Fed Page   |   E-Mail Newsletter  Fed Insider E-Mail   |    RSS   |   Column Archive

Women Stuck on Lower Rungs, Group Says

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.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

The organization Federally Employed Women welcomed recent news that Uncle Sam now pays women just seven cents on the dollar less than men, after all factors but some unexplained ones are considered.

What FEW isn't happy about is that "women in the federal workforce have not been able to move up the ladder as quickly as men due to many reasons including lack of mentoring, lack of training, and lack of opportunity," it said in a statement released yesterday.

"These critical career components for women are missing from federal agencies because of, among other things, the continued demise and erosion of the Federal Women's Programs in federal agencies."

FEW is steamed because only half of 167 federal agencies bothered to meet requirements that they file reports on the programs that support female advancement and achieving equal employment for federal workers in 2006, the most recent year available.

Last month, the Government Accountability Office said the gender pay gap had declined significantly from 28 cents in 1988 to 19 cents in 1998 to 11 cents in 2007.

All but about seven cents of the gap can be explained by differences in such things as the jobs men and women have and, to a lesser extent, other factors including education and years of federal experience, according to the GAO.

IRS Layoffs

The Internal Revenue Service is about to give some workers the boot, and their representatives are trying to ensure that they have a soft landing.

Several members of Congress have asked a special inspector general to give employment preference to the employees facing layoffs as he builds his staff to oversee a federal bailout program.

The members urged Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, "to afford these employees preference in hiring as you continue to hire TARP and other economic oversight personnel."

About 1,400 IRS staffers are slated to be laid off by September at Massachusetts facilities. Computerization is the cause. With more Americans filing tax forms electronically, fewer people are needed to deal with paper returns.

But the six House members who wrote an April 30 letter to Barofsky said that "only 57% of all returns were filed electronically in 2007, 23 percent less than anticipated. . . . While overall use of e-filing may be on the rise, it is clear that the number of taxpayers opting to use this type of return is not increasing as rapidly as the IRS had originally projected."

The IRS said yesterday that it is creating almost 300 new positions at the Andover, Mass., facility that the employees may be eligible to take.

In February, 15 representatives and senators asked the IRS to postpone the layoffs for three years. Now, some of those are working to find TARP work for the employees when the terminations come, while the members continue to press for a comprehensive review of the layoff plan.

Those representatives who signed the April letter are Massachusetts Democrats Stephen F. Lynch, Niki Tsongas, Michael E. Capuano, Barney Frank and John W. Olver, and New Hampshire Democrat Paul W. Hodes.

Long-Term Care

It's getting more expensive for federal workers to get old and sick.

Many enrollees will see premiums increase between 5 and 25 percent under a new contract the Office of Personnel Management signed to provide long-term care insurance for federal employees and retirees.

The contract with the John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company is the second seven-year agreement with the firm since the program began in 2007.

According to the OPM, "the new contract includes new benefit options with increased home health care reimbursement, new benefit periods and higher daily benefit amounts, and increased payment limits on informal care provided by family members."

Contact Joe Davidson at federaldiary@washpost.com.



© 2009 The Washington Post Company