Are fed workers overpaid

Topspin

Topspin

Verified User
FACT CHECK: Are federal workers paid too much or unfair targets in quest for budget cuts?



Email
Print
Sam Hananel, Associated Press, On Thursday April 7, 2011, 3:08 am EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Are federal employees overpaid?

Republican leaders in Congress think so, and they are calling for an overhaul of the entire federal pay system to help slash government spending.

Democrats and other defenders of the government work force say federal workers are actually underpaid compared with their private counterparts.

A closer look at the data shows that both sides have a point but that supporters of federal workers are a bit closer to reality. The debate has heated up since the GOP budget blueprint unveiled this week calls for federal pay "to be reformed to be in line with the private sector." It says average wages "far eclipse" those in the private industry.

At a congressional hearing last month, Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., said the average federal worker earns $101,628 in total compensation -- including wages and benefits-- compared with $60,000 for the average private employee. He was citing data from the federal Office of Personnel Management.

"Our taxpayers can no longer be asked to foot the bill for these federal employees while watching their own salaries remain flat and their benefits erode," said Ross, chairman of the House Oversight subcommittee on the federal work force.

But federal employee advocates claim a straight-up comparison of average total compensation is misleading. A disproportionate number of federal employees are professionals, such as managers, lawyers, engineers and scientists. Over the years, the federal government has steadily outsourced lower-paying jobs to the private sector so that blue-collar workers cooking meals or working in mailrooms now make up just 10 percent of federal employees.

That argument is backed up by a 2002 study of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It found that federal salaries for most professional and administrative jobs lagged well behind compensation offered in the private sector.

The CBO study concluded that the best way to measure the difference is to compare government jobs with those in the private sector that match the actual work performed. The CBO found that salaries for 85 percent of federal workers in professional and administrative jobs lagged their private sector counterparts by more than 20 percent.

Among lawyers, for example, the average pay in the federal government was about $127,500 a year in 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average lawyer in the private sector earned $137,540. And the starting salary at large law firms in Washington, D.C. -- where most government lawyers work -- is $160,000, and can grow to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, according to the National Association for Law Placement.

At the lower end of the pay scale, the CBO said 30 percent of federal employees in technical and clerical fields earned salaries above those doing comparable work in the private sector. But the differences were mostly within about 10 percent -- plus or minus -- of private levels.

The government does offer, on average, more generous benefits to workers than the private sector. OPM data shows the federal employees earned an average of $27,317 in pension and health benefits in 2010. That's more than double the average private sector benefits of $10,589, according to statistics from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The CBO report pointed to what it called a "long-standing concern" with the federal pay system -- it allows no variation in pay raises based on occupation. That means federal workers in professional and administrative jobs may get smaller pay increases than needed to match the private sector, while technical and clerical workers get higher raises than needed.

President Barack Obama is seeking a two-year federal pay freeze, but that's not enough for some Republicans. The GOP budget plan offered this week by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would impose a five-year pay freeze on federal employees, cut the federal work force by 10 percent and increase employee contributions to retirement plans.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he wants to see Obama's pay freeze include a ban on step increases -- automatic adjustments within pay grades that are part of the federal pay system.

OPM Director John Berry says eliminating step increases would hasten the departure of valuable federal employees for the private sector.

Asked about the prospect of federal employees losing their jobs in the push to curb government spending, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio angered Democrats earlier this year when he said, "So be it."

"I don't want anyone to lose their job, whether they're a federal employee or not," Boehner said. "But come on, we're broke."

Follow Yahoo! Finance on Twitter; become a fan on Facebook.
 
The AP's FACT CHECK explains it like this: Government employee salaries, on average, are indeed higher than private sector paychecks. The Federal Office of Personnel Management says the average federal worker makes $101,628 in total compensation, including benefits and pension costs, compared to $60,000 for the average private employee.

So it's cut and dry, right? No ... you know what they say about statistics and lies. What the stats here are hiding is the sorts of jobs there are. Very few federal workers are lower-level employees; administrative assistants may work for the government, but the cafeteria and cleaning services and other low-wage jobs are contracted with private companies. Most government employees are lawyers, engineers, finance experts, scientists and managers -- the sort of people who would be paid far more than $100,000 a year in the private sector.

