Return to Article: House backs new FERS sick leave policy
-
84025
Great; who would be a "champion" for us in the Senate? I'm from Arizona-- worth trying to contact Senator McCain (or Kyle) during summer recess?
-
74492
I am retiring after 21 yrs under FRES and have just discovered that my coworkers retiring with same amt of years will draw 110k in pension. I will rec 72K per year. CSRS is a much, much better system! Anyone switching to this system is a fool.
-
68523
I have an idea, lets give all the FERS employees an opurtunity to change to CSRS, but they must give back all the matching money that the gov. has given them and the intereast made on that money. How many would be willing to change then......If a FERS employee wants to retire with the same retirement as a CSRS he only needs to invest in the secure "G" fund and quit whinning.....
-
63125
I would like to add a comment to finish my comments on Nov 13. What I meant about those four years is I will not be able to count those four years to my retirement. I can't even buy them back, any temporary time you cannot buy back after 1990.
-
63001
That would be great, FERS employee getting the same entitlement as our counter part, CSRS. I believe that would make us both equal. But I would like to hit on another subject pertaining to retirement, and I'm going to write my congressmsn about this one. I worked at DESC in Kettering, Ohio from 16 July 1989 thru May 23rd of 1993, Then I became a career employee. The four years there was a full time temporary position. I worked as a custodian, the hardest job that I have had in the 24 years with the government. Reason was we were under BRAC at the time. But regardless do any of you think that is fair.
-
62456
FERS employees should get SOMETHING for unused sick leave. CSRS employees should NOT get matching TSP....their pensions are overly generous as it is.
-
61449
I am also a CSRS employee and I think it is only fair that we (CSRS employees) get the matching TSP. We have to be fair across the board on this. Don't give one group something that you are not willing to give the other.
-
61234
This $10,000 dollar pay out is not worth the time to write it.These people who write these bills are covered by their "Life Retirement" after one term and do not have to put up with the Supervisors who will let certain ones do this and that and are not down in the trenches for 25-40 years putting up with this crap. All we want to do is go home but we do not want to "GIVE" our Sick Leave away after we have came to work sick or used Annual Leave to save our Sick Leave in case we did come down with some illness that might keep us from our jobs for 30 days or more.I will put off "RETIREMENT" to use my Sick Leave two days at a time just so I will not have to give it away! Try giving the 15% of anything that has to do with their money and see what they tell you! Either add all our leave to the end like CSRS or pay us 100% or we will use it!
-
58906
I am considering retirement and I wonder when the pay for FERS sick leave will become effective. Having about 1500 hours of sick leave on the books that I will have to forfeit is keeping me from retiring. I recently went under NSPS, have an aggressive boss who was junior to many of us who is now obviously trying to use the new system to harass and eliminate workers who are senior to her in both age and experience and anyone else who isn't her one of her favorites. (clearly age discrimination and harassment but management continues to support her even while 3 employees other than myself have hired attorneys) She actually denied sick leave I submitted for a legitimate 3 hour dental emergency which was planned as much as possible in advance with her knowledge and a note from the dentist and charged me AWOL/Leave without pay. I have always been a dedicated, responsible, loyal, hardworking and productive employee for 22 years. Ironically, as much as the boss would like to see me vacate my position I'm not retiring until I get reimbursed for my sick leave or I can use it. I don't want to join the legal battle but may be forced into it and that is a distraction from productivity and waste of resources that I would like to avoid. I am now being denied use of my hard earned sick leave benefit because the NSPS system is being drastically abused and misused. Those of you who were allowed to use your sick leave prior to retirement should consider yourselves lucky.
-
56932
I have 2000 hrs of sick leave and will be retiring 9/30/08. I believe this to be a beneficial rider on the bill, but it looks like it will come too late for me.
-
56922
at what rate would this reimbursement for 75% of the unused hours be? 100%
-
56829
Wow, how depressing. I am FERS employee with 2100 hrs of sick leave and 24 yrs of service. I have always frowned on those who came up with some "illness" that would allow them to use up their sick leave right before their retirement, though I can understand with FERS...what you don't use, you loose!" This new sick leave policy might eliminate some of that. What's depressing is the differences between the two plans as far as income recieved after retirement. I planned on trying to retire with 30 years of service. The more I read, the chances of that seem somewhere between slim and none! Looks like I will have to work till I die! Better to hang on to my sick leave, I will probably be needing it!
-
56822
What about veterans who need to use sick leave to treat their service connected disability?
-
56534
Is there an objective for the three years at 75% of which after you get 100%? Why not 100% at onset? Thanks-You
-
56433
To all the CSRS complainers. I agree with Rich: OK, CSRS Employees, you can have the matching 5% TSP when we get 2% versus 1% of our hi-3 as our pension.....don't leave out the whole picture. (Rich)
I agree with gubmintmole: To the CSRS employees demanding to get the TSP match. Would you then be willing to trade getting 2% of your high 3 salary for each year worked for 1% for each year worked like FERS? Example: a CSRS employee would work 40 years and would get 80% of their high 3 salary; fully indexed to inflation when they retired. NO matter what; GUARANTEED.
A FERS employee would work 40 year and get 40% of their high 3 salary, and not fully indexed to inflation. The FERS employee MIGHT come out ahead IF they put enough money into the TSP, and IF the market does well enough over their career AND doesn't crash right before they plan to retire AND if Social Security is still solvent. Ever wonder why government employees were only given the option to switch from CSRS to FERS, but not the other way around? (gubmintmole)
I will go farther: Switch over to the FERS and pay the Social Security Taxes. I came in the government in Jan 1985 (transitional year) and was not given the choice of CSRS but was placed under FERS. I have always paid the highest limit into TSP but with the stock market variances I have lost over $100K in the last 3 years from my TSP account. Social Security is being drained to pay other government bills. What does my retirement look like? BLEAK!! I want to be able to pay my bills, have a warm & dry roof over my head, have a sufficient amount of food, and be able to afford my medical bills; I don't want to be rich. The United States is how many Trillion dollars in debt and CSRS wants instant gratification?
-
56418
Why cant't a person transfer Sick leave to the Voluntary Leave Transfer Program (VLTP)
-
56188
Get smart. Use it and get full pay and don't think for a minute that this government is going to give you something for nothing. Retired two years ago and made sure I used all my sick leave. They got 1 hour but I got full pay for every hour I used.
-
56172
I agree with the CSRS employee that stated above about CSRS employees recieving 5% toward our TSP just as the FERS employees. Right is right lets not give one and not the other.
-
56104
24 yrs...2300hrs SL. Am I missing something? If my calculations are right, I will receive approx. $550/yr extra in pension. How is that "much more generous" than the origininal $10,000 cash proposal?
-
56103
Simply put this is a great idea. Employees that work at areas have "become sick" and used up their sick leave just before leaving service. Management for the most part, loks away and lets it happen. This causes a heavy work load on the workers on duty. I put in an army suggestion x 2 years ago that basicly states FERS emplyees should get a portion of sick leave paid for. My suggestion was employees with 5- 10 years of service should recieve 25% of paid sick leave/ 10-15 years= 50% and 20 years and over should reciev 75% of unused sick leave. This suggestion was quickly turned down. just my two cents, JW
-
56101
I think they should allow us to roll the amount of the sick leave at retirement to our TSP with no fee,let us apply it to our retirement or give us the amount in a check of course minus Uncle Sams portion. We should not be denied any percentage. It is our time and we were the excellent employees that tried not to be sick or abusive.
-
56095
How about some justice for those FER's employees that already retired and forfeited thousands of hours of sick leave?
-
56091
what i don't understand, is why is there two systems to begin with? all should be under one retirement system (fers and civil service). where the money could be saved would be to have anyone who has enough time in (regardless of their age) should be able to retire. the penalty is already in place for those who decide to leave early! so what's the big difference is what i can't understand! it would seem to me that the gov't would be able to save money due to penalties assessed for those to cut their work time short, but whom would still have to wait until 65 or whatever it is in order to receive a retirement benefits that is significantly CUT monetarily any way!
-
56011
Re: Karen Jones 8/1/08 post and any other comments that refer to FERS folks planning use of S/L so as not to forfeit any. Hey the a lot CSRS folks have been doing this for years. Back in the 80's up until now, I've friends who plan how to use the remaining portion S/L that will not be counted towards annuity. So, a lot of CSRS retirees are planning not too forfeit S/L too. They just won't have as much to forfeit.
AMEN to comments by gubmintmole and Steve from 8/1/08 comments.
Finally, I wonder if when considering moving to FERS, which requires employee self-management, the Congress officials factored in the cost of time that employees need to spend managing their retirement affairs instead of focusing 100% of their time on the job. Case in point following up on these articles, tracking TSP activity, etc. With CSRS, there was no need for this. Ummm?
Ms. Jones, my prayers goes out to you and your parents so that you always have what you need to be able to be there in their time of need as well as to take care of yourself. IJN
-
55936
While it is nice to see some tinkering at the edges concerning sick leave for improvements for the threadbare FERS retirement system, how about some real justice. Why is it that social security, CSRS, and military all receive full inflation indexing upon retirement, but FERS is singled out for no inflation protection at all for retires aged 56 to 62 and why is it 1% less annually than everyone else after age 62? Why does the Federal government so despise FERS employees?
