Govt Work at Home May Be Over

[SamSpade]

Why is that a strange idea? It's cost effective to hire out the menial jobs because their employers don't have to give them 11 holidays, 5 weeks of leave, 2.5 weeks of sick, a pension, and 401k matching so they can make a profit while still charging the government less than the cost of a civil servant.

That's sensible. I guess when I think about it, the security guards - ground crew or cleaning crew - food vendors - and anyone else who works in one of the buildings like say, for the credit union - don't wear badges that the rest of us wear. And that actually makes sense. They do however comprise a sliver of the persons I have any regular contact with.

My guess is, it has a lot to do with the different kind of environment my workplace is, from a military base. Unless you're over in Navy Intelligence - you'll never see anyone in the military. Like ever. There's no planes or weaponry or anything that requires much physical labor. There's a loading dock - but no warehouse. There are no civilians or military living there. There's no chapel, or officer's club, or golf course or any kind of rec center. PAX is like a small city.

It totally makes sense NOT to give the full federal employment package to the persons I mentioned above.

But the environment I typicaly work in is office after office, floor upon floor, building upon building of wall to wall geeks and propeller heads of which I swear I must be far down the ladder, because when so many talk math or stats, I just glaze over. Menial labor isn't the cleaning crew - who come at night - it's the schmuck whose job is to submit jobs and write documentation and maintain web pages with reports. The folks who have clearly demonstrated they shouldn't be doing the coding "get" to do the irrititating work.

If I'm wrong, then I'll admit it, but I think where I work is fairly far afield from a typical day at PAX.

The government pays much more to employ those workers directly.

Agreed. I don't normally see any of these people, except possibly in passing, and still sparingly.

On the other hand It is typically not cost effective to hire out knowledge workers / skilled labor / white collar jobs because employers provide most all those same benefits (sans the pension, but usually much higher 401k match) and pay 30-50% more in salary and also need to make a profit.

For long term assignments, you're correct - they actually cost more to hire. Which is why most of the time, they're hired VERY SHORT TERM. Write some Oracle features - teach a team to convert programs to Python - rewrite an app written in a legacy language into something modern (all actual situations). And then they're gone. I only know of ONE person on contract that has been there a long time - that person is the representative from the company whose statistical language we use. Easily worth his weight in gold.

And yes, we have heard you say a million times you don't work at Pax. Guess what? We don't care. There's like 10k+ employees at Pax in a metro area of like 100k people. That's 1 in 10 works on the base, so if you say you're a government employee that lives in the area of course it's going to be assumed you work on base.

And I get that, and it's not unreasonable, although after more than thirty years, sometimes I don't say anything. It wasn't necessary in the 80's and early 90's when I lived around DC, so the first few years took some getting used to. I typically only bring it up - when someone brings up something or - chastises me for not knowing something. I've had more than one person assume I can get on base with my government badge.

It's only frustrating when say, a friend or acquaintance will invite my kid to a birthday party - on base - or a wedding - on base - or a retirement party - on base - and yeah, I get it, all of their friends are there. It's not strange to find it a little frustrating.

 

[SamSpade]

You could be right about the pension being a small part.

It can be a much LARGER part - if the fed will be like ME - having served forty years. 1.1% per year of service.

My Dad was CSRS. He retired - well - very well off, financially.

 

[glhs837]

I don't how that's possible. I know in the private sector there is no way you can expense those things back to your employer. Those are called the price you pay for the privilege of working from home. I can't imagine you can do that in the government either.

So I've not had a desk phone since 2020. My personal cell is the only number I have. Nobody has ever offered to offset my monthly phone bill.

For long term assignments, you're correct - they actually cost more to hire. Which is why most of the time, they're hired VERY SHORT TERM. Write some Oracle features - teach a team to convert programs to Python - rewrite an app written in a legacy language into something modern (all actual situations). And then they're gone. I only know of ONE person on contract that has been there a long time - that person is the representative from the company whose statistical language we use. Easily worth his weight in gold.

Lots of folks on Pax, which I think is over 20K people now, including military. And if there more are 1,500 military I would be surprised. Why do program offices use a lot of contractors? Got me. But I know I've been in the role I've been in for 10 years now. Previous role on base was eight years as a ordnance test tech, three years before that maintaining aircraft. Six years off base but still supporting a program. About half our 12 person team is contractors. And we have more longevity than a lot the civil servants and military. They roll out after a while as the govt wants them well rounded.

We have six test squadrons, and Test Pilot School. NAVAIRSYSCOM, and most of the program offices that support the aircraft and system platforms. Test engineering, laboratories doing materials and other sciences. Prototype fabrication, an entire organization devoted to the overwater test ranges, tracking, clearance, recovery. I've been luckier than most that my oddball career has exposed to quite a lot of it.

 

[SamSpade]

So I've not had a desk phone since 2020. My personal cell is the only number I have. Nobody has ever offered to offset my monthly phone bill.

