Ok, little wake up call here for everyone... I work for the Federal Government (in one of the only valid sectors of the Federal Government, I'll let you figure out what that one is). The problem in the Federal Government is the same problem in every other big company... you can't fire anyone.

So, you have probably a solid third of the people who know this and do just enough to not get fired for being *blatantly* lazy or not showing up.

Regardless, the actual pay difference between private & federal employees is actually a misnomer (but also true). Hear me out:

Federal blue-collar workers: Overpaid beyond belief.
Federal white-collar workers: Equivalently paid to slightly underpaid. Yes. I'm serious.

Here's an explanation: Where I work, we have people ranging from GS-4 (maybe lower) equivalent, to GS-15 and SES.

The people who work in the shop are regular blue-collar guys. Some of them are really good at what they do, some aren't, just like anywhere else. They were capped at GS-12 (which actually was probably too high if you ask me). BUT, the union got them a break where they grouped GS scales together, and they discovered if they grouped GS12 and 13 together, then their shop guys (mostly union) could get GS13 level raises now (which can go as high as $115k/year in most of the country).

On the other hand, you have people like me, who's been an engineer for 15 years, where after about 6 or 7 years I should be able to be into the GS13 level (not making $115k, but making $80-90k). Unfortunately, I got lumped into that GS12-GS13 grouping, and I now have to wait for the "yearly increases" which took another 5 years to get to the equivalent of even a base GS13 salary.

Had I worked at a private company, I would easily be making $125k for what I do. Yet I'm making $88k right now. BUT, I can get up every morning and legitimately say to my kids "sorry kids, daddy can't stay and play today, I've got to go help the soldiers". And that's why I stay.

Now, look at what the SES's make. These guys would be CEO's or directors at companies. They CAP OUT at $150k/year. Very few companies pay their CEO's less than $150k/year.

Now, it's absolutely disgraceful what they're doing to our military servicemen and retirees in this administration. I'm glad I don't work for the VA because I'd go postal at this administration, disgusting what they're doing to our soldiers.

TLDR: Blue-collar fed workers overpaid. White-collar fed workers underpaid.

I just don't know what else I could add to that conclusion.

And violating the spirit is what elections are for. It was obviously needed to be "violated in spirit" 5 years after ratification otherwise they would have been voted out of office back then and the re-appropriations would have stopped.

barwick; I have to admit I get a little confused about your point. It seems that you agree that the federal pay system is screwed up. But it seems that your concern is to get better pay for 'white collar' workers of which you're one. Why didn't you list the engineer pays?

My point is to get the government out of it completely and let all of those jobs compete for employment and pay based on the free market.

As to the VA, (and I speak as a consumer of that service), their problem is not pay. It's the long string of war activities this country has been involved in since WWI that keeps adding vets to the system. .

Technically - Schmechnically. They violate the spirit, intent, and plan of the Constitution.

And that study says *exactly* what I've been saying:

Federal average pay difference (negative means Federal is underpaid in this position, positive means Federal is overpaid in this position):
Airline Pilot: -$26k
Lawyer: -$3k
Optometrist: -$45k
Physician: -$1k
Physician Assistant: -$10k

Cook: $15k
Crane tower operator: $10k
Graphic Designer: $24k
Highway Maintenance Worker: $11k
Janitor: $6k
Landscape Architect: $22k
Laundry Dry Cleaning Worker: $13k

And that's only halfway down the list...

If you do the overpaid ones as a PERCENTAGE of pay, it's absurd, like a freaking dry cleaning worker is paid 165% more than private sector. 165%!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT is what I am talking about, I think this proves my point.

edit: And the optometrist is a clear demonstration of why the VA is shameful. They not only don't have enough people to care for our veterans, they often underpay the ones they do have and they leave. Such that the really good ones who DO stay just can't keep up with the workload. This is a preview of Obamacare.

Because technically they're not violating the Constitution by re-appropriating for an army every 2 years. If they appropriated for the Army for 3 years, they would be violating it.

"Why should we have to vote out those that violate the Constitution? Shouldn't they be in prison or have their citizenship voided?"
+1

barwick; >>"You can't have a private company all on its own (without direction from the Government) deciding where we're going to invest our resources into the Army, because they would simply steer them in the direction that is most profitable to them, buying from their subsidiary companies (i.e. imagine Lockheed Martin deciding which direction the Army/Air Force/Navy/Marines are going to go in the future, how they're going to fight,"<<

You don't think we're already there?

