Return to Article: Legislation would allow more feds to cash out sick leave at retirement
-
81848
Any movement on passing legislation to include sick leave in retirement calculation for us FERS people. I plan on retiring December 31 (or Jan 31, 2010). Is there any hope?
-
69618
I instructed everyone to TAKE SICK LEAVE BEFORE RETIRING !!! I did, and it was GREAT !! Have fun, enjoy yourself. You should have already saved a fortune anyway, you don't need the money, you need the time...IF you did everything correctly during your working career !! I did it correctly and reaped the bennies !!!
kmp
-
66998
The legislation for FERS sick leave should focus on parity with CRS. Keep the money let me apply my sick leave to my retirement as you can under CRS. The current proposed legislation is little incentive not to use all your SL before retiring.
-
62075
Everyone needs to remember that retirees under the CSRS system receive a MUCH HIGHER percentage of their high three upon retirement than FERS retirees receive. Therefore, even if Congress would be generous enough to grant this sick leave benefit to FERS retirees, FERS retirees would still not receive the level of benefits that CSRS do. Do the research.
-
61304
What ever happened to this legislation?
-
56843
As a FERS employee I am very happy about this.
I only have 8 years (and 33 years old) in so far but have 800 hrs of sick leave already.
Government retirement (even FERS) is actually quite good I don't know what all you whiners are talking about. Most private sector jobs have NO annuity any more and only do 3% matching.
I'm glad they changed the over time pay rule a few years back so that i can actually make my hourly rate when I have to work over instead of less.
-
50622
Like I said below...forget taking money for sick leave! TAKE THE SICK LEAVE before ya retire!! It's difficult to do in the private sector so just "do it, do it, do it!" Enjoy your benefits...quit worrying about what ya don't have! You have plenty of sick leave...TAKE IT!!
-
50268
I am a FERS employee and if they really want to fix the problem, change the rules to make it like a CSRS employee and be able to cash it in at retirement time. This would cut back on sick leave use throughout an FERS career. This would increase productivity and decrease the griping.
-
49903
I retired 2 days ago (FERS). I had ZERO sick leave on the books. I took it down to 90 minutes then took the time off!! I can't believe ANYTHING that's coming to you on your leave and earnings statement is not yours...incl., insurance coverages (dental, medical, and vision!), life ins., overtime, night shift pay, Sunday pay...it's ALL YOURS to have!! I was gonna leave 15 minutes on the books but then considered that insane. TAKE IT, IT'S YOURS!!
-
48226
Wow, nice to see all the integrity here. I hope when you use all your days as "days off" you then get sick and don't get paid. When that happens, reap what you sew.
-
47949
At my retirement date in 2013 I will have 3,000 hrs of sick leave on the books. A mere 15% of that over 500 hours is an insult to the dedication that I have shown to the service. I will be forced to be the employee that I do not want to be. The majority of the people I started with have kept their SL balance at 500 over the past 30 years, while have been at work. I will be watching this closely at the outcome.
-
47939
LG, on March 12, posted a comment about taking 45 days (360 hours) of his sick leave to be with his dying father during dad's doctor visits, hospital stays, being home (?) with him when he passed away, etc... Since when can we take personal sick leave for family members? I know you can have up to 13 days (104 hours) per year for family sick leave but not your personal sick leave used if you yourself are not the sick person. There is the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) that states you can be granted up to 12 weeks of UNPAID leave to spend with a family member in serious health condition. But that doesn't look like the case here, he states he was paid for all the time off he took under sick leave. Does no one in his office, or in the timekeeping office, understand rules and regs? And if the rules are different than what I understood, please let me know. My mom is old and elderly and I would like to spend weeks with her as she dies and still get my regular paycheck, also.
-
47557
I am a FERS employee with over 20 yrs service and currently have over 1200 hours sick leave, even after taking a month off for a back injury. I plan on using all my sick leave before I retire for a couple reasons: 1) Sick leave used is still creditable service time for retirement; 2) I get full pay and benefits for all hours taken. I, for one, will enjoy using what I have earned and will not accept a mere 15% on hours above 500 (pfft!)
-
47478
After seeing proposed legislation, spoke with other GS 12, 13, and 14's of comparable time in (at least 20 year -- most within 3 years of retirement). 15% is nowhere close to being an incentive, especially if you remember that taxes will be taken out of any "windfall". For some peolple, the 15% less taxes barely is sufficient for commuting costs! so we loose money if we come to work. -- Good comments were made by "Brian" on March 13; but "Mathman" march 11 comment that no CSRS were hired after 1984 -- sorry, wrong (I was first in gov't in 1979 (short term-temp; then in 1985, hired as CSRS !! Was one of those INVOLUNTARALLY switched to FERS. I have plenty of old pay slips (with previous agency) showing so much for CSRS retirement and so much for FERS retirement.) --Agree with comment that noted we should have sick leave transfer to pool of needy (instead of annual leave), with potential tax deduction incentive (hmmm -- let's see, is that at "full" rate or only 15% of full rate?) --I also see a lot of younger workers (7 1-5 yrs service with under 400 hrs of S/L and no annual leave -- is this abuse? Me -- over 1600 hrs before this surgery (8 weeks off -- back on tuesday, prior cancer used many hours ~ 10 years ago) and U/L AL every year. So will I accept 15% before taxes ...hmmm, NO.
-
47372
It seems like a small payoff when compared to the benefit that CSRS employees receive (essentially 2% of their takehome added to the retirement calculation for every 2080 hours saved) Lets say you take the same individual earning $75k a year and in the CSRS system, they would take home an additional $1500 / year throughout their retirement. I believe the proposal is weak and really not much of an incentive.
-
47215
Certainly we need to give our employees an incentive to save sick leave. You might wish to add the accumulated sick leave to the start date of the individual. In a RIF (reduction in force) an individual with 4 years of service and 380 hours of sick leave would have more seniority that an individual with 4 years of service and 11 hours of sick leave. Likewise you could allow an employee to retire 3 months earlier if they have 3 months of accumulated sick leave.
-
47099
Hmmmm.... Did the research, seems I pulled another COUPLE of "Oopso's". Thanks, TX. I had tried to understand why my EBIS kept reflecting lesser SS payouts each year. I think it was two years of faulty input.
B Allen, you were more right than I'd prefer. The 25% marginal tax that we defer today can easily change the 25 cent on the dollar into the dollar itself over a 20 year period, if you can maintain an 8% annual return on your TSP.
Perhaps I should have prefaced all that with ... "Correct me if I'm wrong" for you surely did. Thanks, folks.
-
47050
Someone tried to say this plan works better and you will earn more money if you retire and cash in your sick leave. The amount you would earn is only a few thousand dollars. All that will go for is taxes when you get into a higher tax bracket. If you use all your S/L leave before you retire, you are also contributing money towards your TSP, which will help you when you retire.
-
47032
I retired on 11/30/07 and i wonder IF this bill would cover me? This bill was originally suppose to be introduced before Thanksgiving 2007. How will we know if the bill would be retro-active and if so how far back retro-active ?
-
47031
I retired on 11/30/07 and i wonder IF this bill would cover me? This bill was originally suppose to be introduced before Thanksgiving 2007. How will we know if the bill would be retro-active and if so how far back retro-active ?
-
46992
Will this benefit be retroactive? I retired in 09/2006 and lost all sick leave I earned after transferring to FERS in 1969.
-
46822
tax deferred not tax exempt, big difference
-
46808
I have accumulated over 2200 hours as a firefighter. I will be retiring in August 2008 with 32 years combined Militaty and Civillian service. I would like to know how this would effect me. I am a YN-0081-1. If anybody can help, please let me know.
-
46790
Tipoff, you are wrong. TSP contributions are income tax exempt. You pay SS and medicare taxes on you full income. So, your SS will be figured on your income. I get a print out from SS every year that gives me an estimate.
-
46786
Pondscum, granted your CSRS system doesn't give much in the way of credit, but if you consider that the FERS employee retires with 40% of the CSRS employee (time in service, top 3, etc all considered even), then every penny counts. So at least its something.
Oh, yes, we get matching... that's if you can afford to participate. Remember all the employee contributions that go into TSP receive tax exemption status, thereby lowering your retirement income. Less FICA tax means reduced Social Security entitlement even more so. Anything we contribute to TSP has to be balanced by those reduced funds. You don't get penalized for such but get the same option of contributing.
That 5% matching doesn't go all that well towards making up the 60% difference in our retirement pay; just ask recent retirees.
