GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: The Price of Public Service

• 63790
  

  GS favors longevity NSPS favors personality cults What would be wrong with a system that recognized loyalty (longevity), performance (supervisor rating) and training/certification? That would prevent the union mentality, the personality cult mentality and reward continued improvement in qualifications.

  John Cargill Posted November 28, 2008 9:36 AM
• 53710
  

  "using contractors reduces the cost to the government by effectively reducing pension and health insurance costs for the life of the employee. " I will agree I've heard that before; but there the agreement ends. Having had to draft solicitations for contractors to fill position we couldn't; I must point out that the cost savings supposedly experienced due to lessened pension and health insurance costs are exceeded by the company profit margin and the additional layer of supervision.

  i.e. The contractors hired (stateside) earned approximately 90% of the GS, the company overhead was at the very least 100% of the contractor's salary for a total minimum cost of 180% of the GS employee salary. With our benefit costs at 40% of our salary there exists a 40% budget loss for each contractor. But then those are "different" funds.

  In addition there is the training costs we should include. Yes, we have to train those who are taking our place. And supervision of contractors seems more of a mine-field than most supervisors care to try. Productivity levels are somewhat lesser for those who rotate through the cycle since few wish for that job insecurity and most don't stay as long.

  As intimated by the "(stateside)", all these considerations go out the window if the contracts are for deployed positions. There is no way a deployed GS costs 50% of a deployed contractor does.

  As for GS being a joke, there ARE worse systems and the inherent favoritism and inequities of NSPS will be evident all too soon. Just give it time.

  And as for a pool of GS-14's... well, my guess is that you have got to be in the Beltway; or a similarly overinflated political arena. Through out the vast majority of GS workers, those animals are few and far between. 'Round here, an 11 does pretty well and the system-wide average is a GS-9. Hey, it's the circus you're in. Relocate and the benefits just keep multiplying; you may have to settle for a lower grade, but the cost of living will probably be halfway decent.

  Tip off Posted July 8, 2008 1:06 PM
• 53707
  

  As a Fed, IMO there should not be any Fed that has an issue with their pay, whether a GS1 or GS15 or NSPS equivalent. When you were hired you knew going in what your pay was going to be for the rest of your career. Your career and your pay has always been and always will be in your control. You always have the option to get the hell out, transfer to a different location, or change career paths. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions in order to get where you want to go. But please stop whining about it!

  Gen X'er Posted July 8, 2008 12:49 PM
• 53681
  

  I agree with Jim Wiggins 100%!!!! The GS system is a joke and does not provide any incentive for people to actually work once they reach the upper grade levels. My division is filled with GS-14 level staff people who couldn't even collectively tie their own shoe laces let alone offer any type of creativity/initiative in problem solving. The level of waste as a result of paying these people six figure incomes is just plain said. These people couldn't even survive in a job paying half as much in the private sector where you must perform just to keep your job. The bottom line is that we need a pay system that truly favors PERFORMANCE and not longevity!! Until we have that, things will never change for the better.

  Fed Worker Posted July 8, 2008 9:17 AM
• 53674
  

  The new government hiring and pay systems are about reducing the life-cycle cost of government employees. Even if the private sector pays more per hour, using contractors reduces the cost to the government by effectively reducing pension and health insurance costs for the life of the employee. Contracting out the government makes it easy to adjust the workforce and transfers even more of the retirement burden to the employee than even the FERS system does. The new pay systems being deployed do the same by allowing more pay to be given as bonus vs. salary which over a career will reduce the high three basis of federal pensions. While the benefits of a long government career have been eroding for over 25 years now, a few government benefits are still around that will fit some people's goals and desires for public service. I expect to see more mid career people transfer to government positions later in life to qualify for health benefits as they age.

  Paul Posted July 8, 2008 8:15 AM
• 53595
  

  Reduce the size of Government???? Are you kidding?? Currently there are approximately 1.8 million Feds, with another 12 million private sector employees supported by Federal contracts. The Federal jobs you reduce will then be done by the Private sector. According to popular thought, the Private Sector makes more money; therefore, it will cost the Fed more money to reduce its workforce. As a taxpayer, does that make sense???

  It is less expensive and better for the economy for the Government to offer raises, rather than put feds out of work.

  Still people focus on pay or salary, rather than other forms of compensation like paid time off. Currently Feds get 4 hours of leave per pay period for the first 3 years of service, 6 from 3 to 15, and 8 thereafter. Maybe this could be ajusted to 4 up to 3, 6 up to 8, 8 up to 15, 10 up to 20, 12 up to 25, etc...

  This is a smaller pill to swallow, perception-wise, than offering Federal employees a significant paise raise to catch-up to the private sector.

  Gen X'er Posted July 3, 2008 5:09 PM
• 53581
  

  Columns like this are easy to write, and a quick way to score points with some readers. But in the end they add nothing to the discussion about Federal pay. Instead of continually repeating the same old tired truisms, and wrapping them in the flag (just in time for the 4th), how about doing some real research on the pay gap issue? There are serious, legitimate issues with the methodology used to calculate it -- and a whole host of other factors and variables involved which seldom get mentioned in what passes for debate on this subject. It's not a simple issue, and it won't be resolved through anecdote-driven testimony to Congress or sentimental columns like this. Intelligent discussions require facts -- GovExec and its columnists would contribute far more by employing them now and then.

