ptown_trojans_1;581891 wrote:The retirement of a large portion of the federal workforce is going to be interesting. I've talked with a few friends in the intelligence community who notice a huge age gap between them and the majority of the workers. Most of the those people are leaving creating a big void, and their own cuts, as if 2 people retire, only 1 is getting hired.

Also, this is an issue at the National Labs, as the heads of those labs have testified numerous times about the concern of the aging workforce and not being able to replace them.

It's really a scary situation that not alot of people realize. I've been with the government for 3 years now, but gov't protocols and regulations are so extensive, even in my field, that it takes years to learn the in's and out's to be able to move up to management situations. Losing experience along with not filling positions will take a toll.

"So, the job insecurity is not really an issue as if you get fired from one company, you just walk across the street."

Only in DC metro does such a street exist. Do you have any idea how bad the job market is right now? This isn't hyperbole, every person I know in the private sector has either (i) lost their job, (ii) accepted a pay cut, or (iii) had their salaries frozen, in each case since 3rdQ 2007. The worst part is many people in category (i) have lost more than one job. I have a buddy that lost his job at a fairly major law firm in 3rdQ 2007, got a job in-house at Circuit City and thanks to their bankruptcy lost that job 4thQ 2008, and is in the process of losing his latest job because his current bank employer is in the process of getting delisted from NASDAQ and will likely go private - this guy isn't a slouch or poor worker, and has outstanding academic credentials, his employers simply couldn't keep up with the downturn. Heck, I can think of more than a handful of couples we know where BOTH spouses lost their jobs. I feel fortunate that my wife has only had a salary freeze - I know my comp is down about 40% from what it was in 2007. We went from easily paying our bills/mortgage and saving to pretty much drawing even each month.

A government employee salary freeze is a gift. If civilian employees don't like it, they can join the non-existent job market.

CenterBHSFan;581885 wrote:SACRILEGE!!

Trust me...it needed to be torn down, lol. There was a tree branch growing in their "living room".

Con_Alma;581898 wrote:For some reason that rings a bell with me also. They must have an fantastic lot.

If they had the money to buy in that location tearing down and building new wasn't an issue for them.

The lot was amazing. I was there in 2005 and they had plans to start constuction the following Spring I believe. I never actually saw the finished product but the plans were incredible. Three full stories of windows facing the water. It is a narrowish lot and they could't really make the house very wide so they went tall. They also have a boat and when it was in a marina in Annapolis they still managed to go wakeboarding or skiing almost every morning before work (they lived in the city at that point). I am sure they are making great use of their dock and the river.

That is a 7 figure home. It sounds fantastic.

Manhattan Buckeye;581907 wrote:"So, the job insecurity is not really an issue as if you get fired from one company, you just walk across the street."

Only in DC metro does such a street exist. Do you have any idea how bad the job market is right now? This isn't hyperbole, every person I know in the private sector has either (i) lost their job, (ii) accepted a pay cut, or (iii) had their salaries frozen, in each case since 3rdQ 2007. The worst part is many people in category (i) have lost more than one job. I have a buddy that lost his job at a fairly major law firm in 3rdQ 2007, got a job in-house at Circuit City and thanks to their bankruptcy lost that job 4thQ 2008, and is in the process of losing his latest job because his current bank employer is in the process of getting delisted from NASDAQ and will likely go private - this guy isn't a slouch or poor worker, and has outstanding academic credentials, his employers simply couldn't keep up with the downturn. Heck, I can think of more than a handful of couples we know where BOTH spouses lost their jobs. I feel fortunate that my wife has only had a salary freeze - I know my comp is down about 40% from what it was in 2007. We went from easily paying our bills/mortgage and saving to pretty much drawing even each month.

A government employee salary freeze is a gift. If civilian employees don't like it, they can join the non-existent job market.

Yep, thank the defense and consulting industry (CSC, Boeing, Lockheed, PWC, SAIC, LMI, SMI, Booze, etc.) And it will only get worse probably as the government cuts back but the requirements for defense, intelligence and homeland security go up.

se-alum;581893 wrote:I think that's painting "government" jobs with a very broad brush. Like I said before, people tend to relate government jobs with DC, and there's much more to it than that. I don't feel sorry for myself, as I can make up that money by cutting CFC and other things. However, I do feel bad for the NA's, LPN's, Housekeepers, and Dietetics workers who are making $12/hr and will be hit by this pay freeze the hardest. There's a stigma that comes with being a "Federal" employee, and people don't realize there are 1,000's of blue collar Federal employees.

I don't doubt there are lower level positions that will have a harder time of it. I'd like to know if this freeze includes the automatic "step"increases that people in government get each year (up to a certain point) or whether this is just the amount above that. These are two dramatically different things.

What really needs to be done is this: there needs to be a full evaluation of the highest 50 percent of federal jobs as they relate to the private sector. This review should include things like vacation and sick leave, along with health insurance.

Then some adjustments need to be made.

I'm willing to bet that the top jobs are way out of whack with the rest of the country (so far as compensation is concerned), and those jobs should be adjusted accordingly.

SE: those $12/hour jobs you talk about very quickly become $20 per hour jobs (as in a few years time) when employees are getting both step increases and increases approved by Congress (or via a bargaining agreement) on top of that.

I'd be willing to bet there aren't a whole lot of actual $12/hour employees in the system for very long.

Manhattan Buckeye;581907 wrote:"So, the job insecurity is not really an issue as if you get fired from one company, you just walk across the street."

Only in DC metro does such a street exist. Do you have any idea how bad the job market is right now? This isn't hyperbole, every person I know in the private sector has either (i) lost their job, (ii) accepted a pay cut, or (iii) had their salaries frozen, in each case since 3rdQ 2007. The worst part is many people in category (i) have lost more than one job. I have a buddy that lost his job at a fairly major law firm in 3rdQ 2007, got a job in-house at Circuit City and thanks to their bankruptcy lost that job 4thQ 2008, and is in the process of losing his latest job because his current bank employer is in the process of getting delisted from NASDAQ and will likely go private - this guy isn't a slouch or poor worker, and has outstanding academic credentials, his employers simply couldn't keep up with the downturn. Heck, I can think of more than a handful of couples we know where BOTH spouses lost their jobs. I feel fortunate that my wife has only had a salary freeze - I know my comp is down about 40% from what it was in 2007. We went from easily paying our bills/mortgage and saving to pretty much drawing even each month.

A government employee salary freeze is a gift. If civilian employees don't like it, they can join the non-existent job market.

So I should be punished because job security is a perk of my job?? Isn't being paid 24% more in the private sector a perk of that job? Would you be ok with the government increasing taxes on private sector employees because they make more than government workers?? If private sector employees didn't like it, they could join the non-existant job market. Every job has its pros and cons, so this could go back and forth all day.

Writerbuckeye;581942 wrote:I don't doubt there are lower level positions that will have a harder time of it. I'd like to know if this freeze includes the automatic "step"increases that people in government get each year (up to a certain point) or whether this is just the amount above that. These are two dramatically different things.

What really needs to be done is this: there needs to be a full evaluation of the highest 50 percent of federal jobs as they relate to the private sector. This review should include things like vacation and sick leave, along with health insurance.

Then some adjustments need to be made.

I'm willing to bet that the top jobs are way out of whack with the rest of the country (so far as compensation is concerned), and those jobs should be adjusted accordingly.

SE: those $12/hour jobs you talk about very quickly become $20 per hour jobs (as in a few years time) when employees are getting both step increases and increases approved by Congress (or via a bargaining agreement) on top of that.

I'd be willing to bet there aren't a whole lot of actual $12/hour employees in the system for very long.

It doesn't effect step/grade increases. The only one of those jobs that would get to $20/hr without a promotion is an LPN, and I'm not even sure they would get there. Of course, that depends on the area and locality pay. There's one guy that has been in his position almost 30 years, and is making around $17-$18/hr. He hasn't been able to get a better job, and has topped out in his grade.

"If private sector employees didn't like it, they could join the non-existant job market. Every job has its pros and cons, so this could go back and forth all day."

Unfortunately, many of them have to join it - just not by choice.

I don't envy anyone taking a pay cut, treading the proverbial water, or losing their job. But at some point reality sets in. We're in a horrible economic period and government employees aren't immune to it. They've weathered it out better than their private sector counterparts. Austerity hits everyone. We've been in it for two years. There's no reason why a government employee shouldn't be affected.

If this doesn't include step increases, then my sympathy level just dropped to zero.

How much are the step increases that people are continuing to get each year? Three percent? Four percent?

Selling this as a freeze is truly a misnomer. Step increase make up a significant part of the cost of personnel increases each year. The type of increase Obama is freezing mostly affects those folks who are in patronage slots (higher paying, anyway) or those who have stepped out (don't have any more steps available). And if they've stepped out, it means they probably make a pretty decent salary, already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0FyGeaC_mI

[video=youtube;G0FyGeaC_mI][/video]

Writerbuckeye;582092 wrote:If this doesn't include step increases, then my sympathy level just dropped to zero.

