PDA

View Full Version : Why Do Active Duty Personnel Think Government Civilans Make More Money Than They Do?



Rusty Jones
07-14-2013, 12:50 AM
Are you guys seeing the comments from active duty personnel and their spouses on Facebook, when news and military pages post status updates and links to the news about the furlough?

How they think it's somehow cheaper to use military personnel? I'm a GS-9, and I make less than any NCO in the US military. Yet, I know a GS-9 right now who supervises two E7's, and has even supervised an E8.

What gives?

raustin0017
07-14-2013, 12:57 AM
It's not about what each pay grade makes. The enlisted E-1 thru E-9 is a totally different structure than the GS system..

TSgt"M"
07-14-2013, 03:03 AM
I wasn't pissed about the money, GS/GM types made, I was just pissed that they made equivilant money with out the BS. Deployment, Mob lines, Mandatory you name it ect....... and supervised those who did.

Chief_KO
07-14-2013, 03:19 AM
Because most AD personnel never fully understand their total "compensation package". Healthcare and retirement plan are the two big differences that come to mind. As a recently new GS (at the very lowest end of the pay scale) I receive an hourly rate. Yes, if I were to work more than my 8hrs per day or more than my 40hrs per week I would receive overtime pay (the same as I did at my previous civilian sector job. But unlike when I was on AD I can't just take time off to go to the doctor, take my son or wife to the doctor, and of course GS do not receive goal days or family days. Want time off...take your annual leave or sick leave.

Mind you, I'm not complaining...just saying it is not a fair comparison. But until when one retires or separates and joins the civilian workforce does one truly appreciate how well the AD is compensated.

Silverback
07-14-2013, 03:42 AM
Because most AD personnel never fully understand their total "compensation package". Healthcare and retirement plan are the two big differences that come to mind. As a recently new GS (at the very lowest end of the pay scale) I receive an hourly rate. Yes, if I were to work more than my 8hrs per day or more than my 40hrs per week I would receive overtime pay (the same as I did at my previous civilian sector job. But unlike when I was on AD I can't just take time off to go to the doctor, take my son or wife to the doctor, and of course GS do not receive goal days or family days. Want time off...take your annual leave or sick leave.

Mind you, I'm not complaining...just saying it is not a fair comparison. But until when one retires or separates and joins the civilian workforce does one truly appreciate how well the AD is compensated.

Chief_KO

I worked a couple of years before I joined the military, so I do appreciate all of the hidden benefits that are afforded to all of us who are active duty. I agree that many active duty personnel do not realize the benefits until it is too late. As far as GS, I work and supervise some that are truly outstanding, but there are some others that are just horrible. The ones that are horrible unfortunately know the Master Labor Agree (MLA) forward and backwards. Any punitive actions never seem to stick.

Rusty Jones
07-14-2013, 03:50 AM
I wasn't pissed about the money, GS/GM types made, I was just pissed that they made equivilant money with out the BS. Deployment, Mob lines, Mandatory you name it ect....... and supervised those who did.

As a GS9, according to the chart, I'm supposed to be equal to a 1LT. Trust me, I get paid nowhere near what a 1LT makes. I get $47,448 a year. I probably have the same net pay as an E3, if that.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-14-2013, 05:25 AM
For the first time in 20+ years I had to pay car registration...$750 for both of our vehicles. Oh yeah, MAJCOM family day? I came to work while the rest of our office (active duty) enjoyed the (well earned) day off. Also, I think DoD wants to quadruple my Tricare rates, but my wife and I will cross that bridge later. I'm not complaining, but just getting used to my new non-active duty life.

RobotChicken
07-14-2013, 05:46 AM
For the first time in 20+ years I had to pay car registration...$750 for both of our vehicles. Oh yeah, MAJCOM family day? I came to work while the rest of our office (active duty) enjoyed the (well earned) day off. Also, I think DoD wants to quadruple my Tricare rates, but my wife and I will cross that bridge later. I'm not complaining, but just getting used to my new non-active duty life.

