Why are you against federal worker pay freeze?

[Anonymous]

First, federal employes don't get step increases every year. Depending on your level you wait 2,3 or 5 years for a raise. In my case, I'm at he top of my grade so the only raise I can get is a cost of lving increas when Congress chooses to unfreeze it.

I don't understand why it is that you thnk giving tax breaks to millionaires will result in them supporting small businesses, but if a middle class federal worker is given a cost of lving increase they will not support small businesses. Which group do you think is more likely to visit a local deli, a bagel shop, a store in a mall, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public workers have it good. A strong union, very little chance of job loss, great benefits. Private sector cant find jobs let alone a pay freeze yet Fedsworkers won't be asked to sacrifice like the rest of the economy. What hypocrisy.

I believe a pay freeze has been in force for the federal workforce for at least a year. At least my friend who is in the FAA hasn't had an increase due to across-the-board freeze.

http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/569.cfm

So, what, exactly, are you prattling on about?

Not OP, but this is odd - I heard federal pay was frozen too, but my best friend who works for Congress just received a substantial raise. Hmmm. Regardless, I do think that many federal employees, especially Hill employees, get paid very little considering the grueling hours they work.

Congress never freeze their salaries. In fact, they and their staff received raises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are an idiot. I am a government attorney who works hard to be sure that you are not getting screwed by corporations. I work 50+ hour weeks and barely saw my family over the summer. At a firm, I could be making 3-4X what I am making now. I haven't had a raise in years and since healthcare premiums are going up for feds, I am essentially getting a pay decrease in 2012.

uh

You work a ton of hours and get paid less.

Hopefully, your spouse has better sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public workers have it good. A strong union, very little chance of job loss, great benefits. Private sector cant find jobs let alone a pay freeze yet Fedsworkers won't be asked to sacrifice like the rest of the economy. What hypocrisy.

Not a Fed employee and I am not only in favor of a continued pay freeze, I think many govt. agencies could indiscriminately cut every third employee and the job could still be done. It seems to me, from DCUM, that women, in particular, only want to work for the Feds because they are "family friendkly" and they can take off whenever they feel like it, "work from home" while they run errands. The pay freeze should continue until unemployment is under 5% and the economy is rolling.

I agree Cut every third border patrol agent, every third ATF agent, every third FAA agent, every third air traffic controller, every third Atty fighting white collar crime, every third forensic analyst, every third CIA operative, ever third NIH cancer research scientist, every third meat inspector, every third FDA inspector, ever third airman and sailor, every third interpreter in the Farsi language, every third Atty prosecuting child trafficking, every third cyber terrorist specialist, every third computer analyst, every third project manager, every third social worker, every third tax specialist, every third nurse, etc

I suppose you think you or the people you claim to care about have little need for any of these people, until you do.

[Anonymous]

we need defense and social security. we can do without all the rest and thats what is going to happen. do the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public workers have it good. A strong union, very little chance of job loss, great benefits. Private sector cant find jobs let alone a pay freeze yet Fedsworkers won't be asked to sacrifice like the rest of the economy. What hypocrisy.

No, you know who isn't being asked to sacrifice like the rest of the economy? It's not the feds. It's the investment banks that, after throwing the entire country under the bus, were rewarded with huge bailouts and astronomical end-of-year bonuses while millions of people were losing their jobs and homes, who got trillions (not billions, that's peanuts that actually makes news) in interest free loans from the government that they then turned around and lent back to it at 6% (but of course, restructuring homeowners' loans has always been out of the question because who wants to reward bad judgment?), who are now more powerful than they were before the financial crisis, and who are now just laughing at you stupid Main Streeter that they've succeeded in turning against the only people left who aren't out to screw you.

I was just looking at the gift giving section of the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago: $20,000 shark-shaped cuff links, anyone?

How dare Americans be able to spend their money on what they so please. The government should ban expensive goods and services. You work for the government not Goldman Sachs.

But it's not their money. Goldman Sachs and other big bankers' salaries have effectively been paid by the taxpayer for the last 4 years (otherwise they would all be out of a job and their banks would have disappeared.) I don't know about you but I don't think that people on welfare should be using taxpayers' money for 20k cufflinks.

[Anonymous]

As a former federal employee, I agree with the poster who said we should cut every third worker. At my former agency they would not have been missed.

[Anonymous]

I hoe people who want to cut the number of federal employees realize hat those emloyees will be related by contractors. He government will not get smaller. The owners of the companies will, however, get richet. Hat is hy here are more millionaires in this area -- gvenmen contracts.

The Senator who wants to ge rid of the TSA has a company in his district that wants to get the contract to do the work. That company will hire all of the TSA agents, chage he government alot and panhe workers less than what they would get as government emloyees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a former federal employee, I agree with the poster who said we should cut every third worker. At my former agency they would not have been missed.

There is dead wood in any organization. In my agency it tends to be in the support staff area because computer programs allow attorneys to do much of what staff used to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we need defense and social security. we can do without all the rest and thats what is going to happen. do the math.

Everybody has their version of what is necessary. Your parents want medicare. Your tea party friend wants immigration control. Your wife wants to know that someone is checking children's toys for lead paint. And the response to the next natural disaster had better be good. And when you add it all up, you are back to the current size of the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we need defense and social security. we can do without all the rest and thats what is going to happen. do the math.

Everybody has their version of what is necessary. Your parents want medicare. Your tea party friend wants immigration control. Your wife wants to know that someone is checking children's toys for lead paint. And the response to the next natural disaster had better be good. And when you add it all up, you are back to the current size of the federal government.

A few weeks ago the word went out that government agencies should cut back on travel and conferences to save money. A week later I am reading about hotel groups, airline groups, and restaurant groups stating tha if the gvenmen cuts back it will hurt hem and the economy. The pp is correct, there is always someone who is gong to thnk that the money they get is not a waste.

[Anonymous]

Ugh, lots of iPad typos in that las post. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Haven't read through the thread but why should they have to have their pay frozen? Risk = reward. Conservatism = less reward but more security. The private sector rides high when things are going well. Feds get paid less so the rewards are job security and gradual COL increases.

[Anonymous]

Agree, it is risk/reward and private sector employees took the good but don't want to face the consequences of their choices. FYI not everyone who works for the government works there for stability and flexibility. Many of us do it to support our country and believe in public service. Also, it is ridiculous to suggest that female attorneys only work in the government because they want to work less hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hoe people who want to cut the number of federal employees realize hat those emloyees will be related by contractors. He government will not get smaller. The owners of the companies will, however, get richet. Hat is hy here are more millionaires in this area -- gvenmen contracts.

The Senator who wants to ge rid of the TSA has a company in his district that wants to get the contract to do the work. That company will hire all of the TSA agents, chage he government alot and panhe workers less than what they would get as government emloyees.

This.
A study by the nonpartisan Rand Corporation (which you may be able to find on their website if you look) calculated that every outsourced government job costs the taxpayer anywhere from 25% to 100% more than if it were done by the government itself and declared it to be one of the biggest sources of "government" waste. That premium doesn't go to the employees of the contractors but to the owners. If you want your tax money to earn you half the services it does now for the sake of free market ideological purity (or if you want to be in twice the debt), go for it my friend, cut, cut the number of federal employees.