Why so much vitriol toward Federal employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you ask me the percentage who are giving up other opportunities primarily for the sake of duty to country, I'd say fewer than 5%. It's hard to say "I am a medical records administrator at the VA because I felt the call to serve my country". Most government jobs are like that.

And medical records administrators are among those who are probably paid as well as or better than their private sector counterparts. They fall into the broader category of administrative jobs. I don't know what % of jobs are administrative in the government, but I can tell you that at the agencies I've worked at, most of the people aren't there for the money. I worked for the FBI - the agents and intel analysts were not there because they were making the big bucks. What is your life worth to you? Would you put it on the line regularly, day in and day out, for $60K a year? How about the officers at other intel agencies? Do you think the CIA officers put themselves at grave risk conducting illegal activities in other countries--where if you get caught, you will be tortured, if you are lucky--because of the pay and job security?

I think you will find that the average federal employee is not under deep cover in a foreign land. There are three million civilian federal employees, and 680,000 of them are postal workers. I'm sure there are dedicated environmentalists within the EPA staff, but the entire agency is only 18,000. Meanwhile the Tennessee Valley Authority (yes it still exists) employes 12,000 people alone. Even within the 33,000 FBI personnel, only 13,000 are special agents. Meanwhile there are nearly 300,000 employees at the VA, primarily hospitals. 100,000 Department of Agriculture employees and 75,000 at the Dept of Interior. You can look up the civilian portion here: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/2009/September/table2.asp where you will notice that there are 700,000 civilians working for Defense - more than the number of soldiers.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are dedicated people in every one of those agencies and departments I cited. I know, I worked in one of them. But we shouldn't pretend that most of the people in most of these agencies are putting country first when they take a job there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't get me wrong, I think there are dedicated people in every one of those agencies and departments I cited. I know, I worked in one of them. But we shouldn't pretend that most of the people in most of these agencies are putting country first when they take a job there.

I don't think it's just about "putting country first". Nor is it only about job security and hours. And it's most definitely not about making big bucks. I took my Federal job because I like what I do and I feel good about doing it. i know most of my colleagues feel the same way. I work on creating and enforcing government standards that protect children. I turned down a much better-paying job with a consulting firm to take my current position and have never regretted it for an instant. I would much rather do what I do than spend my days laboring to increase some big corporation's bottom line.

The term "Federal job" does not necessarily mean boring and dead-end. Many people spend their lives doing the same job because they actually enjoy it.

[Anonymous]

Hey tea partiers, at what point does a heroic veteran become a lazy, good-for-nothing federal working sucking on the government teat?

Is it like a 6'0" Russian ice queen turning into a 4'5" babushka (seriously, I still don't know how that happens.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Feds are NOT underpaid, because if it were so, they would leave and get a different job. Even in good economic conditions with a healthy job market, they stay. That's all you need to know on that subject.

By this take, then, everyone is in it for the money. Nothing about a sense of duty, interest in serving, or a higher sense of duty. That may be true for you, but not for everyone. Explain to me federal lawyers under your rationale.

I wrote the original post quoted here. Money is certainly not the only form of pay ... intrinsic rewards such as security, altruism, sense of duty, and so forth are also "pay" but the total of extrinsic and intrinsic compensation is clearly not too low or folks would leave.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/12/20/ST2010122005408.html?sid=ST2010122005408

[Anonymous]

The problem with this analysis is it is a total average of all workers, and does not take into consideration the widely varying pay rates for different positions. For example, yes, the "average" federal worker may make this rate, but this doesn't mean the janitor or food service employee that works for the feds gets compensated this way. You have to remember it means doctors and lawyers are also getting this pay - much, much, much less than their private sector counterparts.

It is like if I were to post that the average annual household income in the US is $58,000 and then make the case that you are GROSSLY overcompensated because you earn more than this - regardless of your education, location, occupation, age, and seniority.

This is just one way to manipulate numbers to try to get people angry at each other. Sure . . . tell the psychiatrist at my agency she's overpaid because she's pulling in $90K a year. Tell my sister attorney at the DOJ she's overpaid because she's earning $78K per year.

In fact, keep arguing and keep the debate over here . . . but whatever you do, DON'T look back at wallstreet and the large private companies that got us into this mess, because then you'd notice how they are still getting millions and millions in bonuses every year - the same firms that were bailed out with taxpayers $$$. But the republicans don't want you looking at that - they want to keep the debate on the horrible, evil, fat tics in the fed.

[Anonymous]

The problem with this analysis is it is a total average of all workers, and does not take into consideration the widely varying pay rates for different positions. For example, yes, the "average" federal worker may make this rate, but this doesn't mean the janitor or food service employee that works for the feds gets compensated this way. You have to remember it means doctors and lawyers are also getting this pay - much, much, much less than their private sector counterparts.

It also doesn't take into consideration job experience or seniority. Even in some of the careers where they are being over paid - let's say secretarial staff - you are comparing the average secretary salary to the average secretary in the federal government - even through the average secretary in the federal government may have worked there for 30 years and be at the top of their experience, and training (hypothetical). I'd expect anyone with 30 years experience to be better compensated than someone with just a few years experience in the same field. I don't see how this graph accounts for those differences. It seems to me like the author is trying to incite anger towards federal workers by implying that most of us make over $100K per year, plus benefits. It is far, far from the truth.

