Federal Employee Issues

[Deleted]

Republican Study Committee (RSC) Budget Echoes Recent Proposals To Cut Federal Employees’ Pay, Benefits

“The Republican Study Committee (RSC) has released its annual budget proposal for fiscal year 2019. The proposal, called A Framework for Unified Conservatism, echoes many of the recent proposals that have been put forth by the Trump administration and other legislative proposals to make reductions to federal employees’ pay and benefits.

1.  “Reduce the Annual Across-the-Board Adjustment for Federal Civilian Employees Pay:

The budget describes the skyrocketing debt of the federal government as a “fiscal state of emergency” and one which can be used to limit automatic pay increases given to federal employees under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990.

The RSC budget says the president can limit the size of the increase if he determines that a national emergency exists. The proposal says the nation’s growing debt warrants such an emergency:

If the president determines that a national emergency exists, he can limit the size of the increase. President Obama signed legislation blocking pay increases in 2011, 2012, and 2013. However, with the national debt increasing above $21 trillion, and projected to skyrocket to almost $34 trillion over the next decade, a fiscal state of emergency exists. Beginning in FY 2019, the annual across-the-board increase for federal workers should be reduced by half a percentage point below the expected automatic increases. (emphasis added)The Republican Study Committee (RSC) has released its annual budget proposal for fiscal year 2019. The proposal, called A Framework for Unified Conservatism, echoes many of the recent proposals that have been put forth by the Trump administration and other legislative proposals to make reductions to federal employees’ pay and benefits.

2. Limiting Bonuses

The RSC budget proposes setting “reasonable limits” on the bonuses paid to the federal workforce but offers no additional details quantifying what it said would be “reasonable.”

It expressed support in this section for Congressman Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) Federal Employee Bonus Disclosure Act which would make all federal employee bonuses publicly available and would require reports to Congress of the bonuses awarded by agencies.

3. Pension Plan Reforms

The RSC budget also supports reforms to federal employee pension plans that were outlined in the White House’s 2019 budget proposal. Among these are the following:

Pension calculation would be based on a high-five instead of a high-three;  The share of employee contributions to FERS should be increased over time, to more closely align with the private sector;  The cost of living adjustment (COLA) for FERS and CSRS should be reduced or eliminated;  Eliminate the Special Retirement Supplement (SRS)

The RSC budget also would require all federal workers to contribute more towards their retirement as opposed to just newly hired federal employees. It notes that the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 mandated increased contributions for newly hired federal workers but that this should be spread to existing federal employees...

4. FEHB Reforms

The RSC budget notes that federal employees covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) pay for about 30% of their premiums while the government pays the remaining 70%. However, it says, “Because this ratio does not change with the higher-priced coverage options, federal employees have the incentive to choose the more expensive plans on the taxpayer’s dime.”

To remedy this, it suggests to change to a premium support system in which the government would offer a standard federal contribution towards the purchase of health insurance and employees would be responsible for paying the rest. “This option would encourage employees to purchase plans with the appropriate amount of coverage that fits their needs,” according to the proposal.

5. Make it Easier to Fire Federal Employees

The RSC budget proposes building on recent legislation signed into law for the Department of Veterans Affairs that makes it much easier for the VA secretary to remove, demote or suspend VA employees for poor performance.  The proposal would make federal employees “at-will” employees, as Congressional staff currently are.

This idea has been put forth in legislation that was introduced not long ago by Congressman Todd Rokita (R-IN). Among other things, the bill would allow federal employees to be removed or suspended “without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.” See Legislation Introduced to Make Federal Employees ‘At-Will’ Employees for details.”

There is more at:  www.fedsmith.com/2018/04/26/rsc-budget-echoes-recent-proposals-cut-federal-employees-pay-benefits/

[lurkerbelow]

Based on the oral arguments in Lucia, I think that the governments position is that the SSA ALJs are protected by a specific SSA statute that functions to give them independence. There’s a lot of prognostication on the nature of the Lucia decision but I think those statutes will control unless Congress decides to get involved. If someone has more knowledge that me feel free to chime in.

