Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

[Double Trouble]

Another thing to add to all the BS others have found was this in the benefits section...

"Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions"

Problem with that is that mostly applies to OLDER workers, not those in the last 20 years. Older workers fall under the retirement plan known as CERS. With that plan there is no matching for the TSP (think 401k) but if they work for 25+ years they get a percent of their salary as pension. Newer Feds, like me, are under the FERS system. In that system we can get up to 5% matching in our TSP/401k but our retirement pension is next to nothing.

I also can attest that I do not get anywhere near 40k a year in benefits. Now a CERS retired person may get that or more. So these numbers like most in this do not look at the whole picture, they just put up enough for some faux outrage.

Your personal situation is irrelevant to a discussion of the totals, it's anecdotal at best. There is evidence all over the place - especially at the state level - that there are massive unsustainable benefits packages given to government workers. Some quick googling will provide you with ample evidence, many states are grappling with that problem now.

With regards to defined benefit versus defined contribution type pensions, the private sector moved towards defined contribution (like 401(k) looooong before the public sector did. Even now, there are still many areas of government (especially state and local levels) where defined benefit plans remain the norm, further pushing the gap between public and private.

Also, ongoing medical insurance is a huge benefit, and government employees tend to have much better medical insurance plans than private sector workers, because private companies don't have unlimited funding and they need to actually make a profit as opposed to just spending without limit that the government can do.

 

[Vette73]

Your personal situation is irrelevant to a discussion of the totals, it's anecdotal at best. There is evidence all over the place - especially at the state level - that there are massive unsustainable benefits packages given to government workers. Some quick googling will provide you with ample evidence, many states are grappling with that problem now.

With regards to defined benefit versus defined contribution type pensions, the private sector moved towards defined contribution (like 401(k) looooong before the public sector did. Even now, there are still many areas of government (especially state and local levels) where defined benefit plans remain the norm, further pushing the gap between public and private.

Also, ongoing medical insurance is a huge benefit, and government employees tend to have much better medical insurance plans than private sector workers, because private companies don't have unlimited funding and they need to actually make a profit as opposed to just spending without limit that the government can do.

You may want to do some reading yourself. What I said was not "anecdotal" it is how the Fed system is set up. Look up CERS and FERS and it will match what I said. I know this as I work in HR for State Dept. So it’s my job to know pay, benefits, etc... and this story is BS.
The only people to believe this story are idiots that can't think for themselves. Kinda like some idiot bringing up states issues in a thread that headlines "Federal workers..."

 

[Double Trouble]

You may want to do some reading yourself. What I said was not "anecdotal" it is how the Fed system is set up. Look up CERS and FERS and it will match what I said. I know this as I work in HR for State Dept. So it’s my job to know pay, benefits, etc... and this story is BS.
The only people to believe this story are idiots that can't think for themselves. Kinda like some idiot bringing up states issues in a thread that headlines "Federal workers..."

Uh, notice in my post I specifically said "government workers" not just federal government. Further, I'm also very familiar with FERS versus CERS, and yes, your own situation is anecdotal, it doesn't tell us anything about the rest of the population. If you talk about federal workers in general - especially adding some insight that those of us not working in HR in the fed govt don't have - you add value to the discussion. I don't see how your personal compensation plan is relevant.

FERS and CERS have nothing to do with medical benefits and insurance, which is where I see a big gap right now. With the fed govt moving more towards defined contribution versus defined benefit plans, the gap for that aspect of benefits will begin to taper off over time, but it's going to be a looong time before you're going to see that in the stats.

 

[Vette73]

Uh, notice in my post I specifically said "government workers" not just federal government. Further, I'm also very familiar with FERS versus CERS, and yes, your own situation is anecdotal, it doesn't tell us anything about the rest of the population. If you talk about federal workers in general - especially adding some insight that those of us not working in HR in the fed govt don't have - you add value to the discussion. I don't see how your personal compensation plan is relevant.

FERS and CERS have nothing to do with medical benefits and insurance, which is where I see a big gap right now. With the fed govt moving more towards defined contribution versus defined benefit plans, the gap for that aspect of benefits will begin to taper off over time, but it's going to be a looong time before you're going to see that in the stats.

Then you are blind and should not have commented on what I wrote as you did not get any of it.

My "personal compensation plan" is the same one all new hires and those in the last 20 or so years gets. The story adds the older ones to the newwer ones and makes it seem that a Fed Employee gets a lot more then we do.
Also we pay a percent of the medical benifits. So if rates go up so do what we pay. It is not pay this and get anything you want. My rates have gone up every year I have worked for State Dept. So we also are getting higher rates like the private sector.

 

[HydroSqueegee]

thats a bunch of BS. At least where I live.

