The Post's Stephen Barr is the author of The Federal Diary, which runs Monday through Friday in the Business news section. Steve has been a reporter and editor at The Post since 1979, including stints as Federal Page editor, congressional editor and a National staff writer covering federal management and workplace issues. He began writing the column in May 2000, and takes the column live to answer your questions Wednesdays at noon ET.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Stephen Barr: Thanks for joining in this discussion today. I look forward to your comments and any suggestions on topics and or guests that should be explored in this forum or in the Federal Diary column in the coming months of 2007. Your insights are valuable, trust me, so please share them. Again, thanks for joining this discussion today.

_______________________

Atlanta: Stephen, do you have any idea how much federal health insurance benefits are worth and whether they would become taxable under the President's health care proposal he spoke on last night? I assume the value of federal health insurance is the same regardless of salary level. It seems to me that the cost is the same whether the employee is a GS-5 or a GS-15. Do you know if that is correct? If so, and health benefits do become taxable, then it seems to me it is going to become even harder to attract recent college graduates and other entry-level employees.

Stephen Barr: Hi, Atlanta. A very good question. I asked a spokeswoman for the federal employee health program about the president's proposal but FEHBP apparently did not have an analysis available to help us understand how this would work.

My sense is that one or two high-option plans in FEHBP might exceed the $15,000 standard deduction set by the president. In other words, if total premiums in your health plan exceeded $15,000 for the year, you would pay taxes on the excess. But, honestly, I may have this wrong, so don't take any of this as gospel until we hear from FEHBP.

Meanwhile check out The Post coverage by Christopher Lee and others, who are reporting on the president's health plan. It's worth noting, also, that Democrats have tossed cold water on this proposal, which leads me to think it is highly unlikely to be passed in its current form. And perhaps not at all.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va: Perhaps if this (or any) President were serious about reducing energy costs he would get serious about telecommuting. As a Federal employee, I work in an Army Agency where 95 percent of the employees could telecommute efficiently. None are allowed to do so. For the record, my wife has been working from home as a Network Engineering Project Manager for Verizon for the past 8 years. She never has met face-to-face her current manager or her three previous managers. They do it all over the phone (naturally...). A task-oriented office can telecommute without any serious problems.

Stephen Barr: Thanks for sharing your spouse's circumstances with us! A number of private-sector companies, including many that provide technology and related services, have mastered the art of telework. I fear many agencies are too heavily invested in the idea of physical offices, reluctant to rethink their budgets and just plain uncertain how to communicate outside the traditional office setting.

_______________________

Washington: Regarding your telecommuting column -- I don't telecommute (and don't want to for various reasons) but recently was asked by my boss (who has made clear his disapproval of telecommuting) to report that I was telecommuting at least one day per month so that our agency, which is under pressure to allow more telecommuting, can report a higher number of people who do it. I declined...

washingtonpost.com: Many Managers Resist the Call for More Telecommuting (Post, Jan. 23)

Stephen Barr: Good for you!

Frankly it shouldn't be any problem for managers to find employees willing to telecommute. Many people will jump at the chance to get out of rush-hour commutes. And many will also want to work in an office; may I ask why you don't want to telecommute?

_______________________

Burke, Va.: Hey Stephen, interesting article on the findings of a survey on telecommuting. Hard to imagine it getting tremendous traction in the federal government because of the reasons stated by supervisors on why they don't like it. Seems that supervisors that don't hold employees accountable to give a full day's work at the office -- like that $60,000 a year government employee who has bragged in the past couple of chats about reading and surfing the 'Net almost all day -- shouldn't be worrying about whether telemcommuters are giving a full day's work from home. How do you see this playing out? The other area I see grossly abused in the federal government is the alternate work schedule. What a joke.

Stephen Barr: Yes, Burke, you make some good points. But good management is good management, regardless of the office structure and whether you are in shouting distance or miles away. Telecommuting involves a lot of front-end planning and work because it is not appropriate for every job. But if the government values strategic thinking and planning, then it seems we need a few more people who can work from home one day a week, away from telephone calls and other interruptions, to tackle bigger issues. I mean, how many of you attend daily and weekly meetings that end without an action plan or any marching orders?