"Gosh 'Flaps'; what state are you in? Sounds awful high??"

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-14-2013, 05:57 AM
"Gosh 'Flaps'; what state are you in? Sounds awful high??"

That's total combined cost for both vehicles. And yes, it's high.

RobotChicken
07-14-2013, 06:09 AM
"In Virginia it's $45 per car a year."
:car

garhkal
07-14-2013, 06:12 AM
I wasn't pissed about the money, GS/GM types made, I was just pissed that they made equivilant money with out the BS. Deployment, Mob lines, Mandatory you name it ect....... and supervised those who did.

Add in the no pt, no body fat/weight requirements, no clothing/uniform needs. Yes they may not get the same pay, but they get a lot in perks.


That's total combined cost for both vehicles. And yes, it's high.

350 a car? What state is that!>!>!>

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-14-2013, 06:37 AM
Add in the no pt, no body fat/weight requirements, no clothing/uniform needs. Yes they may not get the same pay, but they get a lot in perks.



350 a car? What state is that!>!>!>

Several states charge that high for the annual registration....if you're not active duty.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-14-2013, 06:41 AM
Add in the no pt, no body fat/weight requirements, no clothing/uniform needs. Yes they may not get the same pay, but they get a lot in perks.



350 a car? What state is that!>!>!>

Civilians don't get a clothing allowance, last I checked, but they sure as hell need a larger wardrobe. Besides, military having to wear the same thing to work each day won't exactly break the bank. I rotated two sets of ABUs for almost two years. Can't do that with my Dockers!

71Fish
07-14-2013, 06:49 AM
People complain while on active duty, but I had so much more freedom of movement when I was active duty. Sure there was the mandatory BS, but I didn't have to make up time missed for a doctors appt. If it's a slow day, I have to stay until 4, I can't just leave. Can't take long gym or lunch breaks, unless I want to make up for it. No CBPO lunches.

As for pay, I retired at a bad time, before the current hiring freeze things were still slow. The base has the highest pay unless I want to drive another 30 miles on top of the 16 I already drive. As a contractor you worry about the contract being renewed. Since it's coming around to the fiscal year, I'm looking just in case.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-14-2013, 01:53 PM
"In Virginia it's $45 per car a year."
:car

I confused the taxes with the registration. Paid all at the same time. Sorry about that.

Chief_KO
07-14-2013, 02:45 PM
The Peoples Republic of Maryland has outrageous vehicle fees, inspection fees, smog fees. No military clause and it takes on average 2-3 DMV visits to get it done. Every other state I was stationed in had out of state military clauses that cut the fees dramatically. Heck, Colorado even has a military in uniform line...takes about 15 minutes.

UH1FE
07-14-2013, 03:13 PM
Like everything in life there is good and bad on both the civilian and active duty side of the fence.

TJMAC77SP
07-14-2013, 06:01 PM
As a GS9, according to the chart, I'm supposed to be equal to a 1LT. Trust me, I get paid nowhere near what a 1LT makes. I get $47,448 a year. I probably have the same net pay as an E3, if that.

What 'chart' are you referring to?

garhkal
07-14-2013, 06:14 PM
Several states charge that high for the annual registration....if you're not active duty.

Took a look at This site (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hwytaxes/mv103.pdf) and minnesota, iowa, michigan and oklahoma are the only ones above 100 a year for autos..


The Peoples Republic of Maryland has outrageous vehicle fees, inspection fees, smog fees. No military clause and it takes on average 2-3 DMV visits to get it done.

And people wonder why i never want to live up there.

USMC0341
07-15-2013, 12:36 AM
I don't know, I work for the government and believe I am wayyyyy overpaid. Not that it means much to this debate, but I get a shitload of benefits and too much pay for what I do.

