Are SEC/CFPB/FDIC/OCC Employees Exempt from Federal Raise Announced by Biden?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for SEC- we get annual increase in PP7. It is kind of a complicated formula but works out much better than the GS pay increases.

It's better but it's not much better. The SEC doesn't get step increases and those have an average value of 1.5% per year including the years where you don't get a step increase so the SEC raise is about 1.15% better than the GS raise.

True, but the baseline starting point is way higher. This is kinda like saying that a banker/trader earning 650K only got a 1% raise while the regulator earning 200K got a 5% raise. Which would you rather be?

PP- exactly my spouse is a 15/10 and has been at the cap for years. At the SEC I am a SK 14 at the cap and make significantly more than them.

You aren't joking. That's like a 50k difference.

I work for the FDIC. The same pay grade for the job I do at the SEC pays at least $40,000 more at the top of the scale. I always thought that the federal regulators were supposed to be comparable in this way, but they are not.

Which pay grade?

NP. The FDIC revamped how it pays people so that if you are new to the fdic, you get paid much less than someone with the same number of total years of experience but who has been at the fdic longer. They’ve been quite explicit that this was a new policy choice they made. So the fdic no longer pays competitively for incoming folks (though it’s a bit haphazard and managers can seek policy exceptions, so some people may chime in that they are new to the fdic and doing well which may be true or may be a results of them not knowing how much their peers are making). This it wouldn’t surprise me if a person new to the fdic makes 40k less than someone new to the sec with the same number of years of experience, regardless of whether they are a 14 or 15 on fdics scale.

This is all correct but just to add to it: the policy choice was made by McWilliams with the goal of paying fdic workers less (because the way to justify paying new workers less than their peers is to weight numbers of years of experience at fdic heavily in the pay formula; in many instances, the formula results in people having salaries much lower than what they would earn at a non financial regulator). While gruenberg professes to be more friendly to workers, he has actually fully adopted this new approach to pay setting. So the fdic had largely given up on being competitive with its peers on salary unless your salary was set before this new approach to pay setting went into effect or your manager seeks a policy exception for you.

I anticipate that many will leave fdic for the cfpb, especially with the full remote option negotiated at the cfpb recently.

I got a raise coming in from a non-financial regulator in a corporate support position, hired at a grade below what I had at my old job. I’m basically paid way more (when you include the benefits above my salary) for a far less stressful job with a lot more earning potential. The level of complaining is exhausting. If you don’t like your job, and you’re so very valuable elsewhere, go ahead and find your chi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

I agree. People have huge egos and complain constantly about what they aren’t getting that the think they could theoretically get somewhere else even though they weren’t getting that before. I love the benefits and the mission. The complaining is something I just find annoying. It’s all so ungrateful. And empty. Because they are still there. And I know other Federal Employees that would happily take their place and appreciate it. At a GS agency I heard far less whining about much lower salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” [/b] I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.[b]

I am so proud of my colleagues. Especially the ones who do nothing so I can pick up their slack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

+1000. Amen. My top manager is incompetent $270,0000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t realize there were federal employees that didn’t get a raise. Are there other agencies besides the financial regulators where this is the case?

Yes. FDA is on the AD schedule, no raises for 3 years at a time. Brackets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

+1000. Amen. My top manager is incompetent $270,0000

And, if my experience rings true, you spend more time gossiping about him/her than doing your work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

I definitely agree that there are a lot of pay-capped, 50+ folks that are staring at the clock. It’s unbelievable that they get passing grades every year and get paid $200k+. They’re also one of the groups that complain the loudest about benefits, but they have it so sweet. They could never leave and make more, in part, because they have become SO lazy. I was amazed how many colleagues, even with Ivy or Ivy-type credentials, had turned into sloths.

[Anonymous]

Remote work and chronic WFH has only grown the complaint and sloth factor. There are SO many “busy” people who just want to be left alone. Sounds like the definition of professional welfare.

[Anonymous]

Remote work and chronic WFH has only grown the complaint and sloth factor. There are SO many “busy” people who just want to be left alone. Sounds like the definition of professional welfare.

My job is fully remote (except when I need to travel, which is around once every month for 2 days). I have so much work that I feel sick to my stomach on Sunday evenings thinking about how I can tackle it in the week ahead. I do have a few coworkers who are lazy, but most are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Remote work and chronic WFH has only grown the complaint and sloth factor. There are SO many “busy” people who just want to be left alone. Sounds like the definition of professional welfare.

