So much for federal job security

[General Zod]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/po ... ml?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers on Monday as he sought to address concerns over sky-high deficit spending and appeal to Republican leaders to find a common approach to restoring the nation’s economic and fiscal health.

“The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice and that sacrifice must be shared by employees of the federal government,” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference.

“I did not reach this decision easily,” he said. “This is not just a line item on a federal ledger. These are people’s lives.”

He called federal workers “patriots who love their country” but added that “I’m asking civil servants to do what they’ve always done” and sacrifice for the good of the nation.

The president’s proposal comes a day before he hosts Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders at the White House to begin mapping a way forward after midterm elections handed Republicans control of the House and six more seats in the Senate. The meeting, which was delayed when Republicans rebuffed Mr. Obama’s first proposed date, will be the first time since the midterms that the defeated Democrats and the triumphant Republicans sit down to figure out whether they can work together.

At the top of the agenda are the economy and federal spending, both prime targets of voter anger during the just-concluded campaign. Even before the new Congress takes office in January, the two sides must tackle such matters as whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts that expire at the end of the year and whether to extend unemployment insurance payments that expire for many Americans as well.

The White House meeting also comes a day before a fiscal commission appointed by Mr. Obama is scheduled to issue its final report on how to curb deficit spending, a topic that has polarized Washington over questions about tax increases and entitlement benefit cuts.

Mr. Obama expressed optimism that the meeting with legislators would be a productive and fresh beginning. “My hope is starting today, we can begin a bipartisan conversation about our future,” he said. “Everybody’s going to have to cooperate. We can’t afford to fall back onto the same old ideologies or the same stale sound bites.”

The president’s proposed pay freeze would wipe out plans for a 1.4 percent across-the-board raise in 2011 for 2.1 million federal civilian employees, including those working at the Defense Department. But the freeze would not affect the nation’s uniformed military personnel. It would also mean no raise in 2012 for civilian employees.

The pay freeze will save $2 billion in the current fiscal year that ends in September 2011, $28 billion over five years and more than $60 billion over 10 years, according to Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget and the government’s chief performance officer. That represents just a tiny dent in a $1.3 trillion annual deficit but it offers a symbolic gesture toward public anger over unemployment, the anemic economic recovery and rising national debt.

Mr. Zients said the president made the announcement on Monday because of an approaching legal deadline for submitting a pay plan to Congress. But by doing it now, the president also effectively gets ahead of Republicans who have been talking about making such a move once they assume greater power in January. Some Republicans have gone further, proposing to slash federal worker salaries.

With Republicans vowing to make deep budget cuts, Mr. Obama must decide how far he is willing to go and where he will draw a line. He pointed out that he has already found $20 billion in savings from eliminating or scaling back unnecessary programs, identified $150 billion in improper payments and proposed selling $8 billion in unneeded federal buildings and land. “We believe it’s the first of many difficult steps ahead,” Mr. Zients said.

The federal workforce is an obvious first target, if one fraught with political risk for a president who relies on union support. Critics have said the federal workforce has been protected from the ravages of the economy. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute referred to federal workers, in a study in June, as “an elite island of secure and high-paid workers, separated from the ocean of average American workers.”

Mr. Edwards found that federal civilian workers had an average annual wage of $81,258 in 2009, compared with $50,464 for the nation’s private-sector workers. Average federal salaries rose 58 percent from 2000 to 2009, compared with 30 percent in the private sector, according to his study.

Union leaders said Mr. Obama was playing politics at workers’ expense. “It’s a panic reaction,” John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in an interview. “It’s superficial. People in this country voted for jobs and income. Sticking it to a V.A. nurse and a Social Security worker is not the way to go.”

Mr. Gage said the notion that federal employees make too much money “is a myth,” especially in light of million-dollar bonuses paid to Wall Street executives who he said helped trigger the financial crisis that plunged the nation into recession. A typical border patrol officer makes $34,000 a year, a nursing assistant makes $27,000 and a mine inspector makes $38,000, Mr. Gage said. “We’re an easy scapegoat,” he said. “We weren’t the ones who got us into this fix.”

