Skimpy pay raises for federal workers a worry for Obama budget director

Obama's fiscal 2015 budget calls for a 1 percent raise for federal workers. Recent years have been worse, with pay freezes. There's no 'crash' yet in workforce quality, but OMB Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell worries it could happen.

Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor
Office of Management and Budget Director, Sylvia Mathews Burwell speaks at a Monitor breakfast for reporters on Friday, March 7, 2014 in Washington, DC.

Federal workers can be a favorite punching bag. Government shutdown? Furlough? Frozen pay? No problem, many Americans say, suggesting that those employed by Uncle Sam (outside the military) are overpaid and underworked.

The White House's budget director, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, sees things differently, and she has made maintaining and developing a high-quality federal workforce a top priority as head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – a problem that needs to be addressed now, she says.

“It’s a very challenging issue,” Ms. Burwell told reporters Friday at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. “I can’t tell you the point in time when we crash. It’s important enough we need to bear down.”

President Obama’s fiscal 2015 budget proposal, released Tuesday, calls for a 1 percent pay raise for federal workers and includes a new initiative to improve workforce hiring and development. Civilian federal workers got their first pay increase this year – 1 percent, by presidential executive order – after three straight years of frozen pay.

The pay freeze, last fall’s partial government shutdown, and unpaid furloughs resulting from across-the-board spending cuts have all tried the patience of the federal workforce, which numbers a bit over 2.7 million people. Burwell says the federal government is still attracting high-quality people to its workforce, but attrition is a concern. The question is when and if there will be a “crash.”

“You see people getting ready to make choices,” Burwell continued. She says she hasn’t seen numbers showing “high-potential people” leaving at a much higher rate. “So I’m not sure when it’s going to happen,” she says. “I just want to prevent it.”

Burwell acknowledged that she thought long and hard before agreeing to move to Washington, D.C., last year to head OMB. Before that, she was president of the Walmart Foundation in Bentonville, Ark.

“I sat there with the yellow pad and like, OK, what are the pros and cons, what will be the things that will be difficult, let me think through this before we make a decision as a family,” said Burwell, who is married and has two young children.

Burwell says that when she got to Washington, she realized she had underestimated the impact that the budget battles had had in her department. “OMB had more furlough days than any other department or agency in the federal government,” she said. “Then OMB not only participates in the shutdown, we run most of the shutdown.”

The uncertainty takes a toll. Look at the federal employee survey scores, she says. “Those are scores we have to work on and change.”

Burwell was asked why the budget requested only a 1 percent raise for federal workers, and didn’t stake out a higher number, such as 2 or 3 percent, and then negotiate down.

“Wouldn’t 3 percent be nice,” she said. But “the question of how it relates to strategy is actually how it relates to reality in terms of numbers.”

Proposing a federal pay increase above 1 percent would have meant cutting other areas that are priorities, too, such as veterans benefits. She doesn’t know yet if the 1 percent pay increase will meet opposition on Capitol Hill.

The federal government employs 2 percent of the nation’s workforce, and in fact is at a 47-year low, as a percentage of the total workforce. In August 1966, the federal government had 2,721,000 civilian employees, or 4.3 percent of the workforce. In September 2013, before the shutdown, the figure was 2,723,000 employees, or 2 percent.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.