House approves plan to cut Fed employee benefits

[andwhat]

m.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2017/10/house-approves-budget-would-cut-federal-benefits/141582/

So basically the budget cuts were voted on and passed, but there are not specifics on how to achieve those cuts. My comments in bold

The top plan right now is:

a 6 percentage point increase in employee contributions to the Federal Employees Retirement System, phased in over six years Employees hired before 2013 contribute 1.3% after 2013 ~3%. This is a huge hit to pay.

the elimination of cost of living adjustments for FERS employees and a 0.5 percent reduction in COLAs for Civil Service Retirement System enrollees

elimination of the FERS supplement for employees who retire before Social Security kicks in at age 62 Many feds specifically law enforcement have mandatory retirement at 57. If they eliminate the supplement how will people survive from 57 to 62? You will have to take a penalty if you withdraw money from TSP.

basing the value of retirement benefits on the highest five years of employees’ earnings instead of the current highest three years 

reducing the rate of return for the Thrift Savings Plan’s G Fund, which is made up of government securities, to make it more indicative of its low “investment risk profile.”


changing how the government calculates its contribution to Federal Employees Health Benefits Program premiums. Instead of basing the maximum calculation on the weighted average of the cost of all plans within FEHBP, the federal contribution would increase at the rate of inflation

So they want Feds to pay more into retirement, pay more for health insurance, reduce the rate of return for the safe fund for TSP, reduce the salary that your retirement is calculated from. All budget cuts are made to screw the Federal worker. What is the incentive for the skill to stay? 

I hate these people.

[seeyalater52]

So this is totally and completely fucked up for so many reasons and I really feel for feds whose livelihood in becoming a game of political football. But. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the House budget resolution does all sorts of absurd things and that the vast majority of those things are not slated to be part of the final budget package that goes through reconciliation, especially since the Senate resolution was so incredibly different. This isn’t going to get approved and the Senate is already planning to scrap this resolution, so everyone can hopefully breathe a little easier knowing it’s unlikely to ever marterialize.

Everyone should be mad, though. I know I’m pissed when I’m on the receiving end of endless punches from Congress, and this isn’t going to be the last time they go after feds, so I suggest people add this to the long list of things to badger House members who voted for the resolution about (along with the deep and sweeping cuts to Medicaid and the ACA also in this resolution). And seriously make that call on behalf of feds, many of whom are without representation in Congress and don’t have a House member to call.

[eclaires]

This is nuts. MH is not a fed but his benefits track fairly closely with fed workers because the lab is run through a non profit but owned/funded by DOE.

It's especially ironic considering the current requirement that lab employees had to watch the stupid anti leak video. Almost all of their work isn't even classified and is published and shared publicly all the time. So it's basically like "don't tattle to the press when we make insane policies." Anyway the video was almost an hour long and at my H's lab (and I think the other labs too) they operate on a billable hours setup so everyone who watched it had to bill that to overhead. He estimated it cost $1m to have just the employees at his lab watch it. Because they all have hourly rates and a lot are pretty high.

Gotta be fiscally conservative!!!

[simpsongal]

Fvck them. We have a hard enough time recruiting and retaining skilled professionals. We're already contracting out more than we should and for top dollar.

[downtoearth]

This is asinine. Are fed employees looked at as Americans with jobs at all? How can this middle-class-job-creating president and GOP make their own employees have worse working conditions and work more for less? I agree with you and the Fed Emoloyee Retirement advocate who said,

This sets the stage for the federal community to pay for tax reform,” she said. “You’re paying for middle class tax cuts on the backs of middle class federal employees and retirees. It goes against the fundamental premise of this tax reform package.”

[karinothing]

I heard they also want to eliminate the pension entirely and switch to a deferred contribution plan only. The justification or it was freaken stupid. I don't remember who I read the quote from but it was basically saying that the private industry has this so feds can too and it will give us more control. UMM we already have a deferred contribution plan. We can control our retirement all we want. Eliminating the pension and leaving only TSP doesn't give us more control. It is stupid.

And wtf with no COLA adjustments? Ugh, this entire thing makes me furious.

[candreco]

I'm already beyond fed up with my fed job, and this sure as shit isn't helping.