[Pixie]

Apr 28, 2018 10:56:30 GMT -5 @usij said:

Republican Study Committee (RSC) Budget Echoes Recent Proposals To Cut Federal Employees’ Pay, Benefits

“The Republican Study Committee (RSC) has released its annual budget proposal for fiscal year 2019. The proposal, called A Framework for Unified Conservatism, echoes many of the recent proposals that have been put forth by the Trump administration and other legislative proposals to make reductions to federal employees’ pay and benefits.

1.  “Reduce the Annual Across-the-Board Adjustment for Federal Civilian Employees Pay:

The budget describes the skyrocketing debt of the federal government as a “fiscal state of emergency” and one which can be used to limit automatic pay increases given to federal employees under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990.

The RSC budget says the president can limit the size of the increase if he determines that a national emergency exists. The proposal says the nation’s growing debt warrants such an emergency:

If the president determines that a national emergency exists, he can limit the size of the increase. President Obama signed legislation blocking pay increases in 2011, 2012, and 2013. However, with the national debt increasing above $21 trillion, and projected to skyrocket to almost $34 trillion over the next decade, a fiscal state of emergency exists. Beginning in FY 2019, the annual across-the-board increase for federal workers should be reduced by half a percentage point below the expected automatic increases. (emphasis added)The Republican Study Committee (RSC) has released its annual budget proposal for fiscal year 2019. The proposal, called A Framework for Unified Conservatism, echoes many of the recent proposals that have been put forth by the Trump administration and other legislative proposals to make reductions to federal employees’ pay and benefits.

2. Limiting Bonuses

The RSC budget proposes setting “reasonable limits” on the bonuses paid to the federal workforce but offers no additional details quantifying what it said would be “reasonable.”

It expressed support in this section for Congressman Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) Federal Employee Bonus Disclosure Act which would make all federal employee bonuses publicly available and would require reports to Congress of the bonuses awarded by agencies.

3. Pension Plan Reforms

The RSC budget also supports reforms to federal employee pension plans that were outlined in the White House’s 2019 budget proposal. Among these are the following:

Pension calculation would be based on a high-five instead of a high-three;  The share of employee contributions to FERS should be increased over time, to more closely align with the private sector;  The cost of living adjustment (COLA) for FERS and CSRS should be reduced or eliminated;  Eliminate the Special Retirement Supplement (SRS)

The RSC budget also would require all federal workers to contribute more towards their retirement as opposed to just newly hired federal employees. It notes that the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 mandated increased contributions for newly hired federal workers but that this should be spread to existing federal employees...

4. FEHB Reforms

The RSC budget notes that federal employees covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) pay for about 30% of their premiums while the government pays the remaining 70%. However, it says, “Because this ratio does not change with the higher-priced coverage options, federal employees have the incentive to choose the more expensive plans on the taxpayer’s dime.”

To remedy this, it suggests to change to a premium support system in which the government would offer a standard federal contribution towards the purchase of health insurance and employees would be responsible for paying the rest. “This option would encourage employees to purchase plans with the appropriate amount of coverage that fits their needs,” according to the proposal.

5. Make it Easier to Fire Federal Employees

The RSC budget proposes building on recent legislation signed into law for the Department of Veterans Affairs that makes it much easier for the VA secretary to remove, demote or suspend VA employees for poor performance.  The proposal would make federal employees “at-will” employees, as Congressional staff currently are.

This idea has been put forth in legislation that was introduced not long ago by Congressman Todd Rokita (R-IN). Among other things, the bill would allow federal employees to be removed or suspended “without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.” See Legislation Introduced to Make Federal Employees ‘At-Will’ Employees for details.”

There is more at:  www.fedsmith.com/2018/04/26/rsc-budget-echoes-recent-proposals-cut-federal-employees-pay-benefits/

The huge deficit budget recently passed has many more problems than can be solved by coming down hard on the federal employee. These proposals would be little more than a brief splash in the bucket toward reducing the deficit. It would, however, make a certain segment of the population feel good about reducing benefits to the bloated federal workforce. Too many benefits, too good of a retirement, and too much salary for too little work.

[foghorn]

Hopefully, employees will do a better job (without taking time from their stated jobs) to be able to justify the value of what they do, which is not always measured in dollars and cents.

