The end of FERS Supplement - and other stuff

[RazorCat]

Actually the enemy is Congress who never properly funded CSRS and who want to mess with FERS now.

This^^^
CSRS, nor FERS employees are the enemy. Just those who take the hit because our so-called leaders have mis-managed our country’s money for decades.
Time to cut up the government credit cards. We need a balanced budget amendment.

 

[Valkyrie]

there has been an agenda/plan since '99/00 to reduce # of govt employees and replace with contractors. it has been happening that long. reducing govt employee benefits helps usher in more to leave or retire. ones that leave become contractors or work for larger contractor companies who have officials in each other pockets. some work contracts are actually sub contracted out 2-4 times with each company owners skimming off their profits before work even starts and workers get paid. this is how much tax payers are over paying. contractors and the officials that allow all this are the problem. it will never be fixed until the system crashes. talk about corruption my command I retired from is extremely corrupt, since they are not directly funded by congress but have customers that are funded and go to them who are the main engineering support for the navy and pay them. very very little oversite on my last command.

 

[RazorCat]

99-00 sounds about right. Federal employee pay and benefits were a favorite target of politicians most of my career for one of two reasons.
To appear tough on wasteful government spending in order to get re-elected.
To appear tough in favor of federal employees when someone else got tough on wasteful government spending in order
to get re-elected.

 

[evilanne]

Privatization or contracting out has been around a lot longer, but its popularity has been cyclical, expanding and contracting at different times. Interesting article that gives a brief history of OMB Circular A-76 Federal Privatization and the Expensive Philosophy of the Circular A-76 Process

 

[Valkyrie]

Privatization or contracting out has been around a lot longer, but its popularity has been cyclical, expanding and contracting at different times. Interesting article that gives a brief history of OMB Circular A-76 Federal Privatization and the Expensive Philosophy of the Circular A-76 Process

A-76 is what I couldn't remember. won't forget it now.
thanks

 

[jonfresno]

Privatization or contracting out has been around a lot longer, but its popularity has been cyclical, expanding and contracting at different times. Interesting article that gives a brief history of OMB Circular A-76 Federal Privatization and the Expensive Philosophy of the Circular A-76 Process

From the article, but I think most of us could vouch for this. Same amount of money goes out, and as you noted, the business skims off the top, then pays the worker about half what they rip-off, er, bill the government for.

I've seen where we eventually hire someone from the contracting firm, put the person in a position to make decisions on purchasing software and IT services, and, you guessed it, they contract out from where they came from.

"Studies have shown that privatization actually can increase costs. Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors, a 2011 study by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), compared the cost of work performed by public employees versus private contractors. Among other things, POGO found that private contractors in 33 of 35 classifications cost more than public employees doing the same work, in some cases nearly five times more."

 

[evilanne]

It make sense for many supply or commercial services, typically performed by low skill or blue collar employees (e.g. Janitorial, grounds keeping, maintenance) but not for professional services. It actually made more sense under the old CSRS rules than under FERS--thinking about it now, I'm not sure they ever really factored in the difference as there was a given overhead cost applied to Government employees (I think 35%?).

 

[RazorCat]

It make sense for many supply or commercial services, typically performed by low skill or blue collar employees (e.g. Janitorial, grounds keeping, maintenance) but not for professional services. It actually made more sense under the old CSRS rules than under FERS--thinking about it now, I'm not sure they ever really factored in the difference as there was a given overhead cost applied to Government employees (I think 35%?).

You're correct. Overhead costs (pension benefits, matching TSP contributons, healthcare subsidy, etc.) are in the range of 33-37%. I estimated mine to be 34% on top of my annual salary.

 

[PessOptimist]

I agree except for facilities maintenance. Not knowing if you will have a job next year does not promote ownership of the facility infrastructure. Nor does it promote caring about what to do if a system breaks.

PO

 

[RazorCat]

I agree except for facilities maintenance. Not knowing if you will have a job next year does not promote ownership of the facility infrastructure. Nor does it promote caring about what to do if a system breaks.

PO

I wholeheartedly agree with that. I started in facilities maintenance and construction. It takes years to develop staff who fully understand the physical plant they’re maintaining in order to be effective and efficient at doing so. Low staff turnover is key.