[Bernadine]

Oct 6, 2017 6:52:55 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

This is asinine. Are fed employees looked at as Americans with jobs at all? How can this middle-class-job-creating president and GOP make their own employees have worse working conditions and work more for less? I agree with you and the Fed Emoloyee Retirement advocate who said,

This sets the stage for the federal community to pay for tax reform,” she said. “You’re paying for middle class tax cuts on the backs of middle class federal employees and retirees. It goes against the fundamental premise of this tax reform package.”

This is exactly what I'm going to tell Andy fucking Harris.

If we want our government to be efficient and run well, shouldn't we have pay and benefits that attract the best people?

[anonymous]

Oct 6, 2017 6:48:15 GMT -5 eclaires said:

This is nuts. MH is not a fed but his benefits track fairly closely with fed workers because the lab is run through a non profit but owned/funded by DOE.

It's especially ironic considering the current requirement that lab employees had to watch the stupid anti leak video. Almost all of their work isn't even classified and is published and shared publicly all the time. So it's basically like "don't tattle to the press when we make insane policies." Anyway the video was almost an hour long and at my H's lab (and I think the other labs too) they operate on a billable hours setup so everyone who watched it had to bill that to overhead. He estimated it cost $1m to have just the employees at his lab watch it. Because they all have hourly rates and a lot are pretty high.

Gotta be fiscally conservative!!!

[

Was it that YouTube video??

[andwhat]

Oct 6, 2017 6:45:57 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

So this is totally and completely fucked up for so many reasons and I really feel for feds whose livelihood in becoming a game of political football. But. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the House budget resolution does all sorts of absurd things and that the vast majority of those things are not slated to be part of the final budget package that goes through reconciliation, especially since the Senate resolution was so incredibly different. This isn’t going to get approved and the Senate is already planning to scrap this resolution, so everyone can hopefully breathe a little easier knowing it’s unlikely to ever marterialize.

Everyone should be mad, though. I know I’m pissed when I’m on the receiving end of endless punches from Congress, and this isn’t going to be the last time they go after feds, so I suggest people add this to the long list of things to badger House members who voted for the resolution about (along with the deep and sweeping cuts to Medicaid and the ACA also in this resolution). And seriously make that call on behalf of feds, many of whom are without representation in Congress and don’t have a House member to call.

As for your first paragraph, I know. But this is the "favorite" plan right now. And this is Paul Ryan's wet dream. I don't think there is much incentive to not significantly cut the Fed benefits program in some drastic way. I just hate being a pawn in their sick game. I am 15 years into my career. I understand that changes need to be made, but there has always been a grandfathering of current employees. I hope people really put pressure on their members.

[eclaires]

Oct 6, 2017 7:09:54 GMT -5 anonymous said:

Oct 6, 2017 6:48:15 GMT -5 eclaires said:

This is nuts. MH is not a fed but his benefits track fairly closely with fed workers because the lab is run through a non profit but owned/funded by DOE.

It's especially ironic considering the current requirement that lab employees had to watch the stupid anti leak video. Almost all of their work isn't even classified and is published and shared publicly all the time. So it's basically like "don't tattle to the press when we make insane policies." Anyway the video was almost an hour long and at my H's lab (and I think the other labs too) they operate on a billable hours setup so everyone who watched it had to bill that to overhead. He estimated it cost $1m to have just the employees at his lab watch it. Because they all have hourly rates and a lot are pretty high.

Gotta be fiscally conservative!!!

[

Was it that YouTube video??

I'm not sure but it's been in the news. Wired had something about it. It sounded pretty ridiculous.

[seeyalater52]

Oct 6, 2017 7:11:25 GMT -5 andwhat said:

Oct 6, 2017 6:45:57 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

So this is totally and completely fucked up for so many reasons and I really feel for feds whose livelihood in becoming a game of political football. But. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the House budget resolution does all sorts of absurd things and that the vast majority of those things are not slated to be part of the final budget package that goes through reconciliation, especially since the Senate resolution was so incredibly different. This isn’t going to get approved and the Senate is already planning to scrap this resolution, so everyone can hopefully breathe a little easier knowing it’s unlikely to ever marterialize.

Everyone should be mad, though. I know I’m pissed when I’m on the receiving end of endless punches from Congress, and this isn’t going to be the last time they go after feds, so I suggest people add this to the long list of things to badger House members who voted for the resolution about (along with the deep and sweeping cuts to Medicaid and the ACA also in this resolution). And seriously make that call on behalf of feds, many of whom are without representation in Congress and don’t have a House member to call.

