|
Well, I'm sure happy I got my admin promotion one month ago!
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
You can add me to the list of Fed goons. I work in USCIS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
A hiring freeze would certainly ruin my day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
psydude posted:A hiring freeze would certainly ruin my day. It would certainly put a damper on my job interview tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:It would certainly put a damper on my job interview tomorrow. At least you'll have a good question at the end of the interview.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 23:27
|
|
|
CherryCola posted:So someone mentioned there might be some sort of hiring freeze for the NGA because of some space issue with the new building. Anybody know any more details about this? There were some rumors, but obviously nothing official. I think the more likely thing is that they keep some of the leased buildings that were supposed to be returned after BRAC. That part is speculation, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
grover posted:I don't think it impacts step increases or promotions, but the 2010 GS table will also be the 2011 and 2012 GS table. They may give small locality pay adjustments in some areas. Hard to say until it gets through congress. Yeah, it only applies to cost of living increases. Step increases and promotions wouldn't be affected. I think this is stupid, because it either needs to be across the board Federal freeze or none at all. The argument loses it's justification when it's only applied to a portion of the Federal government. To be fair, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was applied to everyone in the Federal government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
grover posted:I don't think it impacts step increases or promotions, but the 2010 GS table will also be the 2011 and 2012 GS table. Yeah, that's all they're talking about. The 2011 rates were going to be 1% higher than 2010, so we're really not talking serious money here that we're losing anyway: like $25-50 a paycheck pre-tax
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Yeah, that's all they're talking about. The 2011 rates were going to be 1% higher than 2010, so we're really not talking serious money here that we're losing anyway: like $25-50 a paycheck pre-tax True, but you have to take inflation into consideration. It's been low recently, however the Fed is trying to change that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 06:01
|
|
|
dvgrhl posted:Yeah, it only applies to cost of living increases. Step increases and promotions wouldn't be affected. I think this is stupid, because it either needs to be across the board Federal freeze or none at all. The argument loses it's justification when it's only applied to a portion of the Federal government. To be fair, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was applied to everyone in the Federal government. We don't want every federal organization to end up with pissed off incompetents like always seem to be working at the DMV when I have to go there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 11:29
|
|
|
Beerdeer posted:You can add me to the list of Fed goons. I work in USCIS. Which department, specifically? USCIS sounds like a place where you have a lot of fascinating and heartwrenchng stories :P
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 16:27
|
|
|
The rumor from the Hill right now is that the reason it was restricted to certain feds only (though USPS workers also have a unionized contract, so there's that), exempting congressional staffers explicitly and other Legislative employees, is because it will not go through Congress as the media assume; it will be an Executive Order coming down soon. So this would be why it mentions only the employees the President has that authority over in the Executive Branch. We'll find out. This would also be news to some Representatives, I know, so I'm skeptical... but not strongly so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
grover posted:There are other ramifications to lower pay as well. Recruitment and retention, for example; it's hard to attract and retain good people with poo poo pay. Government pay is already below market rate in many fields; every % it drops lower with respect to commercial pay and inflation is a % of people we lose. I am a programmer with the government, so I am in one of the fields with the biggest disparity between market rate and actual pay. I could be making ~$25k more than I am right now in the private sector. There are advantages to working for the government though that outweigh the extra pay, and I think the wage freeze isn't going to tip the scales the other way for people. Remember, we're only talking 1-2% a year here. The reason I wouldn't have a problem with the pay freeze if it was across the board federally is because at least in that case it would seem somewhat sincere. A lot of people are unemployed or underemployed, people are losing their houses, our economy just isn't in the best of shape right now. That will change in a couple of years, but for the time being forgoing the 1-2% cost of living increase isn't a lot to give up while other cuts are going on. In reality what is really going to happen is that a lot more people are going to get STEP increases when they otherwise normally wouldn't. It will be interesting to see how much money the government actually saves if this happens, but my guess is that it won't be as much as is being projected. Some people might leave the public sector because of it, some people might decide not to join because of it, but I think those numbers will be minimal. As to Zoo's comment, I don't even know if the President has the authority to send down an Executive order like that. The pay scale is part of the budget, which is set by Congress. I don't see how the President has the authority to bypass Congress and push out what he wants instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 06:01
|
|
|