 

[James48843]

House GOP Group Envisions Massive Changes to Civil Service in Budget Proposal

• By Erich Wagner, Govexec.com
  
  A group of more than 150 conservative House lawmakers unveiled its plan for the fiscal 2019 budget Wednesday, which includes a complete transformation of the civil service that removes most protections for workers.
  The Republican Study Committee released its plan, entitled “A Framework for Unified Conservatism,” and said it would balance the federal budget within eight years. That feat comes in no small part from its drastic changes to the civil service system, outlined under the heading “Deconstruct the Administrative State.”
  
  The group proposed that all federal employees become “at-will,” able to be fired at any time. Additionally, the plan called for capping hiring at one employee for every three who leave the federal workforce, and it would end the practice where federal union officials perform representational duties while at work, known as official time.
  
  The lawmakers took President Trump’s plan to freeze federal civilian employee pay in 2019 one step further, suggesting the government get rid of across-the-board raises altogether.
  
  Automatic raises for federal employees should be eliminated,” the RSC stated. “Pay increases for federal employees should be merit-based not automatic, while still limited to parallel pay increases in the private sector.”
  
  
  Other proposed changes:
  
  * Eliminate FERS cost of living increases in retirement
  * Increase employee contribution to FERS to 6% of pay
  * Cut Health Care Insurance Employer portion to equal only the cheapest $ of any FEHB plan
  * Eliminate "Official Time" for Union reps
  * Make all employees "At-Will" and allow immediate firing for no cause
  * Reduce COLA's by 50% for CSRS retirees
  * Base pension on HIgh 5 instead of High 3
  * Eliminate FERS supplement before age 62.
  * Cut "G" fund interest rate from the average 10-year rate, to match the 30 -day interest rate
  instead.
  * Freeze pay in 2019
  * Eliminate Step Increases altogether, and instead only pay the highest performers any kind of raise.
  
  
  Link:
  
  https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefit...il-service-budget-proposal/147784/?oref=river
  
  
  
  --
  
  Wow.
  
  
  

 

[RazorCat]

The GS pay system is long overdue for an overhaul. Pay-for-performance vs. being rewarded with automatic step increases based on the number of years an employee is employed.
Why does CSRS continue to get COLAs when FERS has their’s eliminated? Especially in light of the fact FERS funds are being used to fund the unfunded CSRS liability. FERS was a completely solvent “pre-funded” system. CSRS is a pay-as-you-go system which has never been fully funded.Bothe CSRS And FERS should be treated equally as it pertains to COLAs.
Does eliminating the FERS Supplement prior to age 62 encompass all employees? Does the proposal include special category employees (LEO, FF, ATC, etc.)? Not enough details as yet.
Reduce the number of federal employees through attrition? Fine by me. I worked in and around D.C. long enough to know there’s plenty of dead weight that can be eliminated without much impact to overall productivity.
If new employees go into federal employment knowing the benefits, their required contribution levels, and their rights to employment, then so be it. Take the job, or don’t. Try the private sector. Maybe you’ll fair better. I don’t like the idea of government employees being “at-will”, but the private sector is already there for the most part.
Pay freezes, or raises too small to even be noticeable, is nothing new.
Most of the proposals appear to be designed to bring the public sector more in line with the private sector.
Guess we’ll see where it goes.

 

[evilanne]

Nothing really new...remember most of these changes have been previously been proposed without success. Only time will tell, but wouldn't get too concerned until something actually moves closer to reality, IMO--still just proposed.

 

[blueroadster]

My main concern is their persistence. If they continue to propose a change, it will eventually happen. I can see it now...In the future, someone will say that the real reason why there are problems is because no one enacted a change that has been proposed over the last 10 years.

 

[ABQTurtle]

Looks like this thread is going to be relevant again. "[h=1]OPM submits 4 familiar retirement proposals to the House for consideration"[/h]
https://federalnewsradio.com/your-m...ent-proposals-to-the-house-for-consideration/

 

[esswun]

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/opm/2018/10/trump-names-omb-deputy-to-replace-pon-as-opm-director/

Amongst Pon’s proposals, were:

• Eliminating Federal Employees’ Retirement System Annuity Supplements
• Modifying Annuity Supplements From a High 3 Average to High 5 Average Salary
• Increasing Contributions to Federal Employees Retirement System
• Reducing or Eliminating Retirement Cost-of-Living Adjustments

This guy is gone now. Hopefully these items will become harder to accomplish.