As for your first paragraph, I know. But this is the "favorite" plan right now. And this is Paul Ryan's wet dream. I don't think there is much incentive to not significantly cut the Fed benefits program in some drastic way. I just hate being a pawn in their sick game. I am 15 years into my career. I understand that changes need to be made, but there has always been a grandfathering of current employees. I hope people really put pressure on their members.

The House budget resolution is definitely not the favorite plan, but if you mean fed benefits being used to pay for tax breaks I’m not sure that is the favorite plan right now either. Paul Ryan has a long wish list (lol) and this sort of cut to fed benefits is so incredibly small in the grand scheme of the money they need and much less popular or interesting for their purposes than other pay-fors that are actually sufficient to accomplish their goals (Medicaid especially but also just raising taxes on middle income people more generally.) I would be absolutely shocked if the Senate allowed this to be included in the final reconciliation package. I also know that it not happening now or through this vehicle doesn’t guarantee that it won’t pop up again someplace else.

I totally get being pissed and worried, it’s an awful position to be in.

[Coopertown]

I realize this most likely won't come to fruition, but let's say it does. Would it have any impact on recent retirees - specifically the COLAs?

[mpc]

Oct 6, 2017 6:32:56 GMT -5 andwhat said:

What is the incentive for the skill to stay? 

Truly. Because it certainly isn't the amazing pay. This is all making me see red.

[bowies]

Oct 6, 2017 7:04:14 GMT -5 Bernadine said:

Oct 6, 2017 6:52:55 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

This is asinine. Are fed employees looked at as Americans with jobs at all? How can this middle-class-job-creating president and GOP make their own employees have worse working conditions and work more for less? I agree with you and the Fed Emoloyee Retirement advocate who said,

This is exactly what I'm going to tell Andy fucking Harris.

If we want our government to be efficient and run well, shouldn't we have pay and benefits that attract the best people?

The modern GOP doesn't want a government that is efficient and runs well. They don't want a federal government at all.

[simpsongal]

karinothing, I know quite a few newer federal employees that would prefer the FERS pension go away. The contribution percentage is high, a lot of people don't want to sign up for 20-30 years to get a decent return. Even then, you could probably do better taking that contribution and investing.

Ugh.... this is not good for my Friday motivation.

[cville]

Oct 6, 2017 7:28:13 GMT -5 mpc said:

Oct 6, 2017 6:32:56 GMT -5 andwhat said:

What is the incentive for the skill to stay? 

Truly. Because it certainly isn't the amazing pay. This is all making me see red.

Tell me about it. People take lower pay for government work for one or more of 3 basic reasons: 1. Public service/belief in the mission, 2. Benefits, 3. Lifestyle. This administration and Congress are doing everything they can to eviscerate all 3. Fuck them.



Eta: I don't mean lifestyle like "being lazy." I mean, like, teleworking or working with people across the region easily because you all work for the same org/boss. In case that wasn't clear. I do NOT think federal workers are lazy.

[andwhat]

Oct 6, 2017 7:18:23 GMT -5 Coopertown said:

I realize this most likely won't come to fruition, but let's say it does. Would it have any impact on recent retirees - specifically the COLAs?

At my job, HR said they have had ~100 people come in and fill out their retirement paperwork. They are just waiting to see where this leads. They will not give their 2+ weeks notice as people here normally do. They will be here 1 day and gone the next. They have planned their entire careers and can't take the risks so close to retirement. They are eligible, so they will go. Most don't think anything will pass that will affect people who are already retired. I am not so convinced. This would be devastating. It is not like there are many jobs for people who are 57-65 to get.

[biscoffcookies]

Oct 6, 2017 6:45:57 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

So this is totally and completely fucked up for so many reasons and I really feel for feds whose livelihood in becoming a game of political football. But. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the House budget resolution does all sorts of absurd things and that the vast majority of those things are not slated to be part of the final budget package that goes through reconciliation, especially since the Senate resolution was so incredibly different. This isn’t going to get approved and the Senate is already planning to scrap this resolution, so everyone can hopefully breathe a little easier knowing it’s unlikely to ever marterialize.

