time-off events they receive.
2. While we work side-by-side, we are paid differently. All military are salaried and we are hourly; that makes a huge difference in public service and/or private business. Hours worked by the salaried increase and decrease with need. Hours worked by those paid hourly increase and decrease with the budget. And still, I remember working 60 - 80 hour weeks in both occupations.
3. I've seen some VERY low-income civilians, with families, working next to military; both in extremely high-cost areas and often as single head-of-household.
4. All this may be overcome by events, since NSPS means both military AND civilians can be deployed into hostile zones against their will; and BOTH will be subject to the US Code of Military Justice. Only saving grace here is the recent passing and signing of the bill that restored our (civilians') bargaining rights.
I don't know what's right and/or wrong here. I've been 20 years on the green side and 10 with the civvies (and you, DK?), and there were pro's and con's to both. If you want to distinguish compensation by mission, then speak honestly. This article is not about that. Sometimes, and in certain places, a G.I. has it made in the shade; sometimes, it sucks to the extreme. But I used to think that government service was non-political and non-profit oriented; well, IF you are in either service (and they both ARE services), you know you have to play too much politics and justify ever cent you expend. Remember, sister services are supposed to stand side-by-side.
-
42990
I love all these land crabs trying to sound as if they contribute as much to national defense as our grunts the answer is "NO" you do not never will so stop trying to compare your self to these guys and gals. Your a civilian because you don't have the backbone to do what these young men and women do so please stop trying to justify your selves it rings hollow
-
42892
VET....Your comments concerning pay parity are right on the mark. If a service member is deployed they receive quite a lot in terms of compensation for their service. BAH/OHA, Separation Allowance, Hazardous Duty pay, pro pay, tax breaks at PX and Commissary, etc, etc.
Civilian employees do not get any of this. I've walked both sides of the fence here and would love to receive BAH but obviously do not. Pay parity needs to exist just to fill the ranks. The minute this stops I will begin looking for employment somewhere else.
-
42888
Cheryl's son makes $2581 a month in base pay subsistance and clothing allowance which is 14.66 per hour or 2.5 times the minimum wage. That with free housing, utilities, medical, dental, legal, etc is hardly what I would call needing to go on welfare. I joined the Marines in 1967 and made $84 a month, in 1968 $226 a month as an E-5 which by the way was .80% of the minimum wage which means Cheryl's son has a standard of living over 3 times that which we did, not to mention I also spent a total of 36 months in Vietnam and was most definitely not considered a hero when I returned home. I retired in 1991 and can honestly say I never complained about pay although we did complain about the lousy M-16 which always jammed. We worked from 0500 PT formation until 1800 formation when we found out if we would have off base liberty or not (in 3rd Mar Div that was six days a week). Soldiers now have more time off than I can believe, training holidays etc. in fact Army soldiers only will work 17 days this month with federal, training and Super Bowl holidays off. Contractors perform most of the menial tasks that soldiers used to do leaving the soldiers with a lot of free time now. I have no complaints about my Civil Service pay; however, I do have a problem with the current generation of soldiers who in my opinion are overly materialistic and in love with the almighty buck than with service to their country; same goes for those in Civil Service, if you don't like working for your country get out and work in private industry.
-
42870
How 'bout pay parity with Federal Judges, they're gunning for a 32% pay raise.
-
42829
Just look in and parking lot on any base particularly the officers lot, and you will see "how bad they have it".
-
42825
I note that all of the House signatories of this request for "pay parity" are members of the VA and MD delegations whose districts contain large numbers of federal civilian employees. Their actions in this matter seem to me to be more of an election year gambit designed to buy the votes of large block of constituents than reflection of statemanlike concern for preservation of the quality of the federal workforce.
If we are going to talk about pay parity, let's consider all three of the groups who support the operations of the federal government.
After all of the uproar from federal employee unions about the horrible consequences of the implementation of the NSPS, I was surprised to read reports earlier this week that the "average" pay increase granted to employees after the first round of NSPS performance evaluations would be 7.6%. That sounds pretty generous compared to the proposed 3.5% military pay raise and it far greater than any annual increase that I have received in the 18 years that I have worked as a DoD Contractor since retiring from active duty.
-
42809
As a Vet. I think that the military should be paid more than civilians. However, I do not think military people are under compensated. I know several ENLISTED soldiers with a family...and they do very well. E-5 - 6 years of service with dependents in the DC area makes $2405 per month in base pay - $1855 housing allowance - $294.43 Food allowance. This is a total annual salary of $54,653.16. In addition, the housing and food allowances are tax FREE. Plus an annual clothing allowance and free health care. I'm not saying soldiers are getting rich but I do believe that this is fair compensation for a junior enlisted solider. You don't join the military for the money...you join to serve your country...or at least that's why I signed up.
-
42802
Civilians should have pay parity with Congress, or Congress should be part of NSPS. But then I guess most Congressmen wouldn't get a pay increase based on their job performance.