-
46774
I am one of those employees who already (less than 6 years in federal service) has over 500 hours sick time. I will have bookoo sick time when I retire. Once you do the math as I have, you may decide to simply use the sick time:
As per the example in the article (see below), the hourly wage you would be paid (before taxes) = $5.33. Now if you are in the 28% tax bracket, your net gain = $3.84 per hour. I think I would rather take the time off and stay home, go to the mall or even work somewhere else on that sick day at a minimum of $10.00 per hour and create a true gain from this debacle.
How about this: instead of cashing out the sick time > 500 hours, allow us to stay on after the specific retirement date but working those days until the sick time over 500 hours amount in exhausted. The benefit would be mentoring the younger employees (less brain drain) and we would be earning a true salary rate as opposed to the slave wage offered herein. This would add to our 36-month high for retirement?
From the article: "For example, a GS-12, Step 10 with an annual salary of $75,000 and 1,250 hours of sick leave would receive $4,000 upon retirement."
-
46763
I don't understand why private industry or CSRS employees accuse FERS employees of abusing leave just because they plan to use all of their sick leave before retirement, if we EARNED IT! If I already worked for it, I have the right to use it for all health-related issues. (Health matters are private and don't need to be shared with everybody in teh office; just with the person approving the leave.) Moreover, I don't even understand why some FERS employees complain about the inequality between CSRS and FERS by saying they'll use all of their sick leave before retiring but then, already carry balances over 1,000 or 2,000 hours. If they wait until their last 2 years, using that much sick leave will obviously look as abuse because it shows that they ought to be faking being sick in order to "burn" that much leave in a short period of time. Use your sick leave throughout your career (keeping a prudent balance for emergencies) and it won't be "seen" as abuse at teh end of your career, people!
-
46759
before you accept the idea that you'd rather be given the csrs option of adding the time to your service time, do the numbers for yourself. At 30 years you'd be given another 3 percent onto your monthly annuity which would amount to about 40 bucks. Considering how sick most of you are feeling, you'd be wise to take the money up front because you're candidates for an early grave. I'll make the exception for those with planned 'fix it's' which I think are totally legit. And for you mathematically inclined rocket scientists, You actually net more money if you take the money on retirement and show up for work instead of scamming the sick leave system. What a concept.
-
46735
Whether we get the money or not, I don't call in sick when I'm not. I wasn't raised that way. If we get the money that's great, if I don't get the money for my 1600 hours, I knew that when I took my oath in 1986. Yes, I am retiring soon
-
46727
Most FERS employees I know are terribly conscientious, i.e., coming to work when they are sick and should be home. It is imperative that lawmakers make this right; particulalry, since we pay for a much larger piece of our future than CSRS employees!
-
46702
I am insulted at the broad accusation that all FERS employees abuse the system and call in sick when they are not. The current system provides no incentive to come into the office when you are sick. That's a good thing! I don't need a coworker infecting me with their germs; I've got children for that. Additionally, there is no incentive to schedule medical/dental appoints to minimize sick leave. If I have a choice between a 1 p.m. appointment time vs. a 4 p.m. time, why would I take the 4 o'clock?
-
46696
Hey "nice guy3" who Posted March 14, 2008 6:33 PM, the answer to your question about how do people do it and about 'easy managers' is this.
In this day and age of limited funding, a manager sometimes wants to have a skilled employee charge to the manager's job order number only a few hours a week. The manager does not want to carry an employ on hours that they cannot contribute to the project. Now if this skilled employee is off on sick leave a couple of days a week (which is charged to a different fund), the manager is fat, dumb, and happy because he only has to pay for actual hours worked.
Employees taking sick leave are not the only ones gamming the system. Managers can participate also.
-
46652
Nice guy, in this case I'd be happy to accept parity. If it was good for the CSRS then it should be good for the FERS. Please note John's post on March 13, 2008 at 5:48 AM. His 1969 reference is further explained in Brittany's Pay and Benefits Watch, "Saving Sick Time" on March 13th. Originally, the CSRS had a similar leave accrual and disposition system as ours; and it didn't work out then either. Then management's solution was the current retirement credit the CSRS receive. And the same situation is happening again. So, as you were saying, "What's good for the goose..." We'd appreciate the same consideration you got.
As for those of the outraged indignation, high ideals are grand but they don't pay the bills, put bread in the kids' mouths, shoes on their fit, or a college education in their heads. This is American, the land of enterprise. Funny how folks like Skeeter tout that when speaking of communism and socialism, but when we civilians try to simply maintain our benefits and support our families, we get called "leftists" by that oh, not so wise one.
Once more, in these United States, employees (including us and the military) are recruited and retained with pay and benefits packages. Patriotism is nice and lovely, but we have bills here. And as a manager, you can always tell if you are giving a fair wage if you are getting and keeping the right people. The problem here is the constant poking and prodding the system gets which causes expansion and contraction, and the subsequent recruiting and retraining, of the employee population.
I truly believe that our population wouldn't be so vehement on these topics if we didn't believe this is just one in a long line of inequities being pushed on folks forced to make do for so long.
Remember, stable and happy workers are more productive.
-
46648
"Maybe some of you fake some "mental illness" and get your therapist to recommend/approve 3 months off for rehabilitation".
From what I've seen during my past 21 years as a Fed, no faking is necessary. I wish more Feds would get their mental issues addressed, sometimes I think I work in a loony bin.
-
46632
How embarassing! Sick leave is for an illness. We have to pay people to not abuse sick leave? Managers not do their job and ensure the integrity of the leave system, so therefore we need to pay people off not to lie?
-
46623
I love it when folks say the proposed sick leave payout for FERS folks is not a CSRS issue because CSRS folks will all be gone in 5-6 years anyhow! How do you you know when I plan to retire? Maybe a sick leave payout shouldn't be an issue for any FERS folks who leave in the same time frame then. Someone else said that CSRS folks got an extra "benefit" when they were (after a year or two) allowed to participate in TSP. Big deal....CSRS folks still get no matching funds and yet they have plenty of opportunity to lose tens of thousands of dollars. Some "benefit"!!! At least with a 5% pay raise (the net affect of a full match) I could temper my losses. Like I said before, if you increase benefits for some, you should increase benefits for all.
-
46583
Those who say that using sick leave when approaching retirement is abuse should consider-how did the individual get the large a sick leave balance? Maybe by NOT ABUSING sick leave!!!! Give me a break-Congress should just pay FERS for sick leave as they do for CSRS and be done with the dispute!! Also, to the person who said if FERS retire at 56 they get supplement until 62 that they did not pay for-that is incorrect-we DO pay into Social Security and the "supplement" from age 56 to 62 is to try to match (is not as much) as the Social Security benefit that we pay for and count on as part of our "3-tier" retirement-FERS annuity, Social Security and TSP>
-
46575
Did all you folks who are complaining start out as GS12, step 10?? I started out as a GS-2 and worked my way up. Why should I be reimbursed at my current rate of pay for hours that I accured at the GS-2 grade? I think that any pay out at this point sounds like a bonus, even if it is just enough for a nice night out to celebrate my retirement. It's a start. And by the way how may of you hold a security clearance? Isn't there something that says to hold a clearance you must have some integrity??
-
46557
If I can't get 100% return at reterement then I'll take the 100% a SICK day just before retirement.....pay me now or pay me later.
-
46555
15% on the dollar is a start, but still not an incentive for employees not to use sick leave. Consider 25% and lower the trigger from 500 to 100 hours, and raise the max to 20K...then you have a plan that may work.
-
46544
Im over 1250 hours now; why would I even think of selling it back at 15% or $4,000 when I can spend the next two years making it worth $36,875? If I wait until I'm closer to retirement, then were talking more like $45,000. On top of that, when asked for sick slips, they'll get them and more. Don't know of anyone willing to except less than 75% or it's just easier to make a phone call or two and watch tv.
-
46533
I just retired under the FERS retirement plan. I made sure I used every tenth of an hour of sick leave I had earned before I retired. If the government doesn't want to pay me for it I used it. I earned it and used it. They made a big mistake when the incentive was removed to not allow sick leave to count towards retirment pay.
-
46532
I want all of my money, where is my 3971?
-
46506
Is the first 500 hours not worth anything?
