Why should federal (reserves and guard) employees get full pay while deployed

[Ozoned]

Taken from link to Kerry voting record

390 2003-10-17 S. 1689 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1837

Durbin Amdt. No. 1837; To ensure that a Federal employee who takes leave without pay in order to perform certain service as a member of the uniformed services or member of the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such individual is receiving for such service, will be no less than the basic pay such individual would then be receiving if no interruption in employment had occurred.

I appreciate what they do, but why should federal (reserve and guard) employees get their pay guaranteed while they are deployed as compared to private sector employees?

 

[MadRat]

Its so they do NOT get less then they'd of made while NOT in service.

 

[MedicBob]

Private sector employees can quit when told the are going overseas. Military cannot. They(we) should get paid at slightly above poverty levels.

 

[Ozoned]

If federal employee is making basic $50,000 a year and gets deployed over seas he continues to collect $50,000 a year, regardless of his rank..

If joe blow public is making $50,000 a year and gets deployed over seas he collects only the wage of his enlistment or commission rank, which for a lower grade could be 1/2 of what he made back home..

I just feel that if congress is to pass a law that compensates reservists for lost wages if deployed,
it should apply to all reservists. Not just the reservists that are federal employees...

 

[Zephyr106]

The government paying federal employees their wages while they are not at work is a gift from the particular employer (government). Private employers are perfectly able to mimic that policy if they so choose.

Zephyr

 

[tnitsuj]

A lot do. I know a few guys at work who would have lost thier houses if the county had not made up the difference between thier base bay and thier military pay. Of course they still lost out on overtime so it was a net loss.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I just feel that if congress is to pass a law that compensates reservists for lost wages if deployed,
it should apply to all reservists. Not just the reservists that are federal employees...

Which would be perfectly legitimate for anyone who believes in "equal protection under the Law".

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I just feel that if congress is to pass a law that compensates reservists for lost wages if deployed,
it should apply to all reservists. Not just the reservists that are federal employees...

Which would be perfectly legitimate for anyone who believes in "equal protection under the Law".

Then you would be forcing businesses to pay people who weren't working. That would be an unfair burden.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj



Then you would be forcing businesses to pay people who weren't working. That would be an unfair burden.

I am only saying that if congress authorizes the use of my tax dollars to supplement the wages
of a reservist who is a federal employee, congress should also authorize the same manner of relief
for joe blow public who is a reservist...

Why does the label of "Federal employee" garner such a privilege?

 

[Rogue]

I can honestly say that I was bringing home in the realm of $45,000 while I was mobilized and that was as an E-6/SSG with less than 8 years time in service. I'd venture to say that most people, on average, don't make that as an annual salary. On top of that, my taxable income was only about $28,000, so that made it all the better. I'm sorry, but I was bringing home almost $1,500.00 every two weeks while I was mobilized. I can't see all of these people who complain about losing pay making that much every two weeks. Perhaps the doctors, etc., but I think you're hearing much more from the people who *think* they should get paid more.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I just feel that if congress is to pass a law that compensates reservists for lost wages if deployed,
it should apply to all reservists. Not just the reservists that are federal employees...

Which would be perfectly legitimate for anyone who believes in "equal protection under the Law".

Then you would be forcing businesses to pay people who weren't working. That would be an unfair burden.

I think more along the lines that perhaps he meant they should not get special treatment for being government employees on top of being reservists, OR he meant the government should foot the bill both ways. Either way sucks for the taxpayer.

 

[Kenazo]

Sears even does this. They pay any employee that ends up going to war the difference between what they were making at Sears, and what they are making as a solider.

 

[maluckey]

So those who oppose think that a FEDERAL employee, working for the govt. gets deployed by that same govt. should get LESS pay? That's insane. Let's say that the Govt. deployed a GS-12 to Iraq. This employee makes in the neighborhooed of 60,000 dollars per year depending on how long they have been in Federal service. If they are an E-5 in their Reserve unit and get deployed, they will take a huge pay hit though still being paid by the same employer, though now in a more hazardous job.

Makes good sense to keep their pay static. It costs no additional money to maintain the employee at their current pay. It would also encourage employees to join the military, knowing that their families are taken care of while they are deployed.

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
The government paying federal employees their wages while they are not at work is a gift from the particular employer (government). Private employers are perfectly able to mimic that policy if they so choose.

Zephyr

The difference is the gov isn't concerned with making profits.

 

[EXman]

Why don't you go over there at let us know if Combat pay was enough while you were geting shot at.

insensitive arse.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: maluckey
So those who oppose think that a FEDERAL employee, working for the govt. gets deployed by that same govt. should get LESS pay? That's insane. Let's say that the Govt. deployed a GS-12 to Iraq. This employee makes in the neighborhooed of 60,000 dollars per year depending on how long they have been in Federal service. If they are an E-5 in their Reserve unit and get deployed, they will take a huge pay hit though still being paid by the same employer, though now in a more hazardous job.

Makes good sense to keep their pay static. It costs no additional money to maintain the employee at their current pay. It would also encourage employees to join the military, knowing that their families are taken care of while they are deployed.

What about the guy that works for me that makes 60,000 dollars per year, that was deployed as an e-5 in his reserve unit. He took a huge pay cut. I can't afford to pay the difference.
If the goverment is going to subsidize reservists wages while deployed, well thats fine but lets do it for
all of them not just part of them.

It costs no additional money to maintain the employee at their current pay.

I believe it would cost double because you pay for the person that replaces them while they are deployed.

 

[maluckey]

Ozoned,

When a federal employee is away from duty, whether it be deployment, or medical reasons, nobody takes their place. The remaining employees cover the slack. That means that the government pays NOTHING extra to maintain their pay.

It would be the same as your company paying someone LESS if they are sent by your company to work with a branch office in the Russian Steppes for an assignment. They are still employed by your company, though they temporarily answer to a different boss. They will return to your company at the end of the assinment.

 

[MadRat]

Not always true. Depends on the work that person did and what slack the department/office/etc. has available to pull through the person's deployment.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Ozoned,

When a federal employee is away from duty, whether it be deployment, or medical reasons, nobody takes their place. The remaining employees cover the slack. That means that the government pays NOTHING extra to maintain their pay.

It would be the same as your company paying someone LESS if they are sent by your company to work with a branch office in the Russian Steppes for an assignment. They are still employed by your company, though they temporarily answer to a different boss. They will return to your company at the end of the assinment.

Thing is maluckey, a federal employee in reality works for me (the tax payer) Why is it ok for
me to subsidize one employee (federal worker) but not the other (private).

Do you see my point?

 

[maluckey]

Federal Employees do indeed work for the taxpayer. Thing is that as such should not be penalized for volunteering to fight for the taxpayer. After all, the employer remains the same, but the danger rises ten-fold. In most jobs they RAISE the pay if they put you in harms way, not lower it.

It IS a shame that civilians often make less when deployed than they normally make. It is not the same situation, as I mentioned, because the company paying them did not order them into danger, though the end financial result remains the same.