What's more, the cities in which government employees typically live -- take Washington, D.C. and New York as examples -- give even higher salaries for private sector folks. If you've had friends in law firms there, as I have, you know that starting salaries at most firms are in the mid-$100s ($160,000 in Washington, D.C.) compared to the 2009 average federal government pay for attorneys of $127,500.

Pundits, politicians and average Americans calling for parity between federal and private employees may want to hold their tongues, unless they're eager to increase government spending and taxpayer burdens. I'm sure the families of government employees, grinding their teeth as they sit in front of their taxpayer-funded TVs at night wondering if their breadwinners will get their paychecks next week, would be pleased to have some parity.

http://www.walletpop.com/2011/04/07/are-federal-employees-paid-too-much-or-too-little/
 
Topspin said:
FACT CHECK: Are federal workers paid too much or unfair targets in quest for budget cuts?
Click to expand...

as I recall, from Wisconsin and other places, the issue has always been about benefit contributions rather than salary........from your article...

The government does offer, on average, more generous benefits to workers than the private sector. OPM data shows the federal employees earned an average of $27,317 in pension and health benefits in 2010. That's more than double the average private sector benefits of $10,589, according to statistics from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Click to expand...
 
Republitools fucked themselves with that comparison. Much like the birther morons taking away from the plenty enough real bullshit deems want paid for.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
as I recall, from Wisconsin and other places, the issue has always been about benefit contributions rather than salary........from your article...
Click to expand...
I contribute less then 5% to my health insurance. Comparing averages is meaningless. It's comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a assembly worker for Ford with PE working for the Corp of Engineers. I've worked with Federal workers for a long time and in total compensation my federal counterparts earn about 5 to 10% less then I do. They have other advantages, better job security, more job training, less pressure to perform, the ability to specialize, etc. In general in wages they do make less but they do have superior benefits but in total compensation they earn less.
 
People need to be careful about this antipathy towards government workers. Most government workers are skilled or professional caliber people who are very marketable and can easily shift over to the private sector for more money with the end result that the government would have to pay higher wages in order to employ competent and qualified personnel. This desire to demonize those who work in public service, both State and Federal, by Republicans is going to bite them in the ass big time if they don't back off.
 
It's laughable to suggest we can't get by with less gov workers. Half of workers don't pay income tax, how big does the freeloader bus need too be?
 
I know this guy's not a fed worker but does anyone see something a bit hypocritical in Walker's hiring decision? Like maybe he could have hired someone who was actually qualified?

No degree, little experience pay off big

Just in his mid-20s, Brian Deschane has no college degree, very little management experience and two drunken-driving convictions.

Yet he has landed an $81,500-per-year job in Gov. Scott Walker's administration overseeing environmental and regulatory matters and dozens of employees at the Department of Commerce. Even though Walker says the state is broke and public employees are overpaid, Deschane already has earned a promotion and a 26% pay raise in just two months with the state.

How did Deschane score his plum assignment with the Walker team?

It's all in the family.

His father is Jerry Deschane, executive vice president and longtime lobbyist for the Madison-based Wisconsin Builders Association, which bet big on Walker during last year's governor's race.

The group's political action committee gave $29,000 to Walker and his running mate, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, last year, making it one of the top five PAC donors to the governor's successful campaign. Even more impressive, members of the trade group funneled more than $92,000 through its conduit to Walker's campaign over the past two years.

Total donations: $121,652.

That's big-time backing from the homebuilders.

The younger Deschane didn't respond to questions about his job.

But his father said he doesn't think his group's financial support of the first-term Republican helped his son in his job search.

"He got the position himself," said Jerry Deschane, who returned to the trade group in September after a hiatus during which he worked as an independent lobbyist for many groups, including the builders association. "I didn't get it for him."

One Walker critic isn't buying it.

State Rep. Brett Hulsey called Deschane's appointment another case of the new administration using state jobs to repay various industries.

Hulsey said he was unimpressed with the younger Deschane's résumé, including his lack of environmental or management experience.

"It doesn't look like he's ever had a real job," the Madison Democrat said.

Hulsey noted that the recently approved law that made collective bargaining changes converts 37 top agency attorneys, communications officials and legislative liaisons from civil service positions to jobs appointed by the governor.

"This is an example of the quality of candidates you're going to get," said Hulsey, owner of the consulting firm Better Environmental Services.

