Lawmaker targets step increases

A Republican lawmaker has introduced a bill that would end step increases for federal employees for the rest of this year, according to a report in Federal Daily.

The bill, by Rep. Martha Roby, (R-Ala.), would "put an end to the budget gimmicks and procedural trickery" in Congress, she said.  

 

About the Author

Connect with the FCW staff on Twitter @FCWnow.

Who's Fed 100-worthy?

Nominations are now open for the 2015 Federal 100 awards. Get the details and submit your picks!

Featured

Reader comments

Tue, Jun 12, 2012 David WI

I find it hard to believe that the Government, that I defended so heartily and for twenty years, is going to stop cost of living raises and maybe even step increases to save, fix or help he so call budget. I see many ways to stop the growth of the US Budget and stopping the cost of living and step increases is not going to even have an effect. First NO deficient spending just like we do in our households. Stop paying for people in prison, MAKE them earn their keep. Stop giving money to people from foreign countries to start business here in the USA. Wait have we looked at the increase in the pay of our House and Senate? How about the welfare program that has been failing for over forty-five years or longer. People here go on welfare with one child and they get a certain amount of money. Wait now they have more children without having a job or even looking for a job, get more money and this goes on or that person for years. I know I grew up in the welfare program and I know how much waist there is and abuse of the funds. We are also looking at NO Social Security when I retire and I have paid into it since I was 15, well that is 36 years and I still have 10-15 years to so called retirement. The Government throws a lot of money away on programs that do not work or will not help people or fix the problems in society. I am proud to serve my country, in the military and now as a Government employee. I ask the all US citizens open their eyes, get all the facts and then speak out to the ones that are making these changes and inform them of what we all want….a balanced budget that is fair and for the people of USA not for the politicians to get rich or benefit from. I ask can we make a change?

Thu, Feb 9, 2012

I am so sick and tired of paying the price for Government spending. A little GS-6 step 9 cannot even support a family in South Carolina.

Wed, Feb 8, 2012

I will be 60 this month and am eligible to retire with an age/year combo. I gave up my 30s and 40s (no marriage, no children - I didn't have time for relationships) to serve my country - working 10-12 hour days to help U.S. businesses. I have been topped out for over three years so the only increase I got was cost of living (although depending on what projects I was assigned (and they are making a point of assigning a lot of projects to favorites and younger folks so they can get trained before the baby boomers walk out the door), I did get a bonus). Well, cost of living increases are gone - there are no step increases for me, and now I have to pay an extra $90 a month for transportation. Don't get me wrong, I am happy to have a job considering the millions of unemployed and I am glad to get any transit subsidy (that my private sector friends also get). I know I speak for many Federal employees when I say that we didn't mind "paying our fair share" to help out our country. However, enough is enough. You can get rid of all Feds - but you won't. You'll keep Defense and DHS - DOD from what I understand is over 50% of the Federal workforce and DHS is huge so the effect on the deficit will be practically nil by getting rid of the rest of us. What you are trying to do is make Federal employment so bad that people like me will leave, but you will also ensure that we no longer get the best and the brightest to serve our country - including DoD and DHS. I chose Federal service - I have an MBA - I could have gone elsewhere. And, trust me, people with an MBA and my experience are making a heck of a lot more money in the private sector than I am! So, to wrap this ramble up, I think that Congress should not get retirement benefits unless they reach the age/year combination. No more retirement for life with short service - the same rules other Feds live by should be the same for you! I would love to leave Federal service and save the country my "huge" salary and benefits (costs to me have gone up every year - some of my private sector friends have employer fully paid health insurance), but I have to stick it out until 62 (when I can collect SS) because I won't have enought to live on if I go now (I will get 27% of my salary plus what I can take out of the TSP). I am under FERS which was created to save the government money as compared to CSRS - but even that seems to be too "generous" now. So, thanks so much Rep. Roby for valuing my service to my country - I hope your consituents value yours. I am glad that your proposed bill will not affect me but I look at others around me that will be totally demoralized as we, Federal employees, are portrayed as the cause of all the country's financial woes and unfairly vilified.

Wed, Feb 8, 2012 Former Republican Voter

The ability to delay or deny a step increase has always been one of the tools available to management for turning around a less than adequate worker. So now this Congressperson wants to deny management that tool. To the worker the message is clear… "If you perform diligently and to the best of your abilities, you will be treated exactly the same as someone who goofs off the whole day. You may as well take a nap."

Wed, Feb 8, 2012 Cornelia

Freezing step increases is terrible management of the Federal workforce. This will penalize middle class workers by taking away the small "step increases" that serve to remunerate them for senority (which means retention of skills by the Government). It will not eliminate the deficit or even significantly reduce it, but will probably decrease retention (and therefore institutional knowledge), decrease the number of high-ability peaople who are willing to take Government jobs, and further demoralize the workforce. A few people have made sarcastic comments here to the effect that, "if Feds think there are so many great jobs for more money in the private sector, then they should just quit and go there." In my experience, they do! I have known and currently know a significant number of highly competent, senior, federal employees who either have or are defecting to the private sector for more money. Generally they are the people who have the experience needed to train the next generation of Feds. They are also the people who are the hardest to replace because their skills were gained through years of experience. Once they are gone, they may not stay with the initial private sector job for long, but they usually leave for another, better, opportunity-- frequently working as consultants on a short-term basis for multiple firms. Often times they leave a serious knowledge gap in their previous Federal agencies. I have routinely seen situations where the tasks performed by a Federal position have to be completely reconstructed, almost from scratch, when one of these people "retires" to the private sector. The Government does a terrible job of documenting the requirements of a job and then scrambles when the person with the knowledge to perform it leaves. Often the people leave because they not only will make more money outside the Government, but feel under appreciated because of bills like this one that show a complete lack of regard for the value of Federal Employees. Unfortunately, the people who are the MOST likely to remain in the Federal Government, as wages fall with respect to inflation, are the least competent. The people with the fewest opportunities are the ones who are the least likely to "defect". They have the fewest opportunities because no one else wants to hire them! It's just basic supply and demand-- the best people are the hardest to keep. If the Government continues to reduce the compensation of Federal employees, they will (a) have a harder time recruiting high quality young people (but have no trouble recruiting mediocre people), (b) lose senior people with institutional knowledge, and (c) lose the "best and brightest" to the private sector while retaining the folks that the private sector sees as "a dime a dozen". That's just how economics works...... Maybe it's not politically popular, but economics and politics are not the same, as much as some people seem to wish them to be......

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above