-
55911
How come it took almost 25 years for congress to figure out the Federal employee was using all their sick leave before they left government? This rule has been a nightmare for the manager since it was initiated. Finally some help from congress. When I told everyone about this all the managers said "great" and the employees said "great". Firest Win Win I have seen in Govertment in a long time.
-
55903
As with most bills and media stories, we aren't getting the full picture. Are the FERS retirees going to be able to be paid a lump sum for their sick leave (for each 30-day full increment) like the CSRS retirees? And will FERS employees get to cash out sick leave if they depart the federal service voluntarily or involuntarily (quit, termination, take deferred annuity, etc.)? To respond to others' comments, I completely agree (of course) that FERS was nothing but highway-robbery of Federal employees beginning after 1984. We FERS employees get 1/2 the pension that CSRS employees get, plus have to wait longer to get it! And, of course, we have to rely on Social Security, which we pay for (CSRS employees only had to pay 0.8% into the Federal employees' pension fund), so CSRS employees also got a 6.2% increase in pay by not having to pay Social Security taxes (this can easily amount to $300,000 in pure CASH for the typical GS-14 CSRS employee over the length of a career!). And the discrepancies go on and on, including (as others have mentioned) the lack of a COLA under FERS until age 62, and let's not forget that for every COLA over 3%, FERS employees get the COLA minus 1% (thus, a CSRS retiree will get about 4% next January, while a FERS employee gets 3%). Oh, and CSRS employees STILL get to contribute to TSP. How's that 5% match sounding to you nit-wits who VOLUNTARILY switched from CSRS to FERS back in the day? LOL
-
55894
Anyone who thinks FERS is better than CSRS needs to go back to school after they retire.
I worked in the private sector for 10 years. I did not pay a dime towards my Annuity Retirement, only social security. My company (>1000 employees) provided each employee with the minimum anuity required by the government, which is exactly the same as the FERS Anuity. So you would have the Anuity plus Social Security at retirement age. Later you could invest your income into an IRA.
For people working for the government at the same dollar value, CSRS at the time was far superior to that company's retirement with social security, and even more so if that person had to pay towards an IRA. When I went to work for the government in 85, they came out with FERS just before I was hired and I had no clue about the difference. The only difference between FERS and the private sector company is FERS had TSP with matching 5% funds. Which many of us folks with families could not initially afford to put a full 5% into a thrift savings. No excuses, just facts.
The sick leave policy for government personnel should be the same. Either get rid of the carry over for the CSRS folks or the FERS folks should have it to.
I've worked under FERS for 23 years. I have plenty of sick leave and if I use 3 hours a year that is a big deal. Then when I fell off my roof during Hurricane Katrina and broke every rib on my left side I was out of work for 6 weeks, which is what it is for. I go to the dentist and get my physicals on my days off Friday or Saturday. If I have a cold I suck it up. I am 54 years old and plan to retire when I am 66, God willing if I am free of a serious condition. If I get cancer or some other major illness I have enough sick leave established to use it for the purpose intended.
As far as I am concerned no employee should be paid for unused sick leave when they retire. It is a nice incentive and will save the government money vs employees using all their SL while working. Most people think the same way in the private sector as in the government. If they get 13 days a year, it would be gone. Dentist appointments, doctor appointments, illness, and even family sick leave. Problem is if they fall off a roof or get cancer, they have no sick leave saved up.
-
55888
"The job is easy..." Just love that.... *sigh* Nice to be able to keep sick leave as a potential retirement bennie, even though the difference is likely to be very small, as one previous poster stated. Too bad I have to little of it. With BRAC and the enormous attrition expected in the next few years, any way to keep experienced personnel is a good thing.
-
55872
The proposed FERS sick leave policy change is a step in the right direction. However, the biggest issue remains unaddressed. The COLA for FERS employees needs to be changed. First, a FERS retiree gets no COLA until age 62 (supposedly it is "offset" by a 90% payment of projected SSA benefit); but in reality they are freezing the annuity received at retirement until age 62. Second, what is this stuff about COLA-Lite; is the cost of living for FERS retirees less than for CERS employees? Congress needs to restore the full COLA for FERS employees; to not do so means that no FERS employee should retire before age 62.
-
55837
I find it funny that CSRS employees think they deserve the TSP match, mainly because they do not understand their own pension plan versus the FERS plan. In the end the joke is on the CSRS people. I see so many of them who just can't walk away because the benefits are too sweet. The job is easy, they can save $20,500 to the TSP if over age 50, they can then do a Roth IRA, flex time, comp time, work at home and still with over 40 years, lots of them can't walk away because they have no life and do understand the concept of mortality let alone their sweet pension. The number of 63 year olds who plan to work a few more years, is amazing. They need to read the obits. once in awhile.
-
55829
As a few of the comments addressed, the value of getting paid for sick leave through an increase in the retirement annuity is miniscule. To put it in perspective you are only recieving 1-2% of the actual value of the sick leave each year you live to collect the annuity. How many expect to live 50-100 years to break even. In reality the average life in retirement will be less than 30 years based on todays life expectancies. In effect deferring the sick leave is like passing up a day off to get paid 30% (at best) of your regular salary sometime in the future. Having more time off allows you to take better care of you and your family's health and other personal matters. It allows you time to make better decisions in every area of life and enjoy it more if you use it wisely.
-
55826
"This is just another way for Democrats to buy votes. Notice it was Waxman who presented this. Les"
For ONCE can't Republicans see the fact that something isn't about them???? This idea has been kicked around and talked about off and on for years. So WHAT that it came to fruition now?!?!?!? I'm just glad to see that it could really happen. If this gets all the way through, I have hope that I might not have to use that tin cup I bought and that sign that I made that says "I'm a FERS retiree. Will work for food."
-
55811
People who are griping that CSRS employees are somehow slighted because FERS are now receiving compensation for their sick leave, keep one thing in mind -- CSRS employees are awarded an additional 2% of their top-three averaged annual salaries in their annuity for every year they work beyond 10 years of service. That's on top of the 16.25% they're given for the FIRST 10 years. FERS are given a flat 1% for every year worked. So, in applying sick leave toward your time of service in calculating your annuity, FERS sick leave is exactly half the value of CSRS. To put it another way, for CSRS, every year of accumulated sick leave at retired adds 2% to your retirement. That smae year's worth of accumulated sick leave for the FERS employee adds 1%. The 5% matching TSP contributions are nice (although I'm currently losing more than I'm putting in!), an annuity will always be better than a finite lump sum. I intend to live forever!
-
55784
It's about time. I have over 1500 hours saved up and plan to retire in 3 years That should give me about an extra 1% a year for the rest of my life. As for the money to pay for it. The government pays full salary for people who take sick leave when they are not sick. This conversion to SL time credit to retirement will cost billions less. Think about it. If it was cheaper to just let us use our sick leave the Congress would not be passing this bill. Pres. Bush say he will veto it. But The house can over ride him and will. As for the Senate are they on board with this bill?
-
55780
Ref: ""the CSRS retirement is more generous than the FERS with its contributory programs:" I disagree. We calculated a FERS new hire person, at 25 years old, and retiring at the GS13 level (level "I" in the FAA) and upon retirement the FERs person would have millions whereas the CSRS person would only have a monthly annuity and no lump sum at all. "
kmp, I can see that. With the assumptions you stated, and a good tail wind, you are correct. Unfortunately, MOST folks do not make GS 13. The average is GS 9. Additionally, we've been flying into a fiscal head wind for a while now, and if you followed the advice of our noble FRTIB and have been "staying the course", your TSP fund profits have just been reset to what they were back in November of '06 with little correction in sight. Over a 30 - 35 year career, that can be made up. And over a 30 - 35 year career, a CSRS employee can take advantage of that same wind, blowing here and there as it will. The only difference is the matching 5% which, once more, I will refer to other's figures to compensate for between the two retirement systems.
Now, please consider those who have less than the 30 years to establish their retirement. As I've stated before, I and many of my co-workers came in late and are looking at 20 year retirements at age 62. Many turn to civil service for that very reason. The OPM has discussed soliciting new hires from that/my very demographic. Such shorter careers, and lesser grades over the length of service, SIGNIFICANTLY impact on the overall profitability of the TSP as a retirement component.
I will gladly agree that there are pluses and minuses to both systems. Depending on where you are in the stock market cycle and the choices you make, the advantage may shift from one to the other; but BOTH may participate in the TSP. And many FERS do not do so sufficiently for their own benefit; hence the patronizing actions of the FRTIB.
But we digress. Regardless of which system is better, that has nothing to do with the fact that both systems, CSRS and FERS, started without receiving credit for their sick leave and have since received benefit package adjustments.
-
55776
I am a CSRS employee with 34+years.I have 1,000 hours sick lv. Because of my age and I worked in the private sector prior to the gov't,I receive full social security benefits while I am working. When I retire, my checks will be reduced by 60% because I will be receiving a gov't annuity. FERS people,what is your assurance that the social security won't change its mind and do this to you. That is why I elected to stay under CSRS. Give the FERS people the sick leave benefit, they are going to need it. Good Luck with the new policy.
