Return to Article: Saving Sick Time
-
49712
Both the CSRS and FERS systems started with no reimbursement for outstanding sick leave balances. The CSRS's perceived abuse of sick leave brought the change of leave status to at least some reimbursement value. Such cash-in/out policies are a standard personnel tool used in the commercial work place to encourage resource constraint in both sick leave usage and medical care costs.
When the sick leave benefit was first established (without any cash-in/out potential) it was established at a rate the government thought equitable and necessary. We know the rate had justification since Uncle Sugar doesn't give away freebies; at least not to his employees. So, why the current concern? It seems to be over a "perception" that the lower eschelon workers take too much leave late in their careers. The SES or Senior GS leaves don't cause problems. In fact, Uncle Sugar recently increased their ability to accumulate AND cash out their leave balances.
But why is the proletariat taking more leave towards the end of their careers? Is it because they just want to skip work? Despite some of the spirited comments here, I don't think so. Is anyone likely to put off taking leave for decades just to skip work prior to retirement when they may not make it to retirement? Then why do they save up these large balances? Could it be because they have saved up their balances to use as they age and are incurring more medical problems? Perhaps. But is this not the way the system was designed? Did they accumulated those large balances by coming to work sick? And what was the impact of that? Is illness spreading through government offices due to individual greed or avarice?
I'm not going to fight this battle pro or con. I merely wish to note that the perception of inequity causes conflict and folks don't like losing value. An economics principle called "myopic loss aversion" describes the empirical fact that investors experience more pain from a dollar lost than they experience pleasure from an equivalent dollar gained. So why not make the system equitable if history is repeating itself? As for excessive leave usage, there are rules and procedures already established to handle perceived abuse; but like the NSPS vs GS debate, control depends on the managers. They are the ones with "the POWER" to control and chastise abusers.
-
49279
Why exclude CSR employees? Yes, we get unused sick leave credited towards annuity, but I cannot retire any earlier, and the sick leave is proratedyearly on an annual basis, not in one lump sum. It has been calculated that in order to receive the full compensation for one year of sick leave, a person would have to live to approximately 116 years of age. In effect, banking sick leave for CSR employees is of very little value to us. I have over 1900 hours of accumulated sick leave and have less than 3 years to retire. Guess what? I plan on having any medical procedures needed done as quickly as possible. If my doctor says I have an arthritic knee, I'll get it operated on. On the other hand, if I knew I could get some cash for my SL, I would forego same.
-
48812
Sick Leave as well as other compensated "perks", (i.e annual leave, family leave, etc) are part of the entire calculated wage packgage. Anyone who has ever run a business or participated on union contracts are keenly aware of the dollars distribution. To be compensated for unused leave, annual or sick, at retirement is only fair. It is dollars earned, not a "freebe" as some suggest.
-
48810
I am amazed by the attitude that we are somehow receiving a generous privilige of sick leave. News Flash! We pay for our benifits. We are the only employees in America that pay our employer a 15 to 40% kickback through withholding taxes. No matter who you work for the name of the game is to maximize your benifits while minimizing your output. The government gets what it pays for.
-
48719
I am a Federal Employee and Agree with the person who has 900 hours and nearly retired. Sick leave is just that, SICK Leave. If you are not sick you should not take it. We need to have stronger consequences for those who abuse it in stead of finding ways to award people for simply doing what is right. A government job is a privledge and we have excellent benefits, people need to stop abusing them and be thankful for what we have!!!
-
48289
Sick leave is used as on of the benefits given to employees, when trying to recruit college grads to come to work for the federal govenment. Why not make CSRS and FERS employees equal. I'm a FERS employee and I plan on getting 100% of my pay for my sick leave, not 15%.
-
47343
I transferred into FERS and have 10 years of CSRS and 900 of SL which will credit towards my CSRS retirement. I'll have 42 years total service and a projected SL balance of 3000 hours when I retire. Subtracting the 900 hours which is creditable service, I'll have 2100 SL worth about $130,000. if used vs the $10,000. cap being proposed (even at $15% I'll exceed the $10,000 cap). I joined civil service after taking the PACE exam and I think I can still apply those math skills to this analysis. I work hard every day - including service in Iraq. I'm saving this SL for my IED or heart attack, whichever comes first, and have taken annual leave for my doctor visits these many years. My management depends on me being at work virtually every day and I am frequently contacted in my off hours. The very least I deserve is to be justly compensated should the Government wish to buy this time back.
