Return to Article: Groundhog Day
-
48716
Wow, this is great. So the federal employee unions are fighting for the military to get overtime and night differentials and pay for working federal holidays, in order to achieve parity. Will an appropriate manager have to provide prior written approval for overtime? Amazing how many excuses and rationalizations people provide to justify their basic point -- give ME more money. Personally, I object to the implicit envy in the arguement for "parity" for jobs that are really not comparable. Arguing for parity opens us up to comparisons with the people who are really paying us and the fact that the TOTAL compensation for most federal jobs, especially when you factor in the risks of unemployment, of bankruptcy of pension plans and healthcare for retirees, exceeds that of the taxpayers. I'm not objecting to that -- I believe that federal employees - civilian and uniformed -- deserve that compensation. I'm just warning that we should be careful of what we are arguing because the same arguements are legitimately used against us.
-
47377
I served in the Navy for 26 years, and remember how they would debate every year about what % raise to give the military. I thought is was ridiculous that they never consider giving a specified dollar amount to everyone instead of percentages. Those with high pay get such big raises compared to the low-ranks who really need it! The cost of living really means buying groceries, which cost the same for everyone. I always thought they should just give an extra $100 or $200 or whatever to EVERYONE! Forget battling over percentage points!!!
-
47098
Jeremiah seems to forget that during last year's debate at one point civilian workers were approved a larger raise than military personnel in congress. At that point, the union went to bat for the military calling for pay parity...it works both ways!
-
47086
Looks like the military whiners that stated that a civilian can quit any time they want to seemed have forgotten that they too had a choice to join the military or not. Thats why it is called a volunteer service. I "volunteered" 20 years of my life and only wish I got a 1/10 of what your masters are dangling in front of you to possibly give your life for as a VOLUNTEER. My volunteering got me 70% disability and a lifetime of pain. I have accomplished more in 10 years of my voluntary civil service than the armed forces ever offered me. I was discriminated against and subjected to living conditions worse than most prisoners have to live in. I had a career full of sleep deprivation taking up the slack for lazy so called leaders and slugs who could slide and not do their jobs but get promoted because they were academy ring knockers or belonged to the same Mason temple. Take heed.... those who have sacificed will become the sacrificed!
-
47071
Thought it interesting that in the Armed Forces News Issue of March 21, 2008 they ran the following article
When calculating military pay rates, Pentagon paymasters and Capitol Hill lawmakers alike strive to provide service members compensation comparable to that of civilian counterparts performing similar jobs. A new white paper suggests that those decision-makers may have left significant benefits service members enjoy - such as tax breaks on housing and food allowances - out of their formulas. Such benefits are significant, write the experts who prepared the white paper, called the 10th Annual Quadrennial Review for Military Compensation (QRMC). For instance, enlisteds earned roughly $5,400 more each than their civilian counterparts in 2006 under existing calculations; that figure would increase to $10,600 if benefits were included. Officers earned an average of $6,000 more than civilians for comparable work in 2006; adjusted to include benefits, that figure would rise to $17,800. The QRMC recommends that future pay calculations should be adjusted to include those benefits. Service members should not push the panic button upon hearing such a suggestion: The QRMC provides advice to Pentagon officials and defense leaders on the Hill, and is not binding.
-
47070
As a current civil servant and Iraqi veteran, I am embarrassed for my fellow civil servants (the ones who are complaining). I can't believe anyone would complain that the military doesn't deserve the little bit of difference in pay each year. They deserve it. Don't forget civil servants you have a choice to quit, so quit if your unhappy. Military members don't have that same choice. They can't just get out, remember Stop-loss etc. Please quit whining....oh never mind you have the right to that because the military fights for your right to whine.
-
47054
Oh so now the military want to cry that they get not sick leave! Do they have their pay docked when they go to the dentist on duty time? Do they have their pay docked when they leave the office early? What about all those training holidays? If I want a 4 day week-end I need to use my accrued leave, but since none of the military will be in someone has to "man" the office, guess who. And please give me a break, you were not able to purchase a home and put down roots while you were on active duty. I currently work with more than just a few military personnel who purchased a home in a location where they will eventually retire to. They are renting those homes out and making the payments on them with the rent collected. Does anyone give me a housing allowance? It is amusing how they seem to forget all the benefits they receive while all the while complaining about their poor pay.
