despite work life balance considerations and personal choices we make for our career, people deserve to be recognized and rewarded for their hard work and contributions. somebody has to do these big stressful jobs. They shouldn't be punished by with no raises or other significant recognition for these jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

I could see for some of the people at Gs-15s have problem with this salary but most of the other professionals I see leave before it gets there. Working for Govt is not all about money, but also work-life balance, job security, retirement benefits, public service, mission, etc.

Work life balance cannot be stressed enough. I was a paralegal at a private firm and had many occasions where I was staying past 5 to deal with cases. Now? In the feds? 4:30 its a wrap. No ifs, ands or buts about this. No more "Oh shit!, I need! calls" to deal with.

Yep, I'm a fed and I honestly couldn't begin to put a monetary worth on the value of being able to slam shut my laptop at 5:30 on the dot every day and not have to devote an ounce of mental real estate to work until 9 tomorrow, but if I could it would be very high.

I'm a former Fed and if this had been my situation, I probably never would have left. But I was a litigator at a "prestigious" agency and would get emails constantly after leaving work; there was a strong push for face time on evenings/weekends in order to get "noticed", and worst of all, if you wanted to advance, you had to make sure to ingratiate yourself with the supervisors. Some of that was office-specific (I had previously been at a different office of the same agency and some of those things were not present) but on balance I don't work much harder in the private sector than I did as a Fed, and equally importantly, I don't have to deal with the awful nasty politics of my old office.

Well that seems to be the choice you made to climb the career ladder. I'm sure I could advance faster if I chose to do that as well, but I value my free time far more than I value money or job titles. If I were in that situation I'd do the exact same thing I'm doing now and if they told me I had to work evenings and weekends I'd say you'd better put that in writing and give me overtime/credit hours or piss off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

I could see for some of the people at Gs-15s have problem with this salary but most of the other professionals I see leave before it gets there. Working for Govt is not all about money, but also work-life balance, job security, retirement benefits, public service, mission, etc.

Work life balance cannot be stressed enough. I was a paralegal at a private firm and had many occasions where I was staying past 5 to deal with cases. Now? In the feds? 4:30 its a wrap. No ifs, ands or buts about this. No more "Oh shit!, I need! calls" to deal with.

Yep, I'm a fed and I honestly couldn't begin to put a monetary worth on the value of being able to slam shut my laptop at 5:30 on the dot every day and not have to devote an ounce of mental real estate to work until 9 tomorrow, but if I could it would be very high.

I'm a former Fed and if this had been my situation, I probably never would have left. But I was a litigator at a "prestigious" agency and would get emails constantly after leaving work; there was a strong push for face time on evenings/weekends in order to get "noticed", and worst of all, if you wanted to advance, you had to make sure to ingratiate yourself with the supervisors. Some of that was office-specific (I had previously been at a different office of the same agency and some of those things were not present) but on balance I don't work much harder in the private sector than I did as a Fed, and equally importantly, I don't have to deal with the awful nasty politics of my old office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

I could see for some of the people at Gs-15s have problem with this salary but most of the other professionals I see leave before it gets there. Working for Govt is not all about money, but also work-life balance, job security, retirement benefits, public service, mission, etc.

Work life balance cannot be stressed enough. I was a paralegal at a private firm and had many occasions where I was staying past 5 to deal with cases. Now? In the feds? 4:30 its a wrap. No ifs, ands or buts about this. No more "Oh shit!, I need! calls" to deal with.

Yep, I'm a fed and I honestly couldn't begin to put a monetary worth on the value of being able to slam shut my laptop at 5:30 on the dot every day and not have to devote an ounce of mental real estate to work until 9 tomorrow, but if I could it would be very high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

I could see for some of the people at Gs-15s have problem with this salary but most of the other professionals I see leave before it gets there. Working for Govt is not all about money, but also work-life balance, job security, retirement benefits, public service, mission, etc.

Work life balance cannot be stressed enough. I was a paralegal at a private firm and had many occasions where I was staying past 5 to deal with cases. Now? In the feds? 4:30 its a wrap. No ifs, ands or buts about this. No more "Oh shit!, I need! calls" to deal with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some straight talk: this is a weak raise from a president who professed to love him some government employees.

If he didn't have to go through Congress I'd bet my house he'd make it much higher. FACT.

NP and he doesn't have to go through Congress. While Congress can override any increase he gives I doubt if he had give 3 - 3.5% they would go through the trouble of overriding him.