-
47337
Everyone in CSRS had a choice to stay in CSRS or changed to FERS. Each plan had beneifits. Sick leave is a benefit for CSRS; however, FERS get matching funds in TSP up to a certain percentage which CSRS does not. So if FERS are going to get the benefits of sick leave will CSRS get the benefit of matching funds in TSP. When the rules change in one plan to give more than the rules should change in the other plan to give more. It's only fair
-
47326
I hope the laws do change regarding the "use or loose" concept we have now for FERS employees when it comes to sick leave. I believe the issue goes way beyond just retirees using their sick leave prior to retiring. Without an incentive to save your sick leave natural tendancy is to use it as it is earned for any little thing. The majority of the employees I have supervised over the last 15 years, rarely have had more than 100 hours on the books at any given time. If the rules changed my bet would be that we'd begin to see a shift in healthier people in the workplace.
-
47320
I don't believe 15% of hourly rate will deter persons from using sick leave. I just retired from State of Alabama where they paid 50% upon retirement for all sick leave. It definitely worked there, because as an auditor I reviewed time and attendance records and could see the amounts of leave that people were saving.
-
46989
Unused SL should be paid back to the employee when they retire at a reasonable rate. Being fair and equitable to all government employees (whether CSRS or FERS) should be a priority.
In an earlier posting "the pressure to not call in when sick", this only creates an environmental and employee health hazard to the institution. For example, coming to work with cold/flu like symptoms exposes everyone else in the workplace which in turn increases others to potential illness, increases SL use as decreases the overall productivity of the workplace. In the end, there's more to lose than gain for the employees and the government.
-
46937
To all FERS employees: In a relatively short time you will be able to work in peace knowing that all us CSRS employees will be either retired or dead. The lack of equity won't matter anymore. Of course, the Feds might just start another type of retirement program and it will all begin again.
I am in the CSRS Offset and had an opportunity to change to FERS and sometime wished I had. It's my understanding that I could now take a delayed retirement and then upon actual retirement I'd be eligible for health benefits without returning to govt employment.
-
46936
I agree with Ted Bean's statement below. I rarely have been in place on a job while my predessor was still available. So what's the big deal with people not using their sick leave. I was told that some companies and non-federal agencies just have "leave." It's multi-purpose.
I was amused by the comment that using sick leave at the end would prevent retirees-to-be from training and mentoring the employees who would replace them. I have worked in two different agencies for nearly 30 years total and never once saw management appoint someone to a position until well after the previous employee in that position had departed.
-
46923
I've been a FERS employee for 21 years and I have 1200 hours of sick leave. Presently management where I work makes it extremely uncomfortable for an employee to use SL. Some of them are CSRS, can sell back their SL, don't need to use SL themselves, so they can point fingers at FERS employees who use SL. One time a CSRS employee had me investigated for misuse of SL. I was cleared of wrongdoing because my supervisor had okayed the SL. Taking SL is so punishing that now I come to work sick and exhausted to avoid the pressure. Some employees use a day of SL a month to burn it, but for me calling in sick is more stressful than working sick. Therefore, I often have the added burden of carrying double work load for people who don't feel guilty using their sick leave and can relax and enjoy using SL while burdening their coworkers. I'm undecided what to do about my sick leave before I retire but I might need to use sick leave for mental health problems caused by the sick leave double bind. I have two choices: fight with management to use sick and then burden coworkers and feel guilty; or be the only sucker who doesn't take advantage of the SL I've earned and stupidly give it back to the government. Most people find a way to use it. 15% of over 500 won't make much difference.
-
46921
Liz W - Your quote "It shows there is a legal and functional precedent, and that lends more credence and legitimacy for our call of equity/parity." Ya get what ya get when you agree to it by taking the job. Shall parity be then given to CSRS employees in regard to TSP contribution and the government matching as the FERS employees receive? I think not - an abuse by any other name is still an abuse (S/L)
-
46893
Not paying for or getting credit for unused sick leave is very unfair and to offer such a small compensation for unused sick leave is ridiculous. It would be better on the employees part to take the sick leave vice getting such small credit or pay for the hours earned.
-
46780
Sick Leave: "Many argue that offering 25 percent to 50 percent of the hourly rate is more generous." I'm not sure that is what we were saying, Brittany. I think what most of us were trying to get across is that we would find 25 - 50% a greater incentive and the effort would be much more effective. Any less and I doubt you will get many takers.