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: How about looking into the structure and ingredients of the NSPS? I work for a DoD agency that has pay bands and its evaluation system is a model for the NSPS. There is far less communication with staff about what the employee did well, what he did poorly and how to improve performance. It's all based on the esoteric "contribution" made to the agency. Accountability of leaders making pay decision really does not exist.

Stephen Barr: Well, Arlington, that sounds like a bad sign. NSPS officials have repeatedly told me that a core value of the new system is improvement in communication between managers and employees -- communication that happens often and in which both parties are setting and achieving expectations.

Now, this is a start-up program so hopefully NSPS will be better in three to five years than it is today. One lesson I'm hearing from employees is that encounters with managers should be taken seriously and that managers should be given information that shows employees are meeting and exceeding work targets. One of the burdens in this new system is that employees have to learn to tout their accomplishments. Many of us shy away from that but, yes, the times are changing.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: The Bureau of Economic Analysis already has reported the average compensation for federal civilians is twice that of the private sector. That is reality. Considering the already-sizeable imbalance, do you think Steny Hoyer sending a letter to the president asking for a larger pay raise for the feds to keep up with the private sector will do any good or is it just Washington politics?

Stephen Barr: I assume that anything by a member of Congress comes with a political element. The president's budget is a political document, and the reaction to it is political. Unfortunately federal pay is part of the political game.

The Bureau's report is not consistent with other data, such as Labor Department reports. Comparing compensation is tricky and difficult because many federal jobs (law enforcement, regulation, policy making) do not match up with most private-sector companies. And scale is an issue too. Should federal workers (most have college degrees, etc.) be compared against Fortune 500 companies for purposes of compensation, or against every establishment in the nation, including Mom and Pop stores? I'm all for a new look at federal pay-setting procedures, but I'm not sure you can take the politics out of this multibillion dollar equation.

_______________________

Washington: Re: telecommuting, I oppose it for several reasons. It is not my fault that coworkers choose to live very far outside the Beltway. If getting to work is such a problem then maybe they should seek a job closer to home or move closer in to work. Our office has flexible work hours, with many people working from 6 a.m.-4 p.m. or 7 a.m.-4 p.m. I work in a program office where these individuals are assigned grant funded programs (30-80 each) that are in different time zones. Because they are working their flexible hours and I am not, I get stuck with their grantees after-hours. Also I am expected to work longer hours and on more projects, and have to travel for conferences and do site visits more often. With telecommuting I fear that my work load would increase. Also I think it is really odd not to ever see your boss or colleagues face-to-face during your employment period. Loss of personal connection and collegiality in my humble opinion.

Stephen Barr: Thanks for offering your views. You point up some of the difficult issues, such as living far outside the Beltway. Some employees with families feel they have no other option, given the soaring prices for homes inside the Beltway. Young federal employees often write me to say they are quitting their jobs here because they can't afford housing and figure they are better off in other parts of the nation. Seems like telecommuting could help address these issues and allow agencies to retain some people that otherwise they lose.

But it is a workload question, and frankly, it doesn't sound me like your manager has a handle on your office's workload today without considering telework as a factor. Best of luck!

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Barr, I've been reading some of your past chat transcripts. Have you done an article on the potential for staying on CR through the rest of this fiscal year? I would like to find some authoritative source on the subject (an article rather than a chat transcript) to describe what the situation is. Thanks for all you do in presenting us Feds with important information.

Stephen Barr: I don't deal directly with the issue -- the CR has been covered in The Post's congressional coverage. But I've written two or three columns on the impact of the CR -- such as possible furloughs at the Social Security Administration and the denial of year-end bonuses at the Energy Department.