This is especially needed as the cuts may not be to those that do too little work but likely to those that do work that doesn't sit well with some--civil rights and environmental regulatory enforcers, for instance:
washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust-2017/trumps-plan-to-make-government-older-more-expensive-and-more-dysfunctional/

[lurkerbelow]

I'm a bit reluctant to post given the current attitude towards federal employees within certain circles, but I think I need to say this because whomever wrote that "budget" is apparently far better at propaganda than actual policy.  

Here's my picture. Spouse is in need of expensive healthcare at the moment. I pay more in healthcare than I do in mortgage in exchange for the ability to treat my spouse's condition on my salary. I consider this a fair trade-off. While I take home much less, it is worth the expense.

If these rate hikes and reductions in the FEHB plans go forward, I may have to leave the service depending on the severity of the change. My health insurance payments (not copay) sound like they will be in the four figures. I do not want to leave. I am a AA, and I take pride in the work I do, and I had hoped that I had finally found a job worth being loyal to and could retire in. But I will only be loyal to those who return that loyalty. If passed, this budget would very clearly indicate that my loyalty would be horribly misplaced and ruthlessly abused for the benefit of a capricious propaganda machine. I will not subject my family to that for any reason.

This is not about politics.  I take threats to my long-term livelihood very seriously, and will do what I need to in order to survive. And this is looking like a threat to my long-term livelihood.

(I have edited this post several times to remove four letter words because they serve nothing except for releasing frustration in a vulgar way.)

[lurkerbelow]

Apr 28, 2018 20:04:47 GMT -5 @alj10028 said:

Sorry to hear about your wife's health, but before you jump ship from the federal government with a raised middle finger, I would suggest that a) you take a hard look at how employable you are in the private sector after a number of years working for the government and b) you also do a lot of homework about the health insurance coverage at whatever job you do end up getting. From what I can tell, since Obamacare too hold, there is pretty much no such thing as really good health insurance anymore.

Thank you.  I will absolutely do so, and obviously this is a theoretical problem right now.  What happens in reality (not the slightly quirky world of fedsmith) will dictate my response.

But I want to make clear to anyone on the board with any sort of say in policy-shaping that this type of stuff has very serious, real world effects, and that this type of stuff really can have severe consequences.  Also, employees can and will pay extremely close attention to this stuff and actions will be taken in response to it.  Please, make them understand this.  It's not a joke.  This is our livelihood.

Forgive me, I've hijacked the topic.  My apologies.

[SPN Lifer]

Apr 28, 2018 15:36:38 GMT -5 foghorn said:

[T]he cuts may not be to those that do too little work but likely to those that do work that doesn't sit well with some--civil rights and environmental regulatory enforcers, for instance:

washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust-2017/trumps-plan-to-make-government-older-more-expensive-and-more-dysfunctional/

This ten-month-old article is primarily about the role of contractors within the federal workforce.

It was an interesting read. Thank you.

[Deleted]

USDA cuts back high performance rankings. By CHRISTINE HAUGHNEY 02/06/2018 06:59 AM EST

“USDA has introduced a more stringent employee performance system that could essentially eliminate the top two rankings, memos obtained by POLITICO as well as interviews with employees and union representatives show. Employees have complained that their superiors have told them that staffers will require them to “walk on water” to receive top reviews, said Joshua Rider, a USDA attorney for the last 16 years and the new president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1106 in San Francisco. The new evaluation system has added more anxiety for workers at a department undergoing a reorganization that has left many staff members fearing for their careers as civil servants.

“The hits keep coming,” Rider said. “I can’t recall a time in my career where federal employees that I work with, that their morale has been this low and that folks are truly worried about their jobs and working conditions.”

These changes at USDA also reflect a broader overhaul of performance evaluations across the federal government. President Donald Trump made an oblique reference in his State of the Union address last week, asking Congress "to reward good workers and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.” He referenced the VA Accountability Act, which makes it easier to fire employees at the Veterans Affairs Department.

