Pay Raise Parity Emerges as Issue
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
It's been hard to find any daylight between President Obama and the federal employee unions that worked hard to put him in office -- until now.
When he released his proposed 2010 budget summary yesterday, the unions were not pleased. The budget calls for civilian workers to get a 2 percent raise while military personnel would see a 2.9 percent bump. It's not the paltry increase that's so upsetting to the unions, particularly when unemployment lines keep growing. Rather, it's the dismissal of the principle of parity that makes the employees so upset.
The lack of movement toward closing the pay gap between government workers and those in the private sector also leaves union leaders wanting more.
But the way they expressed that displeasure also shows how the labor organizations differ in their approach to getting the White House to accept fundamental planks in their platforms.
Consider the reaction of the largest federal employee union. The first line of the statement it issued in reaction to the spending plan said: "The American Federation of Government Employees today applauded the Obama Administration's 2010 fiscal budget."
AFGE President John Gage went on to say the union "is not happy" with the recommended pay increase, but "understands it given the severity of our nation's economic situation."
But Obama's plan left Richard N. Brown, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, more puzzled than supportive.
"We are baffled by the large disparity in the proposed pay adjustments for civilian federal workers and military personnel," he said. "There is a long tradition of pay parity between civilians and the military, and we believe that tradition should be continued."
And then the line of attack: "We will be asking Congress for a bigger raise than 2 percent."
That warning about congressional action tells Obama that at least one union is willing to go around him if it doesn't like his policies. AFGE demurred on that point, saying it's too soon to say anything about legislation. Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, also was cautious about playing the congressional card, saying she wants to talk with the administration first.
Brown sounds confident that civilian-military pay parity will be the rule next year no matter what Obama says. "The president's submission of a budget to Congress is just the first step in the budget process. There is an abundance of support among lawmakers for the principle of pay parity," he declared.
"In the past we have seen even larger discrepancies between civilian and military pay in White House budgets, yet Congress has consistently resolved toward pay parity. We will urge Congress to act in a similar fashion this year and give civilian federal employees a fair and equal raise."