Maybe my perspective is jacked up since I came from an infantry background, but I still feel like a monkey could do my job, wtf they paying me so much to do it.

USMC0341
07-15-2013, 12:39 AM
In fact, I told my boss this same thing, she just brushed it off and said to "enjoy" not being busy. I have a problem with this wasteful attitude, maybe so many GS' aren't needed? Reminds of end of fiscal spending.

Rusty Jones
07-15-2013, 01:06 AM
What 'chart' are you referring to?

This one:

http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/01000%20Military%20Personnel%20Support/01-700%20Morale,%20Community%20and%20Religious%20Serv ices/1710.7A.pdf

Click on Annex D in the left panel.

Rusty Jones
07-15-2013, 01:33 AM
I don't know, I work for the government and believe I am wayyyyy overpaid. Not that it means much to this debate, but I get a shitload of benefits and too much pay for what I do.

It's not the most PC thing to say, but the same could be said for most active duty personnel. Most get paid way more in the military than they would on the outside doing the same job.


Maybe my perspective is jacked up since I came from an infantry background, but I still feel like a monkey could do my job, wtf they paying me so much to do it.

What is your paygrade, and what paygrade are your active duty counterparts doing the same job?

TJMAC77SP
07-15-2013, 11:46 AM
This one:

http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/01000%20Military%20Personnel%20Support/01-700%20Morale,%20Community%20and%20Religious%20Serv ices/1710.7A.pdf

Click on Annex D in the left panel.

Ok, according to Navy protocol a GS9 is equal in precedence to a O-2. I thought by the context of your comment that you were speaking of duties or authority.

efmbman
07-15-2013, 01:04 PM
Perhaps the compensation is related to the level of responsibility a 1LT has vs. a GS-09. How many GS-09's are accountable for the actions of those they supervise? How many GS-09's give orders that could result in the deaths of their subordinates?

Juggs
07-15-2013, 01:19 PM
Whats funny is most GS positions are filled by retirees. Keep complaining about 47k a year on top of your 20k a year retirement check.

Rusty Jones
07-15-2013, 02:13 PM
Ok, according to Navy protocol a GS9 is equal in precedence to a O-2. I thought by the context of your comment that you were speaking of duties or authority.

I'm actually speaking on both. Now, with MY job, I wouldn't compare myself to a 1LT - maybe to a Warrant Officer. My job does require independent decision making that my boss isn't allowed to impede on. Decision making that enlisted normally can't make. However, it's still more technical and less management; which is why I can't compare myself to a 1LT.

That's not to say that there are GS-9 who DO serve in a role that a 1LT (or LTJG) would serve in. Again, I know one in San Antonio serving in a billet that supervises two Chiefs - and, at one time, one of them made Senior Chief; so he was supervising both a Chief and a Senior Chief. If military, that sounds like a O-2 to me.

By the way, I don't think that's just Navy. I would assume that there's a DoD or an OPM rule that the Navy would have to follow. BRUWIN even pointed out that as a GS-11, he's supposed to be equal to an O-3.

Mind you, this isn't me trying to make myself out to be something that I'm not. I'm just pointing out that we do NOT make more than our active duty counterparts. In fact, we make LESS.


Perhaps the compensation is related to the level of responsibility a 1LT has vs. a GS-09. How many GS-09's are accountable for the actions of those they supervise? How many GS-09's give orders that could result in the deaths of their subordinates?


Whats funny is most GS positions are filled by retirees. Keep complaining about 47k a year on top of your 20k a year retirement check.

Okay, I'll address efmbman and Juggs at the same time.

First, Juggs... no one is complaining about their pay. Maybe active duty personnel are... and not necessarily here on MTF; read my OP, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The complaint is that people on active duty think that we make more money than they do. And it's completely false. I'm content with my pay; but what I'm NOT content with, is how so many active duty personnel think that we make more money than they do when it's not true - when we actually make LESS.

