federal employee pay raise 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year's was historically high. So we all got a morale boost and now it will average out to just normal bump in COLA. We really can't complain, that combined with reliable step increases not tied to performance is a pretty sweet deal.

It is? Maybe for a middling run of the mill employee. High performers are underpaid and will continue to be. The 5k max bonus at my agency for a 15 is sad.

The cola wasn’t a morale boost either. It didn’t even keep up with inflation. We need a few more 5% increases just to do that.

30% of employees in the US are satisfied with their pay. There has also been an explosion of dry promotions, where more work and a higher title come with little or no additional compensation.

The current hiring rate is the lowest it has been since the US emerged from the financial crisis and there are cracks in the labor market.

Why are you entitled to a 5% increase every year when this is not the norm by far for most sectors? Many nonprofits and public institutions keep pay flat for employees for years on end and many private corporations provide in place of COLA “merit” increases that are based on performance (both of the individual and the company) and have nothing to do with inflation.

People in the private sector are often encouraged to switch jobs to increase salary, while government’s goal is more to retain people with institutional knowledge. If they want to change the whole incentive structure of government, then it would be different.
Besides, data shows government employee pay has fallen 25% below inflation over the past few decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year's was historically high. So we all got a morale boost and now it will average out to just normal bump in COLA. We really can't complain, that combined with reliable step increases not tied to performance is a pretty sweet deal.

It is? Maybe for a middling run of the mill employee. High performers are underpaid and will continue to be. The 5k max bonus at my agency for a 15 is sad.

The cola wasn’t a morale boost either. It didn’t even keep up with inflation. We need a few more 5% increases just to do that.

30% of employees in the US are satisfied with their pay. There has also been an explosion of dry promotions, where more work and a higher title come with little or no additional compensation.

The current hiring rate is the lowest it has been since the US emerged from the financial crisis and there are cracks in the labor market.

Why are you entitled to a 5% increase every year when this is not the norm by far for most sectors? Many nonprofits and public institutions keep pay flat for employees for years on end and many private corporations provide in place of COLA “merit” increases that are based on performance (both of the individual and the company) and have nothing to do with inflation.

Because I'm a person and not a crab in a bucket? We should all be entitled to not lose real income every year our raises don't outpace inflation. The fact that it's not the norm in the private sector doesn't change that. If the private sector isn't keeping salaries up with inflation you should be getting mad at the private sector for not keeping pace with inflation as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Update on this. Bump

To respond to the bump, the status is President Biden needs to sign the directive to implement the planned 2% raise (1.7% across-the-board, 0.3% locality) It usually happens the week of Christmas. ...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/08/30/letter-to-the-speaker-of-the-house-and-president-of-the-senate-on-the-alternative-plan-for-pay-adjustments-for-civilian-federal-employees/

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2024/08/biden-formally-announces-2-average-pay-raise-feds-2025/399172/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year's was historically high. So we all got a morale boost and now it will average out to just normal bump in COLA. We really can't complain, that combined with reliable step increases not tied to performance is a pretty sweet deal.

It is? Maybe for a middling run of the mill employee. High performers are underpaid and will continue to be. The 5k max bonus at my agency for a 15 is sad.

The cola wasn’t a morale boost either. It didn’t even keep up with inflation. We need a few more 5% increases just to do that.

30% of employees in the US are satisfied with their pay. There has also been an explosion of dry promotions, where more work and a higher title come with little or no additional compensation.

The current hiring rate is the lowest it has been since the US emerged from the financial crisis and there are cracks in the labor market.

Why are you entitled to a 5% increase every year when this is not the norm by far for most sectors? Many nonprofits and public institutions keep pay flat for employees for years on end and many private corporations provide in place of COLA “merit” increases that are based on performance (both of the individual and the company) and have nothing to do with inflation.

People in the private sector are often encouraged to switch jobs to increase salary, while government’s goal is more to retain people with institutional knowledge. If they want to change the whole incentive structure of government, then it would be different.
Besides, data shows government employee pay has fallen 25% below inflation over the past few decades.

