GovernmentExecutive.com

COMMENTS

• S, I’m truly happy for your good fortune. In the military, exposure to combat and injury is, fortunately, NOT assured nor equal. Many do NOT get deployed, or exposed if deployed, and that is specifically why I would recommend a big increase in the targeted combat and deployment pays for EVERYONE deployed; civilian and military alike and in accordance with their exposure. These pays are the most economically, efficient, and motivating costs/benefits of volunteering/being assigned to the conflict area. Additionally, the LEOs of our country, whether they are federal, local, stateside, or overseas, do an outstanding job and should likewise be compensated accordingly. I DO understand that they have a more generous retirement, in some cases involuntary overtime pays, and other targeted pays that do some of the job. Likewise there has been disagreement within the LEOs as to who should and should not be considered a LEO. I understand from posts here there has been some … discussion from within the ranks as to the merits of certain desk jobs… eh, some positions being designated LEO status. I will bow to your expertise on that issue. In general, pay equivalency is based on the concept of “equal pay for equal work” and many of us (the civilian side of me now) do work side-by-side with green suiters day in and day out. Heck, some of US worked the SAME job both as military AND as civilians. But I cannot stress enough that there remains fundamental differences between military and NON-LEO civilian career fields and that includes the uncertainty factor of deployment, rotation of assignments (frequent transfers are a primary reason for the quarters allowance), even salary versus hourly pay, in many cases … additional duties even while working in the same office. And I don’t care who you are… being taken away from your family for years at a time can be extremely burdensome on everyone. Been there, done that, got the shirt, and ain’t going back! As always, there are always exceptions to the rule, the lucky ones who never get deployed, never see combat, and stay in the same post, sometimes position for what seems like decades. In the military we used to call them “homesteading REMFs”. That’s just the nature of the beast. And, yes, I STILL find it strange that Skeeter and I agree on anything… But we seem to on this topic. *^) Tip off Posted March 20, 2009 8:49 AM
• I've been in the military where I faced no more danger then a possible papercut, and am currently in Fed Law Enforcement where our people deal with armed criminal, drug smugglers, etc. So the equation that all military people see more danger is not true. Also, as far as benefits go, as a civilian our bennies are good but we don't get base housing with free utilities, base medical care, PX, etc for our families so extra pay does come in handy. Trust me, when you work in high cost of living areas and every criminal on the street lives better than you do, it makes a difference. I'm all for rewarding the work but I'd suggest make the base pays comparable and give bonus pay based on deployments, danger zones, etc to reward the individuals that deserve it. S. Posted March 19, 2009 12:44 PM
• Civil Service has always been paid less than their contractor counterparts. And in tough economic times the disparity can grow even wider. However, as DoD civilians, we should have an equal foothold in our worth with respect to defending our country along with those in uniform. Many of us are tied to a 24/7 mission that directly supports the warfighter. This incurs many hardships that the Monday thru Friday guys dont have to deal with. An equal pay raise for DoD civilians and green suiters seems very appropriate. Actually, if you really think about it all Federal Employees should get equal pay raises for both military and civilian. Gary Nonaka Posted March 19, 2009 6:39 AM