(08-30-2018 01:51 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:50 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  So, he denied federal employees a 2.1% COLA pay increase and that's fiscal conservatism?

Good point. Better to cut them completely, but it's a start.

why?

Because we have too many of them and they are basically worthless.

(08-30-2018 03:58 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 02:09 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:51 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:50 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  So, he denied federal employees a 2.1% COLA pay increase and that's fiscal conservatism?

Good point. Better to cut them completely, but it's a start.

why?

The GS increase isn't technically a COLA. Why shouldn't compensation be more performance based? That's how it works in the private sector and we all know which is more efficient.

Before you try to pounce on anything I've said, my wife is a GS10 and just received a 3% performance based raise. She constantly complains about lazy workers that she has to pick up the slack for.

2% doesn't cover inflation. I can't remember a time I didn't get a minimum of a 2% bump in the private sector.

Where is the Trump proposal for a performance based merit increase? Are these employees being asked to indefinitely forgo an COLA while DJT devises a merit based system?

Lazy is a rather subjective term, yet there isn't a place I've worked where some workers don't throw others under the bus to make themselves look better.

Then let them quit. Plenty of young kids are underemployed and would probably love to step up to a cushy all-benefits+holiday's impossible to be fired from Federal job. We will survive.

(08-30-2018 03:58 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  2% doesn't cover inflation. I can't remember a time I didn't get a minimum of a 2% bump in the private sector.

How many of those private sector companies were running a trillion dollar loss?

Sheesh, with all the federal holidays it's a wonder they do any work at all. I know as a fed worker I probably wouldn't like it but I'm sure those that have to work in the private sector where they can be fired at a moments notice aren't crying tears for them.

(08-30-2018 01:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:28 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-sta...senate-32/


"Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

I am transmitting an alternative plan for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems in January 2019.

Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement alternative plans for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems if, because of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,” I view the increases that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate.

Under current law, locality pay increases averaging 25.70 percent, costing $25 billion, would go into effect in January 2019, in addition to a 2.1 percent across-the-board increase for the base General Schedule. We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases. Accordingly, I have determined that it is appropriate to exercise my authority to set alternative across-the-board and locality pay adjustments for 2019 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5303(b) and 5304a.

Specifically, I have determined that for 2019, both across‑the‑board pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero. These alternative pay plan decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce."

So, he denied federal employees a 2.1% COLA pay increase and that's fiscal conservatism?

Many companies are cutting staff to pay for 2% raises. What does the gubment do? Hire more people to give 2% COLA's next year.

(08-30-2018 05:45 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:28 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-sta...senate-32/


"Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

I am transmitting an alternative plan for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems in January 2019.

Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement alternative plans for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems if, because of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,” I view the increases that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate.

Under current law, locality pay increases averaging 25.70 percent, costing $25 billion, would go into effect in January 2019, in addition to a 2.1 percent across-the-board increase for the base General Schedule. We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases. Accordingly, I have determined that it is appropriate to exercise my authority to set alternative across-the-board and locality pay adjustments for 2019 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5303(b) and 5304a.

Specifically, I have determined that for 2019, both across‑the‑board pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero. These alternative pay plan decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce."

So, he denied federal employees a 2.1% COLA pay increase and that's fiscal conservatism?

Many companies are cutting staff to pay for 2% raises. What does the gubment do? Hire more people to give 2% COLA's next year.

why? the economy is so good.

(08-30-2018 06:29 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 05:45 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 01:28 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-sta...senate-32/


"Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

I am transmitting an alternative plan for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems in January 2019.

Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement alternative plans for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems if, because of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,” I view the increases that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate.

Under current law, locality pay increases averaging 25.70 percent, costing $25 billion, would go into effect in January 2019, in addition to a 2.1 percent across-the-board increase for the base General Schedule. We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases. Accordingly, I have determined that it is appropriate to exercise my authority to set alternative across-the-board and locality pay adjustments for 2019 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5303(b) and 5304a.

Specifically, I have determined that for 2019, both across‑the‑board pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero. These alternative pay plan decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce."

So, he denied federal employees a 2.1% COLA pay increase and that's fiscal conservatism?

Many companies are cutting staff to pay for 2% raises. What does the gubment do? Hire more people to give 2% COLA's next year.

why? the economy is so good.

Financial Services for example, Amazon isn't killing the industry but online banking is, making branches obsolete. Have you been to a bank branch lately they're virtually deserted. Hard to justify keeping those employees but you want to reward those you do keep. That is just one example.

He stopped an INCREASE of $25b. So we're merely holding at an $800b+ annual deficit.

That's about as soft a definition of fiscal conservative as the coverage is for UCONN playing UCF right now.

(08-30-2018 06:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  He stopped an INCREASE of $25b. So we're merely holding at an $800b+ annual deficit.

That's about as soft a definition of fiscal conservative as the coverage is for UCONN playing UCF right now.

When was the last time we had a stop to an annual increase. $25b is pennies, but it is better than handing out another $25b

(08-30-2018 07:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 06:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  He stopped an INCREASE of $25b. So we're merely holding at an $800b+ annual deficit.

That's about as soft a definition of fiscal conservative as the coverage is for UCONN playing UCF right now.

When was the last time we had a stop to an annual increase. $25b is pennies, but it is better than handing out another $25b

For me that passes as "you'd be stupid not to do it", especially given that who you're hurting in the wallet are fat cat bureaucrats that vote overwhelmingly Democrat to keep those kind of pay increases coming.

As Chris Rock says .... YOU'RE 'SPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF YO D*** KIDS. WHAT DO YOU WANT, A COOKIE?!