FERS Sick Leave Buyout Blocked

[James48843]

Yesterday, the Senate considered the bill that was to contain the FERS Sick Leave Buyout plan sponsored by Senator Liberman (I-Connecticut). Democratic Senator Dick Durban (D-Illinois) attempted to include the provision that would have given FERS employees the same sick-leave credit for retirement purposes that current CSRS employees have.

Republican Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) blocked the measure, and it was not included in the final bill. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., led effort to strip pay and benefits measures from legislation.

http://www.govexec.com/graphics/stories/42923_topnews.jpg
Sen. Jim DeMint, R- SC, blocked the amendment
which would have given FERS employees parity with
CSRS on sick leave.

"This was a bad day for the federal workforce," said Randy Erwin,
legislative director of the National Federation of Federal Employees.


Here are all the details:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42923&dcn=todaysnews

[KevinD]

:mad: .

[Silverbird]

House version still has it (look in article).

[Elgallo]

The ability for us to move/contribute some or all our funds to investment companies such as Fidelity etc. is gonna cost them much much more on a lump sum basis than the cost of crediting our sick leave for service credit which would be incremental of nature.

REAL freaking money will have to flow to Fidelity ect. in our names/SSN. Our funds in the TSP are basically an IOU (money they don't have to pay us now) and a promise to pay later depending on our investments results.

Do any of these people have a lick of common sense?

[Silverbird]

I really find this article confusing. It says the sick leave provision is still in the House version of the bill. Is this final or are we only talking about the final *Senate* version and the House and the Senate still have to do some reconciliation??:confused:

[CountryBoy]

The ability for us to move/contribute some or all our funds to investment companies such as Fidelity etc. is gonna cost them much much more on a lump sum basis than the cost of crediting our sick leave for service credit which would be incremental of nature.

REAL freaking money will have to flow to Fidelity ect. in our names/SSN. Our funds in the TSP are basically an IOU (money they don't have to pay us now) and a promise to pay later depending on our investments results.

Do any of these people have a lick of common sense?

Are we talking FERS sick leave here or the ROTH option? And I like the idea of moving real money to a ROTH as opposed to the feds, because I don't trust the feds to keep their hands off my money.

CB

[Elgallo]

Actually both CB.

I'm not real familiar with the bill so i will ask this question: must the fund created outside of TSP, say at Fidelity, be a Roth and only a Roth and not a normal IRA?

If that's the case the only reason that passed was because the taxman don't want to wait any longer and wants his money now.

Screw em!

The immediate TSP enrollment passed because they don't have to pay any money out to you in the short term ("deferred earnings").

Feeling a bit manipulated are we!

[Mcqlives]

Do any of you FERS employees (I am one) really care about the sick leave bill? If you cruch the numbers it takes 2080 hours of sick leave (520 pay periods worth of earning = a whole career) to give you 1% increase in your retirement. This means that if your high 3 were $100,000 you would get an extra $1000 per year during retirement. It would take 20 years, if you live that long, to get $20,000.

If they want people to save their leave and work hard during employment then offer cash value for the leave remaining at retirement. I would bankroll all of it I could then. I bet they think the average gov't employee will never crunch the numbers.

Instead of this sick leave thing give us more investment options, more trades a month, more access to our money and leave our money alone!

[Elgallo]

Do any of you FERS employees (I am one) really care about the sick leave bill? If you crunch the numbers it takes 2080 hours of sick leave (520 pay periods worth of earning = a whole career) to give you 1% increase in your retirement. This means that if your high 3 were $100,000 you would get an extra $1000 per year during retirement. It would take 20 years, if you live that long, to get $20,000.

If they want people to save their leave and work hard during employment then offer cash value for the leave remaining at retirement. I would bankroll all of it I could then. I bet they think the average gov't employee will never crunch the numbers.

Instead of this sick leave thing give us more investment options, more trades a month, more access to our money and leave our money alone!

Here Here!!! In your first paragraph you illustrated the original point I was trying to make. They are penny wise and pound foolish period! Just another reason why govt. spending can/will NEVER be reduced.

[CountryBoy]

Actually both CB.

I'm not real familiar with the bill so i will ask this question: must the fund created outside of TSP, say at Fidelity, be a Roth and only a Roth and not a normal IRA?

