Finreg or best paying federal agencies?

[Anonymous]

Just to be clear here....the original assertion was that ANYBODY not in an attorney or economist job is overpaid at finregs. This would include likely the majority of the organizations- people in IT, finance, HR, communications, project and program management, and many more. It was broadly described as "administrative." It seems to have taken a turn to be about administrative assistant roles?

A conversation can be had about how many of those roles are actually needed in today's work environment, and a problem of a lack of upskilling that workforce and overall ability to move out given applicable laws and policies. I would hope that we could do that without painting everyone in those roles with a broad negative brush. And it certainly isn't the same thing as a discussion of the overall compensation structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever disputes that admins at finregs are grossly overpaid is crazy. At my finreg, there are secretaries and paralegals who literally do 15 minute of work per week and yet make $120k. So they basically make more per hour than Cravath and Wachtell partners.

Not complaining — “hate the game, not the player.” But don’t pretend it’s not happening.

+1000. I work at a FinReg. Admins were grossly overpaid for the amount of work they did even before Covid. With new telework postures in place, many of these positions should go away entirely. But there is no way this administration is going to reduce headcount that leans heavily toward black women. Fiscal responsibility be damned.

Agree. But it really hurts morale when hardworking economists/lawyers/etc have to work all weekend on a rule making or trial while these useless admins do nothing and still get paid. They should get rid of them and use the savings to boost everyone else’s salaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever disputes that admins at finregs are grossly overpaid is crazy. At my finreg, there are secretaries and paralegals who literally do 15 minute of work per week and yet make $120k. So they basically make more per hour than Cravath and Wachtell partners.

Not complaining — “hate the game, not the player.” But don’t pretend it’s not happening.

+1000. I work at a FinReg. Admins were grossly overpaid for the amount of work they did even before Covid. With new telework postures in place, many of these positions should go away entirely. But there is no way this administration is going to reduce headcount that leans heavily toward black women. Fiscal responsibility be damned.

Agree. But it really hurts morale when hardworking economists/lawyers/etc have to work all weekend on a rule making or trial while these useless admins do nothing and still get paid. They should get rid of them and use the savings to boost everyone else’s salaries.

er, presumably those hardworking econs/lawyers/etc are on flex schedules and are also accruing credit hours and overtime for any extra work. If they are not, that's specifically a their-management problem, because it's not actually legal to donate your time to the government. I've pulled plenty of weekend and night work, and I get paid.

Also, salaries are a drop in the bucket expense-wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever disputes that admins at finregs are grossly overpaid is crazy. At my finreg, there are secretaries and paralegals who literally do 15 minute of work per week and yet make $120k. So they basically make more per hour than Cravath and Wachtell partners.

Not complaining — “hate the game, not the player.” But don’t pretend it’s not happening.

+1000. I work at a FinReg. Admins were grossly overpaid for the amount of work they did even before Covid. With new telework postures in place, many of these positions should go away entirely. But there is no way this administration is going to reduce headcount that leans heavily toward black women. Fiscal responsibility be damned.

Agree. But it really hurts morale when hardworking economists/lawyers/etc have to work all weekend on a rule making or trial while these useless admins do nothing and still get paid. They should get rid of them and use the savings to boost everyone else’s salaries.

er, presumably those hardworking econs/lawyers/etc are on flex schedules and are also accruing credit hours and overtime for any extra work. If they are not, that's specifically a their-management problem, because it's not actually legal to donate your time to the government. I've pulled plenty of weekend and night work, and I get paid.

Also, salaries are a drop in the bucket expense-wise.

I am at FRB where many professional staff put in 60 hour weeks. We do not accrue any credit hours or other compensation for the extra hours.

[Anonymous]

Fe agencies that pay well, FDA if you have a professional STEM degree. Still pays less than private sector but with ‘23 and ‘24 pay raises will be less wildly discrepant. Plus flexible telework policy and credit hours.

