Why Federal Workers Deserve What They're Paid

The Washington Post ^ | February 3, 2010 | Joe Davidson

[Poundstone]

Excerpt: The budget answers critics, including Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican senator from Massachusetts, who say federal civilians earn much more than private-sector workers. There's a reason for that. Federal workers are better educated.

"The Federal Government hires lawyers to tackle corruption, security professionals to monitor our borders, doctors to care for our injured veterans, and world-class scientists to combat deadly diseases such as cancer," the budget says. "Because of these vital needs, the Federal Government hires a relatively highly educated workforce, resulting in higher average pay."

Consider these stats: Twenty percent of federal workers have a master's, professional or doctorate degree, compared with 13 percent in the private sector. Fifty-one percent of federal employees have a college degree of some sort, but only 35 percent do in the private sector.

Frankie and Flo may not be smarter than other folks, but they do have more schooling, and they get paid accordingly. They are also substantially older, and that contributes to higher pay -- 46 percent of federal employees are 50 or older, compared with 31 percent of private-sector workers.

Although the section doesn't say so, comparing overall federal and private-sector pay is misleading in another way, because Uncle Sam doesn't employ many people at the bottom of the wage scale the way industry does.

Job-for-job comparisons tell a completely different story. In fact, government figures indicate that federal employees are underpaid by 26 percent compared with their counterparts in similar position in the business world.

[from occupied ga]

There's always someone around who imagines that federal employees do nothing all day and still get paid.

Not quite right. We imagine federal employees do nothing that anyone would pay them for in the private sector (ie nothing of value) and still get paid.

[TnGOP]

Is this factoring in their cadillac insurance plans, insane retirement benefit packages

The insane retirement plans ended around 1985, at least for the Postal Service. Anyone employed after that falls under FERS, not Civil Service - and gets a modest retirement package.

The "cadillac" insurance plans aren't even offered by the Postal Service OR the Union. I don't even take their insurance. My wife has a better (and yes, cadillac) plan from her work.

All is not as it seems, and as rumor would have it.

[KC_Conspirator]

This article is inside the Beltway BS.

[Polybius]

..... that are immigrants or first-generation of immigrants. (AKA “affirmative action hires”)

You're an idiot, Cletus, regardless of where your grandfather was born.

Immigrant

Immigrant

"first-generation of immigrants"

"first-generation of immigrants"

[jessduntno]

“Go do some research about the difference between SES (Special Executive Service) and GS/WG (General Service and Wage Grade) employees, then post. With all due respect, you don’t seem to have a clue what you’re talking about.”

Really? What was the post about? Just one of these groups, or was it about workers in aggregate? With all due respect, I know PLENTY about this subject...which do you want to get specific about, because this original response was specific to neither. Enlighten me.

[MortMan]

The article misstates the criticism.

Federal civilian workers earn more than non-government employees doing the same work.

The article then argues bovine excrement regarding the relative education. After all, I’m quite certain that Bristol-Myers Squibb doesn’t hire high school dropouts to research cancer cures. But the article appears to assert this as “fact” in its defense of the bloated payscales.

[astyanax]

'...federal employees are underpaid by 26 percent compared with their counterparts in similar position in the business world."
Too funny! So THAT explains why all those "highly educated" and motivated gov't workers are clamoring for private sector jobs!

[Terabitten]

Oh yes. You are so right. I renewed my driver’s license last week and there were dozens of rocket surgeons behind the counter. Their politeness and efficiency made them worth every bit of their $100k/yr salary.

You do realize, of course, that the article was about Federal workers, but your li'l rant here is about state workers? They're NOT the same.

[TnGOP]

FACT: With few exceptions, they're working for the government because they can't make it in the private sector. FACT: They're better paid because of unions, control of funding and cronyism.

FACT: Most are working there because they had an opportunity for a good paying job - took it, and held on to it.

FACT: OK, you got me on this one. Spot on! We hate the Union!

