When I went to work for the federal government in the early 80’s. The whole purpose of getting that job was for the benefits and job security. The pay wasn’t all that great. Now that has changed drastically over the past decade.
I also don't believe USA Today's (i.e. McPaper's) claim that the "average" Fed worker makes anything close to what they claim in their articles. They tried to back-peddle on their numbers, saying it included "benefits" but they never outlined them.
I a federal employee, but I worked private sector for 25 plus years first.
My salary just now made it to my 2002 private sector salary, even though my job is much more complex.
And the benefits....please, we use my DH’s insurance because the Fed plans cost way too much, and besides the life insurance which I pay for, that’s about it in benefits.
Yes and no. Technical jobs like IT or EE are usually lower than private sector. But there are lots of do nothing paper-pusher and middle management positions that don’t serve any useful function at all, so those would all be overpaid. And a lot of lower level administrative jobs get falsely labeled at higher level and so, yes, those are over paid. Like calling the file clerk a “Travel Specialist”. But it’s not across the board.
How far are they willing to take this?
Should the top echelons in the public sector get paid what the top echelons in the private sector are paid?