PDA

View Full Version : More federal workers' pay tops $150,000


Dolvio
November 12, 2010, 00:35
What do government workers produce again?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

John Culver
November 12, 2010, 03:10
The Defense Department had 214 civilians earning $170,000 or more when Obama took office and 994 in June.

Thats the democrat way, over a 400% increase in less then 2 years

jerrymrc
November 12, 2010, 09:18
Originally posted by Dolvio
What do government workers produce again?



Some of us probably a lot more than your sorry little ass. :eek: :beer:

juanni
November 12, 2010, 09:42
Originally posted by Dolvio
What do government workers produce again?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm


Misery.




..................juanni

Dolvio
November 12, 2010, 10:18
Originally posted by jerrymrc


Some of us probably a lot more than your sorry little ass. :eek: :beer:

GFY, you're part of the problem.

bykerhd
November 12, 2010, 11:30
I just KNEW I went in to the wrong line of work.:rolleyes:

alant
November 12, 2010, 17:50
Originally posted by jerrymrc
Some of us probably a lot more than your sorry little ass. :eek: :beer:
Nailed it!

"The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds."

How many K Street lobbyists make that or more? Probably more than in all of DoD.

I don't know a single federal civil service employees making that kind of money. Military, yes. DoD implemented a new civilian pay system (National Security Personnel System - NSPS) just before Obama took office that was supposed to reward "top performers" and this may be behind the recent uptick at DoD. The hidden story was that DoD would be able to outbid every other agency.

When it was being implemented many of us made the observation that it would drive up pay. The Obama administration has decided to return to the old pay system, but once an employee gets a raise it is unlikely to be taken back. The National Guard was one of a few agencies within DoD to not switch.

FAL freek
November 12, 2010, 18:22
Originally posted by Dolvio


GFY, you're part of the problem. As are some of the doctors that treat and rehabilitate wounded soldiers and veterans I would assume. No sense in having only entry level doctors and therapists while others leave their government jobs to pursue private practices so the can make good money.

gunner30
November 12, 2010, 22:07
Cerainly not in my branch of the Fed Gov (Postal letter carrier), with lotsa overtime we can do 60k (not bad money), and postamsters make 80k, not sure who is making a buck fifty a year, gotta be a whole lot higher up the food chain than I am:rolleyes:

jeffrey
November 12, 2010, 23:28
Pay scale exceeding the private sector is one thing ( a VERY annoying one thing to those of us paying for it) , but in my opinion, the real problem is unionization of public sector employees at all levels.

In a sane world, this would be instantly recognized as the amoral filthy scam it is and would never be allowed.

And please, don't fire back with how important your job is, how hard you work, and how you're not really not over paid. Ok , I believe you. My beef is not about that. You should not , however be allowed to unionize.

Andy the Aussie
November 12, 2010, 23:59
Originally posted by jerrymrc


Some of us probably a lot more than your sorry little ass. :eek: :beer: .....:uhoh: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

alant
November 13, 2010, 06:42
Originally posted by jeffrey
Pay scale exceeding the private sector is one thing ( a VERY annoying one thing to those of us paying for it) , but in my opinion, the real problem is unionization of public sector employees at all levels.

In a sane world, this would be instantly recognized as the amoral filthy scam it is and would never be allowed.

And please, don't fire back with how important your job is, how hard you work, and how you're not really not over paid. Ok , I believe you. My beef is not about that. You should not , however be allowed to unionize.
I can't speak about public sector unions in general, but federal employee unions are a far cry from private sector unions. To begin with they can not negotiate over wages or benefits. Those are set by law. Federal employees cannot strike. (Remember the air traffic controllers?) Federal workplaces are "open shop" meaning employees have the choice - they can join the union or not. The union must still represent any non dues paying workers in the bargaining unit. For example at my workplace ACT is the union and out of 270 employees they have less than 50 dues paying members.

Tuscan Raider
November 13, 2010, 08:23
Why negotiate over pay and benefits when you get the best?

I can account for jerrymrc,he is not a complete waste of
tax paying dollars. If they taught him how to cook curry,
well then that's tax money well spent;)

jeffrey
November 13, 2010, 08:57
Ok alant, they can not negotiate over wages and benefits...then maybe you should pick another descriptor than "bargaining unit". Just a thought.

The evil thing about unionized public sector employees is that they are allowed to corrupt the electoral process. The idea that your "bargaining unit" should be allowed to contribute to re-elect the politician who then writes the statute that locks in your wages and benefits is what is so offensive to me. The financial situation in states like California and Illinois is where it is in part because of the out of control wages and pensions guaranteed and locked in by politicians bought and paid for by your bargaining units contributions. I will never forget the images from last year here in Illinois of hundreds of public sector union members - bused in from Chicago - chanting in front of the Capitol building in Springfield, "RAISE MY TAXES !!!"