By the way, thank you very much for pointing out the status change for the CSRS back in '69. It shows there is a legal and functional precedent, and that lends more credence and legitimacy for our call of equity/parity. We will just have to motivate management the exact same way CSRS did, by using the benefit.
TSP: Once and again, isn't it considered fraud to justify expenses for a given capability and upon achieving it, deny its use to the serviced public?
Additionally, Brittany, did you ever ask about the TSP board's reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on LaRue v. DeWolff, 06-856? With all the anger this subject has generated, I'm wondering if some of that "very small [but vocal] number of participants" may try to seek satisfaction in court. I do remember a number of calls for a class action suit.
-
46684
i would use my sick leave up to what i was being paid for. why throw money away???? that is what is wrong with this country. we have become a disposable society; just throw stuff away....clothes, cars, money, old people, animals, and babies we no longer want.
-
46644
Any psychologist would tell you that retirement is extremely stressful. It would be much better to plan ones retirement date then start taking sickleave to ajust to retirement for mental health reasons. Start working 4 days aweek, then three, two, and one. Then all your sick time could be added to your retirement and you've sucessfully prepared yourself mentally.
-
46626
All the congressman is saying is he knows how hard Feds work and 15% will match their effort
-
46605
regarding TSP IFTs: If the TSP is a Savings Plan, why are accounts allowed to lose money? Strangest savings plan I've ever heard of. Also, if, as Tracey Ray has stated, it is impossible to beat the S&P over the long haul, why have any other funds available at all?
Leave the TSP alone!
-
46594
I will take the 15%. Sure I would like more, but it's better than nothing. If a person plans to burn their sick leave, it would take a high per cent to change their mind. I plan to email my congressman about this and ask that he support it. But, I hope they make it retoactive.
-
46590
FERS, we will always be "second hand" civil servants compare to CSRS. I think that if they don't add my S/L to my pension or pay it at the full rate I earned it forget it, I will certainly used it up to the last hr. before I retire. Is an insult to try to pay me 15% of my leave at $30 hr that I am righ know so imagine what my rate will be in 4 years when I retire.
-
46588
How does the FEDGOV define sick? If I have a cold is that sick? If my child is sick does that qualify? If I hurt my back is that sick? How severe does my back injury have to be to qualify as sick? Just wondering. I don't want to "abuse" the sick leave.
-
46534
Until there is a reasonable offer, Use YOUR sick leave. Have some quality of life! There is nothing admirable about saving it for some righteous reason and then dying 18 months after retiring like a friend of mine just did. Enjoy your kids, family, friends, hobbies. When you hired, part of the reason you took a gov job was 13 days of sick leave. My job is somewhat demanding shift work. When I am fatigued etc. I use sick leave. It's mine to use! When I retire at 60 I expect to feel 60, not 70.
-
46527
Concept is equitable. Howver, suggested formula will not achieve its desired effects. Either raise the % to 25%, or lower the threshold from 500 to 100 hours. Eliminate the artificial 10k cap.
-
46519
Even if FERS gave 100% credit for all unused sick leave, only the financially challenged would save their leave (Sick & Annual) and cash it in rather than use it up.
For every 10 days (80 hours) of sick leave you "save" (cash in) you lose 4 hours of sick leave you would have earned if you had "spent" (use) them--and you lose 8 hours of of annual leave too. (Assumption: that most Federal retirees earn 8 hours of annual leave--i.e., have 15+ years of service--each pay period in addition to 4 hours of sick leave.)
So for every 80 hours "saved" (cashed in) you lose 12 hours (1.5 days) of pay (not to mention the additional creditable service to your annuity--paltry as it may be for FERS people).
Absent massive inflation returning interest rates to levels not seen since the early 1980's, show me somewhere that GUARANTEES a 15% return on your money (80 hours x 15% = 12 hours) and I will show you a fraud/scam.
Once you do the math, you see that it does not pay to cash out your leave. The best investment you can make with your sick and annual leave is to spend it.
-
46512
With 1500 hours S/L and 2 years to go under FERS I'll be damn if I give back any sick leave w/o being properly compensated for it or I won't retire until every last hour of sick leave is taken.
It's causes supervisors fits but oh well.. that's the way the so called gurus designed the FERS system. You'd think these guys would have a clue that people would be doing this within their last few years of service. But I guess they figured it would be the supervisor's problem and not theirs to deal with.
-
46510
Find Out The Truth:
SICK LEAVE SALVATION: Does anyone really believe that offering "15% over 500" will motivate others to say; sure, I'll give my right to 100% for 15% over 500. I think not. It will benefit many at first, but this will continue to be a problem until a "real" solution is brought to the table.
