GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Lawmakers discuss expanding locality pay to areas covered by COLAs

• 60289
  

  I just can't figure out how getting rid of the 25% COLA and implementing the "RUS" locality pay will help you in the long run. Are those who work in Hawaii wanting this conversion planning to live here or are they just here for a few years and transitioning pack to conus, and are just worried about getting a higer pay check upon arrival. Those who live in Hawaii will eventually lose in the long run, unless the GS/NSPS starting pay is raised to offset the loss of 11.2% of COLA compared to the 13.8% locality for "RUS". Wow, lose approx. 5,000.00 now to gain an approx. an extra $2,400.00 in retirement that is taxed by both the Fed. Gov and State? It will only make sense if the locality is equal to what San Fransico is receiving....approx. 32.5% or something close to it effect when the change takes place and not 3 years down the line. People living in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and the other outlaying areas are being treated unfairly again, being paid less, as if they're second class citizens, compared to the CONUS personnel. How easy it's to say pack up and move for a better pay. That's the easy response.

  T Shibata Posted October 3, 2008 4:33 PM
• 51701
  

  Skeeter, your "caring" argument only validates your contempt for us AND yourself IF you are one of us; which I figure is highly unlikely. It is mere opinion since without our efforts, no administration, Red OR Blue, could accomplish its goals. Whether you like or admit it, our existence enables the governmental functions at a cheaper price/cost than contractors (also known as your "feather merchants") due to institutional and extended knowledge base.

  As for value, our efforts in this complex filled-to-the-bursting society are like the ubiquitous air; you would normally not notice them unless we aren't there, another sign of a job well done, or you have a problem you need help with.

  As for the Ketter Killer's assertion, the principle of variable pay components is valid for both the military and the government employee; non-basic pay components can and are regularly adjusted for local variables such as equivalent pay scales, cost of living, etc, thus saving the government tens of millions in your taxes. The military also have an additional benefit that these costs are not taxable, which few begrudge them.

  If you wish to continue the charade that you actually belong in these discussions and know what you speak of; you might consider modifying your arguments to include something more than "I don't like you guys!", "You cost too much!", and "You don't earn your keep!" At least address the issues instead of jearing like a school boy.

  Tip off Posted June 3, 2008 3:30 PM
• 51693
  

  Hey Dan K. you are about to find out in Nov. what the American people think of the Republicans and their way of doing business. Ask yourself this.....are you better off now than 7 yrs ago when Bush "took" office ? There is your answer and that is what the majority of Americans feel right now. Come Nov. the(dis)service of the Republicans will no longer be needed.

  Retired Air Traffic Controller Posted June 3, 2008 11:52 AM
• 51653
  

  KK the reason is their services are valued by this country and make sense. CS cost of livings are based on poorly run states and the states should have to pay the freight not the taxpayers, besides do you think the public cares about guys like you ?? No

  dan m ketter Posted June 2, 2008 10:48 PM
• 51644
  

  I sure hope that this gets approved as the Locality is better for the employees as well it is better for the economy and the Federal Government! This should have been done 10 years ago! This will put Civil Service retires from Alaska in line with other states. It is a shame that the retirees from Alaska are the least paid Civil Service retirees in the US.

  Hermann C. Rumfelt Posted June 2, 2008 5:27 PM
• 51636
  

  For those employees, who want to keep your COLA, look at Section 8 Election of Coverage by employees, this Sec. of the bill gives the employees the choice. This change to Locality, does benefit all employees, not just employees near retirement. Just think about the extra amount in your TSP, over 30 years. The Post Diff. will be frozen at the current rate, but at this time it will not count toward retirement. And yes it has been addressed by your Post. Union Leaders. Dave, AFGE

  Dave Posted June 2, 2008 3:04 PM
• 51635
  

  K-dog, If you think your plan is fair, then why doesn't all of the military have the same COLA, locality pay and basic pay ; E-1 to O-10?