[Anonymous]

Can finregs REQUIRE you to work weekends/overtime? It is it voluntary. I hear about all these people working overtime on rulemakings and the like and all they do is complain. If it’s voluntary, why are they whining?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever disputes that admins at finregs are grossly overpaid is crazy. At my finreg, there are secretaries and paralegals who literally do 15 minute of work per week and yet make $120k. So they basically make more per hour than Cravath and Wachtell partners.

Not complaining — “hate the game, not the player.” But don’t pretend it’s not happening.

+1000. I work at a FinReg. Admins were grossly overpaid for the amount of work they did even before Covid. With new telework postures in place, many of these positions should go away entirely. But there is no way this administration is going to reduce headcount that leans heavily toward black women. Fiscal responsibility be damned.

Agree. But it really hurts morale when hardworking economists/lawyers/etc have to work all weekend on a rule making or trial while these useless admins do nothing and still get paid. They should get rid of them and use the savings to boost everyone else’s salaries.

er, presumably those hardworking econs/lawyers/etc are on flex schedules and are also accruing credit hours and overtime for any extra work. If they are not, that's specifically a their-management problem, because it's not actually legal to donate your time to the government. I've pulled plenty of weekend and night work, and I get paid.

Also, salaries are a drop in the bucket expense-wise.

I am at FRB where many professional staff put in 60 hour weeks. We do not accrue any credit hours or other compensation for the extra hours.

Cool, good to know!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can finregs REQUIRE you to work weekends/overtime? It is it voluntary. I hear about all these people working overtime on rulemakings and the like and all they do is complain. If it’s voluntary, why are they whining?

It's not voluntary at the Fed. You're paid to get the work done, not to clock out at 40 hours. Anyone with a Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm attitude won't last long. Banking crises and pandemic shutdowns don't take that evenings and weekends off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear here....the original assertion was that ANYBODY not in an attorney or economist job is overpaid at finregs. This would include likely the majority of the organizations- people in IT, finance, HR, communications, project and program management, and many more. It was broadly described as "administrative." It seems to have taken a turn to be about administrative assistant roles?

A conversation can be had about how many of those roles are actually needed in today's work environment, and a problem of a lack of upskilling that workforce and overall ability to move out given applicable laws and policies. I would hope that we could do that without painting everyone in those roles with a broad negative brush. And it certainly isn't the same thing as a discussion of the overall compensation structure.

NP here, but it stands to reason that unless your job function requires a specific skill-set not present in other agencies, you should be paid the same as those that perform those duties at other agencies. It shouldn't be an agency specific lottery ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can finregs REQUIRE you to work weekends/overtime? It is it voluntary. I hear about all these people working overtime on rulemakings and the like and all they do is complain. If it’s voluntary, why are they whining?

It's not voluntary at the Fed. You're paid to get the work done, not to clock out at 40 hours. Anyone with a Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm attitude won't last long. Banking crises and pandemic shutdowns don't take that evenings and weekends off.

This. I don’t work for a finreg but another agency where we’re expected to get the work done. Last week I had meetings on my calendar that spanned 10-12 hours a day. Yes I could reject them to work only 40 hours, but then I’m not doing my job. And my timesheet only lets me put in 40 hours each week. If I say I worked more, HR would just tell me that I didn’t indicate that I worked more and I should just refuse to work longer hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can finregs REQUIRE you to work weekends/overtime? It is it voluntary. I hear about all these people working overtime on rulemakings and the like and all they do is complain. If it’s voluntary, why are they whining?

It's not voluntary at the Fed. You're paid to get the work done, not to clock out at 40 hours. Anyone with a Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm attitude won't last long. Banking crises and pandemic shutdowns don't take that evenings and weekends off.

This. I don’t work for a finreg but another agency where we’re expected to get the work done. Last week I had meetings on my calendar that spanned 10-12 hours a day. Yes I could reject them to work only 40 hours, but then I’m not doing my job. And my timesheet only lets me put in 40 hours each week. If I say I worked more, HR would just tell me that I didn’t indicate that I worked more and I should just refuse to work longer hours.

you're supposed to get the work done, AND the work is reasonably only expected to take 80 hours per pay period.

timecard fraud is basically the only non-crime a permanent employee can get fired for. undercharging hours IS ALSO TIMECARD FRAUD.

