2:00 pm, March 29, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 15
       

  • Die at Your Desk Club has Immediate Openings!
    Celtic Wolf
    I would like to see managers and even low level executives be allowed to unionize. I am aware in some agencies they can join the union, yet have no representation. I am also sensitive to the plight of TSA and their efforts with unionization. Federal employees are not allowed to strike (remember the woes of the Air Traffic Controllers and PATCO). We (federal employees) have NARFE and our unions and management associations (even executives have SEA). Yet our bashing and threats to us continue. Our politicians made nice (yet worthless) speeches in Tucson. How can politicians applaud public service, ask us to provide Martin Luther King Day community service, and then do what you are doing (pay freeze, Hi-5, furlough, 2 for 3 hiring)? Many of us (CSRS with over 35 years and nearing 40) are concerned. We see our future being 'raped and pillaged'. We see our years of service being trivialized. We are being told we are of little value (until we are gunned down on the streets like dogs). Statistically speaking (remember yesterday Causey article), 142.68% of federal employees are disgusted with the media and the politicians for all the recent "bashing". Why can't they start picking on another profession like prostitutes (oh, they will not - why because that is what they are already).
    Celtic Wolf
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • unions and professional associations
    m
    "Based on the low percentage of federal workers who belong to unions or job-related professional groups, one could assume that feds are not, as a rule, joiners." Saying a great percentage of them are not "joiners" is a euphemistic way of saying a great percentage of them are coat-tailers or free-riders, who prefer to receive for nothing what their co-workers pay on their behalves. I say that of personal experience as a past union chapter president in an agency with a very few union members and as a past professional association president with relatively few members. Whether stronger unions and professional associations would make the difference in preserving current benefits is unknowable, but it couldn't hurt and it definitely helps when it is time to negotiate contracts and represent employees.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • FED Bashing
    Bud
    During my CSRS career(1967-2003);every Presidential Administration bashed federal employees.Carter was the worst,Nixon(yes him) may have treated us the best.And please remember that FERS was designed for people, mainly political appointees,who did not plan a 30 year career in government.Some OMB "genius" promoted FERS over CSRS as a cost saving measure and received a large cash award for the idea.I'll never forget the numbers of times people under CSRS were asked to convert to FERS.Very few did,so the FERS signup dates were extended.Then,CSRS Feds were required to start paying 1.45% for Medicare/Medicaid and the 7% CSRS deduction.So,if you're still a working Fed,please realize Fed bashing will never cease.Remember the 3 rules of politicans:1)Say/Do whatever it takes to get elected,2)Say/Do whatever it takes to get reelected,3)Make as much money as you can while in elected office without getting caught.If caught blame someone else.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Please do not complain
    Tom McKinney
    --CSRS retirees are blessed. CSRS employees contributed 7 percent of their salary and their employer contributed 7 percent--for a total of 14 percent for CSRS pensions. However, U.S. OPM reports that the percent contributed should have been 25 percent for CSRS retirees to receive the pension that are received. (Source: U.S. OPM's FY 2008 Agency Financial Report, page 59 under para Program Funding) You can view this report at www.opm.gov/gpra, then click on FY 2008 AFR--then scroll down to page 59.------ As a result of the underfunding, U.S. OPM states that there is an CSRS unfunded pension liabiltiy of $356.45 Billion as of 30 September 2009. (As of 30 September 2010 there is $780 Billion in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund).----------- We should all be thankful for the amount of pensions that we receive. Tom McKinney, Dunwoody, Georgia
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Yes, I will complain
    Moderate
    We were told to contribute 7% of our pay into the plan. We did so. so why change the rules in midstream? How many in private industry even contributed to their defined benefit plans when I was hired in the 1970's? Not many. I was hired to do a job and receive certain compensation. I did my job. So, I expect certain compensation.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Retirement?
