|
Federal Diary Live
With Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2001; Noon EST
The Post's Stephen Barr is the author of The Federal Diary, which runs Sunday through Friday in the Metro section. Steve has been a reporter and editor at The Post since 1979, including stints as Federal Page editor, congressional editor and a staff writer covering the federal bureaucracy. He takes the column live to answer your questions Wednesdays at noon EDT.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests
and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Stephen Barr: Good day, and thanks for joining us. Congress and the White House continue to focus on terrorism and Afghanistan; the Office of Management and Budget and agencies are in the "pass back" process, an annual jousting ritual over how much money the White House will recommend for agency programs in the president's February budget, and the weather in Washington has been exceptionally good, lifting some of the last month's gloom. On to the questions.
Columbia, Md.:
For the last year I have been saying that the largest diversity issue in the federal government, and the one that no one seems to address, is age diversity. I think this is causing a lot of problems in federal agencies. OPM's insistence that there is no need for paid parental leave is a good example. Agencies apparent lack of interest in establishing student loan repayment programs is another. Things are very different today than they were when current federal managers entered the workforce. Most of them did not face $40,000 (or more) in student loan debt. The cost of a single family home was no where near the $150,000 (or more) some of us face. They did not pay $500 a month in child care. We younger workers are not greedy or ungrateful, we're simply trying to survive. I truly believe we need to start a dialogue between the generations, so both can get some understanding of where the others are coming from. This could be extremely helpful when developing recruitment and retention strategies in the future. Are you aware of any agencies doing this, and do you think it would be a wise approach?
Stephen Barr: Superb points. I frequently hear from young federal workers who say they feel good about being a part of public service but have trouble making ends meet. Many, it seems, are carrying college debt, cannot find decent, low-rent apartments and decided to leave the Washington area because they cannot stretch entry-level salaries far enough to cover their monthly expenses.
I like your idea of starting a conversation between the generations. There are various groups that identify with certain groups of employees (NARFE for retirees; PMI groups for youngish professionals), but I can't recall one that would work as you suggest. Some agencies have set up mentoring programs and executive education programs, which sometimes put young folks and old hands together. Perhaps this would be a worthy project for OPM or one of the nonprofits to take up.
Anyway, it's a keen idea. Anybody out there got something to add?
Burke, VA:
Good piece yesterday! I've seen it reported elsewhere that this loan program will (shock!) actually come with it's own line in the budget. But what will happen after this crisis is over? OPM etc has been giving existing loan repayment programs a lot of play, but no money. Any hope that they'll take a page from Jerry Maguire and answer the frequent call of "Show Me the Money"? washingtonpost.com:
National Security Motivates Plan to Expand Employment Incentives (Post, Dec. 3, 2001)
Stephen Barr: Thank you. I'm not certain this bill -- student loan repayments up to $80,000 over 8 years for national security jobs -- will come with the money attached. It is, after all, an authorization bill, not one from the appropriators, who control the purse strings.
You're on point about "show me the money." By writing regulations for the governmentwide student loan repayment program, OPM has built expectations. I hear from readers every day who argue that this single benefit, if offered, would influence their decision to pursue federal employment.
But agencies apparently don't have the money, or don't want to make hard choices about how to find the money. Hopefully, the Defense Department will become a leader in this area, since it faces a huge retirement wave among its scientists and engineers over the next few years.
Education Department Employee:
Our Department's e-mail is down and should be for longer because of a virus that is filling up the system. The computer people worked all night to clean the system and were then put into a bind as people came to work, opened the virus message, and clogged the system again. Anyway, it seems very strange not to have e-mail and made me realize how dependent we've become of things that were just vague promises ten years ago.
Stephen Barr: E-mail has changed the lives of journalists, too. I hear from readers around the globe, all because of the Internet and e-mail. I've now got two sets of readers: those who physically read The Post newspaper, and see our other coverage, and those who read the Diary online, and may or may not read other Post coverage. From my view, a bigger, smarter audience, but more complex to serve. Hope you get virus free today!
Bethesda, Md.:
Stephen,
Regarding the student loan repayments, what is your general impression of what the requirements are going to be? Will they simply be available to an employee with debt who is willing to sign an agreement to work for 3 years? Or will it be used as a recruiting tool for new hires only? Or maybe will we have to prove that we're looking for work elsewhere so it's a "retention" benefit? Thanks
Stephen Barr: Good questions. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to help agencies find and keep people in so-called critical jobs, especially homeland defense, technology, etc. It seems that each agency will get to decide what jobs are critical, and offer student loans as a way to attract college grads. But the loan repayment programs are supposed to help keep people in federal service, too. The proposed national security loan program, which I understand is the subject of a news conference in the Senate this hour, will set aside a certain percentage for current employees who may want to return to college or who may be thinking of leaving for the proverbial greener pastures.
