....for doing similar work in similar occupations. But the real spine chiller, the private sector employee makes on average less than 10K on bennies, insurance and pensions...vs. the gobblement, which shells out well over 40K per employee for the same.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

I saw this this morning on Morning Joe. Some of it makes no sense at all. PR Manager makes that much more, really? Clergy? Is that in the services or what? That is a big difference as well.

But, chemist I think is one where it makes sense to pay more as we want to keep them in the government both for peaceful and weapons purposes. Same goes for Engineers.

However, that is offset by the Optometrist, -$45,135


But, overall too big a difference.

Footwedge wrote: ....for doing similar work in similar occupations. But the real spine chiller, the private sector employee makes on average less than 10K on bennies, insurance and pensions...vs. the gobblement, which shells out well over 40K per employee for the same.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

Emplyees after 1984 in the DoD do not receive pension, so those numbers will be going way down as those people fall off the payrolls. A lot of those "extras" in bennies are the great PTO programs that the .gov offers.

It is getting sickening. And then when I read this comment (which is a crock of sh __)

....."But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says." ........

it just makes you even sicker. A "National Treasury Employees Union" ..... oh, for the love of God.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I saw this this morning on Morning Joe. Some of it makes no sense at all. PR Manager makes that much more, really? Clergy? Is that in the services or what? That is a big difference as well.

But, chemist I think is one where it makes sense to pay more as we want to keep them in the government both for peaceful and weapons purposes. Same goes for Engineers.

However, that is offset by the Optometrist, -$45,135


But, overall too big a difference.

The GS system awards raises for tenure. That's where the money comes from. if you are entering the workforce you are usually underpaid as a .gov compared to private sector. It's all those step raises they award.

An entry level 510 Accountant makes $39,000, but gets 13 days paid vaca, 13 sick days, 10 paid holidays.

Salary wise a 25 years 510 makes $76,589, all for being there for 25 years.

QuakerOats wrote: It is getting sickening. And then when I read this comment (which is a crock of sh __)

....."But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says." ........

it just makes you even sicker. A "National Treasury Employees Union" ..... oh, for the love of God.

it's more "complex" because the systems are from 11965 and they do things ass backwards.

Some of the things I saw at DFAS would make your average CPA explode with rage.

LJ wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I saw this this morning on Morning Joe. Some of it makes no sense at all. PR Manager makes that much more, really? Clergy? Is that in the services or what? That is a big difference as well.

But, chemist I think is one where it makes sense to pay more as we want to keep them in the government both for peaceful and weapons purposes. Same goes for Engineers.

However, that is offset by the Optometrist, -$45,135


But, overall too big a difference.

The GS system awards raises for tenure. That's where the money comes from. if you are entering the workforce you are usually underpaid as a .gov compared to private sector. It's all those step raises they award.

An entry level 510 Accountant makes $39,000, but gets 13 days paid vaca, 13 sick days, 10 paid holidays.

Salary wise a 25 years 510 makes $76,589, all for being there for 25 years.

I think that there is something inherently wrong with our system on a fundamental basis when the incentives are geared towards working for the government versus working for the private sector.

I also agree that the government is "high ended" with senior employees who are knocking down bigger bucks. But I also think that the private industry's shitcanning of people over 45 years of age is bullshit in itself.

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I saw this this morning on Morning Joe. Some of it makes no sense at all. PR Manager makes that much more, really? Clergy? Is that in the services or what? That is a big difference as well.

But, chemist I think is one where it makes sense to pay more as we want to keep them in the government both for peaceful and weapons purposes. Same goes for Engineers.

However, that is offset by the Optometrist, -$45,135


But, overall too big a difference.

The GS system awards raises for tenure. That's where the money comes from. if you are entering the workforce you are usually underpaid as a .gov compared to private sector. It's all those step raises they award.

An entry level 510 Accountant makes $39,000, but gets 13 days paid vaca, 13 sick days, 10 paid holidays.