-
42794
Charlie, I'm tired of hearing how the military are working so much harder than their civilian counterparts and how they're subject to hazardous duty, ... . I see my military team mates leaving at the same time and coming to work at the same time that I do, deployed troops work more, these are the troops that it could be argued should be getting paid for double shifting (work your job then stand watch). As far as hazardous duty goes, military get hazardous duty pay and are exempt from income tax on deployment. Civilians get no pay relief on hazardous duty (and are much worse off than our vets if they are injured while TDY in Iraq). anyone who joins the military and don't know they will be reassignesd to new a new station on a regular basis have their heads in the sand. If the civilian side is getting paid sub-standard then the troops would have sub-standard civilians standing behind them. Is this what you want? We're all working toward the same goal. Most of us are team players and a few are not. get over it.
-
42773
Pay parity is one thing (I agree) but pay increases and health care are the real problems. Over the past ten years health coverage as increased 50% and more. Every January our pay inreases (On Average 3.5%) are off set by health care increases in the double digits. You add increases in food, housing, and gas alone our buying power is reduced not increased every year, we are going backwards. That maybe why our economy is in such bad shape?
-
42717
What does pay parity matter any more. We now all have NSPS and no one will be able figure what your pay raise will be. You are at the mercy of the pay pool panel. Don't bother to respond and tell me that if I am a high performer I will get my share of that raise, it just does not happen.
-
42698
looking at who is pushing for this, it must be that the soldiers are getting a larger increase than the civilian employees.
these requestors are all anti military liberals.
-
42679
Civil servants are essential and should be treated well in all respects and certainly well compensated. However the idea of "pay parity" with military is absurd on its face. The jobs and demands demands are totally different and traditionally in a defferent system for good reasons. When will we open the door to overtime pay, refusal of transfers, etc. for the military?
-
42675
There should not be a parity for military and federal pay. The functions that the civil roles play and their reponsibilities are worlds apart in their civilian work forces vs. the military responsibilities and instabilities that those members continue to adjust to world events. Parity is a bad idea.
-
42665
It's about time the civilians are recognized for their worth. Even though the military are in the front lines of defense and security, each civilian supports our country's defense and security either directly or indirectly. At one time one civilian supported eight Marine Corps personnel.
I do not agree that the pay raises for civilians and military were equal. The military have always gotten a larger percent pay raise each year than the civilians. I don't have a problem with this but I don't like the statements being made which are not true.
-
42663
Again, there is no way that you can compare military personnel and civil service employee pay and try to equalize them. What really needs to be done is compare civil service pay with the private sector. Consider: military serve 24/7, 8760 hours per year, civilians serve 2080 hrs per year; military is subject to two set of laws (civil and UCMJ), civilians are not; military is subject to being re-located, uprooted to new locations usually without choice, civilians usually not; military is subject to hazardous duties, civilians usually not; military has no sick leave benefit, civilians do; military can not "quit" their jobs or service on short notice, civilians can quit any time they like; military is not paid overtime pay, most civilians are paid overtime; military personnel are limited by promotion boards and rigid pay charts that inhibit pay advances; civilians can seek other opportunities that result in higher pay. Congress should be using the 1994 Pay Comparability Act (?) or other laws to bring civil service pay up to the same level as the private sector and quit trying to compare militay personnel against civil service employees. Bottom line is to quit trying to compare and equalize miitary personnel and civilian employee pay systems. There is no comparison in what these two groups do.
-
42654
I'm really getting tired of this debate. Just because that is the way its been done in the past doesn't make it right. I feel if the President thinks the military deserves a higher pay raise, they should get it. You cannot compare their tribulations to those of the civilian ranks.
-
42644
While I would not mind seeing some more money in my pocket for the life leisures that I have come to enjoy, one thing must be remembered when we are comparing our pay to that of the Active or Reserve Military member. We, the civilians, in most cases, come to work at 7 or 8 oclock in the morning, go home around 4 or 5 pm, everyday, except weekends. We eat a fine dinner and spend time with our families before we get our alotted 8 to 10 hours of sleep. Unlike us (civilians), our men and women in uniform have to be deployed many times in a career, deal with maybe 5-7 hours of sleep a night, depending on optempo, and often eat Meals Ready to Eat (MRE's) in a fox hole in the desert or while standing down for a couple minutes waiting to land another aircraft or refuel another Destroyer or frigate alongside. The pay would be nice but for we must remember that our men and women in uniform are being depended on much more that us civilians.
-
42643
I would gladly give up any pay raise IF it would go to the ENLISTED men and women who are serving overseas.
My son is an E-5. If it wasn't for my daughter-in-law's job, the three of them would be on welfare.
We make no bones about telling everyone else that we are the richest country in the world. But this is a very sad reality for our sons and daughters.
-
42638
In the past President Bush has said that because our nation is engaged in a global war on terrorism the military raise should be higher. To properly compensate military people for their risks and sacrifices their "special pay" should be increased (combat pay, family separation allowance, etc.). That is why those special categories exist. However, base pay parity should be common sense. As a retired military person I remember when pay parity did not exist and it caused some consternation and division between the military and civilian forces. Please don't take our team, that we have worked very hard to forge, backwards.
-
42636
While certainly a current income issue, the 'bottom line' is that the Pay Parity legislation passed in the early part of the last decade has never been honored, leading to an overal 18% deficit in comparable jobs (public sector vs. private sector). Meanwhile, especially during election years as at present, our leaders proclaim the strength of the economy. The inherent hypocracy should be resolved soon, especially as deficit financing of military missions overseas scales down with planned troop commitments.
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.