[Anonymous]

Another:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005951_pf.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The problem with this analysis is it is a total average of all workers, and does not take into consideration the widely varying pay rates for different positions. For example, yes, the "average" federal worker may make this rate, but this doesn't mean the janitor or food service employee that works for the feds gets compensated this way. You have to remember it means doctors and lawyers are also getting this pay - much, much, much less than their private sector counterparts.

It also doesn't take into consideration job experience or seniority. Even in some of the careers where they are being over paid - let's say secretarial staff - you are comparing the average secretary salary to the average secretary in the federal government - even through the average secretary in the federal government may have worked there for 30 years and be at the top of their experience, and training (hypothetical). I'd expect anyone with 30 years experience to be better compensated than someone with just a few years experience in the same field. I don't see how this graph accounts for those differences. It seems to me like the author is trying to incite anger towards federal workers by implying that most of us make over $100K per year, plus benefits. It is far, far from the truth.

The article specifically looks at the age of the worker and their educational level. Two things tied to seniority and KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities). So I think the article acknowledges that while feds on average may be paid more, they also seem to have built up more seniority and have more education than their private sector counter parts.
I wonder though how much of that advanced education was financed by the taxpayers through fed workers continuing education?

[Anonymous]

The article specifically looks at the age of the worker and their educational level. Two things tied to seniority and KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities). So I think the article acknowledges that while feds on average may be paid more, they also seem to have built up more seniority and have more education than their private sector counter parts.
I wonder though how much of that advanced education was financed by the taxpayers through fed workers continuing education?

What difference does it make how their education was financed?

At my agency, I've known 2 people to take advantage of the continuing education program in the 10 years I've worked there. Most are hired with masters or PhDs that they financed the good old fashioned way before entering the workforce.

[Anonymous]

The article specifically looks at the age of the worker and their educational level. Two things tied to seniority and KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities). So I think the article acknowledges that while feds on average may be paid more, they also seem to have built up more seniority and have more education than their private sector counter parts.

The article discusses this, yes, but the graphic is misleading. It shows the "average" pay of federal workers is over $100K per year. Then separately, the graphic acknowledges the average age of the federal workers is way higher than the average employee in the private sector (thus the KSA of the average federal worker is far greater than the average private sector employee) - but that isn't weighted in the number they are displaying in the "average" pay. That is why it is misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Feds are NOT underpaid, because if it were so, they would leave and get a different job. Even in good economic conditions with a healthy job market, they stay. That's all you need to know on that subject.

By this take, then, everyone is in it for the money. Nothing about a sense of duty, interest in serving, or a higher sense of duty. That may be true for you, but not for everyone. Explain to me federal lawyers under your rationale.

I wrote the original post quoted here. Money is certainly not the only form of pay ... intrinsic rewards such as security, altruism, sense of duty, and so forth are also "pay" but the total of extrinsic and intrinsic compensation is clearly not too low or folks would leave.

I think people have failed to state what is often the main reason why highly educated professionals choose to work in the federal government as opposed to the private sector: The work is a lot more interesting.

In some cases, sure. But it seems difficult to break into the government world mid-career unless you're a veteran or know someone; OTOH, it seems easy enough to get on with one of the Beltway Bandits.

[Anonymous]

I've been with the government for 10 years and earn the least compared to all my friends. Also, compared to those same friends, the cost of living here is the highest.

[Anonymous]

I am a fed worker as well and chose it because I find it incredibly satisfying intellectually. I definitely took a pay cut when I started but feel it is worth it, and I have a great deal of respect for the vast majority of my coworkers, who put in much more than a 40-hour work week.

Yet another article comparing pay came out in the Washington Post in 2004, in which it compared the salaries of the head of NIH and the heads of the 27 NIH institutions to university presidents and chiefs of departments in equivalent medical specialties at both university academic centers/hospitals and for-profit hopsitals. The differences in pay were appalling, with the head of NIH somehwere around $240K and some of the world's leading cancer researchers barely making what a resident (doctor-in-training) makes in some big cities. And though many on this forum have talked about all the benefits federal workers get, we do not get any patent rights for any discoveries while federally employed, and many of us operate under even more strict conflict-of-interest rules than Congress does.

I don't care whether my pay is frozen or not for the coming year, as even a symbolic gesture such as this may help the president at the negotiating table. But let's not pretend that any analysis has shown that this pay freeze will make a substantial diffeerence to the federal budget or federal defecit.

[Anonymous]

The large majority (nearly 70%) of federal employees are highly educated and skilled individuals. I am one of those employees. I work under extreme demands and conditions, and unattainable quotas which results in the removal/termination of 3 percent of employees in my field, yearly. My day is exhausting, but I chose to work for the government because of the job security and other benefits. The private sector is great for as long the job lasts which is usually not too long unless you work for Walmart. Doesn't take a genius to foresee the disaster that private sector has been for at least the last 30 years!!! This hatred is nothing more than JEALOUSY.