-
46505
I'm amazed that so many employees can so easily take sick leave in large chunks as they near retirement! How do get your Doctors to approve it so readily?....unless you are postponing some major operation for the period just prior to retirement? In our agency, a supervisor CAN require, if they so choose, a Doctor's note for even ONE day off! Others claim they plan to take 10 hours off a week...same issue! In my agency an employee was called out for taking every Monday off on sick leave (when the pattern became obvious to management)....anyhow some of you folks must work for "easy" managers who don't question your excessive use of sick leave. Maybe some of you fake some "mental illness" and get your therapist to recommend/approve 3 months off for rehabilitation. Just wondering.
-
46497
"OPM has served up a proposal to Congress to offer CS a Short Term Disability Insurance Plan, totally funded by CS. Like to see after all this whinning how many enroll once they have to pay for the it (sic)"
100% employee-pay-all benefit plans ARE NOT the way coverage is offered by major private sector companies. I am a former private-sector benefits manager(by the way, Dan, you must have never worked in the private sector because they certainly whine like heck). There is no reason for the largest employer in the nation to offer worse benefits coverage than corporations a fraction of the size of the Federal workforce.
OPM doesn't know crap about benefits. Folks will sign up in droves when a REALLY BENEFICIAL plan is offered, not just another sham thrown out there to look like something is being done for the poor feds while taking yet another big chunk from their paycheck. Either private-sector practices are going to be followed or not. Don't tell up to accept all of this pay-for-performance nonsense which is supposed to emulate the private sector, then continue to ignore what the private sector does when it isn't in the best interest of congress. That's hypocritical, but what else is new?
-
46468
CSRS is not such a great deal. I will be retiring in a couple years so I ran the numbers. If I add 400 sick leave hours (50 days) on to the annuity, my annuity increases by only $187. A YEAR. I'd rather have the cash.
-
46437
Why take 15% of $25 an hour, for anything saved above 500 hours, when I can get 100% of $25 by calling in sick. What's the point in losing 75% of my accured sick leave, when I busted my butt to save it. If its use or lose it, it's plain and simple, I'm using it!!
-
46398
Sick leave = 150% pay.
Using sick leave is like being paid time and a half. Uncle could pay you face value for sick leave and still come out ahead. Here's why. Suppose you can retire and you have 800 hours of sick leave. You could retire and give up the 800 hours sick leave and get the bonus, or stick around another 5 ½ months and be sick. While you use the 800 hours you will earn more sick leave and annual leave. 8 hours annual and another 4 hours sick leave for each 80 hour pay period. That's 120 more hours, and that 120 hours will earn another 18 hours, which earns 2.7 hours, which earns 0.4 hours etc., the end result is that your 800 hours compounds to last about 941 hours. That's a 17.6% increase.
But wait there's more. Fed employees get 10 paid holidays a year or 80 hours for every 2080 hours. While you are on sick leave for 941 hours you should average 4.52 paid holidays or 36.2 hours you still have to use. Don't forget the 17.6 % compounding, you need to be sick for another 42.56 hours. That's a total of 983 hours of leave used. But sticking around has other advantages. If you put 5% in TSP while you're sick, Uncle Sam will still match your 5%. That's like earning another 49.15 hours. But wait there is still more. Your annuity is based on 1% of your high three for each year you are in a pay status and you were sick for over 5 months, this adds 9.83 hours pay to your annuity each year. Assuming you could buy an annuity that pays 5%. The one time lump sum value of this increase in annuity is worth about 20 X 9.83 or 196.7 hours pay.
So we have 983 hours compounded with holidays, plus the 49 hours TSP perk, and the 196.7 hours retirement annuity perk for a total of 1228.7 hours. 1228.7/800 = 153.5%. At $35 an hour, being sick pays $43,000. Or your could take the $1,575 that is $35(800-500)(0.15).
It's nice being smarter than a congressman.
-
46363
OPM has served up a proposal to Congress to offer CS a Short Term Disability Insurance Plan, totally funded by CS. Like to see after all this whinning how many enroll once they have to pay for the it
-
46321
An alternative might be to dump hrs./dollars into a health savings account that could be used for major medical deductibles after retirement. You may or may not use it, but would be available. An insurance if you will. If a health problem arises, do you have the cash for a large deductible out of your pension?? The subject seems to be on the table, please, offer valid suggestions.
-
46264
I need both knees replaced. Sister-in-law had both done at once, 22 weeks off. Brother-in-law had one-at-a-time, 27 weeks together. FSAFEDS pays for physical therapy trip mileage and other expenses - if I'm still working. My dentist wants to do a lot of fixing before I move south after retirement. FSAFEDS will pay a chunk of this - if done before retirement. Several other sections need to be tuned-up in the near future. Do I get this work done before or after retirement? Sick leave/full pay & some medical reimbursement, or on my own time & dime? Do I want to spend the first days of retirement getting repaired for the long haul, or do I hit the ground running? Is this cheating the government?
-
46241
I think this is another way to otherwise abuse newer federal workers on the FERS plan. I think FERS employees should have the same advantage to sell or apply sick leave at retirement just like the CSRS employees do. Afterall, TSP was a FERS program only, but it was eventually extended not only to CSRS but to military as well. A plan to allow FERS employees to sell back leave at their current hourly rate would be much more equitable. Has anyone considered how long it takes to accrue 500 hours of sick leave at 4 hours per pay period? I would suggest that if you are FERS within 5 years of retirement, that you be allowed to sell back sick leave just as you can sell back annual leave.
-
46230
CSRS personnel were given the benefit of adding their sick leave to their retirement benefits for the exact same reason that FERS personnel use their sick leave now. Identical!!! check your history back in 1969. So now FERS employees are being asked (told) can't have it like it was in 1969 but we will give you a paltry 15% for anything over 500 hours. I'm simply amazed in their attempts to appease a wrong. Me with over 900 hours and counting and that includes reducing the benefit(?) by 6 weeks for surgery. So please lawmakers get a grip, understand the issue, talk to the employees, find out the true issues. But please don't bombard us with stupidity missles in an attempt to appease us.
-
46229
If FERS is such bad deal for the government then offer all FERS employees the opportunity to convert to CSRS.
-
46227
Fedworker at VA, if you truly think 60 is the earliest a FERS employee can retire, you need to speak with your retirement section.
For most folks, its 56. That is your MRA+10. If you are lucky enough to reach your MRA with 30, you even get an additional stipend until age 62 that you never paid for.
Please don't mistake this statement for anything other than trying to clue you in. There are no complaints here, even though I will never see that particular benefit. It's just not one normaly available to most of us prior military 20 year types due to our age starting that next career.
-
46226
Fedworker at VA, if you truly think 60 is the earliest a FERS employee can retire, you need to speak with your retirement section.
For most folks, its 56. That is your MRA+10. If you are lucky enough to reach your MRA with 30, you even get an additional stipend until age 62 that you never paid for.
Please don't mistake this statement for anything other than trying to clue you in. There are no complaints here, even though I will never see that particular benefit. It's just not one normaly available to most of us prior military 20 year types due to our age starting that next career.
-
46224
Forget all this, just give FERS the CSRS type retirement. How can one survive with less thatn 50% of your annual pay? that's the FERS system.
-
46221
That's a ripoff, if they would push that incentive up to 50% for any unused sick leave then i would consider it but, the 15% in my opinion is not worth it at all.
-
46205
It never ceases to amaze me of the "entitlest" attitude of many posters on this site. Sick leave is an "insurance policy" plain and simple. Just because something is there in case you need it doesnt mean you've "earned" it and must take it. It's one benifit in a "package (salary, life insurance, retirement,etc)" that we all evaluate to determine if we stay in government or take another one outside because the package is better on the "other side of the fence". CSRS is not FERS, FERS is not CSRS; get over it. Rather than complain because someone has something you dont maybe you should take stock in what you have; I am willing to bet there is someone a whole lot worse off than you are (go visit a homeless shelter or rehab ccenter sometime). By the way, you will always be able to find someone who has it better than you do. To those that are going to make sure they get every hour of sick leave they have "earned", dont let them evil old governmental management types screw you out of your other "earned" benifits. After taking all your sick leave you need to seriously consider dying on the job; because gosh darn you've earned your Death in Serive Benifit (Survivor Annuity) and for all us "screwed" FERS employees our FERS Lump Sum Death Benifit. (By the way its $27,461.91 plus 1/2 your ssalary). Makes your sick leave payout look small even at 100%. How dare they make you die before they pay you these "earned" benifits. Dont forget your FEGLI either, you paid for that too, dont let them take it from you. (P.S. You should probably plan your annual car accident and start the kitchen on fire tonight cooking dinner; because we all know the big insurance companies arent any better than the government. You've paid your premiums, by God, you've "earned" those insurance checks.....)