-
55772
The real issue, and reason this country is failing is being missed. Ethics. Why do retiree age employees feel it is OK to take sick leave as vacation? It's frowned upon earlier in their career so why does it change at the end? It's unethical and should be cracked down upon. Bringing in a bogus doctor's note then taking a month off is rampant, yet so wrong. And don't claim that its due to CSRS vs FERS. You knew going in what you were under and there are pluses and minuses to both systems.
-
55767
A little bit of info on the stats: Payroll data examined by the OPM show that FERS employees eligible to retire use, on average, 20.2 hours more sick leave annually than employees in the older system. FERS employees nearing the time they would qualify for retirement also use an average of 13.5 hours more sick leave annually, the OPM said yesterday.
Info taken from Stephen Barr's March 11, 2008 article: "Bill Would Give Retirees Partial Pay for Unused Sick Leave".
-
55752
"the CSRS retirement is more generous than the FERS with its contributory programs:" I disagree. We calculated a FERS new hire person, at 25 years old, and retiring at the GS13 level (level "I" in the FAA) and upon retirement the FERs person would have millions whereas the CSRS person would only have a monthly annuity and no lump sum at all. The FERS person could buy a boat, a class "A" RV and tour the country, or take out $100K and take a nice summer vacation to wherever. The CSRS person would have to wait until a small amount (relatively small) trickles in. PLUS, if the retiree died after 6 months or 6 years the spouse of the CSRS person could only get 1/2 of the pension whereas the spouse of the FERS person would be a multimillionaire, loosing nothing !!
-
55745
Something I haven't seen mentioned is that CSRS employees had the option of a lump sum withdrawal of there contributions into the retirement system with only about a 10% reduction in annuity until sometime in the mid 80's. I don't remember the year Congress took that option away.
-
55738
It is very difficult to make an apple-to-apple comparison between CSRS and FERS. Whether one is better than the other will depend on the financial market condition at the time of ones retirement and how one invests (especially for those under FERS) prior to retirement.
I am under FERS (with over 1700 hour of SL). I would like to have those hours credit to my retirement. However, if that does not happen, I have no complaints. After all, I agreed to the terms of employment 20 plus years ago. If I had issue with that, I could have sought employment elsewhere.
The biggest issue I have with crediting FERS SL hours for retirement benefit is how is Uncle Sam paying for it? By printing more money? Thus further devaluate the Dollar and resulting in higher inflation. Or, increasing taxes on our fellow citizens. I admit that I am not an economist, but that is what I see if Uncle Sam decides to increase the FERS retirement "benefit".
Respectfully submitted, Your fellow civil servant
-
55732
Unless I am missing something here, I took the article to mean that your sick leave hours would be converted to years, months and days and this would be added to your retirement. So instead of retiring with 25 years, you might retire with 27 yrs, 3 months and 2 days
-
55727
Ouch! Anyone from the outside watching this exchange (like Skeeter or Mike R.) would likely have an unflattering image of us; as we tear each other apart over perceived uneven treatment. Let's not flash our panties to the world, folks.
Can we agree that on the whole, the CSRS retirement is more generous than the FERS with its contributory programs; as evidenced by the retirement pension work ups and the choices made by the civilians who had the option? I will not quote figures here, as my co-commenters have covered that adequately.
As a couple have noted and as found in "Saving Sick Time", 13 Mar 08: "CSRS retirees have not always been able to cash out remaining sick leave at retirement, however. In 1969, Congress added the sick leave benefit to CSRS after data showed that the use of sick leave rose dramatically near the time of retirement. Reports by the Civil Service Commission -- the forerunner to the Office of Personnel Management -- found that federal employees retiring before 1969 used an average of 40 sick days in their final year." So, may I ask "What is the big commotion of the FERS employee getting the same adjusted benefit package as the CSRS did back in '69?"
Since it would seem congress is leveling the playing field, my only real concerns at this point are twofold:
First is the fact that through out this debate, and across a number of articles, we've NEVER seen a comparison of the number of annual hours taken between the FERS and the CSRS during the final year or any other standardized time period!
Second, I have to wonder... Now that both populations have a reason to save sick leave, will more sick people be coming to work spreading their germs around? Has anyone studied this? Could such a personnel action actually contribute to the spread of a pandemic assault?
Enquiring minds want to know.
-
55725
CSRS employees received this benefit beginning in 1969, however they had to make an additional contribution of .5% to their retirement fund. As long as the FERS employees would have to make an additional contribution to their retirement fund, they should be able to tack this benefit to their retirement. Their original contribution to the FERS retirement fund did not include this .5% contribution to obtain this benefit.
-
55719
My unscientific calculations from a FERS *calculator*:
If you took no sick leave for 5 years you would store up approx. 500+ hours... for a person making $50k a year, with 20 years of service, when they retire this would mean an additional $21 or so a month.
-
55717
Great! So when are they going to allow us maternity leave like they REQUIRE the private sector to give their employees?
-
55715
Agree with fd - improvements to FERS does not diminish our CSRS benefits. And if it keeps good people in the services longer than I'm for it.
-
55712
I had the opportunity to switch to FERS twice, and rejected it both times. I figured if the government wanted me to switch retirement systems, it was because it would benefit the government, and not me! I have never regretted my decision to stay under CSRS, and don't begrudge those under FERS, who are trying to improve the poorer retirement system they have, compared to mine.
-
55711
This would be an improvement if it had solely been passed for the purpose it was intended. Why would FERS emploees sick leave be attached to a tobacco use program? Because, these sneaky politicians are digging into the TSP to fund the tobacco program in the tune of $330 Million of your retirement!!! So much for the nicety of allowing you to claim unused sick leave for retirement purposes.
-
55710
As a CSRS employee my leave is very important to me; however, the people who came in under FERS had no incentive to save their sick leave. I am glad to see that they will finally get some equality in the system.
-
55708
To poster Mike R.: you seem to know all of our tricks....are you sure you are not one of us? (;oD}
Mike P.
-
55705
This isn't a case of 'bribing' employees to not abuse their sick leave... regarding rotating shift workers, many times people work when they aren't well, given that it's difficult to cover their shifts (in my case our org is designated as emergency employees). So yes, they should be compensated for saved sick leave. I supervise these shiftworkers, and I also work many times when I could/should take sick leave, but don't. But the way FIRS is currently, I will be taking more VALID sick leave as I approach retirement.
-
55704
This isn't a case of 'bribing' employees to not abuse their sick leave... regarding rotating shift workers, many times people work when they aren't well, given that it's difficult to cover their shifts (in my case our org is designated as emergency employees). So yes, they should be compensated for saved sick leave. I supervise these shiftworkers, and I also work many times when I could/should take sick leave, but don't. But the way FIRS is currently, I will be taking more VALID sick leave as I approach retirement.
-
55702
Of course FERS employees look like sick leave abusers when the CSRS employees are hoarding their sick leave.
A lot of CSRS folks I know are open about the fact that they take Annual Leave when they are sick so they build up their sick leave. This is being allowed by supervisors who do not follow the rules requiring Annual Leave to be approved in advance. (I can understand when it's not approved in advance - for such things as an emergency home repair or other family emergency.)
We all know folks (both FERS & CSRS) who come in the office when they are sick - spreading germs, making others sick, and decreasing not only their productivity but that of others.
I think this change is good for increasing fairness between these two systems. I'm concerned that more folks will come in sick to save up their leave.
-
55701
This is just another way for Democrats to buy votes. Notice it was Waxman who presented this.
-
55698
First mandatory participation in Thrift Savings, now giving credit for unused sick leave. Congress tinkers while the solution has been out there all along. Give employees the option of rejoining CSRS, and if enough of them do so, drop FERS (along with NSPS?)
-
55697
Mike R: Your response is so extremely bitter. I see you've mastered the practice of sarcasm. Insightful... Intelligent... However I'm guessing you've never quite emerged as the leader you were (and perhaps still are) capable of becoming. As you mature, I hope that you'll learn to divert your energy into constructive criticism and critical thinking. This might be just what you need to become a real leader rather than a heckler on the sidelines.
-
55695
Just you wait till there are more Congressmen and Senators that are FERS than those of the CSRS variety. When they see the big pot of money in the CSRS kitty, they will write even more bills and tap into the reserves of those, fat on the old retirement system, then let us see who whines and whines to all, not just over 1 to 2 percent. they will probably abolish the old CSRS system altogether so they can use the money "more wisely" then we will all be in the same system together. Then we will really hear the WHINING begin, and never end.....
-
55686
All - let's remember, this action is a measure to improve the FERS. This is NOT a FERS vs. CSRS forum.;
-
55669
Wow, more pork for the ever-deserving, of-so-respected federal employee, and the perpetual "what's in it for me?" quest. Let's just "incentivize" (aka bribe) the employees to not cheat on their sick leave. Where is the SERVICE in civil service anymore? And where are the managers that are supposed to encourage ethical behavior and police the abusers? Nowadays managers just use their prerogative to get the the head of the line at the gravy train with BIG bonuses, no leave accountability, and (sometimes) abusive personnel practices. How about REAL pay for performance -- something like regular joe on the street taxpayer works with every day? Most taxpayers don't have holidays, annual and sick leave, leave gifting, AWS, free parking/transit subsidies, gym use on duty hours, days of training at out-of-city sites each year, unlimited internet shopping, employee clubs, rent-free credit unions, take-home cars, cell phones used for personal puprposes, sabbaticals, tuition reimbursement, guaranteed subsidized health insurance for life, student loan deferrals, subsidized child care centers, etc -- just for starters. Crocodile tears for the FERS/CSRS employee.