Private sector companies also have an incentive to reduce churn because it’s costly to hire and train new employees. Most companies put turnover in their 10-Ks because it’s financially material. Merit increases and other comp are used to reward employees who are doing well and punish employees who aren’t doing well, but market forces very much dictate the extent to which highly productive employees are rewarded. Generally, but not all of the time, if market forces are working against a company the overall economy is not great and finding another job is a challenge. I’m trying to help you to understand that the argument that Feds total compensation is lower than it should be relative to expected outputs is also the case in the private sector as well as nonprofit sector at present. If that’s the baseline for the private and nonprofit sectors and the job market is sluggish why would the president or congress move to do more than the bare minimum with regard to a fed COLA? They’re reading the room. Inflation is lower and feds aren’t going to get poached in this sluggish job market.

Also, the underlying calculation for fed pay not keeping pace with the private sector to the tune of 24% does not take into account retirement benefits or healthcare. The Cato Institute said when those two features of the fed pay package were included in the calculation that fed pay outpaced private sector pay. It’s disingenuous to think of a pension as deferred compensation and then not factor it into total compensation? And good healthcare that is not prohibitively expensive is a huge deal as current events have highlighted even more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also, the underlying calculation for fed pay not keeping pace with the private sector to the tune of 24% does not take into account retirement benefits or healthcare. The Cato Institute said when those two features of the fed pay package were included in the calculation that fed pay outpaced private sector pay. It’s disingenuous to think of a pension as deferred compensation and then not factor it into total compensation? And good healthcare that is not prohibitively expensive is a huge deal as current events have highlighted even more.

1. The Cato Institute would like our pensions to go away. It is somewhat disingenuous to be citing them as the canonical source about whether or not we are paid enough without mentioning that they are actively attacking this part of our compensation.

2. What do you consider "prohibitively expensive"? How much do you pay for your healthcare? What are your premiums, deductibles, coinsurance and copay and OOP max amounts, and do you live in an area where all the health care people might need is available in-network?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year's was historically high. So we all got a morale boost and now it will average out to just normal bump in COLA. We really can't complain, that combined with reliable step increases not tied to performance is a pretty sweet deal.

It is? Maybe for a middling run of the mill employee. High performers are underpaid and will continue to be. The 5k max bonus at my agency for a 15 is sad.

The cola wasn’t a morale boost either. It didn’t even keep up with inflation. We need a few more 5% increases just to do that.

30% of employees in the US are satisfied with their pay. There has also been an explosion of dry promotions, where more work and a higher title come with little or no additional compensation.

The current hiring rate is the lowest it has been since the US emerged from the financial crisis and there are cracks in the labor market.

Why are you entitled to a 5% increase every year when this is not the norm by far for most sectors? Many nonprofits and public institutions keep pay flat for employees for years on end and many private corporations provide in place of COLA “merit” increases that are based on performance (both of the individual and the company) and have nothing to do with inflation.

Because I'm a person and not a crab in a bucket? We should all be entitled to not lose real income every year our raises don't outpace inflation. The fact that it's not the norm in the private sector doesn't change that. If the private sector isn't keeping salaries up with inflation you should be getting mad at the private sector for not keeping pace with inflation as well.

I don’t disagree with you but we live in a capitalist country and no part of our country, including our federal government and fed salaries, is immune from that ideology. I think it’s entitled to think that you are being unduly targeted by a lower COLA this year without looking more broadly at other sectors and understanding that uneven and small COLAs or merit increases are a cross-cutting phenomenon and that in many respects you are lucky that an off year for you does not mean that you get fired or that you don’t get a COLA or merit increase.

And it’s disingenuous to complain about how underpaid you are while referencing a comparison that distorts what total compensation is for Feds. A large part of my compensation is stock. If I went to my boss and told her that my pay needed to increase because it was x times below market but that comparison didn’t include my stock grants she would tell me that I was being disingenuous. Why? Because that’s an important part of my compensation and a not insignificant reason why I’m still at my company. I sure the same can be said of Feds who are not thrilled with every aspect of their job but understand the cost of giving up a pension. The incentive structure of the federal government is not perfect, but the safety net element of that incentive structure is beneficial to many employees and material to why they stay. That’s not priced into total fed comp but it very well could be since most of us do put a premium of job security and mission alignment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, the underlying calculation for fed pay not keeping pace with the private sector to the tune of 24% does not take into account retirement benefits or healthcare. The Cato Institute said when those two features of the fed pay package were included in the calculation that fed pay outpaced private sector pay. It’s disingenuous to think of a pension as deferred compensation and then not factor it into total compensation? And good healthcare that is not prohibitively expensive is a huge deal as current events have highlighted even more.