If that's the case the only reason that passed was because the taxman don't want to wait any longer and wants his money now.

Screw em!

The immediate TSP enrollment passed because they don't have to pay any money out to you in the short term ("deferred earnings").

Feeling a bit manipulated are we!

I don't know enough about the details of either of them, but what was first proposed for FERS leave carryover into retirement was an insult to us FERS employees. It was worth saving sick leave for the pittance they were offering in return.

As far as the ROTH goes, I feel more confident in selecting specific stocks as opposed to putting my money in an index. So I'll have to wait and see on how the ROTH is going to work before I change my strategy on my ROTH purchases.

Manipulated? Heck yeah, since at least Nov 2007 and much more in the last 100 days or so. ;) I just feel so warm and fuzzy about my future under the watchful caring eye of bHo, :rolleyes:

CB

CB

[Elgallo]

......Manipulated? Heck yeah, since at least Nov 2007 and much more in the last 100 days or so. ;) I just feel so warm and fuzzy about my future under the watchful caring eye of bHo, :rolleyes:

CB

CB

Me too, since around Jan 2001 if you ask me!

[Bullitt]

It's a Catch-22.

You try to give people a real incentive (such as early retirement or 60% rebate) not to call in sick and it costs a fortune. You don't give any incentive and they're going to abuse sick leave in their final few years- costing a fortune in overtime.

[nnuut]

True to form the government is STUPID, what's new? 6422

[James48843]

I really find this article confusing. It says the sick leave provision is still in the House version of the bill. Is this final or are we only talking about the final *Senate* version and the House and the Senate still have to do some reconciliation??:confused:

Today's Govexec.com explains it better:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42932&dcn=todaysnews

the provision was not added to the Senate bill. The Senate version now goes over to the House again.

Normally, the House and Senate would appoint conferees, and then craft a compromise bill, which would then have to be voted on again in both the House and Senate.

Sometimes, as it appears to be the case in this instance, the Senate version goes over to the House, and the House, rather than conferencing, simply passes the Senate version of the bill as their own alternate. That way, it doesn't have to go back to the Senate all over again. If they do that- if the House just votes to approve the Senate version- then it's considered passed, and goes on to the President's desk for signature.

(I think I watched too many episodes of Schoolhouse Rock when I was a kid---

mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[squalebear]

Do any of you FERS employees (I am one) really care about the sick leave bill? If you cruch the numbers it takes 2080 hours of sick leave (520 pay periods worth of earning = a whole career) to give you 1% increase in your retirement. This means that if your high 3 were $100,000 you would get an extra $1000 per year during retirement. It would take 20 years, if you live that long, to get $20,000.

I know of only a few Officers who have been capable of saving close
to 2000 hours. They come in every day and must have one hell of a
Immune System. Especially working in a prison. Since the mid ninties
I've had more reason to utilize my leave then I can say. The deal that
the Gov't offers gives me a feeling that they think we're stupid. There
is absolutely no incentive to save S/L except for Medical Emergencies.
The few that already have +2000 are greatful that they don't have to
turn all those hours in for absolutely nothing. Any of the young pups
will simply see that getting paid for 100% of 8 hours used is far more
attractive then what those idiots have offered them.

It's quite simple really ! Give the youngsters 100% credit for all unused
S/L upon retirement. Its a "Earned Benefit" and should be treated as
such. While your at it, increase the amount of A/L your allowed to
carry over from year to year. Anything over 240 hours ends up in a
Use or Lose scenario. Let Federal Employees manage their own hours
and increase carry over to 480 hours. Pfffft ! I wouldn't hold my breathe
as anything that makes that much sense, is sure to be thrown out with
the rest of the trash. Give Billions away to Corporations while Fed's do
more with less and get screw'd along the way.

Ut Oh, Blood Pressure alarm just went off :nuts: Rant, Rant, Rant ! Sorry ! :embarrest:

[saturneptune]

I know of only a few Officers who have been capable of saving close
to 2000 hours. They come in every day and must have one hell of a
Immune System. Especially working in a prison. Since the mid ninties
I've had more reason to utilize my leave then I can say. The deal that
the Gov't offers gives me a feeling that they think we're stupid. There
is absolutely no incentive to save S/L except for Medical Emergencies.
The few that already have +2000 are greatful that they don't have to
turn all those hours in for absolutely nothing. Any of the young pups
will simply see that getting paid for 100% of 8 hours used is far more
attractive then what those idiots have offered them.