-
55663
It would be a blessing if this passes all the way. I have a very sick husband and have used some of my leave this year on the Family Leave Act. I had over 1300 hours and still have a large number. I always took care of my leave - like money in the bank in case I needed it while others used theirs as they earned it. I hope to retire the end of this year but hate to lose all that leave when I desperately need it. Thank you all for helping us to get credit for this leave.
-
55661
For you jealous CSRS employees over the piddly 5% TSP FERS match, compare retirement systems. CSRS gains 2% a year in annuity over the 1% FERS gains. But its even worse for FERS; CSRS like military gets full COLA upon retirement, FERS retirement eligibility starts at 56+ (one year later) and increases for younger employees. Upon retirement at 56 you receive no COLA until age 62. At age 62 COLA is annually 1% less than CSRS. Not much... do the math. At only 3% annual inflation from 56 to 62 (6 years) the FERS retirement has lost 18% against CSRS. In another 10 years FERS loses 28%. So in less than 16 years a FERS retirement has lost about 1/3 of its value and it was 50% less than CSRS to start with. Don't worry TSP and SS will make up the difference? Take a look at the stock market and talk about SS reform. FERS is screwed!
-
55655
It is not worthy top bother with saving this time - it will still be better to take it.
-
55654
This is not any equivalent to 2% versus 1% annutity accumulation. It will give for most about a few hundred dollars per year ($200-400) if the sick leave is added to the period of annuity calculation. Thus what is all this fuss about? If these months of sick leave were paid in full at the end then it will be a nice retirement bonus and then a topic worthy to talk about.
-
55651
As a reminder to all CSRS personnel and those in FERS: Look back in history and remember that in 1969 the same issue was debated because CSRS personnel were doing exactly what the FERS personnel are doing now. Using S/L before they lost it!! The law was changed in 1969 to accomodate the CSRS personnel so they could tack the S/L to their total retirement time. What was fair then should be fair now. Remember your history!!
-
55649
I'll retire in two years with in excess of 2,000 hours of sick leave. Those hours under this bill will add roughly nine more months of service and an additional .75% to my retirement. Those figures calculate to an additional $450.00 per year or $37.50 per month towards my annuity. I'm not a sick leave abuser, but I can see why some do based on these figures. Most FERS employees will tell you they'll use sick leave and get 100% rather than any other plan the feds have to offer. Based on today's dollar, my sick leave will be worth $57560. When considering the $37.50 per month I previously mentioned, it would take 1,534 months or 127 years to reach $57560. At that rate, why not burn the sick leave?
-
55640
Let's put this into perspective. A FERS employee receives approx 35% of their high 3. CSRS receives 50% of high 3. Who has the better deal? The 5% matching does not come close to making up that deficit.
-
55638
If it only counts for annuity - say 6 months of sick leave adds to the annuity counting 0.5 year; say someone on FERS after 20 years will get 20.5% instead of 20%. If the average Hi3 is $70,000 it will roughly be about $350+ per year.
-
55637
Don't spend any of your money yet, this is attached to a bill that only has 58 senate sponsors. It is not veto proof and the WH will kill this for sure as the Tobacco lobby is just to strong.
-
55630
(22 years FERS, 1650 SL hours bal.) I have no intention of "burning" my sick leave as I near retirement although would consider scheduling elective surgery (if needed) or delaying until after retirement depending on what version of this reform passes. I fail to see why anyone in CSRS would object? The only argument on its face that would have merit is the one where CSRS feels cheated that they did not have this information when deciding weather to switch to FERS. Any examination of that argument shows it has no merit. In the 24 years that has passed, at 104 hours per year, the maximum difference in the FERS portion of the comparison calculation figures to 1.1%. No way that would have made a difference in their decisions. I'm sure there was a much larger difference in the overall CSRS benefit and that's why the great majority did not switch, and still wouldn't even armed with information of a slight increase in the FERS benefit.
-
55629
As a second level supervisor, this bill is a DREAM. I hope that it passes. I have mostly FERS employees that either report directly to me, or report to me at the second level. Most of them use their SL as quickly as they earn it. If this bill passes, I will have a lot more staff at work every day. (someone pinch me, I must be dreaming!!)
Also, I like others who have commented, have saved my sick leave over time. Not because I've never been sick, but when I need that "R&R" day or need to see a doctor, I use my annual leave because I have trouble using all the AL I accure each year. To know that I may be awarded when I retire for saving my sick leave is further incentive for me to continue saving it.
-
55628
Totally agree with previous comments. I left over 1000 hours of unused sick leave when I retired in March 2005 as a FERS employee. How about making the bill retroactive! There can't be all that many FERS employees already retired compared to CSRS employees. Why screw honest people?
-
55621
My husband mandatorily retired last year leaving behind over 1400 hours of sick leave on the books. If this passes, I hope the bill includes provisions for already retired FERS employees.
-
55618
WOW!!! As you can tell from the HUGE number of comments, this is a subject of great interest! You can also see that the vast majority of the commentors agree that this new sick leave policy proposal is timely, equitable, makes a lot of sense, and is desperately needed to stem the tide of folks who clearly "abuse" their sick leave balances. [Afterall, they're earned it, so it's theirs to use, sick or not, right?] I'm in FERS and have a lot of earned sick leave on the books, but I just cannot "call in sick," when I'm not sick! I've had "abusers" call me stupid, although I am doing the right thing. Clearly, there are many other dedicated(stupid?)people like me, that are honest and don't abuse their sick leave balances, but those numbers are dwindling by the day. Believe me, it's VERY difficult to not call in sick, when those around you are abusing their leave! Rest assured, if this law does not go into effect, it will most definitely have a negative affect on efficiency, productivity, and overall morale (which isn't all that great to begin with). Furthermore, as the ranks of FERS employees continues to grow, the situation (the culture of "burning up leave," rather than losing it) will become more of a practice than it currently is. These employees (and what's to stop them?)will abuse it from the git-go, so that doing so later in their careers doesn't appear so obvious! Even though this proposal does not allow for the keeping of ALL sick leave earned (unless one stays three years longer instead of retiring), it's, for sure, the right thing to do! It's in our best interests that we read all the comments, that we immediately thank Mr. Waxman (dearly!), and that we contact all of our legislators encouraging them to PLEASE SUPPORT this bill! Please pass this on...
-
55612
I think some folks are missing the point of this proposed legislation. The agencies (and taxpayers) will now regain the lost productivity from the many FERS employees who admittedly have used (abused?) the sick leave benefit that they would "lose" at retirement. Frankly, in my 29-year career, I've yet to see anyone come back from a "mental health day" any healthier than before they left!
-
55608
If you objectivley look at all CSRS folks remaining in Govt. and determine what percentage are even enrolled in TSP regardless of matching, you will find most are reluctant to even participate in it even though it provide benifits to them e.g. it deferrs taxes (an immediate benifit), and it also provide an additional vehical for greater financial growth even without matching.
This, "I CSRS wanting matching if FERS get SL cretit" is a bit of a red herring if you ask me.
-
55607
Finally that 1524 hours of sick leave might mean something. I won't have to look for a Doctor anymore, for that excused leave of absents. I'm notfeeling as faint as I once was.
-
55606
Since we are on the subject of FERS/CSRS retirement differences, did anyone notice the retirement system for active duty military was also changed/lowered in 1984....only difference is congress got a guilty conscience and backpeddled on it 15 years later. (REDUX). If government unions were as strong as the veterans' lobby in this country we'd all be covered by CSRS.
-
55603
I am glad to hear FERS may now get a SL benifit. I served in the AF and got out as a Sgt, now with 20 years (25+ total)of service and not much SL on the books (I have used it as it acrued--shame on me!) I am disappointed in myself for abusing the system and will not fully benifit from this policy if approved. I highly encourage all FERS employees to save you SL (use it if you are sick) and take full advantage of this benifit if you can. One last note, SL is a privliage-not a right, even thou it is earned you don't have the right to abuse it. I should of payed closer attention to the fine print.
-
55601
Complaining CSRS participants... consider this: if FERS were not more cost effective for the gov't, (lower overall employee benefit) then why isn't the entire workforce still on CSRS?
Maybe they should open the doors one more time so all of you CSRS plan participants who still aren't happy can give up more benefits and join FERS, and FERS folks can switch to the CSRS plan.
-
55599
The problem with this attached provision is that it overshadows another provision also attached:
The bill also includes a provision that would automatically enroll all new federal employees and military service members in the Thrift Savings Plan's G Fund. The bill will also add a Roth 401(k) option for TSP participants.
This provision is only another way of trying to incorporate what is in H.R. 6500, which would make substantial changes to the federal employee Thrift Savings Plan.
Some of the changes that H.R. 6500 proposes would represent significant departures from the core principles of the TSP. The bill would allow the TSP board to create new funds at its own discretion, increasing the board's power and limiting congressional oversight. Lawmakers seem to want the board to use its new authority to expand the plan's offerings. This could include branching out into funds that are managed actively, or investing in specific industries such as real estate. Historically, the board has tried to avoid both.
