Skip to comments.Vanity--Why are public workers always furloughed instead of having their wages reduced?
Posted on 03/23/2013 10:30:46 AM PDT by Hebrews 11:6
Every time a government has a budget shortfall, the remedy is always to furlough or even to lay off workers. But all those workers could be retained and the job get done by simply reducing their pay-rates commensurately.
I understand that furloughing and laying off generates publicity and exerts pressure. But why does no one ever offer the pay-cut alternative? Why not, for example, an across-the-board 10% pay-cut?
I understand that many governments employees are stupidly permitted to belong to unions that can strike over pay issues, Wisconsin and Indiana notwithstanding, and that public-sector unions have contracts. Isn't it time to begin insisting that pay-cut provisions be written into these contracts?
I think they do furloughs, not only because it is a way to do a cut now and pay the money back later, but because it has no affect on the basic pay structure.
In federal employment, getting a pay cut might be like getting demoted, I think, because you would go down a step or two or even a grade, unless a whole new schedule was used. Then it would also mess with your retirement benefit, which is keyed to the amount of time you spent at your highest pay grade. (The retirement benefit is a savings plan with employer and employee contributions.)
It might also mess with your job description and authority. For example, if you are a senior attorney, a GS 15, you have some responsibilities that junior attorneys, 11 or 12, don’t have. If you go down, how does that affect the pecking order/assignments, etc?
Demwits are nothing if not dramatic. Laying them off is more dramatic than cutting wages and salaries.
While you’re at it, just eliminate any notion of a bilateral contract.
If you work for government and are in a union I think the law requires payback. I knew a couple of civilian government employees at the Defense School in Monterey when the government shut down in the 90s. They were off for a couple of weeks, but got back pay.
Just so we can all have the joy of relishing your incisive logic, can you see through your disdain enough to present a coherent supporting argument here, rather than simply spewing insult?
Nothing wrong in reducing the salary levels of respective job positions, but it also takes time, just as it took time for them to escalate.
FWIW, Antichristians, Blacks, Women, Lesbians, Gays, have all been promoted to GS12-13 positions with little more than HS diplomas, while white male professionals with graduate degrees and 20yrs experience in the professions rarely are promoted above GS11, and generally only if they are not Christian. It’s a good ol boys club, and those with virtue are set up and worked around by the back office crowd.
If you want to bring back efficiency, first remove the antiChristian bias out of the workplace.
In efforts to reduce costs, simple percentages are now passed down the chain of command.
Every year, reduce your resources by 10%.
Does anybody review the resources with their missions? Rarely.
Our vehicle pool has been reduced down to 3 vehicles per 50 people to run all the utilities, prepare scopes of work, inspect, direct, maintain, repair, and build any facilities supporting a 20,000 personnel population. That is now being reduced to 2 vehicles next year and one the following year.
We now are required to remove PCs from the desktops by similar percentages. 10% one year, another 10% the next.
Nobody decides who’s will be removed as everybody is working on them from the office.
Do we share? Sure, but productivity drops even further.
We already buy own administrative supplies, and we don’t have cafeteria plans.
Our pay is half industry standards and we are forced to pay contractors wages for no skilled labor at rates about twice our hourly salaries.
We already have been working 60-80 hrs/week for the last 12 years and now only receive OT or CompTime perhaps one in 4 hours spent if we are lucky. That has now been eliminated.
Where some of us had alternate working schedules, 4-10hr days vice 5-8 hr days, we are looking at have to go to 4- 8 hr days, while we still commute over 70 miles one way to work. So we don’t really even get the opportunity to find a side job to make up the furlough differential.
Younger hires (within the last 5 years) also face the first RIF layoffs and are also paid initially as college degreed professionals near minimum wage as GS5s.
Additionally, if we are in debt, we are told we can lose our jobs. So credit card debt is not an option.
Might I suggest that instead of reducing our pay, just go back to full time conscription and also provide the full healthcare and amenities WWII Privates to Corporals received. They had more guarantees of a future than present DoD civilians receive, except those who retired and are drawing a double paycheck.
We don’t have many freedoms or liberties anyways and those in authority have less virtue than mid level ranked officers in WWII.
Obviously, furloughs reduce pay, but they also reduce productivity.
We WANT their productivity reduced 100%.
Past furloughs have been the consequence of Congress and the Executive Branch not producing an Annual operating budget on time, resulting with no legitimate authority to pay government employees.
Different games were played to keep essential services alive, but generally the authority to hire employees rests upon the authority of Congress to approve the budget authorizing the Executive Branch to pay the bills.
When they were late, and employees were furloughed because of the late budget approval, the politicians quickly approved some form of payment to those who had relied on Congress meeting their timelines. Congress found it simpler to just pay the normal pay than to further account the issue.
The present situation is different.
By Law, if the budget isn’t balanced to a certain degree, then automatic cuts are forced on governmental agencies.
To some extent, the services are deciding how to distribute those cuts.
In DoD, the emphasis is mission accomplishment, and DoD is able to furlough civilians up to 22 days without forcing a RIF. That’s why they are issuing the furloughs.
Believe me, even the flag ranks haven’t fully thought through the consequences.
FWIW, in contract services and MILCON alone, there is a strong likelihood that the costs the government from this furlough will be 3-5x greater over the next 5 years in contract claims, equitable adjustments, undocumented work, and poor quality uninspected work. It will also slow down maintenance and repair work, with many utilities tottering on loss of functionality.
Worse, there will likely continue into next year more furloughs, RIF, early outs, and loss of corporate knowledge. Training costs and logistics costs will escalate.
More badwill than goodwill evolves from this evolution. Lots of quality employees will leave the workforce, while the less qualified will strengthen their unionized positions.
The military operational costs are also severe.
Up till now we haven’t really seen the enemy operating in our own back yards. Add that into the mix, with domestic enemies competing with foreign enemies, and it’s going to be a new century for our little nation.
This, from your description, doesn't sound as though it has much applicability to your situation, but an example is the schoolteacher making $84,000 annually for nine/ten months' work who complained to Gov. Christie; he responded, "So, go do something else!" That's the boat we're all in.
I haven’t noticed a reduction in services from any government agency. Even with the mandatory furloughs. I’d say, just terminate the workers that aren’t needed.
You’re right, the lower grades with children are going to get hit hard.
Totally, different situation, Bay. This isn’t a government shutdown.
If we do get back pay, I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong.
You no absolutely NOTHING on how the federal government works. You say a simple wrong solution to a problem. You are a conservative and are supposed to educate people on how it works and you provide information that is not realistic. You CANNOT just lower government workers pay without Congress passing a LAW! They can’t even pass a budget and you expect them to fight the Unions and figure a way to lower pay? Really? Once you give reasonable information that can be used then of course I will be impressed.
OK, your highness. My, you are certainly a pleasure to discuss things with. How’s everything else going?
Good. I hope things are good with you too. I sorta take government workers personally because I am one...lol. Although I am at the Naval Academy, they lump us all together as a big ugly government worker group. I am sorry for being snarky and nasty.
Have you ever been furloughed? I work in private industry, so we don't furlough--we cut wages. I even had to cut my own wages.
Here's something crazy that I wonder: might someone who is furloughed actually rather take a pay-cut, in order to finish the job? I mean someone with a keen sense of duty, who is conscious of working "as unto the Lord." Having had my rate but not my hours cut, I think that's how I'd feel. What do you think?
I’m eager to learn ... talk to me.
I’m sure you’ve heard the axiom, “it would require an act of Congress,” for something unlikely to happen.