It's quite simple really ! Give the youngsters 100% credit for all unused
S/L upon retirement. Its a "Earned Benefit" and should be treated as
such. While your at it, increase the amount of A/L your allowed to
carry over from year to year. Anything over 240 hours ends up in a
Use or Lose scenario. Let Federal Employees manage their own hours
and increase carry over to 480 hours. Pfffft ! I wouldn't hold my breathe
as anything that makes that much sense, is sure to be thrown out with
the rest of the trash. Give Billions away to Corporations while Fed's do
more with less and get screw'd along the way.

Ut Oh, Blood Pressure alarm just went off :nuts: Rant, Rant, Rant ! Sorry ! :embarrest:
I know how you feel. Right now, I feel like a total idiot for saving 2300 hours of sick leave a few months away from retirement. They could have passed that bill without any cost. I know lots of people now who will go full force to use it all. My guess is that it would have increased a monthly FERS annuity 40-50 dollars.

[Mcqlives]

So, Saturn...is your work schedule for the next few months MWF or TT. Either was, sorry on the unused leave and congrats on the retirement! Get out before they change the pension age to 62!

[Silverbird]

:sick: Hrmm...feeling a little under the weather...;)

[Thunderhorse]

slick leave:cool:

[saturneptune]

That vote was a big mistake. I figured it up for myself with 36 years of service and a high three of 59778, and with a year and three months of sick leave credit, it would amount to about 600 more a year. Assuming a life of 30 more years, that is $18000. Since my year and three months is worth about $65000, it will not take long to recoup. This is one of those votes that is going to cost way more money than if they had passed the amendment. Common sense is not a strong point with these people.

[XL-entLady]

The sick leave issue is just one of the things that makes FERS retirement suck swamp water. :o

FERS is great if you need a portable retirement account, or if you were lucky enough to be able to max out your TSP from day one and then made excellent TSP decisions every year since.

But if you intend to be federal government until you retire, and if you couldn't afford to max your TSP because life happens, and if your TSP crystal ball is broken, CSRS has it all over FERS from the employee's side and is cheaper by far for the employing agency as well. As I have often lamented on these posts, I missed being CSRS Offset by six miserable days. :sick: Anyone who was CSRS and switched to FERS got sold a rotten bill of goods. :mad:

Okay, rant over. :rolleyes:

Lady

[CountryBoy]

My Father retired under CSRS and he has it made in the shade and anyone who says FERS is better is a total idiot.

CB

[XL-entLady]

My Father retired under CSRS and he has it made in the shade and anyone who says FERS is better is a total idiot.

CB
I have several family members who are retired under CSRS. The difference between their situations and those of friends who are starting to retire under FERS is astounding. And don't even get me started about the differences between disability retirements under the two systems.

Lady

[OBGibby]

and is cheaper by far for the employing agency as well.

XL-entLady -

I'm curious about your reference to CSRS being cheaper than FERS for the employing agency. If you have the time, I'd be interested in learning a little bit more of the details on that. Thanks.

[XL-entLady]

XL-entLady -

I'm curious about your reference to CSRS being cheaper than FERS for the employing agency. If you have the time, I'd be interested in learning a little bit more of the details on that. Thanks.
Sure. When we figured personal services costs in my DOI agency, we estimated CSRS personal services with benefits at 115% of pay and we figured FERS at 135% of pay. (Unless it was law enforcement and then it was a different higher figure that I can't remember for sure - 143% I think.)

Before FERS employees became more widespread, there was an unofficial policy of CSRS employee preference for equally qualified candidates because they were so much cheaper for the bottom line.

Lady

[Elgallo]

And add to this the fact that they are contemplating changing the formula for our annuities to high 5 from the current high 3. Aren't our politicians real works of art?

As the popular song went in the 60's while I was in the RVN "We got get outa this place, if its the last thing we ever do"!

Can't you just feel the love...............................

[OBGibby]

Sure. When we figured personal services costs in my DOI agency, we estimated CSRS personal services with benefits at 115% of pay and we figured FERS at 135% of pay. (Unless it was law enforcement and then it was a different higher figure that I can't remember for sure - 143% I think.)