quote:"I welcome President Obama's announcement, and hope he will build on it by embracing much-needed steps to reduce both the size and the cost of government, including the net federal hiring freeze Republicans propose in our Pledge to America," said soon-to-be House Speaker John Boehner in a statement. "Without a hiring freeze, a pay freeze won't do much to rein in a federal bureaucracy that added hundreds of thousands of employees to its payroll over the last two years while the private sector shed millions of jobs. Today's action is a clear indication that the Pledge to America, which lays out concrete steps to cut spending and reduce the size of government, is the right plan to address the people's priorities." After Obama throws Republicans yet another bone (the middle class under the bus, again) at little prompting, Boehner's first breath is to say that it doesn't go far enough and what we really need is a federal hiring freeze. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Dec 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:After Obama throws Republicans yet another bone (the middle class under the bus, again) at little prompting, Boehner's first breath is to say that it doesn't go far enough and what we really need is a federal hiring freeze. Yeah, anyway: Would a hiring freeze just mean they couldn't expand total payroll? It confuses me because you would think sometimes, you know, you need new guys for something -- if anything if they want to cut costs they should be encouraging guys to cash out and hire more people at lower levels on the wage totem pole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 10:40
|
|
|
USA Today is reporting about how federal workers make twice as much as regular americans, completely ignoring how most federal positions are professional and high-level managerial, and that almost all the wage-level jobs are contracted out. Sadly, though, a lot of voting Americans believe the bullshit. On the other hand, Newsweek tells it like it really is: http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/11/29/why-does-barack-obama-want-to-cut-the-salaries-of-federal-employees.html Newsweek posted:The other reason many liberals are opposed to cutting pay for federal employees is that the argument for such a cut is based on the suspect premise that federal civil servants are highly paid. Many federal employees do indeed make more than the average American, but that's because of the type of work they do and their qualifications. Cabinet departments and law enforcement agencies are filled with lawyers, holders of advanced degrees, and other experts. Compared to the economy as a whole there are relatively few high school drop outs doing low-paid menial work for the federal government. So, in fact, it turns out that federal employees actually make less than private sector employees with comparable jobs. A report by the U.S. Office of Personnel Office for Fiscal Year 2011 found that federal employees' average 22.13 percent less (the disparity is bigger or smaller depending on where in the country). "In the context of the overall deficit problem Obama will get chump change from this policy and will only enlarge the degree to which Federal pay lags behind that of the private sector," says Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 11:39
|
|
|
Well I figured that was the case, the government has relatively few huge fatcats and also relatively few burger flippers, so the average is higher but there's a lot less variation. But hey. Gotta cut payroll. That's job one here in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 12:38
|
|
|
Nessus posted:because you would think sometimes, you know, you need new guys for something -- if anything if they want to cut costs they should be encouraging guys to cash out and hire more people at lower levels on the wage totem pole. Then we could raid their pension funds and save MILLIONS!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 13:20
|
|
|
 says congress approves their own annual pay raise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
Apparently the GOP is pushing to have the funding issue resolved this term. This is kind of surprising, considering one would have expected them to wait until they can do whatever they want with it next term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
psydude posted:Apparently the GOP is pushing to have the funding issue resolved this term. This is kind of surprising, considering one would have expected them to wait until they can do whatever they want with it next term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
dvgrhl posted:As to Zoo's comment, I don't even know if the President has the authority to send down an Executive order like that. The pay scale is part of the budget, which is set by Congress. I don't see how the President has the authority to bypass Congress and push out what he wants instead. Not sure about this either. The freeze affects Executive employees only, but appropriations still come from Congress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
Skandiaavity posted:Which department, specifically? USCIS sounds like a place where you have a lot of fascinating and heartwrenchng stories :P I work in Service Center ops, meaning I never actually see a client. I do work in refugee processing though, so I see horrific stories daily, like the woman who had to flee her country to that her neighbors wouldn't circumsize her daughters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
psydude posted:Apparently the GOP is pushing to have the funding issue resolved this term. This is kind of surprising, considering one would have expected them to wait until they can do whatever they want with it next term. the GOP leadership also said that they will not move any legislation forward until the Bush tax cuts are extended. So - depends on how much the Democrats will try to fight this. If the Democrats actually decide to fight this could easily get pushed until the new Congress is seated. poo poo - I'm in the market to purchase a condo in DC right now and the uncertainty is killing me. Talk of a 5-10% across the board pay cut, talk of phasing out the mortgage interest deduction, etc. Happydayz fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Dec 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
I always thought it was common knowledge that people in government make poo poo compared to what they would in the private sector. Same thing with universities for the most part. Does anyone know about the US Commission on Civil Rights and what the staffing situation is there? Do the commissioners have their own staffs? I have a potential way in there but I'm trying to figure out how to approach it and what sorts of work it involves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2010 00:23
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Does anyone know about the US Commission on Civil Rights and what the staffing situation is there? Do the commissioners have their own staffs? I have a potential way in there but I'm trying to figure out how to approach it and what sorts of work it involves. Based on the most recent Plum Book entry, it looks like at least some of the Commissioners there do have staff. According to Fedscope that agency has 50 total employees, 32 of whom are based in DC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2010 07:26
|
|
|