Ours are all integrated into the computer network - the number follows you from desk to desk. Our desk phones are a lot more like smart phones - they have more features than I've been able to figure out - about the only feature is the equivalent of GPS. I do have to LOG IN to the phone though, every day.

They roll out after a while as the govt wants them well rounded.

I wish we were more on the ball with this. When there's budget cuts, first thing to go is TRAINING, new hires, travel and machine and software upgrades. About every ten years, we will find ourselves sorely behind in some area. (For instance, I think our desktops were still using XP as late as 2011 - on the mainframe servers, we used to ALWAYS be several versions behind in everything). But I am not sure how this would work - some of the stuff I work on, it's just me and a handful of guys who know how it works, since it's not a plane or guidance system - but someone's mathematical model. Well rounded for me usually means, we have to help some other area - now that we're on a hiring freeze and the threat of attrition and early retires, all programs ALREADY understaffed are looking to pirate others to complete their projects. Basically, more work for the rest of us slobs.

 

[glhs837]

Ours are all integrated into the computer network - the number follows you from desk to desk. Our desk phones are a lot more like smart phones - they have more features than I've been able to figure out - about the only feature is the equivalent of GPS. I do have to LOG IN to the phone though, every day.


I wish we were more on the ball with this. When there's budget cuts, first thing to go is TRAINING, new hires, travel and machine and software upgrades. About every ten years, we will find ourselves sorely behind in some area. (For instance, I think our desktops were still using XP as late as 2011 - on the mainframe servers, we used to ALWAYS be several versions behind in everything). But I am not sure how this would work - some of the stuff I work on, it's just me and a handful of guys who know how it works, since it's not a plane or guidance system - but someone's mathematical model. Well rounded for me usually means, we have to help some other area - now that we're on a hiring freeze and the threat of attrition and early retires, all programs ALREADY understaffed are looking to pirate others to complete their projects. Basically, more work for the rest of us slobs.

We need those models. The issue we run into is that when the budgets get cut, there's pressure to rely solely on models, or reduce the amount of testing we perform to validate the models.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Yeah I knew that the government pension plans changed sometime in the 80's. Isn't it also true that people in the old CSRS system were not eligible for SS and that changed with the FERS pension system?

You could be right about the pension being a small part. But still it is something. Private sector pensions have gone through a lot of changes as well. The government FERS still gives you a monthly payment in addition to SS. Most private sector jobs don't have that anymore. Those that do still provide pensions are mostly lump sum pensions. I think a bigger enticement is health care for life which the gov pays at 72% once you are vested after 5 years. I think you have to be in that plan for 5 years when you retire. Not sure if that is the same if you work for the gov and leave for another job.

CSRS don't pay into SS, many will then work 10 years to get 40 quarters so they get SS payments. Because the pension is considered a windfall their SS payment is then halved. They also did not get matching in their TSP.

To me the biggest disadvantage of FERS over CSRS is that full retirement age went from 55 to 62, minimum retirement age is 57. At 57 you also qualify for a social security supplement which gives you 50% of what you would get if you were 62, a pretty nice supplement if you ask me, this should be about $1k extra per month till eligible for SS.

 

[Czar]

yea

Case closed.

 

[Clem72]

It can be a much LARGER part - if the fed will be like ME - having served forty years. 1.1% per year of service.

My Dad was CSRS. He retired - well - very well off, financially.

Every time they mess with the pension it's to make it worse. Every single time. CSRS was a pretty good deal, though it did max out at 80% of pay. But you never had to pay into social security and you could still do an IRA/TSP w/o match (in the later years)/Roth IRA.

FERS is only 1% a year (or 1.1% if you wait until 62 to retire), so unless you work 73 years you won't match CSRS pension. People will say the CSRS 7% pension contribution (vs FERS 0.8 to 4.4) and lack of 5% TSP matching makes up the difference, but I would argue the overwhelming advantage of not paying social security was still a better deal. Hell I know many feds who complain about the 4.4% and would rather not have a pension and get the extra 4.4% as a match in the TSP or just keep the income.

Now all the new bills they keep coming out with, all trying to make it worse to the point of being an active disadvantage.

High 5 years instead of 3. This is not terrible as many people are salary capped at the end of their careers, but it's still going to be an impact.
They have proposed removing cost of living adjustments entirely from retirement pay, and they want to remove the locality pay from retirement calculations. This alone ensures that the pension is basically worthless and absolutely worthless if you live more than 15 years or so in retirement.
They proposed removing the SS offset, which affects people with 30 years of service who retire before 62.
They have proposed moving the grandfathered people to 4.4% contributions (so a pay cut of 3.6%) while placing new employees in a two-tiered system that either makes them at-will (less workplace protections) or they must contribute a much higher percentage to FERS. At that point they should let people opt out of the pension altogether, it's literally a disincentive to work for the federal government.
They want to remove the employers pay-share of healthcare in retirement (basically make it COBRA) so you can end up like one of my buddies in California where his health insurance literally costs more than his entire 24 year pension pays.
And on, and on, and on.

