Federal employee pay raise 2022

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

It’s 172,500, not 170,000. And pay compression is a real problem. Those who have made it to the top of the GS ladder deserve meaningful raises too.

Some of those at the top levels are managing huge programs that would be paying double or triple in the private sector equivalent. With inflation it really does have an impact.

Then transition to private. Nothing is stopping you. Go get that 340-510k job.

That’s a really specific salary range!

? That’s double at triple 170k. Rounded down from 172,500.

Maybe don’t look for a private finance position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

It’s 172,500, not 170,000. And pay compression is a real problem. Those who have made it to the top of the GS ladder deserve meaningful raises too.

Some of those at the top levels are managing huge programs that would be paying double or triple in the private sector equivalent. With inflation it really does have an impact.

Then transition to private. Nothing is stopping you. Go get that 340-510k job.

That’s a really specific salary range!

? That’s double at triple 170k. Rounded down from 172,500.

Maybe don’t look for a private finance position.

Excellent math. I clap you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

It’s 172,500, not 170,000. And pay compression is a real problem. Those who have made it to the top of the GS ladder deserve meaningful raises too.

Some of those at the top levels are managing huge programs that would be paying double or triple in the private sector equivalent. With inflation it really does have an impact.

Then transition to private. Nothing is stopping you. Go get that 340-510k job.

That’s a really specific salary range!

? That’s double at triple 170k. Rounded down from 172,500.

Maybe don’t look for a private finance position.

Excellent math. I clap you.

The point is that you can’t just go out at easily get a job at 250+ just because you were a GS-15, let alone over 500k. Your private sector equivalent is nowhere near that. If it were, GS-15s would be jumping ship left and right.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

15s who work hard deserve a meaningful pay raise just like everyone else at lower levels. No one is saying that $172.5k is a bad salary. It is not at all. I don't expect private sector raises knowing I'm a public servant, but something would be nice.

Also, pay compression is important because there will be no incentive for folks to step up in management roles. For example, in the San Fran locality pay area 14 step 10 is the same as a capped 15/10. DC, Boston, NYC will get there soon too. So one could stay in their non-supervisory position or maybe team lead role for the same pay. why would they go on to become a program manager with much bigger responsibility? If that 14/10 is really good, we want them to get that 15 job for succession planning purposes. This has a number of implications that ultimately impacts mission. I know so many 14s that SHOULD be 15 managers but refuse to do it because of the significant responsibility and little pay. They don't even want private sector pay--but they want something. But since they won't do it, we kinda get stuck with mediocre 15s. Sure we could recruit externally, but that's worked out twice in my 10 years here...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

I could see for some of the people at Gs-15s have problem with this salary but most of the other professionals I see leave before it gets there. Working for Govt is not all about money, but also work-life balance, job security, retirement benefits, public service, mission, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:15s who work hard deserve a meaningful pay raise just like everyone else at lower levels. No one is saying that $172.5k is a bad salary. It is not at all. I don't expect private sector raises knowing I'm a public servant, but something would be nice.

Also, pay compression is important because there will be no incentive for folks to step up in management roles. For example, in the San Fran locality pay area 14 step 10 is the same as a capped 15/10. DC, Boston, NYC will get there soon too. So one could stay in their non-supervisory position or maybe team lead role for the same pay. why would they go on to become a program manager with much bigger responsibility? If that 14/10 is really good, we want them to get that 15 job for succession planning purposes. This has a number of implications that ultimately impacts mission. I know so many 14s that SHOULD be 15 managers but refuse to do it because of the significant responsibility and little pay. They don't even want private sector pay--but they want something. But since they won't do it, we kinda get stuck with mediocre 15s. Sure we could recruit externally, but that's worked out twice in my 10 years here...

I agree with much of this. I too think the federal government has (mostly not all) crappy management and leadership for two reasons:1) pay; and 2) no investment in developing management and leadership skills. we promote folks with technical skills instead. But the pay part of your argument is true to some extent. I too know quite a few 14s who would make amazing managers, but there is no incentive to deal with all the extra stress that comes with being a supervisory 15. So they opt to stay where are. The 14s that still have SES aspirations will do it. I am friends with some SESers and they are disappointed that some of the talented 14s won't step into 15 roles. they feel stuck promoting14s that might be good technically, but don't really have the management/leadership skills to build relations, manage people etc--the stuff that can sink a division.

I would even apply what you're saying to SES. I think SES pay needs to be revamped too. I don't think they need to make $350+k, but SES pay should be a minimum 185k to 250k--maybe 275k. It is currently 132k to 199k. The SES for my division is new and is really good. He got promoted fast. I looked him up and his salary was 148k in 2020. He was only a 15 for one year before promoted to SES. Maybe he should have waited for a couple more years. but I can tell you our division feels motivated again. he is really good and its sad that he works 60+ hours a week for such low pay at that level. OPM has done studies about the pipeline for SES drying up because 14s and 15s don't want that headache and no good financial incentives. I think 60-70 percent of current SES are probably a hot mess and shouldn't even be 14s (IMO), but they are there because the talented ones are sitting on the side lines. And then we complain on other threads about how horrible these leaders are. wonder why?! The federal government will never attract or retain top talent if it cannot pay well enough. Federal programs and operations are only getting more complex and more politically charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

I could see for some of the people at Gs-15s have problem with this salary but most of the other professionals I see leave before it gets there. Working for Govt is not all about money, but also work-life balance, job security, retirement benefits, public service, mission, etc.

Unfortunately that part of the equation has also been weakened. Work-life balance at DOS has mostly been decimated (emails and demands for paper well into the evening and through the weekend), we contribute more and more to retirement (quite a lot for new folks), and neither congress, nor the White House, nor the public at large values public service (lot of vitriol directed at feds), and the mission has become fuzzy and burdened by ever increasing bureaucracy. Hi

[Anonymous]

The cap is also there because administrations don’t want bad optics of raising executive level pay. So capped 15s: don’t spend that 1k raise all at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cap is also there because administrations don’t want bad optics of raising executive level pay. So capped 15s: don’t spend that 1k raise all at once.

I've been capped for 10 years or so. it sucks but it is what it is. no one in congress who is willing to champion this cause so i don't think anything will change any time soon.

good bonus this year so that makes things slightly better - about 4% just like last year.

[Anonymous]

The cap will be addressed st some point, but it has to trickle down a lot more in a lot more localities so that mid stepping 14s are getting the same pay as 15-10s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cap will be addressed st some point, but it has to trickle down a lot more in a lot more localities so that mid stepping 14s are getting the same pay as 15-10s.

aka, not any time soon. i totally agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cap will be addressed st some point, but it has to trickle down a lot more in a lot more localities so that mid stepping 14s are getting the same pay as 15-10s.

aka, not any time soon. i totally agree.

In about 5 years--this will happen in most major metropolitan areas (assuming a consistent 2-2.5% increase). So it will impact about half of the localities.

[Anonymous]

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?

IT security and senior engineering jobs quite regularly pay more than $200k, without even including stock options. Even top-tier academic researchers regularly make more than $200k, not from their academic salary alone, but when you include summer pay and consulting gigs.