GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Racing the Clock

• 54835
  

  "lawmakers will have to pass a stopgap measure to fund the government until the new president takes over." And that is exactly what they wanted and, unfortunately, as it probably needs to be.

  With their minimal (and, subsequently, often ineffective) majority, Congress has been fighting this president since they received their mandate in January of 2007 and losing due to no fault of their own. They MIGHT be able to pass the raise buried inside other important legislation (and recent funding victories have shown the administration and Party Pachyderm seem to be realizing the functional gap between their plans, the results, and the public's perception of their effectiveness); but, why in the world would they wish to continue fighting this lame duck and possibly losing those battles, when the next POTUS will actually be on the same sheet of music?

  While I would GREATLY appreciate a pay raise as soon as I could get it (to help with increased cost of everything), I will happily wait for a catch-up lump sum. That will be the biggest "bonus" most of us will get all year; NSPS or not. Most of us aren't the SES with a 15% ceiling and a $13K average.

  As for the emailed pay slips, Richard J. and Army Civilian are correct, I've been getting mine for at least a couple of years. Every mid-pay-period I receive a DFAS email with the site link of my new pay voucher. I'm wondering if this "new" system is already in place, what's the hubbub?

  Tip off Posted July 23, 2008 2:36 PM
• 54763
  

  About the article about a possible 3.9% pay raise. For me that translates to an increase of about $42.00 a paycheck in 2008. Gasoline has gone from $1.90/gal. to $4.10/gal., and my gorcery bill has gone from $55.00 a week to $110.00 a week in one year. My point is the Union should be going out and asking for a 13.9% pay raise. That would translate to about $195.00 a paycheck in 2008. Tell the Union to get down off it's "pat me on the back Ive done a great job" stance, and go after a "real" pay raise in 2009!

  Howard Ogle Posted July 22, 2008 5:41 PM
• 54762
  

  About the article about a possible 3.9% pay raise. For me that translates to an increase of about $42.00 a paycheck in 2008. Gasoline has gone from $1.90/gal. to $4.10/gal., and my gorcery bill has gone from $55.00 a week to $110.00 a week in one year. My point is the Union should be going out and asking for a 13.9% pay raise. That would translate to about $195.00 a paycheck in 2008. Tell the Union to get down off it's "pat me on the back Ive done a great job" stance, and go after a "real" pay raise in 2009!

  Howard Ogloe Posted July 22, 2008 5:40 PM
• 54751
  

  There has to be a reason someone spends 3-4 million dollars on a $175,00 a year job. Peculiar that they come out of office multi millionaires with retirement and medical benefits for life. Stranger yet is that they never get out of office. Truly time for term limits. Clean out the whole crew that has been in longer than 6 years. Period.

  Tom Snyder Posted July 22, 2008 2:07 PM
• 54711
  

  I am happy to know the Congress is thinking of rewarding our efforts to care for returning veterans, a daunting task in light of the thousands of causalities of OIF and OEF. However, my thoughts are more about our armed forces and their families who much certainly deserve any type of paise raise for the their on going valiant efforts and immeasurable sacrificies. Support Our Trrops will be a more meaningful mantra is if we back it up with a healhier cost of living increase for our men and women serving our country.

  David Shawlson Posted July 22, 2008 7:43 AM
• 54667
  

  Civil Servants have been able to get electronic statements/pay stubs since 2001. The civilian finance center stopped sending paper statements two or three years ago unless you requested to continue to receive statements (generally only those without internet still get paper statements).

  All this bill does is MAKE the financial institutions send you an electronic copy VIA Email. Why? I have no idea, probably some congressman has a software company in his/her district that makes a program to do this and will push to government to purchase it.

  And the wheel keeps going round and round.

  Richard J. Posted July 21, 2008 12:06 PM
• 54666
  

  It is incredibly inefficient to require Federal HR staff to process two personnel actions for pay increases. Retroactive actions also require corrections to intervening actions. Congress and the President need to meet their deadlines to ensure government efficiency.

  Lin Posted July 21, 2008 11:34 AM
• 54552
  

  wallyp--Unless the Air Force uses a different system than the Army, WHICH I DOUBT, you can easily print your LES from the DFAS MyPay website. I've done it every other Friday for 3 years!

  Army Civilian Posted July 18, 2008 4:28 PM
• 54455
  

  Each dept and their respective raises should be done on their appropriation bills. Not riding on DOD that way Congress will get public input on whether those activities should get 3.9% or institute a pay for performance based merit system

  dan m ketter Posted July 17, 2008 1:10 PM
• 54448
  

  Mike & Suzanne are right. The political game they play is high stakes and they get little accomplished. Dem or Rep, we get Egos not top performers. Posturing for political gain, and nothing more. Congress changed hands because the American people were fed up; it will happen again. This is a great reason to have term limits. But just look who votes on them. Would you vote to lose your job after 4 or 8 years? Not a chance.

  Marc Posted July 17, 2008 12:20 PM
• 54441
  

  It would be nice if the budget was passed on time. These guys give all government workers a bad name. The highest paid government employees and they are experts at the delay game....delay, delay, delay. If I did that I'd be fired (or at least punished). I meet my deadlines, why can't they. There was once a nickname for all government employees - the public called them drones, only those in the spotlight are the drones. The true worker bees in the trenches have had to deal with funding cuts, higher levels of performance and mediocre pay for years, while the Nero's fiddle away in Washington.

  Mike Posted July 17, 2008 11:54 AM
• 54403
  

  Typically the raise is put into one of the backwater appropriation bills that is not one of the first to be enacted, but it could be included in any of the bills. Why doesn't Congress write the raise into one of the few that usually get passed before the whole process normally turns to chaos just before adjournment, e.g., Defense or Homeland Security? They could even write it into the continuing resolution when one inevitably becomes necessary. I fear that some of the votes cast so far for the 3.9 percent raise are cheap political posturing for election purposes that members of Congress know will be overcome by events in the waning days of this Congress. When a new president and congress take office in January, there may well be a new, much stingier, breeze blowing that makes the 3.9 percent raise problematic at best. Don't start spending that raise yet!

  Cynic Posted July 17, 2008 8:43 AM
• 54396
  

  Just once I wish the American people could vote on the pay that Congress rceives! I remember one year federal employees got next to nothing while Congress voted themselves a big fat payraise.

  Suzanne Posted July 17, 2008 8:01 AM
• 54385
  

  One step close to having the option of receiving electronic pay stubs? You must be kidding. In the Air Force we just received notice that the ONLY way to get the pay stub (the leave and earnings statement) is electronically -- we no longer have the option of receiving a paper copy.

  wallyp Posted July 17, 2008 7:26 AM