| January 31 - February 7, 2012 |
CBO Study Finds Pay, Benefits Worse for Feds with Advanced Degrees than their Private-Sector Counterparts
Federal employees with doctorates or professional degrees earn less compensation per hour than their private sector counterparts, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). However, federal workers with no more than a high school diploma and those with no more than a bachelor's degree earned more per hour than similarly educated employees in the private sector.CBO looked at both the wages and benefits in the federal government and the private sector in the study. Federal workers with no more than a high school diploma earned, on average, 21 percent more in hourly wages when compared to their private sector counterparts while those whose highest level of education was a bachelor's degree earned roughly the same hourly wage as those in the private sector with the same level of education. However, CBO found that federal employees with an advanced degree earned, on average, 23 percent less per hour than similar employees in the private sector. CBO also looked at forms of noncash compensation, such as health insurance, paid leave and retirement benefits, and found that benefit costs were higher for federal employees with no more than a bachelor's degree than for similarly suited employees in the private sector, while benefit costs were "roughly the same, on average," for federal employees with an advanced degree and similar workers in the private sector. The study also compared "total compensation," a combination of wages and benefits, between employees in the federal government and those in the private sector and found that federal employees with a professional degree or doctorate earned about 18 percent less, on average, than private sector employees with similar education levels. In the study, CBO examined average employee compensation costs for federal workers and private sector employee, while taking into account different factors that may impact compensation, such as education, occupation, years of work experience, geographic location, size of employer and various demographic characteristics. The study is available here. |
Federal CTO Chopra Leaving Post
Aneesh Chopra, the White House's first chief technology officer (CTO), is stepping down, White House officials confirmed last week. His last day will be Feb. 8."Aneesh found countless ways to engage the American people using technology, from electronic health records for veterans, to expanding access to broadband for rural communities, to modernizing government records," President Barack Obama said in a statement. "His legacy of leadership and innovation will benefit Americans for years to come, and I thank him for his outstanding service." Chopra was sworn in as the federal CTO, a position within the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), on May 22, 2009. As the first federal CTO, Chopra oversaw the development of open government plans and has been one of the leading advocates for electronic health record access. "Aneesh has led that charge in an energetic, innovative, and amazingly effective manner, and sowed the seeds necessary to bring our government into the 21st century," said John Holdren, director of OSTP, in the OSTP blog. During his tenure as federal CTO, Chopra also helped create the President's National Wireless Initiative and establish Internet Policy Principles, Holdren said. "He's made an indelible mark on technology policy in this country because of his belief in the transformative nature of technology that result in powerful collaborations between government and the industry that will benefit our country long past Aneesh's last day as CTO," said Dan Varroney, acting president and CEO of TechAmerica, in a statement. |
GAO Finds FECA Program Remains Vulnerable to Fraud
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) program remains vulnerable to fraud, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a preliminary report on fraud-prevention controls.These vulnerabilities stem from a limited access to data, a reliance on self-reported data, allowing claimants to select their own physicians instead of government-appointed physicians, and the difficulties associated with investigations and prosecutions, GAO said. "Specifically, we found that limited access to necessary data is potentially reducing agencies' ability to effectively monitor claims and wage-loss information," the report stated. Currently, the Department of Labor (DOL) lacks authority to compare private or public wage information with FECA wage-loss data to identify fraud. Officials at DOL do not have access to payroll data in the National Directory of New Hires, which could help DOL reduce duplicative payments by viewing any unreported income, the report said. GAO's report also identified "promising practices" that agencies have implemented to fight fraudulent FECA claims. These practices include employing dedicated, full-time FECA program staff; instituting periodic FECA claims reviews; conducting data analysis; and investigating potential fraud cases to increase program controls. "Three employing agencies informed us that they employed dedicated, full-time FECA program staff including injury compensation specialists and other staff, which, according to officials, helps staff gain program knowledge and expertise," the report stated. "Agencies with full-time staff may be able to dedicate resources to training them in fraud prevention, which is a positive practice noted in GAO's fraud-prevention framework." The promising practices have helped agencies identify fraud, GAO said. For example, DOL gives each employing agency access to its Agency Query System, which allows agencies to electronically review FECA claims data. DOL also gives employing agencies quarterly or weekly extracts from their data system that contain information on wage-compensation payments, medical-billing payments and case-management data. "We are planning to look further into these [promising] practices as part of our ongoing work," GAO said. |
|
From the Hill
House Subcommittee Debates Federal Retirement Benefit Cuts
Last Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee continued to discuss proposals to cut the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) defined pension plan in a hearing on federal retirement reform. "It is clear that the federal taxpayer cannot afford the current federal pension cost structure in the long term," said Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., chairman of the Federal Workforce Subcommittee that held the hearing. During the hearing, Ross introduced his own legislative proposal to makes changes to both the FERS system and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Ross' plan would decrease the variable pension accrual rate for FERS employees from 1.1 percent to 0.7 percent and would base federal employees' annuities on their average salary over a five year period instead of the current three years. Currently, the FERS defined pension plan is calculated by taking the employee's three highest years of salary and dividing it by years of service and multiplying it by the variable pension accrual rate. The proposal would also require employee contributions to FERS/CSRS to increase by .5 percent over three years and would end the FERS annuity supplement for those federal employees that take early retirement, unless the employee is covered by a mandatory retirement age requirement. The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) testified at the hearing on behalf of the Federal Postal Coalition, a group representing federal and postal labor and management organizations. "Cuts to federal retirement benefits and further pay freezes harm hardworking federal employees and their families, who are struggling with these challenges just like their private sector counterparts," said David Snell, director of Retirement Benefits Services at NARFE. The proposal angered several federal employee labor unions, who argued that the proposals mainly shielded the wealthiest Americans at federal employees' expense. "Congressman Ross is right about one thing," John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a statement, "the public is outraged." Gage argued that FERS is fully funded and does not pose an additional tax burden on the public. National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley said that to increase pension contributions for the federal workforce would defeat the purpose of the benefits generated by the payroll tax holiday. "Before other groups have even contributed a dime to deficit reduction efforts, some in Congress have returned to attack the federal pension system and attempt to squeeze an additional $65 billion in cuts from this middle-class group of taxpayers," Kelley said in a statement. |
|
Case Law Update
Employee's Discrimination Claim Based on Accretion-of-Duties Promotion Fails Because She Did Not Convey Her Interest in Promotion, Eighth Circuit Rules
An employee's discrimination claim based on an accretion-of-duties promotion fails because the employee did not convey her interest in a promotion, the Eighth Circuit ruled recently. In this case, the employee, who suffered from a severe hearing impairment, began working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1979. Over the course of her employment, the employee filed numerous complaints of workplace discrimination on the basis of her disability and retaliation for her prior complaints. Among other things, the employee alleged that the USDA discriminated against her when it failed to promote her through the non-competitive "accretion of duties" process. The case eventually made its way to the Eighth Circuit, which ruled on the case last month. In its decision, the Eighth Circuit began by explaining that the "accretion-of-duties" process is a non-competitive promotion process by which employees performing work above their General Schedule (GS) grade level can seek to have their grade level reclassified to a level commensurate with the work they actually are performing. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination over failure to receive a non-competitive promotion, a plaintiff has to demonstrate that: (1) she was a member of a protected class, (2) she applied for and was generally qualified for the promotion, (3) she did not receive the promotion, and (4) similarly situated employees who were not members of the protected class did receive non-competitive promotions. Here, the Eighth Circuit stated, there is no question the USDA employee did not apply for an accretion-of-duties promotion. Instead, the employee argued that in her office the accretion-of-duties promotion process could be initiated by either an employee or a supervisor requesting a desk audit, and that her supervisors never requested a desk audit for her while they had requested desk audits for her similarly situated, non-disabled co-workers. However, the Eighth Circuit stated that this contention, even if true, would not entitle the employee to relief. The appeals court stated that the rule is that an employee who does not formally apply must make "every reasonable attempt to convey his or her interest in the job to the employer" before he or she can prevail on a discrimination claim. In this case, the USDA employee admitted that, in addition to not requesting a desk audit herself, she did not ask her supervisors to request a desk audit on her behalf. She also admitted that she never complained to her supervisors that she was performing duties above her grade level without a commensurate increase in her grade level. Since the USDA employee did not make "every reasonable attempt" to convey her interest in an accretion-of-duties promotion, the Eighth Circuit concluded that her discrimination claim must fail. The case is Culpepper v. Vilsack, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 10-2627, December 28, 2011. |
|
Tip of The Week
Tip of the Week Returns Next Week
Our experts are on a break this week! Join us next week for Tech Tips by CISCO. |
|
Smile of the Week
Teacher: "What is the chemical formula for water?" Jane: "HIJKLMNO!" Teacher: "What are you talking about?" Jane: "Yesterday you said it's H to O! |
Weekly Leadership Reflection
Without initiative, leaders are simply workers in leadership positions. - Bo Bennett |
 |
|
|
|
|
