Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-25-2012, 04:54 AM
 
12,905 posts, read 15,658,187 times
Reputation: 9394

Advertisements

Government to pay contractor executives more - FederalTimes.com

There's just so much wrong with this. And I think it's funny that, according to this article, federal workers' pay is low and they can't attract talent because of it. I wonder who voted this down.

Quote:
The government is raising the cap on what it pays contractors' top five executives to $723,029, a 10 percent increase, federal procurement officials announced Monday.

The cap, up from $693,951, applies to contract costs for compensation — including wages, salary, bonuses and deferred compensation — incurred after Jan. 1, 2011, according to a notice published in the Federal Register. It applies only to a contractor's top five executives; other contractor employees can earn more.

The cap is based on a federal executive compensation formula that pleases neither the administration nor federal employee unions.

"Current federal employees have had their own salaries frozen for two years and new employees will have to pay four times as much in retirement contributions, saving the government $75 billion. Yet nothing is being done to trim out-of-control contractor spending," said John Gage, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees.

The Office of Federal Procurement Policy usually updates the cap every year. The office delayed the issuance of last year's cap as the administration urged Congress to tie contractors' compensation to federal salaries. The administration used this week's announcement to repeat its dissatisfaction with the formula.

"This rate of growth in the cap (both from 1995 onward, and in this most recent year) has far outpaced the rate of inflation, the rate of growth of private-sector salaries generally, and the rate of growth of federal salaries — forcing our taxpayers to reimburse contractors for levels of executive compensation that cannot be justified for federal contract work," Lesley Field, acting administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, said in the notice.

President Obama asked Congress last year to scrap the formula that sets the reimbursement cap and instead tie it to what the government pays its own top executives, about $200,000.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, attempted to lower the cap within the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act in December but were unsuccessful. But the 2012 NDAA that passed extended the salary cap to all defense contractor employees, not just the top five, starting Jan. 1, 2012.

Boxer and Grassley introduced legislation in March that would limit the taxpayer reimbursement for government contractor compensation to the amount of the president's salary — $400,000. The measure would extend the cap to all government contractor employees.

Industry advocates oppose efforts to tie contractor compensation to federal employee salaries. That would hurt contractors' ability to find talent in the competitive private sector, much like low federal pay has been a barrier to attracting and retaining highly skilled federal workers, Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council trade association, said in a statement. A better solution would be to give agencies more flexibility in how they hire and compensate different employee groups, Soloway said.

"It is the norm in the private sector to focus scarce resources, including compensation, on critical, core skills," he said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2012, 05:08 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,472,986 times
Reputation: 27720
Are you worried we won't have money to pay for this ?
Don't worry, they'll be cutting SS and medicare. Those executives DESERVE raises, don't they ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 05:14 AM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,852,928 times
Reputation: 9283
It says 10% but it looks like around 5%...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2012, 05:21 AM
 
12,905 posts, read 15,658,187 times
Reputation: 9394
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Are you worried we won't have money to pay for this ?
Don't worry, they'll be cutting SS and medicare. Those executives DESERVE raises, don't they ?

I just think it's interesting that during this tone of "austerity" especially when it comes to public sector workers, there's not hint of it for private sector workers who are fully funded out of the annual government budget. Why is it okay for them to get such high compensation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:31 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top