In the case of the USDA, a two-page memo dated Oct. 19 from Donald Bice, then acting deputy assistant secretary for administration, describes a new policy requiring that “U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees meeting the full performance of their position should receive 'Fully Successful' as a rating of record. 'Superior' and 'Outstanding' ratings should be reserved for the rare instance when an employee has exceeded the expectations of a high performer.” Currently USDA employees are ranked on a scale of 1-5. "Unacceptable" performance receives a level 1. "Minimally satisfactory" work ranks as level 2. "Fully successful" ranks as level 3. "Exceeds/Superior" earns a level 4 rating, and "outstanding" is considered a level 5.

In the October memo, Bice writes that a 3 rating should not be viewed negatively. "An employee must be able to count on the actual plain language meaning of a rating, and 'Fully Successful' is just that: achieving the complete expectations and requirements of your position," Bice writes. "We assure you that a 'Fully Successful' rating is seen as a true success." However, employees were being told that the new system would make it difficult to receive a 4 or 5 performance ranking, Rider and others say. Rider added that the stricter performance reviews would prevent workers from qualifying for any potential financial awards.

An eight-page memo that Secretary Sonny Perdue released Friday did not seem to help ease tension, union representatives said. Rider said that the document has "troubling details" regarding negotiating expectations with unions. He viewed the directive as "consistent with other USDA actions of late: withdrawing from partnership councils, repudiating permissive bargaining, dramatically and needlessly reducing telework and other employee flexibilities, and generally creating an atmosphere hostile to employees both individually and collectively."

Many USDA employees have been scrambling to reconfigure their work schedules after Perdue announced Jan. 4 that he was changing the agency’s telework policy by requiring employees — mainly in administrative jobs — to work from a USDA office at least four days a week. The most recent memo shows that the agency has delayed implementing the controversial policy to March instead of February.

Still, USDA’s latest policy move has worried workers who are afraid their opportunities to get a job outside of the federal government may be stymied at a time when they feel so much insecurity from within. “These performance reviews are our record in terms of our performance at the agency," Rider said. "I imagine it would be of grave concern to anyone who chose to apply for a federal position or to leave and apply for private practice."”

www.politico.com/story/2018/02/06/agriculture-usda-performance-review-392870

[maquereau]

I certainly enjoy the benefits of being a federal worker, and no one, federal or not, likes to contemplate cuts to his compensation. However, I am probably at least as fed up with the inability to get rid of non-producers and low-quality producers as the authors of the proposal in question. Those people make my job harder. If we did a better job policing ourselves then maybe we wouldn't have to contemplate reductions for all. I guess I just don't understand why it HAS to be so much harder to fire a lousy fed than any other lousy worker in America.

[Deleted]

It’s Time to Fix an Unfair Federal Retirement Rule.

By Rep. Derek Kilmer (U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer represents Washington’s 6th congressional district. He serves on the House Appropriations Committee).

“Imagine you work your whole career with a colleague. You start the same day. You show up at the same time every day and do the exact same work, for the same number of years. You’re paid the same amount. But when you calculate the number of days you must work between now and retirement, the Office of Personnel Management tells your coworker she can retire, but you have to work five more years, thanks to a three-decade-old retirement rule change. A generation of federal employees across the country are discovering that this is their story.

Many soon-to-retire public servants started their careers as temporary workers in the federal government.... Many of these workers were later converted to permanent employees because the jobs they were doing were so important. Now, the oldest among them are getting ready to retire.... But those who met with me had spent a few years as temporary employees and now face a difficult choice: retire at the same time as their peers but with a lower-level of benefits, or work years longer.

That’s why I introduced the Federal Retirement Fairness Act. It is a simple solution to this complex problem. Workers in this situation can make up for the years they didn’t pay into the retirement system with a one-time “catch up payment” which amounts to a deposit of 1.3 percent of their base pay for each year spent in temporary status, plus corresponding interest, and the amount the government would have contributed during those years, as calculated by the Office of Personnel Management....

This isn’t a new idea. Temporary employees who convert to permanent status have always had this problem. In fact, until 1989, permanent federal employees who started as temporary workers had the option to buy back years of retirement contributions to allow for an on-time retirement.