How much are the step increases that people are continuing to get each year? Three percent? Four percent?

Selling this as a freeze is truly a misnomer. Step increase make up a significant part of the cost of personnel increases each year. The type of increase Obama is freezing mostly affects those folks who are in patronage slots (higher paying, anyway) or those who have stepped out (don't have any more steps available). And if they've stepped out, it means they probably make a pretty decent salary, already.

Step increases are only yearly for the 1st 3 years. It takes 18 years to step out(10 steps) within' a grade. So it is affecting many more people than those that have stepped out. For instance, I just completed my 3rd year, so I won't get another step until 2012. I will get no pay increase of any kind between now and then, unless I get a promotion. Again, I laugh at the fact that it's ok to freeze pay, because they "probably make a pretty decent salary already".

"Again, I laugh at the fact that it's ok to freeze pay, because they "probably make a pretty decent salary already". "

Would you laugh at a pay CUT or LAYOFF?

We're freezing pay because the nation is broke. We have over a $10T deficit with no positive budget surpluses in sight according to most economists. I'd run a half-marathon naked if you guaranteed me my pay in '12 would be the same as it is in '10....and I'd run a full marathon naked if my comp in '10 was the same as it was in '08.

For now, I'm not guaranteed dick next year, nor is my wife. We could easily lose our incomes and we adjust for it. Part of that adjustment is what we're willing to pay for services. The government employee comp issue was foreseeable years ago, there was no way it can continue to grow - oe even stay stagnant - when the private sector is bleeding heavily.

se-alum;582148 wrote:Step increases are only yearly for the 1st 3 years. It takes 18 years to step out(10 steps) within' a grade. So it is affecting many more people than those that have stepped out. For instance, I just completed my 3rd year, so I won't get another step until 2012. I will get no pay increase of any kind between now and then, unless I get a promotion. Again, I laugh at the fact that it's ok to freeze pay, because they "probably make a pretty decent salary already".

Quit your fucking whining man. Jesus. Everyone loves to bitch about how broken the country is, but no one is willing to step up and make a fucking sacrifice.

Manhattan Buckeye;582220 wrote:"Again, I laugh at the fact that it's ok to freeze pay, because they "probably make a pretty decent salary already". "

Would you laugh at a pay CUT or LAYOFF?

We're freezing pay because the nation is broke. We have over a $10T deficit with no positive budget surpluses in sight according to most economists. I'd run a half-marathon naked if you guaranteed me my pay in '12 would be the same as it is in '10....and I'd run a full marathon naked if my comp in '10 was the same as it was in '08.

For now, I'm not guaranteed dick next year, nor is my wife. We could easily lose our incomes and we adjust for it. Part of that adjustment is what we're willing to pay for services. The government employee comp issue was foreseeable years ago, there was no way it can continue to grow - oe even stay stagnant - when the private sector is bleeding heavily.

I wouldn't laugh at a pay freeze, cut or layoff. I laugh at the fact that because I have a good job, people think it's ok to freeze pay, because "I already make a decent wage". I don't want to see anyone take a pay cut or get laid off, and I don't care if they make $20,000 or $150,000. I guess I'm just not the type of person to want to punish a hard-working person that contributes to society, just because the job situation may be better than mine. Too many people either want to be given what they don't have or have something taken from someone else, just to feel like they are on equal footing.

I want the POTUS to find a way to cut the unnecessary spending without taking from the people. That is one of his jobs, is it not??

derek bomar;582226 wrote:Quit your fucking whining man. Jesus. Everyone loves to bitch about how broken the country is, but no one is willing to step up and make a fucking sacrifice.

Dynamite drop-in, alot of knowledge added there.

se-alum;582244 wrote:I wouldn't laugh at a pay freeze, cut or layoff. I laugh at the fact that because I have a good job, people think it's ok to freeze pay, because "I already make a decent wage". I don't want to see anyone take a pay cut or get laid off, and I don't care if they make $20,000 or $150,000. I guess I'm just not the type of person to want to punish a hard-working person that contributes to society, just because the job situation may be better than mine. Too many people either want to be given what they don't have or have something taken from someone else, just to feel like they are on equal footing.

I want the POTUS to find a way to cut the unnecessary spending without taking from the people. That is one of his jobs, is it not??

So a tax-payer funded pay-raise for the sake of a pay-raise is necessary spending? And he isn't taking anything. Like others have pointed out, if you don't like it, you have free will to go into the private sector where your chances of a pay raise are even less.

se-alum;582245 wrote:Dynamite drop-in, alot of knowledge added there.

