Question: How much are federal employees worth?

I don't have a link yet (this came from work) but Republicans want to eliminate overtime pay for every government employee making over $66k per year.

As an air traffic controller, I make more than that and I'd like to know how the average person felt about this. Of course, I'd feel the same way about your safety regardless of how much I made, but do I deserve overtime pay despite that fact that I make over $66k per year like most other hourly employees do?

As another consideration, we have the safest ATC system in the world, in part, because we pay controllers well. There's virtually no turnover. Controllers retire or they die...they don't quit. The experience base this has provided provides a great deal of the security the flying public enjoys. How much should this be changed?

The bottom line is that we represent a mere 15,000 specialists nationwide that provide a service that nobody else is able to provide. I'm not asking for carte blanche, but shouldn't we be entitled to the same rights that most hourly workers enjoy?

It makes a little more sense when they base overtime pay on job descriptions IMHO, not on how much salary you have. Although I disagree with a bunch of the job descriptions who are exempt from overtime pay anyway.

And this kind of stuff especially drives me batty where I live (Northern Virginia). With all the government workers in the area, you'd think there'd be three Democrats, not two Republicans and a Democrat. Although I'm sure Wolf and Davis will vote against any plan that will hurt government workers, the point is they vote for the Republican leadership which gets this stuff passed.

A disturbing pic though... soldiers hoisting up a McDonalds sign... speaks volumes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The median income around here is $78,000. Most of the government workers live near DC, and it is just so expensive to live here.

Mr. "20 Hours of OT a week at a UAW job"....

I work for STATE Government. My job pays slightly more than 1/2 what a comparable job in the "Real World" pays.

Yeah, I know, you're thinking "So what? I bet you do only 1/2 the work, too, you lazy Gubbmint Worker Leech..."

Ain't nobody holding a gun to your head to stay in that Walmart, y'know....

AND I wish I could see overtime pay for all the extra time I put in. I average a 60 hour work week on salary. It is difficult to get time off because of the my role on the current project AND people on professional and scientific jobs cannot collect overtime. Contrary to popular belief, we pay taxes too.

was in state government, granted, but civil service still the same. When I left in '95, I was making just under $18,000 annually after 14+ years and four upgrades. Even though I was hourly, we were not allowed overtime pay unless it was pre-approved and that just didn't happen. Instead, it was comp time.

In answer to the question of worth though, I believe if you are hourly then you should be entitled to the overtime pay. It should not be based on how much you make.

I haven't read the proposal, but I wonder (and I'll try to state this as clearly as possible) ...if the OT is to be taken away, would a worker become salaried once they get to a certain pay grade? In other words, can they be docked for not putting in a full 40 or 37 1/2 or whatever the work week is? If that is the case, the OT should definitely NOT go away.

edit to add: I great value you and what you do for us. You're worth it IMO.

should be entitled to the same rights as government
workers. If that was only the case we might enjoy
our lives more rather than having to work for peanuts
at Walmart or some other cheap company and have to
worry about getting laid off all the time.

He was talking about his job of making sure lots of planes and passengers stay safe and healthy.

Until a few months ago, I was an hourly employee making somewhere around 90K per year with overtime. Now I'm unemployed and making nothing. And yet, I don't begrudge Wal-Mart workers or air traffic controllers the money they make.

As to the original question, I think that if overtime pay is to be cut off for air traffic controllers, then air traffic controllers should be able to get up and leave after 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.

Granted, I live in the west suburbs of Cleveland and work at the busiest ATC facility on the planet, so I'm doing O.K. There are plenty of controllers working in the New York, Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, and southern California areas who have a higher cost of living, however. I'm definitely not whining. I love my job and it DOES provide great job security (so far) and a good wage. I just know that my facility is already understaffed and we're expanding/reorganizing to try to accommodate the airlines so they can make a profit. Without overtime, I really don't see how they're going to move planes...

As far as your statement:

"I'd switch this to:

shouldn't the rest of us be entitled to the same rights government workers enjoy?"