-
46198
Many Many private sector companies allow sick leave to accrued. Example GEICO. My father just retired from there with over 1500 hours of sick.
-
46195
I for one will not forfeit one hour of sick leave. God willing I will have plenty on the books as I approach retirement and if they think 15% is going to keep me away from those 3-4 day weekends (cough cough)then they really are crazy (15% above 500 hours!!!! no less). Give FERS the same deal as CSRS and there would be no "abuse" of sick leave to talk about. Just common sense Washington (thus it won't happen)!!!!
-
46191
All I can say is what an awesome benefit we have to be able to carry forward sick leave. I was able to use 45 days (360) hours to be with my father at doctor's visits, hospital stays and to be with him as he passed away. I wouldn't give that time with my father for any amount of $ I could have received. I have 2 siblings, one owns a business and the other works for the the private sector. Neither of them were able to be away except if it happened on a weekend or maybe one day occassionally. I don't really care if I get paid for them or not. It is truly a benefit of working for the federal government.
-
46184
I'll take the 15%. I have too much to do on my job to fritter away sick leave, so it's likely i'll have well over 2,000 hours when i retire, with or without 15%. The contractors that work for me get 26 days a year combined, and it does not roll over. We are lucky to have this cushion when we need it. Complaining about my job is one of my favorite activities, but I cannot complain about having so much sick leave I don't know what to do with it.
-
46179
Sick leave or personal days don't accrue in the private sector, but it doesn't stop private sector employees from using it. They just take it all every year. A lifetime of slacking-off instead of a couple months before retirement.
-
46176
At 15% I will use it at 50% I will keep it right now I am only working 3 days a week and off the other 4 for the next 5 years just to burn my sick leave till I retire that will give me the time to get my business up and running good for retirement and at 10 hours a week that's not abuse
-
46173
I hve 22 years of service with 2031 hours of sick leave on the books. I plan on retiring at age 55, which is 3 years and 9 months away. If you think I am going to cash all that sick leave in for 15 cents on the dollar, you got to be smoking swomething stronger than that cigar Slick Willie was smoking 10 years ago.
-
46171
The mere fact that Congress sees the need to address the leave balance / usage issue says to me "Having a large reserve of sick leave has a measure of leverage with upper management." I think I will hold on to my 1800+ hours of sick leave for now. There is something about being able to tell your boss "If you make me mad enough I will phone in sick every day for the next YEAR!"
-
46169
Dan Ketter has responded to so many of these articles that his productivity can't possible be so high as to justify bashing other civil servants. I earned this GS-13 job by working my ass off in private industry for 28 years. And I'm still productive enough to sleep just fine at night! Stop being a hypocrite Dan, and get back to work!
-
46168
15% is better than 0%.
-
46166
The saddest part of these comments is the quantity of them (100 and counting) as opposed to bigger picture articles on waste of government funds (too many articles to mention), fraud and abuse of the public trust (the HUD Philly scandal) and infiltration on the sovereignty of our nations (Chinese spies via many methods, illigal criminal aliens).
I understand Government employees' desire for fairness, but once in a while can't we pay attention to what is going on beyond our front door?
-
46130
There seems to be an inference that CSRS employees receive the full value of their sick leave. If I retire making $60,000 per year and have 1,000 hours of sick leave I end up increasing my pension by $50 per month. This is based on 1,000 hours adding about 1/2 year to my years' of service or 1% to my pension. This proposal seems to do a fair job of balancing the two retirement systems. Sick leave is not meant to be a cash bonus at the end of your career but more like an insurance policy when you really need it. I was out 4 months and is was a great benefit to know I didn't have to worry about not receiving a pay check whlie I was sick.
-
46129
Many of the comments and attitudes expressed here pinpoint the reason so many in the public have such a negative perception of federal employees.
I agree that it is wrong for the government to mandate the "use it or lose it" deal that it has to federal employees under FERS. It is wrong for those of us who accrue sick leave and who only use it when we are actually sick to have our extremely high sick leave balances wiped out at retirement with absolutely nothing to show for it. And that's why I'm glad this legislation is being introduced so that we can have something to show for all of that unused sick leave throughout our careers.
That being said, sick leave is just that - sick leave. There is a culture in the federal workforce under which employees feel entitled to take all of their sick leave prior to retirement for vacation rather than legitimate sick days. If you're not sick (or have a doctor's appointment, family death, etc), then using your sick leave simply to have a day off is nothing more than theft. This also really ticks me off when some of these employees who habitually use up all of their sick leave end up with some serious medical condition, find themselves with no sick leave, and then want the rest of us to donate our annual leave to them under the "leave share" program. Sick leave is there for a reason, and it doesn't include being able to take off Fridays during the summer or being able to bang in twice a week during your last two years on the job. If you're going to do that, why not also take the family with you in your government vehicle down to Florida for your next vacation?
-
46123
Come on let's get realistic......the fed needs to be looking at more than a mere 15% payoff....let's look at something more in the 50-75% range. Otherwise, it is still not an incentive. You get more bang for your sick leave if you take it. Until they put their money where out banked sick leave is...it ain't worth it.
-
46117
Doesn't look like the health of Government workers is going to improve anytime soon.
-
46116
While the comments have been entertaining from CSRS folks, this is not about you. It's about FERS employees. The sick leave usage exists and until they offer something worthwhile it will continue. If they are so concerned, then they're going to have to do something positive to fix it...period. Either way it will cost. And either way it will be to the employees benefit, whether the employees make the decision by using sick leave or the government by paying a percentage. It is what it is.
-
46114
You CSRS employees talking about this being unfair to YOU have got to be kidding. You get close to 80% of your high 3, compensated for your SL and can retire at 56. We get half that (40% of our top 3 if we're lucky), nothing for SL and have to pay IN to our TSP in order to get agency matching...which stops at 5% and have to wait until we're 60 to get an anuity you could live on. Would any of you really prefer to be under FERS if they passed this legislation? Sack up and admit that you're better off and don't begrudge a fellow federal employee from getting something that you don't even have to worry about. As FERS employees approach retirement, most CSRS employees will already be retired. What do you care?
-
46113
I don't understand all of those that have decided its a better financial decision to take the sick leave instead of take the money.
For example:
Lets say Joe (WG-11, Step 5) is going to retire on Dec 31st, 2010 with 30 years of federal service and at that time would have accumulated 2000 hours of sick leave.
If he uses up his sick leave over the next 3 years, he will make $56,492.8.
If he does NOT use up his sick leave over the next 3 years he will make $62603.8
This means that by NOT using his sick leave he will make $6111 more than if he did, a 10.8% premium over the 3 year period.
I fail to see how so many posters somehow concluded that using your sick time pays more money than one who does not and instead cashes it out at the end. Given the same retirement dates for any two individuals the one who cashed out at the end (granted 15% is a bit low) is going to come out on top in earnings.
Many of you cited the earned leave and sick time during call out period, but you neglect to remember that the person coming to work everyday is still earning those same benefits and upon retirement will not have lost anything compared to the person who chose to "burn" their sick time but instead will take a (small) cash out bonus.
-
46112
I'm a former CSRS employee with a break in service, hired back under FERS in 1984. I've got over 2300 hours of SL and it sickens me to think about just walking away from that. I've NEVER abused my SL (hence, the balance) but there is every incentive to do so with nothing in return for not using it. No, I would NOT give up the SS offset to get the SL time added to my tenure, but I would welcome ANYTHING as an encentive to not abuse it. 15% of the actual value might be incentive enough for me to refrain from abusing my SL in those final years. Maybe. 25-50% would ice it. I would rather take a small cash payout then get nothing for it or be "forced" to abuse it. I earned that time and it deserves some compensation for not using it. And, since the cost to the goverment for doing nothing about it is almost certainly going to be lost productivity, it's probably cost effective to offer a small percentage. It would be expecting miracles to think we'd get paid for the full amount. Not that I would not welcome it.
-
46111
BANG IN SUCKERS!!!! No way its worth what they are proposing. This is money I will see way before I retire... seriously, already started making the money at 100% of the pay.
-
46110
Dan's continuous venom directed at civil servants only working 15% of the time is accurate for some but not the majority. I worked in private industry, both financial and manufacturing companies, for over 20 years before becoming a gov't employee and I would match the people I work with any private employees. Private industry also have their dead weights as the gov't does. I worked on a contract for a large consulting firm before I became an employee and quit because the firm turned a 1 person 3 week project into a 5 person 4 month one. So much for saving money by privatizing. Don't like the slackers working for the gov't (neither do we because that makes our job harder) then get Congress to change their rules.
-
46105
First no CSRS employees were hired after 1984, so they will mostly be gone in the next 5 to 6 years. So they don't really matter in this issue. Second not giving any benefit for sick leave was a really short sighted plan to put into effect in the first place. So now we have a problem with sick leave abuse. The powers that be think they are going to fix it by offering to buy back sick leave at 15% of our high 3 salary and on top of that only the amount over the first 500 hours. I've done some math for myself here is what I came up with: 500 hours of S/L is worth about $16,500 or 12.5 weeks or 6.25 pay periods or 3 months. I would have to give that up to get anything. If I had another 500 hours on top of that I would get paid $2,250 for it. Does anyone think that is a good deal. Sorry I'll be off my last 3 months resting from my recent illness.
-
46096
Hmmm... That rascal the Devil's Advocate just jumped up in my brain. Sorry folks, I have to consider this. I've seen a number of calls for equality between the FERS and the CSRS on this leave issue; and almost as many rebuttals. I don't know all the considerations that went into the changes and differences between the two personnel benefit systems; and figure if we manage to stop NSPS soon, there may still be three separate entities/groups for some time to come. Still, I do know of some advantages each has over the other; since I live with "one of THEM"!
But there have been several remarks as to the cost of the proposed leave equality possibility... On the other hand, one of the other benefits they used to entice FERS employees to jump ship from the CSRS was the Social Security Offset that all FERS employees who hit retirement eligibility prior to 62 are entitled to.
I'm just wondering; how does the cost of those two programs relate? Which would be higher, cost more? Which would affect more employees? Which would benefit employees more? I THINK the leave would affect more employees, how much so I have no idea. I do know that, particularly with the Mil-to-Civ conversion crowd, many of us are not eligible for that offset.
Okay, I'll ask... would any FERS employees give up the SS offset to gain the leave cash-out at 100%? I'm not inclined to even suggest a loss of a benefit achieved, but with all these cost and equality questions; it just sprang into my mind.
-
46095
It will be used as a *in lieu of* buyout to nudge people to retire... a nice, small parting gift for those who never used their Sick Leave over the years.
-
46086
Reading the comments from FERS employees, it's clear that what many want is the "BEST OF BOTH WORLDS"!! How one sided can you get??? They want a CSRS type sick leave benefit (or some extra benefit for saved sick leave), but don't mention anything about equity for CSRS employees to likewise receive an additional benefit presently afforded to FERS folks and not CSRS. If you increase a benefit for some employees (FERS), then other employees (CSRS) should also receive an added benefit. If you want the 2 systems to be more equal, then CSRS folks deserve a new benefit as well.
-
46078
This legislation stops short of usefulness. What is the incentive for an employee to not use sick leave at a rate of 100% reimbursement or dollar for dollar on a hourly wage compared to a pitance of .15% of its current value?
Until Congress puts something on the line that is truly and incentive for Feds not to call in sick as we near retirement, you can expect to continue to receive the Monday and Friday - "I'm not feeling well today" calls.
I'd rather be working, but given the choice of work and get paid or golfing, all I can say is "four"!
-
46074
It won't work unless it mirrors CSRS. I emailed my US Representative and Senators to let them know this. Hopefully you will do the same if you agree--otherwise, they won't know our objections. However, since I'm close to retirement, I'm planning to have a needed minor foot operation with a 7-wk recovery time to use my sick leave, rather than deferring the surgery until after retirement.
-
46073
It should be very apparent that this proposal is not enough incentive for many FERS employees to save sick leave. As a CSRS employee I believe it was totally unfair and a serious mistake to expect FERS employees to accept anything less than CSRS employees.
Regrettably, I have known of CSRS employees that have burned up all their SL just prior to retiring. They get the benefit of being off work while receiving their full salary, and by doing this they extend their service time without actually working. Unfortunately this is very costly to the Postal Service and only hurts us all.
With the risk of sounding too pompous, I also know of many other employees, including myself, that feel this is one of the best insurance policies you could have, and even if I could not add it to my service time, I'm thankful to have it, and for personal reasons, I would not burn it up before I retired.
As a somewhat different approach, perhaps the Postal Service should pick a date, raise everyone's salary by a certain amount, say a $1.00 an hour more, and that is payment for your sick leave. From that date on, if you call in sick, you do not get paid for those days, because you already are being paid an extra $1.00 an hour. That $1.00 an hour is your SL, manage it as you want.
I have to believe SL calls would drop, probably by a large amount, OT would drop, scheduling would be much easier, etc. etc. etc.. and the most important point is by adding to our financial security many of the younger employees would someday be able to retire from the Postal Service.
-
46070
Here is a far-fetched idea..., why not revert our (FERS) sick leave back to that of our CSRS colleagues? This would be a great moral booster!
-
46067
If the law would credit FERS retirees by adding unused SL to service computation time, we could add 1% (1.1% if age 62) to an annual pension.
If retired for 20-30years, this would be a much better incentive and would extend the cost of the bill over a longer time, something to assuage the Congressional ficsal watchdogs. This would also help equate CSRS and FERS employees.
-
46066
This is typical political malarky. What purpose is served by such legislation? The only incentive for accumulating / saving one's Sick Leave would be to get paid for saving the leave (at retirement) the same as if you were using the sick leave. It's bad enough that my 43 years of service does not get me a gold watch.
-
46065
...a GS-12, Step 10 with an annual salary of $75,000 and 1,250 hours of sick leave:
FERS: $ 4,000 upon retirement CSRS: $45,000 upon retirement
-
46064
The congressman with this proposal was just trying to reflect the amount of work actually done each day by our Civil Servants. On an average day they productive 15% of the time so it makes sense that when they leave that should be the level of compensation
-
46061
Why not just continue to waste our Federal money for those who work there, by letting "the inmates" make the recommendations, or do they do that already?
Whatever happened to doing what is right, in lieu of misusing dollars?
-
46060
I'm glad someone is at least talking about this, but with 2300 hrs of sick leave and probably only a couple of years more until retirement, I may have to look for a good doctor. I appreciate this suggested "reward" for being a dedicated Gov't employee - not. I earned those hours at 100% of my pay (even if you were to average my pay over the years). Being a surpervisor both now and previously in the private sector, the current system (and even the suggested change) will continue to play havoc on prductivity. Perhaps a lump sum payment up to a certain amount, with the balance going into some type of additional health care coverage could be another answer.
-
46058
Sick leave is part of the overall compensation package for recruitment and retention of quality employees and, currently, FERS employees have no incentive to save sick leave. Any consideration for an exchange in value (cash in, longevity credit, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. I really see this merely as a start in the negotiations; but, still I hope to encourage to line of thinking.
As an alternate view I've yet to see here: In previous articles many FERS employees complained that CSRS workers were coming in to work thru sick and sin... I.e. getting their co-workers sick to save leave for retirement. That makes me wonder...
Where are the studies showing this HUGE loss of productivity from FERS sick leave? It's kind of like the retirement surge; I keep hearing about it but have seen nary a ripple on the water. Additionally, have any studies been done on the amount of productivity lost due to CSRS employees coming into work sick? With all the concern about pandemics and teleworking to lessen traffic, I'd think that FERS personnel taking sick leave would be low on the concern list.
The only thing that can be done to change this attitude is to show the FERS employees some benefit for not using an entitlement that is otherwise useless or lost. Some options are:
1. Change the FERS system to the same as the CSRS. The likelihood of this is slim to none.
2. Make smaller incremental changes such as:
a. Allow transfer of sick leave balances between individuals. This would allow spouses and coworkers to contribute to each other, shrinking agency-wide unused leave balances and addressing the needs of worker having a critical need.
b. Cash-out options, either periodically like the military or and career closure. Even at a discount, this offers a tangible return; how tangible depends on the rates and thresholds. The current 15% and minimum 500 hours offer seems a tad minuscule.
c. Time credit toward retirement. This is as likely as option one unless discounted. Still, something is better than nothing.
All I can hope is that Uncle Sam will consider the consequences and, despite the recent trends, throw FERS employees a bone; perhaps to ease the pain of other pay & benefit losses under NSPS. My major worry is this advocate may either think this action is sufficient or simply throw in the towel.
-
46056
Wow, lawmakers really think Feds are stupid.
-
46054
The only way to fix this is make it 100% buy back the same way FERS employees are given..if not I see a lot of sick time in my future.
-
46053
I have 25 years of federal service. In bank 2000 hours of Sick Leave. I am not a person prone to use it. But......my last three years I could get the surgeries I've been waiting to have before I go. At the same time, I could save my Annual Leave in bank since I'll be using at least 12 weeks of FMLA per year. When I retire, cash out my Annual Leave for full face value, which would be in excess of $20,000.00. By using my sick leave with documentation, FMLA protected, and saving my annual leave I would double my money from what they are offering. I would reward my self with the equivilant of 30% of my pay grade by using my sick leave. I agree with some of the other comments, if they want this to work the percentages would have to match other alternatives. I just gave one, I'm sure there are others....What else can you think of?
-
46052
Let's see... an employee at $75,000 and 1,20 hours of sick leave. The sick leave is "worth" $45,072. Take off the 500 hours and you're down to $27,043. So 750 hours at 15% of base pay is $4,056. You've just lost $41,015 in "benefits". It's no benefit if you don't use it.
-
46050
Why not credit unused sick leave to time-in-service as is the case for CSRS? Although it's not a cash out, it may prove to be an incentive to FERS employees to use sick leave for the purposes intended rather than feel that they may as well use as much as possible since they won't reap any benefits otherwise.
-
46049
cough! cough! 14 months left to go and I have 1100 hrs of sick leave, 3 weeks of sick leave , 3 weeks of family leave, another 3 weeks of sick, and various doctor appointments in the middle of the morning and afternoon.
I wonder if the UNIONS are even trying to get this fixed. Makes me proud to that I left them like I did.
How come the nurses at the VA get credit for their sick leave to their retirement and we don't?? Good for one, Good for all??
-
46046
Do we as a federal employee community live in such an insular world that we don't appreciate that we work for an employer that provides sick leave so that illness is not compounded by worry about financial health? I meet private sector employees every day that lose pay if they are too sick to work. Whether you "lose" it upon retirement or not, you had the security of leave to cover illness during your career. Appreciate what you have. Additionally, I am profoundly disturbed by the complete lack of ethics displayed by dozens of employees here who have no compunction about using up their sick leave when they are not sick. Has greed trumped honesty in the federal sector as well?
-
46045
I think the plan is a good idea. A little incentive should be enough for most folks to retain their honesty and integrity. We shouldn't expect to fully compensated if we are fortunate enough to not have to use it. We don't expect insurance companies to reimburse us if we never have an accident or don't die before our term insurance expires do we? After reading some of these comments I'm not surprised the gov't is looking to contract out our work. Sick leave is a benefit, NOT A RIGHT! We should give thanks everyday that we have it if we need it instead of trying to figure out how to use it up. Those of us that worked without sick leave know how important it is.
-
46044
Rediculous! Rewarding FERS employees so they won't abuse their sick leave benefits? CSRS employees should figure out a way to abuse one their benefits so they can be rewarded as well. Or, if you want to make FERS a bit more like CSRS (with a benefit for unused sick leave) then make CSRS a bit more like FERS (such as some matching funds for TSP, or some payment into th social security system so we can collect some SS WITHOUT a windfall deduction...)
-
46042
If the public sector follows what the private sector is doing, all sick and annual leave should be converted to PTO (personal time off) time. Employees are offered long term disability insurance at reasonable rates to compensate for lost income.
-
46037
This is a joke I agree 15% isn't jack. What about CSRS. I 'm sorry but that system doens't really offer much for sick leave either. I've done my homework. I have 30 years and I'm not leaving anything for Uncle Sam for free. Bad enough my salary doens't keep up with the economy...
-
46035
Perhaps the government should not allow its employees to accrue such massive amounts of sick time. The private sector doesn't do it. Put a cap on the amount of sick time someone accrue and you don't have near-retirees taking days off for a stoved toe as they approach retirement.
-
46034
Sick leave compensation is a great work incentive. I'm in favor of at least 75% or more at time of retirement. I'm also in favor of being able to donate sick leave to those in need. At the moment, we can only donate our annual leave-doesn't make sense to me. Press ahead on this issue at once!!!!
-
46030
I will retire in January 09 with about 1300 hours of sick leave on the books. Although 15% isn't a "good deal", it's better than giving the leave back to the government for nothing. There's no way I can use all that leave in less than a year, so for me, I'll "take the deal". Maybe I can pay off a credit card balance or something, or find a good hooker.
-
46029
I think it is a good incentive for FERS employees. For those of you who think that it's better to plan on using your sick leave before retirement instead of saving it for a cash back incentive, maybe a check on your work ethics and integrity is in order.
-
46027
Let's see. If I am a GS 12 step 10 with 1000 hours sick leave I will receive $4000. But if I use the 1000 sick leave I will receive $37,500, add 6 additional sick leave days and 13 days annual leave for a total of approximately $43,200. Not to mention the fact that the additional 6 months added to retirement calculations will provide $412 per year for the rest of my life. I'm dedicated but not stupid. If Congress thinks this is a good deal, I feel nauseous.
-
46021
This is NOT better than many private sector businesses. I have friends right now who get better benefits, pay, and retirement than I do. Even comp time and OT is paid at a straight rate, and not time and a half, like in the real world. My friends are all astonished that I cannot get the same benefits that they get.
-
46017
This shows the disconnect between the wealthy and the workers. Congress is just realizing that there is no incentive to accumulate sick leave. Anyone who crunches the numbers learns that adding sick leave to retirement is foolish. Back in the 80's the return was 15 cents per hour at the GS-11 level. That is what it bought in retirement benefits. Contrast that with selling an hour of annual at retirement. We always know when someone has planned a retirement date, because they start burning up the sick leave and storing annual. The maximum incentive of $10,000 is worth about 400 hours at $25 per hour. Using the sick leave remains the better option for the employee.
-
46013
Yeah, this is a waste is legislative effort.
No-one is gonna care to let this influence whether they use the leave or not.
50% is a reasonable target for all unused leave
Ugh -- I think I feel sick!
-
46012
How is this any incentive? Let see, I can keep my leave and get 15% on anything over 500, or I can burn ALL of it in my last few months and get 100%. Doesn't seem like a tough choice to me.
-
46011
I thnk it sounds like a great idea. Good concept. I even agree with the anything over 500 hrs. - which is incentive for employees to NOT abuse their sick-leave and also give them some in the bank to fall back on if needed. However, the 15% of hourly rate seems very low. Even 25%-50% of hourly rate would be a more reasonable offer.
-
46010
15% or $10K is nothing compared to what a person could make just using their sick leave. So far, I've accrued 539 hours and my projected balance, assuming nothing drastic happens to me before I retire, is 2156 hours. Now, if they compensate for anything over 500 hours then, at my current take home pay, I should make over $31K (assuming I could sell it back). It just doesn't seem fair that we're not paid for sick leave we don't use. I know that before I retire, unless something changes, I'll be one of those that will be using my sick leave balance before I check out. To not do so is like giving them something for nothing in return.
-
46009
Finally someone is thinking clearly about sick leave. As it stands now when close to retirement an employee may suddenly start calling "in sick" to use sick leave up rather than annual leave. With this bill sick leave would be used more honestly with the expectation of a monetary incentive at retirement. Praise for these forward thinking legislators.
-
46007
Reality check-CSRS employees have been "managing" their sick leave for years--using up whatever was not going to add up to 30 days to go on the annuity so let's stop the "bad FERS employees abusing sick leave" rhetoric. Of course I use by Sick leave whenever I can. I can only use it for limited reasons. If I get sick/injured, I can use all by leave types. This is just using a specific tool for a specific job.
This proposal stinks! I've got 20 years of service and 1,554 hours of sick leave, about 80% of what I've earned. Assuming no catastrophic event, my likely sick leave balance will be worth a great deal more paid out in-use, or as a kicker to my annuity vis-a-vis CSRS. It's time that FERS employees got the same deal. And don't give me the bit about "but you got TSP" yeah, did you see the results this month? We are free to lose all the money we'd like...
-
46006
Here's an idea, how about making FERS sick leave balance policy the same as it is for CSRS. No one in their right mind would accept 15%. After taxes, this lump sum is more like 11.25%. Why would anyone accept this when you could sit at home on sick leave, adding time to your pension calculation, while receiving full salary and benefits? I have 20 years until retirement, and I already have 1000 hours of sick leave on the books. Hopefully they will come up with something before then.
