Biden to propose 5.2% federal pay increase, largest in pay raise in 43 years

[Anonymous]

I could make >$100K more in the private sector. The government has to pay people enough to get good employees.

I make $228K and the 5.2% will take me to $240K. Then 6m later I may get my scheduled 3% 2-year zone increase, taking me to $247K. Throw on the $7K bonus (if I take that instead of time off award) and a year from now I hope to be at $255K. I am still significantly underpaid vs private sector alternatives but with better flexibility.

But if there’s no clear path to promotion or further raises in a year I’ll be looking elsewhere. I am in my prime earning years and can’t afford to lag inflation.

Note I am 20 years into my career and still earning less than a first year law graduate at a major firm.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t there a total 8% limit increase over sone time period?

[Anonymous]

I would gladly pass on the pay raise if Biden was willing to eliminate the RTO push in exchange. I have won four performance awards (associated with cash) in the three years we have been working primarily from home, and had press releases regarding the success of my team and myself on two matters. I do get that some people slack off during WFH, but I have not, and neither has most of my team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alternative pay plan issues. 4.7 percent base pay increase and 0.5 percent locality for a total of 5.2 percent.

Gs-15 cap will increase to $192,100

What does this mean? Is the 5.2% raise actually happening, anyone know?

[Anonymous]

Gs-15 cap will increase to $192,100

Wow, that would be great. Are you sure? What is the source of this information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama froze federal salaries for three years. The feds deserve this raise.

Obama proposed a 2 year freeze after the Republican house had demanded it, year 3 he proposed a small raise and the House pushed through a 3rd year of freeze.

Biden’s 5.2% raise proposal is the highest in 40 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly pass on the pay raise if Biden was willing to eliminate the RTO push in exchange. I have won four performance awards (associated with cash) in the three years we have been working primarily from home, and had press releases regarding the success of my team and myself on two matters. I do get that some people slack off during WFH, but I have not, and neither has most of my team.

Someone else out there would be happy to do your job.

The purpose of federal government employment isn't to ensure that upper middle class women who are married to fellow white collar worker spouses are inconveniced as little as possible by annoyances such as commutes, having to hire childcare (things most other employed people have dealth with forever), so they can save as much money as possble to live in million dollar homes and travel to Europe once a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly pass on the pay raise if Biden was willing to eliminate the RTO push in exchange. I have won four performance awards (associated with cash) in the three years we have been working primarily from home, and had press releases regarding the success of my team and myself on two matters. I do get that some people slack off during WFH, but I have not, and neither has most of my team.

Someone else out there would be happy to do your job.

The purpose of federal government employment isn't to ensure that upper middle class women who are married to fellow white collar worker spouses are inconveniced as little as possible by annoyances such as commutes, having to hire childcare (things most other employed people have dealth with forever), so they can save as much money as possble to live in million dollar homes and travel to Europe once a year.

I realize that you are too dense to get this, but she is saying she is more than satisfactorily performing her job duties with WFH.
BTW, dealth? possble? inconveniced? Learn to spell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly pass on the pay raise if Biden was willing to eliminate the RTO push in exchange. I have won four performance awards (associated with cash) in the three years we have been working primarily from home, and had press releases regarding the success of my team and myself on two matters. I do get that some people slack off during WFH, but I have not, and neither has most of my team.

Someone else out there would be happy to do your job.

The purpose of federal government employment isn't to ensure that upper middle class women who are married to fellow white collar worker spouses are inconveniced as little as possible by annoyances such as commutes, having to hire childcare (things most other employed people have dealt with forever), so they can save as much money as possible to live in million dollar homes and travel to Europe once a year.

I realize that you are too dense to get this, but she is saying she is more than satisfactorily performing her job duties with WFH.
BTW, dealth? possble? inconveniced? Learn to spell.

But, the government doesn't want the majority of people to work from home. That is the point. The government has made that judgment call. The government has an opinion, she has an opinion, but govt is in charge. I fixed my typos above, sorry I was typing in low light at my desk. My point still stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly pass on the pay raise if Biden was willing to eliminate the RTO push in exchange. I have won four performance awards (associated with cash) in the three years we have been working primarily from home, and had press releases regarding the success of my team and myself on two matters. I do get that some people slack off during WFH, but I have not, and neither has most of my team.

Someone else out there would be happy to do your job.

The purpose of federal government employment isn't to ensure that upper middle class women who are married to fellow white collar worker spouses are inconveniced as little as possible by annoyances such as commutes, having to hire childcare (things most other employed people have dealt with forever), so they can save as much money as possible to live in million dollar homes and travel to Europe once a year.

I realize that you are too dense to get this, but she is saying she is more than satisfactorily performing her job duties with WFH.
BTW, dealth? possble? inconveniced? Learn to spell.

But, the government doesn't want the majority of people to work from home. That is the point. The government has made that judgment call. The government has an opinion, she has an opinion, but govt is in charge. I fixed my typos above, sorry I was typing in low light at my desk. My point still stands.

Oops, I guess my "corrected" post did not come through above, I am still getting used to this new way previous posts are quoted in new posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly pass on the pay raise if Biden was willing to eliminate the RTO push in exchange. I have won four performance awards (associated with cash) in the three years we have been working primarily from home, and had press releases regarding the success of my team and myself on two matters. I do get that some people slack off during WFH, but I have not, and neither has most of my team.

Someone else out there would be happy to do your job.

The purpose of federal government employment isn't to ensure that upper middle class women who are married to fellow white collar worker spouses are inconveniced as little as possible by annoyances such as commutes, having to hire childcare (things most other employed people have dealt with forever), so they can save as much money as possible to live in million dollar homes and travel to Europe once a year.