I wholeheartedly agree. I think everybody should be able to have decent pay and good job security. That doesn't always happen. Believe me, I'm graceful for the position I have and wish everybody could enjoy some of the benefits I do.

And I can't be a Democrat?

I worked in disaster loan servicing for the SBA until 2000. We weren't allowed any overtime without prior approval. Now, my friends are worried about their jobs because the current administrator is using corporate style tactics to remove vested workers who are near retirement. There's no security anywhere.

And the department head called us all together to basically give us the "Knight's Cross is no pilgrim's medal. It must be won over and over, every day" speech. so different from when I was hired and it was "Yeah, the pay isn't the best, but the stress and expectation levels are low. Once you're past your probate period, you just about gotta kill somebody to get fired..."

Now I have to work as hard as I might expect to if I was being paid 70 kilobucks, instead of the 38 kilobucks I get.

When I started the SBA in 1997, my center had about 76,000 loans assigned to 12-13 specialists. Due to some hiring, I was promoted into servicing, but after I left, there was a hiring freeze and many positions open through attrition haven't been filled. My friend said that the business end of the center has taken the largest hit with senior workers being cut loose left and right. I believe that their ultimate goal is to outsource civil service work to some half ass company like Affiliated Computer Services to cut cost. They've tried it over and again at the SBA.

basis should get OT pay. Period. No matter how high their hourly rate is. And OT should be mandatory only in life or death situations, IMO, not just because management doesn't want to be bothered to hire enough help.

We would like overtime, but the budget does not allow it, so we get credit hours instead. You can bank up to 24 credit, when you try and use it, the stupidvisors keep saying you abuse your leave.

I would like to know how I abuse my leave if I have 200 annual and 1,000 sick leave hours banked up over 22 years.

Meanwhile, these geniuses are drawing up plans to send our work overseas, just imagine calling Social Security's 800# and find out that you are talking to someone in India and giving them your Social Security number and identifying information. CAN YOU SAY "ID THEFT", ANYONE?

and I worked 57 hours Christmas week.

If you worked 57 hours C'mas week, why didn't you get overtime for the extra 17 hours?

You, and everyone else who works over 40 hours a week should get overtime, or at least comp time. Period.

Like the original poster, I work for the federal government (but different agency). Those who are in the higher grades do not get paid time and a half for overtime, it's something less than one half.

I pray you don't ever have to join the real world.

Even when I worked fast food, I got paid for overtime if I worked more than 40 hours in a single work week. I think it's a good question, myself.

OK ???

should get paid for overtime. Few jobs on this planet have a more responsible position. I doubt any of the people here would like to switch jobs. When you have so many lives on the line it's not the time to be hurting the people you trust.

Controllers are paid depending on where they are located. The busier the facilities are the higher paid positions. You can also take an easier location but it depends on how much you want to earn.

Not to mention Bush wants to privatized ATC so he wants to weaken the union. This is only step one.

As I said in a post above, I do love my job and am grateful that it provides a good wage. I also agree that privatization is a horrible idea and, while we've dodged the bullet again this year (with some intense letter-writing and phone campaigns), I'd encourage anybody who happens on a legislator to encourage them not to privatize air traffic control in this country.

I'm very serious: The system works because we have a HUGE experience base. There's virtually zero turnover. Should that change, we'd be sacrificing the busiest and safest air traffic control system in the world...

beyond having to cover unexpected sickness, there is no reason to have overtime. The demand for hours is a given so you just staff accordingly.

Having said that, I have no problem with overtime if its legitimate and not a calculated means of milking the system. I have seen many instances where "labor" has conspired with low level management to assign far more hours of overtime than was needed simply to fattem their wallets.

If its honest and honorable, hell yes. Otherwise, hell no.