I'm not talking about an occasional opposite-coast conference call or briefing that went over, but if your management is *regularly* expecting you to work 12 hour days without allowing for a flex schedule, credit hours, comp time, or overtime, then your management is asking you to commit timecard fraud.

Being mad at employees who work their 80 hours a pay period and clock out rather than at the management that is asking you to lie on your time card is definitely a choice. (a bad one.)

OTOH, if you ended up in over your head and regularly take 10 hours to complete tasks that your peers can do in 8, thats more of a grey area. If that is caused by a disability, then it might be worth asking for reasonable accommodation.

If your agency has a union (I know FRB does not), talk to your union rep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can finregs REQUIRE you to work weekends/overtime? It is it voluntary. I hear about all these people working overtime on rulemakings and the like and all they do is complain. If it’s voluntary, why are they whining?

It's not voluntary at the Fed. You're paid to get the work done, not to clock out at 40 hours. Anyone with a Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm attitude won't last long. Banking crises and pandemic shutdowns don't take that evenings and weekends off.

This. I don’t work for a finreg but another agency where we’re expected to get the work done. Last week I had meetings on my calendar that spanned 10-12 hours a day. Yes I could reject them to work only 40 hours, but then I’m not doing my job. And my timesheet only lets me put in 40 hours each week. If I say I worked more, HR would just tell me that I didn’t indicate that I worked more and I should just refuse to work longer hours.

you're supposed to get the work done, AND the work is reasonably only expected to take 80 hours per pay period.

timecard fraud is basically the only non-crime a permanent employee can get fired for. undercharging hours IS ALSO TIMECARD FRAUD.

I'm not talking about an occasional opposite-coast conference call or briefing that went over, but if your management is *regularly* expecting you to work 12 hour days without allowing for a flex schedule, credit hours, comp time, or overtime, then your management is asking you to commit timecard fraud.

Being mad at employees who work their 80 hours a pay period and clock out rather than at the management that is asking you to lie on your time card is definitely a choice. (a bad one.)

OTOH, if you ended up in over your head and regularly take 10 hours to complete tasks that your peers can do in 8, thats more of a grey area. If that is caused by a disability, then it might be worth asking for reasonable accommodation.

If your agency has a union (I know FRB does not), talk to your union rep.

Settle down. You clearly don't work for the Fed, so I'm not sure why you're opining on the hours that Fed employees work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear here....the original assertion was that ANYBODY not in an attorney or economist job is overpaid at finregs. This would include likely the majority of the organizations- people in IT, finance, HR, communications, project and program management, and many more. It was broadly described as "administrative." It seems to have taken a turn to be about administrative assistant roles?

A conversation can be had about how many of those roles are actually needed in today's work environment, and a problem of a lack of upskilling that workforce and overall ability to move out given applicable laws and policies. I would hope that we could do that without painting everyone in those roles with a broad negative brush. And it certainly isn't the same thing as a discussion of the overall compensation structure.

NP here, but it stands to reason that unless your job function requires a specific skill-set not present in other agencies, you should be paid the same as those that perform those duties at other agencies. It shouldn't be an agency specific lottery ticket.

PP here and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there are a number of reasons why what you are suggesting is not feasible in the present day.

1. Drawing lines on "specific skill sets needed" is problematic. Do the people that work in comms ad media relations have a specific skill set of knowing the regulated industry and players? Do the paralegals have a specific skill set? What about the lawyers that work on other areas of law? What about the chief of staff or chief operating officer? What about the IT folks that understand finreg and supreg?

2. What kind of administrative, morale, and litigation risk would even drawing those lines result in? Particularly when most of these agencies are unionized.

3. And doesn't the experience translate? If a regulated entity is in the market for a budget person, aren't they more likely to take the one who has experience at their regulator? The flight risk that is the reason for the higher comp is still there. People in "admin" fields regularly leave for the regulated sector already.