|
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
Gee - I guess if you are a Unionized Federal worker, you're doing ok.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip Everybody else, not so much. |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:30:45 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: Gee - I guess if you are a Unionized Federal worker, you're doing ok. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip Everybody else, not so much. Oh - and mean while, SSI and SSD recipients got a huge increase - ZERO percent as I understand it. So Gramma and Grampa got nuttin - the Federal Union Lords and Masters got it all instead. |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:33:59 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/ news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip Everybody else, not so much. Oh - and mean while, SSI and SSD recipients got a huge increase - ZERO percent as I understand it. So Gramma and Grampa got nuttin - the Federal Union Lords and Masters got it all instead. Another left over Bush mess: Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries: •Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended � and Congress approved � across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes � called steps � that average 1.5% per year. |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
Gee - I guess if you are a Unionized Federal worker, you're doing ok. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip Everybody else, not so much. It is all about creaping government statism. Now get back to work you tax slave. Obma wants your money! |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:33:51 -0800, Jack wrote:
Seems that parity has been more than acheived, huh? Uh, actually no, the Federal workforce still needs to catch up. If you want to check parity, you have to compare similar jobs, and qualifications, not just average the whole workforce. |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:51:20 -0500, BAR wrote:
There is nothing like getting a raise just for showing up for work. Our soldiers got an even bigger raise this year, but then, I guess you'd say they just showed up for work. |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
|
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Dec 11, 8:40*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:33:51 -0800, Jack wrote: Seems that parity has been more than acheived, huh? Uh, actually no, the Federal workforce still needs to catch up. *If you want to check parity, you have to compare similar jobs, and qualifications, not just average the whole workforce. * Uh. no. www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf "Despite the escalation of federal compensation, some government studies have found that federal workers are underpaid, and that they suffer from a pay gap compared to private- sector workers.2 By contrast, some academic studies have found that federal workers are overpaid.3 Comparison studies that find a pay gap sometimes compare federal workers to those in large businesses. But many U.S. workers are employed by small businesses, which tend to have lower compensation levels. More important, comparison studies typically look just at wages and dont consider the superior benefits paid by the government. Federal workers receive health benefits, retirement health benefits, a pension plan with inflation protection, and a retirement savings plan with a very generous match. (By contrast, 40 percent of private-sector workers do not have access to an employer retirement plan at all.) Federal workers typically have generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible work hours, training options, incentive awards, excessive disability benefits, flexible spending accounts, union protections, and a usually more relaxed pace of work than private worker. Perhaps the most important benefit of federal work is the extreme job security. The rate of involuntary separations (layoffs and firings) in the federal workforce is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector.4 Just 1 in 5,000 federal nondefense workers is fired for poor performance each year.5 All these federal advantages in benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs, federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages." |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:07:44 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Dec 11, 8:40*pm, thunder wrote: On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:33:51 -0800, Jack wrote: Seems that parity has been more than acheived, huh? Uh, actually no, the Federal workforce still needs to catch up. *If you want to check parity, you have to compare similar jobs, and qualifications, not just average the whole workforce. Uh. no. www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf "Despite the escalation of federal compensation, some government studies have found that federal workers are underpaid, and that they suffer from a “pay gap” compared to private- sector workers.2 By contrast, some academic studies have found that federal workers are overpaid.3 Comparison studies that find a pay gap sometimes compare federal workers to those in large businesses. But many U.S. workers are employed by small businesses, which tend to have lower compensation levels. More important, comparison studies typically look just at wages and don’t consider the superior benefits paid by the government. Federal workers receive health benefits, retirement health benefits, a pension plan with inflation protection, and a retirement savings plan with a very generous match. (By contrast, 40 percent of private-sector workers do not have access to an employer retirement plan at all.) Federal workers typically have generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible work hours, training options, incentive awards, excessive disability benefits, flexible spending accounts, union protections, and a usually more relaxed pace of work than private worker. Perhaps the most important benefit of federal work is the extreme job security. The rate of “involuntary separations” (layoffs and firings) in the federal workforce is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector.4 Just 1 in 5,000 federal nondefense workers is fired for poor performance each year.5 All these federal advantages in benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs, federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages." "in comparable jobs, federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages." So, the CATO institute decides what wages *should* be? It's supply and demand. If you can not find, and keep, qualified applicants, for whatever reason, you have to sweeten the deal. That was the problem when the FEPCA was passed. If it's not the problem now, you don't need to increase wages as much. Perhaps, that's the reason Obama is only asking for a 2% increase. |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:18:25 -0600, thunder