I didn't retire from the military. If I did, I wouldn't have taken on my second job as a taxi driver - which, by the way, I've taken because I got out of the military as an E6, and driving taxis makes up the difference between what I make on my current job, and what I made when I left active duty two years ago.

In February 2011, when I got out; my net pay was equal to that of a civilian who grosses $73K. That's me establishing the BAS and BAH as net pay amounts, and using a gross pay calculator to determine what the pre-tax amounts would have been; and then adding those to the base pay.

Even if I WAS retired and got the extra 20K a year, I'd STILL make $500 less per month.

Again; I'm content with my pay. I get promoted to GS-11 this September. However, it annoys the piss out of me when active duty personnel say that we get paid more than they do in order to do the same jobs. It's completely false.

efmbman
07-15-2013, 02:18 PM
I didn't take your comments as complaining - I simply offered a possible (and plausible) reason for the difference in compensation.

Rusty Jones
07-15-2013, 02:31 PM
I didn't take your comments as complaining - I simply offered a possible (and plausible) reason for the difference in compensation.

Juggs took it as complaining.

TJMAC77SP
07-15-2013, 02:35 PM
I'm actually speaking on both. Now, with MY job, I wouldn't compare myself to a 1LT - maybe to a Warrant Officer. My job does require independent decision making that my boss isn't allowed to impede on. Decision making that enlisted normally can't make. However, it's still more technical and less management; which is why I can't compare myself to a 1LT.

That's not to say that there are GS-9 who DO serve in a role that a 1LT (or LTJG) would serve in. Again, I know one in San Antonio serving in a billet that supervises two Chiefs - and, at one time, one of them made Senior Chief; so he was supervising both a Chief and a Senior Chief. If military, that sounds like a O-2 to me.

By the way, I don't think that's just Navy. I would assume that there's a DoD or an OPM rule that the Navy would have to follow. BRUWIN even pointed out that as a GS-11, he's supposed to be equal to an O-3.

Mind you, this isn't me trying to make myself out to be something that I'm not. I'm just pointing out that we do NOT make more than our active duty counterparts. In fact, we make LESS.



I asked for a reference because I have heard this 'equal to' statement many times and with the exception of issues related to treatment as a POW under the Geneva Convention I could never find a reference which imparts authority to a GS employee based on his or her paygrade.

Authority of GS employees is positionally based. In other words as a GS 9 you can give direction to whoever the CoC puts under your direct supervision but can't exercise that same authority outside of that chain. A commissioned officer (and NCO/CPO for that matter) can do just that.

I supervised a GS-11 as a MSgt. No one including the CPO (Civilian Personnel Office) had any issues with that.

I had a GS-12 ask me once about the chain of command in the event of an emergency where key members are killed or rendered ineffective. She pointed to a Captain and said she wasn't taking orders from him. Partly in answer to her being a Delta Bravo I answered her this way...."In the event of such an emergency Captain X here can order me into harms way. You are not ordering anyone into such a situation. Does that help clarify things?"

Rusty Jones
07-18-2013, 12:19 PM
I didn't take your comments as complaining - I simply offered a possible (and plausible) reason for the difference in compensation.

Although I understand your reasoning for the differences, I do believe that the high compensation sets most military members up for failure on the outside. They'll find that, regardless of their experience, they'll still need at least a bachelor's degree to do the SAME job and will still get paid LESS to do it.

And how many people are struggling with their finances while they're IN the military?

My sister recently got out the Army - she was a captain - after ten years. Five years enlisted, five officer. Had the the same take home pay as someone making six figures (a four year O3 with no prior enlisted service already does). She lives like shit now. I recently had to lend my brother money, because she couldn't afford to do it.

imnohero
07-18-2013, 10:57 PM
In my experience, there is not a direct comparison between GS levels of responsibility and military ranks levels of responsibility. I worked with a guy that was a GS-12 doing the same tasks that a E4 was doing. In other office, there was a GS6 working along-side O3s, doing the exact same work.

efmbman
07-18-2013, 11:13 PM
And how many people are struggling with their finances while they're IN the military?