Republicans welcomed Mr. Obama’s announcement even as they criticized it as not aggressive enough.

“At a time when our nation’s seniors have been denied a cost-of-living increase and private sector hiring is stagnant, it is both necessary and quite frankly long overdue to institute a pay freeze for the federal workforce,” Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican who is likely to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has addressed government pay to make a political point. He froze the salaries of his own top White House staff members when he took office 22 months ago and later extended that to senior political appointees throughout the government and canceled their bonuses.

In their draft report, the chairmen of Mr. Obama’s fiscal commission proposed a three-year freeze for federal employees.

I'm sure balancing the budget is going to make all those drones employees sleep better.

[Jaevric]

Given the nation's financial situation, a temporary pay freeze is not entirely unreasonable. At the same time, I find the arguments about Federal employees' average wages to be questionable -- how many minimum-wage jobs are there in the Federal government versus the private sector? How does the pay scale for the Federal government compare to the private sector in terms of the difference between the lowest-paid employees and the highest-paid employees?

I'd also point out that, given the profits reported by many private-sector industries versus the number of people that have been laid off or had their income slashed, I'd question whether we WANT the Federal government treating employees with the same level of disdain as private industry.

I also like the idiots commenting on many of these articles about how the Federal workforce needs to be slashed. Because, obviously, when we have enormous unemployment the best thing to do is put more people out of work.

However, "not getting your annual pay raise" isn't exactly the same thing as "not having job security."

[General Zod]

However, "not getting your annual pay raise" isn't exactly the same thing as "not having job security."

I don't think it just means "no pay raise", but I'm not sure exactly how it specifically affects their salaries. It doesn't exactly sound good to be a federal employee in any case.

[Cecelia5578]

I don't think it just means "no pay raise", but I'm not sure exactly how it specifically affects their salaries. It doesn't exactly sound good to be a federal employee in any case.

My understanding is that it means "no pay raise" -Federal employees still have their benefits, pensions, and obviously their jobs. Since inflation is pretty low, I don't see it as being too detrimental.

[Broomstick]

Sounds better to be a Federal employee than where I am right now!

It's a freeze on pay increases. Federal employees may or may not be laid off in the future, but that's a completely different matter. So a lot of Federals won't be getting a raise or COLA this year. They still have a job. Personally, if I was a Fed employee I'd be more concerned about a cut in hours if I was an hourly worker as that would have a much larger impact on income.

Their jobs are probably more secure than those in the private sector now, with or without a pay freeze.

[Edi]

Obama seems intent on bending over and taking it up the ass again so that he can alienate more voters and play right into Republican hands.

The first thing that needs to go are the Bush tax cuts and various corporate taxation loopholes and then the military budget needs to be pruned with an axe, followed by a forced renegotiation of the various prescription drug contracts with the private sector where no cost controls or collective bargaining whatsoever has been allowed at the federal level in order to inflate the private secor health care and Big Pharma profits.

Then start playing with the peanut league cuts.

Of course, Mr. Zerobama will refuse to even consider any of these options and will actively oppose any such proposals while publicly pledging his support so that he can stab the efforts in the back at the last minute and then blame the Democrats for not being centrist enough and doing what the GOP tells them to do.

[MKSheppard]

Of course, Mr. Zerobama will refuse to....

Who are you and what have you done with our Edi? Have you been replaced with Bayonet?

[Simon_Jester]

To Edi:

I agree that restoring taxes to Clinton levels is probably the biggest step needed to fix the deficit. In mitigation:

1) Regardless of how much taxes are going to be raised, some unpalatable budget austerity measures are probably going into the mix- not just to appease Republicans, but because it really does reduce the scope of the budget problem that little bit more.

The five billion dollars per year not spent on civil servants' paychecks is five billion more that will not be cut from somewhere else. And five billion that will not come out of the pockets of people who honestly aren't in good shape to weather tax increases; we're still in a recession and this year isn't the greatest of times to start taxing anyone harder, even the rich.

