TOPICS
TOPICS
House panel adds pay parity to budget resolution
The House Budget Committee has included language in the fiscal 2010 budget resolution to establish parity between the pay raises for military service members and civilian employees.
"This budget language makes absolutely clear that this Congress is committed to federal employee pay parity, and that we intend to approve adjustments this year that are equal across all sectors of the government workforce," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who praised Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., chairman of the House Budget Committee, and Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., for adding the language to the resolution.
The language does not set the actual amount of the 2010 pay raise for military and civilian employees. Those figures will be decided during the appropriations process, as is customary. The Senate Budget Committee is debating its own version of the budget this week.
President Obama initially proposed a 2 percent pay increase for civilian employees and a 2.9 percent raise for service members, prompting protests from Democratic lawmakers and unions.
Connolly, who represents a large number of federal employees in his Northern Virginia district, called for civilians and military personnel to receive the same pay raise. Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee, suggested that both military and civilian personnel deserve larger raises in light of their contributions to the country overseas and at home during the financial crisis.
"Just as our military men and women have distinguished themselves throughout history, and particularly during this time of war, our civilian federal employees also perform critically important work on essential government functions and services," Connolly said.
Union leaders praised the addition of pay parity language to the budget resolution.
"Federal employees work diligently to provide public services, especially when our nation is in crisis," said John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. "As the demand for public services increases, the federal government must have the ability to retain and recruit the highest quality personnel."
Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said pay parity has been a key element of federal pay policy for the past 20 years.
COMMENTS
- Our country is experiencing an economic depression, which is affecting most of its citizens. The Congress and previous President did not act to limit the excesses in the financial system that created large financial incentives to place the public and our government at risk, As one who is committed to our country and to proactive public service, I believe that we should try to help our country in its time of need. We should give back our pay raise and volunteer extra non-pay hours to help our country recover. We should also demand increase accountability from Congress and our executive branch leaders, particularly in the Treasury Department and the Department of Homeland Security. We should also speak-up against the unnecessary spending and 8,000 earmarks contained in the recently passed FY 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill. John Posted March 31, 2009 12:52 PM
- What's amazing is that i keep hearing people go ON AND ON about how stable federal government jobs are - i have been eye witness to FOUR government employees be fired in my agency in the past year alone. Not all federal employees are the same! Many of us are in the excepted service (ALL of TSA is, and news flash not everyone at TSA is a screener), which you can be fired very easily. Some even federal employees are employed in VA wchich is an at will state, well, when you are a GS-5 right out of college and in your probationary period, paying student loans, etc. etc. that extra increase DOES make a difference. BTW the government does not even consider tuition reimbursement until someone is with the agency for a year, so while most people here are fat and happy with their career positions, 30 years of experience, and job stability - there are MANY federal employees that are not in that fat dumb and happy position. do NOT lump us all into the same category. All it takes is a new fed in their probationary period to have a crappy manager, and they are unemployed too. All feds do not have the same protection as those with 30 years in service. rerere Posted March 27, 2009 6:21 PM
- Yeah - great - but those under NSPS - how is this going to affect us? How much pay are we going to get cheated out of because of Rumsfeld and this terrible system. Remember when FERS was coming on board - OPM said it was so much better than the CSRS. Well - employees know that is not the case. Let's see - retire with 30% instead of 70%; wait until age 62 with 30 years of service instead of age 55 with 30 years of service. How is THAT better - same analogy as NSPS - take away our GS grades and role us up under pay banding and oh by the way, there go your yearly raises. Yes, I am glad that I have a job. For many of us, being in civil service was NOT about money, but NSPS made it ALL about money. Let's see them get rid of NSPS. Now THAT would be pay parity!! Suzanne Posted March 27, 2009 11:49 AM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco
