Federal employee pay raise 2022

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With this raise, very soon the max of GS-14 is going to be as much as the high of GS-15 in DC and other high income localities. It won't be worth going for a job with more responsibility. The pay system for feds need to be revamped completely.

I would argue we are mostly at the point where switching from a high step 14 to a 15 is absolutely not worth the difference. I’m a 14 step 7. I don’t really see the value of going for a 15, which is so much more responsibility for a 15, step 4 for a less than a $12k increase and be immediately back into 2 years between steps anyway, so it’s not exactly a fast move up the ladder to additional increases. I’m due for my step 8 this year, I’m pretty happy with where I am with compensation versus workload/responsibilities. The 15s seem much more stressed and such.

14-6 due for my 7 next fall here, and I couldn't agree with you more. I wanted my 15 but took a step back and realized it was only for the sake of saying I got it. The money is not enough of a difference to lose sleep over.

If you have a partner, 15s are not worth the extra headache. What really needs to be standardized is the number of employees that you are responsible for. Some manage 10, while others manage staff in the hundreds.

Not a fed but this is crazy! Some are managing hundreds??!

[Anonymous]

I doubt you can find a single fed with hundreds of direct reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With this raise, very soon the max of GS-14 is going to be as much as the high of GS-15 in DC and other high income localities. It won't be worth going for a job with more responsibility. The pay system for feds need to be revamped completely.

I would argue we are mostly at the point where switching from a high step 14 to a 15 is absolutely not worth the difference. I’m a 14 step 7. I don’t really see the value of going for a 15, which is so much more responsibility for a 15, step 4 for a less than a $12k increase and be immediately back into 2 years between steps anyway, so it’s not exactly a fast move up the ladder to additional increases. I’m due for my step 8 this year, I’m pretty happy with where I am with compensation versus workload/responsibilities. The 15s seem much more stressed and such.

14-6 due for my 7 next fall here, and I couldn't agree with you more. I wanted my 15 but took a step back and realized it was only for the sake of saying I got it. The money is not enough of a difference to lose sleep over.

If you have a partner, 15s are not worth the extra headache. What really needs to be standardized is the number of employees that you are responsible for. Some manage 10, while others manage staff in the hundreds.

Not a fed but this is crazy! Some are managing hundreds??!

OPM says 8 is the goal number to manage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt you can find a single fed with hundreds of direct reports.

Oh yes, you can. No big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt you can find a single fed with hundreds of direct reports.

Oh yes, you can. No big deal.

I could see it in agencies like TSA where everyone is doing the same menial job. And the supervisor does NOTHING else other than supervise.

I have 6 direct reports and it's a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt you can find a single fed with hundreds of direct reports.

Oh yes, you can. No big deal.

I could see it in agencies like TSA where everyone is doing the same menial job. And the supervisor does NOTHING else other than supervise.

I have 6 direct reports and it's a lot.

Due to past mismanagement, I have a staff of 3 direct reports but close to 100 people. It's not just the direct reports, but the total staff size budget, and responsibilities. Some people have a staff of 8, with all direct reports.

[Anonymous]

DOD has some 15s that have over 75 directors. I have 13 Director reports and I’m second line supervisor to an additional 53 people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the whole GS pay scale needs to be changed. A lot of people at the lower level ended up doing much better than they would in the private sector but professional like Phds, doctors, lawyers suffer.

Amen to this! In my office we have some GS-12 administrative officers that are approaching $100k and they don’t know or do shit! In private sector their skills wouldn’t earn them more than $50k. But at the 14-SES level we get screwed!

[Anonymous]

Yes, this is very common and that's why highly talented people leave unless they really like the mission. Low GS scale employees continue to stick around and gets difficult to improve their skills or have any desire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt you can find a single fed with hundreds of direct reports.

Oh yes, you can. No big deal.

I could see it in agencies like TSA where everyone is doing the same menial job. And the supervisor does NOTHING else other than supervise.

I have 6 direct reports and it's a lot.

Due to past mismanagement, I have a staff of 3 direct reports but close to 100 people. It's not just the direct reports, but the total staff size budget, and responsibilities. Some people have a staff of 8, with all direct reports.

That's normal. It's the number of direct reports and their number of direct reports that matters. Technically, heads of departments can manage hundreds of thousands, but no one actually things thinks they supervise them.

[Anonymous]

My GS-13 supervisor has 17 direct reports. My agency is grossly underpaid across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the whole GS pay scale needs to be changed. A lot of people at the lower level ended up doing much better than they would in the private sector but professional like Phds, doctors, lawyers suffer.

Amen to this! In my office we have some GS-12 administrative officers that are approaching $100k and they don’t know or do shit! In private sector their skills wouldn’t earn them more than $50k. But at the 14-SES level we get screwed!

+1. Plenty of incompetent 12-14s who are incompetent and do the bare minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My GS-13 supervisor has 17 direct reports. My agency is grossly underpaid across the board.

I would never supervise at the GS-13 level unless you’re in a rural area, small office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the whole GS pay scale needs to be changed. A lot of people at the lower level ended up doing much better than they would in the private sector but professional like Phds, doctors, lawyers suffer.

Amen to this! In my office we have some GS-12 administrative officers that are approaching $100k and they don’t know or do shit! In private sector their skills wouldn’t earn them more than $50k. But at the 14-SES level we get screwed!

+1. Plenty of incompetent 12-14s who are incompetent and do the bare minimum.

Some of them are incompetent for sure but most of them are overworked with minimum compensation in return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the implication on DCUM that most feds are topped-out 15s. That is the realm of a few niche career paths like law or upper administration. The vast majority of us will spend our entire careers at the worker bee level of GS 9-12. Maybe 13 if we go into management. Barely cracking six figures after decades of service is a real hardship in the DC area.

Depends on the area of work. I work at a federal science agency and a majority of my colleagues are maxed GS-15s. Everyone makes substantially less than private sector counterparts, and recruiting is a major challenge. It is hard to find good people to take management positions because there's nothing in it for them.

Setting aside that GS-15s in professional/STEM fields are significantly underpaid compared to the private sector, GS-15s are making $15,000 less they would be if they had gotten the same increases as other feds. And more significantly, that gap is growing almost every year, with no end in sight.

Unless you meant Medical Doctor, how could people in science in private sectors earn substantially more than $172K? Do not talk about scientists in Pfizer who are probably earning a big bonus because of the vaccine (once in a life time). What kind of scientists in private sectors make substantially more than $172K?

Many do. Scientists in charge of manufacturing, regulatory affairs, leads on project development. $200k+ is easy. Many leave for $300-400k+. If you stay in the lab, sure, it is hard to make more than. $150k as a scientist. The real money is in manufacturing, regulatory product development, and business strategy.

No, $200k+ base is not that easy in regulatory affairs at least. Not heard of anybody at $300k+ except maybe if they went to a VP role at a major company.

In medical devices, to pull $200k in my experience you need to be at the Director level or higher, where jobs are few and far between. $200k total (base plus bonus) may be achievable.