In 1989, the government converted to a new retirement system and the buy-back system expired. This issue was largely unnoticed, as workers up until now were covered under the old system. Today, as the generation of federal workers who lost this buy-back ability under the new system retire, many are just now realizing they are still years away from retirement at the level of benefits they expected...”

www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2018/04/its-time-fix-unfair-federal-retirement-rule/147830/?oref=river

Edit to add: I wonder if this applies to all of those term positions that just came out for SSA.

[moopigsdad]

Apr 28, 2018 14:34:42 GMT -5 Pixie said:

Apr 28, 2018 10:56:30 GMT -5 @usij said:

Republican Study Committee (RSC) Budget Echoes Recent Proposals To Cut Federal Employees’ Pay, Benefits

“The Republican Study Committee (RSC) has released its annual budget proposal for fiscal year 2019. The proposal, called A Framework for Unified Conservatism, echoes many of the recent proposals that have been put forth by the Trump administration and other legislative proposals to make reductions to federal employees’ pay and benefits.

1.  “Reduce the Annual Across-the-Board Adjustment for Federal Civilian Employees Pay:

The budget describes the skyrocketing debt of the federal government as a “fiscal state of emergency” and one which can be used to limit automatic pay increases given to federal employees under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990.

The RSC budget says the president can limit the size of the increase if he determines that a national emergency exists. The proposal says the nation’s growing debt warrants such an emergency:

If the president determines that a national emergency exists, he can limit the size of the increase. President Obama signed legislation blocking pay increases in 2011, 2012, and 2013. However, with the national debt increasing above $21 trillion, and projected to skyrocket to almost $34 trillion over the next decade, a fiscal state of emergency exists. Beginning in FY 2019, the annual across-the-board increase for federal workers should be reduced by half a percentage point below the expected automatic increases. (emphasis added)The Republican Study Committee (RSC) has released its annual budget proposal for fiscal year 2019. The proposal, called A Framework for Unified Conservatism, echoes many of the recent proposals that have been put forth by the Trump administration and other legislative proposals to make reductions to federal employees’ pay and benefits.

2. Limiting Bonuses

The RSC budget proposes setting “reasonable limits” on the bonuses paid to the federal workforce but offers no additional details quantifying what it said would be “reasonable.”

It expressed support in this section for Congressman Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) Federal Employee Bonus Disclosure Act which would make all federal employee bonuses publicly available and would require reports to Congress of the bonuses awarded by agencies.

3. Pension Plan Reforms

The RSC budget also supports reforms to federal employee pension plans that were outlined in the White House’s 2019 budget proposal. Among these are the following:

Pension calculation would be based on a high-five instead of a high-three;  The share of employee contributions to FERS should be increased over time, to more closely align with the private sector;  The cost of living adjustment (COLA) for FERS and CSRS should be reduced or eliminated;  Eliminate the Special Retirement Supplement (SRS)

The RSC budget also would require all federal workers to contribute more towards their retirement as opposed to just newly hired federal employees. It notes that the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 mandated increased contributions for newly hired federal workers but that this should be spread to existing federal employees...

4. FEHB Reforms

The RSC budget notes that federal employees covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) pay for about 30% of their premiums while the government pays the remaining 70%. However, it says, “Because this ratio does not change with the higher-priced coverage options, federal employees have the incentive to choose the more expensive plans on the taxpayer’s dime.”

To remedy this, it suggests to change to a premium support system in which the government would offer a standard federal contribution towards the purchase of health insurance and employees would be responsible for paying the rest. “This option would encourage employees to purchase plans with the appropriate amount of coverage that fits their needs,” according to the proposal.

5. Make it Easier to Fire Federal Employees

The RSC budget proposes building on recent legislation signed into law for the Department of Veterans Affairs that makes it much easier for the VA secretary to remove, demote or suspend VA employees for poor performance.  The proposal would make federal employees “at-will” employees, as Congressional staff currently are.

This idea has been put forth in legislation that was introduced not long ago by Congressman Todd Rokita (R-IN). Among other things, the bill would allow federal employees to be removed or suspended “without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.” See Legislation Introduced to Make Federal Employees ‘At-Will’ Employees for details.”