According to his résumé, Deschane, 27, attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison for two years, worked for two Republican lawmakers - then-Sens. David Zien and Cathy Stepp, now the natural resources secretary - and helped run a legislative and a losing congressional campaign. He held part-time posts with the Wisconsin Builders Association and the Wisconsin Business Council until being named to his first state gig earlier this year.

Deschane's father said that during the gubernatorial contest he might have reminded Keith Gilkes, Walker's campaign manager and now chief of staff, that his son "was out there and available."

"I put in good words for every one of my children in their jobs," said the elder Deschane. "But that would be the extent of it."

David Carlson, spokesman for the Department of Regulation and Licensing, confirmed that Gilkes recommended Deschane for an interview with the agency. Deschane's name does not appear on a list of job applicants with Walker's transition team, but the governor's office confirmed that Gilkes interviewed Deschane for a state job in December.

A month later, Secretary David Ross, a Walker cabinet member, named Deschane the bureau director of board services, a job that paid $64,728 a year.

Not long after, lawmakers approved the governor's plan to convert the Department of Commerce to a public-private hybrid in charge of attracting and retaining businesses, with its regulatory and environmental functions being moved to other agencies.

Commerce Secretary Paul Jadin then appointed Deschane to his new post there to oversee the changes.

"It was felt that he would be helpful in working through the transition issues," said Commerce Department spokesman Tony Hozeny.

The move meant a pay raise of more than $16,500 a year for Deschane, even though he had put in only a couple of months with the state.

Deschane's father said his group doesn't lobby or work with his son's division, which deals primarily with regulating underground storage tanks and petroleum tanks and products. Hozeny said the younger Deschane will be expected to abide by state ethics rules in dealing with family members.

A spokesman for the governor said Walker's team was aware of Deschane's two drunken-driving convictions, the most recent of which occurred in 2008.

"We . . .  felt he had changed his habits and that these past incidents would in no way affect his performance at this job," said Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie.

Deschane's father acknowledged that his son had made "foolish" decisions in the past, but he argued that the Walker administration was influenced by the younger Deschane's strong résumé.

"He's a bright young man," the father said.

Michael McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and a regular critic of Walker, said he's not surprised officials claim the builders association's contributions had no impact on the hiring. No politician concedes being influenced by campaign donations, McCabe said.

But he said it's hard to reach any other conclusion in this case.

"It has all the markings of political patronage," McCabe said.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/119159584.html
 
christiefan915 said:
I know this guy's not a fed worker but does anyone see something a bit hypocritical in Walker's hiring decision? Like maybe he could have hired someone who was actually qualified?

No degree, little experience pay off big

Just in his mid-20s, Brian Deschane has no college degree, very little management experience and two drunken-driving convictions.

Yet he has landed an $81,500-per-year job in Gov. Scott Walker's administration overseeing environmental and regulatory matters and dozens of employees at the Department of Commerce. Even though Walker says the state is broke and public employees are overpaid, Deschane already has earned a promotion and a 26% pay raise in just two months with the state.

How did Deschane score his plum assignment with the Walker team?

It's all in the family.

His father is Jerry Deschane, executive vice president and longtime lobbyist for the Madison-based Wisconsin Builders Association, which bet big on Walker during last year's governor's race.

The group's political action committee gave $29,000 to Walker and his running mate, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, last year, making it one of the top five PAC donors to the governor's successful campaign. Even more impressive, members of the trade group funneled more than $92,000 through its conduit to Walker's campaign over the past two years.

Total donations: $121,652.

That's big-time backing from the homebuilders.

The younger Deschane didn't respond to questions about his job.

But his father said he doesn't think his group's financial support of the first-term Republican helped his son in his job search.

"He got the position himself," said Jerry Deschane, who returned to the trade group in September after a hiatus during which he worked as an independent lobbyist for many groups, including the builders association. "I didn't get it for him."

One Walker critic isn't buying it.

State Rep. Brett Hulsey called Deschane's appointment another case of the new administration using state jobs to repay various industries.

Hulsey said he was unimpressed with the younger Deschane's résumé, including his lack of environmental or management experience.

"It doesn't look like he's ever had a real job," the Madison Democrat said.

Hulsey noted that the recently approved law that made collective bargaining changes converts 37 top agency attorneys, communications officials and legislative liaisons from civil service positions to jobs appointed by the governor.