Yep. Way to skirt the point.

I know of private sector companies who have been unable to grant pay increases for nearly 10 years. Most, not all, in the public sector have ZERO clue about tough times and REAL spending cuts. A freeze sounds nice, but cuts are in order.

NO sympathy here.

se-alum;582148 wrote:Step increases are only yearly for the 1st 3 years. It takes 18 years to step out(10 steps) within' a grade. So it is affecting many more people than those that have stepped out. For instance, I just completed my 3rd year, so I won't get another step until 2012. I will get no pay increase of any kind between now and then, unless I get a promotion. Again, I laugh at the fact that it's ok to freeze pay, because they "probably make a pretty decent salary already".

Okay, let's really get down to brass tacks here.

How much is each step...3 percent? 4 percent? So for the first three years of your job you got a 9-12 percent increase, not including whatever percentage raise the President just froze? This at a time when there's basically no inflation. How many private sector jobs do you think gave anywhere close to that percent increase over the past three years? I'm going to say very few, if any. Because when the economy gets like it has been, they simply don't give raises, or they give very minimal ones.

And I don't understand why your steps stop after three years and then resume two years later. That doesn't make any sense. Are you telling me you would get a step increase your first three years, have a two year break, then get increases three years, take another two year break, and so on until you get 10 steps in? Because that's just makes no sense whatsoever.

As for you not liking my statement about no raise because you already have a decent salary: get over it. My brother in law is a brick mason who went nearly 2 years without a job, so he and my sister had to do on her salary (which thankfully is decent) for the four of them (two kids).

And I worked for the state for a number of years and had a very good job. At one point, the state froze wages for a couple years because it didn't have the funding and it was basically no hardship on me whatsoever, basically because there was no inflation happening. Be thankful you are in a similar situation.

Writerbuckeye;582271 wrote:Okay, let's really get down to brass tacks here.

How much is each step...3 percent? 4 percent? So for the first three years of your job you got a 9-12 percent increase, not including whatever percentage raise the President just froze? This at a time when there's basically no inflation. How many private sector jobs do you think gave anywhere close to that percent increase over the past three years? I'm going to say very few, if any. Because when the economy gets like it has been, they simply don't give raises, or they give very minimal ones.

And I don't understand why your steps stop after three years and then resume two years later. That doesn't make any sense. Are you telling me you would get a step increase your first three years, have a two year break, then get increases three years, take another two year break, and so on until you get 10 steps in? Because that's just makes no sense whatsoever.

As for you not liking my statement about no raise because you already have a decent salary: get over it. My brother in law is a brick mason who went nearly 2 years without a job, so he and my sister had to do on her salary (which thankfully is decent) for the four of them (two kids).

And I worked for the state for a number of years and had a very good job. At one point, the state froze wages for a couple years because it didn't have the funding and it was basically no hardship on me whatsoever, basically because there was no inflation happening. Be thankful you are in a similar situation.

Here is the breakdown on how the GS step schedule breaks down:

http://www.opm.gov/oca/pay/html/wgifact.asp

Also, steps aren't guaranteed.

ptown_trojans_1;581891 wrote:True, but now a days people do not stay in jobs that long. Often a year or two anyways before they move to another firm or company. So, the job insecurity is not really an issue as if you get fired from one company, you just walk across the street.

You really believe that? I know very, very few employees in the private sector who make a decent income with benefits who can simply walk across the street to find new work....especially in today's economy and particularly if you are over 50.

Ptown lives and works in DC. He's out of touch with reality already!

I notice you didn't answer my question about what the percentages were. I can only guess why (it probably doesn't help you make your case).

Your link tells me nothing in the way of real information, other than how the steps are spaced out.

I did go to the home page and click in "secretary" to see what the pay ranges are. I got back "miscellaneous clerk and assistant" with a salary range of $30,000 to $44,000 in a number of geographic areas, including Ohio.

Are you kidding me? A basic clerk STARTS at $30,000 with the federal government, and it goes up regularly from there?

That's waaaaay out of whack. I suspect just about the job classifications are equally out of touch with what's happening in the private sector.

And don't tell me it's a livable wage and people need a livable wage...because not EVERY job is (or should be) intended to support a family.

Writerbuckeye;582271 wrote: And I don't understand why your steps stop after three years and then resume two years later. That doesn't make any sense. Are you telling me you would get a step increase your first three years, have a two year break, then get increases three years, take another two year break, and so on until you get 10 steps in? Because that's just makes no sense whatsoever.

That's just how it works.