I'm not sure the agencies have figured out how to administer student loan repayments. Many still seem to be sorting out financial and fairness issues.
Laurel, Md.:
Re: Student Loans
Hey!
I WORKED my way through a state university so I could graduate without debt. Is OPM thinking of making me a sucker?
Stephen Barr: I know what you mean. I basically worked while attending college, although I took advantage of a great federal benefit program--the GI Bill.
Many members of Congress also took advantage of the student defense loan program to get through college, so I think they tilt toward these types of programs. The government also has set up other recruitment and retention incentive programs, which you might be eligible for.
But you raise a fundamental issue -- just how much "internal equity" should there be when benefits are made available in the civil service. The concept has pretty much broken down in the private sector, but industry seems more flexible in devising and administering such ideas. I generally think student loan repayments are the way the government needs to go in the future, since I'm skeptical of efforts to reform the pay system and raise salaries.
Alexandria, Va.:
Re: age diversity: very true. Along with a huge proportion of the Federal work force, I'm eligible to retire, and probably will in about two years. Managers have to think about what will bring younger people to work for government, and I don't see much of that happening. We are suffering from a tremendous lack of middle-management types due to hiring freezes in the last 10 years. Any decision-makers who are "lurking" out there, I can only say you need to wake up and look at the reality of the lives of recent college graduates.
Stephen Barr: Thank you. Good points.
Washington, D.C.:
Why is OPM focusing on hispanic employment? What about disability employment?
Stephen Barr: I think it has to do with the numbers. Statistically, Hispanics are under-represented in the federal workforce when compared to the national labor pool. The government has a good track record on hiring the disabled, so you see less emphasis in that area these days. In addition, a number of agencies need bilingual employees, and more linguists in general.
But some might argue that politics are at work here. The Clinton administration started an Hispanic hiring initiative and the Bush team is continuing it. Both parties want to court these voters.
Arlington, Va.:
Speaking for the older generation, we served in the federal government without the frills of paid leave, paid transportation, day care reimbursements, and loan repayments and managed to go through the whole deal of raising children, racing around when they were sick, and generally survived. I'm not begrudging the benefits, but they weren't necessary for a lot of people who have served well.
Stephen Barr: No doubt about it. But the government is moving into the knowledge and information business, contracting out more work, and competes more than before with industry for certain types of workers. One solution might be to overhaul the benefits system so that employees could choose what's most important to them at various stages of their lives, but I also know that such grand schemes are politically difficult to pull off.
Bethesda, Md.:
Good for Laurel, but lots of schools cost more than any student could afford just by working. It's not a matter of OMB making people without debt (be it by working, getting 100 percent scholarships, or having well to do parents) suckers, it's about giving the Government a tool with which it can best compete for jobs in a tight market.
Stephen Barr: Thanks, and noted.
Silver Spring, Md.:
Stephen -- excellent point from the reader concerning the "generation crisis" with respect to government pay and benefits for younger workers. For post age-50 employees and retirees, we too have our share of disappointments -- such as OPM's promise to tell us in October 2001 what the makeup of the government's LTC insurance program (tentatively scheduled for implementation in 2003) will be. It's makes shopping around and comparing private LTC policies more difficult. Unfortunately, because LTC insurance premiums increase as individuals get older, the cost of the program to employees and retirees (who will pay the entire premium) will go up if OPM delays the implementation of the program.
Stephen Barr: OPM tells me it will have the new long-term care program up and running by October 2002, but will probably permit early enrollment, starting in February. True, OPM is running behind schedule on its announcement that will disclose premiums and benefits, but we should know by the end of this month.
Columbia, Md.:
I worked all through school (undergrad) as well, but still have $40,000 in school loans. My Master's program was a full-time endeavor (requiring UNPAID internships both years) and I had a young child at home, so I couldn't work, but still had to pay for daycare. I understand your question about equity, and think it is a reasonable point. However, please don't think that those of us who have high loan debt didn't work during school.
Stephen Barr: Another excellent point. In some respects, your remarks underscore the need for a variety of incentive programs.
McLean, Va.:
We're now in the health benefits open season. Your column on Monday (12/3/01) gave out an alert that we have only until December 10 to change plans.
On Tuesday (12/4/01) I received a newsletter from my former agency (I am retired) informing me that open season does not end until December 31.
Which is the corrrect date?
Stephen Barr: According to OPM, the FEHBP open season ends Dec. 10. Now, most likely, your coverage runs through Dec. 31, since the plans start charging their new premium rates at the start of 2002. Give that letter a closer read, and, depending on what you find, call OPM or the National Association of Retired Federal Employees in Alexandria for assistance.