"This is an example of the quality of candidates you're going to get," said Hulsey, owner of the consulting firm Better Environmental Services.

According to his résumé, Deschane, 27, attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison for two years, worked for two Republican lawmakers - then-Sens. David Zien and Cathy Stepp, now the natural resources secretary - and helped run a legislative and a losing congressional campaign. He held part-time posts with the Wisconsin Builders Association and the Wisconsin Business Council until being named to his first state gig earlier this year.

Deschane's father said that during the gubernatorial contest he might have reminded Keith Gilkes, Walker's campaign manager and now chief of staff, that his son "was out there and available."

"I put in good words for every one of my children in their jobs," said the elder Deschane. "But that would be the extent of it."

David Carlson, spokesman for the Department of Regulation and Licensing, confirmed that Gilkes recommended Deschane for an interview with the agency. Deschane's name does not appear on a list of job applicants with Walker's transition team, but the governor's office confirmed that Gilkes interviewed Deschane for a state job in December.

A month later, Secretary David Ross, a Walker cabinet member, named Deschane the bureau director of board services, a job that paid $64,728 a year.

Not long after, lawmakers approved the governor's plan to convert the Department of Commerce to a public-private hybrid in charge of attracting and retaining businesses, with its regulatory and environmental functions being moved to other agencies.

Commerce Secretary Paul Jadin then appointed Deschane to his new post there to oversee the changes.

"It was felt that he would be helpful in working through the transition issues," said Commerce Department spokesman Tony Hozeny.

The move meant a pay raise of more than $16,500 a year for Deschane, even though he had put in only a couple of months with the state.

Deschane's father said his group doesn't lobby or work with his son's division, which deals primarily with regulating underground storage tanks and petroleum tanks and products. Hozeny said the younger Deschane will be expected to abide by state ethics rules in dealing with family members.

A spokesman for the governor said Walker's team was aware of Deschane's two drunken-driving convictions, the most recent of which occurred in 2008.

"We . . .  felt he had changed his habits and that these past incidents would in no way affect his performance at this job," said Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie.

Deschane's father acknowledged that his son had made "foolish" decisions in the past, but he argued that the Walker administration was influenced by the younger Deschane's strong résumé.

"He's a bright young man," the father said.

Michael McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and a regular critic of Walker, said he's not surprised officials claim the builders association's contributions had no impact on the hiring. No politician concedes being influenced by campaign donations, McCabe said.

But he said it's hard to reach any other conclusion in this case.

"It has all the markings of political patronage," McCabe said.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/119159584.html
Click to expand...

Yea John Kasich pulled the same bull shit here in Ohio. He wants to eliminate collective barganing rights so he can cut pay of public workers who he is demonizing as leaches but then gives huge pay increases to his staff because he needs to attract "talent" to government. Like, WTF, He gave a 25% pay increase to a fucking press secretary? He's paying a "special assistant to the governor" with no specified role $141,000 per year, which is more then State Supreme Court Justices get paid. It fucking pisses me off. Firemen, policemen, nurses and teachers are not considered talented by these reactionary nut jobs but a fucking press secretary is? Some goon who helped him sink Lehman brothers who has no specific job but gets paid a six figure income is talent? Fucking bull shit. This is just plain old political cronysm.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea John Kasich pulled the same bull shit here in Ohio. He wants to eliminate collective barganing rights so he can cut pay of public workers who he is demonizing as leaches but then gives huge pay increases to his staff because he needs to attract "talent" to government. Like, WTF, He gave a 25% pay increase to a fucking press secretary? He's paying a "special assistant to the governor" with no specified role $141,000 per year, which is more then State Supreme Court Justices get paid. It fucking pisses me off. Firemen, policemen, nurses and teachers are not considered talented by these reactionary nut jobs but a fucking press secretary is? Some goon who helped him sink Lehman brothers who has no specific job but gets paid a six figure income is talent? Fucking bull shit. This is just plain old political cronysm.
Click to expand...

