At my age, I could just make 20 years w/ my military time and have a pension at 66.

I'm sure you're aware, but the military seems to be doing all it can to shaft people out of their "pensions" by not letting them get their 20 years.  Don't know how good hiring is in the federal government, but being former military (especially with security clearances) should give you an edge in hiring.

My wife is a Gov. employee (ICU nurse at a VA hospital) pay is good, time off is excellent, they mostly self schedule their 12 hour shifts so getting the days off you want is easy, they get to pick  what pension and insurance they want to have (I think the gov. has 3??)  that's the up side. the down side is it's typical gov. nobody gets fired so you have to deal with bottom feeders that never go away and supervisory positions are similar. If someone screws up in one dept. they just transfer them to another (met the new boss same as the old boss). For her anyway the pros outweigh the cons, but it is frustrating and if you don't have the ability to leave work at work it may more stress than it's worth.

Any Fed Govvies out there?  Pro / Con list?  At my age, I could just make 20 years w/ my military time and have a pension at 66.  All hypothetical of course.  Benefits?  Vacation?  I'm assuming they're both boss based on govvies I know.  Enlighten me, please.

I retired after 40 years as a Fed (2 Army + the rest in various DOD and civilian orgs). In 1984 they moved from the CSRS retirement system to FERS. FERS isn't the "pension/retirement" that CSRS was. FERS doesn't have a "pension" per se but it equivalent to a 401K (TSP). CSRS could participate in TSP but there were caps on % employees could contribute and matching funds were limited to something like the first 5%. FERS has no cap on employee contribution and matching % are higher. Also CSRS didn't contribute to SSA but their deduction for the pension was a higher % than SSA is. As a result, without working the requisite quarters to qualify for SSA in jobs other than the government, you don't qualify for SSA or Medicare. FERS contributes to SSA along with their voluntary contribution to TSP. As such, they get their quarters in for SSA and Medicare. FERS is all about self-discipline if you want a bigger retirement.

So a FERS retirement qualifies you for SSA and any bump above that will be a function of how much you put into TSP and how well you manage it.

Feds don't qualify for retirement after 20 years. That's military and cops. Like I said, I retired after 40 and was planning to stay longer to make the numbers better but things worked out so that I was in good shape to leave early when it was clear IT was being ruined by the MBAs in Finance. There's an overlap between earliest retirement and earliest full-benefits retirement. If you go out before earliest-full-retirement, you take (iirc) a 2% per year cut.

The "buy back" is to insert $ you would have put into the retirement system if you'd been working for the fed instead of the military during that time. There's an age where you get your military time without buying it back. If you wait for time in service or age (can't remember right now), then no buy back is required. I'd paid for mine and then learned if I'd waited a few years more I'd not have needed to. That's one reason I retired when I did... so that money wasn't wasted. It's based on what your contribution (FERS/CSRS) would have been at the earnings you made while in the military... PLUS interest. That usually means a lower annual earnings back in those days. I was in between 1974-1976 and my "buy back" was about $5k and was mostly interest on my E1 to E4 pay.

The public's perception of Fed retirement is that we have the same thing as Congress. It's not. Also, we paid a metric buttload into the retirement plan over many decades (more than if we'd been in SSA) based on the contract we signed when hiring in. Changes suggested need always consider that it's too late for those of us who have "done the time" to correct course. Grandfathering should ALWAYS be part of any planned change.

Under FERS, an employee who meets one of the following age and service requirements is entitled to an immediate retirement benefit: age 62 with five years of service, 60 with 20, minimum retirement age (MRA) with 30 or MRA with 10 (but with reduced benefits).

In those 40 years, I only ever worked with 1 person who fit the stereotypical "under performing" employee. Even then, she met all her PERs goals every year. The difference was she didn't willingly work unapproved overtime to get a critical system going again (at risk of no comp time). I always thought of that approach as "taking ownership" of something to which you were assigned. Like I said, many places, many dedicated people. Those who didn't know a thing were willing to dig in and learn it.

