The Republican party has recently proposed controversial legislation that would significantly reduce federal employee pay and benefits. This GOP bill has sparked heated debate across party lines and strong reactions from federal workforce unions. As Congress negotiates fiscal year 2024 appropriations, the future of federal worker compensation hangs in the balance.
An Overview of the GOP Plan
The Republican Study Committee (RSC) put out their budget plan for fiscal year 2025 in June 2023. The RSC is a group of more than 150 conservative Republicans in the House, led by Oklahoma Representative Kevin Hern. Their budget plan called for $17. 1 trillion in cuts to spending over 10 years, which includes big cuts to federal pay and benefits
Some key provisions in the RSC plan include
-
Eliminating automatic pay raises for federal workers, replacing them with “merit-based” raises. This is estimated to save $57 billion over 10 years.
-
Cutting back on or getting rid of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for current and former federal workers in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS).
-
Basing federal retirement benefits on a worker’s highest 5 years of earnings rather than the current highest 3 years formula.
-
Requiring federal employees to contribute more towards their Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) premiums and transitioning the government contribution to a flat rate rather than percentage of premiums.
-
Barring new federal hires from enrolling in FERS or receiving FEHB coverage in retirement.
-
Capping the ability of federal workers to file grievances and make it easier to fire employees accused of misconduct.
In March 2024, the RSC reiterated these proposed cuts in their fiscal year 2025 budget blueprint titled “Fiscal Sanity to Save America.” The RSC argues these changes are necessary to reduce the national debt and align federal compensation more closely with the private sector.
Reactions from Federal Unions and Democrats
Federal employee unions and Democratic lawmakers have strongly denounced the GOP plan as an attack on public servants.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) stated the RSC budget would “empty out the federal workforce” by making government employment uncompensated and insecure. The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) objected to the plan’s intent to “reduce pay, take away union rights, [and] limit access to affordable health insurance.”
Democrats argue the plan shows Republicans lack respect and support for the apolitical civil servants that keep government running. They dispute the claim that federal workers are overpaid, citing studies that show a significant pay gap compared to private sector counterparts.
Will the Plan Advance in Congress?
Despite Republican control of the House, the RSC budget is unlikely to be enacted in its current form. Senate Democrats can block the most drastic federal pay and benefit cuts. The Biden administration also pledged to uphold the existing bipartisan budget agreement.
However, House Republican appropriators have already proposed rolling back spending to fiscal 2022 levels. Some cuts to pay or benefits may emerge from negotiations on fiscal 2024 funding bills. Provisions to restrict union activities and ease firing processes have bipartisan support.
Overall, the stage is set for a fierce battle over federal compensation as the two parties clash on appropriations this year. The RSC plan illustrates the emphasis Republicans place on cutting the workforce budget regardless of impacts on recruitment, retention, or morale. But Democrats are gearing up to defend the public servants that keep our government running.
Key Takeaways about the Controversial GOP Plan:
-
Originated from the Republican Study Committee budget blueprint for fiscal 2025
-
Would cut federal pay and benefits by over $150 billion over the next decade
-
Major proposals include eliminating automatic raises, reducing pensions, increased retirement contributions, and easier termination policies
-
Faced strong opposition from federal unions and Democrats in Congress
-
Unlikely to fully pass Congress but may impact fiscal 2024 appropriations negotiations
-
Puts federal compensation at the center of partisan conflict over government spending
While the RSC budget is just a proposal, it signals the GOP’s priorities for federal employment policy. Reducing pay, benefits, job protections and union rights would have significant consequences for the ability to recruit and retain public servants. With the nation $31 trillion in debt, both parties face challenges balancing fiscal restraint with appropriate investment in the federal workforce. The coming debate will shed light on their competing philosophies.
2020 as a case study
No survey, no matter how scientific (and this one is not), can predict the exact turnout of federal employees on Nov. 5, but if past behavior is any indicator, it seems likely this population will show up.
Federal Times found 96% of respondents “definitely” voted in the 2020 presidential election, which yielded the highest turnout rate of eligible voters in any national election since 1900, according to Pew Research Center.
Respondents with whom Federal Times spoke were not surprised by the high number.
“The [colleagues] I engage with are absolutely engaged voters,” said one employee, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about their political views. “The sense of obligation is definitely there.”
How feds will vote is less clear. The deeply polarized political environment coupled with ripple effects of the pandemic, complex overseas conflicts and social pressures magnified by social media have given voters much to consider.
While most elections are contentious, Stier said the discourse around politics and attitudes on government have struck a different tenor recently.
“I think that, historically, the differences have really been about policy direction,” he added. “And again, by and large, the civil service, they’re going to do their work irrespective of whoever the political leader is. I think what has been put center stage in a much more dramatic way is this question of the nature of our government and to what end does it serve?”
“Normally we would not know how serious a candidate is about such actions — rhetoric is not always reality — but again, Trump is unique,” said Baugus. “We have four years’ experience, and I would think that will be the key in forming expectations.”
Most feds interviewed said a change in administration minimally impacts their day-to-day work, but employees may see policy priorities reflected in what teams are given money to hire and whether agencies backfill vacant positions.
How powerful are feds as voters?
In recent months especially, Republicans floated campaign planks that would directly impact federal employees’ pay, benefits, telework offerings and career stability. In the survey, most respondents ranked federal salary raises or pay reform as a top concern, followed by retirement issues and then Schedule F.
Baugus said it’s also true that government employees, by virtue of their career, may have an affinity for public policy, or they may simply know more about it than the average voter who needs to make more of an effort to stay ahead on the issues.
“[Government workers’] costs of being an informed voter are lower,” he said. “Higher incentives and lower costs usually lead to more action, in this case voting, especially since they are usually forbidden from being involved in campaigns and electioneering, so voting is their only outlet for political activity.”
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.s.arcpublishing.com/archetype/GFRVCVLMLJFUMQLKI5IEMMKTOJ.jpg)
It’s also true that even though government employees tend to be concentrated geographically, they are not distributed evenly. In the survey, about 75% of respondents do not live or work in the National Capital Region.
In particularly close races or in low turnout elections, a few thousand votes can be influential, Baugus said.
“[Recent presidential elections] have been close enough that almost anyone can claim to have been the margin of difference, but the stronger case can be made for motivated voting blocs like government employees,” he said.
GOP brings back rule to cut federal workers’ pay
FAQ
What is the 2024 federal employee pay raise?
Is the bill to make federal employees at will?
What is the bill for federal workers to return to work?
What is the proposed federal pay raise for 2025?
Are Republicans pushing for cuts to federal employees’ pay and benefits?
Several House Republicans are calling on their colleagues to push for cuts to federal employees’ pay and benefits, as lawmakers advance spending bills for fiscal 2024.
Are Republicans targeting federal employee pay & benefits?
Republicans are also targeting federal employee pay and benefits, claiming that federal employees are paid 17% more than their private-sector counterparts, when benefits are included.
Will Republicans compel federal workers to return to work?
It’s the latest attempt by the Republican majority in the House to compel federal workers to return to their offices, and it comes several months after the Biden administration directed federal agencies to plan a return to work, though with less stringent requirements.
Will federal employees return to office this fall?
The federal government, the nation’s largest employer, is urging a return to office for federal employees this fall. A government report found that in the first three months of 2023, building occupancy at 17 federal agency was 25% or less. Early this year, House Republicans decided enough is enough.