My kneejerk reaction (and I know you will disagree) is that those that are experiencing this are not managing their finances properly and/or living within their means. That's what happens when "want" take precedence over "need". A generalization, yes, but often it is the case.


In my experience, there is not a direct comparison between GS levels of responsibility and military ranks levels of responsibility.

That's because the DOD and the services determine the level of responsibility for ranks. The OPM determines the level of responsibility for GS ranks. There is no logical comparison.

TJMAC77SP
07-19-2013, 11:54 AM
In my experience, there is not a direct comparison between GS levels of responsibility and military ranks levels of responsibility. I worked with a guy that was a GS-12 doing the same tasks that a E4 was doing. In other office, there was a GS6 working along-side O3s, doing the exact same work.

Go to any AFMC base. You can't swing a cat without hitting a dozen GS-12's.

Pullinteeth
07-19-2013, 02:57 PM
In my experience, there is not a direct comparison between GS levels of responsibility and military ranks levels of responsibility. I worked with a guy that was a GS-12 doing the same tasks that a E4 was doing. In other office, there was a GS6 working along-side O3s, doing the exact same work.

You are correct. There isn't ANY correlation. There also isn't any correlation between a GS/WG/whatever and any military rank. If you go to the chart that civilians tout to say they are the equiv of a Lt Col or whatever, you will notice it says no such thing...it is a chart to help determine the chain of command in a situation covered by the Geneva Conventions only....oh and POW identification....

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/100001p.pdf

garhkal
07-19-2013, 06:12 PM
My kneejerk reaction (and I know you will disagree) is that those that are experiencing this are not managing their finances properly and/or living within their means. That's what happens when "want" take precedence over "need". A generalization, yes, but often it is the case..

Too true. Also for some people, their 'want' gets to the level of they feel they are entitled to it..
But that said, i have also seen issues with mil folks finances due to one (or the other) spending a lot, and NOT informing the other person in a married couple. Such as one guy deployed with us, went to his online bank to forward 200 bucks to his deployment bank account, to find he was almost at 0 bucks in his checking.. all because "Wify" decided she needed a clothing shopping spree (though she already had 8 times more clothes than he did).

Mr. Squid
07-20-2013, 01:57 AM
You are correct. There isn't ANY correlation. There also isn't any correlation between a GS/WG/whatever and any military rank. If you go to the chart that civilians tout to say they are the equiv of a Lt Col or whatever, you will notice it says no such thing...it is a chart to help determine the chain of command in a situation covered by the Geneva Conventions only....oh and POW identification....

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/100001p.pdfWell, there technically is a correlation, just not the kind that some people mistakenly think of. If for example a GS-13 and a group of subordinate GS people along with military consisting of an O-3 all the way down to E-3 are all bunched together in a POW camp, does that mean the GS-13 is automatically charge of everyone to include all military personnel? Oh hell to the f.ck no. It just means that the GS-13 might be in charge of the other GS folks in the same correlating manner that the O-3 will be in charge of all subordinate military personnel. If the GS' don't band together in a hierarchy, and that's their choice, then this all just means that the GS-13 will simply be released from the camp sooner than the other GS' since he's in a higher Geneva Conventions category. In a couple of conversations I've had over the years, many people carry the misguided notion that "equivalent to rank X" somehow means "substitute for rank X." That is a negatory.

I wasn't explaining this to you personally Pullinteeth, I was just taking what you said and expounding on it for other readers.

imnohero
07-20-2013, 02:19 AM
As to the original question, this "non-corollary" is likely the source of the "GS make more money" thing. When a GS12 is side by side with an E4 doing the exact same work, is it any wonder?

