FERS Sick Leave Buyout Blocked

[James48843]

Yesterday, the Senate considered the bill that was to contain the FERS Sick Leave Buyout plan sponsored by Senator Liberman (I-Connecticut). Democratic Senator Dick Durban (D-Illinois) attempted to include the provision that would have given FERS employees the same sick-leave credit for retirement purposes that current CSRS employees have.

Republican Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) blocked the measure, and it was not included in the final bill. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., led effort to strip pay and benefits measures from legislation.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R- SC, blocked the amendment
which would have given FERS employees parity with
CSRS on sick leave.

"This was a bad day for the federal workforce," said Randy Erwin,
legislative director of the National Federation of Federal Employees.


Here are all the details:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42923&dcn=todaysnews

 

[KevinD]

.

 

[Silverbird]

House version still has it (look in article).

 

[Elgallo]

The ability for us to move/contribute some or all our funds to investment companies such as Fidelity etc. is gonna cost them much much more on a lump sum basis than the cost of crediting our sick leave for service credit which would be incremental of nature.

REAL freaking money will have to flow to Fidelity ect. in our names/SSN. Our funds in the TSP are basically an IOU (money they don't have to pay us now) and a promise to pay later depending on our investments results.

Do any of these people have a lick of common sense?

 

[Silverbird]

I really find this article confusing. It says the sick leave provision is still in the House version of the bill. Is this final or are we only talking about the final *Senate* version and the House and the Senate still have to do some reconciliation??

 

[CountryBoy]

The ability for us to move/contribute some or all our funds to investment companies such as Fidelity etc. is gonna cost them much much more on a lump sum basis than the cost of crediting our sick leave for service credit which would be incremental of nature.

REAL freaking money will have to flow to Fidelity ect. in our names/SSN. Our funds in the TSP are basically an IOU (money they don't have to pay us now) and a promise to pay later depending on our investments results.

Do any of these people have a lick of common sense?

Are we talking FERS sick leave here or the ROTH option? And I like the idea of moving real money to a ROTH as opposed to the feds, because I don't trust the feds to keep their hands off my money.

CB

 

[Elgallo]

Actually both CB.

I'm not real familiar with the bill so i will ask this question: must the fund created outside of TSP, say at Fidelity, be a Roth and only a Roth and not a normal IRA?

If that's the case the only reason that passed was because the taxman don't want to wait any longer and wants his money now.

Screw em!

The immediate TSP enrollment passed because they don't have to pay any money out to you in the short term ("deferred earnings").

Feeling a bit manipulated are we!

 

[Mcqlives]

Do any of you FERS employees (I am one) really care about the sick leave bill? If you cruch the numbers it takes 2080 hours of sick leave (520 pay periods worth of earning = a whole career) to give you 1% increase in your retirement. This means that if your high 3 were $100,000 you would get an extra $1000 per year during retirement. It would take 20 years, if you live that long, to get $20,000.

If they want people to save their leave and work hard during employment then offer cash value for the leave remaining at retirement. I would bankroll all of it I could then. I bet they think the average gov't employee will never crunch the numbers.

Instead of this sick leave thing give us more investment options, more trades a month, more access to our money and leave our money alone!

 

[Elgallo]

Do any of you FERS employees (I am one) really care about the sick leave bill? If you crunch the numbers it takes 2080 hours of sick leave (520 pay periods worth of earning = a whole career) to give you 1% increase in your retirement. This means that if your high 3 were $100,000 you would get an extra $1000 per year during retirement. It would take 20 years, if you live that long, to get $20,000.

If they want people to save their leave and work hard during employment then offer cash value for the leave remaining at retirement. I would bankroll all of it I could then. I bet they think the average gov't employee will never crunch the numbers.

Instead of this sick leave thing give us more investment options, more trades a month, more access to our money and leave our money alone!

Here Here!!! In your first paragraph you illustrated the original point I was trying to make. They are penny wise and pound foolish period! Just another reason why govt. spending can/will NEVER be reduced.

 

[CountryBoy]

Actually both CB.

I'm not real familiar with the bill so i will ask this question: must the fund created outside of TSP, say at Fidelity, be a Roth and only a Roth and not a normal IRA?

If that's the case the only reason that passed was because the taxman don't want to wait any longer and wants his money now.

Screw em!

The immediate TSP enrollment passed because they don't have to pay any money out to you in the short term ("deferred earnings").

Feeling a bit manipulated are we!

I don't know enough about the details of either of them, but what was first proposed for FERS leave carryover into retirement was an insult to us FERS employees. It was worth saving sick leave for the pittance they were offering in return.

As far as the ROTH goes, I feel more confident in selecting specific stocks as opposed to putting my money in an index. So I'll have to wait and see on how the ROTH is going to work before I change my strategy on my ROTH purchases.

Manipulated? Heck yeah, since at least Nov 2007 and much more in the last 100 days or so. I just feel so warm and fuzzy about my future under the watchful caring eye of bHo,

CB

CB

 

[Elgallo]

......Manipulated? Heck yeah, since at least Nov 2007 and much more in the last 100 days or so. I just feel so warm and fuzzy about my future under the watchful caring eye of bHo,

CB

CB

Me too, since around Jan 2001 if you ask me!