-
47003
Pay parity, within the context of NSPS, is a myth.
-
46985
I neglected to alsomention the Navy CDR sporting a $40K watch which he got at a discount thru his wife, and only paid $30K for it! Such a deal! GUAAFB!!
-
46963
Did anyone mention retention/reenlistment and other incentives. Just today I was informed that Navy aviators can receive as much as $125,000 as a retention bonus. Nuclear Officers receive $12K per year to stay in the Navy
I just have to look in the parking lot and notice the $50K 4WD Pickup trucks, the $150K Mercedes, and other vehicles I cannot afford as a GS12 step 10.
The military today is not the military of me nor my father. These Volunteers have it knocked in many ways, but this is a closely guarded secret so it seems.
-
46944
I have worked along side a bunch of military personnel in my various civilian stations, and none of them had ever worked in a combat zone, or even a dangerous place. I know more about firearms then they ever will. Still, they get bigger raises. They should get paid more when they serve in hazardous areas, and for that time only. I get paid more when I officially work in hazardous areas, and I do sometimes. But only then.
-
46935
Did anyone mention retention/reenlistment and other incentives. Just today I was informed that Navy aviators can receive as much as $125,000 as a retention bonus. Nuclear Officers receive $12K per year to stay in the Navy
I just have to look in the parking lot and notice the $50K 4WD Pickup trucks, the $150K Mercedes, and other vehicles I cannot afford as a GS12 step 10.
The military today is not the military of me nor my father. These Volunteers have it knocked in many ways, but this is a closely guarded secret so it seems.
-
46927
I would like to suggest that a special system, which includes pay parity & other benefits, be set up as an incentive for civilians who deploy. However, that should be the exception - - not the rule. There's one very huge difference between the military and civilian workforce: a civilian can choose to quit without punitive consequences whereas a military member HAS NO CHOICE! Having been a military spouse for 24 years and working as a federal civilian for all those years to the present, I feel strongly that the military members have earned that difference.
-
46924
Only in the government does evryone get the same raise regardless of performance this is socialism ats its worst. The answer to the question is fairly simple where does the gov have trouble attracting the talent it needs?? Answer the military, so why would any company or governemnt give everyone the same raise?? The military raise should be based on what it takes to retain recruits. Feds should be based on how they perform rather than how long they have been around. As for military having cushy jobs and lots of civilians having dangerous jobs, what planet are you on.
-
46909
As a retired soldier and current civil service employee, I have been on both for many years. As a civilian I have voluntarily deployed and worked and lived with military that got a tax exemption for working next to me. They complain civilians won't deploy, but they won't give them the same benefits and our normal workplace suffers while we are gone.
-
46901
I for one am sick and tired of military folks, whether active or retired, that so devalue the contributions of the civilian workforce that this even has to be an issue. I've worked almost 40 years for the federal government, been deployed, and worked closely with you to support "the mission", from the Vietnam war to the present. A little mutual respect goes a long way. Please, let there be legislative language, or whatever it takes, to put this pay parity argument to bed for good so that Congress and the President can quit wasting time on it and get on to more important business. Pay parity should not devalue your or my contribution to our country. There are many factors that make up our compensation packages and as far as I can tell pay parity would be the only match. Come on folks, eyes on the big picture.
-
46872
Parity or not, just to cover the increase of cost of living would be sufficient. Military always seem to conveniently forget their other benefits..subsidized housing, health care, shoping at low cost military stores on bases....
-
46871
THe military who are posted to positions of danger get many benefits (hazardous duty pay, tax relief among those). How is a military person sitting in the same building that I am performing more hazardous duty than I am? If you respond that they MAY be posted to a postition of danger reread the first sentence. Civilians posted to Iraq get no such benefits and typically are often ignored by the system when injured on duty. In the twenty-two years I've been in government work the civilian side has not been given higher raises than the military, therefore that is an artifact of the past.