I work on Wright-Patt AFB. I was a contractor for years and just recently the group I work with got hired in as a civil servants. Almost everyone took a 30% or more pay cut. As contractors they were making over 100k as Server Admins. Now no one is making anything near that.

 

[Double Trouble]

Then you are blind and should not have commented on what I wrote as you did not get any of it.

My "personal compensation plan" is the same one all new hires and those in the last 20 or so years gets. The story adds the older ones to the newwer ones and makes it seem that a Fed Employee gets a lot more then we do.
Also we pay a percent of the medical benifits. So if rates go up so do what we pay. It is not pay this and get anything you want. My rates have gone up every year I have worked for State Dept. So we also are getting higher rates like the private sector.

You said "I also can attest that I do not get anywhere near 40k a year in benefits.". That is anecdotal and irrelevant. The other stuff you said and what you said in a later post (that all new hires get the same benefits you do) IS relevant. The fact that you do or don't get something doesn't mean anything, but when you add that all federal hires get what you get, it becomes relevant. Is that the case, do all federal employees get the same benefits? (I'm not being a smartass, I'm asking because I don't know).

With regard to medical plans, you might pay a percentage, but 1) you're likely paying a much smaller amount than private sector counterparts, and 2) your plans will generally cover much much more than the plans covering most private sector employees. Heck, most large employers are moving to HSA's anyway, where you are essentially self insured with coverage only for major incidents. I'm guessing federal medical coverage is better than that.

Bottom line, no matter how you turn it, the federal govt does not have restrictions like the private sector, so it can hire (or not fire) much more than the private sector in bad times. It can offer benefits the private sector can not afford. If the government had to have a balanced budget, there would be pressure to keep costs low, as dollars spent in one place have to come at the expense of other possible spending. Now, with unlimited deficit spending, there is effectively no such pressure.

 

[Vette73]

You said "I also can attest that I do not get anywhere near 40k a year in benefits.". That is anecdotal and irrelevant. The other stuff you said and what you said in a later post (that all new hires get the same benefits you do) IS relevant. The fact that you do or don't get something doesn't mean anything, but when you add that all federal hires get what you get, it becomes relevant. Is that the case, do all federal employees get the same benefits? (I'm not being a smartass, I'm asking because I don't know).

With regard to medical plans, you might pay a percentage, but 1) you're likely paying a much smaller amount than private sector counterparts, and 2) your plans will generally cover much much more than the plans covering most private sector employees. Heck, most large employers are moving to HSA's anyway, where you are essentially self insured with coverage only for major incidents. I'm guessing federal medical coverage is better than that.

Bottom line, no matter how you turn it, the federal govt does not have restrictions like the private sector, so it can hire (or not fire) much more than the private sector in bad times. It can offer benefits the private sector can not afford. If the government had to have a balanced budget, there would be pressure to keep costs low, as dollars spent in one place have to come at the expense of other possible spending. Now, with unlimited deficit spending, there is effectively no such pressure.

Facepalm...

Damm are you really this stupid or just can;t read?
I was making note that current Fed Employees do not get what they list. I pointed out before that FERS employees, like myself, do not get that and even used myself as evidance of that. So no it is not "anecdotal" as all FERS employes, like myself, get the same benifits.
We all get the same options and benifits. CERS has theres and FERS has theres. Being a FERS I know first hand we do not get 40k in benifits.

And the Fed Gov does have cuts all the time. We lay people off, close up shops, and as I pointed out changed our retirment system over 20 years ago to save money.

 

[Double Trouble]

Facepalm...

Damm are you really this stupid or just can;t read?
I was making note that current Fed Employees do not get what they list. I pointed out before that FERS employees, like myself, do not get that and even used myself as evidance of that. So no it is not "anecdotal" as all FERS employes, like myself, get the same benifits.
We all get the same options and benifits. CERS has theres and FERS has theres. Being a FERS I know first hand we do not get 40k in benifits.

And the Fed Gov does have cuts all the time. We lay people off, close up shops, and as I pointed out changed our retirment system over 20 years ago to save money.

Facepalm indeed. Read my post, and this time, try comprehending as well. Where in your first post did you specify that all federal employees get the same benefits package as you? You didn't, so your particular situation is seen as anecdotal. Once you specified that all of them get the same benefits package as you, then your own situation can be seen as representative instead of anecdotal.

All that is besides the point. My points still remain: the private sector can never keep pace with public sector spending on benefits and pay if the public sector is not under pressure to balance a budget. With regard to your statement about layoffs: the size of the federal workforce has remained fairly steady for decades. It doesn't ebb and flow with the economy like the private sector jobs. Federal workers also tend to get increases each year even when the economy sucks, unlike their private sector counterparts. In 2010, for example, federal employees got a raise of at least 2% (probably more), while the private sector saw very little in the way of increases.

... and that's just the federal government. State and local governments present some of the same issues and are even worse in a lot of ways.

 

[palehorse]

Probably because a very high percentage of those servants have college degrees, Masters', and PhDs. Their salary, when compared to the average worker (which includes manual labourers without a HS degree), is understandably higher.

Now if you want to break it out by work experience and degree, and compare those public servants with Masters to those taxpayers with MBAs, those with PhDs to MDs, and still find that the "servants" are making more, maybe you've got a reason to complain.

This.

 

[hal2kilo]

My solution:
1. Make them pay for their healthcare like everyone else.
2. Eliminate all government pensions and make them rely on SS like the rest of us.

As a person that works for a private contractor working along side of guvment employees for decades the following:

Absolutely wrong about No.1 (they pay, but get good rates, but when you are the largest employer in the USA they have quite a bit of negotiating power)

Agree partly about No.2.

The best deal they've got going though, is that they get to keep their medical (they still pay but at reasonable rates )when they retire.

Oh, and the other great deal they have is that to get fired you either just don't show up for work or you have to kill someone.

 

[Vette73]

As a person that works for a private contractor working along side of guvment employees for decades the following:

Absolutely wrong about No.1 (they pay, but get good rates, but when you are the largest employer in the USA they have quite a bit of negotiating power)

Agree partly about No.2.

The best deal they've got going though, is that they get to keep their medical (they still pay but at reasonable rates )when they retire.

Oh, and the other great deal they have is that to get fired you either just don't show up for work or you have to kill someone.

If PJ and other idiots would look into it, FERS employees do pay and get SS. CERS were the ones that did not pay SS or get it but got larger pensions. CERS ended almost 20years ago.

And we fire plenty of people all the time. They did not kill anyone and they also did show up for work. We just told them to stop doing that, the showing up part.

 

[Svnla]

I used to do a short stint with a Federal agency (after a 5 years plus at a Fortune 100 company) and while the pay was ok, it was nowhere 2x as the article stated.

 

[Budmantom]

How many fast food joints does the federal government own?

Exactly.

If they owned a fast food joint they would be producing a product and contributing to the economy but our government doesn't produce or contribute they take away from the private sector, like a leach.

Great point jpeyton.

 

[Triumph]

Facepalm...

Damm are you really this stupid or just can;t read?
I was making note that current Fed Employees do not get what they list. I pointed out before that FERS employees, like myself, do not get that and even used myself as evidance of that. So no it is not "anecdotal" as all FERS employes, like myself, get the same benifits.
We all get the same options and benifits. CERS has theres and FERS has theres. Being a FERS I know first hand we do not get 40k in benifits.

And the Fed Gov does have cuts all the time. We lay people off, close up shops, and as I pointed out changed our retirment system over 20 years ago to save money.

I don't think he can read either. He's arguing semantics.

I also can only speak for the fed gub'ment, because that is who I work for, that's the largest single employer in the country, and they have the most consistent benefits packages. State worker's benefits packages are all over the place, the last time I looked there are 50 states negotiating their own contracts so comparing any individual one to the entire private industry and saying, "Look, government employees get paid really well!" is really misleading.

- Our retirement works the same, or very similar, to a 401k. Most of it is employee contributions invested into what is basically a mutual fund, with some percentage of that matched by the government.
- Our health benefits are not free, I pay about 100 bucks a month for a young single guy for an HMO from a major provider. I have a $25 copay for doctor visits, and various copays for specialists and different kinds of prescriptions. Sounds pretty standard to me.
- Sick and annual leave is fairly good, 13 days a year sick and 19 days a year annual, plus holidays. But then again, I have friends in private industry who get better than this. We should ALL get more vacation time like the europeans, this country would be a happier place for it.

There is definitely a lot of government waste. I'm all for reducing the deficit and reducing spending, but lets compare apples to apples here, not make decisions based on poorly researched graphs in a half rate publication like USA Today.

 

[hal2kilo]

If they owned a fast food joint they would be producing a product and contributing to the economy but our government doesn't produce or contribute they take away from the private sector, like a leach.

Great point jpeyton.

I as a private contractor with a guvment contract, and my fellow guvment workers buy absolutely nothing at the store, buy no cars, do not own homes, or pay any taxes on any of that stuff. Get f'n real. I can name several states that would basically have no economy if not for either military or government installations. Several of them are red states.

But we had no socialism until Obama became president.

 

[piasabird]

Most Fed Govt workers also work in areas with higher cost of living. Ever try to buy a house in DC?

Federal workers who dont have to pay SSN Taxes, can not get full SSN if they retire.