My job is fully remote (except when I need to travel, which is around once every month for 2 days). I have so much work that I feel sick to my stomach on Sunday evenings thinking about how I can tackle it in the week ahead. I do have a few coworkers who are lazy, but most are not.

Ignore the people who think WFH means no one is working.

I will say that WFH has become a hit button issue that isn’t nearly settled. I am fully remote but do go in voluntarily for in person meetings maybe once a month. There are jobs it’s perfect for and jobs that can benefit from hybrid or in person. Long term organizational effects are not fully assessable for many areas. I’d not be opposed to more in person (maybe up to 2 days a week) but people are convinced there is no benefit to it. They think ALL people prefer it. They yell over anyone advocating, or even just voicing their own preference or availability, for hybrid. It’s now a mandatory benefit no one feels privileged to have and almost doesn’t even matter for retention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

+1000. Amen. My top manager is incompetent $270,0000

And, if my experience rings true, you spend more time gossiping about him/her than doing your work.

If you are one of the managers who spends only 10 hours per week doing work and that work is low quality, then yes people will gossip about you. And deservedly so. Part of that “gossip” will be about how to deal with your incompetence.

[Anonymous]

Ignore the people who think WFH means no one is working.

I will say that WFH has become a hit button issue that isn’t nearly settled. I am fully remote but do go in voluntarily for in person meetings maybe once a month. There are jobs it’s perfect for and jobs that can benefit from hybrid or in person. Long term organizational effects are not fully assessable for many areas. I’d not be opposed to more in person (maybe up to 2 days a week) but people are convinced there is no benefit to it. They think ALL people prefer it. They yell over anyone advocating, or even just voicing their own preference or availability, for hybrid. It’s now a mandatory benefit no one feels privileged to have and almost doesn’t even matter for retention.

Agreed that it doesn't work for all jobs. However, if my job removed full remote (except for the travel I need to do), I would look for a job with a different agency with work that I found slightly more interesting. If the work were equally interesting, I would stay put, but part of my trade off for the slightly less interesting subject matter is full remote (which works well for my family situation).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

+1000. Amen. My top manager is incompetent $270,0000

And, if my experience rings true, you spend more time gossiping about him/her than doing your work.

No. We are trying to teach the incompetent manager what we do on a daily basis. He/she doesn’t try to learn and doesn’t care, and treats us like garbage.
This is how our time is spent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for SEC- we get annual increase in PP7. It is kind of a complicated formula but works out much better than the GS pay increases.

It's better but it's not much better. The SEC doesn't get step increases and those have an average value of 1.5% per year including the years where you don't get a step increase so the SEC raise is about 1.15% better than the GS raise.

True, but the baseline starting point is way higher. This is kinda like saying that a banker/trader earning 650K only got a 1% raise while the regulator earning 200K got a 5% raise. Which would you rather be?

PP- exactly my spouse is a 15/10 and has been at the cap for years. At the SEC I am a SK 14 at the cap and make significantly more than them.

You aren't joking. That's like a 50k difference.

I work for the FDIC. The same pay grade for the job I do at the SEC pays at least $40,000 more at the top of the scale. I always thought that the federal regulators were supposed to be comparable in this way, but they are not.

Which pay grade?

NP. The FDIC revamped how it pays people so that if you are new to the fdic, you get paid much less than someone with the same number of total years of experience but who has been at the fdic longer. They’ve been quite explicit that this was a new policy choice they made. So the fdic no longer pays competitively for incoming folks (though it’s a bit haphazard and managers can seek policy exceptions, so some people may chime in that they are new to the fdic and doing well which may be true or may be a results of them not knowing how much their peers are making). This it wouldn’t surprise me if a person new to the fdic makes 40k less than someone new to the sec with the same number of years of experience, regardless of whether they are a 14 or 15 on fdics scale.

This is all correct but just to add to it: the policy choice was made by McWilliams with the goal of paying fdic workers less (because the way to justify paying new workers less than their peers is to weight numbers of years of experience at fdic heavily in the pay formula; in many instances, the formula results in people having salaries much lower than what they would earn at a non financial regulator). While gruenberg professes to be more friendly to workers, he has actually fully adopted this new approach to pay setting. So the fdic had largely given up on being competitive with its peers on salary unless your salary was set before this new approach to pay setting went into effect or your manager seeks a policy exception for you.

I anticipate that many will leave fdic for the cfpb, especially with the full remote option negotiated at the cfpb recently.

FDIC is already having trouble hiring qualified candidates, and the CFO blames hiring officials for the problems they created.