  Skepticus Posted July 3, 2008 1:46 PM
• 53563
  

  Stop trying to window dress Govt. Service. The Bush administration and NSPS is designed to break unions, reward the "good old boys" and pay new employees "B" scale wages. This is their version of "running Govt. like a business" . Take a good look at the economy, gas prices, the war and ask yourself......am I better off now than I was 7 yrs ago ? the answer is NO ! If you vote for McCain you will get more of the same.

  Retired Air Traffic Controller Posted July 3, 2008 11:02 AM
• 53548
  

  There is a big difference between campaign workers and government employees. Campaign workers are NOT government employees. They work for a specific campaign and any pay they receive is from the campaign. Campaign funds are generally from donations to the campaign, not government money. It is up to the campaign manager, and the candidate, to decide how much to pay the campaign workers. Government employees are paid by money in the federal treasury and it has nothing to do with contributions. I can not understand how you can relate the two. Campaign workers are essentially working for a private company (the campaign), so that issue should be treated as such.

  Mike Posted July 3, 2008 9:14 AM
• 53546
  

  I used to think that government employees were compensated fairly well compared to the private sector. Both my parents worked for the federal government and while times were tough in the 60's and 70's, we had all we needed. The retirement and health benefits were models for industry. Like many critics, the young idealist I was thought that my parents were lucky to have such compensation.

  Now that I have experience, I realize the problem critics focus upon is the high number of top grade employees, i.e., GS11+. And the reason for such a top heavy system is not just the automated step increases, but the overall low level of compensation forcing the government to offer high level GS positions to compete with the private sector. How many private sector employees responsible for $50+ million decisions make less than $100-125K per year? I see that everyday among Federal employees.

  Of course, teachers get compensated less while making decisions about our most precious resource, so federal employees cannot complain too hard, but I now see better why there is an argument for public - private pay parity. Otherwise, we'll be seeing government employees STARTING their careers at a GS-13 just to be competitive.

  David Bott Posted July 3, 2008 9:06 AM
• 53540
  

  True enough, however if we reduced the size of government, and cut the waste, fraud and abuse, we would have more money to pay professional people who wish to serve. As important, we need to stress the necessity of ethics. Making decisions and acting based on expedience, and politics, wastes my hard earned money, my time (which I also value) and insults my intelligence, affronts my sense of ethics and keeps me from using my professional knowledge and skills to the fullest. After addressing those issues, I would like to see a reduction in living costs, a return to a real valuation in the world's money (i.e. fiat money), a real free market, no wars (so far as we can control that), a consequent reduction in our military presence abroad, more success in diplomatic endeavors to solve global problems and a laissez faire attitue vis a vis the rest of the world's people. If we have to send money abroad, let it be to help people who desperately need it and to help them help themselves. Once we get this Eden, I think I may have passed on because I would then be living in heaven. Those ideals have more meaning to me than all the flag waving in the world and I could again look at our country and feel the pride of membership I once felt. Happy Fourth of July.

  Public Servant Posted July 3, 2008 8:28 AM
• 53537
  

  For Congress to pass a law to gain political points with it's constituency and then ignore it for 18 years is a slap in the face to all civil servants. They should either have the guts to enforce it, or repeal it and suffer the political fallout. And to add insult to injury, we (and the taxpayers) are forced to endure the HUGE administrative burden of NSPS, which they laughingly call "pay for performance". What a farce!

  M. Miller Posted July 3, 2008 8:08 AM
• 53535
  

  DoD went to the new NSPS "Pay for Performance" system. We always HAD a pay for performance system but I guess the big cheeses decided we still needed an overhaul & got rid of the GS system. Now they have made it all ABOUT money. If you don't write a review blowing your own horn, you get a low performance appraisal which equals low money. DoD public service NEVER used to be about money (look at all the retired government civilians and military personnel who are now defense contractors); now it is. It is sad. Also - the new system has perpetuated the "Good Old Boy" network even more.

  Suzanne Posted July 3, 2008 8:03 AM
• 53533
  

  After killing off the golden goose of CSRS retirement and leaving FERS employees' retirements at the whim of the stock markets as well as the implementation of NSPS, I, after 25 years of government service, would never recommend a government career to anyone anymore. The trend is certainly not toward recognizing government employees' contributions despite all the rhetoric. I thankfully made it into CSRS and feel sorry for those in FERS as they watch the global stock markets plunge in value. I have done well in my career, but I'm not convinced that under the current environment the odds are to do as well. As a third generation civil servant, I will advise my son to stay in the private sector.

  JTC Posted July 3, 2008 7:39 AM
• 53527
  

  I recently accepted a promotion and transfer to Cleveland. My primary motivation? Less costly living. In DC I was able to purchase a condo out in MD. In Cleveland I can purchase a 2200 sq ft 4 bedroom, 3 bath, full basement(finished), 2 car garage single family home for about $100,000 less than my condo. As I look toward retiring in the next 12 years, although my pay in grade difference (I was promoted to a 14) will only amount to $250 per pay period, I can save substantial amounts of money due to the lower cost of living. Would I have stayed in Washington DC like my employer wanted me too if I could save the same amount here? Absolutely. It is simple economics for me.

  too costly to stay Posted July 3, 2008 6:19 AM
• 53526
  

  Maybe more focus ought to be placed on having government be more business-like and efficient, with the tools to measure performance and to hold staff accountable for results, before we focus on pay structure. That may make government pay raises at least slightly more palatable to stakeholders outside of government.

  Jim Wiggins Posted July 3, 2008 6:14 AM