GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: House committee calls for military-civilian pay parity

• 45930
  

  RATC i got mine the year I graduated from ATC is was a great ceremony 2 diplomas at the same time. I love the comments talking about private sector, I'll bet money on it that the vast majority of CS would be gone in a year, nobody will put up with the whinning and crying and the socialist mentality that govt work breeds

  dan m ketter Posted March 10, 2008 8:52 PM
• 45905
  

  Civilian, perhaps I can understand your umbrage over the partisan sound of FedUp's declaration, but then he only said "Hopefully". The number of changes we have undergone since 2000, both as a nation and as a federal service do seem to indicate that this administration would prefer to deal with contractors they can pay off than we civilians that remind them of their duty and charges. As for "So no need to argue military vs. civilian. Pay is just a portion of the compensation package." We are in total agreement.

  Once more I read several statements that our hourly wage doesn't always equate to a 40 hour work week. Right or wrong doesn't always matter when green-suiters supervise and/or the mission calls. Budgets don't often allow for overtime and comp time just gets you more behind; and as stated elsewhere, NSPS changed much of what is right and what is wrong in the federal work place. I agree that while there doesn't exist a line-item veto; however selective law enforcement, as this imperial presidency exerts, seems to feel that gap nicely.

  Tip off Posted March 10, 2008 3:51 PM
• 45882
  

  I like to keep up with what is going on in this world. Esp. now with China looking down our world.

  Wilma V Ranger Posted March 10, 2008 2:03 PM
• 45873
  

  Get real pay parity went out the door when NSPS walked in.

  Mare Posted March 10, 2008 12:48 PM
• 45865
  

  Wow, CAE great call on the line item veto - too bad Congress never passed that law giving the President that option. He either approves the whole thing or veto's the whole thing. That's it. And Congress will make sure the bill contains something he really wants approved so it will pass. How do you think we end up with all the pork belly spending? I agree with Civilian about the health cost; I actually dropped mine completely and rely on VA for my healthcare now. Mr. Carillo, if you are working overtime you should be compensated - whether it is through pay or time off. If not, something is wrong and you should speak with someone.

  mgtx Posted March 10, 2008 11:43 AM
• 45861
  

  Pay parity? Give me a break. As a GS I work extremely hard for my income. Some weeks are long and others just the 40 hour avg. I wore the "green suit" too and the military receives tons of benefits and entitlements not seen by the GS workforce. Examples include completely free health care for the entire family, tax free shopping, housing allowance, pro pays, and many others. Parity is absolutely vital to keep a qualified workforce on board. As for increasing the level of the contractor workforce that is completely obtuse and anyone arguing for it does not know what GS works really provide. But hey, we paid for $500 hammers and toilet seats, why not pay a huge sum for contractors who only follow the PWS and try to squeeze more and more whenever they are asked to do a job "outside of the box". GS workers 9 out of 10 times are working outside of their job description and do so without asking for more.

  Avis Posted March 10, 2008 11:15 AM
• 45851
  

  Hey FedUp why don't you ReadUp. This isn't a bipartisan issue. Unless you have something constructive to add, ShutUp! Point of fact there is already an ACT (FEPCA) past by the first Bush in 1990 that was suppose to narrow the pay gap between the private & public sector. The ACT provided for an automatic calculation of the rate of increase however it also provided an out for the President to issue a lower increase, which Clinton did every year he was in office, although we are constantly reminded off this great budget surplus. Apparently the federal workforce wasn't that important. Pertaining to the article pay parity is in no way meant to compare the importance of the job being done. So no need to argue military vs. civilian. Pay is just a portion of the compensation package. After all the military have control expenditures like healthcare cost (my premium was increased by 50%), commuting cost (I won't mention what gas prices are). Instead of pay parity I would be more interested in Congress getting a better deal from the insurance companies on behalf of the entire federal workforce. Because and extra 0.5% is going to go very far if my insurance as double digit increase.