I realize that you are too dense to get this, but she is saying she is more than satisfactorily performing her job duties with WFH.
BTW, dealth? possble? inconveniced? Learn to spell.

But, the government doesn't want the majority of people to work from home. That is the point. The government has made that judgment call. The government has an opinion, she has an opinion, but govt is in charge. I fixed my typos above, sorry I was typing in low light at my desk. My point still stands.

The government's main concern should be receiving best value for work performed.
That is being provided.
The WFH horse is already out of the barn and the work force has been transformed.
Watch the push back by almost the entire workforce, including unions, if the government takes a hard line stand on this.
Please consider the positive benefits of WFH for our environment alone, gas saved, road maintenance saved, less auto accidents, etc.
It will be very hard now to claim to be pro environment and anti WFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly pass on the pay raise if Biden was willing to eliminate the RTO push in exchange. I have won four performance awards (associated with cash) in the three years we have been working primarily from home, and had press releases regarding the success of my team and myself on two matters. I do get that some people slack off during WFH, but I have not, and neither has most of my team.

Someone else out there would be happy to do your job.

The purpose of federal government employment isn't to ensure that upper middle class women who are married to fellow white collar worker spouses are inconveniced as little as possible by annoyances such as commutes, having to hire childcare (things most other employed people have dealt with forever), so they can save as much money as possible to live in million dollar homes and travel to Europe once a year.

I realize that you are too dense to get this, but she is saying she is more than satisfactorily performing her job duties with WFH.
BTW, dealth? possble? inconveniced? Learn to spell.

But, the government doesn't want the majority of people to work from home. That is the point. The government has made that judgment call. The government has an opinion, she has an opinion, but govt is in charge. I fixed my typos above, sorry I was typing in low light at my desk. My point still stands.

The government's main concern should be receiving best value for work performed.
That is being provided.
The government has made a different judgment call. You are confusing your preference with fact, just because something is your preference doesn't make it a fact. You are not the main character.

The WFH horse is already out of the barn and the work force has been transformed.
You are treating WFH as if it is water that has spilled into the soil from a bottle; you cannot gather water that has been spilled from a bottle into the soil back into the bottle, but yes, human beings can take themselves to the office after not going into the office for a period of time. It is not a physical impossibility. Again, you are just stating a preference and portraying it as a fact.

Watch the push back by almost the entire workforce, including unions, if the government takes a hard line stand on this.
And? Just like noses, everyone has an opinion, and all people have preferences.

Please consider the positive benefits of WFH for our environment alone, gas saved, road maintenance saved, less auto accidents, etc.
It will be very hard now to claim to be pro environment and anti WFH.

Studies show there are more people on the road now during all times of the day due to WFH. Also, when WFH, people are not sitting in caves, they are at home using all sorts of energy. Lastly, what is the "environment"? Is this a gotcha of some sort? What specific actions are WFHomers doing that benefits what you are calling the "environment", which you actually have not defined?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Gs-15 cap will increase to $192,100

Wow, that would be great. Are you sure? What is the source of this information?

Not the PP, but: The cap is tied to Level IV of the executive schedule. The executive schedule typically gets the across-the-board increase but not the locality increase, and is rounded to the nearest $100. So the pay for Level IV should increase 4.7% from $183,500 to $192,100.

Nothing is guaranteed until the funding bill is passed, but this is the way it has worked for as far back as I could be bothered to check.

[Anonymous]

It will be nice to have a historically large pay raise in January since we’re likely to have a long and painful shutdown starting in October.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly pass on the pay raise if Biden was willing to eliminate the RTO push in exchange. I have won four performance awards (associated with cash) in the three years we have been working primarily from home, and had press releases regarding the success of my team and myself on two matters. I do get that some people slack off during WFH, but I have not, and neither has most of my team.

Someone else out there would be happy to do your job.

The purpose of federal government employment isn't to ensure that upper middle class women who are married to fellow white collar worker spouses are inconveniced as little as possible by annoyances such as commutes, having to hire childcare (things most other employed people have dealt with forever), so they can save as much money as possible to live in million dollar homes and travel to Europe once a year.

I realize that you are too dense to get this, but she is saying she is more than satisfactorily performing her job duties with WFH.
BTW, dealth? possble? inconveniced? Learn to spell.

But, the government doesn't want the majority of people to work from home. That is the point. The government has made that judgment call. The government has an opinion, she has an opinion, but govt is in charge. I fixed my typos above, sorry I was typing in low light at my desk. My point still stands.

The government's main concern should be receiving best value for work performed.
That is being provided.
The government has made a different judgment call. You are confusing your preference with fact, just because something is your preference doesn't make it a fact. You are not the main character.

The WFH horse is already out of the barn and the work force has been transformed.
You are treating WFH as if it is water that has spilled into the soil from a bottle; you cannot gather water that has been spilled from a bottle into the soil back into the bottle, but yes, human beings can take themselves to the office after not going into the office for a period of time. It is not a physical impossibility. Again, you are just stating a preference and portraying it as a fact.

Watch the push back by almost the entire workforce, including unions, if the government takes a hard line stand on this.
And? Just like noses, everyone has an opinion, and all people have preferences.

Please consider the positive benefits of WFH for our environment alone, gas saved, road maintenance saved, less auto accidents, etc.
It will be very hard now to claim to be pro environment and anti WFH.

Studies show there are more people on the road now during all times of the day due to WFH. Also, when WFH, people are not sitting in caves, they are at home using all sorts of energy. Lastly, what is the "environment"? Is this a gotcha of some sort? What specific actions are WFHomers doing that benefits what you are calling the "environment", which you actually have not defined?

"Studies show"?! What studies?
Absolute baloney and in conflict with common sense.

I realize you don't understand or accept the change in the workforce culture which was caused by WFH, but you will soon.
The paradigm has shifted.