Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for SEC- we get annual increase in PP7. It is kind of a complicated formula but works out much better than the GS pay increases.

It's better but it's not much better. The SEC doesn't get step increases and those have an average value of 1.5% per year including the years where you don't get a step increase so the SEC raise is about 1.15% better than the GS raise.

True, but the baseline starting point is way higher. This is kinda like saying that a banker/trader earning 650K only got a 1% raise while the regulator earning 200K got a 5% raise. Which would you rather be?

PP- exactly my spouse is a 15/10 and has been at the cap for years. At the SEC I am a SK 14 at the cap and make significantly more than them.

You aren't joking. That's like a 50k difference.

I work for the FDIC. The same pay grade for the job I do at the SEC pays at least $40,000 more at the top of the scale. I always thought that the federal regulators were supposed to be comparable in this way, but they are not.

Which pay grade?

NP. The FDIC revamped how it pays people so that if you are new to the fdic, you get paid much less than someone with the same number of total years of experience but who has been at the fdic longer. They’ve been quite explicit that this was a new policy choice they made. So the fdic no longer pays competitively for incoming folks (though it’s a bit haphazard and managers can seek policy exceptions, so some people may chime in that they are new to the fdic and doing well which may be true or may be a results of them not knowing how much their peers are making). This it wouldn’t surprise me if a person new to the fdic makes 40k less than someone new to the sec with the same number of years of experience, regardless of whether they are a 14 or 15 on fdics scale.

This is all correct but just to add to it: the policy choice was made by McWilliams with the goal of paying fdic workers less (because the way to justify paying new workers less than their peers is to weight numbers of years of experience at fdic heavily in the pay formula; in many instances, the formula results in people having salaries much lower than what they would earn at a non financial regulator). While gruenberg professes to be more friendly to workers, he has actually fully adopted this new approach to pay setting. So the fdic had largely given up on being competitive with its peers on salary unless your salary was set before this new approach to pay setting went into effect or your manager seeks a policy exception for you.

I anticipate that many will leave fdic for the cfpb, especially with the full remote option negotiated at the cfpb recently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

+1000. Amen. My top manager is incompetent $270,0000

And, if my experience rings true, you spend more time gossiping about him/her than doing your work.

Ignore the people who think WFH means no one is working.

I will say that WFH has become a hit button issue that isn’t nearly settled. I am fully remote but do go in voluntarily for in person meetings maybe once a month. There are jobs it’s perfect for and jobs that can benefit from hybrid or in person. Long term organizational effects are not fully assessable for many areas. I’d not be opposed to more in person (maybe up to 2 days a week) but people are convinced there is no benefit to it. They think ALL people prefer it. They yell over anyone advocating, or even just voicing their own preference or availability, for hybrid. It’s now a mandatory benefit no one feels privileged to have and almost doesn’t even matter for retention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

+1000. Amen. My top manager is incompetent $270,0000

And, if my experience rings true, you spend more time gossiping about him/her than doing your work.

Anonymous wrote:

Remote work and chronic WFH has only grown the complaint and sloth factor. There are SO many “busy” people who just want to be left alone. Sounds like the definition of professional welfare.

My job is fully remote (except when I need to travel, which is around once every month for 2 days). I have so much work that I feel sick to my stomach on Sunday evenings thinking about how I can tackle it in the week ahead. I do have a few coworkers who are lazy, but most are not.

Remote work and chronic WFH has only grown the complaint and sloth factor. There are SO many “busy” people who just want to be left alone. Sounds like the definition of professional welfare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

+1000. Amen. My top manager is incompetent $270,0000

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t realize there were federal employees that didn’t get a raise. Are there other agencies besides the financial regulators where this is the case?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Your complaint is true but not for everyone. I left for the private sector also but for the two years before I left, I averaged 55-60 hours per week and my salary was approximately $5k higher than the max on the gs scale. I hated how my higher paid colleagues (many at the pay cap maximum) barely seemed to do any work and in some cases were viewed by management as not capable of handling difficult assignments. So there were real issues with pay fairness. Unfortunately, the government is really bad at paying people based on merit (and when they have tried, it led to charges of racism because certain groups got rated more highly than others on average) so these across-the-board pay raises are the only thing that ever gets done.

Management also didn’t necessarily work harder. There was so much deadweight amongst management also including people who never had done anything to justify their promotion to management and were exceptionally incompetent during the 10 hours of work they did per week.

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” [/b] I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.[b]

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at one of the higher paying financial regulators. This thread reminds me of why I left. Too many staff members are focused on the pay and benefits over the work. Over the years, I watched our package grow sweeter and sweeter, yet the more that was given, the more staff wanted. Interestingly, the same grumbles didn’t come from management, and they weren’t paid that much more but worked much harder. In time, I really grew tired of my smart, but entitled colleagues sucking the system dry while moaning about how “busy” they were, which was nothing but code for “leave me alone.” I wanted to be proud of my colleagues, but I found many of them disappointing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for SEC- we get annual increase in PP7. It is kind of a complicated formula but works out much better than the GS pay increases.

It's better but it's not much better. The SEC doesn't get step increases and those have an average value of 1.5% per year including the years where you don't get a step increase so the SEC raise is about 1.15% better than the GS raise.

True, but the baseline starting point is way higher. This is kinda like saying that a banker/trader earning 650K only got a 1% raise while the regulator earning 200K got a 5% raise. Which would you rather be?

PP- exactly my spouse is a 15/10 and has been at the cap for years. At the SEC I am a SK 14 at the cap and make significantly more than them.

You aren't joking. That's like a 50k difference.

I work for the FDIC. The same pay grade for the job I do at the SEC pays at least $40,000 more at the top of the scale. I always thought that the federal regulators were supposed to be comparable in this way, but they are not.

Which pay grade?

NP. The FDIC revamped how it pays people so that if you are new to the fdic, you get paid much less than someone with the same number of total years of experience but who has been at the fdic longer. They’ve been quite explicit that this was a new policy choice they made. So the fdic no longer pays competitively for incoming folks (though it’s a bit haphazard and managers can seek policy exceptions, so some people may chime in that they are new to the fdic and doing well which may be true or may be a results of them not knowing how much their peers are making). This it wouldn’t surprise me if a person new to the fdic makes 40k less than someone new to the sec with the same number of years of experience, regardless of whether they are a 14 or 15 on fdics scale.

This is all correct but just to add to it: the policy choice was made by McWilliams with the goal of paying fdic workers less (because the way to justify paying new workers less than their peers is to weight numbers of years of experience at fdic heavily in the pay formula; in many instances, the formula results in people having salaries much lower than what they would earn at a non financial regulator). While gruenberg professes to be more friendly to workers, he has actually fully adopted this new approach to pay setting. So the fdic had largely given up on being competitive with its peers on salary unless your salary was set before this new approach to pay setting went into effect or your manager seeks a policy exception for you.

I anticipate that many will leave fdic for the cfpb, especially with the full remote option negotiated at the cfpb recently.