TSP I.F.T.'s TSP IFT's do not cost the 3.9 million participants. Check tspshareholders.org Limits are not necessary and hurt those so close to ending their careers. Maybe even prolonging their ability to retire.
-
46495
"OPM has served up a proposal to congress for short term disability insurance. Lets see how many Feds sign up if they have to pay..."
Folks would sign up in droves if offered a REALLY beneficial plan, not a sham like the 100% employee pay all dental and vision plans OPM came up with. Not one major private-sector employer has employee pay all coverage for these benefits. Unless the buying power of the largest employer in the nation is put to good use, and feds are provided a comprehensive yet cost-effective plan INCLUDING a Government cost-share, OPM should not even bother. I do't think the OPM benefits folks know very much about benefits, based on the crap I've seen the past twenty years.
One way to fund better benefits is to create equity between post office and other feds. Post office employees are not subject to congressionally determined cost-sharing, they negotiate their share. Accordingly, they pay a fraction of what other Feds pay to have medical coverage. This has been a thorn in my side ever since I entered Federal service. Why should we pay many times more for the same plans?
-
46490
Those in CSRS that want the 5% matching so bad... do you want the whopping 1% for each year of service that we in FERS get for our pension? Didnt think so. Quit whining, you get to actually retire before you are too old to enjoy it.
-
46480
It's great they want add a benefit..... But -- by the time they take 40% of it back for federal and state taxes, it really doesn't amount to much...... I'll will be using up my 2000 + hours prior to retirement.... unless they allow me to put it in my TSP on a tax-deferred basis....
-
46473
Comment on the Federal Retirement Thrift Boards decision to limit interfund transfers: Per the Boards own figures, transfer fees declined in 2007 in comparison with 2006, fees which are already far lower than any other retirement fund management fees in the private sector. Since the board isn't taking into account the rebalancing of the L funds every night, I think they are comparing apples and oranges. I don't mind paying a reasonable fee for transfers, but to limit them all together is ridiculous. When are they going to tell us the real reason why they want us to limit interfund transfers?
-
46448
When I was a younger employee I diligently came in, even when I was not feeling great, in order to conserve sick leave in case of illness or accident. However, as I get older, I find I need some "mental health" days or just to not come in when I am not feeling well. Do you consider that "abuse"? I do take issue with the comment that sick leave is not an entitlement but a priviledge-just like annual leave, sick leave IS part of the compensation package offered by the federal government. I was shocked when I started in civil service that there is no maternity leave-take sick/annual/advnaced!! Even the miltiary gives women 6 weeks off-not charged to any leave, by the way!!
-
46440
Where do you people get off? A bunch of Typhoid Mary's bragging about bringing in your germs to share with the office! The cherry on top is the perosn proudly declarating they let others take care of ill children so as to be able to work, you're sick in more ways than one. Big sick leave balances usually only show a over-active ego... your job was there before you arrived and it'll be there long after you're gone!
-
46413
Ditto Lisa's comment. Allow me to contribute my accrued sick leave to fellow workers in great need.
-
46411
This is really a failure of management - supervisors have the ability to require employees justify their use of sick leave (e.g. doctors statements) and take remedial action if it is being abused.
And I agree with the previous poster, if they want to make FERS and CSRS equal, then I want the matching 5% in TSP!!
-
46406
I just ran the numbers on the CSRS "generous" sick leave buy back. If I carry over 400 hours (50 days), my annuity will increase by $187.-----A YEAR. Hardly a incentive to save sick leave.
-
46399
The proposed remuneration for unused FERS sick leave is not generous enough under this proposal. It would be more advantageous to use FERS sick leave than to receive what Moran's proposal will offer.
-
46388
To Bill Chancellor, At least you were given a choice CSRS/FERS. I wasn't given that choice, automatically put into FERS.
-
46384
It's not nearly generous enough to motivate anyone. With this legislation, sick leave will still be "use or lose" for FERS employees.
-
46377
The proposed TSP restriction is misleading in both its comparison with other investment fund restrictions, and the effect on participant investment and risk management. In particular, E-trade (with whom I have my roth) permits unrestricted transfers among its no-fee funds, which are similar in investment type to the TSP (large cap, small cap, international, etc.) With respect to investment and risk, the 2-transfer limit would eliminate the ability to dollar cost average over short term, a strategy which I (and others likely) use to reduce risk of time point investments.