Maybe it's IT that is the key. People are either good at it, get better, or move on.

State and local governments however...

Quote from: Vulcanbill on November 07, 2019, 07:31:51 AM

Any Fed Govvies out there?  Pro / Con list?  At my age, I could just make 20 years w/ my military time and have a pension at 66.  All hypothetical of course.  Benefits?  Vacation?  I'm assuming they're both boss based on govvies I know.  Enlighten me, please.

I retired after 40 years as a Fed (2 Army + the rest in various DOD and civilian orgs). In 1984 they moved from the CSRS retirement system to FERS. FERS isn't the "pension/retirement" that CSRS was. FERS doesn't have a "pension" per se but it equivalent to a 401K (TSP). CSRS could participate in TSP but there were caps on % employees could contribute and matching funds were limited to something like the first 5%. FERS has no cap on employee contribution and matching % are higher. Also CSRS didn't contribute to SSA but their deduction for the pension was a higher % than SSA is. As a result, without working the requisite quarters to qualify for SSA in jobs other than the government, you don't qualify for SSA or Medicare. FERS contributes to SSA along with their voluntary contribution to TSP. As such, they get their quarters in for SSA and Medicare. FERS is all about self-discipline if you want a bigger retirement.

So a FERS retirement qualifies you for SSA and any bump above that will be a function of how much you put into TSP and how well you manage it.

Feds don't qualify for retirement after 20 years. That's military and cops. Like I said, I retired after 40 and was planning to stay longer to make the numbers better but things worked out so that I was in good shape to leave early when it was clear IT was being ruined by the MBAs in Finance. There's an overlap between earliest retirement and earliest full-benefits retirement. If you go out before earliest-full-retirement, you take (iirc) a 2% per year cut.

The "buy back" is to insert $ you would have put into the retirement system if you'd been working for the fed instead of the military during that time. There's an age where you get your military time without buying it back. If you wait for time in service or age (can't remember right now), then no buy back is required. I'd paid for mine and then learned if I'd waited a few years more I'd not have needed to. That's one reason I retired when I did... so that money wasn't wasted. It's based on what your contribution (FERS/CSRS) would have been at the earnings you made while in the military... PLUS interest. That usually means a lower annual earnings back in those days. I was in between 1974-1976 and my "buy back" was about $5k and was mostly interest on my E1 to E4 pay.

The public's perception of Fed retirement is that we have the same thing as Congress. It's not. Also, we paid a metric buttload into the retirement plan over many decades (more than if we'd been in SSA) based on the contract we signed when hiring in. Changes suggested need always consider that it's too late for those of us who have "done the time" to correct course. Grandfathering should ALWAYS be part of any planned change.

Quote

Under FERS, an employee who meets one of the following age and service requirements is entitled to an immediate retirement benefit: age 62 with five years of service, 60 with 20, minimum retirement age (MRA) with 30 or MRA with 10 (but with reduced benefits).

In those 40 years, I only ever worked with 1 person who fit the stereotypical "under performing" employee. Even then, she met all her PERs goals every year. The difference was she didn't willingly work unapproved overtime to get a critical system going again (at risk of no comp time). I always thought of that approach as "taking ownership" of something to which you were assigned. Like I said, many places, many dedicated people. Those who didn't know a thing were willing to dig in and learn it.

Maybe it's IT that is the key. People are either good at it, get better, or move on.

State and local governments however...

That is a lot of words.  Thanks for the good info. 

Bill - Didn't you just start a new job recently?

Not as advertised?

I did. Quite the opposite actually. I took a gamble on this one. I took a job quite a bit below my “potential” just for the location and the associations. Worst case, I had an easy job with better hours and a good commute (by my standards). Best case, the gamble pays off and people realize my potential isn’t being realized and do something about it. Looks like that’s how it might play out.  A very good thing.

Yeah, this seems like it would be a really good gig. Much to learn tho and of course, any changes would come at the pace of gubmint so patience is key. But talk of a conversion after only a few short weeks is quite a good thing. Would likely mean costly contract buy out as well. Here’s to hoping...