What student loan forgiveness? I have a federal job and my student loans weren’t forgiven. Is there some class of federal jobs for which student loans are forgiven?
Here (pdf)is a working paper that claims the differential in compensation for federal government employees is 39%. It also has a review of the literature on this topic, so it would be a good start to a definitive answer.
“A fair way to summarize the findings in this literature is as follows: a
robust result, found in almost all the research from Smith’s early papers on, is that there
is a substantial positive wage differential for federal employees, even after controlling for
worker characteristics in the standard way.4”
Bit disingenous to talk about workers who are 50 years old and older. They’re not the ones who will be affected by future shifts in policy.
Yes. The eligibility requirements vary by agency.
Are you talking about when the federal government allows you time off to take a course and pays the tuition when you’ve already worked several years in your job? It’s true that the government does that sometimes when the course is relevant to your job. It’s also true that private companies do that sometimes.
Or are you talking about the government forgiving your student loans from the time before you worked for the government? My apologies, but I can’t find anything about the eligibility requirements or the exact agencies that do it in that website. Can you point them out to me?
This pdf from the bottom lists the agencies participating in 2011.
This does happen with new FBI Agents. To be competive, the FBI will offer them taxable forgiveness (the FBI pays it up to $10000/yr, I think) of part of their loan.
In the real world, this also can happen with Med students, etc. All it is - is a way to increase compensation and lock them in.
I’m an engineer, and I work as a contractor in a lab at a major military installation. I work side-by-side with civil servants.
We don’t talk much about salary, but on a few occasions a couple of the government folks blurted out how much they made. It was about 10% higher than my salary. *Plus *they get a pension. *And *excellent health & dental benefits. And *much *more annual leave (vacation). And good job security.
They’ve asked me on a few occasions to become a government worker. But I have declined, for three reasons:
-
I work for the research wing of a private university, and the university will pay for our children’s college tuitions. So if this benefit is taken into account, I am paid significantly more than my government counterparts.
-
A civil servant is not in control of his/her destiny; they exist at the pleasure of Congress, and thus are subject to their every whim. So while as a contractor I may not have as much job security per-say, I have the freedom and flexibility to easily do work for one or more other companies if we lose our contract.
-
There’s a ***lot ***of politics on the government side. They have to dress nice all the time, go to meetings, and “put on a show.” I just want to go on the lab and be left alone.
Crafter Man writes:
> There’s a lot of politics on the government side. They have to dress nice all the
> time, go to meetings, and “put on a show.” I just want to go on the lab and be
> left alone.
Your experience is your experience, so I can’t argue with it. However, in my experience, we never have to “dress nice” as federal employees. The contractors I work with do often have to dress nice.
A non-exempt civil servant’s job does not exist at the pleasure of Congress. A non-exempt employee is one that has to take a test to be hired. These are jobs at GS-10 and lower.
DrDeth:
Because a civil service employee is part of a union, he cannot be fired without cause, but that cause must be well documented. In fact, there is a tedious and drawn out process to fire the government employee. He must first be given a warning, and then a trial period for improvement. Then, and only then, can he (or she) be fired, if the reasons for termination are well documented.
I know, but almost all lawyers who work for private law firms work longer hours than lawyers who work for the government or in house counsel.
One nitpick: The sweet federal pension of legend was phased out a while ago. A few older employees are still on that system, but the rest of us basically now have a 401(k).
Some civil service employees are union members, but far from all. Nonetheless, civil service protections extend to essentially all permanent employees, whether or not they are union members.
All civil service employees belong to AFGE whether or not they pay union dues, unless they are management. Further, the new plan (FERS) is better than the old one for several reasons. The 401k is even better because the government matches up to 6%. Also under FERS you get covered by SS (which includes Medicare). I belonged to the old one but was able to, and did, switch.
This is categorically incorrect. You mean all civil service employees are represented by AFGE whether or not they pay dues.
Not true, there are many govt Unions, including the NTEU. There are a few benefits that only actual Union dues paying members get. The rest of the employees are only represented by the Unions.
FERS is a good plan if you contribute 6% also. But a matching 401k plan is pretty well standard for any big white collar company.
There are about 2.6 million federal civilian employees, and AFGE has 278,000 members. It portrays itself as representing something like 650,000, but even so, that’s why I said far from all. And again, civil service protections extend without regard to union membership.
As for the retirement plan, you’re of course in the best position to judge your own situation, but IME yours is a minority view. Certainly, I think the government made the switch with the intention to save money overall.
Irrespective of whether the government saves money under the new plan (effective since 1987), the question is which is better for the employee. The portfolio the employee builds up, if he invests to the full extent (and I invested 10%) can be substantial. Important also is SS and Medicare. Although SS may not amount to much, Medicare can be very important. Although I had no surgery which Medicare would have covered prior to retirement, once I did retire (in 2002), I’ve had several covered by Medicare. I was fully I insured for SS benefits before I became a federal employee, so that would not have been important for me. However, when I became a federal employee, I was just a few quarters short of avoiding the set-off provisions of the SSA. So, it was very important and fortuitous for me to switch (and I was almost up to the 5-year limitation).
You would have to calculate whether it would be better to have the CSRS (the old plan) with additional money invested in the Thrift Savings Plan or to have the FERS adding additional money on your own to be sure what the difference is.
It would be impossible to predict how any portfolio will do. Many different funds available to invest. I think that for somebody not previously covered by SS, FERS would be better, considering the vast benefits of SS and Medicare.
In my case, I had 28 years of SS coverage. Not quite the 30 I needed to avoid any offset: Code of Federal Regulations § 404.213 This change in plans gave me the 30 I needed, although admittedly a 15% offset would not have been much.
Ok this is one of my pet peeves.
I know there are many, many factors, but the bottom line is if Federal pay is so low compared to the private sector then why do people not leave in droves?
If I was due a 215% raise I think I would walk out the door and into the first comparable employment.
Even if I only receive 100% raise it is better than being abused by the government.
The reality is that if a government job opens up it will have thousands of people who are very qualified and very happy to take the pay apply.
Until there is a problem filling position please give me a break about being underpaid.
I’ve always been puzzled by the pronunciation of the name Peabody. Is the accent on the 1st or 2d syllable?