-
46376
On TSP Trading limits: The cost of the TSP is extremely low. The yearly cost has been going down, not up. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The TSP Board has been point to frequent trading in the I-fund as the problem. This percieved problem can be fixed by changing the time that share prices are calculated to 8 am when foriegn markets are open and take the guess work out of the equation. The TSP Board should fix the real problem not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" to address a few frequent traders. I said "percieved problem" because over time the errors in the fair valuation guess work would even out anyway. I think they should just leave well enough alone.
-
46372
The change would be a positive one, thus enabling another incentive to attract talented new feds, as the govt hemmorages people via the retirement tidal wave. It both appropriate to encourage saving of sick leave up to a certain level...and discouraging the over-saving of sick leave beyond that level.
I don't really see what CSRS folks have to say about this...the have a first rate retirement package - this is about FERS employees only. FERS employees are NOT given a choice - we now have only FERS. It is time now to properly tune the benefits package as efficiently as possible to be as lucrative as possible. It is hoped as the fed govt is restaffed, the right talent will be attracted.
-
46371
To restate my opposition to these proposed TSP Transfer limitations, fix the problems with the I-Fund valuations (value at close of the international markets 7:00 AM the next morning). DON'T fix a problem which doesn't exist! DON'T take away my ability to protect my retirement funds! Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
-
46370
Unlike CSRS, FERS employees are penalized for early retirement so they tend to stay longer, typically age 60 or 62 unless they have at least 30 years. Because of this they tend to a) have a lot of accrued sick leave and b) have accumulated nagging "non-emergency" medical problems that they want to take care of prior to retirement while they can better afford the cost of care and insurance. Thus they take more sick leave in the years just prior to retirement. This may appear to members of congress to be abuse but is viewed by FERS employees as sound fiscal policy. Once we retire we no longer get to pay for health insurance with pre-tax dollars and we generally bring home fewer dollars than when we were working. Which means we are not as able to afford "optional" or "non-essential" medical treatment. Should members of congress decide to address the issues of paying for retirees heath benefits with pre-tax dollars and reducing out of pocket expenses for medical treatment and medications they may find a corresponding decrease in sick leave use just prior to retirement.
-
46364
The Government should enact a REAL short-term disability plan for Fed employees, like all major private sector employers have. That way, the problem of what to do at retirement with a bunch of hours accrued but not needed is eliminated for everybody. Also, seriously ill individuals who haven't been in the service for very long will not have to beg others to fund the time they are off or go broke.
I was a private sector benefits manager for 10 years before becoming a Fed. The philosophy behind employee benefits is to protect the financial well-being of an organization's employees, not to provide additional cash. It has been a pet peeve of mine for the past twenty years that the government leaves employees exposed and vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of a serious illness by not providing short and/or long-term disability coverage. Not everyone is fortunate enough to go years without any health problems, and unless this is your situation, you are screwed.
-
46361
I hear a lot of complaining, OPM has served up a proposal to congress for short term disability insurance. Lets see how many Feds sign up if they have to pay...
-
46359
I was amused by the comment that using sick leave at the end would prevent retirees-to-be from training and mentoring the employees who would replace them. I have worked in two different agencies for nearly 30 years total and never once saw management appoint someone to a position until well after the previous employee in that position had departed.
-
46357
I am under FERS. If FERS is going to be improved to be more like CSRS with respect to sick leave, then CSRS should be made to be more like FERS with respect to matching TSP contributions and Social Security.
Why not just wipe out all differences between the two and come up with a thirdplan for all? That is the only way to make sure that every retirement plan feature is the same for all Feds. Oh, but wait...that was the point, NOT to have the plans be the same.
I'll continue to accept the Goverment matching TSP contribution, forget this sick leave stuff.
-
46356
The TSP trading limit. First of all, it is not trading. It's rebalancing just like the "L" funds. If those in the L funds have their accounts rebalanced each and every day, then my rebalancing of a few times a week pales in comparison. 2 times a month is absurd! I hope someone looks into this and not just take Tracy Ray's word for it. I would like to see an independent audit done to find the truth.
Sign petition - We are fighting back. Join us-- at tspshareholder .org to learn how.
-
46352
Hey...As long as we're working on ironing out the inequities between CSRS and FERS, don't forget to give the CSRS folks the matching 5% for their TSP contributions going back to the beginning! Jeez....they are different systems people. That's why they are....well DIFFERENT!
-
46347
If they decided to put a 15% limit then do not put the ceiling on the cash out amount ($10k). People with 2000 hrs of sick will loose out more.