So how nice is your house?

Anonymous wrote:some straight talk: this is a weak raise from a president who professed to love him some government employees.

If he didn't have to go through Congress I'd bet my house he'd make it much higher. FACT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some straight talk: this is a weak raise from a president who professed to love him some government employees.

+1. We need a 6% raise just for inflation. 2.7 is ridiculous.

I agree with both of you! Given the growing anti-government, anti-Washington and anti-public service sentiment in this country, I don't see any administration or congress giving more than 3% in a given year. People feel like federal workers are already overpaid. While maybe certain positions/occupations are, I disagree with folks that think this. but that is how this country feels. Given all this, I feel like a consistent 2-3% increase every year will be our best outcome. Of course that is not enough to keep up with inflation. but it won't set us back like in the three years we got zero followed by four years of 1%.

Anonymous wrote:some straight talk: this is a weak raise from a president who professed to love him some government employees.

+1. We need a 6% raise just for inflation. 2.7 is ridiculous.

some straight talk: this is a weak raise from a president who professed to love him some government employees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the implication on DCUM that most feds are topped-out 15s. That is the realm of a few niche career paths like law or upper administration. The vast majority of us will spend our entire careers at the worker bee level of GS 9-12. Maybe 13 if we go into management. Barely cracking six figures after decades of service is a real hardship in the DC area.

It's that the 15s complain the most. Yes, the pay cap is an issue but it affects a small minority of employees but gets outsized attention in this forum.

At my agency roughly 10% of the workforce are GS-15's as a GS-15 is a front line manager. You hit the paycap in 7 years as a GS-15 or in about 15 years as a GS-14. 14's makeup about half the workforce. It's a real issue in this particular agency, but I agree that workforce wide it isn't as much of an issue. Fixing SES pay, or bumping the difference to an SES-3 like they did bumping the paycap from SES 5 to 4 about 16 years ago would help pay compression a lot. In reality though to eliminate the paycap you would probably have to bump it up to an SES 2.

Anonymous wrote:Will the topped-out 15s please stop whining? We are well paid for public sector work, period. If you really think you would do so much better elsewhere, please go. 170k a year is a very nice salary. We do get a pension, social security, and access to one of the lowest-fee, well-managed 401ks out there. Inflation may hit us a bit, but at this salary, you have cushions. I’m a single parent who has no access to child support, and we are just fine. And no, I don’t live in the exurbs or eat ramen to survive, either.

If you don't think that is an issue, I'm not sure what to tell you as you probably aren't in a position to see how it effects an agency in terms of hiring/retention. We have numerous SES positions open in our agency due to pay compression. The pay differential between an SES and your average paycapped 15 is about 10k, few people are applying because there is no finanical reason to take 10k more for far more headaches. SES doesn't get locality pay.

My agency competes for the same talent pool as FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google) and people came to us because of our 100% telework program so they could escape to cheaper housing. We no longer have this advantage due to COVID as many of those companies have far more flexible working patterns now. I've got employees who are paycapped as 14's, so we will probably have to go back to 4+ year automatic retention bonuses again.

Another issue that is uncomfortable to talk about is that if you need to pay civil servants a good wage in order to keep corruption down. If a civil servant has to work a second job, then you are opening up that temptation which unfortunately exists in many civil service system throughout the world. I don't think we're at that point yet, but if the trend of the past 10 years continues, it will happen sooner than later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the implication on DCUM that most feds are topped-out 15s. That is the realm of a few niche career paths like law or upper administration. The vast majority of us will spend our entire careers at the worker bee level of GS 9-12. Maybe 13 if we go into management. Barely cracking six figures after decades of service is a real hardship in the DC area.

Depends on the area of work. I work at a federal science agency and a majority of my colleagues are maxed GS-15s. Everyone makes substantially less than private sector counterparts, and recruiting is a major challenge. It is hard to find good people to take management positions because there's nothing in it for them.

Setting aside that GS-15s in professional/STEM fields are significantly underpaid compared to the private sector, GS-15s are making $15,000 less they would be if they had gotten the same increases as other feds. And more significantly, that gap is growing almost every year, with no end in sight.

Unless you meant Medical Doctor, how could people in science in private sectors earn substantially more than $172K? Do not talk about scientists in Pfizer who are probably earning a big bonus because of the vaccine (once in a life time). What kind of scientists in private sectors make substantially more than $172K?