The current CR expires Feb. 15; before that date, Congress will have to write the CR for the rest of 2007. Many agencies are asking for waivers or exceptions to avoid harm to their programs. Once the final CR is written, we'll have a better grasp of the impact. I assume that Congress will ensure that there are no layoffs in the government, but, of course, that is only my assumption.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: As a recent retiree, I am happy with the benefits (COLAs, health care coverage, etc.). You have to be resilient to complete a career cycle and take advantage of whatever opportunities become available. Having said this I think the work experience of many of us could have been more enjoyable and productive. Too many managers attained their positions by successfully managing up rather than by demonstrating any managerial or leadership ability. Unless this trend is reversed I fear that more and more Feds will see their careers as I finally did: working for the earliest possible retirement.

Stephen Barr: Thanks, Falls Church. That is a lament I hear often, and it seems to be reflected in employee attitude surveys conducted by OPM.

_______________________

Washington: I am a second year Presidential Management Fellow who likes her job but is wondering about room for advancement in her agency. Only 4 percent of my agency is under 30 (myself included) and more than 75 percent are eligible for retirement. How long will it take me to advance to a management position? I can't picture myself doing the same job for the next 10 years until my bosses retire, but I am committed to civil service. Should I take a job in the private sector (in health care lobbying at a PR/lobbying firm) and then come back to my agency? What is the best course of action for a 27-year-old GS-12? Thanks in advance! I love your column.

Stephen Barr: You raise an intriguing issue. There are wide expectations that substantial numbers of baby boomers will retire in the 2008-2010 period. But the recent OPM employee survey suggests that may not happen, at least not that early.

Unfortunately many managers hold their retirement plans close to the vest until they are ready to leave, and that makes any advanced planning almost impossible. Since you're near the end of your fellowship, you might want to go ahead and accept the permanent job that is offered, spend a year in it, and then take a hard look at your options.

A detour through the private sector or into another career development program might be useful. You can wait a bit longer but you are on-point when you say you don't want to wait 10 years for a chance at advancement. Work and society moves much more quickly today than in the past, and you've got to go all-out when you are young.

Sorry that I'm not more helpful. You might want to network with some of the young professional associations that have formed around town, as well as contact people in the presidential management intern association that exists, somewhere. Their experiences could help inform your decision making. Best of luck!

_______________________

Washington: Regarding issues to address in your column, I would like to see discussions on fellowship programs, such as the Presidential Management Fellowship program, and if it is really effective at retaining young Feds. I am currently in the program and debating whether to stick with my job at a federal agency because of job opportunities that may arise when many of my colleagues retire, or to take a job that is more challenging in the private sector. I think a lot of my peers in the PMF program struggle with this as well: a commitment to public service, which may not be challenging, or a more challenging job in the private sector.

On a side note, last year I volunteered at the PMF job fair and was in line for lunch, talking to one of the interviewers from a highly sought-after agency. He commented on how "over-qualified" the applicants were and asked me why anyone who went to a "top university" would want to stick with federal service. I really was upset about this, as I went to a highly regarded, top-ranked university. Do employers on the Federal level see this as a detriment, having attended an Ivy or prestigious university? I also get this vibe from more senior colleagues in my agency -- that those of us with "fancy degrees" (their words) shouldn't have so much job responsibility because we haven't "put our time in."

Stephen Barr: Thanks for your posting, and I'll try to ask questions about the issues you raise. In some quarters, there is this sense that the government is an old ladder system, and you must spend time in each rung. And many who hold that view don't like the idea that others get ahead through shortcuts. My sense is that the government is in a generational transition now and will have to work through some of the issues you raise. Again, thanks for the posting.

_______________________

Washington: My boss loathes telecommuting, but as IT staff we have to support everyone else's right to telecommute. This irony does not escape notice. I could get much more accomplished at home without constant interruptions, but he likes the appearance of people being in the office more than work getting done. He certainly seems to take advantage of it -- he's only in the office one day a week. It's all about appearances to management, not actual productivity.

Stephen Barr: Thanks, Washington. Sort of a sad commentary, isn't it?

_______________________

Northern Virginia: I think your comment about young Feds feeling like they can't afford housing also has a lot to do with my generation's expectations. When I got here three years ago, I was low on the GS level and had roommates, but a lot of college grads expect to be able to have their own apartment in the middle of Dupont Circle. I personally also had to deal with a lot of my friends where I'm from making the same as I did but being able to afford a three-bedroom house. Is housing expensive? Yes, but can you live here on a low-GS Fed salary as a young person? Absolutely.

