Congressional Republicans mull plans to gash feds’ pay, benefits and job security
GOP lawmakers are once again considering a litany of proposals that would require federal workers to pay more in exchange for less retirement and health care benefits.
As Republican lawmakers craft a wide-ranging budget reconciliation bill to lock in and potentially expand President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and fund expanded immigration enforcement, federal workers are once again in the crosshairs.
A 50-page document, compiled by GOP members of the House Budget Committee and first reported by Politico, outlines a list of provisions that could be included in the package, which would not be subject to the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold, includes a litany of proposals increasing federal workers’ contribution to their retirement and health care benefits, in exchange for worse payouts.
First is a proposal to standardize the amount Federal Employees Retirement System enrollees pay toward their defined-benefit annuity at 4.4%. Currently, FERS participants contribute 0.8% of their basic pay to their retirement if they were hired in 2012 or prior, 3.1% if they were hired in 2013, and 4.4% if they were hired in 2014 or later.
The document also suggests eliminating the FERS supplement for employees who retire before reaching Social Security eligibility at age 62, a provision that would disproportionately impact federal law enforcement officers, who are mostly required to retire when they turn 57 years old. And it revives a proposal from Trump’s first term to base federal retirees’ annuity payments on the average of the highest five years of an employee’s salary, compared to the current “High-3” calculation.
Another proposal would require newly hired federal workers to choose between better retirement benefits and the civil service protections that most federal employees currently enjoy.
“This option would require future federal employees to elect between two classification systems: the current system with merit-based civil service protections or a new at-will classification,” the document states. “If an employee elects to be classified as an at-will classification, they will maintain a lower FERS annuity contribution rate (4.4% or lower). However, for employees that elect to be classified under the current merit-based civil service system, their annuity employee contribution would be increased to a higher rate.”
On health care benefits, the House GOP proposes replacing the current system, by which the federal government pays for a percentage of health care premiums through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and the new Postal Service Health Benefits program, with a “voucher model.”
“Under this option, the FEHB and PSHB programs would be reformed by replacing the current premium-sharing structure with a voucher, which would not be subject to income and payroll taxes,” the document states.
And the document calls for enactment of a bill introduced last year to require the Office of Personnel Management to audit FEHBP for improper enrollments. But OPM has said that under the current “decentralized” nature of the program, the agency does not have the capabilities to conduct such an audit.
Prior to the presidential transition, then-President Biden’s OPM sent Congress a legislative proposal, drawn on lessons learned in launching the PSHB program this year, to revamp how it administers FEHBP so that it can conduct better oversight.
The panel also floated reviving a Trump-era policy to charge unions for use of agency property, including office space, computers and other equipment, or to evict them from federal facilities. New in this iteration is a proposal also to charge unions for official time granted to union officials.
Official time is the practice by which agencies pay union employees’ their normal salary for time spent working on representational matters, including collective bargaining negotiations as well as representing employees in litigation, grievance or disciplinary proceedings. Though often presented—incorrectly—by conservatives as a giveaway for unions to conduct internal business on government time, the practice represents a compromise at the center of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act—the government agrees to pay union officials for time spent on representational duties, and unions agree to represent non-members within their bargaining units.
Also included in the list is a proposal to begin charging a fee for federal workers seeking to appeal an adverse personnel action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. And, in one instance of increased spending on federal workers, the document establishes a $2 billion Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment Fund to pay for governmentwide employee buyouts, coupled with an increase to the buyout cap from $25,000 to $40,000 for all civilian employees and lowers the eligibility threshold from 20 to 15 years. The buyout cap already is $40,000 at the Defense Department.