 

[Bullitt]

It's a Catch-22.

You try to give people a real incentive (such as early retirement or 60% rebate) not to call in sick and it costs a fortune. You don't give any incentive and they're going to abuse sick leave in their final few years- costing a fortune in overtime.

 

[nnuut]

True to form the government is STUPID, what's new?

 

[James48843]

I really find this article confusing. It says the sick leave provision is still in the House version of the bill. Is this final or are we only talking about the final *Senate* version and the House and the Senate still have to do some reconciliation??

Today's Govexec.com explains it better:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42932&dcn=todaysnews

the provision was not added to the Senate bill. The Senate version now goes over to the House again.

Normally, the House and Senate would appoint conferees, and then craft a compromise bill, which would then have to be voted on again in both the House and Senate.

Sometimes, as it appears to be the case in this instance, the Senate version goes over to the House, and the House, rather than conferencing, simply passes the Senate version of the bill as their own alternate. That way, it doesn't have to go back to the Senate all over again. If they do that- if the House just votes to approve the Senate version- then it's considered passed, and goes on to the President's desk for signature.

(I think I watched too many episodes of Schoolhouse Rock when I was a kid---

​

 

[Guest2]

Do any of you FERS employees (I am one) really care about the sick leave bill? If you cruch the numbers it takes 2080 hours of sick leave (520 pay periods worth of earning = a whole career) to give you 1% increase in your retirement. This means that if your high 3 were $100,000 you would get an extra $1000 per year during retirement. It would take 20 years, if you live that long, to get $20,000.

I know of only a few Officers who have been capable of saving close
to 2000 hours. They come in every day and must have one hell of a
Immune System. Especially working in a prison. Since the mid ninties
I've had more reason to utilize my leave then I can say. The deal that
the Gov't offers gives me a feeling that they think we're stupid. There
is absolutely no incentive to save S/L except for Medical Emergencies.
The few that already have +2000 are greatful that they don't have to
turn all those hours in for absolutely nothing. Any of the young pups
will simply see that getting paid for 100% of 8 hours used is far more
attractive then what those idiots have offered them.

It's quite simple really ! Give the youngsters 100% credit for all unused
S/L upon retirement. Its a "Earned Benefit" and should be treated as
such. While your at it, increase the amount of A/L your allowed to
carry over from year to year. Anything over 240 hours ends up in a
Use or Lose scenario. Let Federal Employees manage their own hours
and increase carry over to 480 hours. Pfffft ! I wouldn't hold my breathe
as anything that makes that much sense, is sure to be thrown out with
the rest of the trash. Give Billions away to Corporations while Fed's do
more with less and get screw'd along the way.

Ut Oh, Blood Pressure alarm just went off :nuts: Rant, Rant, Rant ! Sorry ! :embarrest:

 

[saturneptune]

I know of only a few Officers who have been capable of saving close
to 2000 hours. They come in every day and must have one hell of a
Immune System. Especially working in a prison. Since the mid ninties
I've had more reason to utilize my leave then I can say. The deal that
the Gov't offers gives me a feeling that they think we're stupid. There
is absolutely no incentive to save S/L except for Medical Emergencies.
The few that already have +2000 are greatful that they don't have to
turn all those hours in for absolutely nothing. Any of the young pups
will simply see that getting paid for 100% of 8 hours used is far more
attractive then what those idiots have offered them.

It's quite simple really ! Give the youngsters 100% credit for all unused
S/L upon retirement. Its a "Earned Benefit" and should be treated as
such. While your at it, increase the amount of A/L your allowed to
carry over from year to year. Anything over 240 hours ends up in a
Use or Lose scenario. Let Federal Employees manage their own hours
and increase carry over to 480 hours. Pfffft ! I wouldn't hold my breathe
as anything that makes that much sense, is sure to be thrown out with
the rest of the trash. Give Billions away to Corporations while Fed's do
more with less and get screw'd along the way.

Ut Oh, Blood Pressure alarm just went off :nuts: Rant, Rant, Rant ! Sorry ! :embarrest:

I know how you feel. Right now, I feel like a total idiot for saving 2300 hours of sick leave a few months away from retirement. They could have passed that bill without any cost. I know lots of people now who will go full force to use it all. My guess is that it would have increased a monthly FERS annuity 40-50 dollars.

 

[Mcqlives]

So, Saturn...is your work schedule for the next few months MWF or TT. Either was, sorry on the unused leave and congrats on the retirement! Get out before they change the pension age to 62!

 

[Silverbird]

Hrmm...feeling a little under the weather...

 

[Thunderhorse]

slick leave

 

[saturneptune]

That vote was a big mistake. I figured it up for myself with 36 years of service and a high three of 59778, and with a year and three months of sick leave credit, it would amount to about 600 more a year. Assuming a life of 30 more years, that is $18000. Since my year and three months is worth about $65000, it will not take long to recoup. This is one of those votes that is going to cost way more money than if they had passed the amendment. Common sense is not a strong point with these people.