Besides the wages/benefit structure growing beyond the ability of the private sector to support, consider your job security. If you are a public sector employee, you simply have no concept of this. You are WAY to hard to get rid of once you're in, thanks to the efforts of your "bargaining unit".And we need to get rid of a lot of dead weight. It's that simple. We the people who pay your wages have had enough.

JasonB
November 13, 2010, 09:02
Originally posted by jeffrey
Ok alant, they can not negotiate over wages and benefits...then maybe you should pick another descriptor than "bargaining unit". Just a thought.

The evil thing about unionized public sector employees is that they are allowed to corrupt the electoral process. The idea that your "bargaining unit" should be allowed to contribute to re-elect the politician who then writes the statute that locks in your wages and benefits is what is so offensive to me. The financial situation in states like California and Illinois is where it is in part because of the out of control wages and pensions guaranteed and locked in by politicians bought and paid for by your bargaining units contributions. I will never forget the images from last year here in Illinois of hundreds of public sector union members - bused in from Chicago - chanting in front of the Capitol building in Springfield, "RAISE MY TAXES !!!"

Besides the wages/benefit structure growing beyond the ability of the private sector to support, consider your job security. If you are a public sector employee, you simply have no concept of this. You are WAY to hard to get rid of once you're in, thanks to the efforts of your "bargaining unit".And we need to get rid of a lot of dead weight. It's that simple. We the people who pay your wages have had enough.

As do private companies who pay tribute to get corporate welfare entitlements such as (but not limited to) the bailouts.

jeffrey
November 13, 2010, 12:27
Originally posted by JasonB


As do private companies who pay tribute to get corporate welfare entitlements such as (but not limited to) the bailouts.



I will acknowledge that point,even though by widening the discussion you seem to be trying to diminish the focus on the point of this discussion : Public sector employees at all levels of government are gonna be in for a rude awakening. The gravy train is running dry.

alant
November 13, 2010, 15:25
Originally posted by jeffrey
Ok alant, they can not negotiate over wages and benefits...then maybe you should pick another descriptor than "bargaining unit". Just a thought.

The evil thing about unionized public sector employees is that they are allowed to corrupt the electoral process. The idea that your "bargaining unit" should be allowed to contribute to re-elect the politician who then writes the statute that locks in your wages and benefits is what is so offensive to me. The financial situation in states like California and Illinois is where it is in part because of the out of control wages and pensions guaranteed and locked in by politicians bought and paid for by your bargaining units contributions. I will never forget the images from last year here in Illinois of hundreds of public sector union members - bused in from Chicago - chanting in front of the Capitol building in Springfield, "RAISE MY TAXES !!!"

Besides the wages/benefit structure growing beyond the ability of the private sector to support, consider your job security. If you are a public sector employee, you simply have no concept of this. You are WAY to hard to get rid of once you're in, thanks to the efforts of your "bargaining unit".And we need to get rid of a lot of dead weight. It's that simple. We the people who pay your wages have had enough.
"Bargaining unit" is standard labor-management language.

Everyone from NRA to AARP to General Dynamics to George Soros is "corrupting the electoral process". If you think George Soros is the only billionare seeking to change how our government works you are naive. SCOTUS has said unlimited private, corporate and union money is legal. The unions have far less money than billionares or major corporations. Hardly a level playing field.

You seem to be suggesting that public sector unions should be illegal. I'm not claiming everything unions do is good, they have their problems for sure and some have priced entire industries out of existance in the US. On the other hand, without unions companies can surely take advantage of employees. If you want to make public sector unions illegal you'll need to convince conress.

Whether government employees are unionized or not they can be pandered to by politicians. They can also be made scapegoats by politicians, newspapers, radio comentators or whoever. The average government file clerk or garbage collector does more for society than Rush Limbaugh ever will. Who gets paid better? I have to pass random drug tests, maintain weight and pass physical fitness tests to keep my government job. Does Rush Limbaugh? In a couple of years I'll have to retire due to age limits. Will Rush Limbaugh be "aged out" of talk radio?

Congress can cut federal civil service pay, benefits and retirement tomorrow (assuming the President goes along). If they do so they'll kinda have to cut their own (and their staff's) pay, benefits and retirement by at least as much. They could cut what's going to current retirees while they're at it. Imaging the flak the'd get for cutting the retired pay of former Presidents, Congresscritters, judges, etc. Unlike private sector unions, federal employee unions wouldn't be able to do didly squat besides lodge a protest. They're unlikely to cut military retired pay, too hot a topic.