Falls Church, Va.:
I don't have a question, however, I would like to respond to the young federal employee regarding the generation gap. I am an older federal manager but I don't consider myself old. I began as a GS-3 Analyst and worked my way up to upper level management. When I moved to Washington, I experienced the same set of problems this younger person is experiencing. For the paltry some of money I received as a GS-3 ($4,600), I paid rent and had all the same expenses. I haven't forgotten how I struggled and I consider it my responsibility as a manager and human being to help those under my supervision. Please don't segment all older managers into the same category. Maybe there aren't enough of us to go around but those of us who take our jobs seriously remember what it was like to struggle and reach back to pull those up to where we are. I ask that when you are in upper management that you don't forget your struggles.
Stephen Barr: Well said.
Houston, Tex.:
The previous administration was not generally in favor the concept of locality pay. Accordingly, locality adjustments during that administration were minimal.
Has the current administration conveyed its general position (i.e., in favor; neutral; opposed) regarding locality pay?
Stephen Barr: Not really. With all the worry about terrorism, I doubt the White House budget office plans to look for a new policy approach on locality pay. Under pay law, the president must issue a memo or directive by month's end stipulating how much of the average 4.6 percent raise for 2002 will go to locality adjustments. That might be where we first get a sense of how the administration views locality pay.
Chicago, Ill.:
Hello
Can you tell me the status of HR 1088, which includes the so-called "pay-parity" provision for SEC employess? Thanks
Stephen Barr: Still stuck in the Senate, and the clock is ticking. Sen. Daschle promised to bring it to the floor for a vote, but did not say when. We're on the look out.
Pentagon:
I agree that student loan repayment is an important tool. For example, first year law students are not allowed to work. They are supposed to be concentrating on classes. Therefore, if you don't have a scholarship (difficult to get at that level) or parents to help it is student loans or nothing. Additionally, in areas such as law and medicine, getting a job (even with the federal government) depends on how good your school is. So going to the state school because it is cheaper might mean you still have student loans but without a job at the end. And even state schools are now so expensive in some cases that they can't be paid for even if the student does work their way through. I agree with the other readers that there is a huge gap between the age groups. For example the reader who commented that houses now cost $150,000 should also have noted that you can only find one that cheaply if you are willing to live about an hour a way from your office and in a one to two bedroom condo. Things have changed and the government isn't keeping up.
Stephen Barr: Thank you. More good points.
Burke, Va.:
In response to Arlington, I can only say the times they are a changing! Each generation has, rightly or wrongly, different expectations about what's fair & equitable. Just because you did without doesn't mean that follow on generations should as well. 20 years ago, when I first moved to the area, NO ONE thought about traffic gridlock etc.
Stephen Barr: Times do change.
To Columbia, Md.:
I fully understand your frustration.
However, as I see it, you are in a much better situation than those who are in private industry (me being one). In the government, there is at least a retirement program.
In private industry one has to put dollars into a 401k, but after rent and food and transportation; there is no money left. So, there is no retirement. Add that to the corporate layoffs....
In my opinion, it all comes down to a living wage. Maybe there is some way for the federal government to require public and private sectors to pay a living wage to employees.
Stephen Barr: Now, we're getting to the hard part.
Gaithersburg, Md.:
I'm really tired of all this extra pay people with children think they deserve for doing the same job as someone without children because they CHOSE to have children, which can be expensive. Who do they think will have to pick up their workload while they're on maternity leave? Why not give everyone a couple 3 month paid sabbaticals that you can use for any purpose. Of course the whiners with kids will say it's not fair because I cruise for three months while they had to tend their kids.
Stephen Barr: How 'bout if you take my kids and I'll take your cruise?
Vienna, Va.:
The young caller from Silver Spring who bemoaned the fact that we older workers did not have to pay $150,000 for a house or deal with high child care expenses did not stop and consider the fact that when we first started out, most of us weren't making any money, either. I started as a GS-3 in 1974 making $6764 a year before taxes -- and the average price of a new house was in the 40-60K range. You STILL had to work quite a bit to pay for a house even then. One has to consider how much federal salaries have gone up over the years. Benefits have gone up even more -- we soon will be getting $100 a month just for commuting. It's true, you don't join the federal government to get rich, but you certainly won't be poor either if you manage your money wisely, and the chances offFederal layoffs are considerably less than private industry.
Stephen Barr: True. But the run-up in housing prices and college tuition seems to be faster than salary growth. Perhaps OPM should ask BLS for help in this area as part of their ongoing "strategic compensation review."
Miami, Fla.:
Can you give me an update on Locality Pay? Will those of us in Higher Geographical areas receive greater than a 4.6 percent COLA?
