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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, you say this as private sector and the government is calling people back into the office. You want to WFH really really really bad, and what you want is the most important thing in this world, and everyone needs to understand that, right? Again, main character syndrome. This isn't reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, you say this as private sector and the government is calling people back into the office. You want to WFH really really really bad, and what you want is the most important thing in this world, and everyone needs to understand that, right? Again, main character syndrome. This isn't reality.

It far, far from just me.
That you think it is just me demonstrates quite well that you really have no understanding of the issue, those involved, or its impact.
And again you do not accept or understand that this change in the workforce culture has already occurred.
WFH has been an overwhelming success.
And the workforce now has a very good argument for keeping it (or most of it) in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, you say this as private sector and the government is calling people back into the office. You want to WFH really really really bad, and what you want is the most important thing in this world, and everyone needs to understand that, right? Again, main character syndrome. This isn't reality.

It far, far from just me.
That you think it is just me demonstrates quite well that you really have no understanding of the issue, those involved, or its impact.
And again you do not accept or understand that this change in the workforce culture has already occurred.
WFH has been an overwhelming success.
And the workforce now has a very good argument for keeping it (or most of it) in place.

The "change in workforce culture" you describe is that people have a preference to do something. My preference is not to write my performance evaluation this year. It is possible that my employer will suspend this process for a year or two but bring it back at some point. This is employer prerogative. Same with WFH. You seem to believe in manifesting and speaking things into existence, if you say something and you really want it to happen, others will follow along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you. I’d be okay with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, you say this as private sector and the government is calling people back into the office. You want to WFH really really really bad, and what you want is the most important thing in this world, and everyone needs to understand that, right? Again, main character syndrome. This isn't reality.

It far, far from just me.
That you think it is just me demonstrates quite well that you really have no understanding of the issue, those involved, or its impact.
And again you do not accept or understand that this change in the workforce culture has already occurred.
WFH has been an overwhelming success.
And the workforce now has a very good argument for keeping it (or most of it) in place.

The "change in workforce culture" you describe is that people have a preference to do something. My preference is not to write my performance evaluation this year. It is possible that my employer will suspend this process for a year or two but bring it back at some point. This is employer prerogative. Same with WFH. You seem to believe in manifesting and speaking things into existence, if you say something and you really want it to happen, others will follow along.

I have gone into the office nearly every day since Day 1 of pandemic til today.

What Op is saying is that she has demographics on the side of WFH. My millennial colleagues have WFH on the list of ‘successful’ status symbols along with Teslas, and a love for Swift, Avocado toast, scooters and Harry Potter. You boomer - everyone who is not a millennial is called this - are not realizing their force in numbers

Whether WFH works for a business or not be damned, there’s a millennial’s status we’re talking about here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, you say this as private sector and the government is calling people back into the office. You want to WFH really really really bad, and what you want is the most important thing in this world, and everyone needs to understand that, right? Again, main character syndrome. This isn't reality.

It far, far from just me.
That you think it is just me demonstrates quite well that you really have no understanding of the issue, those involved, or its impact.
And again you do not accept or understand that this change in the workforce culture has already occurred.
WFH has been an overwhelming success.
And the workforce now has a very good argument for keeping it (or most of it) in place.

The "change in workforce culture" you describe is that people have a preference to do something. My preference is not to write my performance evaluation this year. It is possible that my employer will suspend this process for a year or two but bring it back at some point. This is employer prerogative. Same with WFH. You seem to believe in manifesting and speaking things into existence, if you say something and you really want it to happen, others will follow along.

I have gone into the office nearly every day since Day 1 of pandemic til today.

What Op is saying is that she has demographics on the side of WFH. My millennial colleagues have WFH on the list of ‘successful’ status symbols along with Teslas, and a love for Swift, Avocado toast, scooters and Harry Potter. You boomer - everyone who is not a millennial is called this - are not realizing their force in numbers

Whether WFH works for a business or not be damned, there’s a millennial’s status we’re talking about here.

Not Potter. Rowling’s been canceled for being a TERF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't y'all just get a 4% increase in addition to the step and grade increases already built into your salaries? No one else I know is guaranteed a promotion/salary increase every year.

To be clear, it’s only every yer the first three years (or 4?). Then every other year, then every three. And eventually you cap out. And most Feds get minimal bonuses. At a 13 with a top performance appraisal, mine is usually about $800.

I’m capped out and not willing to move over to management. So I’m losing money given the rate of inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting he is the opposite of Obama.

Obama governed during a recession. And not when agencies were hemmoraging Boomers and unable to attract young workers.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand fed employees. You have guaranteed salaries and jobs 4 life but all you do is complain, complain, complain. My neighbors are an GS-14 and 15. The government paid their student loans for them, and other than their mortgage, they are debt free and living their best lives. They just bought a vacation home in Shenandoah and take multiple vacations each year. Why are y'all complaining again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand fed employees. You have guaranteed salaries and jobs 4 life but all you do is complain, complain, complain. My neighbors are an GS-14 and 15. The government paid their student loans for them, and other than their mortgage, they are debt free and living their best lives. They just bought a vacation home in Shenandoah and take multiple vacations each year. Why are y'all complaining again?

It's not ALL feds and people are allowed to complain. If you don't like it, move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand fed employees. You have guaranteed salaries and jobs 4 life but all you do is complain, complain, complain. My neighbors are an GS-14 and 15. The government paid their student loans for them, and other than their mortgage, they are debt free and living their best lives. They just bought a vacation home in Shenandoah and take multiple vacations each year. Why are y'all complaining again?

yeah and my private sector counterparts that make $125k more than me complain just as much.

[Anonymous]

He is so desperate to buy votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand fed employees. You have guaranteed salaries and jobs 4 life but all you do is complain, complain, complain. My neighbors are an GS-14 and 15. The government paid their student loans for them, and other than their mortgage, they are debt free and living their best lives. They just bought a vacation home in Shenandoah and take multiple vacations each year. Why are y'all complaining again?

Most Feds are actually not dual GS-14/15 couples. Those that are at those levels are usually professionals that would make more in the private sector. And we complain because we are used as political pawns by all administrations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand fed employees. You have guaranteed salaries and jobs 4 life but all you do is complain, complain, complain. My neighbors are an GS-14 and 15. The government paid their student loans for them, and other than their mortgage, they are debt free and living their best lives. They just bought a vacation home in Shenandoah and take multiple vacations each year. Why are y'all complaining again?

I don’t understand stupid posts like this. The vast majority of Feds will never become GS 13/14/15 in their entire career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand fed employees. You have guaranteed salaries and jobs 4 life but all you do is complain, complain, complain. My neighbors are an GS-14 and 15. The government paid their student loans for them, and other than their mortgage, they are debt free and living their best lives. They just bought a vacation home in Shenandoah and take multiple vacations each year. Why are y'all complaining again?

You don’t say that the neighbors are complaining. And the rest of us aren’t as fortunate as they are. Do you really think they’re representative of all feds? I’m a fed, but not a dual-fed couple and didn’t have any loans paid for and am not debt free and have no second home and haven’t taken a significant vacation since before the pandemic. So am I allowed to complain? How about the huge number of feds in a similar situation to me, are they allowed to complain?