    Jimmac
    Having been a civil servant since before it was popular, I deeply resent being made a scapegoat for Congress' immature inability to reach compromise. Former President Jimmy Carter ran against "Washington" and every politician since then has used the low road to election and reelection. Lately, the attack has turned to civil servants, who are charged with implementing the laws passed by the demagogues on the "Hill". This brings into sharp focus the need to reassess retirement options. When people ask me when am I going to retire (I have 38 years of service). I tell them I am on the "zipper retirement plan". When I hear them zipping up my bodybag, I know it is time to retire. This plan is the result of ignorant elected officials who failed basic civics class in school and do not understand the roles of the different branches of goverment. Someone needs to tell Congress their job is not to attack the pay and benefits of those who are doing what you ask. It is also basic economics that you get what you pay for.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Die at Your Desk Club
    LS
    As a long-time Human Resources employee, I have noticed the trend of employees sticking around long after retirement eligibility. Ten or fifteen years ago, most employees would retire shortly after gaining eligibility. It's not that way anymore. Maybe it's because employees are living longer and are generally in better health now. Maybe it is because their spouses have lost their jobs or their children are going to graduate school because they can't find jobs after graduation. Employee deaths are on the rise also. Employees covered by FERS continue to try to work even though they should apply for disability retirement. I'm seeing a lot more death cases for FERS employees than we used to get with CSRS employees. CSRS employees would retire when they became too ill to work. FERS employees are staying on the job, resulting in more deaths while still employed. This may be due to not having invested enough iin the TSP or to making poor investment choices. In such cases, the FERS pension by itself is not enough to meet retirement expenses.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Rodney Dangerfield
    contrarian
    LS: Please explain people not applying for disability when they should be?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • a reason not to apply for disability retirement
    m
    If what LS says about applications for disability retirement among FERS employees is true, then I imagine the explanation is that the benefits they would receive were they to go out on disability would not be enough to sustain them, so they continue to work though they might qualify for disability benefits.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Die on the Job Club
    LS
    There are two factors, in my opinion, for what is happening. First, as I stated above, the TSP is the key for FERS employees. If they have not fully participated and/or if they have invested poorly in it, they are going to not have enough income to make it on just the FERS pension. Secondly, FERS employees applying for disability retirement, must also apply for Social Security disability which has much tougher standards for approval than OPM's for FERS disability. The FERS disability retirement annuity is reduced from 60% of the high-3 average salary to 40% of the high-3 after the first year with the assumption that SS disability will be approved by then. If the retiree is not approved for SS disability, many low wage FERS employees can't make it on 40% of the high-3. Low wage FERS employees are also unlikely to have any substantial amount in their TSP accounts. Thus, they are prime candidates for the Die on the Job Club.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • FERS retired?
    Moderate
    I believe FERS people are less likely to retire when eligible because it does not pay. A CSRS employee with 30 years at 55 gets 56.25% of salary minus survivor benefit. A FERS employee gets 30% (33% at age 62) minus survivor benefit plus some social security supplement. Both people keep their TSP no matter what. At 40 years CSRS people get 76.25% of salary minus survivor benefit while FERS people get 40%(44%? if age 62-No sure if 40% can be exceeded) minus survivor benefit. plus a social security supplement. Both keep TSP. FERS people have less to lose by working due to the difference in the defined benefit pension.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • how many $$$ less with high-5 rather than high-3
    m
    "According to Congressional Research Service figures the high-3 to high-5 change would reduce the average benefit by $1,484 for feds retiring this year." Since CSRS employees get 2% of their final average salaries for each year worked beyond the initial 5, whereas FERS employees get roughly half that amount, either 1 or 1.1%, along with Social Security and their greater TSP amounts through the employer match, CSRS employees stand to lose almost twice as much as FERS employees who have worked an equal number of years at an equal salary. Now, that $1,484 number is an "average," meaning some will be more affected and others less so, the more affected, a lot more affected, will be CSRSers with the highest salaries and longest lengths of service. For them, $1,484 is a grossly misleading number. And even for those for whom that number is somewhere in the ballpark, that translates into a real loss over a lifetime of around $30K, figuring it on the basis of what an insurance company charges a 60-year old for a roughly comparable annuity.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }