H.R. 616, The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2011 (98 comments ↓)

  • This item is from the 112th Congress (2011-2012) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 616 would provide that 4 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave.

(

Learn More

    Costs: $0.00 per
    and increases their $162,301.27 share of the national debt by $0.00.
    (source info)

  • Read the Bill
  • See What People Are Saying

To What Committees was this Bill Referred?

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Page 1 of 2: « First/Oldest | Last/Newest »


February 13, 2011, 1:04am (report abuse)

For what possible purpose other than to provide overpaid federal employees a free paid vacation?



February 23, 2011, 6:45am (report abuse)


Private industry provides paid parental leave. I hardly think giving birth and taking care of that child while recovering would be called a vacation. Most people only oppose this bill because they 1) are a federal employee and are past the point of having children and didn't have this benefit provided to them. or 2) think Government employees are overpaid.

I know many well qualified graduates that turned federal jobs down because of the lack of maternity leave. Those people would have made wonderful employees and are actually much more highly paid working for accounting firms now than they would have been working for the Government. For those of us who choose to serve our country by being a federal employee we should be provided the same benefits our counterparts in private industry are. We may not get the pay and bonuses they receive but the least we could do is get 4 of the 12 weeks of maternity leave paid.

Just more

March 4, 2011, 12:27am (report abuse)

undeserved benefits for fat-cat government employees. If things are so great in the private sector then get your lazy butt out of government employment. You chose to serve yourself and no one else.



March 7, 2011, 8:44am (report abuse)

I recently found out I am pregnant and I am a new federal employee with very little sick and annual leave. I agree with Lindsay. I am going to have to take unpaid leave to care for my child because federal employees aren't given paid maternity leave. I was in the military for 10 years and even they are given maternity leave. I don't think four weeks is asking for much. Not all of us are fat-cat employees. I am college educated and work very hard. I deserve at least some type of maternity leave. 13 days of sick leave a year just doesn't cut it if you are new.


Ralph Kramden

March 7, 2011, 6:21pm (report abuse)

There is no valid reason this kind of entitlement should be afforded to federal employees. Just another attempted grab by a self-serving group.


March 7, 2011, 6:27pm (report abuse)

Why should the taxpayer pay for you to have extra paid time off? Did you burn up your sick leave taking those extra three-day weekends? One of the reasons the government gives you paid sick leave is for situations like this.

This is just another of the many inappropriate benefits the federal employee feels entitled to without any valid reason.

If, and that is a BIG if, this benefit becomes available to every employee in the private sector, then I would consider it appropriate for the federal employee.



March 8, 2011, 2:53pm (report abuse)

When people talk about federal employees receiving double the pay of private employees they neglect to mention that since 1986 federal employees have been paying for their retirement. The majority of the benefits cost that is cited lately comes from retired employees on pension that were on the old system. Looking at pay federal employees are paid 24% less than private sector employees in 2010 according to the OPM. On top of this federal employees are twice as likely to have a bachelor's degree.

Those of you reciting talking points about federal compensation are just being deceived by apples to oranges comparisons to distract from the fact that in the middle of two wars and a near depression we can't balance our budget. If you think that freezing federal employee salaries is going to make a significant difference, or providing new parents with 4 weeks to recover will bankrupt the nation you are just fooling yourself. Most nations and large companies provide at least some time off.


March 9, 2011, 12:21am (report abuse)

I think you are lost. This discussion isn't about cutting pay.

All these federal employees still receive paid leave and paid sickleave. That's what it is for.

And as to your comment - "Most nations and large companies provide at least some time off." - How about some references.

As taxpayers there is no reason for us to finance the cost of providing this benefit.


Fed Employee

March 9, 2011, 5:48pm (report abuse)

Private sector gets paid more money then working for the government. I am a recent graduate and I was offered more money to take a job doing the exact same thing but I decided to stay in the government system because I love working with our millitary.

I am also pregnant and have seen a difference in the leave packages that outside employers offer. Getting an additional 4 weeks off is something that should be passed. VOTE YES


March 10, 2011, 10:27am (report abuse)

YOU made the choice to work for the government. Now YOU are unhappy. Do YOU see the problem here? Just in case YOU are unable to understand - YOU are the problem.

Until this benefit is available to EVERY private sector employee I say:



March 13, 2011, 6:21pm (report abuse)

Keywords from a couple comments about fed employees: fat-cat, overpaid. Clearing the air on fed employee total compensation was needed.

73.6% of fortune 100 companies offer some form of paid leave on top of other accrued paid leave(median of 12 weeks):


Lesotho, Papau New Guinea, and Swaziland are the only other nations without a paid maternity leave program for employees:


Finally what cost to taxpayers? Large organizations have some level of redundancy so they are not crippled things like: medical problems, turnover, death, voluntary leave. Which means other employees would take up the slack with supervisors possibly denying voluntary leave to prevent disruption of services. So cost to taxpayers = $0.0

Ralph Kramden

March 14, 2011, 12:18am (report abuse)

There is no valid reason this kind of entitlement should be afforded to federal employees. Just another attempted grab by a self-serving group.


March 14, 2011, 12:27am (report abuse)

You should note in your remarks that in most of the countries the paid maternity leave is required for ALL employees, not just government employees. So if it becomes a benefit for ALL private sector employees it would be a much easier sell for all those overpaid and underworked government fatcats to have the same deal.

Until then I vote NO.


March 14, 2011, 1:16pm (report abuse)

@Ralph: Federal employees are by definition public servants. Federal employees don't introduce legislation, politicians do, how is this a "grab" by them? Most of those politicians already provide paid paternal leave in their offices and most of those provide over 6 weeks of paid leave. Politicians don't need this bill, and in fact are exempt from its benefits as are all DC federal employees.

@ @Anon: So you would be in favor of legislation that mandated paid paternal leave in this country? Otherwise requiring ALL jobs in a free market to have a benefit before allowing it for federal employees is ridiculous. Good luck attracting any employees for specialized jobs at minimum wage with no retirement, no leave, nothing but a small paycheck just because someone somewhere doesn't have it better.

After I refuted the characterization of federal employees as overpaid fatcats you commented that I was lost and yet here you are using that characterization again without acknowledging the facts.


March 14, 2011, 6:05pm (report abuse)

For what possible purpose other than to provide overpaid federal employees a free paid vacation?



March 15, 2011, 10:29am (report abuse)

By definition federal employees are underworked, overpaid, lazy losers who couldn't make it in the private sector.



March 16, 2011, 10:39pm (report abuse)


Most private companies provide paid maternity/paternity leave. The federal government doesn't provide any paid leave! And as a federal employee I make less than my counterparts in private industry who also receive paid maternity leave. I am middle class, paying my mortgage, paying my car loan, paying my student loans, and paying taxes. Don't take your anger about the economy out on civil servants. They deserve time to care for their children too.


March 16, 2011, 11:33pm (report abuse)

How about some proof of your statement that "Most private companies provide paid maternity/paternity leave." You know that's a total lie.

And the federal government DOES provide paid leave. It's called vacation and sick leave. But then too many use the sick leave as just more vacation and don't have any built up. Now you want the government, and that means the taxpayer, to provide even more.

This has nothing to do with the economy. It has to do with what is fair. And until the false statement you made above is turned into a true statement it isn't fair for underworked, overpaid federal workers to receive a benefit that so many in the private sector don't have.


The First Anon

March 17, 2011, 10:33am (report abuse)

@ @Anon: You already have the source for the other Anon's statement, and they obviously meant paid paternal leave in the 2nd sentence. Sick leave requires some justification - if it is used without an appropriate reason then both the employee and the supervisor that approved it are in the wrong. Also, way to ignore their statement that they are paid less than their private industry counterparts before calling federal employees overpaid again.

I already provided a source for the FACT that 73.6% of Fortune 100 companies provided a level of paid paternal leave. So I suppose you will now be arguing for these benefits because it is "fair<sic> for ...federal workers to receive a benefit that so many in the private sector do<sic> have", or will you instead continue to not accept facts, not disputing a source, offer an argument with a factual basis, continue to make baseless generalizations, and/or ask for proof you already have. Why don't YOU provide a source to backup your statements?

@The First Anon

March 17, 2011, 11:27am (report abuse)


It isn't obvious they meant anything other than to whine.

No justification is required for a single day use of sickleave. Watch how many extra three-day weekends your colleagues are able to squeeze out using it.

Fortune 100 companies DO NOT represent "most private companies" by any stretch of the imagination.

I say that until ALL hard-working private sector employees receive this benefit it is unfair for the overpaid, underworked federal employees, who already have significant leave benefits available,to receive any more.

The First Anon

March 21, 2011, 3:30pm (report abuse)

Do you really think that an employee was unaware that they are provided paid leave? You are only belittling them now.

You are wrong about sick leave. From OPM: "An agency may grant sick leave only when supported by evidence administratively acceptable by the agency."

If the Fortune 100 is not representative enough for you then please find a better source that describes the paid paternal leave policies of a larger selection of private companies. Until then based on the best available data most private companies provide paid paternal leave, and they provide more on average than would be provided by this bill.

Once again are you trying to say that you support legislation that mandates paid paternal leave for all citizens of this country? Or should federal workers get no benefits because someone somewhere doesn't have them? Which is it?

@The First Anon

March 22, 2011, 5:07pm (report abuse)

You obviously have a comprehension problem. Go back and read it again.

Fderal employees do not deserve any more benefits unless those benefits are universally available for ALL employees in the PRIVATE sector first.

The Fortune 100 does not represent all employers in the U.S. If you believe that is true then you might be interested in purchasing a bridge in Brooklyn.

If you to believe the American people would be in favor of giving more benefits to federal employees you are completely out of touch.

If this idea is such a great one why has it languished in committee every time it is introduced? The answer is that the congress sees it for what it is. Just another giveaway that does not make sense.

Federal employees ARE overpaid, underworked, and less-than-productive.

I have made it clear to my senators and representative that I do not believe this is an appropriate benefit for any federal employee. And I urge anyone who feels the same way to do the same.


Concerned citizen

March 22, 2011, 5:27pm (report abuse)

After following this discussion I checked the employee handbook for those at Defense Finance and Accounting Service, all of whom are federal employees. It says:

Sick Leave may be used for:



•Confinement by pregnancy

•Caring for an immediate family member who has a contagious disease

•Medical, dental, or optical appointments

If the sick leave period is more than 3 days, the employee must provide a medical certificate or other documentation.

After reading this it appears the individual can take sick leave less than 3 days in length and no proof of actual sickness is required. That means to me that they could actually take sick leave on a Friday or Monday and have three day weekends, even though they are not actually sick.

So the statement above - ""An agency may grant sick leave only when supported by evidence administratively acceptable by the agency." - appears to be incorrect.

Individuals who do this kind of thing are abusing the benefit.


March 23, 2011, 10:23am (report abuse)

Wow! I'd be interested in hearing if the opposers have children and if so, what allowances they had from their employer to care and bond with their child. Federal employees may take 6 weeks of paid sick leave for the birth and recovery of a child. It is not for the bonding with a child. Anything above and beyond that must be taken as annual leave or leave without pay. I'm sure the response to this post will be that women shouldn't be working anyway, but I'm growing tired of defending Federal employees to individuals who do not have accurate information.


March 23, 2011, 10:36am (report abuse)

No "apparently" about it. You have benefits a great many do not have.

I work for a company with over 500 employees. For the birth of my three children I was able to take my accumulated vacation and sick leave as paid time off. No other paid time was given, nor did I expect it. It requires planning but any sensible person can do it.

Pregnancy was my choice, not my employer's, and they should not be required to support it financially. Those who want to take time to bond already have the 12 weeks made available by FMLA.

According to

March 23, 2011, 10:42am (report abuse)

the OPM website a pregnant woman can use up to 12 weeks of accrued sick leave for prenatal visits, hospital appointments, medical hospitalizations, birth and care, and recovery. Fathers can also take up to 12 weeks of sick leave to be used for prenatal visits, hospitalization of the mother during and after childbirth, and the mother's recovery. A doctor's excuse may be requested in order to grant leave.

That does not agree with the statements made by "The First Anon" or "fatcatfedapparently". I am inclined to believe the material posted on the OPM website.

In fact

March 23, 2011, 10:48am (report abuse)

the following rules also apply.

Annual Leave

Accrued annual leave can be used for pregnancy and childbirth by both the mother and the father. Additionally, parents can take this leave to bond with and care for their healthy newborn baby, subject to a supervisor's approval. The OPM has an annual leave chart that outlines policies on leave and its use.

Advanced Annual/Sick Leave

Up to 30 days of advance annual or sick leave can be granted to a mother and/or father for purposed of pregnancy or childbirth. The amount of advanced leave given is dependent upon what the worker would receive through the end of the year.

Note the availability of advance leave. In other words you can even take leave you have not yet earned. Just how much more do you think these folks really deserve?


March 23, 2011, 12:11pm (report abuse)

Every agency is totally different. You can't just look at OPM. Some agencies allow you to go in the hole with sick leave and other agencies do not. I have worked for non-proft and fed gov and most places do offer a short term disability insurance. Which the fed gov does not offer. I also think it is really funny that people think that fed gov have all these great benfits. Well...if you want you can apply just like all the other fed gov workers. Most other countries are much more ahead of the times when it comes to leave for a child. Maybe if the fed gov changed to family first the rest of the country would follow.

The First Anon

March 24, 2011, 1:27pm (report abuse)

@ @The First Anon: Again if you have better data than for the Fortune 100 please provide it. Until then I'm using what is available, and you continue to have no data to back up your claims.

This bill passed the House when it was last introduced(258 to 154) - bills get stalled in committee by a small number of reps all the time. It does not represent the will of Congress.

You continue to say federal employees are overpaid - I presented FACTS that refute that.

OPM provides the guidelines for other agencies; if an agency allows for sickleave to be taken without evidence that is the fault of that agency. Those policies for DFA show supervisors should still only allow sick leave for medical reasons - supervisors should deny abusers leave.

All US citizens who work for a company that employs over 50 people are entitled to up to 12 unpaid weeks off for paternal leave where paid leave can be used. It is not a benefit specific to federal employees. I never stated this didn't apply.

@The First Anon

March 24, 2011, 9:56pm (report abuse)

You just don;t want to admit that you and your cronies already have far better benefits than the majority of the country's workers, who by the way do not work for those Fortune 100 companies you are so proud of. And you still don't want to admit that you are overpaid and underworked. If that were not the case then why is government employee productivity rated so low?

This is just another attempt to gain an unearned benefit. None of you underworked, overpaid, non-productive feds deserve it.

If all you feds are so unhappy come out here to the private sector for a while. Oh yeah, I forgot. You won't do that because, even if you were qualified for a job, it would require you to work and not just sit on your backsides.


hey there

March 25, 2011, 7:30am (report abuse)

My husband would say to you "how do you like sleeping in your warm blanket of national security every night" You are pretty angry for nothing!

hey there

March 25, 2011, 9:59am (report abuse)

Myth:Most federal employees live in or near Washington, D.C. Fact:

85% of the federal workforce does not live in this region. Texas has more federal employees than Maryland, and Alaska has more federal employees per capita than Virginia.

Myth:Federal employees earn far more than private sector employees, on average $120,000 per year.

Fact:Federal employees earn 22-24% less than private sector employees in comparable jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which conducts the most in-depth study of pay. The widely-cited $120,000 figure inaccurately counts future pension payments, which include employee annuity contributions, as wages.

Myth:Most federal employees work in agencies related to education, regulation, or welfare.

Fact:63% of federal employees work for agencies whose primary purpose is national security. The smallest executive branch departments are Education and Housing and Urban Development.


March 25, 2011, 10:00am (report abuse)


The federal government has grown larger than ever before.


The federal government is the smallest it has been in the last 60 years, relative to the US population and size of our economy. The number of federal civilian employees per 1,000 Americans has shrunk steadily from 13.2/1,000 in 1962 to 8.4/1,000 today.


It is nearly impossible to fire a federal employee.


11,668 federal employees were fired last year


A Productivity Concern

March 25, 2011, 2:04pm (report abuse)

"Finally what cost to taxpayers? Large organizations have some level of redundancy so they are not crippled things like: medical problems, turnover, death, voluntary leave. Which means other employees would take up the slack with supervisors possibly denying voluntary leave to prevent disruption of services. So cost to taxpayers = $0.0"

If the above statement is true, I have to ask why any federal organization carries any redundancy? It appears there is room for improvement by cutting the numbers of employees based on this statement. Since there is overstaffing there is a cost to the taxpayer.


March 25, 2011, 6:32pm (report abuse)

I really take offense as a Federal employee being labeled as "underworked, overpaid, lazy losers who couldn't make it in the private sector."

These remarks should be directed more towards the politicians that make up the governement work force who are overpaid public servantes vs. the blue collar healthcare, janitorial, supportive etc. workers that truly do earn their pay and would benefit from this bill.

Who this really effects is the younger federal worker that has not yet accrued enough leave to care for a newborn. At our facility, we would be expected to go leave without pay for this situation if we did not have enough leave.

Refrain from the name calling and really discuss this issue - instead of throwing out the same rehortic over and over.


March 25, 2011, 6:40pm (report abuse)

Also, I don't think I as a Fed Emplooyee feel "entitled" like some spoiled brat... I just this bill (or some form of it) might help. I really do like to hear people's debates on the issues and I may be more interested in what people have to say... but seriously all the name calling and insinuations (i.e. taking 3 day weekends all the time, lazy fatcats, etc) don't give the opposing view much depth.


March 25, 2011, 8:47pm (report abuse)

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.



March 25, 2011, 8:51pm (report abuse)

So there it is. All these federal employees who have been here claiming they are paid less are simply tellying lies, plain and simple.

And now they want even more benefits. Time they started to earn what they get before asking for more.

I say that until ALL hard-working private sector employees receive this benefit it is unfair for the overpaid, underworked federal employees, who already have significant leave benefits available,to receive any more.

The First Anon

March 26, 2011, 12:21am (report abuse)

@ @Me First: I didn't express being proud of the Fortune 100, but used data of their paternal leave benefits because it is the best available data. Do you have a source for the rating of government productivity? If you think that federal employees have it so great go http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/ and get one yourself.

@A Prod... Would you have the government so short staffed that any death or turnover would result in loss of government services? Would you run a business that way? Some level of redundancy is essential for any large organization and would not be increased to incorporate paternal leave.

The First Anon

March 26, 2011, 12:33am (report abuse)

@*** In recent years the government has been contracting out much of its lower skill level jobs resulting in a workforce with a higher skill level (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7874/03-15-Federal_Personnel.pdf). These people also tend to be older and have better education. The USA TODAY report used gross numbers for all employees in an occupation type (so does the recent Cato Inst. report). It is an apples to oranges comparison of a group of all skill levels to a generally higher skilled group so of course there will be differences. The OPM compared federal and private employee salary based on the type of work performed and regional differences (Table 4 in: http://www.opm.gov/oca/payagent/2009/2009PayAgentReport.pdf) This comparison showed that on average across the nation federal workers were paid and average of 22.13% less than private sector employees in 2009.


March 26, 2011, 2:03am (report abuse)

I run my business with the staffing needed to accomplish my work. I don't have any "redundancy" and neither should the government. Sounds like the government employees are afraid they would have to work if the government was run more like a business.

As to working for the government - I have more self-respect than to ever take that kind of job.

@The First Anon

March 26, 2011, 2:06am (report abuse)

Soumd just like the typical government emp;oyee - an excuse or a dodge for everything that doesn't fit your agenda.

Federal employees are underworked, overpaid, non-productive, lazy losers who couldn't make it in the private sector.


March 27, 2011, 9:42am (report abuse)

So sad to see the arrogance and ignorance of people who think it's a better solution to turn on their neighbor and try to take away everything they can, rather than returning to a sense of community where we look out for each other.

If you don't realize that improved conditions for other workers will result in improved conditions for you, it's time to revisit your history lessons. Stop being so selfish and assuming nobody deserves anything better than what you might have at this point.



March 27, 2011, 9:47am (report abuse)

"Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available."

If you are not providing the entire story, you are intentionally misleading readers here. That data doesn't take into account education level and experience. When you control for those, public workers are paid 7% less on average to do the same job as private sector workers.

If you think federal jobs are SO great, I've gotta believe you'd have taken one by now. But in the back of your mind, you know it probably won't pay well enough (DMV and social work, anyone?).

Although if you really want to be consistent, I'm waiting to hear people call out our police officers and fire fighters as lazy. After all, they are among the most well-compensated public workers. Dare you go that far?


March 27, 2011, 4:10pm (report abuse)

I don't want a federal job. I have too much self-respect to work for the government.

I object to the idea of giving more and more benefits to a group of employees who are already overcompensated, underworked, and non-productive.



The First Anon

March 28, 2011, 11:21am (report abuse)

@*** If you have no redundancy then do you close your business when an employee gets sick, takes some time off, takes another job, or dies?

"... an excuse or a dodge for everything that doesn't fit your agenda." Not addressing my points is a dodge. You might want to take a step back and look at your posts before throwing stones. Making a factual assessment of your source is the opposite of a dodge nor is it an excuse.

"I have too much self-respect to work for the government." Too much self-respect to take what is apparently a highly paid position with good benefits? If you were to take a federal job wouldn't you do your best and work hard? How would you lose self-respect if you were doing your job well? Wouldn't you have self-respect by setting such a good example for all the apparently "underworked, overpaid, non-productive, lazy losers"? Your comment makes no sense.


March 28, 2011, 11:25am (report abuse)

Low pay? I don't think so.

Average salaries, full-time workers, Federal Government,selected occupations, 2009

General attorney 128,422

Financial management 119,671

General engineering 114,839

Air traffic control 109,218

Economist 108,010

Chemistry 101,687

Computer science 100,657

Microbiology 97,264

Architecture 94,056

Criminal investigating 93,897

Customs/border protection 92,558

Statistics 92,322

Accounting 91,541

I/T management 91,104

Librarian 84,796

Ecology 84,283

Human resources mgt 81,837

Budget analysis 80,456

Nurse 77,166

Chaplain 75,485

Mine safety and health 75,222

Engineering technical 69,092

Medical technologist 64,774

Border patrol agent 59,594

Correctional officer 53,459

Police 52,085

Legal assistance 48,668

Fire protection/prevention 48,166

Secretary 46,384

Tax examining 42,035

Human resources asst 40,334

CNA 34,728

SOURCE: U.S. Office of Personnel Management

I wouldn't take a

March 28, 2011, 4:33pm (report abuse)

federal position because I wouldn't want to be associated with all those lazy, no-working, worthless bums that draw the government check every payday. All of them are losers who can't cut it anywhere else so they take a government position.

Notice there are no jobs in government employment, just positions. So assume the position a$$wipes.

The First Anon

March 28, 2011, 4:37pm (report abuse)

@*** Those numbers should be correct and would be the average of regional salaries. OPM used regional numbers to compare with private jobs in the same regions doing equivalent work and found that federal employees are paid 22.13% less on average in 2009 than those in private industry (Table 4 in: http://www.opm.gov/oca/payagent/2009/2009PayAgentReport.pdf). In 2010 the gap increased to 24%.

In terms of absolute numbers those salaries may not seem low, but on average for equivalent jobs private salaries are higher.

Same old crap

March 29, 2011, 11:03am (report abuse)

The federal employee sounds like all the rest of the "entitlement" group.


Enough is enough.

No more.

I voted NO.

So Sad

March 29, 2011, 12:56pm (report abuse)

I go to work every day...I put in long days. I work hard...I feel like my job is inportant and it makes me sick to think I work for a government everyone seems to hate. I also make 42,000 a year and I live in the Washington DC area.

@So Sad

March 30, 2011, 11:25am (report abuse)

So it looks like you could do two things here.

Get your dumb a$$ out of DC and then get a real job instead of slurping at the public trough.

The First Anon

March 30, 2011, 1:35pm (report abuse)

@I wouldnt.. So apparently it is less about your self-respect and more about how you think others perceive you. How vain

You still haven't addressed:

The facts that show federal employees are paid less than private on average

How the numbers you showed do not take experience, education, or regional variations

Finding a better source for private companies that provide paid paternal leave, or alternatively acknowledged that based on the Fortune 100 data paid paternal leave is common in the private sector

That this bill passed the House the last time it was proposed

That the regulations do not allow for abuse of sick leave and that any supervisors that allow it to happen are at fault

That without any redundancy your business must shut down for any personnel issues, and thus large organizations require some level of redundancy to operate so cost of this bill is $0.0

Whether you would support a law requiring paid paternity leave for all employees in companies over a certain size

The First Anon

March 30, 2011, 1:52pm (report abuse)

Instead of addressing those points in my previous post most of your posts seem to be focused on "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages [...] with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." These posts were directed at people trying to express their thoughts on this bill, or those who debunked your posts with facts from public sources. Hopefully this will change with future posts.

The preceding quote is from the wikipedia entry on internet trolls.

@The First Anon

March 30, 2011, 5:04pm (report abuse)

Poor litle federal lackey. Wants to be a big deal but can't do anything but quote the least respected "reference" in the world. The use of Wikipedia as a source is the weakest of all your supposed reference material.

Federal employees are already overpaid, underworked, nonproductive, losers. They do not deserve this, or any other new benefit.

There is no evidence that granting this benefit would provide any tangible return for those who would be required to pay the cost.




If someone is

April 1, 2011, 3:59pm (report abuse)

out sick or otherwise cannot come to work, we work harder or put in overtime to take care of their work. We do not have extra employees around "just in case" someone doesn't come to work.

But I'm sure that wouldn't work for the poor federal employee. After all, they can't even get six hours of work done in an eight hour day. How could you expect them to accomplish more.


April 3, 2011, 11:31pm (report abuse)


The First Anon

April 4, 2011, 2:09pm (report abuse)

From an earlier post of mine: "Large organizations have some level of redundancy so they are not crippled things like: medical problems, turnover, death, voluntary leave. Which means other employees would take up the slack with supervisors possibly denying voluntary leave to prevent disruption of services. So cost to taxpayers = $0.0"

So when I say other employees can pick up the slack as applied to federal employees you say that there are too many federal employees, but when you say the same thing as applied to private employees there are just enough employees. Biased much?

The First Anon

April 4, 2011, 2:10pm (report abuse)

As far as tangible benefits go: " More generous leave rights are found to reduce deaths of infants and young children. The magnitudes of the estimated effects are substantial, especially for those outcomes where a causal effect of parental leave is most plausible. In particular, there is a much stronger negative relationship between leave durations and post-neonatal mortality or fatalities between the first and fifth birthday than for perinatal mortality, neonatal deaths, or the incidence of low birth weight. The evidence further suggests that parental leave may be a cost-effective method of bettering child health." From Ruhm, Christopher J., “Parental Leave and Child Health,” Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research,

Working Paper No. 6554, May 1998.

The First Anon

April 4, 2011, 2:43pm (report abuse)

Story on study that found cognitive benefits for children that were cared for by their parents in the first months of life:


How does helping children start life healthier and smarter not benefit society?


April 4, 2011, 4:19pm (report abuse)

"other employees would take up the slack"

So if there is slack that must mean there are too many people. First step then is to cut the federal workforce by a minimum of 10 percent. That will take care of the surplus. Then perhaps the federal employee will start to be a little more productive. Perhaps approaching 6 hours of productive in an eight hour day.

So all those slow kids are the result of working mothers? I really hope you don't expect anyone to take any of that crap seriously.

The First Anon

April 7, 2011, 10:40am (report abuse)

"If someone is out sick or otherwise cannot come to work, we work harder or put in overtime to take care of their work." If you and your employees are capable of working harder then you have a surplus of labor most of the time. I doubt you will suggest that the workforce at your company should be downsized by 10% though, therefore you are biased.

Are you suggesting that children don't benefit in many ways, including cognitively, from more time with their parents? Also once again I present studies or facts you just deny or avoid with inflammatory comments.

@The First Anon

April 7, 2011, 11:42am (report abuse)

DiD you not see "overtime" in the comment? It matters not what anyone says - you are obviously biased because you are one of the eletist government employees who believes the rest of us should provide you with everything you ask for.



April 10, 2011, 12:59pm (report abuse)

how do you answer this:

OPM data shows that federal employees have an average of $27,317 in benefits in 2010. The average in the private sector is $10,589. This information comes from Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis.

How can you justify asking for more when you already get more than two and one/half times what the rest are able to get?

I believe the federal employee mantra must be "I WANT MORE, MORE AND MORE! GIMME GIMME GIMME!"

There is no valid reason to provide even more benefits for the underworked, overpaid, nonproductive federal employee.


The First Anon

April 12, 2011, 12:53pm (report abuse)

Sources and facts don't change based on who provides them, they don't have bias. Unsourced inflammatory comments however...

Besides the fact that I'm not a federal employee - not that it should matter.

"[...]we work harder OR put in overtime[...]" (emphasis mine).

I and another poster already pointed out the fallacy of using BEA numbers when federal employees are typically doing higher level work, are older, and are better educated than the typical private sector employee. Those BEA numbers would include salaries and benefits for entry and lower level employees that would naturally receive fewer benefits (also I don't see 2010 tables on bea.gov). But just for fun I used those numbers from the bea.gov 2009 NIPA tables anyways and found that average federal employee total compensation is still 9.3% lower than equivalent private employees even using these skewed numbers (methodology in my next post). If you post your 2010 source we can see what the difference is for 2010.

The First Anon

April 12, 2011, 12:54pm (report abuse)

As already stated OPM estimates that federal employees were underpaid by 22.13% in 2009 so we can fairly adjust average private salary:

Fed salary= $158616M(Table 6.3D_L89)/1952T(Table 6.5D_L89)= $81258

Equivalent private salary= 1.2213*81258= $99241

We can also calculate the average compensation for private and federal, subtracting 10.7% from total federal compensation to take into account retiree liabilities current employees haven't received since 1986 (source: bea.gov FAQ).

Fed Benefit rate= ($240192M(Table 6.2D_L89)*(1.0-.107)-$158616M(Table 6.3D_L89)/$158616M(Table 6.3D_L89)= 35.2%

Private benefit rate= ($6186312M(Table 6.2D_L3)-$5113359M(Table 6.3D_L3)/$5113359M(Table 6.3D_L3)= 21%

Multiplying the average benefit rates times the average salaries we can find the difference in total compensation.

Fed= 81258*(1.0+.352)= $109883

Private= 99241*(1.0+.21)= $120065

For a difference of 9.3% even when using numbers that are skewed in favor of lower average private compensation.

Just more

April 12, 2011, 3:35pm (report abuse)

elitist crap.

"federal employees are typically doing higher level work, are older, and are better educated than the typical private sector employee"

You obviously haven't been out in the real world for some time. Must be afraid to leave your little cocoon lest someone make you do some real work.

There is no justification for adding more benefits for all these overpaid, underworked, nonproductive federal employee.


The First Anon

April 14, 2011, 1:14pm (report abuse)

Quote from BEA.gov:

"The mix of occupations held by federal government civilian employees is different from that of occupations held by the entire private-sector workforce. The private-sector workforce ranges from jobs that pay a minimum wage to highly paid CEOs. According to studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), jobs in the federal government civilian workforce are concentrated in professional (e.g., lawyers, accountants, and economists), administrative, and technical occupations. In addition, skill levels and educational attainment tend to be higher, on average, for federal government civilian employees than for private-sector employees because of the occupational requirements in the federal government.

Over the past several years, there has been a shift in federal employment toward higher-skilled, higher-paid positions as lower-skilled (and lower-paid) positions in the federal government have been contracted out to private industries..."

The First Anon

April 14, 2011, 1:32pm (report abuse)

So is it my ability to read and cite sources, like the quote above that I sourced in an earlier post that clearly backs up my statement, or my ability to do simple math that is "elitist crap"? Either way its pretty sad that you would jump to label it that way.

No More

April 14, 2011, 4:38pm (report abuse)

There is no justification for adding more benefits for all these overpaid, underworked, nonproductive federal employee.



April 21, 2011, 5:17pm (report abuse)

I can't believe the ignorant comments people are making about government employees. I am at NIH as a contractor and here there are scientists and other professionals working just as hard as people in the private sector. To say that a woman should not be allowed a maternity leave because she is in the government speaks to a lack of compassion for people in general and the ignorance of what it means to be a government employee. Check the pay scales of government employees and you will find that most private companies pay higher and provide incentives that the government does not. Remember, I am a contractor working for a private company! I find it appalling that this country doesn't take the health of families seriously. Just when a couple (usually) has an extra mouth to feed and a woman needs to mentally and physically recover she should be stripped of her income? This is disgusting and it is disgusting that many don't see this.

Screw You and

April 23, 2011, 5:22pm (report abuse)

your government horse.

She gets a maternity leave just like everyone else. What this bill wants to do is pay her for that leave over and above her regular leave.

If you find it appalling why not come out here in the world where folks have to work every day just to get by and see who is really paying for all this.

What is disgusting is the idea that worthless, do-nothing federal employees "deserve" anything.

This is just another of those elitist ideas that government employees have about being above the common folks.



April 27, 2011, 10:13am (report abuse)

Lets do the math:

less than 3yrs on the job you get 4hrs of leave bi-weekly

3 yrs & more = 6 hours, bi-weekly

15 yrs = 8, bi-weekly

sick leave 4 hrs - bi-weekly.

so an average person will get 1 1/2 days per month of reg leave

and 1 day of sick leave.

where do you guys get off that federal employees get to much. know your facts before you judge.

vote: yes


April 27, 2011, 2:28pm (report abuse)

The federal employees sound like all the rest of the "entitlement" group.


Enough is enough.

Many in the civilian workforce get NO sickleave.

No more.



May 9, 2011, 11:13am (report abuse)

Use your sick leave and vacation time for maternity leave? How many years do you have to save up before you have enough time for one child? Don't forget how much time you need to set aside for prenatal care appointments! What happens if you or your child are sick after you've used all your leave? Sounds like people think there should be paid leave, but selfishly don't want anyone else to have it? I think that if the government pushes paid maternity leave the private sector will follow! Let's do what's right and make family a top priority for this country!!!


May 9, 2011, 11:54am (report abuse)

Do you honestly believe the taxpayer should subsidize your pregnancy and childbirth more than they already are?

And make sure you remember this quote "I think that if the government pushes paid maternity leave the private sector will follow!". If this ever happens, private employers have no other ource for money to pay for this than to raise the prices of whatever product or service they sell. So not only does the taxpayer have to pay for for the lazy federal employee but they get a double whammy of paying for it in higher prices for everything.

Sounds to me like just more of the same old crap from overpaid, underworked, low-productivity federal employees.






June 2, 2011, 3:44pm (report abuse)

Federal employees, just like employees in the private sector get vacation and sick time that they are able to use if the chose to take leave. However, as a federal employee using your vacation and sick time, or taking unpaid leave are your only options. In the private sector, there are some generous companies that do offer paid leave to their employees. IN ADDITION, private sector & state employees are eligible for state run short term disability programs and state paid family leave programs, which provides partial pay for time out of work to heal after childbirth or bond with a child. There is no such program available to Federal employees to provide some sort of supplemental pay for time out of work, and because we don't pay into our states insurance fund, we obviously are not eligible for it. I'm not saying that federal employees should necessarily get paid parental leave at full pay, but it would be nice to have programs similar to state run programs that could be utilized.


June 3, 2011, 9:51am (report abuse)

The federal employees sound like all the rest of the "entitlement" group.


Enough is enough.

Many in the civilian workforce get NO sickleave.

No more.


Josh Taylor

June 9, 2011, 11:43pm (report abuse)


Why don't you go live in China where political, economic, and religious intolerance is accepted.

Federal Sick leave without pay is the same as corporate sick leave without pay. Opposing this bill like you are will lead to homelessness.

VOTE YES on this bill and the Second Chance Act and NO to the Power Act.

Ah Yes the "Reverend"

June 10, 2011, 12:13am (report abuse)

Josh Taylor is back.

This boy has changed his tune so many times he doesn't even know what page of the hymnbook he is singing from.

He's just trolling around trying to find something to do. Too bad he's such a numbnuts.

Page 1 of 2: « First/Oldest | Last/Newest »

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)