Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do agencies do this? My first agency started everyone at step 1 regardless of prior salary. My current agency uses a formula based on years of relevant experience.

+1 I have the same question, what agencies are starting people at higher than step 1 regularly?

I started as a GS-10 having come from biglaw. I’m a woman. Would not have been able to afford to come if a GS 1 given the hours meant I missed day care pick up and had to choose a more expensive child care option. Race to the bottom.

you worked in Biglaw and now you work in the feds and yet you still do not know the difference between step 1 (what the previous poster was talking about) and grade 10 (what you are talking about)? Is this serious?

Why would a Big Law attorney leave for a GS-14 Step 1 earning $140,000 yearly? Even a political SES maxes at 220k.

I benefitted from this over a decade ago. I moved from a West Coast law firm to an agency, applying for a GS 12 position because I really wanted the job (but was probably more a GS 13/14 in terms of experience). My salary bumped me from a GS 1 to a GS 10, and then I quickly moved up levels from there. It is a way for agencies to get more qualified people in lower level positions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean that they are also removing salary matching? The ONLY reason I applied for a Fed job is because I heard they would give me annual bonuses over X years until I reach my private sector salary.

I have never heard of this.

Same. "Annual bonuses" is the part I've never heard of. What the heck is that?! You mean a within grade increase?

"Recruitment Incentive"

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/recruitment-relocation-retention-incentives/fact-sheets/recruitment-incentives/

Oh they do so many things. LOL

Some agencies match salary by giving retention bonuses, which is paid incrementally over all 26 paychecks and is altered every year to ensure federal raises are incorporated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes perfect sense.

A job is worth what it is worth. A candidate is worth what they are worth based on skills and experience. Not salary.

An attorney who has litigated in front of the Supreme Court has the same amount of worth as an employee, whether they did it making 160K at DOJ or 5M at BigLaw.
Services are just like goods- you don't pay a contractor based on how much they got paid at their last job. You don't decide the price of a car based on how much the last person paid for it.

This

I make less than someone hired on the same Cert, who had the same level job. We both came from agencies but she had at some point been private and I always worked on the government. I have more benefits because I have more years in service. I pay less to my pension also.

Federal employment isn’t always fair. Neither is private but you can’t go look up what your coworkers make so you don’t know about it.

Yes you can all our salaries are public and online

Reading comprehension.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

I’m a minority woman who went fed from biglaw and I think you should have planned your career differently.

To be clear, EVERYONE is underpaid in the nonprofit sector.

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

I’m a minority woman who went fed from biglaw and I think you should have planned your career differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes perfect sense.

A job is worth what it is worth. A candidate is worth what they are worth based on skills and experience. Not salary.

An attorney who has litigated in front of the Supreme Court has the same amount of worth as an employee, whether they did it making 160K at DOJ or 5M at BigLaw.
Services are just like goods- you don't pay a contractor based on how much they got paid at their last job. You don't decide the price of a car based on how much the last person paid for it.

This

I make less than someone hired on the same Cert, who had the same level job. We both came from agencies but she had at some point been private and I always worked on the government. I have more benefits because I have more years in service. I pay less to my pension also.

Federal employment isn’t always fair. Neither is private but you can’t go look up what your coworkers make so you don’t know about it.

Yes you can all our salaries are public and online

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this so funny! I have so many friends applying to fed jobs at GS 13, 14, 15 levels but they don't realize that they aren't qualified for those levels. Feds don't hire someone with 5 years of experience at a GS 13 and it doesn't matter what you made in the private sector.

I do think that private sector pay shouldn't matter. The one coming from the private sector thinks they're worth $$$ but the one from a non profit and underpaid might be the more valuable.

This isn't true. For an attorney at a GS-13 level at our agency, the basic requirement is 2 years of legal experience, 1 of which is specialized in what we do. Applicants can sub in an LLM as well for one of those requirements. We'd hire someone with 3-5 years as a GS 13 or 14, if the experience is right.

It’s true outside of attorneys. Attorneys in the government always make more. I mean scientists and engineers.

Anonymous wrote:I've worked on hiring technical people. HR has zero ability to evaluate skills and experience. They're the worst. They fought with me once because they didn't understand a clearly-written OPM requirement for an occupation that was in an announcement. One of the only tools we had in trying to get good hires was being able to salary match to some degree.

I agree with this. I like this change in theory, but I worry that in practice it will just mean less flexibility to offer competitive salaries because HR does not understand what — other than salary matching — merits higher pay.

In my old fed office, HR deemed a candidate unqualified for a position where she was the acting incumbent and the job qualifications were written to reflect her actual duties. Unqualified so didn’t make the cert at all. We ended up having to do the whole thing again, so ultimately hiring was just delayed 6 months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes perfect sense.

A job is worth what it is worth. A candidate is worth what they are worth based on skills and experience. Not salary.

An attorney who has litigated in front of the Supreme Court has the same amount of worth as an employee, whether they did it making 160K at DOJ or 5M at BigLaw.
Services are just like goods- you don't pay a contractor based on how much they got paid at their last job. You don't decide the price of a car based on how much the last person paid for it.

This

I make less than someone hired on the same Cert, who had the same level job. We both came from agencies but she had at some point been private and I always worked on the government. I have more benefits because I have more years in service. I pay less to my pension also.

Federal employment isn’t always fair. Neither is private but you can’t go look up what your coworkers make so you don’t know about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do agencies do this? My first agency started everyone at step 1 regardless of prior salary. My current agency uses a formula based on years of relevant experience.

+1 I have the same question, what agencies are starting people at higher than step 1 regularly?

I started as a GS-10 having come from biglaw. I’m a woman. Would not have been able to afford to come if a GS 1 given the hours meant I missed day care pick up and had to choose a more expensive child care option. Race to the bottom.

This isn't a priblem it is a situation. Many of us have passed over jobs because we can't afford to take them. If you had not taken the job, someone else would have.

The problem is the person who would have taken the job would not be as good as me, and the public interest would suffer.

Hahahhahaha.

You’re not so important that your presence is a matter of national interest.

I've worked on hiring technical people. HR has zero ability to evaluate skills and experience. They're the worst. They fought with me once because they didn't understand a clearly-written OPM requirement for an occupation that was in an announcement. One of the only tools we had in trying to get good hires was being able to salary match to some degree.

Anonymous wrote:This makes perfect sense.

A job is worth what it is worth. A candidate is worth what they are worth based on skills and experience. Not salary.

An attorney who has litigated in front of the Supreme Court has the same amount of worth as an employee, whether they did it making 160K at DOJ or 5M at BigLaw.
Services are just like goods- you don't pay a contractor based on how much they got paid at their last job. You don't decide the price of a car based on how much the last person paid for it.

This

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean that they are also removing salary matching? The ONLY reason I applied for a Fed job is because I heard they would give me annual bonuses over X years until I reach my private sector salary.

If you are qualified they can give you an above the min salary/step.

Also, bonuses are completely separated and there are incentives which are separated