I work in a facility that's staffed below its government-agreed-to staffing numbers. There are some shifts that simply come up short. We usually work them short unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as bad weather). Still, there are over 450 controllers who work at my facility, along with another 150+ support staff. We DO have to use overtime on a regular basis.

don't believe in "milking the system", but I think it's important to staff at safe levels. When you start from an understaffed position, this becomes necessary on a regular basis.

. . . government to *intentionally* understaff, then force people to work more than 40 hrs/week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, with no overtime compensation. Talk about abuse potential.

Of course, we're protected. They've tried to force me in on overtime before. My response: "I just had a beer, but if it's O.K. with you, it's O.K. with me". Needless to say, they passed :)

I HAVE been forced in on overtime before on an advance basis. They knew a week ahead of time that they'd be short and scheduled me for overtime. In that case, I'm stuck (other than calling in sick, which is something I try not to do on a regular basis).

My real concern is for private sector employees who get assigned overtime without additional pay. If THEY say "no", they're fired. This is less about overtime than it is about destroying the concept of the 40-hour work week. That's the real issue, as far as I'm concerned.

gee that would help the economy too !

for air traffic controllers, working short is an inappropriate alternative to no-overtime.

failing to maintain proper staff levels is also inappropriate.

With the Bush administration, we had an agreement to extend out existing contract through 2005. They tried to back out this year. Luckily, we managed to force them to abide by their agreement, so we have a contract...at least through September of 2005.

We've also tried to explain to them that we need more staffing. What year did Reagan fire all of those controllers? 1981. How many years do controllers have to work to be eligible for retirement? 25. What's 1981+25? 2006. About 30% of our workforce is elegible to retire in 2006 and it takes 2-3 years to train a controller. You do the math.

Why do supposed liberals believe in worker rights and protections for themselves and not others? Why do pay rates matter in this debate? Why does salary/hourly come in to this debate? If you are a worker on salary and don't like having to work overtime for free, you have two choices
1. Quit and find an hourly job that pays overtime or
2. Lobby congress with millions of like minded people and change the laws concerning overtime. Support organizations like the AFL-CIO that are fighting for ALL workers, union or not.

Taking away your hard earned overtime pay doesn't help any salaried employee.

Overtime pay is also a JOBS issue. Yes, a jobs issue. Overtime time and a half gives employers a choice, they can pay a premium to their current employees or they can hire new employees at the base rate. Two employees are now employed, and two are receiving benefits.

Under the new regs, there is no incentive for business to hire new employees, they can simply require 60-70h/wk from their current employees (at straight time) and pay only one worker benefits.

Many times the reason why management doesn't hire an adequate number of people is because of the health care benefits involved with each employee. If I can get an extra 10-20 hours a week out of an existing employee, my health care costs remain the same. If I need to hire new people to adequately staff, my health care benefits start to increase with each new hire. Health care costs are out of this world, so I'd much rather pay premium pay to employees for overtime.

Where I work, we have 100% paid health care (first 24 months you pay 10% of the premium, after that we pay 100%). You can insure yourself, your spouse, and your minor children at no cost to you. For the family plan, the premium is about $1200/month per employee. That's an awful lot of money! Since we have very little need for overtime, it's way cheaper to just pay the time and a half, instead of hiring new staff.

Any hourly employee should be paid time and a half for all hours worked in excess of 40/week. This is regardless of what other benefits they may receive. It's only fair. And I don't think job descriptions should be tampered with to change people from hourly to salaried. It's a crock. If you work 60-80 hours a week, and you're paid hourly, you deserve premium pay.

I am salaried, and I work the number of hours needed to get the job done, with no extra compensation. That's a choice I made, many years ago. But you can be damn sure that if I was paid hourly, I'd expect to be paid extra for any hours worked as overtime!

per week overtime laws. Also, a management employee is someone with people reporting to them.

You may recall, successfully attacking unions started with the ATC. The Reagan admin lead the battle to weaken unions for the benefit of the corporations. The results are what we see today.

I sometimes wonder if it was Reagan or was it Bush senior pushing Reagan's button. Reagan seemed to be somewhat senile after he 'recovered' from being shot.

Any activity to limit overtime laws by the fed should be fought, right from the beginning. Make no mistake, the efforts by the fed to weaken workers rights comes from corporations (and those controlling the corporations) not from "we the people". Those scalawags in congress will be dealt with come this November.

BTW, I enjoyed your contributions to the 9-11 threads. It is good to have people in DU that have detailed knowledge concerning all the various specialties within American industry. Having someone that knows how the the ATC functions helps all of us in DU to comprehend issues relating to events that are hard to understand.

They accuse dems of using big goverment to meddle into affairs which should be decided a lower levels and then set out to decide how America's workers are paid overtime? I think overtime and all pay should be decided individually. I think worker protection laws are necessary but this protects no one, except corporations. The fact that they continue to pursue this signals that it is more important than we may think or know, somebody's bottom line stands to improve a great deal from this law passing. I wonder who.

should get overtime. People who WORK by the hour should get overtime. People who are not paid overtime and do not work by the hour who are required to work additional hours should be well-compensated, i.e. doctors and lawyers.

Eliminate the Republicans salaries. Better yet eliminate the Republicans positions.

...is that the government wages and qualifications are the baseline for prevailing wages and qualifications for similar work. The qualifications more often than not include previous work experiance that can be substituted for a degree or some other sort of "ticket punch" that enables skilled and experianced workers to begin at wage and catagory levels in critical jobs that are livible, rather than hiring someone with the schooling but with no real life experiance at a cheaper wage.

The other issue is consistancy of work in a regulated manner. Long term federal employees are typically not beholden to political ups and downs, of contracts, of the stockholder "bottom lines". Federal employment is driven by the job requirements set by the various federal departments, not by profit or market share.

I've seen way too many cases where privatization actually costs more taxpayer money, actually hurts the public sector, and provides a far worse service for the same money that keeping the federal employee and facility on the job.
Yeah, sure - stockholders and CEO's (and lobbyists and other political insiders) end up with lots of money, but the workforce and equipment providing the privatized service deteriorates at a far greater rate.

Haele

For years (about 10) the Pay Comparability Act dictated that federal employees had to be paid within a certain percentage of comparable private sector jobs. Congress never funded budgets to allow this to be done, but the law existed. Still does, for all I know, but now we're off the General Schedule and have our own ATC pay scale, so I don't believe the law applies to us any more.

I don't give a rip about the overtime issue but what really caught my eye was this:

"...in part, because we pay controllers well. There's virtually no turnover. Controllers retire or they die...they don't quit. "

If there's no turnover then you're likely being paid above the market rate otherwise some would find new employers willing to pay similar or higher wages for their skills. If the Feds pay you 25% more than market rate that extra money comes from somewhere. What program should we short in order to fund this?

Also this:

"The bottom line is that we represent a mere 15,000 specialists nationwide that provide a service that nobody else is able to provide."

Reagan proved this false.

is the only game in town. 2) Reagan did nothing of the sort. The ATC system suffered for over a decade, and the users suffered with us. Ten minutes of holding costs the user thousands of dollars. At any given time, we have between 2,000 and 5,000 aircraft in the air over the continental United States. If we're not adequately staffed and have to enforce restrictions, who do you think pays? The ATC system has only returned to reasonable staffing levels in the past 5 or 6 years. We ARE the only people currently able to provide the service we do, unless you want another decade of less-than-optimum service.

Picture, for a moment, a job that takes 3 years to learn and 8-10 years to become proficient at. What would happen to the integrity of the system if controllers spent 5-10 years there and then decided they would be better off elsewhere? We are adequately compensated, but we aren't "rich". The government pays to provide a very specific service that has a major impact on the economy. In effect, they pay us both for the job we do and the experience we have. If they paid us $50k per year, nobody would stay and the system would suffer, along with the users....and the consumers. Which is cheaper, providing incentive to retain a highly-skilled workforce or paying for the "slop" inherent in an inefficient system?