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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

In article ,
says...

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.

Who said anything negative about the military, asshole? And, I do mean
asshole with as much disrespect and ill will as possible towards you.
You pulled the military into this mess. The topic was federal civilian
pay. I have 8 male first cousins and 4 of them have or are serving in
the military. If you want to start talking about the preceding
generations we can bring them into the mix too. You really don't want
to get into the question about support for the military with me.

Besides I was a federal civilian employee and I was in the US armed
forces (ie military). I am qualified to comment on both.

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."

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:07:44 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Dec 11, 8:40Â*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. Â*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.

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!! :)