-
46869
This is going to go over like passed gas in church. I'm a career civilian employee of the Department of the Navy as an engineer. I have traveled in support of investigations to far off locales (wherever the plane crashed, didn't start, came to rest, etc.). That would include flak jacket and side arm required areas. I have worked in industrial operational areas since I first came on board - working in relatively high risk situations. Here comes the gas passing part...I believe the military deserves a greater pay raise than I do each year. And I'm a lot "closer" to a military individuals job situation than the vast majority of civil servants. I actually find a little embarrassing as one of the civil servants being represented in the pay parity discussion that I'm a party to that discussion at all. In the meantime, I'll fix it by giving the difference in what I should have gotten and what I end up getting in pay parity to any and all causes I can find that go directly back to the military. It's the least I can do (and the least any of the other civil servants should be glad to do).
-
46857
I have to ask "jeremiah" if he would hold the same opinion if it was the other way around. There have been many years in the past that the civial pay raise has been larger than the military's. Isn't parity a good thing in that case?
-
46856
I would just like to get the 3.4% or 3% that was authorized. My raises have been below 3% the last two years due to being in the RUS area. It certainly isn't keeping up with inflation. I have more issues with locality pay then parity with the military.
-
46854
What about the NSPS folks NOT getting an increase, whether its 3.5 or 2.5 it simply has been taken away. Under NSPS the annual cost of living no longer applies. The basic cost of living especially gas prices are soring to 4 dollars a gallon yet NSPS employees annual salaries will only increase if their supervisor can sell a salary increase to the pay pool. Its a hard sell and most valued performers get a one time bonus vice a long term salary increase. Who is addressing this problem, its so unfair - its sickening.
-
46852
Pay linkage is important and should not be a political football every year! Not all military are on the "front lines"-many have cushy jobs at Headquarters around the U.S. or at the Pentagon. Alternatively, there are many civilian employees in performing dangerous duty overseas-why discriminate? Unless you want the pay increase to be based on job and location, the only fair way is pay parity-Congress should pass and the President agree and move on to other important issues instead of arguing about this every year!
-
46840
I appreciate Jeremiah's thoughtful assessment regarding the political motivation behind the efforts to conjoin military and civilian pay increases. As a military retiree who fought in four conflicts and was deployed away from home for the equivalent of eight of my thirty years of uniformed service, I can identify additional factors that show pay is but one issue, and the concept of pay parity is flawed. I was PCS'd from one locale to another nineteen times in thirty-four years, while my federal civilian colleagues were able to purchase and pay for a home in that time-frame. Even when not deployed, I never worked a clock, but rather, the mission...and when I was deployed, I worked the equivalent of 128 hours or more a week, without overtime. And, this was while being exposed to the threat of having my life considerably shortened. My place of solitude and rest, as a colonel in Iraq, was a cot in a tent shared with some twenty other folks. I could go on and on and on. I conclude that the military is deserving of pay increases that try to begin to consider these numerous factors that the typical federal civilian cannot even begin to fathom as they telework, take one-hour lunches, use accrued sick leave (which does not exist in the military), and schedule their annual leave with assurance that their plans will be implemented, etc.
-
46830
As a military retiree AND current Federal civil service employee, I'm firmly of the opinion that the ill-conceived efforts to "link" civil service and military pay increases goes beyond the old paradigm of comparing apples and oranges; it's more akin to the even more divergent grapes and grapefruit in the dissimilarity of the two compensation systems and the nature of the working environment of those paid under each. It appears that the most vociferous advocates of linkage, i.e., Federal employee unions, are motivated by the recognition that pay raises for the military tends to attract much more public support - deservedly - than those for "chairborne" civil servants, and thereby seek to "piggyback" on that sentiment to the benefit of Federal civilians. This phenomenon harks back to the situation involving pay raises for the pre-1971 U.S. Post Office workforce and the rest of the civil service establishment. Every year, seemingly, the influential postal unions would "work" the Hill to lobby for pay increases for postal workers, from which the rest of the civil service would benefit unintentionally by sharing in the largesse won by their postal counterparts. Indeed, one of the motivations for passage of the postal reform legislation in 1970 that resulted in the creation of the USPS as of 7/1/71 was postal unions' irritation over being in effect forced to act in the role of lobbyist for the entire Federal establishment on pay issues, which acted as a drag on what they were able to win for their own members. In any event, military - civilian pay linkage is and was a bad idea, but as it works to the advantage of Federal unions' members - and with Congress in Democratic hands eager to placate them - it's not going to go away soon unfortunately.
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.