Of course, no one pays attention to the other side, when and O3 and GS6 are doing the same work. But what'r'ya gonna do, right?

Silverback
07-20-2013, 02:30 AM
As to the original question, this "non-corollary" is likely the source of the "GS make more money" thing. When a GS12 is side by side with an E4 doing the exact same work, is it any wonder?

Of course, no one pays attention to the other side, when and O3 and GS6 are doing the same work. But what'r'ya gonna do, right?

In that example the GS12 is being severly overpaid for doing an E4 job and the GS6 is being underpaid. You see this kind of thing a lot. Personally I would not complain if I was getting paid a GS12 salary to do Airman level work.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-20-2013, 02:47 AM
You are correct. There isn't ANY correlation. There also isn't any correlation between a GS/WG/whatever and any military rank. If you go to the chart that civilians tout to say they are the equiv of a Lt Col or whatever, you will notice it says no such thing...it is a chart to help determine the chain of command in a situation covered by the Geneva Conventions only....oh and POW identification....

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/100001p.pdf

Are GS employees covered under the Geneva Convention? My GS CAC states "Identification Card," but my Active Duty CAC states "Geneva Conventions Identification Card."

RobotChicken
07-20-2013, 06:55 AM
"We'll see how the 'Tailban' respond to each card works out."

efmbman
07-20-2013, 01:00 PM
Are GS employees covered under the Geneva Convention? My GS CAC states "Identification Card," but my Active Duty CAC states "Geneva Conventions Identification Card."

I don't know for certain, but I think a GS will simply be a civilian detainee. I don't think a GS would be considered a POW.

Rusty Jones
07-20-2013, 07:27 PM
In my experience, there is not a direct comparison between GS levels of responsibility and military ranks levels of responsibility. I worked with a guy that was a GS-12 doing the same tasks that a E4 was doing. In other office, there was a GS6 working along-side O3s, doing the exact same work.


That's because the DOD and the services determine the level of responsibility for ranks. The OPM determines the level of responsibility for GS ranks. There is no logical comparison.


You are correct. There isn't ANY correlation. There also isn't any correlation between a GS/WG/whatever and any military rank. If you go to the chart that civilians tout to say they are the equiv of a Lt Col or whatever, you will notice it says no such thing...it is a chart to help determine the chain of command in a situation covered by the Geneva Conventions only....oh and POW identification....

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/100001p.pdf


As to the original question, this "non-corollary" is likely the source of the "GS make more money" thing. When a GS12 is side by side with an E4 doing the exact same work, is it any wonder?

Of course, no one pays attention to the other side, when and O3 and GS6 are doing the same work. But what'r'ya gonna do, right?


In that example the GS12 is being severly overpaid for doing an E4 job and the GS6 is being underpaid. You see this kind of thing a lot. Personally I would not complain if I was getting paid a GS12 salary to do Airman level work.

To my knowledge, the GS scale is simply a tool to establish pay for one's job. A cook and an IT specialist may both be doing the same job as an E5 in the military, but they get the GS pay grade that yields the pay that is comparative to what they would receive in the private sector. In that sense, civilians really aren't over or underpaid - the pay is actually in keeping with what the going rate for the particular job is.

Of course, everyone in the military gets paid the same, based on rank and time in service. Reason being, after all is said and done, anyone can be ordered to pick up a weapon and go fight. In that sense, everyone in the military is the same; with rank being the only differentiator.

efmbman
07-20-2013, 08:01 PM
Of course, everyone in the military gets paid the same, based on rank and time in service. Reason being, after all is said and done, anyone can be ordered to pick up a weapon and go fight. In that sense, everyone in the military is the same; with rank being the only differentiator.

Pretty much, yeah. I would place more emphasis on the responsibility and authority associated with the rank rather than the rank itself. I always thought the advancement to a certain rank not only was a result of demonstrated technical proficiency but responsibility and accountability for those of a lesser rank in your charge.

