When the federal pay raise kicks in next month — the first since 2010 — many top-paid workers will still stay stuffed in the salary deep-freeze at least through 2014.
The 1 percent white-collar pay increase set for January will push hundreds, maybe thousands of workers in high locality pay areas up against the $155,500 ceiling on career GS pay. The freeze on locality pay adjustments will remain in effect. So everybody who gets a raise will get the same percentage amount. Except those at the very top in high-wage cities.
The $155,500 pay cap extends down as far as step 6 in San Francisco and San Jose, and to step 8 in the Houston, Los Angeles and the New York City metro pay areas.
In metro Washington, workers at steps 9 and 10 currently bump up against the cap.
Under the GS pay system, employees get semi-automatic performance pay raises each year in the first three steps of their grades, every two years for the next three steps and then every three years up to the top, step 10. The longevity raises are worth about 3 percent and they are subject to the pay cap.
Pay for the 7,000 members of the Senior Executive Service is tied to Level 2 of the Executive Schedule. Pay increases for individual SES members are discretionary by agency within the broad band of SES pay (currently $119,554 to $179,700).
A spokesperson for the Senior Executives Association said that the Executive Schedule “gets an adjustment when the GS schedule does, but the ES adjustment is based off the change in the ECI (employment cost index), but can’t exceed the GS increase.” Although the ECI change this year was about 1.8 percent, the ES will get the same 1 percent that goes to the white-collar GS schedule. So if the ES goes up, the $179,000 SES ceiling will increase too.
If you are confused about how federal pay raises are determined, welcome to the club. The bipartisan Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (which was supposed to gradually close the pay gap between government and comparable private-sector jobs) has never been fully implemented.
According to data from conservative think tanks and news media sources, federal workers are paid more, in some cases much more, than their private-sector counterparts. The gap increases, in favor of feds, when benefits like retirement, holidays and vacation time are factored in.
Last year, however, the Federal Salary Council, interpreting Labor Department data, said federal civil servants on average were paid 34.6 percent less than private-sector workers. The council is made up of union representatives and outside pay experts.
Holiday lotharios, take note: The cost of purchasing everything mentioned in “The Twelve Days of Christmas Song” (and in the amounts described in all the song’s choruses) will cost you $114,651. That’s nearly 7 percent more than last year thanks to inflation, particularly in the cost of hiring dancing ladies. Balking at the price? Why not try the bargain edition: one item of everything. That’ll only cost you $27,393.
Most TSP funds hold steady in November, though gains slow Nearly all the funds in the Thrift Savings Plan ended last month in positive territory, although with smaller gains than in the past few months, according to data provided by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which oversees the TSP.
Will budget committee target feds’ retirement contributions? Mystery surrounds the House-Senate budget committee’s negotiations over fiscal 2014 funding levels and possible alternatives to devastating across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration. But a consensus is emerging about some of the potential bargaining chips the committee is likely to use. That includes requiring federal workers to contribute more of their salaries toward their pensions.
Why increasing feds’ retirement contributions may not help cut the deficit Requiring federal employees to contribute more of their salary toward retirement is rumored to be among the proposals being considered by the House-Senate budget conference committee as an partial alternative to the sequestration budget cuts. But at least one think tank, known for its hawkish stance on reducing the deficit, says the proposal could end up not saving the government a dime.