 

[Clem72]

CSRS don't pay into SS, many will then work 10 years to get 40 quarters so they get SS payments. Because the pension is considered a windfall their SS payment is then halved. They also did not get matching in their TSP.

Biden signs windfall elimination provision repeal into law

The Social Security Fairness Act ends both the WEP and the government pension offset, increasing the Social Security checks for more than 2 million retired public servants.

www.govexec.com

I take it back, one positive change to a federal retirement system in the last 50 years.

 

[SamSpade]

Every time they mess with the pension it's to make it worse. Every single time. CSRS was a pretty good deal, though it did max out at 80% of pay. But you never had to pay into social security and you could still do an IRA/TSP w/o match (in the later years)/Roth IRA.

FERS is only 1% a year (or 1.1% if you wait until 62 to retire), so unless you work 73 years you won't match CSRS pension. People will say the CSRS 7% pension contribution (vs FERS 0.8 to 4.4) and lack of 5% TSP matching makes up the difference, but I would argue the overwhelming advantage of not paying social security was still a better deal. Hell I know many feds who complain about the 4.4% and would rather not have a pension and get the extra 4.4% as a match in the TSP or just keep the income.

Now all the new bills they keep coming out with, all trying to make it worse to the point of being an active disadvantage.

High 5 years instead of 3. This is not terrible as many people are salary capped at the end of their careers, but it's still going to be an impact.
They have proposed removing cost of living adjustments entirely from retirement pay, and they want to remove the locality pay from retirement calculations. This alone ensures that the pension is basically worthless and absolutely worthless if you live more than 15 years or so in retirement.
They proposed removing the SS offset, which affects people with 30 years of service who retire before 62.
They have proposed moving the grandfathered people to 4.4% contributions (so a pay cut of 3.6%) while placing new employees in a two-tiered system that either makes them at-will (less workplace protections) or they must contribute a much higher percentage to FERS. At that point they should let people opt out of the pension altogether, it's literally a disincentive to work for the federal government.
They want to remove the employers pay-share of healthcare in retirement (basically make it COBRA) so you can end up like one of my buddies in California where his health insurance literally costs more than his entire 24 year pension pays.
And on, and on, and on.

Yoi know - I often wonder why federal workers always seem to be a favorite place to trim money, when it’s just not that significant cost to maintain.

We all know what’s draining the treasury - and it’s entitlements. But no one wants to fix it.

 

[phreddyp]

Yoi know - I often wonder why federal workers always seem to be a favorite place to trim money, when it’s just not that significant cost to maintain.

We all know what’s draining the treasury - and it’s entitlements. But no one wants to fix it.

It's because they are overpaid, over benefited and under worked.

 

[Clem72]

It's because they are overpaid, over benefited and under worked

Your mom is under worked, send her my way.

 

[phreddyp]

Your mom is under worked, send her my way.

My mom is dead have her your way sicko.

 

[RoseRed]

My mom is dead have her your way sicko.

:snort:

Sorry about your mom.

 

[phreddyp]

Sorry Sam and others, this is what the vast majority of this board and the US population thinks.

It goes back to Regan firing the FAA air traffic controllers decades ago. They believe only contractors, hidden behind countless shell companies, should be doing the necessary job of government.

And exactly what is that?

 

[jrt_ms1995]

But no one wants to fix it.

I do! I do!

 

[phreddyp]

Are you dense? It was a response to your quote.

“It's because they are overpaid, over benefited and under worked.”

What is the necessary job of government in YOUR opinion, dickweed?

 

[phreddyp]

I’m not engaging in any conversation with you, I wasn’t talking to you in my earlier post. I’ve learned about 80% of the posters here are like you.

Enjoy your evening.

In other words YOU have no clue , which is exactly what I thought.

 

[22AcaciaAve]

In actuality, at least in the Baltimore/DC area IT world, government workers make less than their counterparts in the private sector. Benefits wise, yes the feds get better benefits than most private sector places. And the big thing with that is the health care benefit. The feds have many plans to select from and the gov picks up 72% of the tab. There is also a pension which was discussed here already.

Now as far as underworked, I can't paint everyone with that broad brush. I would suspect it's like any place else where there are people who do their job and more, and there are slackers. I think the biggest problem with government is that it seems like you can't get rid of the slackers. This has resulted in some of the bloated workforce that needs to be reduced.

 

[glhs837]

I’m not engaging in any conversation with you, I wasn’t talking to you in my earlier post. I’ve learned about 80% of the posters here are like you.

Enjoy your evening.

I think your percentages are off. Like most things, don't confuse the loudest voices in the room with the sentiment of the rest of those in the room. Govt workers just like cops, or military or any other group. They all have fat dumb and lazy and mean ones. The percentages stay pretty much the same, because each group is made up of people.