CherryCola posted:Hey, I got hired through a "hiring event" and all I did was submit an online app and then do a skype interview a couple months later. <3NGA<3 From a while back, just wanted to double-check: so you applied for one of their hiring events in whatever city (the current one is Denver) and were able to do a Skype interview?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I always thought it was common knowledge that people in government make poo poo compared to what they would in the private sector. Same thing with universities for the most part. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Now the common knowledge is that federal employees make twice what the private sector average, weighted down with tens of millions of part timers on minimum wage and probably excluding non-wage CEO compensation, make! The WaPo did a good article about the people you're talking about who really believe that: Five myths about federal workers. The Washington Post posted:The Congressional Research Service reported in 2009 that private industry pays higher salaries than the government for PhD-level employees in computer science, information science, mathematics, statistics, biological sciences, environmental life sciences, chemistry, economics, and civil, architectural, electrical and computer engineering. In addition, the average private-sector salary in 2010 for a recent college graduate was $48,661. Entry-level federal workers start at $34,075, or $42,209 for candidates with superior academic achievement. Link them to that next time you find someone who says that non-sarcastically. Not that it'll help, probably. :/
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:From a while back, just wanted to double-check: so you applied for one of their hiring events in whatever city (the current one is Denver) and were able to do a Skype interview? Yup! I still haven't actually talked face to face with anyone from the NGA (well, unless you count the video interview on skype) I think it's a pretty new thing that they're started doing, but it worked for me!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
CherryCola posted:Yup! I still haven't actually talked face to face with anyone from the NGA (well, unless you count the video interview on skype) I think it's a pretty new thing that they're started doing, but it worked for me! Great, going to put my application in this week! Heard through the grapevine that CBP isn't scheduling any applicants for medical/fitness tests until the budget thing gets sorted. Still no word on an Oral Board, been over a month now 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 04:52
|
|
|
What kind of answers is the IRS is looking for with these types of questions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
So did anyone else in this thread wind up taking the Presidential Management Fellowship online assessment? Does anyone know much of anything about what percentage of the nominees are expected to make semifinalist status, or what exactly the in-person assessment early next year consists of?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 23:19
|
|
|
Corbet posted:What kind of answers is the IRS is looking for with these types of questions? I don't think this is something specific to the IRS but I imagine they are going to look to see if you can first work out the situation with your coworker before you involve your manager into the dispute. There are plenty of varieties of this type of question ("Say you have a problem with a coworker, what do you do first to resolve it?"), they are looking to see if you can handle conflict yourself before you tattle to a supervisor. So basically you are going to want to answer option #4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
Now I'm really starting to wish I hadn't been told that my clearance is in adjudication. I'm sure I won't hear anything for like a month, but that doesn't stop me from refreshing my email about 80 times a day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
As stupid as this is, if any of you are going for a job with any type of sensitivity it's probably best to avoid the wikileaks stuff. Talk about sticking your head in the sand though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 02:18
|
|
|
It will make life easier if you can truthfully answer no when asked, "Have you ever accessed classified information without authorization?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 03:40
|
|
|
dvgrhl posted:As stupid as this is, if any of you are going for a job with any type of sensitivity it's probably best to avoid the wikileaks stuff. Talk about sticking your head in the sand though. Zoo posted:It will make life easier if you can truthfully answer no when asked, "Have you ever accessed classified information without authorization?" I obviously have no idea if yall are talking from positions where you'd know this for certain, but this is really unreasonable. These things were literally on the front page of major international newspapers and have been talked about on CNN endlessly. Just loading the Guardian or NYTimes websites would have netted you some information about the cables. edit: To clarify: I don't mean to doubt either of your genuine concerns or qualifications, but I can't imagine that any rational person would cite knowledge of what's become a major, major news story as a security risk. I've got no experience with the people who do those sort of checks and interviews, as yall presumably do, but I'd hope that common sense would prevail. edit 2: VVVV that makes sense. menpoop fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Dec 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 05:01
|
|
|
menpoop posted:I obviously have no idea if yall are talking from positions where you'd know this for certain, but this is really unreasonable. These things were literally on the front page of major international newspapers and have been talked about on CNN endlessly. Just loading the Guardian or NYTimes websites would have netted you some information about the cables. The OPM stated that it's fine for employees to read news articles about information released on WikiLeaks, however they are to respect the classification status of the actual documents themselves. In other words, they don't want federal employees to view the documents directly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Corbet posted:What kind of answers is the IRS is looking for with these types of questions? They want you to be as self sufficient as possible, because once management gets involved the paperwork starts piling up and nobody wants that. However, they also want management to have final say on anything important. The answer is 4, but I bet 1 also earns you a few (less) points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 11:10
|
|