There are a number of motives for giving the board more authority. Some members of the House want to be sure that the plan has a broad enough range of investment options to produce the maximum possible returns. Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, wants to increase the participation of minority-owned firms, which typically specialize in active fund management.
TSP Executive Director Gregory Long found himself explaining to lawmakers that passive fund management is not just a choice; it is a statutory requirement imposed by the lawmakers who established the plan. The requirement was designed to keep federal employees' retirement funds safe.
Bottom line:Congress is trying to create a loophole which will destabalize the program for all (except those in congress).
-
55595
It is amazing to see how many people do not understand the true differences in the two systems!! Simply asounding....!
-
55594
If OPM would let us DONATE sick leave to those who are in need of it instead of forcing us to donate annual leave, all my sick leave would be used for what it was originally intended. I'd rather some one in need get the benefit of it than hoard it just to get a negligable financial benefit years down the road. The actual time is worth more to me than the small percentage I'll get paid..... I don't live for this job and will never feel as though I owe it more than I'm paid, no matter how much that is or becomes.
-
55593
I worked under FERS for 18 years. Recently, I retired on 1 Jul 08 with a loss of 700 hours of sick leave hours. I hope this new bill would cover recent retirees.
-
55584
I wouldn't hold my breath on getting this into law. Congress will have to attach it to something, without a budget this is going no where
-
55580
Interesting thread.
I see a lot fo FERS people saying that they would willingly trade their FERS system for the CSRS syetem, but NOT A SINGLE CSRS person saying they would switch systems if they could, only whining that they want the 5% match also.
Hell, if I could have the CSRS system and a 5% as well, I'd take it. That's never gonna happen though.
-
55578
When CSRS employees were given the opportunity to switch to FERS, I didn't and am glad I didn't. The matching 5% wasn't a big deal to me, the sick leave issue was. Although I don't have as much sick leave as I could, because of health issues in past years, I am now making sure I have enough on the books to cover any necessary absences to care for my aging parents and disabled husband. Whether I use it or not because of that doesn't matter, since I will be able to count on it when it comes to retiring. Sure, it may not make much of a difference money-wise, but every little bit helps. I am not a person who comes to work sick, but I don't stay home just because I have a little ache or pain. What I don't like to see is a FERS-covered person start planning how they are going to use most of their sick leave a year or so before they retire. This new bill will take care of that.
-
55577
Andy, don't be so naive to think the world is right. It is only human nature that people, just as the system will do what's best for them. Although as a 20+ year federal employee I do not partake in abusing leave, I do not look down on people who choose to use what they have EARNED. The system needs to be fixed. It's not the people; it is the processes/systems that are in place. What you choose to do with yours is your business and not ours. Finally, we are not lazy, we are human.
-
55575
When FERS was introduced, we had the opportunity to switch. I did, and I am glad. There are pros and cons, but mostly I like the extra 5% and the tax benefits of the TSP. Everyone in CSRS had the same opportunity to change. Why complain if Congress now wants to give FERS employees part of the same benefits that CSRS has? CSRS people will not lose a thing. The chance of losing unused sick leave is a great incentive to stay home for little reason. FWIW.
-
55573
At my current salary of $100K and the years remaining until I retire, I would have to save ALL of my sick leave for the next 19 years just to get a 3% ($83 per month) increase in my monthly FERS annuity. You CSRS people who think they are actually giving us FERS people a break, DO THE MATH before you ask for 5% matching on your annual salary. At $100K per year, 5% matching would be $5,000 per year for every year you worked. $5,000 a year for 30 ($150,000) years is not comparable to $1,000 per year for however long I might live after I retire ($20,000 IF I live to be 82). Since when was unused sick leave a real component of either retirement system. I am going to use my sick leave as needed, if I have a few hours when I retire, great, I might get an extra $40 a month. WOW thats really going to improve my standard of living.
-
55572
I'm a long time CSRS employee with lots of SL on the books. I always thought the pension credit benefit was a good incentive to not abuse. My local county pays its retiring emlpoyees for every hour of unused SL, which is too generous and expensive - some walk away with a $100,000 SL bonus. The pension credit is a good balance and doesn't have a high one-time cost. It should definitely be extended to FERS employees. As for equity, we in CSRS get a more generous basic pension, so the calls for TSP matching for CSRS aren't valid.
-
55571
I'm CSRS and hope this change happens for my FERS brothers and sisters. No, I don't get a 5% matching but when given the opportunity to 'go FERS' ... I declined. The FERS plan is not as sweet as CSRS. Just one favor ... don't come to work when ill to save up sick leave. Please stay at home and get well.
-
55570
Address end of service sick leave credit for FERS is a practical matter not a fairness matter. The 85% CSRS planning conserve S/L and the 75% FERS planning to consume S/L drive the point home. When I was a new Ensign in the Navy in the Summer of '71, I was introduced to 2 help budget officers. A few days later 1 was gone and could note be replaced. He was out on terminal sick leave and retired in the Summer of '72. At that time CSRS could not get any benefit from unused sick leave. CSRS changed to alway retirement credit for unused S/L when the WW II folks started retiring. As the baby boomers get to retirement, FERS will be faced with the same realities that CSRS faced when the WW II folks got to retirement. Half a year's retirement credit for life for a CSRS person (earning 2% extra retirement per year of service) may be a lot more attractive than even UP TO $10,000 once for a FERS person (earning 2% extra retirement per year of service).
-
55568
What about employees who hired on before 1984, but switched to FERS? I hope we are included. It is one of the few positive things to happen in a long time.
-
55567
For you CSRS folks who don't believe that passage of this bill is fair and who believe that you should get a govt. match on TSP contribution, please go to one of the retirement classes to learn more about the differences in each plan. You will learn that CSRS retirees have the better retirement plan of the two. Also, you've been given the opportunity to contribute the maximum amount ($15,500) as any FERS employee to TSP. I didn't think that was fair because if that were the case when I was considering switching in my early 20's (5+ years of fed. service) with expectations of moving to private industry for the IT work after graduation then I would have stayed with CSRS. Instead, the switch requires that I work 2 years longer than if I had stayed with CSRS before being eligible for retirement. Furthermore, we FERS retirees must depend on the financial market and social security. That's scary! I get the "why in the world did you switch speech" whenever talking to any CSRS or FERS person about retirement. Even several of the retirement class instructors wonder why people switched. I believe our government did a disservice to feds. They should bring back CSRS government-wide. I've several friends who've retired from federal govt. under CSRS and they're doing great! Even better because they also contributed to TSP.
-
55566
The formula for CSRS is much more generous, even without the TSP match. As a past CSRS and now FERS, I see both sides and CSRS are the clear winners. As far as using sick leave prior to retirement, it makes sense to schedule elective surgeries prior to retirement if you don't get paid for unused sick leave. More employees would schedule these surgeries after retirement if they got paid for unused sick leave.
-
55565
Ruth You seem to be mixing apples and oranges. FERS employees get the matching funds to offset the poorer retirement benefits offered. Sick leave does not play a part of this. I'll trade your 2% CSRS for my 1% FERS.
-
55564
OK. You CSRS employees stating that if FERS employees get sick leave credit you should get matching TSP to keep things fair. WELL......if you want to talk fair, lets compare the CSRS annuity and the FERS annuity. If we both work for 41 years 11 months, you get 80% of your Hi3 and I get 42%. How's THAT fair??? That's why FERS gets matching and CSRS doesn't. For a FERS employee to get a retirement close to a CSRS we have to invest our own money. The sick leave is just a small piece of the benefit. You and I both save 2087 hours of sick leave. You get an additional 2% in your annuity. If this passes I get 1%. If not, I get nothing.
-
55563
OK CSRS folks, you're sounding a bit bitter. No, your TSP was not matched. But no, you did not pay into Social Security. Maybe you should have banked that money?
-
55562
This measure would encourage responsible use of sick leave by those under FERS. The creators of FERS did not want FERS to cost the federal government more than CSRS, i.e., they wanted the normal cost of the FERS defined benefit, cost of Social Security, and the government matching of TSP to be less than the normal cost of CSRS. Excluding sick leave from the FERS defined benefit calculation was one of the steps taken to ensure that the cost of FERS' three components was less than the normal cost of CSRS. Today, the costs of FERS may actually exceed the cost of CSRS since employees contribute more to TSP than the creators anticipated.
-
55561
I think this is fair and it benefits the fed too. After all, before this what motivation did soeone have for saving any sick time before leaving the government whether it was for just quitting or leaving under retirement. It is the right thing to do
-
55560
Ruth M. I would trade my matched contribution under my FERS retirement for your CSRS retirement in a heartbeat. You have a guaranteed pension while those of us under FERS have to rely mostly on the TSP and SS. Have you seen what is happening to all of the TSP funds lately? And I have no faith that SS will be around in 15 years when I retire. The small amount I gain from my sick leave will be nothing in comparison to your pension.
-
55559
Some CSRS employees think that this new proposed policy on sick leave is not fair. However I beg to differ. I would like a CSRS employee to match their retirement annuity with a FERS employee. As a FERS employees with over 2100 hours sick leave, I sit here every day and watch the CSRS employee constantly take sick leave just before they retire. What do you think will happen with FERS if there is no incentive?