Stephen Barr: Thanks, Northern Virginia. Expectations do play an important role.

_______________________

Washington: The last page of Sunday's opinions section had a letter from an airline passenger on what sounded like a horrendous experience with a baggage inspector at BWI who confiscated expensive cosmetics that were clearly acceptable and had passed through the same scan with a different scanner a half-hour before, and who repeatedly berated her with racist names while another guard stood by doing nothing. If this account is accurate it sounds as though the TSA scanner knew she could could abuse her authority with impunity and probably had done so before. How can one avoid this sort of situation, other than by avoiding BWI, which I will certainly do in the future? Why are TSA supervisors allowing this to happen at BWI?

Stephen Barr: In fairness to TSA, we probably need to view this as an isolated case and not a systematic problem. On the other hand, TSA continues to grapple with the balance security and customer service, and many airport screeners complain to me on a regular basis about the uneven quality of their managers. This is a workforce where we need more data and insight, so that proper training and management are brought to bear and cases like BWI never happen.

_______________________

Washington: One issue with telecommuting is that there is a percentage of work that has to be done in-person on-site, and these usually are grunt tasks or pop-up. Accomplishing that work falls to those on-site that day, which means that either someone covers for that person who is responsible or that non-telecommuting people are assigned those tasks up-front. I've been asked to cover for someone too many times, gone to the meeting with the undersecretary and looked bad because it wasn't my issue, and then the next day the telecommuter returns and saves the day.

Stephen Barr: Great example! I'll take this posting as reinforcement of my earlier point that telecommuting works when managers think through what it means for the office and how tasks are accomplished.

_______________________

Kingstowne, Va.: Are all congresspersons paid the same amount? Senators? Do they get raises if re-elected (performance-based bonus)? Do they receive COLA for living in the D.C. area? Do they receive any compensation from the state they represent? Just some questions that came to mind while I operate under a CR ... thanks.

Stephen Barr: Members of Congress, except the top leaders, are paid the same -- $168,000, effective next month. Leaders will make $186,600.

That is their salary; they get no Washington locality pay or a state adjustment. They do have expense accounts for their offices, but that cannot be converted to salary. They also do not receive bonuses or stock options--two forms of compensation awarded people who serve on the board of directors at large corporations.

_______________________

Washington: I have a theoretical question about the effect of federal employee unions. I know they can lobby for a higher pay raise for all employees, or for changes in federal labor laws and regulations. But can they raise the pay of, say, non-SES employees in a particular agency? Can they alter the distribution between labor and management? If not then, at least at the agency level, don't union demands just shift resources among bargaining unit employees?

Stephen Barr: At most agencies, unions are not allowed to bargain over pay. That's why they lobby the Hill.

But at some agencies, such as the FAA, FDIC, Postal Service, unions are permitted to bargain over pay. I'm not sure that unions can alter the distribution between labor and management, but they do have a forum for demanding a fair shake on compensation.

_______________________

Philadelphia: What is the likelihood of passing newly introduced legislation to eliminate the WEP. In the mid- to late-'90s many school districts were asked to participate in the social security program and did so. The participants only were required to pay into the fund for five years and be paying upon separation to be entitled to unreduced benefits. It is like a slap in the face to government workers who paid in for ten or fifteen years and then face the reduction. What are your thoughts?

Stephen Barr: First off, I think you are talking about the Government Pension Offset, not the Windfall Elimination Provision, because of your reference to school systems. Pardon me, please, if I've jumped to a wrong conclusion here.

There was an issue with school systems abusing the Social Security rules to exempt employees from the GPO. That law was changed a few years ago to close what Congress saw as a loophole. As for chances of repealing either of these provisions, I'd have to say it is not good, because of the lost revenue to the Social Security trust fund.

Once again, we've run out of time today. Thanks for the comments, especially regarding telework -- it's something I'm still learning about. We'll see all of you here at noon next Wednesday. And thank you for taking the time to read this transcript!

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.