  Civilian Posted March 10, 2008 10:16 AM
• 45836
  

  Rod and Dan...you are welcome to apply for my job in the Sudan as a GS paid employee. Overseas the standard response to the '40 hour week' by our leadership is: "You work whatever hours (all uncompensated over 40/week) and you better like it, or else." Cheers

  Marcus Carillo Posted March 10, 2008 9:32 AM
• 45826
  

  Hey Dan, I just have to know.....how long ago did you get your GED ?

  Retired Air Traffic Controller Posted March 10, 2008 8:53 AM
• 45824
  

  Dan, many of us deploy in support of the military and are still the only ones to pay taxes...have you? The pay parity separation was affected by President Bush and should not have been done. Unfortunately, and pointed out by fedup, we are still 18% behind the private sector and the gap continues to widen. I have no doubt that President Bush and his narrow-minded attitude or Congress having the wherewithal to consider bridging the gap in the future...particularly, since President Bush is the one approving the budget submission for FY2009. In fact, I would not be at all surprised to see a line veto on the pay parity given his derisive feelings toward the federal workforce.

  CAE Posted March 10, 2008 8:31 AM
• 45814
  

  I have to agree with Dan...

  Deployments, 24 hour duty days, separation from family, hostile (spelled "deadly") work environments, and the list goes on. Parity? How do you reach parity when your job includes not even the slightest chance of being placed in one of these situations?

  While I don't mean to diminish in any way, the contributions of the federal work force, I'm not sure how parity can be reached. These brave young men and women in the military go to work under some of the most hostile conditions imaginable for relatively low pay. When they are not IN these conditions, they are PREPARING to go in harms way.

  I believe approximately 3% or less of the federal workforce is faced with the decision on whether they want to volunteer to be placed in this situation.

  If parity is what is truly desired, let's level the playing field or at least consider what parity truly means, instead of only looking at one facet.

  Rodney Posted March 10, 2008 7:10 AM
• 45808
  

  If the sacrifices were remotely the same, I'd be first in line to sign a petition. However, no "civil servant" 40 hour week compares with what my troops go through.

  Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

  Soldier Posted March 10, 2008 1:52 AM
• 45799
  

  Think it needs to be kept in perspective that there are a lot more people wanting Federal jobs that there are positions. Law of Supply and Demand says we are over paid now. On the other hand, for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that they are getting killed, required to spend 15 months away from Family and friends, and to get promoted move every 2 or 3 years, Military is hurting. Again Supply and Demand says we need to pay them more. I'd gladly give my FY 09 raise to our warfighters, they deserve it more than I do.

  John Tisue Posted March 9, 2008 6:19 PM
• 45798
  

  Think it needs to be kept in perspective that there are a lot more people wanting Federal jobs that there are positions. Law of Supply and Demand says we are over paid now. On the other hand, for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that they are getting killed, required to spend 15 months away from Family and friends, and to get promoted move every 2 or 3 years, Military is hurting. Again Supply and Demand says we need to pay them more. I'd gladly give my FY 09 raise to our warfighters, they deserve it more than I do.

  John Tisue Posted March 9, 2008 6:19 PM
• 45797
  

  Think it needs to be kept in perspective that there are a lot more people wanting Federal jobs that there are positions. Law of Supply and Demand says we are over paid now. On the other hand, for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that they are getting killed, required to spend 15 months away from Family and friends, and to get promoted move every 2 or 3 years, Military is hurting. Again Supply and Demand says we need to pay them more. I'd gladly give my FY 09 raise to our warfighters, they deserve it more than I do.

  John Tisue Posted March 9, 2008 6:19 PM
• 45534
  

  Yeah Dan, with equal work CS employees would have to take those military family days off instead of working.

  Brad Posted March 7, 2008 5:55 PM
• 45481
  

  Wonder if they are going to require work parity as well. That would be a wake up call for the CS employees

  dan ketter Posted March 7, 2008 3:56 PM
• 45380
  

  Although pay parity is welcome, we're still far behind the private sector. Hopefulle, the Democrats will narrow that margin.

  FedUp Posted March 7, 2008 10:19 AM