-
46342
CAREFUL. I understand why FERS employees want the change but, in 1986 when we were asked to choose which system we wanted (CSRS or FERS) part of why I chose CSRS was because of the way sick leave was being handled in FERS. Don't change the rules now.
-
46340
On the TSP trading limit . . . as others have said earlier, I understand the need to reasonably limit trading and doubt that a limit of 2 trades a month will affect my trading habits in any way. However, there are times when 2 might not be enough to protect onesself from suffering severe financial pain. I would prefer to see the limit changed to 24 per year, or even to just 12 per year, but not leave it at 2 per month. Flexibility is very important in managing ones money effectively. I urge the TSP Board to structure a limit that will achieve their goals of limiting the total number of trades while preserving as much as possible the ability of fund participants to exercise ther own judgment about when and how often to change their investments.
-
46335
I started with zero and I'll end with zero! 15% is a joke, get real.
-
46334
Regarding the TSP trading limits: The TSP had not defined the problem correctly. I don't expect others to pay for my transactions any more than I want to pay to rebalance someone else's L-fund account each night. The problem lies in the fair value adjustments and the TSP just needs to post the share prices the morning after and it will eliminate much of the costs they are seeing, particularly in the I-fund.
-
46331
I am 7 years from retirement. If the government feels that it can only afford to compensate me the value of 15% of my sick leave above 500 hours, then I will be saving my hours until about two years from retirement and will then 'burn' as much as leave as I can. I am amazed that our politicians are unwilling to see that the negative impacts to the federal government and its agencies have much less to do with money then with work productivity, agency mission accomplishments,and colleague morale - when they see people take months of sick leave in the last few years before retirement (as my colleagues have done). I had a different attitude a number of years ago. But today, this bill is not an incentive for me or, I suspect, for most of us who have seen years of both undermining civil service protections as well as an attitude in Washington that federal government employees are lazy, less than superior, and who can be replaced in a heartbeat with a (more expensive) contractor. I would not expect full compensation for sick leave, but believe that 35 to 50% of ALL accrued sick leave would provide an incentive and be fair.
-
46330
Since FERS employees get paid to use their sick leave and the new proposal only gives a token payment. I plan to manage my leave over the next ten years. I do not plan to have enough sick leave left to qualify for the token payment.
Speaking of being sick. I am sick about the new restrictions on the TSP. L Fund participants get their accounts balanced nightly. Thus making trades everyday. While those not using an L fund will be resticted. I think it is unfair. I want to be able to balance my account at a different percentage than an L Fund. If this is such a small problem, why is it being addressed?
-
46327
The treatment of large unused balances of "Sick Leave" for FERS employees is a personal attack on the dedication and commitment of these employees. FERS employees who have come to work when they didn't feel all that well or made that sacrifice of personal time to schedule medical appointments after work or had a friend or relative take their children to doctors instead of using sick leave are treated like second-class employees when it comes to retirement and equality of benefits. Because of these sacrifices, these employees have amassed large amounts of sick leave, while less dedicated employees used leave at every opportunity. What distributes these diligent FERS employees is that not only are they treated differently than the CSRS employees, but also become a target of management in their final year of employment. When the Government refuses to acknowledge the dedication and sacrifices of these employees by their negative actions of no incentives or rewards, and chooses to go further by reducing their employee benefit entitlements (as compared to CSRS) and than even starts to promote discrimination against these employees through management bulletins, hi-lighting the possible misuse of sick leave among the FERS employees. What else is there for a FERS employee to think and act upon?
The legislation being proposed by Mr. Dddd is a slap-in-the-face to the FERS employees. To offer such a pittance of a dollar amount insults the intelligence of these employees. In 90+% of cases the proposed calculation of payout will be less than the minimum wage rate with more often than not less than half the rate. This is not an incentive!!!
FERS employees don't what to be insulted or singled out. We just want what is fair and be treated equally.
-
46324
Use of sick leave if you're not ill, seeing a doctor, etc. IS abuse of the leave. However, for a good example of what happens when human nature is ignored and incentives are removed from the system, just read up on the history of the state fomerly known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The proposal is a step in the right direction of considering human nature but falls short of offering real incentive.
