High 3 vs. High 5

[Buckeyedog]

I don't get those who are saying they promised Feds something. They promised you nothing. You should all know that this is the government, and all aspects of the government are subject to change at any time. It's just like any private sector job. Do people who get laid off, pay-cut, hours reduced, or flat out fired have the right to say the were lied to or were promised something? Every single one of us fed employees was promised nothing, and deserves nothing. You have the elective right to decide if the current compensation offered is adequate for you or not, and if not then you may take your talents elsewhere. This is pretty basic stuff. But to somehow assume that we as employees should somehow hold some form of immunity vs. the the rest of the budget doesn't seem wholly genuine. It sounds a bit smug to me.

Wow, so they can just take our pension, 401k and SS and it's not a problem in your view?? So we can work 30 years and then walk away with nothing?? Well ok then. Interesting viewpoint.

[SnareMV17]

But... regulations change. We don't sign any employment contract anyhow. You're compensation and benefits are in no way frozen in time nor should they be expected to be frozen. I don't see how that's realistic. It sort of seems like a lot of Feds see themselves as untouchable.

[mmmmmbeer]

I don't get those who are saying they promised Feds something. They promised you nothing. You should all know that this is the government, and all aspects of the government are subject to change at any time. It's just like any private sector job. Do people who get laid off, pay-cut, hours reduced, or flat out fired have the right to say the were lied to or were promised something? Every single one of us fed employees was promised nothing, and deserves nothing. You have the elective right to decide if the current compensation offered is adequate for you or not, and if not then you may take your talents elsewhere. This is pretty basic stuff. But to somehow assume that we as employees should somehow hold some form of immunity vs. the the rest of the budget doesn't seem wholly genuine. It sounds a bit smug to me.

Enough, Tom Tuttle from Tacoma!

[Buckeyedog]

Well then we can fix this problem real quick. Just stop the retiree checks tomorrow! Regs changed, Gov't owes you nothing! Good luck!!!

[SnareMV17]

i get that no one wants their pay or benefits reduced. I really do. But I can't even begin to understand the attitude of complaining about how the government is run and overspending but not being realistically willing to even touch government employee benefits, which several studies have continuously shown are above and beyond that of the private sector. It just seems a little two faced.

[evilanne]

You really need to look at the employment laws, specifically for Civil Service (USC & CFR references previously posted). Based on prior legal precedents, particularly the transition from CSRS to FERS, federal employees do have valid arguments against most of the proposed changes if applied to current employees.

A defined benefit plan promises a specified monthly benefit at retirement. The plan may state this promised benefit as an exact dollar amount, such as $100 per month at retirement. Or, more commonly, it may calculate a benefit through a plan formula that considers such factors as salary and service — for example, 1 percent of average salary for the last 5 years of employment for every year of service with an employer. The benefits in most traditional defined benefit plans are protected, within certain limitations, by federal insurance provided through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/retir ... pesofplans

Defined benefit plans promise you a monthly pension of a certain amount, usually based on your average income during your final years of employment, your age at retirement and your years of service, but there is no actual account set up for you.

http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/em ... z4ib5os7aw

[jethro]

The government does not exist to shower federal employees with never ending benefits. Our country is in trouble and changes need to be made.

You're right. They could save a little by firing you. You're cool with that right?

LOL.

[LuckyLarry]

Still hope it gets shot down. Or at least grandfathered.

[mmmmmbeer]

I don't think anyone is getting all my excellent movie references.

[evilanne]

Maybe they haven't seen the movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qLzQ4uOvio

[mmmmmbeer]

Maybe they haven't seen the movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qLzQ4uOvio

Haha!! YES... great spot Anne!

This guy reminds me of the previous dudes post.

"We will take the Peoples money and distribute it to all who the People deem it necessary! You have no retirement that is not given to you by the People!"

[skiehawk11]

I find it humorous that for some reason Fed employees are somehow the heart of the problem to the deficit. We aren't. The biggest debt hinderer is the American public itself.

Long ago politicians over promised and now the American public wants the same promises when the revenue can't match it anymore. The budget could be balanced by simply increasing the Medicare/Medicaid tax by 2.5 percent, Social Security tax by 1 percent and eliminating the ceiling on income.

Arguing against that fact is merely an ideological viewpoint and nothing else. If the government is to be run as a business, an individual would look at the revenues and outlays of each program and balance the differentials. Every time I hear the phrase "co-mingled revenue or outlays", I just roll my eyes.