I want to be a "Special Assistant to the Governor"... That would be a cherry job. $141,000 to pick up laundry? Okay.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea John Kasich pulled the same bull shit here in Ohio. He wants to eliminate collective barganing rights so he can cut pay of public workers who he is demonizing as leaches but then gives huge pay increases to his staff because he needs to attract "talent" to government. Like, WTF, He gave a 25% pay increase to a fucking press secretary? He's paying a "special assistant to the governor" with no specified role $141,000 per year, which is more then State Supreme Court Justices get paid. It fucking pisses me off. Firemen, policemen, nurses and teachers are not considered talented by these reactionary nut jobs but a fucking press secretary is? Some goon who helped him sink Lehman brothers who has no specific job but gets paid a six figure income is talent? Fucking bull shit. This is just plain old political cronysm.
Click to expand...

I want to be a "Special Assistant to the Governor"... That would be a cherry job. $141,000 to pick up laundry? Okay.
 
tinfoil said:
WE pay for it, dumbass!
Click to expand...
No shit we pay for it Captain Obvious but we aint talking about paying for lawn mower repairmen with GED's. Were talking professional caliber people with advanced educations and marketable skills who often take significant pay cuts to work in the public sector.

For example, I've twice turned down job offers as a high school science teacher cause I couldn't afford to take the pay cut. You wing nuts want to pay them minimum wage and fuckin holler to high heaven that aren't performing. You want to pay teachers based on performance? Then pay them accordingly but I got news for you pal, that will cost you substantially more. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No shit we pay for it Captain Obvious but we aint talking about paying for lawn mower repairmen with GED's. Were talking professional caliber people with advanced educations and marketable skills who often take significant pay cuts to work in the public sector.

For example, I've twice turned down job offers as a high school science teacher cause I couldn't afford to take the pay cut. You wing nuts want to pay them minimum wage and fuckin holler to high heaven that aren't performing. You want to pay teachers based on performance? Then pay them accordingly but I got news for you pal, that will cost you substantially more. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

I bet I can pay the teachers more and still reduce the DOE spending. WAY too much admin in the public school system.

I would like to see a study on WHAT advanced degrees the public workers hold. Law is one where they can obviously make more in the private sector (unless you count bribes... then government employees with law degrees earn far more) ;)

For example.... if a teacher has a Masters degree in 'arts and crafts' .... they should be docked in pay for being so stupid. Conversely, if they have a Masters in economics and they teach a business/economics course... they should be paid more. My point is, saying 'they have advanced degrees' is meaningless unless we know that those advanced degrees are actually beneficial to their job performance. I could go get a Masters in Art History and it would do NOTHING for my current position.
 
Superfreak said:
I bet I can pay the teachers more and still reduce the DOE spending. WAY too much admin in the public school system.

I would like to see a study on WHAT advanced degrees the public workers hold. Law is one where they can obviously make more in the private sector (unless you count bribes... then government employees with law degrees earn far more) ;)

For example.... if a teacher has a Masters degree in 'arts and crafts' .... they should be docked in pay for being so stupid. Conversely, if they have a Masters in economics and they teach a business/economics course... they should be paid more. My point is, saying 'they have advanced degrees' is meaningless unless we know that those advanced degrees are actually beneficial to their job performance. I could go get a Masters in Art History and it would do NOTHING for my current position.
Click to expand...

Removing the sarcasm, I agree with you. Most school systems are too top heavy. The Anchorage School District requires continuing education for teachers if they want pay advances, so that Master's in Art means something here. I am sorry you hate arts and crafts, they are necessary for hands on and the children learn to use their imaginations, which Einstein stated was more important than knowledge.
 
Superfreak said:
I bet I can pay the teachers more and still reduce the DOE spending. WAY too much admin in the public school system.

I would like to see a study on WHAT advanced degrees the public workers hold. Law is one where they can obviously make more in the private sector (unless you count bribes... then government employees with law degrees earn far more) ;)

For example.... if a teacher has a Masters degree in 'arts and crafts' .... they should be docked in pay for being so stupid. Conversely, if they have a Masters in economics and they teach a business/economics course... they should be paid more. My point is, saying 'they have advanced degrees' is meaningless unless we know that those advanced degrees are actually beneficial to their job performance. I could go get a Masters in Art History and it would do NOTHING for my current position.
Click to expand...
Masters in Arts and Crafts vs Economics? Fuck! Is their a difference? Economics is a Mickey Mouse social science. At least Arts and Crafts majors do something productive. Get fucking real. Let's talk degrees in science and engineering and technical trades and MBA's and CPA's. Ya know hard subjects, not Mickey Mouse ones like economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top