[MortMan]

Any argument that talks about all “Federal Workers” explicitly includes the slackers and the productive.

Much the same as any article that discusses any large company’s workforce covers the mail room to the executive washroom.

[jessduntno]

“The insane retirement plans ended around 1985, at least for the Postal Service. “

Gee, I didn’t realize this was about the postal service...I thought it was addressing the broad spectrum...

And by the way, if it is true that it is so dismal, why is there so much more competition and nepotism for many of the the jobs, instead of the great ones available in the private sector?

[achilles2000]

PING

[achilles2000]

PINGYears of institutionalization don’t equal “education”, nor do degrees - nor are all degrees equal within the same specialty or across specialties.

Nobody in his right mind would think, for example, that the average VA doctor is as competent as the average private practice doctor (unless you have never dealt with the VA).

I would also point out that graduate degrees in areas such as “education” and anything with a “studies” in the name have a negative value and are warning signs of credulous minds stuffed with things that aren’t true. Government abounds with these people who produce negative value added. A high school student with good CAD skills or a Microsoft certification is more “educated” that any of these people, if we are looking at education as meaning the ability to add value.

Moreover, the value of someone’s effort depends on how it is used. Even a great legal mind drafting regulations to implement Barney Frank’s plans for “affordable” housing is producing negative value.

The article is just propaganda to justify high salaries and benefits for government drone work.

[VeniVidiVici]

The chapter also counters those who might see a growing federal workforce as an indication that government is getting too big. In 1988, when Ronald Reagan, that champion of small government, was president, there was one federal employee for every 110 residents. Twenty years later, the ratio was one to 155.

Actually there is a very simple reason for this and either the author is being disingenuous or ignorant. The size of the military has gone down considerably between Reagan and Obama. They are federal employees too.

The problem with the Feds is the number of people employed. There are so many layabouts in each office that would be fired in the private sector but whose poor performance gets covered up and the slack taken up by employees that actually care to see the job get done.

[SoCal Pubbie]

For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that Federal employees work as hard or harder than private sector workers, are more educated on average than private sector workers, and are underpaid as compared to private sector workers. With those points in mind, I have two simple questions:

1. What percentage of current Federal workers are necessary for the smooth, safe, and prosperous functioning of our nation?

2. Should the Federal workforce increase, so should some Federal workers be let go?

[vwbug]

Where else can you go with your Liberal Arts degree? McDonalds?

[elk]

Well, seeing as this article is from the Washington Post, whose readers are...ahem....federal workers, whaddya' expect?

It's the 80-20 principle, if you ask me. Twenty-percent of the people doing 80% of the work. There are some constitutional functions of government which I am glad to pay taxes for. The other, what, 95% of entitlement expenditures, ACORN payments, and such, needs to be taken to the dumpster.

Anyone who lives "Inside the Beltway" knows about the shenanigans inside fed gov't employment: minorities suing minorities for discrimination, people who climb the GS ladder just by breathing, PhD's getting in at GS-9, and a whole bunch of inexperienced people who think they should be in charge and promoted.

OTOH, there are hard workers out there - hat's off to both of them (just kidding; I think there are more than 2).

[bvw]

I’ve worked with and right next to Federal employees they really are NOT any different than everyone else. Except AFTER they have worked for the FedGov for some years. Then, yes, many of them — MOST of them are lazy indulgent goldbrickers who think of themselves as entitled and underpaid, even when it is obvious to outsiders like me that most would make less in private business, and — once they are there in FedGov and have become inured in the culture — they think they have so much greater ability than the lowly private sectors scrappers and drecks.

This is an article from the VOICE OF FEDGOV — the WASHINGTON POST! It’s sick. It’s a massive public self mastrubation-fest of an article.

[Republic of Texas]

The country would be better off if they did nothing all day. The problem is that they actually do some work, work that slowly destroys the country.

[jwalsh07]

Just keeping it real.