Everyone should be mad, though. I know I’m pissed when I’m on the receiving end of endless punches from Congress, and this isn’t going to be the last time they go after feds, so I suggest people add this to the long list of things to badger House members who voted for the resolution about (along with the deep and sweeping cuts to Medicaid and the ACA also in this resolution). And seriously make that call on behalf of feds, many of whom are without representation in Congress and don’t have a House member to call.

seeyalater52, seriously, I am so glad you are here to talk me down. From having a freak out (not to mention all the times you did it before on ACA!). DH and I are both Feds so...this would not be ideal.

Speaking of political football, I already assume that there will be a shutdown in December and no back pay for the Feds because the GOP believes we are all lazy overpaid mooches, so I'm putting money aside for that.

[winecat]

Good lord.

Another day another way for these fuckers to show us their cruelty.

[seeyalater52]

Oct 6, 2017 7:45:12 GMT -5 biscoffcookies said:

Oct 6, 2017 6:45:57 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

So this is totally and completely fucked up for so many reasons and I really feel for feds whose livelihood in becoming a game of political football. But. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the House budget resolution does all sorts of absurd things and that the vast majority of those things are not slated to be part of the final budget package that goes through reconciliation, especially since the Senate resolution was so incredibly different. This isn’t going to get approved and the Senate is already planning to scrap this resolution, so everyone can hopefully breathe a little easier knowing it’s unlikely to ever marterialize.

Everyone should be mad, though. I know I’m pissed when I’m on the receiving end of endless punches from Congress, and this isn’t going to be the last time they go after feds, so I suggest people add this to the long list of things to badger House members who voted for the resolution about (along with the deep and sweeping cuts to Medicaid and the ACA also in this resolution). And seriously make that call on behalf of feds, many of whom are without representation in Congress and don’t have a House member to call.

seeyalater52, seriously, I am so glad you are here to talk me down. From having a freak out (not to mention all the times you did it before on ACA!). DH and I are both Feds so...this would not be ideal.

Speaking of political football, I already assume that there will be a shutdown in December and no back pay for the Feds because the GOP believes we are all lazy overpaid mooches, so I'm putting money aside for that.

You know more than anyone that I’m not always right, but I am a pretty good barometer of when to panic and when to sit it out, especially since we can’t all do everything at once or we’ll burn out. I also really want people who will be affected to be able to moderate their stress levels accordingly since it’s a lot to deal with!

The debt ceiling is going to be a whole situation. We are starting to worry that the spending package now slated for December (that will include CHIP reauthorization and funding to restore the community health center cliff which both ran out at the end of the fiscal year) will get embroiled in this.

[karinothing]

Oct 6, 2017 7:39:40 GMT -5 simpsongal said:

karinothing , I know quite a few newer federal employees that would prefer the FERS pension go away. The contribution percentage is high, a lot of people don't want to sign up for 20-30 years to get a decent return. Even then, you could probably do better taking that contribution and investing.

Ugh.... this is not good for my Friday motivation.

I that high. I get that I only contribute 1.7% but that is like $37 a paycheck. I had put like 547 so far this year. Is 3% really that high? I would probably be fine if they wanted to let people opt out.

ETA: Nevermind I guess I contribute .8%. So I guess there is a significant different between .8% and 3%

[karinothing]

Oct 6, 2017 7:50:45 GMT -5 BirdGirl said:

Is there an option not to elect the pension? I would take that versus paying in 6% (I currently pay .8%). They have raised it since 2012 - new hires now pay 4%. But they have never applied it retroactively. I wouldn't be surprised to see lawsuits if they did apply it to people who were hired pre-2012.

I've had lots of conversations with people about the recruitment and rention issue and the response I get is "but we get great people." They don't stay though. They largely come for 5 years to get the experience and then move on.

That is a good point about applying it retroactively. I think that other industries have been increasing pension contributions to current employees, but I think these are employees wehre the pension contributions are part of their contract. So I am not sure it is comparable.

[bex]

I don't even care if this has a realistic chance of passing or being in the final budget. It's freaking exhausting to always have your paycheck and benefits used as a political punching bag of sorts. And I know that's part of the territory, but it's getting old with these past few congresses because they really do seem to think that they can balance the budget on the back of federal employees.