-
46323
Mary Ann needs to go back to new employee orientation. Sick Leave is a privilege, not a right. You are "entitled" to only as many hours as you legitimately need under the law. If you are not SICK, you are not entitled to the balance. I, too once worked for a private corporation. There was no such thing as "sick leave" that accumulated. But if you were truly sick, you were allowed to stay home. Those who abused it were fired on the spot. It was good to know that the company would continue to pay you if you were sick, however not having a "SL balance" eliminated that attitude of entitlement. That would have taken care of those who get "sick" as soon as they have a full day on the books. Having recently had my first major illness, it was real comforting to me and my family to have that 1600 hours on the books. If I have to forfeit some upon retirement, it was worth the peace of mind over the years.
-
46318
As referred to in one of the posts, some private industry companies give their employees a flat number of days for vacation and sick days. I work with these people and last week one of them was throwing up in her trash can. However, she was at work, conserving her days for vacation. As illness is spreading through our office, is this really a good policy for the government to try? It is good to have separate vacation and sick days. I take my sick days when I am sick and try to save as many as I can in the event of severe illness or injury. As a dedicated civil servant in FERS, I do not abuse the system and will not before I retire in several more years. If I am paid a little extra at that time for my remaining sick leave, I will definitely take the money. If not, I will not complain.
-
46268
This proposal is a good start but why continue the discrepancy between CSRS and REDS employees? Pay FERS for sick leave just like CSRS and the pattern will change. Many CSRS employees use only annual leave (even for doctor's appt or illness) so they can add the max number of hours to their time in service at retirement. Giving only a small percentage of hours over 500 is not much incentive. Also, should just consider adding the 4 hr per pay period sick leave accural to annaul leave and call it all "leave"-use it for whateve you want and be paid for it upon retirement-this would stop all "abuse".
-
46266
In some articles I've noticed the term "abused" sick leave when discussing employees using it when nearing retirement. I do not feel that it is abuse. 13 sick days is provided to employees fair and square, with unlimited accumulation, as a benefit. Whether one uses the sick leave during their career or at the end of their career is their right. Why would an employee NOT want to utilize all of their sick days before leaving the service? This is like throwing money away. I do not see it as "abuse" regardless of when the employee uses it throughout his/her career. The sick leave laws have changed over time and now can be used for more reasons other than the employee's personal sickness. From a management standpoint, I understand the downtime of productivity when there are people in the group absent, but it is still NOT abuse, when it is earned freely as a benefit for all to use. I am FERS and unless they make this new benefit more attractive - I plan to use every hour of my 500 hours of accumulated sick leave before I retire in 5 years. It is a benefit I earned fair and square.
-
46263
Since some people have 1,000's of hours of sick leave that they could not use toward retirement, why can't those hours be used to donate to people that request leave under the leave transfer program?
-
46262
I'm a FERS employee and do not use sick leave unless needed. 2001 I had a leg amputated below the knee, and 2005 I had a stroke. Both health issues used up a lot of my sick leave. I plan on retiring in 1 year 7 months and will have 381 hours of sick leave, so this plan to pay for SL over 500 hr will probably change my mind on conserving Sick Leave. This Bill should take in concideration the leave balance under 500 hr also.
-
46260
Any pay would be nice but it should not be expected. The Federal Government has a generous leave program and the sick leave part effectively functions as a short-term disability program if the employee saves the leave. Compare to what other employers do, I compare this to looking at the gift horse in the mouth. The govt was wrong to add sick leave to CSRS employees retirement. It never should have in the first place. The alternative is for the federal govt is to combine sick and annual into one leave category and set the carryover limit a bit higher. That is another way to "solve" this issue.
-
46253
The agency I work for the bargaining unit employees receive $.40 on the dollar for sick leave when they retire. The only stipulation is they must have 240 hour or more of sick leave to get this benifit. There is no limit on hours. If the bill had a lower limit of 500 hours and all hours to be paid $.50 on the dollar it would be better. Only about 30% of the people have more than 300 hours of sick leave on the books.
-
46246
I am a FERS employee with over 1200 hrs of sick leave. I'm 10-15 yrs from retirement (another bennie of FERS, no one retires in their 50s anymore) and will have about 2000 hrs by retirement. This proposal does not go nearly far enough. I would be capped at $10K if I retired now with 2000 hrs. There is no COL adjustment to the $10K. So, by my retirement, it'll be meaningless.
-
46245
Sick leave is an employee benefit. While I commend Rep. Moran for addressing this important issue, I see the 500 hour bench mark in this bill as discriminatory and contra family. Women need more sick leave than men and while we've come a long way in this country and recognize the need for paternal leave, we cannot overcome the fact that women bear children. If you want to do something constructive and alleviate leave abuse, simply cash out unused sick leave. The $10,000.00 cap may appear reasonable at this point in time, but a percentage may serve better for the long term.