There is more at:  www.fedsmith.com/2018/04/26/rsc-budget-echoes-recent-proposals-cut-federal-employees-pay-benefits/

The huge deficit budget recently passed has many more problems than can be solved by coming down hard on the federal employee. These proposals would be little more than a brief splash in the bucket toward reducing the deficit. It would, however, make a certain segment of the population feel good about reducing benefits to the bloated federal workforce. Too many benefits, too good of a retirement, and too much salary for too little work.

Pixie was your last sentence I highlighted in red a facetious one or one describing what certain other people perceive to be the case for federal employees? It certainly is not the truth for most federal employees unless you are a Presidential appointee. There was a recent study and article showing most federal employees are underpaid for work performed versus their private counterparts. I might agree that the pension is something you cannot find with most private employers nowadays.

I am tired of public employees being bashed by public officials over pay, benefits, etc. Perhaps, the expected budget deficit would not be as great as it is now expected to be, if a certain segment of our Congress did not tout how beneficial the new tax law was going to be for "everyone" [] and how revenue neutral it would be due to increased productivity and business. Its so nice Congress creates a mess with their new tax law and expects to scapegoat public employees as the cause. I will get off my political soapbox now. I apologize in advance for this somewhat political diatribe, but the article angers me.

[Deleted]

The only goal of this thread is to make everyone aware of some important issues that could very truly effect us. Hopefully the information disclosed here will motivate members to call, write, or otherwise contact the elected Senators and Representatives to very clearly voice their concerns on these issues. I’ve even considered calling those Senators and Representatives of whom I’m not their constituent, as well. Might as well... Someone has to bring them back to reality.

[Pixie]

moopigsdad, I was describing how others perceive the federal worker. Pixie

[Deleted]

OPM Proposes Legislation to Cut Retirement Benefits for Current and Former Feds

Office of Personnel Management Director Jeff Pon wrote a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan late last week requesting a number of legislative changes that would cut retirement benefits for federal workers.

The request, which Pon said would save taxpayers $143.5 billion over the next decade, comes on the eve of the White House’s planned introduction of $15 billion in spending cuts as part of a rescission package. Pon said his plans, which are a laundry list of previously proposed cuts to federal employee retirement programs, would “bring federal benefits more in line with the private sector.”

Pon wrote that the proposed changes reflect the move by private sector businesses away from defined-benefit pensions in recent years. “In summary, the employee retirement landscape continues to evolve as private companies are providing less compensation in the form of retirement benefits,” the OPM chief stated. “The shift away from defined-benefit programs and cost-of-living adjustments for annuitants is part of that evolution.”

Included in the proposals are plans to eliminate Federal Employees’ Retirement System supplements for federal employees who retire before Social Security kicks in at age 62, going forward; change the basis of a retiree’s defined benefit annuity payments from their highest three years of salary to their highest five years; and increase the amount federal employees contribute to FERS by 1 percentage point per year until they reach an overall contribution level of 7.25 percent, matching the government’s contribution.

Pon also recommended eliminating a provision of the law that requires FERS disability annuities to be reduced by the recipient’s “assumed disability insurance benefit” through Social Security, instead basing the reduction on the individual’s actual Social Security benefits. “The assumed disability insurance benefit differs from the annuitant's actual Social Security disability insurance benefit because the assumed disability insurance benefit is based on the SSDI benefit amount increased by FERS COLAs, whereas the actual Social Security disability insurance benefit is updated by CPI increases,” Pon wrote. “With the elimination of FERS COLAs, the reduction for SSDI would be based on the actual amount of SSDI benefit.”

www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2018/05/opm-proposes-legislation-cut-benefits-current-and-former-feds/148022/ 

[christina]

so we'd pay 7.25 percent to fers and 6.25 to Social security    oh and we need to keep funding tsp cause combined fers and tsp is not enough to live on in retirement 

[Serious, J.]

Apr 30, 2018 11:46:34 GMT -5 @usij said:

It’s Time to Fix an Unfair Federal Retirement Rule.

By Rep. Derek Kilmer (U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer represents Washington’s 6th congressional district. He serves on the House Appropriations Committee).