Before FERS employees became more widespread, there was an unofficial policy of CSRS employee preference for equally qualified candidates because they were so much cheaper for the bottom line.

Lady

Okay - more questions. What do you mean by "personal services?"

[XL-entLady]

Okay - more questions. What do you mean by "personal services?"
"Personal services" costs are what my DOI agency called the employee pay costs in the line item budget. It's like "utility costs" or "postage and mailing fees" or "cleaning supplies." It's the buzzword for what it costs to pay folks when you add together the salary and all the benefits costs.

FERS employee benefits costs were more than double what the CSRS costs were.

Next question? :)

Lady

[nnuut]

Yeah, they want us to trim the shrubs around our building because the base won't fund it and we have no money for that kind of thing and want us to use our personal equipment . These are BIG over grown Holly hedges and Crape Myrtles Lots of them. Saw contractors cutting some on the other end of the base, but they want GS-12s and GS-13s (equivalent) to volunteer to do it on Government time, I've better things to do, like catch up on my projects and keep those AIRPLANES Flying. NO NO NOT ME!!:nuts:

[Pschiffdicpal]

Yeah, they want us to trim the shrubs around our building because the base won't fund it and we have no money for that kind of thing and want us to use our personal equipment . These are BIG over grown Holly hedges and Crape Myrtles Lots of them. Saw contractors cutting some on the other end of the base, but they want GS-12s and GS-13s (equivalent) to volunteer to do it on Government time, I've better things to do, like catch up on my projects and keep those AIRPLANES Flying. NO NO NOT ME!!:nuts:

GO AIR FORCE love the OIL price thanks.:)

[James48843]

oops- delete this

[James48843]

Okay - more questions. What do you mean by "personal services?"

"personel services" = Personnel Compensation and Benefits (PC&B). The Agency pays more than just your salary- they also make contributions towards your health care insurance, your pension, and , in the case of FERS employees, BOTH social security and a TSP Match.

The required contributions for CSRS and FERS employees:


CSRS:
Basic Retirement Benefit Contribution 7% Agency, 7% Employee
Social Security Tax (FICA) None None
TSP None None
Total: 7% Agency 7% Employee






FERS:

Basic Retirement Benefit Contribution: 10.7% Agency, /8/10th Employee
Social Security Tax (FICA) 6.2% Agency, / 6.2% Employee
TSP 5% Agency , / up to 10% employee

Total: 21.9% Agency , / Up to employee




Under FERS, with the full Agency match for TSP, the cost of the employee is 10.7 + 6.2%+ 5% TSP match above the salary for the retirement contribution. Total = 21.9%


Under CSRS, is only a simple 7% employer contribution.

That's the result of the 1983 compromise that did away with CSRS. At the time, the fund which was in crisis was Social Security. The deal they cut at the time was to get all 3 million federal employees contributing INTO social security, at a time when none of them was taking anything OUT of social security.

Smoke and mirrors, and BAM- you fix the Social Security System, which in 1983, was about to go broke.

You change the retirement age from Age 55 and 30 years, to Age 57 and 30 years, and drop the pension payout from about 50% of final year salary, to 30% of final three years salary (works out to about 27%), and you raise the full Social Security age from 65, to age 67, and you've balanced Social Security for another generation (more or less).

That's what they did to us Federal Employees in 1983.

Now, CSRS is less expensive, but Social Security is solvent through 2040 (or so).

And employer (Federal Gvoernment) pays MORE for FERS employees, than they pay for CSRS. Here are the Agency portion rates:

http://www.opm.gov/retire/pubs/bals/2002/02-312.pdf

The kicker is under CSRS, people end up living longer than the employee contributions paid in. Under FERS, they pay out less than they pay out under CSRS, as FERS also has smaller cost of living increases over time. Under CSRS, they got inflation. Under FERS, they get inflation LESS 1%.

Smoke.

Mirrors.

Balanced Social Security fund. *(until later, of course, when the people who did that are no longer in Congress. President Regan signed that one, by the way. It was Public Law 98-21, which reformed social security, and public law 99-335 in 1986, which laid out the FERS system, and authorized the creation of the TSP.

[OBGibby]

Thanks, James48843 and XL-entLady.