-
46244
Recognizing that burning sick leave during the final year of employment is an issue, is the first step. Enacting legislation to begin to address influencing human behavior is the second step. Monitoring the impact of this legislation on sick leave utilization will be the third step, and further refining the legislation will be the eventual fourth step. My personal opinion is that the current legislation will only have a slight impact on reducing sick leave use during the final year of FERS employment. The fact that the first 500 hours of accrued leave are not subject to reimbursement at the '15% of value' factor is the biggest impediment to folks taking advantage of the cash-in opportunity. Assuming 1000 hours of accrued sick leave and an hourly wage of $40, the economic value of the sick leave if taken is $40,000. The cash-in value is 500 hours x 15% x $40 = $3,000. This is too great a disparity to expect that many folks will cash in their FERS sick leave. Last year, I had two CSRS employees retire. Neither had taken a single hour of sick leave in over ten years. I also had two FERS employees retire. Each 'burned up' about 500 hours of sick leave in their final year, always on 'legitimate purposes such as medical check-ups, care of a sick child, etc. I conclude that the legislation recognizes the problem, but fails to provide the solution.
-
46243
As a former Nurse manager, I believe something significant needs to be done about the (SL) abuse issue. It affects patient care (50) percent of the hourly rate, would more likely curb abuse. FERS employees are penalized for being good employees, Where is the fairness?
-
46242
Of course, this changes the terms of the deal offered to CSRS employees back in 1987 when we were given the choice (repeated in 1998) to switch to FERS. Had the option of a partial cashout of accrued sick leave while under FERS (CSRS service was frozen) upon retirement been on the table then, that may have been enough of an inducement for many more to switch. All this belated handwringing over FERS employees increased use of sick leave is a little much. That possibility was well understood at time FERS was set up (given the experience with CSRS that led to the 1969 decision mentioned in the article); so to say now that all this constitues an unforeseen crisis -- gimme a break!
-
46240
Speaking for myself, I appreciate any effort by Congress to increase my pay and benefits. However, most of my prior experience (14 years) comes from the private sector where there is no carry-over for sick leave. The greatest thing about sick leave to me then is the fact that it is there IF I need it. To regard it as a benefit that I should be compensated for at retirement seems a bit strange. One could argue that the Federal Government pays less than the private sector so paying out sick leave is a benefit that helps to offset this disparity but in my case, the Government oferred me an equivalent salary at the time so I really have nothing to complain about. I think the Federal government is a terrific place to work and I believe that the problem here is the people who feel entitled to these type of benefits rather than the benefit itself (or lack thereof).
-
46238
The issue of sick leave "abuse" by FERS Employees is absurd. I have about 1300 hours of sik leave on the books after two surgeries , a heart attack and a severely separated sholder. I think it's clear that I don't abuse sick leave. That said, it is ridiculous to expect anyone in their right mid to give basck 500 hours of "earned" sick leave and then accept 15 cents for every dollar of value for all sick leave over 500 hours. I have a question for you all: Why are we always "sweetening the pot" for the folks in CSRS and treating the people in FERS as "leave abusers"? TSP was supposed to be the big benifit for FERS people, but you let the folks in CSRS (who already have a very gererous retirement plan) get in to "my" TSP program. Now, there are those out there who want CSRS folks to also receive their Social Security" benifits (my "other" so-called big benifit over CSRS plan)to top it all off. All I expect is to get paid what I'm supposed to get paid and not have to give the Federal Government Thousands of my hard earned dollars. Either pay me the full value of my Sick Leave or let me add it to my years of service like my co-workers in the CSRS plan and let's stop abusing the FERS People and expecting them to pay the Government thousands upon thousands of dollars for the fact they didn't abuse their sick leave and came to work even when they really didn't feel well. That's a horrible way to repay my dedication.
-
46233
When arguing - look at Connecticut state employees and CT city employees such as New Haven. The New Haven Register is loaded with the stories where ALL sick leave hours at full pay is reimbursed with a lump sum at retirement--- even our indicted New Haven police officers get full dollar for dollar reimbursement!
I am reminding my girlfriend's daughter that the Boston Police is a FAR better than the pension, health and sick benefits of the FEDS!
And state and city employees get overtime figured into the pensions!
-
46231
I think this is an OK plan, as having something is better than nothing. Could it be better? Certainly... Will 15% of the hourly rate of an employee truly deter using sick leave, I kind of doubt it.
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.