Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Building the Hybrid Cloud
- Connected Government: How to Build and Procure Network Services for the Future
- Continuing Diagnostics and Mitigation: Discussion of Progress and Next Steps
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- The Future of Government Data Centers
- The Future of IT: How CIOs Can Enable the Service-Oriented Enterprise
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Moving to the Cloud. What's the best approach for me
- Navigating Tough Choices in Government Cloud Computing
- The New Generation of Database
- Satellite Communications: Acquiring SATCOM in Tight Times
- Targeting Advanced Threats: Proven Methods from Detection through Remediation
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- The Truth About IT Opex and Software Defined Networking
- Value of Health IT
- Air Traffic Management Transformation Report
- Cloud First Report
- General Dynamics IT Enterprise Center
- Gov Cloud Minute
- Government in Technology Series
- Homeland Security Cybersecurity Market Report
- National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
- Technology Insights
- The Cyber Security Report
- The Next Generation Cyber Security Experts
Shows & Panels
Tuesday - 10/2/2012, 2:00am EDT
The proposed change has been around almost since Congress, a long time ago, changed the existing high-five formula to the high-three method. For the past couple of decades, the switch back to the high-five has been on some politicians "to-do list" list as a way to save money. Of course, it has never happened.
Six months ago, feds were also concerned that other benefits were on the chopping block: Various presidential and congressional panels recommended a variety of changes, including requiring feds (and retirees) to pay a bigger share of their health premiums, kicking in more toward their retirement funding and changing the formula used to compute cost-of-living adjustments for retirees.
The White House acted on one recommendation. It imposed a two-year federal pay freeze (rather than the recommended three-year freeze). More recently, the President proposed a 0.5 percent raise for January 2013. But Congress has since extended the freeze(via the just-approved continuing resolution). Technically the 2013 freeze runs only through March. And federal unions have pledged to work to get a retroactive raise. But that is unlikely to happen, and even the most publicly confident and militant concede that the upcoming freeze will continue through the end of next year.
Long-time fed watchers have been somewhat confused about the focus by so many workers on going from the high-five to the high-three. In the first place, the "threat" has been around for decades. But it never happened or even got legs. Also the "cost" to workers would be minimal in most cases. In some instances — especially during the period of a prolonged pay freeze — workers would only have to work a little longer, in some cases months, to bring their high-five benefit up to what it would have been under the more generous high-three.
Benefits expert Tammy Flanagan says she thinks the long- threatened high-three to high-five switch is something people can focus on and understand. Other proposals, like upping employee/retirement health-plan costs and deliberalizing future inflation adjustments would be much more costly to workers and retirees — and save the government more money.
Flanagan and tax expert Bob Leins talked about the legislative options facing feds on yesterday's For Your Benefit radio program. To listen, click here.
Now the fear du jour is sequestration. Congress has switched gears and set up a Dr. Strangelove-type mechanism that will automatically trigger an 8.1 percent governmentwide spending cut in early January unless Congress and the White House can come up with a deficit-reduction plan to disarm the ticking sequestration time bomb.
So, for now, feds no longer have to worry about changes in their retirement formula.
Instead the immediate threat is sequestration. If it happens, it could mean extended (up to 20 days) furloughs for some employees and, worst-case scenario, layoffs for others. It is also entirely possible, given the confused political climate, that Congress at the last minute decides to simply make sequestration go away. Never a dull moment!
NEARLY USELESS FACTOID
By Jack Moore
Coffee can be deadly if you drink 80 to 100 cups, or about 6 gallons, "in quick succession," Life's Little Mysteries reports.
MORE FROM FEDERAL NEWS RADIO
USPS agrees to buyout plan with postal
The Postal Service and one of its largest unions reached an agreement today to offer a $15,000 retirement incentive to full-time career employees.
Roth TSP now open to active-duty
As of Monday, active-duty members of the Army, Navy and Air Force can now participate in the Roth Thrift Savings Plan option.
VA's Sepulveda resigns
one day before IG conference spending report
John Sepulveda, the chief human capital officer at the Veterans Affairs Department, resigned Sunday - one day before the agency's inspector general is expected to release a final report on two human resources conferences last year that cost the department $5 million.
Agencies could be liable
for certain costs under sequestration
Agencies will be liable for many of the costs coming from the termination of contracts, according to new OMB guidance.
Most workplace violence
at agencies committed by federal employees
Current and former federal employees account for more than half of the workplace violence in their agencies, according to a new analysis of Merit System Protection Board data. Of the federal employees who reporting observing workplace violence, 54 percent identified current and ex-employees as the perpetrators. MSPB pulled the finding from its 2010 Merit Principles Survey.