Are employees of national labs considered federal workers ?

[dav2008]

Are employees of national labs considered "federal workers"?

With the recent news that most federal workers are likely to be under a pay freeze for the next 2 years, I was wondering if employees of national labs fall under this umbrella.

 

[Vanadium 50]

No, they are employees of the contractor. However, if the amount of money going into the labs is frozen, that will influence the pay.

 

[fss]

If you are working at a National Lab and are on the GS, CS, or FS pay scale, your pay will be frozen.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

Pacific Northwest National Labs recently announced a 2 year pay freeze. Based on that, I would say the answer is "Yes".

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, Secretary Chu has asked that NL employees get the same freeze as federal workers. And when the Secretary "requests", things happen.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's incredibly sad for me to see the slow motion train wreck that is going on right now in the United States regarding science. We got 10% unemployment, and rather than putting all these people to work building moon rockets, you are seeing major cutbacks in science spending.

It's total lunacy. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about it, except to talk about how stupid all of it is, so that when my grandkids ask me how the US could just wreck it's science infrastructure, and I can at least point out that I thought it was insanity when it happened.

 

[fss]

Freezing the pay of NL/Federal employees is not "cutting spending," it's "not spending more than we already are."

 

[vanesch]

Well, if it is any relief, on the European side, things look similar

 

[twofish-quant]

Freezing the pay of NL/Federal employees is not "cutting spending," it's "not spending more than we already are."

With inflation, they are cuts in real terms.

 

[twofish-quant]

Well, if it is any relief, on the European side, things look similar

And there is China where things look, very, very, very different. China is out of its recession, and got a high speed rail system in the process.

 

[fss]

With inflation, they are cuts in real terms.

That's not really a valid argument. Not having salaries adjusted for inflation is not considered a pay cut either. You won't be moving down a tax bracket if your salary "stays the same."

 

[Vanadium 50]

Pay freezes don't directly cut spending (although in conjunction with attrition and/or canceling bonuses, they can), but they can be part of an overall spending cut. Of course, things are more complex, because both houses of Congress have just passed legislation to increase science funding. It's hard to juggle increased funding with a hiring freeze.

 

[Ryker]

That's not really a valid argument. Not having salaries adjusted for inflation is not considered a pay cut either. You won't be moving down a tax bracket if your salary "stays the same."

That's not true at all. Not having your salary adjusted for inflation is considered a pay cut. Why else do you think you get two figures in the papers regarding the salaries, nominal (not adjusted for inflation) and the one adjusted for inflation. It's normal for the salaries to go up as years pass because, barring short periods, there is always inflation. But that doesn't mean you're able to get more for the same amount of money, you're just earning more on paper. Also, giving tax brackets as an example is a rather poor analogy, because there's only a handful of different tax rates in any given country. The countries therefore enact this legislation with more of a middle-term goal of fair tax assessment in mind, not accomodating those that earn wages close to the boundaries each year. I mean, this is basic economics, everything gets adjusted for inflation. If you're happy with having the same wage even though the cost of living goes up, that's fine, but you can't say you're not losing value that way.

 

[fss]

That's not true at all. Not having your salary adjusted for inflation is considered a pay cut. Why else do you think you get two figures in the papers regarding the salaries, nominal (not adjusted for inflation) and the one adjusted for inflation.

"Adjusted for inflation" is a nebulous concept. Some companies do 3%, others 1%, others wait until the inflation figures are published by the government. Federal workers were due a 0.9% increase in pay "due to inflation", but aren't getting it. Their pay was not cut. You simply can't argue that it was. A federal worker who made $80,000 on Dec. 31, 2010 still makes $80,000 today. Whether or not inflation devalues the salary is irrelevant.

Along the same lines, when deflation occurs you don't get a raise. Obama's 2% reduction in federal tax withholding isn't a raise either.

Also, giving tax brackets as an example is a rather poor analogy, because there's only a handful of different tax rates in any given country.

I'd say there's more than a "handful" of different tax rates in the US, which is the country the thread is about.

If you're happy with having the same wage even though the cost of living goes up, that's fine, but you can't say you're not losing value that way.

The question of a pay cut is not about "value," it's about salary. See the first paragraph above for a discussion about salary.

 

[Ryker]

A federal worker who made $80,000 on Dec. 31, 2010 still makes $80,000 today.

Yes, he does, but he doesn't earn the same currency anymore. On Dec. 31, 2010 he was earning "the Dec. 31, 2010 dollars", whereas today he's earning today's dollars. That's the whole point of money, it has fictional value. And today, that worker is getting less than $80,000 of Dec. 31, 2010. If you say he is still making the same amount of money, then you could also argue a European worker, who is earning 80,000 "monies", and the American worker, also earning 80,000 "monies", have the same salary. But the European worker clearly gets more, because the money he's getting is Euros. Just because no one explicitly says that is the dollar from this and this second of this and this minute of ... doesn't mean this isn't inherently true when talking about money.

Along the same lines, when deflation occurs you don't get a raise. Obama's 2% reduction in federal tax withholding isn't a raise either.

Well, yeah, I agree that it would be ridiculous to say that if for a day there is deflation, you got a raise, but I'm talking about longer periods. In the end I guess it does just come down to semantics of what you mean by "raise" or "cut", but when say, preparing a budget, you do always automatically adjust for inflation (nebulous or not), and if you keep something the same you are effectively cutting it (also attested to by the relative decrease in budget expenditures). I don't know, perhaps we agree on everything, but just define "raise" and "cut" differently.

I'd say there's more than a "handful" of different tax rates in the US, which is the country the thread is about.

How many are there then (honestly curious)? When I replied to your statement, I figured you meant personal income tax, not all different taxes that there exist.

The question of a pay cut is not about "value," it's about salary. See the first paragraph above for a discussion about salary.

Well, what is salary if not the value of money you receive? I don't think anyone is as keen on a specific number that he would take Zimbabwean instead of US dollars if the numbers were the same.