  Ketter Krusher Posted June 2, 2008 3:04 PM
• 51634
  

  Locality paid only benefit those close to retirement. Those living in Puerto Rico know that the hyperinflation which in reality is more than three times that of the States complicates the quality of living for those raising children, and trying to survive. Even the Cola calculations have never been real because the government services are way below the states, forcing federal employees to spent additional money to compensate inequalities, like a poor education, roads and higher taxes. Locality pay will not help, could compound the financial burden because tax payers could fall on a higher tax bracket, diminishing instead of compensating the high cost of living. PR is not a state, locality calculations could affect those not living in metropolitan areas but with same high living cost

  Ramon L. Ocasio Posted June 2, 2008 2:27 PM
• 51630
  

  My Local, has been working on this issue since Oct. 06. COLA or Locality it's all in the numbers, GS employees in COLA areas do not recieve the full GS pay raise each year. But the major concern is retirement, since COLA does not count toward retirement, GS employees in COLA areas receive an annuity lower than any GS employee in the other 48 states. This is especially critical for employees covered under the FERS retirement plan, since the agency matching contributions are based on your salary which does include Locality but not COLA. Thanks to Sen. Stevens, Sen. Murkowski, Sen.Akaka and Sen. Inouye, this leg. will insure the GS employees recieve a fair retirement. Dave, AFGE

  Dave Posted June 2, 2008 1:59 PM
• 51622
  

  All this does is reward those states who's spending is out of control at the expense of the taxpayers. There should be equal pay for equal work regardless of where you live and work

  Dan ketter Posted June 2, 2008 11:55 AM
• 51616
  

  COLA is not tax free! The state of Hawaii has always taxed our COLA as income. We should be allowed to receive our COLA after our retirement. We would compute our retirements as we do now and then add our COLA. The 25% cap on COLA needs to be removed. The state of Hawaii dose not tax our retirement and therefore should not be allowed to tax our COLA if this idea is accepted. COLA would not be taxed by the Federal, State, or any other Authority where it is paid. The COLA would be paid to all Federal Workers who have and will retire from a COLA area. COLA is not subject to NSPS provisions.

  Dan Fry Posted June 2, 2008 11:27 AM
• 51613
  

  I have been asking my Senators (Alaska) for this change for many years. OPM is lowering COLA in Alaska, and we NEVER get the full raise granted yearly because we don't get locality pay. In essence we're getting pay cuts due to the lower COLA. It is patently unfair and it's well past time to change. I'm very happy to see it being addressed at last.

  Patti Foncree Posted June 2, 2008 11:14 AM
• 51610
  

  DoD civilians stationed overseas near the end of their careers are also discriminated against in retirement. A GS-13 step 10 in Washington makes about @20,000 more per year than we do, and this adversely affects our top three.

  In addition, with the loathsome NSPS, when we want to return to a GS-13 step 10 job in DC, we find that we are suddenly losing pay - AND RANK - unless we are moving to another DoD job somewhere, where the personnel department cuts you a break. One of my friends lost more than $14,000 a year in salary/grade when leaving DoD overseas to go to a VA job in the States.

  This is WRONG.

  Overseas DoD Employee Posted June 2, 2008 10:45 AM
• 51595
  

  I worked in an area with a Federal cost-of-living allowance (COLA) and have been offered a Federal position in the continental US. The salary offer reflects a 20 percent pay cut, because it has been calculated based on the General Schedule base salary shown on my Notice of Personal Action form (NOP), and excludes my COLA, not indicated on the NOP. It seems that the offer should be based on my GS level and step plus the COLA, not the salary shown on the NOP. Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone have any suggestions about how to tactfully request reconsideration of a salary offer without alienating Human Resources staff or the Hiring Official in the agency making the offer?

  Also, I want to emphasize that the COLA's do not reflect actual cost-of-living because the formulas do not take into consideration all important living costs. For example, Alaskans must pay high shipping costs on commodities unavailable in the local area. They must pay higher healthcare costs if they have to fly out-of-state or to larger metropolitan areas to receive medical care. Another example, is that, the utility rate-payers in Juneau, Alaska recently experienced significant electricity rate increases because an avalanche wiped out transmission lines and required a switch to pricey diesel-powered generators. While this energy crisis is expected to be temporary, the increased cost (43 cents per kWh surcharge) is passed on to consumers.

  Concerned Public Servant Posted June 2, 2008 8:54 AM
• 51585
  

  COLA is better for residents in Puerto Rico to the extent it is not taxable. FERS employees have the choice to select the amount they contribute to TSP to improve their retirement, so we don't need to move anywhere to secure a better retirement pension.

  Maria de los A. de Jesus Posted June 2, 2008 7:21 AM
• 51570
  

  "but COLAs also are not taxed as part of employees' income" - COLAs most certainly ARE taxed at the state level in Hawaii.

  Joyce Wade Posted May 31, 2008 2:16 PM
• 51560
  

  I see no mention of overseas Post Differential. My Post Diff is 10% while my COLA is about 2%. For many of us overseas it would be more important to have Post Diff counted toward retirement than COLA. Is this being addressed?

  TP

  T Perham Posted May 30, 2008 7:03 PM