AFGE
Professional Local 3669AFGE Truth Squad
With the Obama Administration and Congress attacking Federal Employees,
we need facts to confront their lies.
TRUTH SQUAD FACT SHEET WITH REFERENCES (00287456)
Federal Pay
FAST FACTS
·
President Obama and the
111st Congress voted in December 2010 to freeze federal pay for two
years. Unless this vote is
reversed, federal employees will not receive a pay raise until January
2013.
·
Federal pay setting is
supposed to be outside politics, and guided by Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ (BLS) measures of market comparability.
The pay freeze was entirely political, a symbolic vote to pretend
that congress and President Obama were “serious” about cutting the
deficit. In reality,
freezing federal pay will have a tiny impact on the deficit, but a
serious and negative impact on federal employees who are trying to raise
their families and pay their bills.
·
The Federal Salary
Council, the statutory body charged with measuring the gap between
federal and private sector salaries, has
found that the average nationwide pay discrepancy is roughly 24%
in favor of the private sector.
·
There has been a concerted
campaign by USA Today and right wing think tanks such as Heritage and
Cato to convince lawmakers and the public that federal employees are
overpaid. Their statistics
are misleading and dishonest.
Their campaign relies
on sensationalist and inappropriate comparisons between the two
million-person federal workforce and the more than 200 million-person
private sector workforce that includes millions who earn minimal wages
and receive no benefits at all from their employers.
·
The proper way to
understand federal and private pay disparities is to compare salaries on
a job-by-job basis, as the BLS does.
When such comparisons are done on an apolitical, scientific
basis, the results consistently show that federal employees earn less
than their private sector counterparts in every metropolitan area in the
U.S.
Federal Retirement
FAST FACTS
·
President Obama’s deficit commission recommended numerous cuts to
federal retirement benefits, including:
1.
Changing the formula for calculating annuities from a “high 3” basis to
a “high 5” basis,
2.
Vastly increasing the amount that
FERS employees would be required to pay for these reduced annuities,
3.
Reducing cost of living adjustments for FERS and CSRS retirees,
4.
Reducing the government’s share of FEHBP premiums for retirees, and
5.
Raising the retirement age for Social Security
·
The Trust Funds out of which federal retirement benefits are paid are
fully funded. None of the
proposed cuts to FERS or CSRS is necessary to close a funding gap
because both systems are on sound financial footing.
·
The proposed change from “high 3” to “high 5” as a basis for calculating
annuities would mean a cut in retirement benefits of anywhere from 3 to
5 percent a year, depending on length of service.
The cost of this proposal to a particular employee can be
calculated at
http://theycutyoupay.afge.org.
·
The proposed change from the current funding formula for FERS would cost
federal employees 7 % of income.
This proposal would affect the mandatory retirement system
contributions, and would constitute a permanent 7% cut in federal pay
for every FERS employee.
Federal Employee Health Benefits Program
FAST FACTS
·
President Obama’s deficit
commission proposed to dismantle the FEHBP and turn it into a voucher
program.
·
The voucher would be
adjusted annually by the rate of growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
plus one percent. Under
current law, the government’s financial support for FEHBP is adjusted
annually by the rate of growth of premiums, which keeps the government’s
share of costs at around 70% for most plans.
·
If the deficit
commission’s plan were to become law, within 5 years, federal employees
would be paying 41% of the total premium for Blue Cross/Blue Shield’s
Standard Option. In ten
years, employees would be paying 49% of the cost of this plan, and in 15
years they would pay 57%, and in the year 2030, employees would pay 63%
of premiums for the Standard Option.
·
Provisions of the
Affordable Care Act that will affect federal employees are starting to
be implemented. This year,
dependents will be able to remain on their parents’ plan up to the age
of 26, and there will be no copayments for required preventive care or
smoking cessation benefits.
·
AFGE is working with the
Obama Administration to make sure that in 2014, when low income
Americans will be able to receive government subsidies for the purchase
of health insurance through state exchanges, federal employees who
cannot afford FEHBP will be eligible for the subsidies.
Currently, approximately a quarter of a million federal employees
who are eligible for FEHBP coverage are uninsured because they cannot
afford their share of premiums.
DOWNSIZING
FAST FACTS
The President’s Deficit Commission recommended
slashing the federal civil service by 10% or 200,000, a number plucked
from thin air. The Commission also recommended cutting the number
of contractors by 250,000. Even though the contractor workforce is significantly larger and more
expensive than the civil service, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) introduced
H.R. 235, a bill that would implement the Commission’s cuts to federal
employees, but not contractors. The House Republican Study
Committee also recommends slashing federal jobs by 15%, but leaves
contractors untouched.
1.
The Federal
Government Uses Both Civil Servants and Contractors to Carry Out
Programs:
There are fewer
than 2 million federal workers, according to OPM. The size of the
contractor workforce is unknown, but it has been estimated to be at
least two to three times the size of the federal workforce.
Any serious effort to right-size the government must look at the
bloated contractor workforce.
2.
If Agencies Are
Required to Carry Out Programs But Can’t Use Federal Employees Because
of Personnel Ceilings and Headcounts, They Will Inevitably Use
Contractors Instead:
The Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994, showed that if agencies can’t use
federal workers to carry out programs, they will simply contract out the
work, even if such backfilling is prohibited.
3.
Using Contractors
in Such Circumstances Leads to Increased Costs and Loss of Public
Control:
When
agencies contract out because of in-house headcounts and personnel
ceilings, it usually leads to higher costs and it can result in loss of
public control over important and sensitive functions. In these
cases, not only is there no public-private competition, but there is
also consideration of the cost of in-house performance, period, before
work is contracted out.
4.
The Federal
Workforce is Best Managed by Workloads and Budgets:
If
there is work to be done and money to pay for that work, then an agency
should be allowed to use federal workers to get that work done, an
approach which is already required in law in several instances.
Whether an agency should use federal workers depends on cost, policy,
risk, and the law. In-house headcounts and personnel ceilings
often prevent agencies from using federal employees when there is work
to be done and money to pay for it, even when in-house performance is
more efficient, more appropriate, or required by law.