The Right Opinion
A Job Too Good to Be True
Imagine a job where you earn an above-average salary. Enjoy plenty of paid leave and enviable health benefits. Get to retire at age 56 with a generous pension. Sound good?
For far too many Americans, the "imagine a job" part is taxing enough. Add the other features, and it sounds like a fantasy.
But it isn't. There's a large group of workers for whom the description above is real: federal workers. And as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office shows, they're making significantly more than their private-sector counterparts.
The CBO examined workers with otherwise similar characteristics and found that "for workers at all education levels, the cost of total compensation averaged about $52 per hour worked for federal employees, compared with about $45 per hour worked for employees in the private sector." That's a tidy little raise, especially in a struggling economy.
The real key is benefits. If you look at straight salary, the CBO says federal workers do only slightly better than their private-sector counterparts. But federal workers enjoy gold-plated benefits worth 48 percent more than what they would receive outside of government. They also get nearly automatic seniority-based pay raises.
Sounds like the phrase "good enough for government work" doesn't apply to compensation. Then it's more like "never good enough," apparently.
Even better (or worse, if you're taxpayers footing the bill), federal workers enjoy a remarkable level of job security. "Since the recession began, federal employment (not including the Postal Service) has risen by 230,000, or 12 percent," writes Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst James Sherk. "Federal employees are almost never fired for poor performance." Many Americans in the private sector only wish they could say the same.
It's not just pay at the federal level that's at issue. The issue has become heated where state employees are concerned as well. Legislatures and governors in capitals around the country are faced with growing deficits and a rising tide of red ink. So over the last few years, they've attempted to curb the growth of government pay.
Of course, this means opposing unions that fight tooth and nail to keep their inflated salaries moving in only one direction: up. This has proved to be quite a headache for governors such as Wisconsin's Scott Walker. He's been treated like Public Enemy No. 1 for trying to take even modest steps to address the pay issue and bring the state's books into balance.
There has been a much weaker effort at the federal level. Lawmakers did agree to suspend cost-of-living pay increases (but not raises for merit or promotions) for civilian workers in 2011 and this year. A proposal to extend this freeze through 2013, sponsored by Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wisc.), recently passed the House of Representatives.
"While private-sector workers face the squeeze and millions of families continue searching for work, the idea of asking that their hard-earned dollars go to fund a pay raise for government employees is just not right," Duffy said.
He's right. Yet the White House opposes even this small effort to restore a tiny bit of balance to a pay system that's obviously out of whack. Why?
That's not to say that all federal employees make more than their private-sector counterparts. In fact, some of the most skilled federal workers may actually be underpaid. Overall, though, there's no denying the obvious: Compensation for government workers is too high -- and it's completely unmoored from any kind of market-based reality.
It's high time Congress ignored the tin-eared cries of those who would defend this indefensible status quo -- and brought federal compensation into line with market rates. That's what the average American has to face. Why not federal workers?
3 Comments
wjmccrindle
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Other peoples money ran out a long time ago. The Chinese are working to get the Dollar out as the worlds currency. When that happens the house of cards collapses, and our mony becomes mere toilet paper. Cloward Piven strategy to collapse the economy is going on full tilt. I hope we can get to November, its going to be close.
MAJ USA Ret
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM
Note that part of the essay "...the most skilled federal workers may actually be underpaid."AMEN!Can only describe my circumstances.Two master's degrees, post master's research and studies, numerous professional awards, still making LESS than when I retired from the Army in 1994.Civilian sector jobs for skilled former military were very few (still are), nepotism common. After a year of failed second-careeer searches, I finally settled for federal government. The compromoise felt like failure, but it kept the kids fed.I can not dispute the assertions in this essay. Rather, like my civilian counterparts, I wish I could experience them! Eighteen years stuck-in-the-rut; spite of flawless performance appraisals, exceeding expectations at all levels, constant professional awards, constant training upgrades, out-of-pocket $ and time, and willingness to do anything anywhere. And I watch the only retirement option, an IRA type account, continue to shrink. This gets old, but so am I. Alternatives are nil.Oh, did I mention I am a white, heterosexual male, not disabled, not a member of any minority? Implication: The federal worforce is best employer for all types of "minorities." Most are deserving of equal chance. But I have witnessed too many falsely claim minority status (e.g. some small part American Indian heritage is easy to claim, impossible to refute). This minority status is often the decisive factor for promotion, the best assignments, awards, all kinds of favorable personal actions, including performance raises in salary. But don't dare complain to the EEOC! On the other hand, if you can claim you are a member of a minority, and if your conscience allows you undeserved advantages without guilt, seek employment with the federal government.Hmmm... Do you suppose if I engaged in sodomy, and bragged about it, I could get promoted?Well, maybe I am not as willing to do "anything" as I thought.
Dutch Vandervort
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Ronald Reagan quoted "The two biggest lies in the world are, 'I work for the government and I am here to help you.'"I about 1972 I had business with the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. The attorney I was working with and many of his colleagues were clearly and visibly buried in presumably legitimate work.As I waited about 2 hours to have my audience (even though I had an advance appointment) I noted that the entire secretarial staff of 10 or so for the office were gathered around a single desk, near me. Without even trying to eavesdrop it was obvious that the subject of discussion was how each of the assembled workers could take holiday, vacation and sick leave days in order to maximize time off using the minimum of actual vacation days. This discussion was during the work day, not including either "lunch" or "break" time. The problem I see is that all layers of government hire too many to do too much and then waste immense amounts of time doing little more than causing mischief and delay for the suffering public. Parkinson's law prevails! I quote from Wikipedia:"Parkinson's law is the adage first articulated by Cyril Northcote Parkinson as the first sentence of a humorous essay published in The Economist in 1955:[1][2]Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.It was later reprinted together with other essays in the book Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress (London, John Murray, 1958). He derived the dictum from his extensive experience in the British Civil Service.The current form of the law is not that which Parkinson refers to by that name in the article. Rather, he assigns to the term a mathematical equation describing the rate at which bureaucracies expand over time. Much of the essay is dedicated to a summary of purportedly scientific observations supporting his law, such as the increase in the number of employees at the Colonial Office while Great Britain's overseas empire declined (indeed, he shows that the Colonial Office had its greatest number of staff at the point when it was folded into the Foreign Office because of a lack of colonies to administer). He explains this growth by two forces: (1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" and (2) "Officials make work for each other." He notes in particular that the total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done".In 1986, Alessandro Natta complained about the swelling bureaucracy in Italy. Mikhail Gorbachev responded that "Parkinson's Law works everywhere".