It's not realistic to expect ourselves to dig out of a deficit pit this large by taxation alone. And yes, I will say the same thing to Shep when he's howling at the moon on account of the Army being shrunk or something.

2) Tax increases and other changes to the budget are up to Congress, and originate in the House. Even if Obama was the most grimly determined politico in American history, nothing he can do will change that fact. He cannot increase taxes on his own authority; he can announce a freeze on cost of living adjustments for Federal workers on his own authority. Therefore, this is a measure Obama can take now, both as a symbolic gesture and as a (tiny) direct step towards addressing the problem.

Letting the Bush tax cuts die the quiet death they deserve is not something he can do on his own; it's not his decision to make.

[Temujin]

Sounds better to be a Federal employee than where I am right now!

It's a freeze on pay increases. Federal employees may or may not be laid off in the future, but that's a completely different matter. So a lot of Federals won't be getting a raise or COLA this year. They still have a job. Personally, if I was a Fed employee I'd be more concerned about a cut in hours if I was an hourly worker as that would have a much larger impact on income.

Their jobs are probably more secure than those in the private sector now, with or without a pay freeze.

Exactly! The biggest problem can be getting hired by the Feds in the first place, especially if you don't have previous federal or military experience. Veterans get preference and right now there are a lot of veterans and a shitty economy. But the benefits of getting in (if you do get in) can generally be better than the private sector, including being a hell of a lot more secure.

While the pay freeze sucks (Thanks Obama, why did I vote for your ass again? ) I'll still take the opportunity if it comes my way. I just got off a brief stint of unemployment, and my current position might provide me with an opportunity with the Feds down the road. Luckily, it's only a pay freeze and not a hiring what freeze like happened under Reagan.

[Alphawolf55]

Can anyone explain why exactly Obama sucks for freezing pay? Are you guys honestly suggesting public employees should get raises no matter what regardless of inflation?

[Dominus Atheos]

No, you strawmanning jackass. We're suggesting that they get raises exactly the same as inflation. That's called Cost of Living Adjustments so that the amount of real money people make doesn't decrease every year like it does with most private businesses.

(Actually COLA is tied to the CPI, not necessarily inflation; but same difference)

[TimothyC]

Can anyone explain why exactly Obama sucks for freezing pay? Are you guys honestly suggesting public employees should get raises no matter what regardless of inflation?

He's cutting the COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) increases for civil servants ie inflation adjustment. His administration (including political appointees in the DoD) has already been dicking around with the retirement set up for DoD civil servants. Under the old system sick leave you had accrued but not used would be used to help calculate your time in service. This means that it was possible for someone to have a year of unused sick leave, and thus increase their time in service from say 25 years to 26 years, without taking the sick leave. Under the "new" system, at retirement this medical leave would go away as a "Cost cutting measure". The result was that people started taking their sick leave Before retiring thus raising costs. All of these individuals could have done this before the system changed but often didn't. Just a few months ago, facing the fact that the 'cost cutting measure' didn't work, the system reverted to the original state.*

*No I don't have a published source for this, but I can attest to the facts as they have been related to me and shown to me.

[Simon_Jester]

This has been going on for some years, as part of a general attempt by certain parts of the civil service to reorganize along private lines. You should hear some of the complaints I heard from NASA employees I know about the requirements for grant proposals three to five years back.

[Anecdote, though it comes from two different sources that don't know each other and is probably quite checkable]

They had people having to write proposals for the money to pay their salaries... which predictably meant that the number of grant proposals ballooned, the rejection rate skyrocketed, and people spent practically all their time writing grant proposals to keep getting paid, and far less doing science.

[Darth Fanboy]

I'm sorry but in this case these federal employees still have it quite nice compared to their counterparts at other levels of government and the private sector. I don't get a cost of living adjustment, at my previous job we had our pay frozen indefinitely and I wasn't about to complain because I landed a job in a competitive field.