And I know that a large part of the population thinks that federal employees are lazy and overpaid so this seems like a political win for a lot of these politicians, but you know what? cut our budget and reduce our potential to hire and train qualified candidates, or reduce the overtime we can work, and then dare to bitch about the waiting times for a decision on your disability appeal?

EFF OFF.


clearly I'm a little salty this morning.

[andwhat]

Oct 6, 2017 8:05:01 GMT -5 karinothing said:

Oct 6, 2017 7:39:40 GMT -5 simpsongal said:

karinothing , I know quite a few newer federal employees that would prefer the FERS pension go away. The contribution percentage is high, a lot of people don't want to sign up for 20-30 years to get a decent return. Even then, you could probably do better taking that contribution and investing.

Ugh.... this is not good for my Friday motivation.

I that high. I get that I only contribute 1.7% but that is like $37 a paycheck. I had put like 547 so far this year. Is 3% really that high? I would probably be fine if they wanted to let people opt out.

ETA: Nevermind I guess I contribute .8%. So I guess there is a significant different between .8% and 3%

I am thinking I contribute .8% too. I am going to look. I always thought it was .8, but someone recently convinced me I was wrong. I know hires from 2013 on are around 3%. And then if it went up to 6%, Geez.

[Coopertown]

Oct 6, 2017 7:42:15 GMT -5 andwhat said:

Oct 6, 2017 7:18:23 GMT -5 Coopertown said:

I realize this most likely won't come to fruition, but let's say it does. Would it have any impact on recent retirees - specifically the COLAs?

At my job, HR said they have had ~100 people come in and fill out their retirement paperwork. They are just waiting to see where this leads. They will not give their 2+ weeks notice as people here normally do. They will be here 1 day and gone the next. They have planned their entire careers and can't take the risks so close to retirement. They are eligible, so they will go. Most don't think anything will pass that will affect people who are already retired. I am not so convinced. This would be devastating. It is not like there are many jobs for people who are 57-65 to get.

That's my fear. My mother retired about two years ago, and she just turned 62. This would put her in a very bad position financially.

[simpsongal]

BirdGirl, there's no opt out. there really should be. Whenever DH looks at the fed job and considers a move he subtracts 3% from the salary b/c of the FERs contribution.

[OscarQ]

Ugh. My H is Fed and he’s so chill about this whole nightmare administration and meanwhile I’m chicken little. He loves his job but if he gets s decent private sector offer and these benefit changes occur, I bet he’d leave. And he’s good at his job. We all want him there doing his job. It benefits society as a whole. He’s not a drain, he’s a productive, hard worker who is always looking to do something better and more efficiently. I hate that Feds get labeled as moochers. I bet their productivity is similar to private sector employees

And can you imagine the strain of all that work falling on a smaller pool of people? And who is going to backfill these roles, if they are allowed to hire for them?

[dragon's breath]

I was hired in 2000 and put .8% into my pension (I think there have been two increases since then, but maybe there was only one. For new hires.)

During this time, I've seen multiple hiring freezes (pretty much after every presidential election), I've seen other threats to increase our contributions (which were done, but only for new hires), and other threats to our benefits. So far, older employees have been grandfathered in. The only threat to our pay/benefits that made it through to everybody was the three year pay freeze under Obama.

Things have passed the house before but didn't make it into the final package. I'm holding onto hope for that.

I agree that changes should be made, however, they should only be applied to new hires. We had an agreement when we got hired over our benefit package. I've seen the government break agreements before (usually just against individuals), but this would be a wide-scale backing out on what was promised to employees. I would hope everyone could see this would be a very bad thing for the government to do to its employees, and decides against it (again, at least for those already under older agreements. New hires sign their own agreement based on whatever the current rules are, so those are free game.)

I know I had other options when I first got hired, and the retirement package was a big part of why I chose my career. I plan to retire at 57 (my MRA, and I'll have the years of service, so no fee to withdraw from tsp right away), but I may go earlier, especially if they mess with the health care. At this point, it's the only reason I don't go earlier and defer my retirement.

[andwhat]

Ok I found the issue with the disparity in the percentage contributed. Most FERs employees contribute 0.8% however certain professions have to contribute and additional 0.5% toward their civil service benefit and receive an enhanced annuity.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/federal-retirement-contributions-questions-and-answers/2012/02/23/gIQArFxsVR_blog.html?utm_term=.6f2d6d9c35b4