Thread: 2010 Pay Raise

Originally Posted by fabijo

I got myself a raise into the I band last year as a TSST out of Trenton, NJ. I had put a bid on a couple instructor positions a couple years ago, but it was when a ton of people applied for the position. I'm actually in OKC this week and next for a class. I'll check on the need for instructors.

There are a bunch of bids right now- see http://jobs.faa.gov , and search for grade 13.


Announcement Number Job Title Duty Location Grade Close Date Area of Consideration AAC-LRE-10-AMA422-118670 Electronics Engineer (Instructor) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Vacancies: Few FG-0855-13 12/10/2009 All Sources AAC-LRI-10-AMA420-119118 Electronics Technician (Instructor) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Vacancies: Few FG-0856-13 12/11/2009 FAA-Wide AAC-LRI-10-AMA420-119122M Electronics Engineer (Instructor) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Vacancies: Few FG-0855-13 12/13/2009 FAA-Wide AAC-LRI-10-AMA422-118546 Electronics Technician (Instructor) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Vacancies: Few FG-0856-13 12/10/2009 FAA-Wide AAC-LRI-10-AMA422-118673M Electronics Engineer (Instructor) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Vacancies: Few FG-0855-13 12/14/2009 FAA-Wide

278 positions open in series 0855 at grades 13 and 14 nationwide on USAJOBS today.

No wonder NSPS is getting canned soon. Private sector and unemployed are reading this now. They won't care about comparing apples to apples on why the income disparity when their unemployment runs out.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip

Originally Posted by alevin

No wonder NSPS is getting canned soon. Private sector and unemployed are reading this now. They won't care about comparing apples to apples on why the income disparity when their unemployment runs out.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip

And it can't get canned quick enough, it's a pain in the butt and just reduces your high 3. More of your raise is put in the form of a bonus, rather than an actual increase in salary, which counts towards your high 3.

Originally Posted by James48843

PAY RAISE IS A DONE DEAL- 1.5% Base, 0.5% towards locality.

The 2010 federal pay increase is comprised of a base increase of 1.5% and an average of 0.5% increase to locality. The locality increase overrides the President's request.

Details: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cf...dcn=todaysnews

I'm still waiting for the President to sign it. That's when it becomes a done deal. He may agree with that little paragraph in the 375 page bill, but what if he doesn't like the rest of the bill?

If you want to read the bill (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010) or comment on it before Mr. President signs it, go here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...lation/HR-3288

Here's a little breakdown, using $10,000 salary after Rest of U.S. locality of 13.86%. I will compare getting 1.5% increase on base plus .5% increase on locality vs. 2% increase on base with no increase in locality:

$10,000 = 2009 salary after locality of 13.86%
base pay = $8,783
1.5% increase + base = $8,914
2% increase + base = $8,958

$10,195 = 2010 salary after 1.5% increase plus new locality of 14.36%
$10,200 = 2010 salary after 2.0% increase plus existing locality of 13.86%

It's a small difference, but it looks like Congress was attempting some cost cutting compared to the original plan of a 2% across the board increase.

Okay, I guess now it really is official.

President Barack Obama today signed into law the omnibus appropriations bill which includes a 1.5 percent base pay increase for federal civilian employees and a 0.5 percent locality pay increase.

http://blogs.govexec.com/fedblog/200...se_now_law.php

And here:

President Barack Obama has signed into law a $1.1 trillion bill that increases the budgets in many areas of the government by about 10 percent, including health, law enforcement and veterans' programs.

Obama signed the bill privately at the White House on Wednesday after receiving the bill from Congress on Sunday.

The bill lumps together six of the 12 annual appropriations bills for the 2010 budget year that began Oct. 1.

Most Republicans opposed the bill, citing runaway federal spending. They also pointed to an estimated $3.9 billion for more than 5,000 local projects sought by lawmakers from both parties.

Democrats said the spending would help the economy recover from the recession.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...NdyQAD9CKMBF81