[AMT]

I'm sorry but in this case these federal employees still have it quite nice compared to their counterparts at other levels of government and the private sector. I don't get a cost of living adjustment, at my previous job we had our pay frozen indefinitely and I wasn't about to complain because I landed a job in a competitive field.

So in other words, because the private sector sucks the public sector must suck as well and in actuality pay their employees LESS per year so they can have some almighty profit?

While the rich keep their tax breaks, of course, while giving themselves nice bonuses and pay increases.

[Broomstick]

Leaving aside the tax breaks and rich getting richer aspect (which I think we all agree is deplorable), I'd like to point out that the public sector does not, in fact, generate profit. What's being cut here is the government budget for salaries. This does not magically turn into profit.

The public sector employees aren't going to get sympathies for a wage freeze because everyone in the private sector has been LUCKY to get just a pay freeze - these last few years pay CUTS have been all too common, as has JOB cuts were people lose all income. Due to business being down the government has less income in the form of sale tax, with individuals losing wages or jobs income tax is down, and so forth. Government either runs on credit, or makes cuts.

If someone had come to me three years ago and said you can have either a wage freeze or lose your job I would have chosen wage freeze. If they had said you can either have a pay cut or lose your job I would have taken the pay cut. But I didn't get a choice. I lost my job.

While I understand that getting a wage freeze sucks on a certain level it's not the end of the world, and I think most public sector employees understand that. Hell, on the state and local level this has already happened - wage freezes, hour cuts, etc. Yes, it sucks, but you might noticed lately that a LOT of things suck in this world and I'm not sure this one rates a lot of outrage.

[TimothyC]

Broomstick - This action pisses off a lot of people who don't work for the Feds, but do live in communities who's economies are reliant on federal jobs (the space coast in Florida; Dayton, Ohio [with Wright-Patterson, ect.]). This could really backfire politically in 2012 for the current administration because they are the ones who are taking the blame (locally at least). The trade off of working for the government has historically been (as I am sure you know) that you don't get as high of pay but you get better benefits and job security. One of those benefits has been the COLA increases.

As a bit of an aside, if there was a hiring freeze with the DoD that lasted more than a few years it could get very bad. The reason is that the people who were hired before the last hiring freeze are starting to come up to retirement age, and without replacements we're going to be hemorrhaging institutional knowledge. I draw this conclusion from personal anecdotes that the replacement of DoD staff in the 1990s was slightly below the replacement level. Heck, we're already seeing the same type of institutional knowlegde loss at NASA.

[Alphawolf55]

Does anyone actually know whats the projected raise they'd get if COLA wasnt taken into account? It says 1.2 percent for the first year, but anyone know if they got additional years because quite frankly, if we were talking about a 3-4 percent increase, I'd understand the anger but around 1-2%? That's not exactly horrible, since their raises were neglible to begin with.

[General Zod]

Does anyone actually know whats the projected raise they'd get if COLA wasnt taken into account?

I don't think there's an easy answer for that.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick - This action pisses off a lot of people who don't work for the Feds, but do live in communities who's economies are reliant on federal jobs (the space coast in Florida; Dayton, Ohio [with Wright-Patterson, ect.]).

You mean... just like communities reliant on the manufacturing sector have been impacted by those jobs going overseas? You mean like other communities reliant on other parts of the private sector have gone down the shitter in recent years?

ALL of this is bad... the point is not who is hurting worse, just that this isn't somehow singling out the Fed employees especially for cuts, it's more that that sector has been the last to be cut. Like I said, hard to drum up sympathy when everyone else has already been through this.

Yes, I'm aware of the informal "deal" that a Fed job is lower pay than the private sector but with greater job security. You know what? It's still true. No one here is proposing cutting jobs, they're not even cutting pay - what is happening is that their pay is not increasing. That's pretty damn minor considering what's been happening to others these past few years which, again, is why there just isn't going to be a lot of sympathy for these folks.