IT security and senior engineering jobs quite regularly pay more than $200k, without even including stock options. Even top-tier academic researchers regularly make more than $200k, not from their academic salary alone, but when you include summer pay and consulting gigs.

Sure but most in Federal workforce are over 35, so unless they are TRULY exceptional, they aren’t getting those $200k+ jobs (there was just a thread saying $150k for SWE is too high).

Academic researchers? You mean professor or lab staff? Sure IF you can get a tenure professor ship and find consulting gigs, that’s a great deal. But working as lab researcher at Uni, that pays peanuts.

And comparing GS-15 researchers to a top academic researcher (tenure professor) is not really equivalent. TT professorships are extremely tough to get. Lab researchers at uni's pay a lot less (especially if your science staff, not engineering staff, but both cases are less than private sector), plus are generally completely funded on soft money and have much less security. And federal benefits tend to be a lot more generous than private sector, perhaps unless you are talking FAANG companies in a hot area.

I do think all wages should keep up with inflation for COLA raises, but the feds aren't getting especially short changed compared to private sector. In private sector, to get a big raise, you often have to change jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the implication on DCUM that most feds are topped-out 15s. That is the realm of a few niche career paths like law or upper administration. The vast majority of us will spend our entire careers at the worker bee level of GS 9-12. Maybe 13 if we go into management. Barely cracking six figures after decades of service is a real hardship in the DC area.

Depends on the area of work. I work at a federal science agency and a majority of my colleagues are maxed GS-15s. Everyone makes substantially less than private sector counterparts, and recruiting is a major challenge. It is hard to find good people to take management positions because there's nothing in it for them.

Setting aside that GS-15s in professional/STEM fields are significantly underpaid compared to the private sector, GS-15s are making $15,000 less they would be if they had gotten the same increases as other feds. And more significantly, that gap is growing almost every year, with no end in sight.

Unless you meant Medical Doctor, how could people in science in private sectors earn substantially more than $172K? Do not talk about scientists in Pfizer who are probably earning a big bonus because of the vaccine (once in a life time). What kind of scientists in private sectors make substantially more than $172K?

IT security and senior engineering jobs quite regularly pay more than $200k, without even including stock options. Even top-tier academic researchers regularly make more than $200k, not from their academic salary alone, but when you include summer pay and consulting gigs.

Sure but most in Federal workforce are over 35, so unless they are TRULY exceptional, they aren’t getting those $200k+ jobs (there was just a thread saying $150k for SWE is too high).

Academic researchers? You mean professor or lab staff? Sure IF you can get a tenure professor ship and find consulting gigs, that’s a great deal. But working as lab researcher at Uni, that pays peanuts.

Engineers top out at $160k unless you go FAANG or finance, which are very competitive

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1018753.page

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the implication on DCUM that most feds are topped-out 15s. That is the realm of a few niche career paths like law or upper administration. The vast majority of us will spend our entire careers at the worker bee level of GS 9-12. Maybe 13 if we go into management. Barely cracking six figures after decades of service is a real hardship in the DC area.

Depends on the area of work. I work at a federal science agency and a majority of my colleagues are maxed GS-15s. Everyone makes substantially less than private sector counterparts, and recruiting is a major challenge. It is hard to find good people to take management positions because there's nothing in it for them.

Setting aside that GS-15s in professional/STEM fields are significantly underpaid compared to the private sector, GS-15s are making $15,000 less they would be if they had gotten the same increases as other feds. And more significantly, that gap is growing almost every year, with no end in sight.

Unless you meant Medical Doctor, how could people in science in private sectors earn substantially more than $172K? Do not talk about scientists in Pfizer who are probably earning a big bonus because of the vaccine (once in a life time). What kind of scientists in private sectors make substantially more than $172K?

IT security and senior engineering jobs quite regularly pay more than $200k, without even including stock options. Even top-tier academic researchers regularly make more than $200k, not from their academic salary alone, but when you include summer pay and consulting gigs.

Sure but most in Federal workforce are over 35, so unless they are TRULY exceptional, they aren’t getting those $200k+ jobs (there was just a thread saying $150k for SWE is too high).

Academic researchers? You mean professor or lab staff? Sure IF you can get a tenure professor ship and find consulting gigs, that’s a great deal. But working as lab researcher at Uni, that pays peanuts.