1. The Cato Institute would like our pensions to go away. It is somewhat disingenuous to be citing them as the canonical source about whether or not we are paid enough without mentioning that they are actively attacking this part of our compensation.

2. What do you consider "prohibitively expensive"? How much do you pay for your healthcare? What are your premiums, deductibles, coinsurance and copay and OOP max amounts, and do you live in an area where all the health care people might need is available in-network?

1. Math is math. Total comp is total comp. This is not a subjective exercise. If you want to say that fed salaries have lost ground to private sector salaries then you should calculate benefits like a pension or premium healthcare. These are momentarily material. This is basic reasoning.

2. I work in insurance and used to work in health insurance and I can say that we would refer to state and federal healthcare plans as well as some union plans as “Cadillac” and “premium” plans. Many private sector employers have cut healthcare over the last decade, replacing gold standard plans with new premium plans that are a joke in comparison. This allows employers to increase salaries more because employee comp increases are offset by lower contributions to health plans (relative to increases from insurers). You’re very naive if you don’t understand this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, the underlying calculation for fed pay not keeping pace with the private sector to the tune of 24% does not take into account retirement benefits or healthcare. The Cato Institute said when those two features of the fed pay package were included in the calculation that fed pay outpaced private sector pay. It’s disingenuous to think of a pension as deferred compensation and then not factor it into total compensation? And good healthcare that is not prohibitively expensive is a huge deal as current events have highlighted even more.

1. The Cato Institute would like our pensions to go away. It is somewhat disingenuous to be citing them as the canonical source about whether or not we are paid enough without mentioning that they are actively attacking this part of our compensation.

2. What do you consider "prohibitively expensive"? How much do you pay for your healthcare? What are your premiums, deductibles, coinsurance and copay and OOP max amounts, and do you live in an area where all the health care people might need is available in-network?

1. Math is math. Total comp is total comp. This is not a subjective exercise. If you want to say that fed salaries have lost ground to private sector salaries then you should calculate benefits like a pension or premium healthcare. These are momentarily material. This is basic reasoning.

2. I work in insurance and used to work in health insurance and I can say that we would refer to state and federal healthcare plans as well as some union plans as “Cadillac” and “premium” plans. Many private sector employers have cut healthcare over the last decade, replacing gold standard plans with new premium plans that are a joke in comparison. This allows employers to increase salaries more because employee comp increases are offset by lower contributions to health plans (relative to increases from insurers). You’re very naive if you don’t understand this.

Math is math, but if Cato's plan is to end our pensions, then acting as though they are inevitably included in our total comp is chicanery.

I also used to work in health insurance. I notice that you didn't answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, the underlying calculation for fed pay not keeping pace with the private sector to the tune of 24% does not take into account retirement benefits or healthcare. The Cato Institute said when those two features of the fed pay package were included in the calculation that fed pay outpaced private sector pay. It’s disingenuous to think of a pension as deferred compensation and then not factor it into total compensation? And good healthcare that is not prohibitively expensive is a huge deal as current events have highlighted even more.

1. The Cato Institute would like our pensions to go away. It is somewhat disingenuous to be citing them as the canonical source about whether or not we are paid enough without mentioning that they are actively attacking this part of our compensation.

2. What do you consider "prohibitively expensive"? How much do you pay for your healthcare? What are your premiums, deductibles, coinsurance and copay and OOP max amounts, and do you live in an area where all the health care people might need is available in-network?

1. Math is math. Total comp is total comp. This is not a subjective exercise. If you want to say that fed salaries have lost ground to private sector salaries then you should calculate benefits like a pension or premium healthcare. These are momentarily material. This is basic reasoning.

Yes. Math is math. The CBO does math, and looks at total comp in public vs private. For well educated jobs (DCUM folks), total comp is 22% lower for Feds, and has been worsening for the last decade. There. You’re welcome.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235

[Anonymous]

Every year the government employees come here and whine about their guaranteed pay raise and step increases. Boohoohoo. Some of us do not have guaranteed raises, basically unlimited PTO, cheap health insurance, and stellar retirement plans. Boooohoooohooohooooo. Wahwah, whiny babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every year the government employees come here and whine about their guaranteed pay raise and step increases. Boohoohoo. Some of us do not have guaranteed raises, basically unlimited PTO, cheap health insurance, and stellar retirement plans. Boooohoooohooohooooo. Wahwah, whiny babies.