-
55557
To: Ruth and me. Don't forget that under CSRS you did not pay Social Security tax. Under FERS we did. Under FERS we also paid a retirement deduction only a less percentage than CSRS. The percentages used to calculate the retirement annuity are higher under CSRS than FERS. I missed being under CSRS retirement by 45 days. I'd give almost anything to have been under CSRS even without the 5% TSP matching.
-
55556
Interesting how CSRS folks forget that they were excluded from TSP for a long time because of the provisions in their retirement system. Then they got access to the TSP and now some demand matching funds? It would seem to me that CSRS folks would welcome some measure of comparability for their FERS counterparts. The way I see it, credit for unused sick leave for FERS just levels the playing field with the CSRS side.
-
55555
Why are CSRS employees complaining about this? The CSRS retirement system was much better than the FERS system is, even if this bill passes. If I had a choice I would definitly pick CSRS over FERS.
-
55553
I'm happy to hear. I have about 12 years to go with already an enormous amount of S/L. I had decided the last two years of my career I was working 2 days a week in addition to my AWS day - now I'll reconsider.
-
55552
If one views accrued sick leave as a short term disability insurance policy, why would one expect all the preiums (accrued sick leave) to be refunded when the policy terminates at retirement?
-
55548
By the same token shouldn't Waxman, Moran & Kelley be incentivizing the accrual of retirement funds, not encouraging people to spend their pay ? Where's the TSP match incentive for CSRS employees ?
-
55546
These CSRS folks who complain they want matching 5% thrift benefits that FERS receives are really mixed up. Under FERS our high three multiplier is only 1.1%, then only after 25 years. Whereas there multipier is 2%, a huge difference!!
-
55543
GREAT!... Now if they would only do TWO more things to make things equal and fair. ONE >>> Remove the restriction where GS employees are pernalized due to their grade. Currently they are held to not advancing no more than 2 grades even though they qualify otherwise. On the other hand a person with equal qualifications coming in from the outside or a WG employee can apply for any grade. TWO >>> If management want employees to take COMP time rather than overtime, then allow them time and half for COMP time just as they would if they were working overtime. This is only fair and would make employees more willing to take comp time saving overtime dollars.
-
55542
The FERS adj for Sick leave will still be less than that of CSRS, but it's a great improvement. For those CSRS employees who think they are getting slighted by this, please note that they did not change the formula for the basic FERS ret benefit. FERS is still stuck with Soc Sec. and a Ret benefit that is (to say the least) significantly less than the CSRS defined pension. While TSP can be great, it is, as we have seen, money at risk in the markets -I'd take the CSRS benefit any day over even this improved FERS plan. The only downside of CSRS is lack of portability, which could be a killer in a BRAC RIF and you have no job.
-
55541
I came to the federal service about six years ago, after many years in the private sector, and have been blessed in not having to use vacation time for family care. I believe that sick leave is a great benifit, and if abused it will eventually be taken away, as it was in the private sector. It is like insurance, do you make a fraudulant claim just because you have insurance, and would like to use it?
-
55539
So now FERS employees get equal credit for sick leave and still get the 5% TSP match? Lets be fair - either stop the 5% match to FERS, or let them keep it but also give the same 5% match to CSRS employees for as long as they've been contributing into the TSP. In my case thats about 15 years, and if I had the match during that time my account balance would be at least 50% higher or more.
-
55537
Passing this bill make sense for the country and for the federal employees. It is hard for those of us have a lot of sick leave accumulated and at the end had to through it away. This will also motivate employees to come to work when they are not really sick before they retire. I consider I earn that part of my benefits too because I work very hard for it. For the CSRS people, you choose not to convert, so don't be unhappy about it. I am sure it will be prorated.
-
55536
If we are all federal employees, FERS and CSRS employees both should get the sick leave and matching TSP funds.
-
55535
With nearly 1800 hours of unused sick leave under FERS, I'm presented with a moral dilemma: use the leave before I retire for less than "approved" reasons, or give away a significant chunk of money. Equalizing the systems is the honorable way to solve my dilemma.
-
55534
To Ruth who wrote..."My TSP fund was not matched as FERS employees were. I do not believe all the FERS sick leave hrs should be credited. They should have a bankable amount to be used for emergency use only and maintain an amount on the books for non emergency use/family leave, etc. Their retirement system is a 3 tier system- not to include sick leave. CSRS employees then should get their TSP fund matched - why the difference??"
I will trade retirement plans with you any day. My 3 tiered system is social security (which may or may not pay me all that I put in), an average of 30% pension (1%xhi3xyrs service), and the TSP (in which you have to aggressively invest and put in as much as you can). You CSRS employees have never had to pay into social secuirty as feds and have more generous pensions when you retire...and you get to invest in the TSP on top of it. The only thing you are missing is the matching. I bet most FERS employees would trade with you in a second. I know the people I work with who are under CSRS laugh at us FERSters and tell us we will be working until we are 70. I would even take the CSRS retirement and give all my sick leave away than stay in FERS.
-
55533
To the CSRS employees demanding to get the TSP match.
Would you then be willing to trade getting 2% of your high 3 salary for each year worked for 1% for each year worked like FERS? Or to give an example.
A CSRS employee would work 40 years and would get 80% of their high 3 salary. fully indexed to inflation when they retired. NO matter what; GUARANTEED.
A FERS employee would work 40 year and get 40% of their high 3 salary, and not fully indexed to inflation. The FERS employee MIGHT come out ahead IF they put enough money into the TSP, and IF the market does well enough over their career AND doesn't crash right before they plan to retire AND if Social Security is still solvent.
Ever wonder why government employees were only given the option to switch from CSRS to FERS, but not the other way around?
-
55532
to all those who don't think that fers employees should get to use their sick leave toways retirement....i'll trade you pension plans any day.....put me under csrs and you take the fers benefit package ,deal??i didn't think so.....
-
55530
I think this is a great idea. I'm one of the young feds, 10 years of service with about 33 years to go. I have 700+ hours of sick leave, so you can see I'm not an abuser. i would love to see it apply to my retirement.
-
55529
I am all for you CSRS employees getting matching funds as soon as I stop paying social security taxes that I most likely will never benefit from, Or you start paying Social Security and we all get matching funds.
-
55527
I don't think making sick leave rules the same for all employees is somehow the equivalent of TSP matching. The Congress is attempting to correct an injustice. In the FERS the most I can get is 30% after 30 years of service, while CSRS can get 2% for every year after 10 years and up to 80% max. If you got matching, we would need something else, so where would this stop?
-
55526
Some CSRS people are complaining that we FERS people getting out TSP matched. What they haven't brought up is we only receive one percent of our high three for each year we work, which means after 30 years, we should have a pension of 30 percent of our high three, not a miminum of 55 percent that our CSRS friends are guaranteed.
-
55525
This is a common sense approach to the problem. While employees are not supposed to "use up sick leave" before they retire, the reality is that this occurs. While employees do this they receive full salary and benefits, continue to accure leave, and encumber a position that can't be filled. The small additional amount added to the FERS pension (1044 hours adds 6 months) would likely save the taxpayers money in the long run.
As for the comment by "me"; you can have some matching contributions if you want to give up the CSRS cost-of-living increases fully indexed to the CPI, versus the CPI minus 2% with the much smaller annuity under FERS.
-
55524
FERS employees don't know how good they got it.
They pay 0.8% into the "CSRS component" and get 1% per year of their high three.
CSRS employees pay 7% into the plan, and get slightly less than 2% per year of their high three. Thats it for CSRS.
But FERS employees also get matching TSP funds as well as Social Security. And if a CSRS employee also qualifies for Social Security, they get penalized for it.
So when FERS employees are not credited for sick leave, they abuse the system. That is a lack of ethics, plain and simple.
-
55523
Sick Leave is an insurance policy and should be accumulated as a protection against an unknown catastrophe. Although the benefit may seem small, being able to add it to pension years is an added incentive to save SL. Bravo to congress for taking action on this benefit. By the way I have nearly 3,500 SL and under CSRS.
-
55522
If FERS employees get the same benefits of CSRS then we should get the same. Our TSP funds should be matched by the same 5%. Its only fair to the employees under CSRS.
-
55520
Folks, don't get me wrong. I like the idea of getting this benefit. However, I do need to point out that what we're talking about here is sick leave. It's supposed to be used when you're sick. If you retire with a balance of sick leave, it is not wasted. It served its purpose. Having worked in the private sector for 13 years, we didn't get unlimited sick leave, comp time, credit time, paid over time and sometimes we didn't even get a match on our 401k. Comparatively speaking, Government employees do pretty well so stop complaining!
-
55519
I got partial credit for my unused sick leave because I had some years under CSRS. I "lost" over 700 hours of sick leave, but I don't see this as leave that I should have used/abused. Yes, I would have liked to receive credit for it, but I resented those people who treated it as something that was due to them. It's there in case we get sick, not as a retirement benefit. The government could reduce usage if they agreed to pay people at a certain percentage of their pay rate for unused leave.
-
55518
Ruth,
The difference is because CSRS employees get a bigger annuity than FERS employees. I do retirement estimates all the time. You take an employee making $37000/year with 30 years a service, his/her CSRS annuity would be around 1200/month, you calculate this under FERS rules, it goes down to about 400/month. We need TSP to survive. I'm 36 and have 1055 hrs of sick leave, you better believe I'm going to be calling in sick toward retirement, I'm not going to throw away 33 years worth of sick leave....