“Imagine you work your whole career with a colleague. You start the same day. You show up at the same time every day and do the exact same work, for the same number of years. You’re paid the same amount. But when you calculate the number of days you must work between now and retirement, the Office of Personnel Management tells your coworker she can retire, but you have to work five more years, thanks to a three-decade-old retirement rule change. A generation of federal employees across the country are discovering that this is their story.

Many soon-to-retire public servants started their careers as temporary workers in the federal government.... Many of these workers were later converted to permanent employees because the jobs they were doing were so important. Now, the oldest among them are getting ready to retire.... But those who met with me had spent a few years as temporary employees and now face a difficult choice: retire at the same time as their peers but with a lower-level of benefits, or work years longer.

That’s why I introduced the Federal Retirement Fairness Act. It is a simple solution to this complex problem. Workers in this situation can make up for the years they didn’t pay into the retirement system with a one-time “catch up payment” which amounts to a deposit of 1.3 percent of their base pay for each year spent in temporary status, plus corresponding interest, and the amount the government would have contributed during those years, as calculated by the Office of Personnel Management....

This isn’t a new idea. Temporary employees who convert to permanent status have always had this problem. In fact, until 1989, permanent federal employees who started as temporary workers had the option to buy back years of retirement contributions to allow for an on-time retirement.

In 1989, the government converted to a new retirement system and the buy-back system expired. This issue was largely unnoticed, as workers up until now were covered under the old system. Today, as the generation of federal workers who lost this buy-back ability under the new system retire, many are just now realizing they are still years away from retirement at the level of benefits they expected...”

www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2018/04/its-time-fix-unfair-federal-retirement-rule/147830/?oref=river

Edit to add: I wonder if this applies to all of those term positions that just came out for SSA.

I wonder, is this 1.3% of current base pay?  Or 1.3% of base pay received during the years you are trying to buy back?  Either way, it would be a nice chunk of money going into FERS.

[SPN Lifer]

The deposit would be 1.3% of base pay received during the years you are trying to buy back.

[Serious, J.]

Thanks, SPN Lifer.

I'd do it even if they used my current base pay.

[SPN Lifer]

Apr 30, 2018 11:46:34 GMT -5 @usij said:

It’s Time to Fix an Unfair Federal Retirement Rule.

By Rep. Derek Kilmer (U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer represents Washington’s 6th congressional district. He serves on the House Appropriations Committee).

I introduced the Federal Retirement Fairness Act. It is a simple solution to this complex problem. Workers in this situation can make up for the years they didn’t pay into the retirement system with a one-time “catch up payment” which amounts to a deposit of 1.3 percent of their base pay for each year spent in temporary status, plus corresponding interest, and the amount the government would have contributed during those years, as calculated by the Office of Personnel Management.

www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2018/04/its-time-fix-unfair-federal-retirement-rule/147830/?oref=river

May 8, 2018 9:11:41 GMT -5 Serious, J. said:

I wonder, is this 1.3% of current base pay?  Or 1.3% of base pay received during the years you are trying to buy back?  Either way, it would be a nice chunk of money going into FERS.

May 8, 2018 9:51:40 GMT -5 SPN Lifer said:

The deposit would be 1.3% of base pay received during the years you are trying to buy back.

May 8, 2018 10:23:59 GMT -5 Serious, J. said:

Thanks, SPN Lifer.

I'd do it even if they used my current base pay.

For someone like me, the interest would be a much bigger issue, as my two-year federal judicial clerkship occurred near the beginning of my legal career.

As with you, I think it would be worth it.

For judicial clerkships, there is a provision where the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) may exempt positions of temporary or uncertain duration from FERS withholding and contributions.  5 U.S.C. § 8347(p), available at www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/8347 .

Presumably a subsequent employing agency could request the AO to remove the exemption and allow the employee to make a deposit including interest.

This option should indeed be open to all former temporary employees from whom FERS contributions were not withheld.

The law should be changed.

[SPN Lifer]

The Federal Retirement Fairness Act would only open this up to former temp employees who are currently employed by the federal government on the date the bill is enacted.

It would not apply to those who have left government service, to retirees, or to future employees.

H.R. 5389, 115th Cong. (2d Sess. 2018), § 2(b)(1), available at www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr5389/text .

GovTrack gives this bill a 5% likelihood of passage.