Salary wise a 25 years 510 makes $76,589, all for being there for 25 years.

I think that there is something inherently wrong with our system on a fundamental basis when the incentives are geared towards working for the government versus working for the private sector.

I also agree that the government is "high ended" with senior employees who are knocking down bigger bucks. But I also think that the private industry's shitcanning of people over 45 years of age is bullshit in itself.

There is something wrong, most companies suck when it comes to benefits, esp time off.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/12/pf/vacation_days_worldwide/#table

They are "high ended" because Clinton froze hiring in the 90's and there are no "middle men". Only high salaries and entry level salaries. Their auto raise policy is bullshit too.

The problem is unions in government.

There should be no such thing. Ever.

Collective bargaining has created the "step" increases as opposed to merit increases or simple cost of living hikes. As a result, salaries are completely out of proportion now in government compared to the private sector.

It was the unions in California that have created the massive problem they now have. Government workers in that state are grossly overpaid for the work they do, and the system has become overloaded to the tune of billions in debt.

Hence why i took an unpaid internship at the Library of Congress to begin making connections there. Trying to make connections. Though, now i'm going to be working for the National Library of New Zealand starting in June, and the pay is very nice, with 20 vacation days, 32 hour work weeks, and lots of governmental holidays. So, screw the federal government here in the States.

But, i guess librarianship isn't really a good barometer, as a lot of the important and interesting work is done at the national level, or at the university level, and definitely not in the private sector. Well, except for OCLC here in Dublin, Ohio, which is the world's foremost library services provider and research center.

As far as my field is concerned, i have no problem with folks at the federal level making good money, as they've certainly worked for it and are at the top of their field, by and large.

Just giving my little view on my field at the federal level...

Agree completely that the wages in many areas are completely nuts.

I wonder if they included companies like Xe vs. US military men?

Wonder who makes more money there?

Exactly why public sector employees need to start taking the same concessions as private sector employees. They are not exempt. It is a trickle down effect. The private sector pays taxes which pay the public sector's salary and benefits. Private sector gets hit then it's going to effect the public sector.

dwccrew wrote: Exactly why public sector employees need to start taking the same concessions as private sector employees. They are not exempt. It is a trickle down effect. The private sector pays taxes which pay the public sector's salary and benefits. Private sector gets hit then it's going to effect the public sector.

You sound like the governor of New Jersey.

LJ wrote:
An entry level 510 Accountant makes $39,000, but gets 13 days paid vaca, 13 sick days, 10 paid holidays.

Salary wise a 25 years 510 makes $76,589, all for being there for 25 years.

Entry level accountant gets 13 sick days ........ why? How many of us miss more than 2 days a year from sickness? It is this type of largesse, particularly when it accumulates, and then gets paid out in lump sums into the tens of throusands of dollars that is completely ridiculous.

I can't wait to get 25 vacation days starting in June.

cbus4life wrote: I can't wait to get 25 vacation days starting in June.

While you are enjoying your time off, just don't forget to thank the poor shmuck in the private sector slaving away to pay for it.

I'll be working for the government of New Zealand, and those vacation days, hours, etc., are comparable to what private sector employees have in New Zealand. And, the pay is pretty much comparable as well.

cbus4life wrote: I'll be working for the government of New Zealand, and those vacation days, hours, etc., are comparable to what private sector employees have. And, the pay is pretty much comparable as well.

The private sector PTO in the U.S. is shitty compared to the rest of the world.

Yeah, we don't get any time off.

cbus4life wrote: I can't wait to get 25 vacation days starting in June.

Sorry CBus....not funny at all. Most government jobs do not have to deal with the realities of having to be profitable. Your security comes NOT necessarily from working hard and competing.

The coiffers that pay you on a monthly basis do not come from cycling revenues from capitalistic endeavors, but instead come partially from the private sector's cut, and and even larger sector as deferred taxes owed by future generations. The "IOU" money is fronted by the Federal Reserve counterfeiting machine. What a farce.

