Biden to prohibit use of salary history for federal employee hires

[Anonymous]

Does this mean that they are also removing salary matching? The ONLY reason I applied for a Fed job is because I heard they would give me annual bonuses over X years until I reach my private sector salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean that they are also removing salary matching? The ONLY reason I applied for a Fed job is because I heard they would give me annual bonuses over X years until I reach my private sector salary.

Quoting from the proposed regulations :

The Federal Government strives to be a model employer, one that values diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). OPM is proposing these regulations to advance pay equity in pay setting for Federal employees. For individuals receiving their first appointment as a civilian employee of the Federal Government, agencies would not be able to set pay based on salary history, which could vary between equally qualified candidates. Agencies would be able to consider a competing job offer, but only within limitations specified in the regulations.

...

OPM proposes revising 5 CFR 531.212(c) to prohibit an agency from considering a job candidate's salary history (defined as existing salary or prior salary) in setting pay when using the GS superior qualifications and special needs pay-setting authority. The proposed regulations would require an agency to consider how pay has been set for other employees who had similar qualifications (based on the level, type, or quality of the candidate's skills or competencies or other qualities and experiences) who have been newly appointed to positions that are similar to the candidate's position (based on the position's occupational series, grade level, organization, geographic location, or other job-relevant factors), if applicable. The regulations would continue to allow an agency to consider the salary in a competing job offer. The competing job offer could be based on salaries for the skills and competencies required in the position to be filled. However, the regulations would require an agency to consider at least one other factor specified in 5 CFR 531.212(c)(2) (in addition to how pay has been set for other employees) if the agency is considering a competing job offer when setting pay under this authority. A determination based on more than one factor provides a stronger justification and mitigates any potential pay inequity from considering a competing job offer that may have been based on the candidate's salary history.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/11/2023-09564/advancing-pay-equity-in-governmentwide-pay-systems

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean that they are also removing salary matching? The ONLY reason I applied for a Fed job is because I heard they would give me annual bonuses over X years until I reach my private sector salary.

I have never heard of this.

[Anonymous]

I find this so funny! I have so many friends applying to fed jobs at GS 13, 14, 15 levels but they don't realize that they aren't qualified for those levels. Feds don't hire someone with 5 years of experience at a GS 13 and it doesn't matter what you made in the private sector.

I do think that private sector pay shouldn't matter. The one coming from the private sector thinks they're worth $$$ but the one from a non profit and underpaid might be the more valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean that they are also removing salary matching? The ONLY reason I applied for a Fed job is because I heard they would give me annual bonuses over X years until I reach my private sector salary.

I have never heard of this.

Same. "Annual bonuses" is the part I've never heard of. What the heck is that?! You mean a within grade increase?

[Anonymous]

Of course lowering other people’s salaries helps me. Let’s say you out-earn me by $10,000 a year. What happened when we both try to buy the same house?

[Anonymous]

I’m skeptical of anything done for equity reasons, but this change seems sensible. Lateraling from biglaw sometimes can guarantee you a GS15-10 salary just a few years out of law school, which isn’t fair to people coming from smaller firms or other government agencies, or those who started there straight from school.

[Anonymous]

This makes perfect sense.

A job is worth what it is worth. A candidate is worth what they are worth based on skills and experience. Not salary.

An attorney who has litigated in front of the Supreme Court has the same amount of worth as an employee, whether they did it making 160K at DOJ or 5M at BigLaw.
Services are just like goods- you don't pay a contractor based on how much they got paid at their last job. You don't decide the price of a car based on how much the last person paid for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find this so funny! I have so many friends applying to fed jobs at GS 13, 14, 15 levels but they don't realize that they aren't qualified for those levels. Feds don't hire someone with 5 years of experience at a GS 13 and it doesn't matter what you made in the private sector.

I do think that private sector pay shouldn't matter. The one coming from the private sector thinks they're worth $$$ but the one from a non profit and underpaid might be the more valuable.

This isn't true. For an attorney at a GS-13 level at our agency, the basic requirement is 2 years of legal experience, 1 of which is specialized in what we do. Applicants can sub in an LLM as well for one of those requirements. We'd hire someone with 3-5 years as a GS 13 or 14, if the experience is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This makes perfect sense.

A job is worth what it is worth. A candidate is worth what they are worth based on skills and experience. Not salary.

An attorney who has litigated in front of the Supreme Court has the same amount of worth as an employee, whether they did it making 160K at DOJ or 5M at BigLaw.
Services are just like goods- you don't pay a contractor based on how much they got paid at their last job. You don't decide the price of a car based on how much the last person paid for it.

Exactly. As long as they base the incoming salary on skills and experience, this is equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

It’s equity in terms of dragging everyone lower. Is that really a benefit to you?

. Actually if you play it all the way through -yes. If whitemen were paid what black women get paid things would cost less

[Anonymous]

When I lateraled into my current agency, I was stuck with earning what my old agency paid me, and I was underpaid because I wasn't on the GS scale. If I had the chance of negotiate, I would definitely have negotiated for a higher salary. This is a win as far as I'm concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

It’s equity in terms of dragging everyone lower. Is that really a benefit to you?

Isn’t that the purpose of equity? For everybody to sink to the bottom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean that they are also removing salary matching? The ONLY reason I applied for a Fed job is because I heard they would give me annual bonuses over X years until I reach my private sector salary.

I have never heard of this.

Same. "Annual bonuses" is the part I've never heard of. What the heck is that?! You mean a within grade increase?

"Recruitment Incentive"

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/recruitment-relocation-retention-incentives/fact-sheets/recruitment-incentives/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

It’s equity in terms of dragging everyone lower. Is that really a benefit to you?

Isn’t that the purpose of equity? For everybody to sink to the bottom?

I’m not a fan of nominal “equity”, but I think it makes sense that a job is worth what it’s worth, and the salary that a candidate previously earned should have no bearing on their offer for a new job, whether that’s in government or elsewhere.