wrote: It's supply and demand. If you can not find, and keep, qualified applicants, for whatever reason, you have to sweeten the deal HEY!! That's capitalism!! I insist you return to being a liberal and everybody being equal and stuff like that!! Immediately!! :) |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Dec 12, 11:18*am, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:07:44 -0800, Jack wrote: On Dec 11, 8:40*pm, thunder wrote: On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:33:51 -0800, Jack wrote: Seems that parity has been more than acheived, huh? Uh, actually no, the Federal workforce still needs to catch up. *If you want to check parity, you have to compare similar jobs, and qualifications, not just average the whole workforce. Uh. no. www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf "Despite the escalation of federal compensation, some government studies have found that federal workers are underpaid, and that they suffer from a pay gap compared to private- sector workers.2 By contrast, some academic studies have found that federal workers are overpaid.3 Comparison studies that find a pay gap sometimes compare federal workers to those in large businesses. But many U.S. workers are employed by small businesses, which tend to have lower compensation levels. More important, comparison studies typically look just at wages and dont consider the superior benefits paid by the government. Federal workers receive health benefits, retirement health benefits, a pension plan with inflation protection, and a retirement savings plan with a very generous match. (By contrast, 40 percent of private-sector workers do not have access to an employer retirement plan at all.) Federal workers typically have generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible work hours, training options, incentive awards, excessive disability benefits, flexible spending accounts, union protections, and a usually more relaxed pace of work than private worker. Perhaps the most important benefit of federal work is the extreme job security. The rate of involuntary separations (layoffs and firings) in the federal workforce is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector.4 Just 1 in 5,000 federal nondefense workers is fired for poor performance each year.5 All these federal advantages in benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs, federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages." "in comparable jobs, federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages." *So, the CATO institute decides what wages *should* be? * It's a conclusion. It's supply and demand. *If you can not find, and keep, qualified applicants, for whatever reason, you have to sweeten the deal. *That was the problem when the FEPCA was passed. *If it's not the problem now, you don't need to increase wages as much. Now *you* get to decide? "By contrast, some academic studies have found that federal workers are overpaid.3 Comparison studies that find a pay gap sometimes compare federal workers to those in large businesses. But many U.S. workers are employed by small businesses, which tend to have lower compensation levels. More important, comparison studies typically look just at wages and dont consider the superior benefits paid by the government." There actually doesn't seem to be a pay gap, and with bennies considered, the federal employees are indeed overpaid. That is, unless the comparison is done by a *federal* employee. ~snerk~ Slower pace of work, union protection, excessive benefits, high pay. Did you read the entire report? I especially like the part about federal employees automatically, with no performance requirements, being bumped into higher and higher paying jobs. We're right back to the original post's point, huh? |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Dec 12, 1:47*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:18:25 -0600, thunder wrote: It's supply and demand. *If you can not find, and keep, qualified applicants, for whatever reason, you have to sweeten the deal HEY!! *That's capitalism!! *I insist you return to being a liberal and everybody being equal and stuff like that!! Immediately!! *:) He seems confused. At first he wanted to blame the pay raises on Republicans. When I pointed out to him that position blows the liberal mantra about how only Dems take care of the working man right out of the water, he's now changed up to say that it was necessary and the workers deserve it. Except evidence shows they don't. I'm wondering which hole he will start on next. ;- |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:41:45 -0800, Jack wrote:
He seems confused. At first he wanted to blame the pay raises on Republicans. When I pointed out to him that position blows the liberal mantra about how only Dems take care of the working man right out of the water, he's now changed up to say that it was necessary and the workers deserve it. Except evidence shows they don't. I'm wondering which hole he will start on next. ;- I seem confused? You responded to a direct quote from Tom's link. Since you have forgotten: "Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries: •Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended � and Congress approved � across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes � called steps � that average 1.5% per year." To which you accused me of trying "to spin exorbitant union pay into a Rebublican(sic) president problem?" If there was any spinning, it was by the author of the original piece. I did, however, point out that is was a Republican president that signed the FEBCA. You then said "parity has been more than acheived(sic)". I said it hasn't. You then post an excerpt from the CATO institute, that says "government studies have found that federal workers are underpaid", but also goes on to say they should be underpaid, if you look at the total compensation package. Let's see now, you accuse me of stating it was a Republican problem, but then you go on to give Republicans credit for "taking care of the working class". I guess you are right, I am confused. Following your line of thought is quite confusing. |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Dec 12, 3:38*pm, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:41:45 -0800, Jack wrote: He seems confused. *At first he wanted to blame the pay raises on Republicans. *When I pointed out to him that position blows the liberal mantra about how only Dems take care of the working man right out of the water, he's now changed up to say that it was necessary and the workers deserve it. *Except evidence shows they don't. I'm wondering which hole he will start on next. *;- I seem confused? *You responded to a direct quote from Tom's link. *Since you have forgotten: "Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries: Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended and Congress approved across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes called steps that average 1.5% per year." To which you accused me of trying "to spin exorbitant union pay into a Rebublican(sic) president problem?" *If there was any spinning, it was by the author of the original piece. *I did, however, point out that is was a Republican president