Federal Times Blogs
President Obama’s proposal to hike the amount federal employees pay into their pensions by 1.2 percent struck a nerve. In the latest reaction, National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley today sent a letter to the super committee on deficit reduction calling those changes “ill-advised and inequitable,” and said they would lead to “an exodus of our most highly-trained and experienced workers.”
What do you think about the proposals? Sound off below, or e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org. We’d like to hear your thoughts on this potential major change to federal employees’ benefits.
Laurie K Says:
September 20th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
With the two separate retirement systems, there is unfairness all around. First they lower the SS tax for CS Offset and FERS employees (unfair to CSRS employees). Now they want to raise the employee contribution amount! Since the CS Offset and FERS employees, just received a break – a raise in employee contributions unfortunate, but they are currently only paying .8% – no big deal, but again unfair to CSRS employees already paying 7%. Then a proposal for no COLA for CSRS employees retiring before age 62. Perhaps they should be looking at years of service “as well as” age. Someone who has been working for the gov’t since age 17 has 38 years of service at age 55 and 45 years of service (which is over the max) at age 62. Again, being penalized for being a loyal civil servant.
September 20th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Would love to see the government offer the CSRS employees an early retirement with no penalty for being younger than 55.
September 20th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
So why hasn’t Congress or the Whitehouse done anything to share the burden like taking pay cuts or benefit cuts. All of them are millionaires anyways. They don’t need another handout from the taxpayer.
September 20th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
I hope somebody decides to give us some money back and they offer CSRS money incentive to retire. Last I heard there were like 120 or 140K of us still on the rolls and thats what they want to get rid of. Show me the money and I”ll go.
September 20th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
I actually have no problem with this. It’s really a small amount, and will get phased in over a couple of years. I am also a GS-5 so I am on the low end of the pay scale, with my step increases and whenever they cancel the pay freeze, I won’t actually see what will be a small hit to my take home pay. Since I am also in the early stages in my Federal career, I am really the type of person this plan will effect. Those near retirememt, which is whoever is left on CSRS really won’t be affected by this. Besides we get the money back at retirement, let’s just get a straw and suck it up
Robert Benson Says:
September 21st, 2011 at 1:07 am
It surprises me that more attention is not being given to the other proposal announced by the White House: ending the FERS annuity supplement.
The supplement amounts to hundreds of dollars each month; it can be nearly as large as the annuity! So why aren’t there more complaints? I know. It’s because the cancellation of the supplement will have no effect on current employees, only those hired after the law takes effect, in 2013.
Readers can find out more about the supplement, and how it works, by checking out the website at fedbens.us
September 21st, 2011 at 9:47 am
To Laurie K – Everyone seems to forget that FERS employees pay in to Social Security in addition to the FERS system so employee contributioin is actually .8% PLUS 4.2% for a total of 5% (granted, it’s not the 7% a CSRS employee pays, but the payout at retirement is not as good either)
September 21st, 2011 at 4:32 pm
It seems to me that Congress has a lot of gall to go after the Feds yet again while they, themselves, ignore their own pay and benefits. They talk about “sharing the pain” but they don’t apply it to themselves. That goes for BOTH parties! I, for, one intent to let my Congressperson know what I feel about this matter.
FERS Retiree Says:
September 21st, 2011 at 11:35 pm
All FERS retirees has to wait until they are 62 before being eligible for COLA.