GovernmentExecutive.com

"Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country."

President John F. Kennedy's notion of public service has long been used as a justification for calling on young Americans to renounce the material rewards of the private sector in exchange for spiritual satisfaction. Money shouldn't be the purpose of public service according to this philosophy, whether that service is collecting signatures on a petition, toiling at a reform-oriented nonprofit, or working in a government agency.

But the "money isn't everything" argument doesn't mean that it's feasible -- or right -- to ask young people to work for nothing, or next to it. No matter how dedicated someone is to a cause, they can't live on enthusiasm forever. At some point, they have to get paid.

The political and advocacy sectors already have encountered this problem. The outsourcing of low-wage campaign labor to young workers has resulted in unfavorable publicity, including Dana Fisher's book Activism Inc. (Stanford University Press, 2006), which exposed the practice.

While the federal government is unlikely to rely solely on volunteer labor, it is important for debates over the federal pay system to consider seriously, what's the appropriate compensation for public servants?

That topic seems to be on the minds of pay reform advocates. "When you're in your 20s, it's OK to share an apartment. But when they're [sic] a journeyman, they can make an effective contribution, and they start thinking about getting married and having a family. They look around, and say, 'I can't do this' and flee to a lower cost city," said Kathrene Hansen, executive director of the Los Angeles Federal Executive Board, at a recent congressional hearing on locality.

It's unlikely, both for practical and political reasons, that Congress can move immediately to mandate pay comparability between the private sector and federal government. The pay gap remains considerable among many professions in the two arenas, and the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act has never been completely enforced. The costs of immediately moving to close the pay gap would be enormous.

"There's a worry among employees that the bill will get too expensive and won't make it through the process," said Charles Grimes, deputy associate director at the Office of Personnel Management.

But a serious and substantive plan to reduce the pay gap is necessary, and should include a number of elements.

First, it can't be optional, and it must be flexible. There will be years when the federal budget is tight, the economy is fragile and the entire federal government must accept difficult economic realities. But presidents have used their authority to issue alternative pay plans under all sorts of circumstances. Perhaps some sort of progress toward closing the pay gap should be mandatory, even if that progress cannot always be as rapid as federal employees and their advocates would like.

Second, it's time for another conversation about the importance of public service. It's no secret that the next president has to inspire a new generation to enter federal service to keep the government running at peak capacity. But the discussion has to be broader than that. It needs to define how Americans value public service, government programs -- and the price we're willing to pay for both. Because the truth is, people who choose to serve their country should get something in return than just a warm, fuzzy feeling.

COMMENTS

• “using contractors reduces the cost to the government by effectively reducing pension and health insurance costs for the life of the employee. ” I will agree I’ve heard that before; but there the agreement ends. Having had to draft solicitations for contractors to fill position we couldn’t; I must point out that the cost savings supposedly experienced due to lessened pension and health insurance costs are exceeded by the company profit margin and the additional layer of supervision. i.e. The contractors hired (stateside) earned approximately 90% of the GS, the company overhead was at the very least 100% of the contractor’s salary for a total minimum cost of 180% of the GS employee salary. With our benefit costs at 40% of our salary there exists a 40% budget loss for each contractor. But then those are “different” funds. In addition there is the training costs we should include. Yes, we have to train those who are taking our place. And supervision of contractors seems more of a mine-field than most supervisors care to try. Productivity levels are somewhat lesser for those who rotate through the cycle since few wish for that job insecurity and most don’t stay as long. As intimated by the “(stateside)”, all these considerations go out the window if the contracts are for deployed positions. There is no way a deployed GS costs 50% of a deployed contractor does. As for GS being a joke, there ARE worse systems and the inherent favoritism and inequities of NSPS will be evident all too soon. Just give it time. And as for a pool of GS-14’s… well, my guess is that you have got to be in the Beltway; or a similarly overinflated political arena. Through out the vast majority of GS workers, those animals are few and far between. ‘Round here, an 11 does pretty well and the system-wide average is a GS-9. Hey, it’s the circus you’re in. Relocate and the benefits just keep multiplying; you may have to settle for a lower grade, but the cost of living will probably be halfway decent. Tip off Posted July 8, 2008 1:06 PM
• As a Fed, IMO there should not be any Fed that has an issue with their pay, whether a GS1 or GS15 or NSPS equivalent. When you were hired you knew going in what your pay was going to be for the rest of your career. Your career and your pay has always been and always will be in your control. You always have the option to get the hell out, transfer to a different location, or change career paths. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions in order to get where you want to go. But please stop whining about it! Gen X'er Posted July 8, 2008 12:49 PM
• I agree with Jim Wiggins 100%!!!! The GS system is a joke and does not provide any incentive for people to actually work once they reach the upper grade levels. My division is filled with GS-14 level staff people who couldn't even collectively tie their own shoe laces let alone offer any type of creativity/initiative in problem solving. The level of waste as a result of paying these people six figure incomes is just plain said. These people couldn't even survive in a job paying half as much in the private sector where you must perform just to keep your job. The bottom line is that we need a pay system that truly favors PERFORMANCE and not longevity!! Until we have that, things will never change for the better. Fed Worker Posted July 8, 2008 9:17 AM