>>"3) The studies you referenced all show TOTAL employees"<<

The third study I referenced compares job to job wages.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nati......

stargeezer; I worked as a volunteer advocate for the Wa. State Veteran's Home in the 90's. There are some real horror stories that could be told there. Stay away from them as long as you can.

'joke in chief' - oohrah for that one.

barwick; >>"If that general clause does not apply to procuring and keeping stock of materiel for the Army (militia) so they can equip them (as above), then I think you're misreading the constitution."<<

If they had done it for the militia, not the Army(militia), we wouldn't be as far down the road of problems as we are. The concept of militia is entirely different from that of a standing army.

>>"Do you honestly think they never had a standing army in 1790, 1795, 1800, etc? The Spanish, British, and Indians were all over the place close to and within the united States. They used the Army to suppress internal rebellions, etc. They simply had to re-appropriate money for it within 2 years. And if you as a citizen didn't like it, you voted them out."<<

I agree, they did it. Why should we have to vote out those that violate the Constitution? Shouldn't they be in prison or have their citizenship voided?

Yes I did. I'm still very certain that your raise was much higher than mine.

One of the biggest reasons that gov. employees have enjoyed such liberal job security benefits is the lower pay scale they had traditionally endured. This administration has done more than any other to turn gov. workers into a well paid voting block for itself and party. When I operated a small construction firm based in ElPaso TX many years ago we performed work exclusively for the gov., particularly military installation improvements. The Davis-Bacon dictated exactly what each of my employees were paid regardless of what the prevailing wage was in that area.

For example, if a carpenter were locally paid (1993 wages) $20 per hour the D-B scale was $35 per hour. Heaven knows what it is today.

Thanks. I do receive level 1 and yes that does help. Level 2 which is significantly higher would place me at a level that I don't qualify for. Pretty much nursing home level, and that is also the level where guys are being hung up by this administration by being classed as unfit to process firearms. Since that is my one vice in life, no thanks. :D

With any good fortune at all we'll soon be able to dump the "joke in chief" and start rebuilding.

Oh, for an example of what I mean on the R&D side, look at Sandia National Labs. Debatable whether it needs to exist or not, but that's an FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Center).

The way it runs is an example of how you can have a Federally funded organization serving the needs of the Federal government, but it be privately run. Though, it's run according to some ridiculous rules, so...

The funding links, again I reference one of my earlier posts (well, 2 of them):
1) Federal blue collar workers are grossly overpaid. They're part of one of the biggest unions on the planet, and they are disgustingly overpaid in general.
2) Federal white collar workers are at best equally paid, and at worst, grossly underpaid. CEO level jobs managing the direction of thousands of people at a time are often paid $130k per year.
3) The studies you referenced all show TOTAL employees. You have to remember #1 and #2 above. 1 - Blue collar federal workers ARE overpaid, and point #4 - the Federal Government contracts out the most menial jobs (janitorial services and the like), so they don't have any $8/hour jobs to bring the average down.

On some jobs or tasks needing to be primarily federal, there's not many, but there are some. Contracting decisions on procurement (for example, on the F-22, which one are you going to buy? Organizational planning for the military again needs to be at least Federally organized, even if it's not a Federal "job". You can't have a private company all on its own (without direction from the Government) deciding where we're going to invest our resources into the Army, because they would simply steer them in the direction that is most profitable to them, buying from their subsidiary companies (i.e. imagine Lockheed Martin deciding which direction the Army/Air Force/Navy/Marines are going to go in the future, how they're going to fight, I imagine we'd be using a lot of Lockheed products in the future). At a minimum again those jobs need to be hired and paid for by the Federal government, with some case for making them Federal jobs.

There's others, but this post is getting long.

Article 1 Section 8, the only one that authorizes Congress to do anything:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Plus later on, the general clause...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

If that general clause does not apply to procuring and keeping stock of materiel for the Army (militia) so they can equip them (as above), then I think you're misreading the constitution.

It does not authorize a permanent army in a sense, but it also does not prohibit it. It simply says "If Congress wants to keep a standing army, it has to appropriate money for it every 2 years, rather than on a permanent basis". That way, if the 1790's citizens didn't like there being a standing army, they got rid of Congress.