-
46005
15% - thats ridiculous... I am now actually encouraged more to take sick leave in my last year at 100% ... heck I would stick around on sick leave even longer to make sure I burn all that accrued leave... no thanks, you can keep that plan
-
46004
Imagine that!!! They will graciously give us 15% of what we would get if we took the sick leave instead of saving it. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If anyone thinks this 'below first grade education equivalent' proposal is going to get any takers from the DAC work force under FERS, they need to go back to school and learn something about the real world.
-
46003
This "legislation" is all show and no go. If they want to see "parity" in the way FERS and CSRS employees treat sick leave, then they need to install parity in the way it is treated. Although sick leave has no cash benefit to a CSRS employee, it definitely has benefit that it does not to a FERS employee. Until Congress wakes up and smells the roses - or waits until the last CSRS employee is ancient history - there is never going to be a more positive attitude towards sick leave then pointing out that if it is NOT used, it is NO benefit.
-
46002
If this is their final offer, I will use it or lose it. Why can't they just give us the same system as CSRS, if they claim such a loss of productivity? If they want to save money and productivity, give us a real reason to save our sick leave. If they think an SES will worry about a big $6.5K bonus, thats two weeks of salary for turning in 7 months of unused leave, they need to understand the realities of what they are proposing.
-
46000
Compared to nothing, I think its I'll take it. Compared to the private sector, its great benefit. There is a 700 billion dollar deficit, and I don't see anyone out there volunteering to get a tax increase.
-
45997
Ironically I was just discussing this with my staff (all FERS)yesterday. I encouraged them to save their sick leave, it's cheap insurance that pays back at a greater rate down the road for the inevitable. Just because someone is getting close to retirement doesn't give them a license to suddenly become dishonest. Use it along for what it is intended and be glad you have that benefit that so many don't have. If Congress wants to incentivize you to do the right thing then all the better, but your integrity shouldn't be for sale.
-
45995
I've said it before: the government needs to get up to speed with the private sector and local governments who give out PTO time to be used for either sick or leave time. Many, many government contractors just award PTO. With all the rhetoric going on about being like the private sector, why not adopt the PTO policy? Maybe because being like the private sector is only desirable when it is to screw over federal employees--not award them.
-
45993
Unbelievable! This idea is but a disguise to off-set or dissuade the so-called "cost of lost productivity" by FERS employees who defraud the Government by fraudulent use of sick leave. As a matter of fairness, I wonder if CSRS employees will be compensated by receiving a comparable upward adjustment to any sick leave balance which can be credited to their annuity computations -- or at least the right to "cash out" sick leave in the same proportion that a FERS employees would be entitled to receive.
-
45991
I agree with the article that this is a good place to start. I have 17 years in but unfortunately all the people I work with have more time than I do and they are paid more. I am tired of doing their work when they are gone so much (using sick leave before they retire). It is not fair; I am good enough to do the work but not receive the pay for 3 of my coworkers and my Boss. Something has to change so people are not gone so much using sick leave. So, Rooster, don't expect everything to be handed to you on a platter. Save your time. You might need it. I think 15% of an hourly rate is fair.
-
45990
This is a start but Congress should jsut go ahead and treat the FERS employees sick leave the same as CSRS-any balane remaining at retirement can either be added to years of service or paid out. This is fair and equitable and will encourage FERS employees to save their sick leave, just like it encourages CSRS empoloyees.
-
45989
At least 15% is better than nothing.
-
45988
Agree...15% of my hourly rate doesn't even meet the new federal minimum wage...and after taxes? This isn't going to encourage anything...
-
45987
This news makes me sick. I think I'll call in and use some sick leave.
-
45986
Fifteen percent??? That's supposed to make me turn joyful cartwheels?
I'm still looking for ways to take my sick leave.
-
45985
This is real generous... NOT!!! Let's put the Senators and Representatives on the FERS retirement system and see how fast it gets fixed.
-
45984
To balance things out this same cash offer should be made available to CSRS retirees. The current system adds a very tiny monthly amount to the CSRS pension. This alternative cash payout would encourage CSRS employees to conserve sick leave as well.
-
45983
Yes, it's unfortunate for a lot of us Baby Boomers who were brought up with a good work ethic. We were taught to come to work everyday, sometimes sick, and do the best job you could. Unfortunately, under FERS, near retirement it doesn't really make sense because you're penalized for accruing sick leave and it's of no use when you retire. It 's almost disrespectful when you really look at it! Yes, it's good insurance "if" and "when" you are really sick. However, if you are blessed with good health you're penalized. The FERS system backfired and wound up costing more money and loss of productivity in the long run. It will be too late before the proposed legislation is enacted, if it passes, before I retire.
-
45982
It should be at least 30%.
-
45979
The proposal being discussed is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Hard to believe the designers of FERS did not foresee this train wreck, but again those were probably the same rocket scientists who came up with the idea of the government travel card, and NSPS. Yep, the basic concept underlying these types of decisions is that government employees are too stupid and lazy to understand when they are being taken to the cleaners.
-
45976
Well, if we're going to consider the sick leave benefit for the FERS employee, let's also consider the wind-fall penalty that affects the CSRS employees. They're the only working class of employees penalized on their Social Security benefits. That's even when they have "all" quarters paid in. I believe its called "DISCRIMINATION" people. There is nothing fair in this country anymore.
-
45975
I would have to literally throw away three months of sick leave for what reason? To get 15 percent of anything over the 500 hours? So let's use a more realistic example since there are very few FERS employees with even 500 hours of sick leave. I make $80,000 a year and I have 600 hours of S/L. I will get paid $5.75 for each hour over 500. That would give me a grand total of $574.95, minus taxes. Now that's an incentive.
-
45974
We should be grateful that someone is trying to help the FERS employees with getting something back for their unused sick leave when they retire. I hope it goes through. I also hope they will eliminate the windfall penalty for CSRS employees who retire and have earned Social Security Benefits before they joined the government. It just does not seem fair that only government employees are subject to this penalty.
-
45973
Only a Congressman/Politician would deem this a good deal.
-
45971
If Congress is serious about reducing FERS employee's use of accumulated sick leave then introduce a proposal to mirror the CSRS formula. 10 cents on the dollar isn't incentive, it's a joke. And just what consitutes sick leave abuse? 1. An employee who uses sick leave throughout their career until they have little or none left at the end? (And then abuses the voluntary leave bank program when they actually do have a health problem) 2. Or an employee who shows up for work regularly, accumulates a large quantity of sick leave, and uses it in the years immediately preceeding retirement? The employees who choose to burns all of their's up got paid dollar for dollar. Why shouldn't those employees who accumulated sick leave over the course of their career expect the same 100% return? At least Congress is addressing the issue. But it only seems fair to give FERS employees incentives equal to CSRS.
-
45970
I agree. Not generous at all. Hardly much of an incentive to work versus staying home or going on a "sick leave" vacation. Work your tail off for 20 years, never call in sick, build up hundreds to thousands of sick leave hours, and when you retire we'll give you a gold watch. Sorry, think again.
-
45969
This idea is interesting, but the only solution to this issue is to make the treatment of sick leave the same for FERS as it is in CSRS.
The current situation in FERS is absurd. It encourages employees to not come to work. This is not a problem that takes place just before retirement. It is a career long problem. Many FERS employees treat sick leave as just additional annual leave. That was never the intended use of sick leave. When FERS employees use up their sick leave and then get sick, they go on LWOP or leave sharing. This hurts everyone. What person does not recognize the insanity of providing employees an incentive to not come to work?
Let FERS employees accrue sick leave and credit them with service time for the unused portion. Then everyone is treated the same on this issue and is encouraged to not fake illness. The congressman should be congratulated for trying, but take it all the way!
-
45968
FERS was developed to save the govenrment money, and it's not. FERS is a failed system for both employees and the government and CSRS should be be reinstated for all feds. It's not just the sick leave. FRTIB which governs TSP realized that FERS employees were not rebalancing their accounts and wouldn't have enough in retirement, so came up with the L Funds. Most employees still aren't rebalancing their accounts or enrolling in L Funds, so now FRTIB wants to make L Funds the default funds, putting YOUR money at risk without your permission. AND the treasury can BORROW the trust funds whenever they please. The trust funds are just a bunch of IOU's worth less every day. Peso's, anyone?