[Broomstick]

Does anyone actually know whats the projected raise they'd get if COLA wasnt taken into account? It says 1.2 percent for the first year, but anyone know if they got additional years because quite frankly, if we were talking about a 3-4 percent increase, I'd understand the anger but around 1-2%? That's not exactly horrible, since their raises were neglible to begin with.

COLA= Cost of Living Allowance. That's tied to things like the Consumer Price Index and inflation. If the cost of living jumps dramatically COLA is also supposed to. If the cost of living remains stable then COLA may even equal zero. So it varies from year to year based on the economy.

[Cecelia5578]

Broomstick - This action pisses off a lot of people who don't work for the Feds, but do live in communities who's economies are reliant on federal jobs (the space coast in Florida; Dayton, Ohio [with Wright-Patterson, ect.]). This could really backfire politically in 2012 for the current administration because they are the ones who are taking the blame (locally at least). The trade off of working for the government has historically been (as I am sure you know) that you don't get as high of pay but you get better benefits and job security. One of those benefits has been the COLA increases.

As a bit of an aside, if there was a hiring freeze with the DoD that lasted more than a few years it could get very bad. The reason is that the people who were hired before the last hiring freeze are starting to come up to retirement age, and without replacements we're going to be hemorrhaging institutional knowledge. I draw this conclusion from personal anecdotes that the replacement of DoD staff in the 1990s was slightly below the replacement level. Heck, we're already seeing the same type of institutional knowlegde loss at NASA.

I think worrying about any backlash is about as likely as...thinking in the fall of 2008 that Democratic women were going to vote for McCain since he chose a woman for VP. What are federal employees going to do-vote Republican? For the party that pisses on public employees whenever/wherever they can? Of course, the examples you cited were in the military industrial complex, so I assume there's some sorta (misguided) vestigial thinking that associates Republicans with guardians of those types of jobs.

And I have no idea what this story has to do with hypothetical DOD hiring freezes.

[ArmorPierce]

No, you strawmanning jackass. We're suggesting that they get raises exactly the same as inflation. That's called Cost of Living Adjustments so that the amount of real money people make doesn't decrease every year like it does with most private businesses.

(Actually COLA is tied to the CPI, not necessarily inflation; but same difference)

Can you show what the rate of inflation is for this year or the past couple years?

So what if they getting a effective pay cut? Average federal pay is higher than private sector anyway. Federal pay has been to generous as it is compared to the private sector, pay freeze is in order.

[Jaevric]

So what if they getting a effective pay cut? Average federal pay is higher than private sector anyway. Federal pay has been to generous as it is compared to the private sector, pay freeze is in order.

That would depend on how the people claiming average Federal pay is higher are calculating government paychecks versus private sector. Are the calculations using "all private sector employment" vs "all Federal employment," or "private sector employment requiring similiar levels of education/experience compared to Federal counterparts?"

If you look at "average private sector employment" and include all the people working part-time jobs at McDonalds or other minimum-wage work, then it may make Federal employee income look a lot higher relative to private sector. How many Federal government jobs are minimum-wage? It doesn't seem reasonable to tell a guy with a master's degree and a decade of experience, "Look, you're paid too much compared to this guy in high school who is working a cash register at McDonalds. You're going to have to take a pay cut."

To be blunt, with the current state of American politics and media, I have a hard time believing anything a politician, reporter or "analyst" claims unless they provide the source of their numbers and the calculations used. Unfortunately, real-world political claims don't have the same standards of evidence that SDN does for sci-fi debates -- which, now that I think about it, is kind of a sad commentary on politics. Or at least a sad commentary on the American willingness to believe anything the guy on TV tells us as long as it's what we want to hear.

[TimothyC]

And I have no idea what this story has to do with hypothetical DOD hiring freezes.

Yeah, sorry for that tangent. The reason I mentioned it was that, living in one of the areas that will be effected by the COLA cuts (roughly 3-4% of the working population in the metro area where I live is civil service) the current rumors that are flying is that a hiring freeze is next. Disingenuous of me to even bring it up, and I apologize.