-
55516
Too little, too late. I'll just burn off my 1800 plus hours of FERS sick leave as extra vacation time.
-
55513
Finally, someone in Congress gets it!! This is a very big moral booster. Now if Congress would only raise the pittance they call the fixed portion of our FERS retirement we just might be considered competitive with the higher paying civillian sector.
-
55512
Very interesting comments from CSRS employees. As FERS employee I would like to get 75% of my pay as retirement + SL added to the years of service. Unfortunately 3-tier retirement - FERS + SS + TSP doesn't add up to 75%. I would have preferred to pay 7.65% into the retirement instead SS. My SS may be reduced at the time I will need it the most. So why such arrogant comments from CSRS employees?
-
55508
I don't understand why CSRS are bitter that FERS employees are getting the benefit of sick leave. E.g., the complain that a CSRS employee wants the extra 5% TSP match.
Well, as a FERSer I would trade the 5% TSP match to the CSRSers for their pension plan (maxing out at 80% of pay) instead of the 1% per year FERSers get (I'd have to work until I was 106 to get 80%). Also, I wouldn't mind pocketing an extra 6.2% of my gross pay because CSRSers do not pay FICA--that's an extra 6.2% NET of AFTER tax dollars in the take home.
-
55507
This is great news! I have always felt it was unfair that FERS employees lose unused sick leave. This will encourage workers not to abuse their sick leave and make for a more productive work force.
-
55503
As a FERS employee I demand 75% of my salary upon retirement if CSRS employees get matching 5% TSP.
-
55502
Ruth Meyers isn't telling it all. FERS receive only a small portion of the federal retirement that CSRS receives, and that is why CSRS employees do not have TSP matching funds. CSRS remains the best retirement system even without matching funds.
Additionally, adding sick leave to retirement is such a small percentage of funds received that the added time means almost nothing for FERS and for CSRS.
-
55501
First, thank you for finally creating an incentive for employees to NOT take sick leave. Second, to those CRS employees who will now complain, CRS pays way better than FERS even with this new possible benefit. I'll be happy to trade with you any time you desire.
-
55500
CSRS employees have a great retirement compared to FERS who practically have none if they don't save while they work. CSRS employees have a guaranteed retirement. Even with the matching funds from uncle sam FERS employees receive if the stock market is tanking like now you watch your retirement shrink right before your eyes. When we retire and use up the FERS accumulations we're left managing the increasing cost of living year to year Using Social Security and the 1 percent Gov guarantee as our retirement. Are You sure you want a peice of that pie. You should keep what you have and thank your luck stars you have a guaranteed income under CSRS.
-
55499
CSRS employees had a choice to change. FERS employees dont.
-
55497
I cannot believe the indignancy of CSRS employees. You could have opted out. You didn't because you knew FERS was not a better system. You want in? Pay the Social Security, and pray that it will be there when you retire! How greedy.
-
55495
As a USDA employee for 22 yrs, I have almost 1600 hrs of accrued SL. If Congress won't pass this bill, I hope they change the law so that we can get paid a lump sum for some SL, and possibly allow us to donate a large amount of SL to some general govt. pool for qualified individuals.
-
55493
It's interesting CSRS employes don't know the FERS retirement mulitplier is only one percent times years of service--that's why they contribute our our TSP. A change in sick leave policy is fair and appropriate.
-
55492
I hired in Oct. 1983 just before mandatory FERS retirement began in Jan. 1984 and had the choice of CSRS or FERS. At the time I chose CSRS mainly because no one could tell me anything about FERS. I later changed over to FERS to take advantage of the stock market rally and the 5% matching contribution. Both sytems require the same percentage of contribution but CSRS pays NO Social Security. Sick leave is a benefit that you earn as part of your employment and FERS employees as well as CSRS should be paid for the unused balances or time added to retire early in my opinion. If you look at what CSRS employees actually get for there sick leave you would be shocked. It is smart to go on sick leave pending retirement and get paid full salary than to have the small percentage added in. Same way with FERS. I suggest you all put a pencil to it. And by the way, what plan are our Senators and Congressman under. Niether! Ever wonder why!
-
55491
Do CSRS employees pay Social Security? Yeah, I didn't think so "me - Posted July 31, 2008 - 8:19 AM"
-
55488
I do think it's about time. I am a FERS employee and I also agree with some of the CSRS employee's comments below. I think that they should get matching funds (5%) for their TSP...and in regard to that, I think that FERS employees should get a refund on their Social Security taxes they have paid in which some of the CSRS employees seemed to have forgotten to mention below. The sick leave is a minimal dollar amount...the Social Security is HUGE! So, give CSRS what they want and give me back my money I have paid into Social Security.
-
55482
People still forget, THIS IS AN EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT! Sick time; it was bargained for by union/employee relations. Who had ever given back a bargained for benefit? What a better incentive to use sick days than by not compensating employees for a BARGAINED BENEFIT of employment!!
-
55481
To clarify the unfairness felt by the CSRS folks, FERS employees get 5% matching for TSP, but use a 1% multiplier for pension calculations. CSRS employees get a 2% multiplier instead. As a FERS employee, I would trade you in a second. Don't lose sleep over what someone else is getting and appreciate the fact that this bill will encourage employees to not use sick days surreptitiously.
-
55479
Wise move, this change will curb the current use-it-or-lose-it mentality, and benefit both the government and employees. I have 22 year and 1700 hours.
-
55478
Even with full matching FERS employees only get 1% a year annuity. But still better then nothing. Bring it on!
-
55472
For those in CSRS who think that they should get government matching 5% TSP funds.I will be more then happy to trade my FERS retirement for your CSRS retirement anyday.Watch what you ask for,you just might get it.
-
55467
I don't think it is fair tha they keep changing the rules for fers employees. Back when they started the fers retirement system I might have switched if the rules were as changed. They are continually changing fers for the better. I think the only fair solution is: if they are going to buy fers sick leave, They should have to buy CSRS also!! I will be calling my congressman.
-
55465
This is great news! I can retire in 2.5 years under FERS and have 1,470 hours of SL. In order use my present balance of SL, plus what I will accrue, I figured I would have to use 3 days of SL per pay period, starting now until I retire. If this passes, I can continue being a team player, as I always have.
-
55464
Ruth, Your CSR retirement is one heck of a lot better than FERS. We should get credit for the sick leave we saved, just like you do.
-
55463
To Ruth:
I am a federal employee under FERS. I would be delighted to trade retirement systems with you in its current state.
-
55462
CSRS employees get twice the pension percentage as FERS, equating sick leave credit with TSP matching is apples to oranges.
-
55461
Excuse me if I'm wrong but didn't EVERYONE have the opportunity to convert to FERS?
-
55459
This is a good move for our agency. I retired Nov 2005. I gave up several hundred hours. I worked so may days sick, but I was needed at the Office, so I worked. I did not receive credit in anyway for my hours. Looking back, I should have taken the time, but I felt like the farmers needed my help. Could this please cover us that retired in the last five years?
-
55458
Retire as soon as you able before Bush and NSPS take everything you have away.
-
55456
I am about to retire (Sept 2008) in two months. I was hired as a CSRS employee in 1981 and switched to FERS the end of 1998. At the time of the switch to FERS I had 1,458 sick leave hours (with 17 years service). My attitude towards the sick leave benefit was to save as much as possible. With the prospect of losing close to 400 sick leave hours (earned during my FERS employment period) I hope I will be eligible for the new ruling. I feel that the CSRS employees, who claim that if FERS get equal sick leave benefits they (CSRS employees) should be matched, are wrong. The CSRS retirement is a richer plan (with the 2% per year as compared with FERS 1 - 1.1% per year)and that is why FERS have a TSP match. I feel that the prospect of losing whatever you don't use (in FERS) is morale defeating and causes an already sick leave usage problem to be worse than it already is. I would like to know if the 'new' proposal will benefit me since it is highly unlikely that I will use my FERS sick leave by the time I retire.
-
55452
I cannot believe the number of people that have admitted to abusing the system; and acting like its their right. No wonder government employees get labeled as being lazy. Thanks alot.
-
55451
As a CSRS employee, I decided years ago to stay with CSRS because I wouldn't get credit for sick leave. If I had known they were going to change the rules of the game, I probably would have gone with FERS.
Now what? Will I be given a retroactive choice?
While I hope this passes, it seems very unfair to CSRS employees like me who had to make a decision years ago without knowing all the facts!
-
55450
csrs people do you pay social security like fers people? if you dont then thats a bigger saving then the gov matching tsp 5% wish i did not have to pay almost $200 every two weeks to soc security
-
55449
This a sensiable idea that should have been in place since the onset of the FERS system. FERS employee got the short of the stick when the gov went from CSRS to the FERS system, lets repair their retirement system sooner rather than later.
-
55448
This a sensiable idea that should have been in place since the onset of the FERS system. FERS employee got the short of the stick when the gov went from CSRS to the FERS system, lets repair their retirement system sooner rather than later.
-
55445
Concur with comments relating to making a change to the CSRS side also, specifically matching the 5% of TSP contributions. Since the proposal would allow all earned Sick Leave to be counted toward retirement for FERS employees, all TSP contributions by CSRS employees should be matched retroactively. But don't hold your breath.
