Pay Gap: The Rebuttal

Not surprisingly, last week's Pay and Benefits Watch column evoked anger among some readers.

The column outlined libertarian scholar Chris Edwards' contention that federal employees actually make more than their private sector counterparts, when benefits are factored in. That thesis sparked a number of challenges. So did his underlying assertion that government workers do not deserve their salaries and his proposed solution -- a freeze on federal pay.

One challenger was Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. Kelley balked at the notion that federal compensation is higher than that in the private sector, but what really prompted her dissent was Edwards' theory that the government does not need competitive pay because it should not vie for top employees in the first place.

"For the overall economy, federal hiring of top caliber workers is a problem because it draws talent away from high-valued activities in the private sector," Edwards wrote in his Cato Institute paper. "In France, most of the best minds move from the elite schools into the national government, and the economy is weaker for it. In the United States, most of the best minds are attracted to places such as Silicon Valley, not Washington, and we prosper because of it."

Here is what Kelley had to say, in a written response:

"Edwards makes the absurd assertion that federal hiring of highly skilled workers is a disservice to the country," she stated. "Not only would most Americans strongly disagree, but they would be both appalled and frightened by the notion of a government that didn't do everything in its power to secure a top-notch workforce."

The union president provided some examples -- including scientists at the Food and Drug Administration who test the safety of food and medication, and financial analysts at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other agencies that regulate financial markets and monitor fraud -- of federal occupations that require top talent.

Kelley was not the only one with objections. Readers chimed in with protests, through e-mails and responses in GovExec.com's Mailbag section.

One countered Edwards' notion that a low government quit rate means pay is sufficient. "The only reason that there is low turnover in federal service is the traditional belief that it is a secure job," the reader wrote. "As long as you do your job well, you should be able to stay employed for your whole career without the threat of sudden layoff. This is huge to many people."

Another reader said he only stays in government because of an "intense passion for public service" and the hit his retirement benefit would take if he left early.

"I make more than the average unskilled worker, but when I do stray away from my civil service job to investigate outside employment, the commercial companies look at my level of responsibility (manage development of a $10 million software application, control a $25 million annual services contract, plus other associated duties) and try to compare my salary with positions in their organizations doing similar work," he wrote. "They assume I'm lying, because to manage that volume of business annually commands a significant premium versus GS-12 or 13 pay."

One reader had this to say: "I suspect the real agenda was just to get government workers all excited."

Whatever his motives, Edwards certainly accomplished that.