• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Federal Gov. Job Pay

Mike

Well-known member
August 14, 2006


Federal Pay: Myth and Realities
by Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards is tax director at the Cato Institute and author of Downsizing the Federal Government.


We've often heard that civil servants forgo higher private-sector salaries in order to serve the nation selflessly. Many federal bureaucrats are indeed hardworking, but new statistics show that they are anything but underpaid.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released data this month showing that the average compensation for the 1.8 million federal civilian workers in 2005 was $106,579 -- exactly twice the average compensation paid in the U.S. private sector: $53,289. If you consider wages without benefits, the average federal civilian worker earned $71,114, 62 percent more than the average private-sector worker, who made $43,917.

The high level of federal pay is problematic in and of itself, but so is its rapid growth. Since 1990 average compensation for federal workers has increased by 129 percent, the BEA data show, compared with 74 percent for private-sector workers.

Why is federal compensation growing so quickly? For one thing, federal pay schedules increase every year regardless of how well the economy is doing. Thus in recession years, private pay stagnates while government pay continues to rise. Another factor is the steadily increasing "locality" payments given to federal workers in higher-cost cities.

Rapid growth in federal pay also results from regular promotions that move workers into higher salary brackets regardless of performance and from redefining jobs upward into higher pay ranges. The federal workforce has become increasingly top-heavy.

The structure of that workforce has also changed over time. There are fewer low-pay typists and more high-pay computer experts in the government today than there were a generation ago. But that doesn't explain why, as the BEA data show, federal wages have risen 38 percent in just the past five years, compared with 14 percent in the private sector.

Whatever the reasons, the federal civilian workforce has become an elite island of secure and highly paid workers, separated from the ocean of private-sector American workers who must compete in today's dynamic economy.

Federal workers' unions try to convince Congress that their members suffer from a "pay gap" with the private sector. They point to studies showing that in similar jobs, federal workers are paid less than they would be in large private companies. But such studies typically look only at wages and don't consider the superior benefits enjoyed by federal workers.

Federal workers receive generous health benefits during work and retirement, a pension plan with inflation protection, a retirement savings plan with generous matching contributions, large disability benefits, and union protections. They often have generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible hours, training options, incentive awards, flexible spending accounts, and a more relaxed pace of work than private-sector workers.

Perhaps the most important benefit of federal employment is extreme job security. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the rate of layoffs and firings in the federal workforce is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector. All these advantages in worker benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs, federal wages ought to be lower than private-sector wages.

One sign that federal workers have a sweeter deal than they acknowledge is the rate of voluntary resignation from government positions: just one-quarter the rate in the private sector, the BLS data show. Long job tenure has its pros and cons, but the fact that many federal workers burrow in and never leave suggests that they are doing pretty well for themselves.

Of course, particular federal jobs may be underpaid and others overpaid. The average annual compensation of federal air traffic controllers is $170,000, which certainly seems excessive. One way to determine proper pay levels objectively would be to privatize services and let the market decide what they're worth.

The Bush administration has tried to bring greater payroll flexibility to the federal government, but it has also presided over large pay increases. To get spending under control, Congress should consider trimming overly generous benefit packages and freezing federal wages for a few years. With federal civilian compensation costing about $200 billion a year, this area is ripe for reform.


This article appeared on Washingtonpost.com on August 13, 2006.
 

Steve

Well-known member
a good start would be the well performing FEMA......thier ineptness, and arrogance is well documented.....
 

Frisco

Well-known member
I agree. As a former federal employee, the wages and benefits were very good compared to the private sector. Most people I know think I am crazy for quitting such a good gig.

Washington DC is such a mess. The other thread about WIC and welfare abuse is a good example of the mess. Government employees are notorius for not working on a program or assisting someone if the program or assistance is not "their" program.

One way to change the ridiculous employment problems is to start at the top. There could be so much jetsam and flotsam cut at the under secretary and deputy director levels, but that's where the political favors are butt kissing gets paid off.

That Michael Brown (FEMA) type appointment is typical to most of the departments and agencies in the government.

Good luck changing it, too. That type of hiring and appointments is so entrenched, federal employment will always mean ineptness, ineffieceny, and apathy.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Frisco said:
I agree. As a former federal employee, the wages and benefits were very good compared to the private sector. Most people I know think I am crazy for quitting such a good gig.

Washington DC is such a mess. The other thread about WIC and welfare abuse is a good example of the mess. Government employees are notorius for not working on a program or assisting someone if the program or assistance is not "their" program.

One way to change the ridiculous employment problems is to start at the top. There could be so much jetsam and flotsam cut at the under secretary and deputy director levels, but that's where the political favors are butt kissing gets paid off.

That Michael Brown (FEMA) type appointment is typical to most of the departments and agencies in the government.

Good luck changing it, too. That type of hiring and appointments is so entrenched, federal employment will always mean ineptness, ineffieceny, and apathy.

I kinda wonder about that Frisco. It seems to me the people at the top of departments change frequently enough that the bureaucrats in lower levels probably know the day to day operations, like things as they are, and work against 'new brooms' to maintain that status quo.....in too many cases.

Do you think I have any basis for my contention? I'm just basing it on observations and conversations over several years, re. bureaucratic mismanagement and slow business.

MRJ
 

Steve

Well-known member
Or not to be found Friday afternoons, etc.

I used to be alarmed at the number of "sick call" ins on Monday, and requests for "personnel" time off on Friday.

even had one say she needed the time off to beat rush hour traffic...it was approved...

I must admit it was the easiest year I ever "worked"..in DC.....two hour lunches....breaks for "exercise time"...yep I had to take time away from my desk every day to exercise......so I would Jog around the Mall.....go to Lunch at the Smithsonian....walk past the monuments.....catch a bus...and was still able to put in a ten to twelve hour day.....they would have promoted me if I wasn't waiting for Retirement Papers....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Contrast that to govt contractors who work 60 - 80 hour work weeks often

I was the "lone" military liason...in the office....they thought I was stupid to work before 10am....and past 5pm.....I took the middle of the day off ,to avoid thier petty crap.....but still put in more time and effort, then most of the office..I also found I was "effective" by seeing the part of the day when the cleaners arrived.....and gossiped for three hours......and when the desk staff told military coming into the area to "get a hotel room as the barracks was full" when we had plenty of room, but they just didn't want to deal with the paperwork.....

we went from a 20% occupancy to well over 90% in one month,....with no problems...just a little supervision....
 
Top