Congress can also cut the number of federal employees any time they want. Eliminate whole departments, via an across the board percentage, or any old way they wish. The rules governing how those cuts are handled are, guess what, subject to change by congress.

How easy or hard it is to fire an employee - you probably figured this out by now - is subject to the whim of Congress.

bykerhd
November 13, 2010, 17:36
An upper, middle grade Fed employee I know is a very responsible sort.
The type that really does earn that taxpayer funded paycheck.

But, this person has LOTs of stories about co-workers who spend their time surfing Government job postings, napping, shopping and generally screwing off.

Apparently the hunt and competition for jobs is fierce and is darn near all consuming for some of the Government "career" types. Actually doing the work is much less important than getting the job, the pay grade that goes with it, office, perks, etc. than is actually doing any work.

If it is this bad here in a fairly remote part of the country, I can't imagine what it is like in Washington or the other big Government cities.

alant
November 13, 2010, 17:49
Originally posted by bykerhd
If it is this bad here in a fairly remote part of the country, I can't imagine what it is like in Washington or the other big Government cities.
How much would they have to pay you to work in DC?

Andy the Aussie
November 13, 2010, 17:54
Originally posted by alant

How much would they have to pay you to work in DC? ...therein lay a great part of the problem. I am a Govt employee and make good money by any standard, bu they own me time and location wise. Sydney is one of the most expensive places in the world to live and as a result I do not live as one would expect of the salary I make. Same organization have people of the same rank as me working in regional locations, they still work as hard as me but their salary goes a great deal further. Getting people to do such jobs (well) in large cities also means you have to pay them enough to live in those locations. I would happily take a $20k pay cut (maybe more) if I could do the same job in the bush.

JasonB
November 13, 2010, 20:41
Originally posted by jeffrey




I will acknowledge that point,even though by widening the discussion you seem to be trying to diminish the focus on the point of this discussion : Public sector employees at all levels of government are gonna be in for a rude awakening. The gravy train is running dry.

Not trying to diminish, far from it. I am pointing out how widespread it is to include a sector of society that has their pan handler status somewhat shielded from view.

alant
November 13, 2010, 22:10
Originally posted by Andy the Aussie
...therein lay a great part of the problem. I am a Govt employee and make good money by any standard, bu they own me time and location wise. Sydney is one of the most expensive places in the world to live and as a result I do not live as one would expect of the salary I make. Same organization have people of the same rank as me working in regional locations, they still work as hard as me but their salary goes a great deal further. Getting people to do such jobs (well) in large cities also means you have to pay them enough to live in those locations. I would happily take a $20k pay cut (maybe more) if I could do the same job in the bush.
My answer is always the same, in order to get me to work in DC they would have to pay way more than I'm worth - enough for me to retire after 1-2 years. Let's call it low level Wall Street investment banker pay.

There are those willing to work in DC for far less than I and they are welcome to it.

Eric Bryant
November 14, 2010, 10:16
There are some interesting reader e-mails quotes in this blog post:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/109737/

For what it's worth, the government workers that I've encountered most frequently are engineers for TACOM. Most of them are pretty "senior" guys (meaning they probably aren't cheap), and many of them have very specialized skills. As to the question of "what do they produce?", well, they keep the arsenal of democracy rolling along. Ya know that big $780B chunk of the yearly budget labeled "defense"? That ends up supporting a lot of salaries.

alant
November 14, 2010, 11:19
I still don't know where that $120k average salary and benefits cost comes from. Maybe in the DC area where no one seems to be below a GS-11.

In my part of DoD there are a lot of Wage Grade (WG) mechanics and lower graded white collar (GS-5/6/7) clerical workers.

Doctors, engineers, info technology and pilots - they get special pay not applicable to the average worker.

Federal pay has a "locality" adjustment. High cost and urban areas have different rates. DC has one of the higher rates because it does cost a lot to live in big cities. Our employees all fall into the RUS (Rest of United States) category.

Then there was the SecDef Rumsfeld National Security Personnel System (NSPS) scheme that drove up pay in DoD.

1911guy
November 14, 2010, 16:13
MOst federal workers at the 150k+ level are political appointees called SESers or Senior Executive Service, Scientific or Senior Level which go from about 120K-180K. Career Fed Workers go to GS15 which top about 130k. Political appointees folks.

cwo4uscgret
November 14, 2010, 18:02
Originally posted by 1911guy
MOst federal workers at the 150k+ level are political appointees called SESers or Senior Executive Service, Scientific or Senior Level which go from about 120K-180K. Career Fed Workers go to GS15 which top about 130k. Political appointees folks.

And they are political payback positions...