that signed the FEBCA. You stated that it was a Bush mess. Stop backpedaling. My reply was: "A Democrat-controlled Congress put those pay hikes into effect, under a lame-duck president. Besides, 7% does not equate to $30,000. Tom's point is that the federal *union* jobs are being paid 30k more than the average, while SS got nothing. You're really going to try to spin exorbitant union pay into a Rebublican president problem? Really?" You then said "parity has been more than acheived(sic)". *I said it hasn't. *You then post an excerpt from the CATO institute, that says "government studies have found that federal workers are underpaid", but also goes on to say they should be underpaid, if you look at the total compensation package. Nice selective editing, as they go on to say: "By contrast, some academic studies have found that federal workers are *overpaid*. Comparison studies that find a pay gap sometimes compare federal workers to those in large businesses. But many U.S. workers are employed by small businesses, which tend to have lower compensation levels. More important, comparison studies typically look just at wages and dont consider the *superior benefits* paid by the government. Federal workers receive health benefits, retirement health benefits, a pension plan with inflation protection, and a retirement savings plan with a very generous match. (By contrast, 40 percent of private-sector workers do not have access to an employer retirement plan at all.) Federal workers typically have generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible work hours, training options, incentive awards, excessive disability benefits, flexible spending accounts, union protections, and a usually more relaxed pace of work than private worker. Perhaps the most important benefit of federal work is the *extreme job security*. The rate of involuntary separations (layoffs and firings) in the federal workforce is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector.4 Just 1 in 5,000 federal nondefense workers is fired for poor performance each year.5 All these federal *advantages* in benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs, federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages." As you see, that's anything *but* saying that federal employees are underpaid, but rather that they quite advantaged, and in fact *should* be underpaid (which they quite convincingly proved they aren't). Let's see now, you accuse me of stating it was a Republican problem, (you did) but then you go on to give Republicans credit for "taking care of the working class". *I guess you are right, I am confused. *Following your line of thought is quite confusing. Well, you stated it was "Another left over Bush mess", then you go on to argue that it is proper and needed, so it would be anything but a mess, yes? Which side of this issue are you on? Take a stance, man! Make up your mind! You're making the plum look like a genius. |
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
On Dec 12, 1:51*pm, Jack wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:18*am, thunder wrote: On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:07:44 -0800, Jack wrote: On Dec 11, 8:40*pm, thunder wrote: On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:33:51 -0800, Jack wrote: Seems that parity has been more than acheived, huh? Uh, actually no, the Federal workforce still needs to catch up. *If you want to check parity, you have to compare similar jobs, and qualifications, not just average the whole workforce. Uh. no. www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf "Despite the escalation of federal compensation, some government studies have found that federal workers are underpaid, and that they suffer from a pay gap compared to private- sector workers.2 By contrast, some academic studies have found that federal workers are overpaid.3 Comparison studies that find a pay gap sometimes compare federal workers to those in large businesses. But many U.S. workers are employed by small businesses, which tend to have lower compensation levels. More important, comparison studies typically look just at wages and dont consider the superior benefits paid by the government. Federal workers receive health benefits, retirement health benefits, a pension plan with inflation protection, and a retirement savings plan with a very generous match. (By contrast, 40 percent of private-sector workers do not have access to an employer retirement plan at all.) Federal workers typically have generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible work hours, training options, incentive awards, excessive disability benefits, flexible spending accounts, union protections, and a usually more relaxed pace of work than private worker. Perhaps the most important benefit of federal work is the extreme job security. The rate of involuntary separations (layoffs and firings) in the federal workforce is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector.4 Just 1 in 5,000 federal nondefense workers is fired for poor performance each year.5 All these federal advantages in benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs, federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages." "in comparable jobs, federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages." *So, the CATO institute decides what wages *should* be? * It's a conclusion. It's supply and demand. *If you can not find, and keep, qualified applicants, for whatever reason, you have to sweeten the deal. *That was the problem when the FEPCA was passed. *If it's not the problem now, you don't need to increase wages as much. Now *you* get to decide? "By contrast, some academic studies have found that federal workers are overpaid.3 Comparison studies that find a pay gap sometimes compare federal workers to those in large businesses. But many U.S. workers are employed by small businesses, which tend to have lower compensation levels. More important, comparison studies typically look just at wages and dont consider the superior benefits paid by the government." There actually doesn't seem to be a pay gap, and with bennies considered, the federal employees are indeed overpaid. *That is, unless the comparison is done by a *federal* employee. ~snerk~ Slower pace of work, union protection, excessive benefits, high pay. Did you read the entire report? *I especially like the part about federal employees automatically, with no performance requirements, being bumped into higher and higher paying jobs. We're right back to the original post's point, huh?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Again: There actually doesn't seem to be a pay gap, and with bennies considered, the federal employees are indeed overpaid. That is, unless the comparison is done by a *federal* employee. ~snerk~ Slower pace of work, union protection, excessive benefits, high pay. Did you read the entire report? I especially like the part about federal employees automatically, with no performance requirements, being bumped into higher and higher paying jobs. Crickets from "thunder" on this... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com