By Reg Jones
Locality pay
January 23rd, 2013 | Uncategorized
Q. I could be the only VA employee who lives in one of a handful of towns in the southern tip of Maine that are grouped in with the high locality pay percent (24.8 percent) of Boston et al.: Boston-Worcester-Manchester, Mass.-N.H. Combined Statistical Area, plus the Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, R.I.-Mass. Metropolitan Statistical Area, Barnstable County, Mass., and Berwick, Eliot, Kittery, South Berwick and York towns in York County, Maine; but I’m not paid at that rate! Nevertheless, I am one of the statistics used to determine the justification for the higher rate, i.e., federal employees that commute from one of the above areas. I am not getting the Boston locality pay rate (24.8 percent); I am instead getting the rate for the rest of the U.S. (14.16 percent), and I think I should be getting the higher locality pay rate.
To whom can I go to argue my case? And do you think I am in the right?
A. While you could complain about it and even write you member of Congress, only your agency is in a position to argue that you and others in your facility should be included in the higher-paid locality area. In the long run, the Federal Salary Council, which is made up of agency and labor representatives and compensation experts, will be the one that submits recommendations to the President’s Pay Agent on the setting of boundary lines, using criteria that include local labor markets, commuting patterns and the practices of other employers.
More Congress myths
June 9th, 2010 | Uncategorized
Q: I read your recent article, “Dispelling the myth of an above-the-law Congress.” Another “myth” circulating is that years ago, members of Congress exempted themselves from paying income tax on their congressional salary. True or false?
A: False.
Debunking another Congress myth
May 19th, 2010 | RETIREMENT
Q: I read your earlier article about Congress, and it cleared up some misconceptions, which I appreciated. However, stating that members of Congress can’t retire at the same level of pay after only one term wasn’t really the big question. What the American public is upset about is that they can retire at any level after only one term when people in the military, the federal government and the private sector have to work 20 to 30 years to earn a modest pension. This was not explained in your answer. They can still retire after only one term. It is appalling, but I guess very lucrative if all you have to do is get elected once. They shouldn’t get any annuity after only a few years of service; I guess I’m in the wrong line of work.
A: That would be appalling if it were true, but it isn’t. To be eligible to retire, a member of Congress must have a minimum of five years of service as a member, a congressional employee, or both, and be covered during his last five years by retirement deductions or deposits. And he would only be eligible for that retirement at age 62. Paralleling the retirement rules for law enforcement officers and firefighters, he could also retire at age 50 with 20 years of service or at any age with 25.
Tags: Congress, minimum service, RETIREMENT
Extending dependent coverage
May 11th, 2010 | Benefits
Q: My daughter turned 22 in March, so her insurance on my policy through the Defense Department (Blue Cross) expired. Since the new health care reform bill extends coverage to age 26, but does not go into effect until Jan. 1, 2011, how does that affect her? Can she be reinstated on Jan. 1st to our current health insurance coverage as she previously was?
A: During the interim, she would be able to enroll as an individual under the Temporary Continuation of Coverage provision, for which she would pay 100 percent of the monthly premiums plus 2 percent for administrative costs. As of Jan. 1, 2011, she would once more be a dependent on your self and family enrollment. Note: OPM is attempting to get Congress to allow the extended coverage provision to be implemented sooner than the law now allows. It’s unclear whether they will be successful.
Windfall elimination provision
March 5th, 2010 | Windfall elimination provision
Q: What is the status of the legislation regarding doing away with the
significant penalty the federal government retirees incur when becoming
eligible to draw, if any, Social Security benefits?
A: I assume that you are asking about the windfall elimination provision, which reduces the Social Security benefit of anyone receiving an annuity — in whole or part — from a retirement system where he didn’t pay Social Security taxes and has fewer than 30 years of substantial earnings covered by Social Security. The short answer is that bills to modify or repeal that provision have stalled in both houses of Congress.
Tags: Congress, legislation, SOCIAL SECURITY, WEP
Calculating FERS retirement
November 23rd, 2009 | Uncategorized
Q: I have 12 years of legislative work experience working for Congress and 10 years of administration work experience, and I’m in the Federal Employees Retirement System. For the FERS retirement formula, is it high-3 X 1.7% X 12, and then high-3 X 1% X 10? Are my 12 years of legislative experience treated with a different rate multiplier than administrative years?
A: Yes, your time as a Hill staffer will be computed using the 0.017 multiplier; all additional years of service will be multiplied by 0.01.
Tags: Congress, FERS, multiplier
FERS formula for Hill experience
November 17th, 2009 | Uncategorized
Q: I have 12 years of legislative work experience (working for Congress) and 10 years of administration work experience. I’m in Federal Employees Retirement System. My question is, for FERS retirement formula, is it high 3 X 1.7% X 12 and then high 3 X 1.0% X 10? Are my 12 years of legislative experience treated with a different rate multiplier than administrative years?
A: Yes, your time as a Hill staffer will be computed using the 0.017 multiplier; all additional years of service will be multiplied by 0.01.
Tags: Congress, FERS, formula, multiplier
Extension of dependent health care
November 10th, 2009 | Uncategorized
Q: My son has recently been dropped from my health care because he reached the age of 22. I have heard that there might be an extension of health benefits for dependents. Has there been any decision on this? Also, are there any provisions of adding dependents after the open health benefits period, which is approaching.
A: Extending the age at which dependents may be covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits program would require a change in the law. Although such a change was proposed by the previous Office of Personnel Management director, Congress has so far has taken no action. At present, dependents can only be added after the close of an open season if a specific event occurs, such as when the enrollee marries, has a new child born of the marriage or adopts a child.
— Reg Jones
Tags: age, benefits, child, children, Congress, dependents, dropped, extension, FEHB, Office of Personnel Management, OPM, son