|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Nov 20, 2013 14:36:37 GMT -5
Just read Bartleby's post in the "Falls Church" thread and learned that legislation was introduced in the Senate in the past few days to do away with the pension benefit that is currently a part of the ALJ retirement package. That is a potential game-changer for some, so I bring to the board FYI. There are lots of articles available about it. You can get started reading here: Pension legislation |
|
|
|
Post by clevelandbrown on Nov 20, 2013 16:00:03 GMT -5
Should that bill come to pass (and it doesn't seem too likely to me with Ds controlling the Senate), it would still not affect current federal employees. For what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Nov 20, 2013 19:33:16 GMT -5
That is a potential game-changer for some, so I bring to the board FYI.  Next?  |
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Nov 20, 2013 19:37:25 GMT -5
This will not change for the majority of the wanna bees. They will gladly take the job even with reduced pension benefits
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 20, 2013 19:48:47 GMT -5
Does anyone know what effect this might have on a FERS retiree who unretired to accept an ALJ position?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Nov 20, 2013 20:14:43 GMT -5
Does anyone know what effect this might have on a FERS retiree who unretired to accept an ALJ position? This is something that would have to be worked out in conference between the house and the senate. Suffice it to say that if the party proposing this particular legislation gets their way you will most likely be treated like a new hire. But if the unions support the other party, the one that generally is more friendly to workers in the area of collective bargaining you would not be considered a new employee. I suggest you see how they currently treat unretirees in regards to their contributions. If unretirees are paying the higher FERS contribution when they come back you can predict which way this new proposal is headed. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 21, 2013 11:08:30 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I do not see changes occurring to the pension system for Federal Employees any time soon despite the proposed legislation. Even if it did occur, the new employees would save 3.1% of their income which they would have to pay toward their pensions, as opposed to 0.8% employees hired prior to 2012 have to pay. Quite frankly, I would rather save my own money in the TSP maximizing the amount and then placing the rest in other options for retirement, like a self-bought annuity, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by clevelandbrown on Nov 21, 2013 13:30:36 GMT -5
I might be misunderstanding your point, Moopigsdad, but if the suggestion is that the 2.3% delta can be funneled into the TSP rather than the pension plan, I don't think that's correct. Rather, it is effectively a 2.3% reduction in pay for anyone hired under the new rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Nov 21, 2013 14:14:28 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I do not see changes occurring to the pension system for Federal Employees any time soon despite the proposed legislation. Even if it did occur, the new employees would save 3.1% of their income which they would have to pay toward their pensions, as opposed to 0.8% employees hired prior to 2012 have to pay. Quite frankly, I would rather save my own money in the TSP maximizing the amount and then placing the rest in other options for retirement, like a self-bought annuity, etc. The 3.1 percent is already being paid by new employees and yes, that is a loss of pay for folks who are hired after 2012. Many folks thought that this change would not happen but it happened quickly and did not meet a lot of resistance. It was a huge big step. If I am not mistaken the social security supplement for FER Retirees if they retire before age 62 was recently done away with too. Now the proposal is to do away completely with the FERS for new employees. It might not happen this year but the writing is on the wall--I think it is a matter of time because federal employees are the scape goats and to blame for some of the financial ills by many in congress. Just read some of the opinions spouted by the public on websites like BENFED.com. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 21, 2013 14:53:12 GMT -5
I might be misunderstanding your point, Moopigsdad, but if the suggestion is that the 2.3% delta can be funneled into the TSP rather than the pension plan, I don't think that's correct. Rather, it is effectively a 2.3% reduction in pay for anyone hired under the new rules. The point is if the pension is done away with for new employees, they will not have to pay 3.1% of their income into the pension plan because they will no longer have the defined benefit plan as a benefit. Also, the President wants to increase the cost to those employees paying 0.8% toward their defined benefit plan to 2.0% over the next couple of years in steps. Hence, even those who have been paying 0.8% toward their pension will likely be paying 2.0% toward their pension in a couple of years. As a new employee, if hired, I can't miss something I never had, so it wouldn't hurt as much. |
|
|
|
Post by atlasta on Nov 21, 2013 19:06:59 GMT -5
Is Congress abolishing their pension?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Nov 21, 2013 21:12:03 GMT -5
As a new employee, if hired, I can't miss something I never had, so it wouldn't hurt as much. Exactly! Even if they rid of the pension it will not thin the line of applicants who want and will take the job! |
|
|
|
Post by 17 on Nov 22, 2013 0:39:22 GMT -5
I do not think the proposed legislation will pass -- at least, certainly not this go-round and probably not for quite awhile. But there's no denying that public servants are treated in politics as scapegoats and easy targets.