 

[werepossum]

I as a private contractor with a guvment contract, and my fellow guvment workers buy absolutely nothing at the store, buy no cars, do not own homes, or pay any taxes on any of that stuff. Get f'n real. I can name several states that would basically have no economy if not for either military or government installations. Several of them are red states.

But we had no socialism until Obama became president.

Um, he specifically said producing and contributing - you are citing consumption as though it were the same thing. Government workers can only pay in taxes a portion of what has been taken from other people, less the handling costs, whilst consuming at least as much as non-government workers. At best, government is a necessary evil, not a productive part of society - with the notable exception of programs and agencies like NASA and DARPA whose research actually has contributed materially to our society's total level of wealth and prosperity. Government is overhead - necessary to be sure, but nonetheless a drain on the productive sectors of society.

 

[hal2kilo]

Most Fed Govt workers also work in areas with higher cost of living. Ever try to buy a house in DC?

Federal workers who dont have to pay SSN Taxes, can not get full SSN if they retire.

As far as I know, there are no longer any federal employees in that old system anymore.

 

[Acanthus]

Government is not supposed to produce goods in the United states.

and they dont... unless you count the USPS, Department of Transportation, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, The Army Corps of Engineers, etc...

and all of the financial products and services provided by the treasury, social security, medicare, etc...

 

[Rainsford]

Um, he specifically said producing and contributing - you are citing consumption as though it were the same thing. Government workers can only pay in taxes a portion of what has been taken from other people, less the handling costs, whilst consuming at least as much as non-government workers. At best, government is a necessary evil, not a productive part of society - with the notable exception of programs and agencies like NASA and DARPA whose research actually has contributed materially to our society's total level of wealth and prosperity. Government is overhead - necessary to be sure, but nonetheless a drain on the productive sectors of society.

I never understood the idea that "overhead" spending doesn't contribute to productivity. You find the same attitude when talking about IT departments in companies. Because they don't contribute DIRECTLY to increased profits, people assume they are a "drain".

The problem with that logic is that there is such a thing as indirect contribution. The IT department at your company doesn't design widgets or sell them, but try getting something done without the IT department. Same with the government. They don't DIRECTLY produce anything, but they enable a great deal of commercial production. Arguing that they are a drain is silly, since without government spending, commercial productivity would almost certainly drop farther than the gain they'd get from not having to pay taxes.

Modern economics involves a lot of "overhead" as you call it, because we're not all farmers any more. That doesn't mean the overhead is a "drain", in any way...it means we don't all HAVE to be farmers.

 

[Red Dawn]

If they owned a fast food joint they would be producing a product and contributing to the economy but our government doesn't produce or contribute they take away from the private sector, like a leach.

.

So you have a government job?

 

[Double Trouble]

I never understood the idea that "overhead" spending doesn't contribute to productivity. You find the same attitude when talking about IT departments in companies. Because they don't contribute DIRECTLY to increased profits, people assume they are a "drain".

The problem with that logic is that there is such a thing as indirect contribution. The IT department at your company doesn't design widgets or sell them, but try getting something done without the IT department. Same with the government. They don't DIRECTLY produce anything, but they enable a great deal of commercial production. Arguing that they are a drain is silly, since without government spending, commercial productivity would almost certainly drop farther than the gain they'd get from not having to pay taxes.

Modern economics involves a lot of "overhead" as you call it, because we're not all farmers any more. That doesn't mean the overhead is a "drain", in any way...it means we don't all HAVE to be farmers.

Your analogy to the IT dept in a non-IT business is actually pretty good. If you had a business selling widgets, but yet your IT department budget was increasing at a MUCH more rapid pace than anything else, and your IT department was not giving you much in the way of additional return for that exploding budget, would you keep spending more and more on the IT dept? I'd start looking for a replacement dept. Your goal should be to invest in the things that make you money, not in the things needed behind the scenes. That's where you have to find ways to cut costs without impacting your business.

In other words, increasing spending on that overhead IT dept is only a good idea if it gives you a long term strategic advantage or benefit. Otherwise it's a waste. I think you'd have a very hard time showing just how the massive additional spending on "overhead" in the US has given us a big giant strategic benefit. That's not to say it's always a bad thing, just that (like every business owner knows), overhead has a way of growing quickly if not watched like a hawk.

 

[senseamp]

How much do private sector FBI agents make?

 

[Budmantom]

I as a private contractor with a guvment contract, and my fellow guvment workers buy absolutely nothing at the store, buy no cars, do not own homes, or pay any taxes on any of that stuff. Get f'n real. I can name several states that would basically have no economy if not for either military or government installations. Several of them are red states.

The people on welfare can say the same.

 

[Budmantom]

So you have a government job?

Yeah I'm the guy that hands out government cheese..... so I guess I'll see you tomorrow.