Stephen Barr: See response above. Still waiting on the president to issue his directive. But if the past holds true, the higher-cost localities should come in a bit higher than 4.6 percent.
McLean, Va.:
Thanks for your response, but I contacted my former agency and they insist the deadline for changing health plans is the 31st, not the 10th.
They claim that the latter date is for active employees only and that retirees have until the end of the month.
Stephen Barr: Aaargh! Don't know what's going on here, but OPM says both active and retired employees have until Dec. 10 to choose their coverage. OPM oversees FEHBP; given this confusion, I think you better check the open season Internet site, www.opm.gov/insure/health/index.htm
And then call OPM. Best of luck!
Alexandria, Va.:
I'm the one who wrote saying I planned to retire soon. Even though I'm an "older" worker (age 51), I sympathize with the younger group, especially in Washington and other high-cost cities. As an example, my pleasant but not luxurious suburban home cost $140,000 when it was built in 1984. I bought it for around $220,000 a few years later. My neighbors just sold the same model for $325,000. Considering what it costs to live here, how can government hope to hold good employees when the pay scale is kept lower than what potential employees could make elsewhere? When the pay scale cannot be changed for political reasons, then total pay has to be increased by "back door" benefits such as student loan payments, day care reimbursement and the like.
Of course I wish govt. accountants had been more fair to my generation too, especially in the calculation of pension benefits. Up until the mid-80's the first couple years or so of pensions were tax-free and considered a return of what we had contributed. Now those amounts are "annuitized" and most of our pensions are taxed from day one. The reality is that since all of our pay and our benefits come from the taxpayers (including ourselves), there will always be trade-offs between what's good for the Federal employees and the political desire to keep Fed. costs down. It takes a bold politician to posit that keeping costs down does not equal getting the best Federal work-force possible, which would be more benefit to the country at large.
Stephen Barr: Excellent points, especially the notion of "back door benefits."
Washington, D.C.:
Is D.C. considered a higher-cost locality?
Stephen Barr: As you can tell from this discussion, people surely think it is. But, actually, locality pay is paid on labor market conditions, not cost of living, which is a distinction that sometimes get lost. As a result of the job-matching methodology that is used, Washington ends up about in the middle of the pack. It's a mysterious process to me.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
Strom Thurmond turns 99 today. If I go to work for the Federal government, will I be required to retire before I turn 99? If so, why? Thanks much. washingtonpost.com:
Strom Thurmond Turns 99 (AP, Dec. 5, 2001)
Stephen Barr: No, unless you work in law enforcement, firefighting or some other job that intersects with public safety. Except for those, there is no mandatory retirement in the government. Check out my Thanksgiving Day column--it mentions a CIA employee now in her mid-80s. Stom has competition!
Washington, D.C.:
Stephen,
I read with interest your column this morning on "Management Reform," in which you mention a recent article by T.E. Winchell, who points to a 1-percent increase (since 1994) in the number of GS-13, 14, and 15 positions as evidence that previous campaigns to reduce managerial layers have not been successful. In making this argument, Mr. Winchell seems to be assuming that all positions in these three pay grades are necessarily management positions. Has it occurred to him that many of the positions in grades 13 and 14 are filled by skilled professionals in front-line positions? I don't see how it could be otherwise, given the salary levels in the Federal Government. To take an example, at consulting firms, at international organizations, and at the Federal Reserve Bank (which is not subject to civil service laws), the starting salary for a Ph.D. economist fresh out of graduate school typically exceeds $80,000 (which would be in the GS-14 range). In the Federal Government, about the best one can do to attract (and keep) a new Ph.D. economist is to hire at the GS-12 level, with a promotion to GS-13 after a few years. I would hate to think what would happen to efforts to convince skilled professionals to consider a career with the federal government if there was a new campaign by the political appointees to cut the number of positions at pay grades above GS-12. washingtonpost.com:
Management Reform Runs Into Some Potent Counterforces (Post, Dec. 5, 2001)
Stephen Barr: Well said. Because we are running out of time, I won't attempt a lengthy response. I'm not sure what to make of such data, except that it seems to point us in the direction of revamping compensation and classification systems, which seem outdated in this high-tech age. Such data also raises the question of whether this is "grade creep," another form of the back-door pay raise, or whether we should care at all. It may be the nature of large organizations, which need to pay people to get the work done right.
Washington, D.C.:
Any hope of the Federal Government closing down 12/24 and/or 12/31?
Stephen Barr: Yes, Washington, there is hope! But I can't answer the question. I'll tell you when the administration tells me.
Thanks to all of you for this lively discussion today. I appreciate your time and effort. See you here at noon next Wednesday.
| |
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
