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.
I looked at the numbers as reported by USA Today, but digging the raw data out of the OPM website would take days.
In any case, making a judgment about federal pay in relation to the prevailing wage MUST begin with a cross-examination of individual positions, not just general averages. USA Today made no effort to do that.
For instance, it's easy to say a certain number of DOD employees make over $150,000 per year, but it's meaningless unless one compares the job those people do in relation to similar jobs in the private sector. If a janitor at the Pentagon makes that much then, yes, that's out of line. But, if that person is a mid-level manager with broad responsibilities then, no, it's not.
There also MUST be a cross-examination of compensation other than wages. That's where the govt workers far exceed private sector. And the reason this country will go broke.
There also MUST be a cross-examination of compensation other than wages. That's where the govt workers far exceed private sector. And the reason this country will go broke.
This country isn't going to go broke because of federal compensation. Again, if you're angry because someone is getting a better deal than you, then just say so. Nothing wrong with a little envy every now and then.
There also MUST be a cross-examination of compensation other than wages. That's where the govt workers far exceed private sector. And the reason this country will go broke.
I find that a little hard to believe. Do you have anything to back up that assertion?
The problem is in the Washington area, the headquarters location of most federal agencies. You would think, the span of control would be larger with higher graded employees. Why do a handful of Grade 13 and 14 headquarters employees need so much Grade 15 managerial oversight compared to field offices where a grade 9 or 10 can manage triple the number of lowered graded and usually less experienced employees. And that's just headquarters managers because they then justify the existence of executives. I'd love to know how many executives (not on the same payscale) there are now compared to 10 years ago.
If I were Congress I would also ask the federal government why they need to keep so many civilian workers when they hire contractors to do the same jobs the federal workers used to be doing. In private industry, one of them has to go. In the federal government, when contractors are hired to do a job, the federal employees whose job is now being done by those contractors stays employed and is just shuffled around. I ask you, does the federal government really need to hire contractors to do, for example, personnel work and if they do, why are those former federal personnel employees still employed?
Didn't we have 2-3 other threads on this topic in the last 3-4 months?
_______
Bush hired contractors like never before.
They're now being let go; especially from inherently government positions.
Under the Bush administration, contracting was very big, to the detriment of the government itself.
That's being corrected during this administration.
I don't know where you got the idea that there are 2 people doing comparable jobs.
Do you have facts here or perhaps what you've seen in one place?
I'm really not seeing that in the field.
I've worked all over the world and barely see enough employees to cover the jobs that need to be done, let alone having more than one person doing the same thing.
There also MUST be a cross-examination of compensation other than wages. That's where the govt workers far exceed private sector. And the reason this country will go broke.
far exceed???
their health insurance is the same as anyone elses offered by an employeer
their 401k (thrift savings plan) is basicly the same as most private sectors 401ks
if they want the health insurance after retirment, they CAN have it, but they PAY for it...many private sector jobs do offer a insurance carry over
the only thing would be the retirment package, which is a miniscule "1% of your 'high3' times the number of years" package anyhow
most teachers, cops, and sanitation workers get better than that
This country isn't going to go broke because of federal compensation. Again, if you're angry because someone is getting a better deal than you, then just say so. Nothing wrong with a little envy every now and then.
Class warfare....SMH.
I'm certainly not angry when someone earns more money than I do. I assume they are better educated, have more experience, took more risk, etc. I am angry that they are paid that money, exceeding the private sector wage, then raising my taxes to pay for it.
You don't think it's a little wrong that our economy is has been horrible, unemployment up, and foreclosures up for the past 2 years, but govt jobs have tripled? That means the govt is spending money it doesn't have. Now that makes me angry.
I'm certainly not angry when someone earns more money than I do. I assume they are better educated, have more experience, took more risk, etc. I am angry that they are paid that money, exceeding the private sector wage, then raising my taxes to pay for it.
You don't think it's a little wrong that our economy is has been horrible, unemployment up, and foreclosures up for the past 2 years, but govt jobs have tripled? That means the govt is spending money it doesn't have. Now that makes me angry.
I find that a little hard to believe. Do you have anything to back up that assertion?
A quick search found this: Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm - broken link)
Pay particular attention to this paragraph:
These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
A quick search found this: Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm - broken link)
Pay particular attention to this paragraph:
These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Personally, I'd like to see how they arrived at those figures. What's included? What's excluded? Do both figures include all levels of reponsibility, or is one all-inclusive and the other not?
Government jobs have increased because it is more economical to hire full time employees than private sector contractors. The Republicans were using the contracting to pay back their political contributors. Why in Hell do you think the defunct Blackwater Mercenary Company was created? It was designed to privatize the Army. Blackwater charged the government three to four times as much as it cost to support an American soldier.
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.
This country isn't going to go broke because of federal compensation. Again, if you're angry because someone is getting a better deal than you, then just say so. Nothing wrong with a little envy every now and then.