-
45967
I feel that offering payment for sick leave is a great idea. However, 15% is a bit stingy. For an incentive, how about 50% or pay the full amount up to $10,000.00, as the article read? An even better idea would be that sick leave may be counted toward retirement as it is for CSRS employees. Either way, I do believe that payment for accrued sick leave would act as an incentive to save it.
-
45965
Would you rather receive nothing? My previous job paid me nothing and I feel it is an awesome insurance policy. Aren't we all just a little bit spoiled and don't appreciate what we have.
-
45964
I am a supervisor and my employees are laughing at this one. 15% of their hourly rate is a joke? A prorated schedule would have been more of an incentive ending with their hourly rate. CSRS employees burn up their sick leave also if they don't have the next 174 hour increment. Even the loss of an employee for 174 hours over their last year is a lot of time.
-
45963
And, they will be introducing legislation to match TSP contributions for CSRS employees, when?...
-
45962
I would love to speak with Rep. Moran to provide him addl' info. As a supervisor, I can tell you that the use it or lose it affects productivity significantly AND NOT JUST AS EMPLOYEES RETIRE. All of my FERS employees have less than 300 hours. They use it anytime they just don't want to come to work because there is no incentive to save it. This is a continual issue for me.
-
45961
As I kept stating during my career and since my retirement, the sick leave issue could be alleviated somewhat by one small change in policy. Allow any employee to donate some sick leave to another employee instead of just annual leave. Our rapidly aging workforce including some of my own colleagues, have used up their sick leave for their own health issues or all their annual leave to care for an aging parent. I lost 1500 hours myself I would have gladly donated to another.
-
45960
If the GS-12 took his/her 1250 hrs of sick leave the the payout would be 44,942. In my book that's a no brainer-44,942 vs 4,000.
-
45959
Fifteen percent on the dollar is a start, but still no incentive for employees not to use sick leave. In your example the employee makes about $36/hr. The buy out would be at $5.40/hr. I think the employee will still take sick leave in order not to leave $30.60/hr on the table. Let's be realistic.
-
45957
The examples sited provide a very pathetic payment for time entitled to. For the GS12 example it only comes to only $3.20 per hour. I'll say "No Thanks". I'll take my sick leave and use every bit of it. I'm actually quite insulted by this proposal as should every employee covered under FERS. I don't ask much from my job other than to be compensated fairly. And besides, if they propose to not allow these hours to be rolled over to cut costs, you can sure bet I'll use all 13 days every year.
-
45956
Why not extend the benefit to all federal employees even CSRS. You may be suprisec who takes it.
-
45955
When the legislation was first proposed the percentage was 10%, now it's 15%. I think it needs to be a higher percentage to truly be an incentive to FERS employees not to "burn" their sick leave when nearing retirement. However, it's better than getting nothing back at all. Also, I would like to see legislation to allow employees to transfer sick leave to fellow employees who need it due to a serious illness or chronic condition.
-
45954
Sounds great but most feds will get to the 500 hour mark early on and treat anything above that level as "use or lose." Anyone of good health can reach that goal in 6 years. Then for the next 30+ years your typical fed will take an extra 13 sick days off in addition to 20+ annual leave days, 10 holidays, a couple days a week off for telework, and compressed days off thanks to aternate work days. already it is not uncommon for federal employees to spend more time at home than at the office. And when they get to the office they complain about having to come in. No wonder the federal work force is being turned over to contractors!
-
45953
Hmmm...A $75K/yr. salaried employee offered $4K for not using 1250 hours (31+ weeks) of sick leave VS. that same employee finding one of the thousands of doctors out there who will write whatever is needed to give their patient the time off (stress, depression, lower back pain, etc.), where they will get paid about $42K---and build up another 3-4 weeks of annual leave and 2 weeks of sick leave. PLUS, they'll get all those weeks added to their federal service computations...So many people are doing this already (including CSRS employees who figured out they can collect FULL pay by taking all of their sick leave and STILL getting the retirement credit before living on a 75-80% pension). Do they really think that this will get any takers?
-
45951
15% of my salary. No thanks. I'll take the time and get paid 100%. FERS does not mean we are STUPID!
-
45950
What a joke. Take away 500 hours, then pay us 15%. This will then be taxed as income so we can count on losing another 30%.
On top of all of this, they put a cap of $10,000. So if someone has been healthy (and diligent in saving their leave) they end up getting less of a reward! Will this $10k be adjusted for inflation? I doubt it.
So many other public servants (police, firefighters, etc) get fully compensted for their unused leave. We'd end up getting paid for about 5-10%. Nice.
-
45949
15% is supposed to keep people from burning their sick leave? Good job! I guess something is better than nothing but I bet this does nothing to keep retirees from burning up their leave. Nice try, now how about trying again.
-
45948
Just another reason why the "old timers" wouldn't switch from CSRS to FERS. I started work too late and ended up a FERS employee. I plan to burn up all my sick leave...since I can't take it with me.
-
45946
Hey Congressman, how about instead you give us 15% of the graft, bribery and kick-backs you people accept? That would be a lot more money for us.
Save you peanuts for the zoo animals, sir.
-
45945
How about letting FERS employees donate excess sick leave to a pool for those that need it and take a tax deduction for the face amount???
-
45940
So let me get this straight - if I call in sick I get paid at my full hourly rate, but if I sell my sick leave back to the government I get 15%! I think I feel the flu coming on, the cure I need is parity with CSRS or a 100% payout. I don't think I'd ever call in sick again if Congress treated all federal workers equally.
-
45929
Here is the math:
$75000/2087=$35.94/hr (A)
1250 hr-500 = 750 hr Sick leave (B)
A x B = $26,995 x 0.15 = $4,043If you take a sick leave of 750 hr(only) and stil leave gov't to keep 500, your "income" is $26,995 instead of $4,043. BIG incentive? Hmm?
-
45921
15% Huh???????? Guess they couldn't find anyway to tie this to the pay pool.
-
45919
Let me see, 15% of the hourly rate or taking a day off to keep your sanity? Tough choice.
-
45916
Better than nothing
-
45913
Under CSRS, I WON!! Got added time to my total G service and got paid for it. The carrot on the end of the stick to switch to FERS smelled funny...15% into TSP vs. 10%. Well just prior to getting out, I was able to put in 15%...I can't believe you want to entice young minds with (again) 15%. Maybe, just maybe, if you said you can cash out your sick leave when you retire at their hourly rate, then you would see people stick around and WORK, another form of a savings account, without the interest, but none the less, a nice pay out at the end of their less than appreciated career.
-
45907
I left CSRS 20+ years ago to get the investment options not the sick leave. But it is tempting to need a mental health day occasionally with less than a year before I retire. I'll be leaving >1700 hours on the table and my total SL if I had stayed in CSRS would be worth >2% more in my annuity.
-
45902
To allow compensation for accured sick leave for FERS is an excellent idea. Fed employees like myself who have remained healthy have over 2200 hrs of sick leave as the 30yr mark nears should be compensated. Alternative of burning the sick leave is frowned upon as it is disruptive and unfair to coworkers but as it stands now it is the only means to gain compensation The only question that rises from this Bill is the hourly match as the hourly conversion in comparison in salary is no where close to being equal to pay. Unless the payout approaches the per hour pay then remaing on the job and using the sick leave prior to retirement will remain a more desirable option. In my case with a year of sick leave on the books I will be forced to take alot of 3 day absences to use the time.
Bottom line is press the Bill forward but equate the payout to salary for the hours accured as this is what is fair and will actually be less costly than the alternative of just using the sick leave as we are now forced to do
-
45901
Well, it's a start. But why the limit? I'll have 2000 hours in three years when I go.
-
45900
I agree with WOW. Under these calculations and formula, I'll still use up my 2000 hours of sick leave before I go out. Worth a lot more than the estimated $4,000 for a GS-12 step 10! Think again guys, as there is also no benefit towards increasd time for our pension (as small as it is). At least if we use the time off and get paid for it, the time also adds to our retirement benefit! Get real Congress and see the light from your tunnel!
-
45898
500 hours = 62.5 days
15% of each day after 60+ days? Yeah, like I am going to give up 60 days of full pay rather than call in sick for 15% of each hour over 500 hours. Why in the world should I lose 62.5 days of full pay and receive only 15% on the $1 for the remainder instead of 100% by using up my sick leave?
-
45896
15% of the hourly rate; wow how generous! NOT
And any hours over 500 wow, again how generous of them. NOT
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.