-
55441
I am a FERS employee and have accumulated alot of sick leave, so I am very much in favor of having the change so this will go toward my retirement.
-
55440
As a CSRS employee, I made my decision to not switch to FERS based on the total package that was being offered. The plan to allow FERS employees credit for unused sick leave may not have changed my decision, but it might have for some people. If they are going to give the FERS employees more of the benefits that CSRS employees get, they should do the same for CSRS people, like matching TSP contributions.
-
55438
OK, CSRS Employees, you can have the matching 5% TSP when we get 2% versus 1% of our hi-3 as our pension.....don't leave out the whole picture.
-
55436
I am glad something like this is being pushed. I have 11 years of service and have over 1,000 hours of sick time. How is it that some people with over 20 years have only half that amount. I know people get sick and that is what the time is there for but too many people use it as a free vacation day. Earn a day burn a day. That is why many of us don't donate SL. Some people may not like it but I say tough to those who used a sick day and now are going to complain and say "where's mine"
-
55433
Surprises me to hear any CSRS employees gripe..they have such a better deal. And I feel bad for those who fell for the Govs offer to convert out of it when we went to FERS. Do you think we switched from CSRS to FERS because the Government wanted to do more for employees, or was the motive to try to save money? Rhetorical..I know the answer. I'll take retiring at 70% of my pay --CSRS--, over 35% and 5% TSP matching --FERS-- ANYDAY. I have two CSRS in my organization with over 3200hrs sick leave that will count toward retirement under FERS..which means they almost NEVER called in sick..would any FERS employee be so judicious with their sick leave. This is a good idea to do for the Employee and for Management, as it will make FERS employees less likely to want to burn/abuse sick leave.
-
55429
Leave for Emergency services has never had paradie with 40 hr. fed employees, the issue of being able to use it for retirement is not cost effective, if you take the leave, say 1 yr, you get the pay and the % torward your retirement. If you just give the leave back, all you get is a percent a year. Take % earnings amount and divide it in to that year's salary you would have gotten.(had you take your earned Sick leave).......you wont live that long.
Civil service has very few benifits, use all them to your best advantage
-
55428
I think the comments on getting the same benefits for FERS (matching funds) for the CSRS employees are miss leading. The FERS employees do not get the same benefits under RETIREMENT as the CSRS and that is why they get the matching 5%. The sick leave is a different issue in my mind. With currently over 1100 hrs. of sick leave and 12 years to retirement, I would love to see this pass!
-
55426
Thank you for considering the Sick Leave for the FERS sick Leave Policy. I have been employed with my Agency since 2000 and I am not one to abuse my leave. I have built up a total of 863.25 hours for sick leave. Of course, I could get sick and wipe all this away. I plan to retire in a couple of years and I would love having what I have built up considered with my retirement. Thanks again. Bea Hurst
-
55424
Ruth, you are absolutely correct. As for Artee's comment, why would you have switched to FERS when you had been with CSRS since 1969? If it does pass, you'll loose some of your sick leave anyway. You can only use a year's worth.
Since we're being so nice to the FERS employees, it's about time that those of us under CSRS, get to retire without a penalty. Believe me, I'd leave now and I wouldn't care if the door hit me on the way out! We're on a definite down-hill run. Come on 31 Jan 2010.......
-
55423
For all the CSRS complaining that they now want matching TSP...consider how your pension is rougly *double* that of FERS...THAT is why FERS people get the TSP matching. Now if you want to give up your over-sized pension (i.e. cut it in half) and get the matching TSP, I'd vote for that in a second...cheaper for the government and thereby tax-payers like myself. The change in sick leave policy was a carrot to keep people at work, lost productivity costs a lot of money.
-
55422
This is necessary legislation. I frequently see personnel trying to use their sick leave prior to retirement. If there were an incentive to not use sick leave, the number of requests for donated leave would drop substantially. This would encourage personnel to save sick leave for when it is truly needed in case of medical or family necessity.
-
55421
For those complaining about making CSRS employees whole, by giving them matching TSP money - What did you say when you were allowed to make "catch up" contributions to make up for not having a 401k early in your career? You didn't have a TSP account because your defined benefit was substantial enough to stand alone. How about the fact that the max TSP contribution was 5% for CSRS for many years, but now you can contribute as much as a FERS employee? CSRS employees have no reason to complain.
-
55415
As a FERS employee, I will gladly change retirement systems with a CSRS employee. Here's an example, and granted this depends on what your salary is at the time of retirement, this is only an example. A CSRS employee will take home about $3,000.00 USD a month (never had to pay into Social Security) upon retirement. A FERS employee will take home half of that, $1,500.00 USD. The other $1,500.00 will be a combination of TSP and Social Security benefits. And then again the TSP is only there until it runs out. The government, just like any company, will certainly revamp the retirement system again, probably in the near future. This will leave the federal employee with no retirement, just the TSP. And how is your TSP doing today? I demand the same benefits as a CSRS employee!
-
55410
If this passes, this will eliminate some of the waste and abuse of sick leave. I support it 100%.
-
55409
Good. All employees should be treated alike.
But, as a non-lifer fed who is under CSRS, my earned SSN will be whacked. Talk about second class citizenship.
I paid my money and got my 40 quarters before I was a Fed. I am not rich and I will miss my money.
-
55408
Those of you under CSRS who think you should have the same TSP matching funds benefit as those of us in FERS -- think about this -- I would gladly switch with you! Give me a pension like you have! Your retirement plan is much better than ours. Everyone I know who has retired under CSRS is doing GREAT! Not so great retiring under FERS.
-
55407
Does the text say that retiring after 3 years after the enactment of the bill we would be credited 1-for-1 days for credit against our annuity?
-
55406
I noticed that a couple of CSRS employees don't agree with this plan, Please remember that under FERS, the monthly pension will be very much less. Yes, FERS retirees get Social Security, but they have to pay into it, whereas you did not. Personally, I would glady give up Social Security and instead invest that money. I think if you look at all the facts, CSRS is a better deal. Maybe it's just a case of "the grass is greener..."
-
55405
Someone used 700 hours SL as AL and the agency approved it? Are they a good employee? Is the agency a good stewardship of taxpayer's money? What would a taxpayer think of this?
-
55404
I think this is great. I have 15 years to go and already have over 1500 hrs of SL. I look forward to getting the credit toward retirement. If possible anyone who wants to trade their CSRS retirement for my FERS to get the 5% matching just let me know. I will even throw in the SL I have accumulated.
-
55403
me - get over it. TSP employees are also the ones bailing out Social Security, so the least the Feds can do is give us 5% matching.
-
55402
I have worked for FSA for over 20 years and plan to retire the end of October, 2008.Would you please make this law so I can use my sick leave for retirement that is if I have enough to do any good. This should have happened a long time ago.
-
55399
I had to try and use up almost 700 hrs. of sick leave and managed to do it only because my office let me do it, will only give back 1/5 hour. You try to be a good employee come to work not bang in and then you get stuck in the end. It is not a fair system. I hope that it will get changed, too late for me though.
-
55398
My TSP fund was not matched as FERS employees were. I do not believe all the FERS sick leave hrs should be credited. They should have a bankable amount to be used for emergency use only and maintain an amount on the books for non emergency use/family leave, etc. Their retirement system is a 3 tier system- not to include sick leave. CSRS employees then should get their TSP fund matched - why the difference??
-
55397
The pension portion of CSRS is tiny. The incremental amount added by including sick leave is also going to be tiny.
-
55394
I think this is a GREAT policy. It certainly gives FERS employees more incentive to save their sick leave.
-
55392
I have two and one-half years before I can retire. If this will allow me to retire any sooner, I certainly hope it passes. Please do everything you can to get this passed. I would like for it to apply up front toward an earlier retirement date rather than being added to the end on paper to make my retirement check a little bigger.
-
55390
With almost 20 years of service, over 890 hours of sick leave, and planning to retire in 2009, this is great news! Hopefully, the sick leave measure will benefit me and others that plan to retire soon. Thanks!
-
55389
I think that FERS employees should have the benefit of SL counting towards retirement like the Civil Service employees.
-
55385
Thank You! I have been employed as a DA Civilian for 19+ years and have 450 hrs. of sick leave on the books. I have always considered sick leave the property of the Govt. that I can use for LEGITIMATE health care. During the years, I have seen a succession of co-workers use it like personal leave only to ask for leave donations when they have a need and do not have any accrued sick leave. I plan to take retirement next year and getting credit for unused sick leave would be a welcome reward.
-
55384
It's about time. I started my fed caREER IN 1969 under CSRS and worked under that system until it was deadended in 1984. I switched to FERS during the open season primarily to get the TSP benefits. I am nearing retirement, and my SL earned under CSRS is credited to my retirement (about 1000 hrs), but my SL (1066 hrs) under FERS is not. Thus I have been using my SL every chance I get to use up the excess over my CSRS credit.
-
55383
Thank you so much for righting this wrong.
-
55381
This is good thing for FERS employees, It not only will reduce the number of playing hooky days but will increase moral. I hope it will be as fair as CSRS employees.
-
55375
OK, then, as a CSRS employee, I demand the same benefits as a FERS employee, specifically, government matching 5% TSP funds.
-
55373
I fully agree! Now hurry it through before I retire in one year
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.