I’d agree with you if any of that were remotely true. Raises aren’t guaranteed (hence the posting every year), PTO is very much not unlimited, health insurance is comparable to other large employers, and for new Feds the retirement plan is similar to other large employers too. Plus they’re probably earning less than their private sector counterparts. But hey, if you think the federal sector is so great, how come you’re not working there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year's was historically high. So we all got a morale boost and now it will average out to just normal bump in COLA. We really can't complain, that combined with reliable step increases not tied to performance is a pretty sweet deal.

It is? Maybe for a middling run of the mill employee. High performers are underpaid and will continue to be. The 5k max bonus at my agency for a 15 is sad.

The cola wasn’t a morale boost either. It didn’t even keep up with inflation. We need a few more 5% increases just to do that.

30% of employees in the US are satisfied with their pay. There has also been an explosion of dry promotions, where more work and a higher title come with little or no additional compensation.

The current hiring rate is the lowest it has been since the US emerged from the financial crisis and there are cracks in the labor market.

Why are you entitled to a 5% increase every year when this is not the norm by far for most sectors? Many nonprofits and public institutions keep pay flat for employees for years on end and many private corporations provide in place of COLA “merit” increases that are based on performance (both of the individual and the company) and have nothing to do with inflation.

People in the private sector are often encouraged to switch jobs to increase salary, while government’s goal is more to retain people with institutional knowledge. If they want to change the whole incentive structure of government, then it would be different.
Besides, data shows government employee pay has fallen 25% below inflation over the past few decades.

Private sector companies also have an incentive to reduce churn because it’s costly to hire and train new employees. Most companies put turnover in their 10-Ks because it’s financially material. Merit increases and other comp are used to reward employees who are doing well and punish employees who aren’t doing well, but market forces very much dictate the extent to which highly productive employees are rewarded. Generally, but not all of the time, if market forces are working against a company the overall economy is not great and finding another job is a challenge. I’m trying to help you to understand that the argument that Feds total compensation is lower than it should be relative to expected outputs is also the case in the private sector as well as nonprofit sector at present. If that’s the baseline for the private and nonprofit sectors and the job market is sluggish why would the president or congress move to do more than the bare minimum with regard to a fed COLA? They’re reading the room. Inflation is lower and feds aren’t going to get poached in this sluggish job market.

Also, the underlying calculation for fed pay not keeping pace with the private sector to the tune of 24% does not take into account retirement benefits or healthcare. The Cato Institute said when those two features of the fed pay package were included in the calculation that fed pay outpaced private sector pay. It’s disingenuous to think of a pension as deferred compensation and then not factor it into total compensation? And good healthcare that is not prohibitively expensive is a huge deal as current events have highlighted even more.

Cato Institute? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every year the government employees come here and whine about their guaranteed pay raise and step increases. Boohoohoo. Some of us do not have guaranteed raises, basically unlimited PTO, cheap health insurance, and stellar retirement plans. Boooohoooohooohooooo. Wahwah, whiny babies.

No one’s preventing you from getting a better job, talking about whiny babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every year the government employees come here and whine about their guaranteed pay raise and step increases. Boohoohoo. Some of us do not have guaranteed raises, basically unlimited PTO, cheap health insurance, and stellar retirement plans. Boooohoooohooohooooo. Wahwah, whiny babies.

No one’s preventing you from getting a better job, talking about whiny babies.

Struck a nerve, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every year the government employees come here and whine about their guaranteed pay raise and step increases. Boohoohoo. Some of us do not have guaranteed raises, basically unlimited PTO, cheap health insurance, and stellar retirement plans. Boooohoooohooohooooo. Wahwah, whiny babies.

I’d agree with you if any of that were remotely true. Raises aren’t guaranteed (hence the posting every year), PTO is very much not unlimited, health insurance is comparable to other large employers, and for new Feds the retirement plan is similar to other large employers too. Plus they’re probably earning less than their private sector counterparts. But hey, if you think the federal sector is so great, how come you’re not working there?

Because I'm not a veteran or a minority, and I refuse to make up a disability.