TJMAC77SP
07-22-2013, 12:11 PM
Are GS employees covered under the Geneva Convention? My GS CAC states "Identification Card," but my Active Duty CAC states "Geneva Conventions Identification Card."

The Geneva Convention relevance for GS employees is related to how they will be treated since the conventions dictate different treatment for officers and enlisted (where they will be quartered etc). GS-7 and above are in Category 3 (and higher) which equates with offiicers. THIS is the ONLY relevance to any military rank.

EDIT: And of course there is a relation in Navy protocol

TJMAC77SP
07-22-2013, 12:14 PM
To my knowledge, the GS scale is simply a tool to establish pay for one's job. A cook and an IT specialist may both be doing the same job as an E5 in the military, but they get the GS pay grade that yields the pay that is comparative to what they would receive in the private sector. In that sense, civilians really aren't over or underpaid - the pay is actually in keeping with what the going rate for the particular job is.

Of course, everyone in the military gets paid the same, based on rank and time in service. Reason being, after all is said and done, anyone can be ordered to pick up a weapon and go fight. In that sense, everyone in the military is the same; with rank being the only differentiator.

So we agree that you are not 'equal to a 1LT' (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1596311-Why-Do-Active-Duty-Personnel-Think-Government-Civilans-Make-More-Money-Than-They-Do&p=640034#post640034)?

Pullinteeth
07-22-2013, 02:40 PM
Are GS employees covered under the Geneva Convention? My GS CAC states "Identification Card," but my Active Duty CAC states "Geneva Conventions Identification Card."

Pretty much EVERYONE on the planet is covered. Civilians are specifically covered under the fourth convention...

Chief Bosun
07-29-2013, 05:45 PM
I've scanned a little of this, and will admit to not seeing all the back and forth.

If I was to be recalled to active duty as a Chief with dependents my gross pay and allowances would be $75,165.24 per year. As to what my take home would be I can't speculate as we get involved in tax advantages for the non-pay compensation, some kind of supplemental allowance for rations I saw mentioned for dependents (have no clue what that's about) and so forth.

My civilian pay before losing money due to furloughs and not taking into account the OT I worked to soften the blow for furloughs (and more importantly, to get the job done) would be roughly $78,000 - that is approximately GS-11 Step 8 if I was under the old GS system.

Probably the biggest issue is a lot of folks don't look at the full picture, vice looking at only parts of it.

Someone said that civilians don't deploy, etc. I know more than a few whose position description contains the word "DEPLOYABLE" in it, and end up in theater working alongside the active duty military to accomplish the mission.

Yes, my GS grade equates to a grade for a commissioned officer with regard to certain things, although not necessarily with regard to what I do and the responsibility I have. In fact, I work with a retired Army Major and both of us are in the same grade and are non-supervisory personnel. The GS to military paygrade equation gets into what I would qualify for if I went on travel and had to stay in on-base government quarters, etc. But then, I got treated a lot better pulling out my retiree military ID card vice my civilian ID when it came to on-base services while on official travel.

But then, perception has a tendency to make things appear to be accurate when they in reality are not.

Cindy Haire
06-14-2014, 11:02 PM
There is a difference between the pay but one thing they have in common is the EMBEDDED LINK REMOVED

EDIT

PLEASE REFER TO THE COMMUNITY GUIDELINES:

Hyperlinks

Including links to informative and helpful sites is part of Internet communication. Choosing to click on a link is your decision. We do not screen links. However, posts may be removed if a hyperlink is not in the following format -- www.wheredoesthislinkgo.com or .org or any number of acceptable addresses. The key here is no hidden agendas. Tell us where the link goes so our members may make informed decisions on whether to click or not. Remember: We do not screen links in posts, but may remove a post if the link is determined to be inappropriate.

Mjölnir
06-15-2014, 12:39 AM
Chief Bosun

Did not mean to dislike your post. The iPad screen got me.