If FERS was eliminated, it would probably be a game-changer for this 'outsider.' Giving up the opportunity of continually increasing the benefit in my current defined benefit plan in return for no fed pension? That may tip the scale toward current job over ALJ.
Dang. I putt well. If I could just lower my handicap by 20+ strokes, I could simply join the Champions Tour.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Nov 22, 2013 6:31:27 GMT -5
I think it is the title of this thread that caught my eye. One of the many things I noticed when I became an ALJ is that the views on federal service and actualy becoming an ALJ are decidingly different if you are from the private sector than if you have been a career fed. Seems like the later are much more resigned to taking it on the chin rather than putting up your dukes. There are avenues to fight this thing. Like advancing the 1995 HB to establish an ALJ Corps. Like advancing a bill that would carve out ALJs from this punitive anti-fed measure. FALJC and AALJ, among others, like the ABA, would and will fight this IF it goes anywhere, which I don't think it will. But I would urge all of you to consider this: you ain't like everyone else! You are the Executive Branch's federal judiciary and should fight to ensure that we attract the best and brightest--and recognize that in our pensions. bartelby intimated this in his story. Not that I'm such a prime catch  , but not getting the kind of pension I'm EARNING now? I don't know that leaving private practice would have been so attractive. aljfaq can speak to this as well. |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Nov 22, 2013 9:05:55 GMT -5
privateatty, I, for one, think you are a prime catch! From the outside, the pension and other benefits were a huge factor in applying for federal jobs because the pay certainly isn't higher than in the private sector.
|
|
davef
Full Member
Posts: 87 
|
Post by davef on Nov 22, 2013 9:32:55 GMT -5
Have to agree with PA and 17. I think if FERs were to go away, it may thin out the applicant pool a little. I also don't think it will necessarily just be those in private practice making a decent wage. At least some of us working in state government may also take a closer look. SSA pays a significantly higher salary than my current state position. However, my state defined benefit plan provides more than twice the income in retirement. I have allready considered the amount of salary needed to divert to a 401k to cover the difference in retirement. Take away the current FERs plan, and throw in an appointment in a state with a high income tax and the difference in salaries is not so stark. I didn't apply for this position purely based on salary. But, those of us happily working as ALJ's at the state level may take a harder look at jumping into the federal system if compensation between the two becomes a non-factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Nov 22, 2013 14:19:41 GMT -5
privateatty, I, for one, think you are a prime catch! From the outside, the pension and other benefits were a huge factor in applying for federal jobs because the pay certainly isn't higher than in the private sector. You're no baglady... I did take a pay cut, but not being able to have Agency contributions? And this brings me to the comment by this bill's sponsors. You @#$% senators know why we SHOULD be paid more than our private sector equivalents? Because we are not their equivalents, you morons. We are ALJs and for every one of us sitting at the bench, there are ten or fifteen who would like to take our chairs. Federal employees are specialists; air traffice controllers, border cops, court clerks, etc etc. Who are you going to compare these folks to? The whole concept of private/public pay equity is ill-informed and IMHO, stupid. Man, I wish I could get on the Senate floor and ream a few of these folks. Fact is, I can't even write a letter to the Editor!  |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Nov 23, 2013 13:34:54 GMT -5
|
|
, but not getting the kind of pension I'm EARNING now? I don't know that leaving private practice would have been so attractive. aljfaq can speak to this as well.