Do you honestly think they never had a standing army in 1790, 1795, 1800, etc? The Spanish, British, and Indians were all over the place close to and within the united States. They used the Army to suppress internal rebellions, etc. They simply had to re-appropriate money for it within 2 years. And if you as a citizen didn't like it, you voted them out.

Stargeezer: You might check out Aid & Attendance and Unusual Medical Expenses. Not sure what it totals, but you might qualify.

Just an idea, from one vet to another.

Barwick: Please don't take my comments as denigrating to any individual. But at a time in which we find ourselves borrowing some 46% of every dollar we spend, $271 billion in annual salary and benefits for some 2.6 million employees seems a tad excessive.

Art I Sect 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to keep a Navy and to raise an army after declaring war and authorizes funding not to exceed two years. It lays out a plan for Congress to utilize the services of state Militias to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

As to funding for procurement and keeping a stock of material for the army? I maintain no.
As to amending the Constitution to allow for a standing army? I would vote no, for the same reasons and fears expressed by the founders.

For studies I can refer to for pay comparisons, I recommend:
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/p...

and: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/p...

along with: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nati...

Referencing your opinion that some jobs need to be primarily federal employment, I just can't come up with that many (in a Constitutional context) that couldn't be performed as well or better by the free market, and I emphasize free market vs. just private employers. That might be an interesting post or listing you could propose. I can see a pretty interesting discussion on that.

So does the Constitution authorize the government to procure and keep stock of materiel for the Army when the need arises? Yes. Does it need to be amended to allow a standing professional Army in today's world where a war can start and be done with in less than a week? Yes.

And yes, my numbers above did take all of that into account. You find me one study where they take a significant amount of randomly selected GS14 and GS15 scale Federal employees, and compare their salary & benefits to that of an equivalent position in the private sector. Tell me what you find.

I can't say the same of GS12 and GS13's in general because there's a lot of blue-collar workers that have made it there and are way overpaid relative to their skills.

On your final sentence, there are some things either federally funded centers, or federal employees need to do that private companies acting as their own agents can't reasonably do well enough. They could be contracted out (federally funded centers), but it needs to be a primarily federal job.

Did you READ my post? Especially the part where I said the VA especially during this administration is shameful in how they've treated our veterans?

We can both agree that this dingbat in the oval office needs to stop giving away so much free money to everybody who "needs" it, and instead spend it on things he's authorized to spend it on, like defense and care/pensions for our veterans who have defended us in the past.

And seriously? "employees"? The hell do you think I do all day? People on here's attitude towards federal employees in general is pretty disgusting if you ask me. There's a lot of crapheads out there, but for every craphead there's at least one other person who works his nuts off to pick up the craphead's slack, and is getting paid relatively crappy for it if he's a white collar worker.

Blue collar, or lower skill jobs, yeah, they're paid ridiculous amounts relative to the private sector.

I'm a 100% service connected, disabled vet., confined to a power wheelchair and who require constant assistance which i must pay for out of pocket. Fortunatly my wife meets most of my needs but she's not in good health either.

My cost of living 'increase' this year was $58 a month.

Just how much did these 'employees' get.

I knew 5 people who got fired from the Federal Government, so it is possible.

Barwick; I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. First of all, the Constitution doesn't permit a standing Army. It only permits a Navy and Marines. Next, any discussion of federal pay vs. private pay should include a full disclosure of benefits that include the medical care available, the vacation - holiday - and sick day pays, the seniority system, and the retirement plans. But leaving that out, your analysis of comparative pay seems way off to me.

Any contractor working for the feds has to pay at a rate referred to as 'Davis-Bacon'. Those rates are drastically higher than private employee rates and are based on local union rates that exclude merit or non-union pay in their calculation. Unions in the private sector only represent 6% of that workforce, yet through 'Davis-Bacon', control the wages of many more and the cost to the tax payer. Estimates from a few years ago placed the difference at +30% in just hourly pay.

We haven't begun to discuss efficiencies and productivity yet nor pay increases due to seniority alone. A free market labor force makes a lot more sense to me.

Also, the "average Federal Worker pay" is a misnomer too.

The federal government contracts out most of their "menial" work, meaning cleaning, janitors, etc. They just hire contractors for that stuff (and it's probably more efficient that way due to the impossibility of hiring people at the Federal Government, and even moreso firing).

So, the Federal Government doesn't have those low-average-pay jobs to bring their average down where the private sector is. Any job in the private sector counts towards the private sector, even if it's contracted from one private company to another.