Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any federal employee hired after 1989 has a pension that is hardly "generous". The pension formula is 1% of the average top 3 earning year salaries, multiplied by the number of years employed. So, for example, an employee earning $80,000 annually who worked 30 years, their pension would be $800 (1% of 80,000) X 30 (years employed) = $24,000 annually or, $2000 a month before taxes.
Hardly a lot to live on these days.
I disagree - on top of SS and their savings plan that pension is extremely generous by today's standards, especially when your 30 year example can put the start at age 50-55 with generous health care to boot! Early retirement gets them a nice chunk of the max SS benefit while paying in far less than private workers contributing for 40-45 years.
The DBP should be frozen and replaced with a DCP immediately, and retiree health care should be cut.
And lest we forget, federal employees receive grade promotions pretty much automatically. Vacation and health care are also extremely generous.
Finally, my opinion of the work, based on my BIL's career at SSA, is that it is extremely low-pressure/low accountability and job duties that are covered by one person in the private sector may have 2 or more in government.
It was nice while it lasted, but we just can't afford this boondoggle any longer.
I assume it's timing. SS is based on CPI measured year over year in the Jul-Sep quarter. That got them a 5.8% increase after 2008. The COLA isn't cut when CPI goes down, so SS benefits last year were higher than they should have been.
I keep reading that no one has a plan to actually shrink the federal government. How's this for an idea.
With the exception of people in the armed forces below a yet to be specified rank, all federal workers should be forced to undergo a pay cut.
Those whos annual income is less than $150,000 - 10%
Those whos annual income is greater than $150,000 - 15%
There should be no annual increases or merrit increases for two years.
There should be a hiring freeze for all federal jobs. Make the government learn how to get things done with less people.
This isn't much more than what private industry has been forced to do over the last few years and studies have shown that federal government employees already make more and have better benefits than those in comperable positions in private industry.
I'll sit back and wait for the bombs in my mail box.
kinda my idea on all things run by the government: cut maybe 10% off entitlement programs, salaries, whatever. Boy wouldn't that bring down some of the deficit spending.!!!???
I disagree - on top of SS and their savings plan that pension is extremely generous by today's standards, especially when your 30 year example can put the start at age 50-55 with generous health care to boot! Early retirement gets them a nice chunk of the max SS benefit while paying in far less than private workers contributing for 40-45 years.
The DBP should be frozen and replaced with a DCP immediately, and retiree health care should be cut.
And lest we forget, federal employees receive grade promotions pretty much automatically. Vacation and health care are also extremely generous.
Finally, my opinion of the work, based on my BIL's career at SSA, is that it is extremely low-pressure/low accountability and job duties that are covered by one person in the private sector may have 2 or more in government.
It was nice while it lasted, but we just can't afford this boondoggle any longer.
you have that right. Retirement for all civil servents in more than generous.
I guess it depends on your perspective. I know plenty of people in the private sector who can retire after 30 years and have pensions equal to 60 -- 70% of their annual income! Most federal workers I know don't retire early, there are tons of them still working well into their 70's with more than 40 years of service. As far as healthcare goes, yes federal retiree's can keep their health insurance, as long as they continue to pay the premiums. That is something all companies should be required to offer. Medicare alone doesn't pay for prescriptions and a lot of other care. Of course as someone who supports a single payer system where there is universal health coverage, I am in the minority on this site!
I guess it depends on your perspective. I know plenty of people in the private sector who can retire after 30 years and have pensions equal to 60 -- 70% of their annual income! Most federal workers I know don't retire early, there are tons of them still working well into their 70's with more than 40 years of service. As far as healthcare goes, yes federal retiree's can keep their health insurance, as long as they continue to pay the premiums. That is something all companies should be required to offer. Medicare alone doesn't pay for prescriptions and a lot of other care. Of course as someone who supports a single payer system where there is universal health coverage, I am in the minority on this site!
At this time many companies are still paing DBP benefits, but many of those have frozen the DBP and health care benefit for workers who haven't retired yet. So they will continue to pay for 20-30 years while the liability unwinds.
The point is that they have taken the steps to correct the problem - federal and state governments need to step up and do the same. It's far too easy for politicians to promise open-ended benefits and let their successors figure out how to pay for them.
I disagree - on top of SS and their savings plan that pension is extremely generous by today's standards, especially when your 30 year example can put the start at age 50-55 with generous health care to boot! Early retirement gets them a nice chunk of the max SS benefit while paying in far less than private workers contributing for 40-45 years.
Ummm, not under FERS.
The DBP should be frozen and replaced with a DCP immediately, and retiree health care should be cut.
And lest we forget, federal employees receive grade promotions pretty much automatically. Vacation and health care are also extremely generous.
Really, how about some links to this. If you're a federal employee, you get 13 days of leave during the first 3 years, and it gradually increases. Health care, you've got to be kidding. Try this link: OPM-Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan Home Page for some facts.
Finally, my opinion of the work, based on my BIL's career at SSA, is that it is extremely low-pressure/low accountability and job duties that are covered by one person in the private sector may have 2 or more in government.
Oooh, you've got hearsay from an unhappy brother-in-law; hmmm, what's that worth? I've got the opposite experience. I'd say about 10% of federal employees are dead weight, about the same as in the private sector.
It was nice while it lasted, but we just can't afford this boondoggle any longer.
Really?
Got anything other than your opinion, or your BILs complaint. Of course, he was the only one in the office who did any work, right?
Boondoggle, why don't you try to get a federal job if they're so easy.
Please provide a link to these studies. Make sure that the studies are for truly comparable jobs - nurses in the federal sector vs. non-federal nurses, lawyers in the federal sector vs. non-federal lawyers, etc. Thanks.
No, these are all stories (not studies) about *averages* - they look at federal jobs (with a high percentage of professional positions) and non-federal jobs (including Wal-Mart greeters, McDonald's burger-flippers, and other minimum wage or very low paying jobs) and NOT comparable jobs. Particularly misleading is the USAToday headline about "federal workers earning double their private counterparts" ... but they don't actually compare TRUE counterparts - people do the same job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYBob
Oh, and by the way, This year's federal COLA 2.0% Next year's proposed 1.4%. What was Social Securities COLA for those two years? 2010 0.0% 2011 0.0%
Wrong again. Federal employees do not get COLAs - federal retirees get Cost-of-Living Allowances, except for last year and this year, since the federal retiree COLA calculation follows the same process and gets the same results as that for Social Security recipients.
In addition, if SS retirees get no COLA for a given year, any increase in Medicare Part B premiums for that year is waived ... but if federal retirees get no COLA, they still have to pay whatever increase in Medicare Part B premiums take place that year.
Federal employees DO get pay increases - most years anyway - and the amount varies depending on what the President and Congress agree on. For more about this, see: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/94-971_20100120.pdf
It is largely based on: We've screwed ourselves and now we want to *********.
It is a rather strange argument when we compare public and private. After years of driving down wages and McDonaldizing jobs which is literally destroying people it must then be ok to turn around and look at someone else and say......hey, I don't think you are as miserable as we are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