IMO..it is dead wrong for any government employee getting more than 3 weeks vacation...and that should only come after 10 years of excellent performance.

Like I opined in my OP, there is something drastically wrong with our basic economic structure, if the population is more incentivized to join the government....over the private entities.

dwccrew wrote: Exactly why public sector employees need to start taking the same concessions as private sector employees.

You need to capitalize, italicize, and bold print this statement. And then write it on the internet blackboard 100 times.

Footwedge wrote:

cbus4life wrote: I can't wait to get 25 vacation days starting in June.

Sorry CBus....not funny at all. Most government jobs do not have to deal with the realities of having to be profitable. Your security comes NOT necessarily from working hard and competing.

The coiffers that pay you on a monthly basis do not come from cycling revenues from capitalistic endeavors, but instead come partially from the private sector's cut, and and even larger sector as deferred taxes owed by future generations. The "IOU" money is fronted by the Federal Reserve counterfeiting machine. What a farce.

His job is in New Zealand

I'm the first to say the average government job is better than the same public job.

However, to say that they should be getting no more than 3 weeks vacation is asinine.

In most professional jobs (aka degreed) you start with 2 weeks and get 3 weeks after 5 years, 4 weeks after 10 years, then depending on the company that can keep going up to 5 or 6 weeks.

Footwedge wrote:

cbus4life wrote: I can't wait to get 25 vacation days starting in June.

Sorry CBus....not funny at all. Most government jobs do not have to deal with the realities of having to be profitable. Your security comes NOT necessarily from working hard and competing.

The coiffers that pay you on a monthly basis do not come from cycling revenues from capitalistic endeavors, but instead come partially from the private sector's cut, and and even larger sector as deferred taxes owed by future generations. The "IOU" money is fronted by the Federal Reserve counterfeiting machine. What a farce.

IMO..it is dead wrong for any government employee getting more than 3 weeks vacation...and that should only come after 10 years of excellent performance.

Like I opined in my OP, there is something drastically wrong with our basic economic structure, if the population is more incentivized to join the government....over the private entities.

New Zealand is a little different...and, according to those i have talked to, there definitely isn't the sense of "job security" there that federal employees here in the states. Very different, from what i've been told. Obviously, it is comparing apples to oranges, but it is very competitive, and due to the smallish nature of the government, you are certainly held accountable for your work. Like i said earlier, very similar environments for private sector and govt. employees. Not nearly the same disparity.

I am completely agreeing with you in regards to federal employment here. Sorry, didn't mean to make light of the situation. Am just excited about my future job. My bad.

cbus4life wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

cbus4life wrote: I can't wait to get 25 vacation days starting in June.

Sorry CBus....not funny at all. Most government jobs do not have to deal with the realities of having to be profitable. Your security comes NOT necessarily from working hard and competing.

The coiffers that pay you on a monthly basis do not come from cycling revenues from capitalistic endeavors, but instead come partially from the private sector's cut, and and even larger sector as deferred taxes owed by future generations. The "IOU" money is fronted by the Federal Reserve counterfeiting machine. What a farce.

IMO..it is dead wrong for any government employee getting more than 3 weeks vacation...and that should only come after 10 years of excellent performance.

Like I opined in my OP, there is something drastically wrong with our basic economic structure, if the population is more incentivized to join the government....over the private entities.

New Zealand is a little different...and, according to those i have talked to, there definitely isn't the sense of "job security" there that federal employees here in the states. Very different, from what i've been told. Obviously, it is comparing apples to oranges, but it is very competitive, and due to the smallish nature of the government, you are certainly held accountable for your work. Like i said earlier, very similar environments for private sector and govt. employees. Not nearly the same disparity.

I am completely agreeing with you in regards to federal employment here. Sorry, didn't mean to make light of the situation. Am just excited about my future job. My bad.

And I should apologize to you for not reading the whole thread. I thought your post had reflected you working here in the States. My goof.

I do however, question just how "competitive" it really is over there, if the employees get 5 weeks off though.