Slashdot Mirror

• "I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization." Dipped from 66% in 2010 to 59% in 2014, back up to 66% by 2018.
• "I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things." Same trend as above. 60% to 55% to 61% in 2010, 2014, and 2018
• "My training needs are assessed." 54% in 2010, dropping to 50% in 2014, rising to 55% by 2018.
• "I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal." 61% from 2010-2014, but rising to 66% by 2018
• " In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at different performance levels (for example, Fully Successful, Outstanding)." 67% from 2010-2014, but rising to 71% by 2018.

These are the survey questions which indicate changes in government employee attitude (apparently there was more doom and gloom around 2014). That TFA focuses instead on three survey questions whose results have not changed, and discussed them with respect to a current event which could not yet have influenced the survey results, suggests the authors of TFA were just looking for an excuse to write an opinion piece, not report the news.

• "I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization." Dipped from 66% in 2010 to 59% in 2014, back up to 66% by 2018.
• "I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things." Same trend as above. 60% to 55% to 61% in 2010, 2014, and 2018
• "My training needs are assessed." 54% in 2010, dropping to 50% in 2014, rising to 55% by 2018.
• "I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal." 61% from 2010-2014, but rising to 66% by 2018
• " In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at different performance levels (for example, Fully Successful, Outstanding)." 67% from 2010-2014, but rising to 71% by 2018.

These are the survey questions which indicate changes in government employee attitude (apparently there was more doom and gloom around 2014). That TFA focuses instead on three survey questions whose results have not changed, and discussed them with respect to a current event which could not yet have influenced the survey results, suggests the authors of TFA were just looking for an excuse to write an opinion piece, not report the news.

The US absolutely has federal holidays, there are 8 of them:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-dat...

Unless you're in retail. Retail sucks. But not every job is retail. Retail is for people who are just getting into the job market (kids) and/or learning to deal with job responsibilities, or maybe people who lack more specific skills to be a tradesmen or professional, or often, older people who just want to work part time for some extra money, sometimes it's retirees.
Most professionals and tradesmen have the holidays off, though there may be exceptions for small businesses (plumbers, HVAC, etc)

I've never worked anywhere that didn't give provide some vacation time, though that varies wildly from company to company. I get 23 days vacation where I am, and in another year I'll get 28 - over a month if you don't count weekends. It took about 20 years to get there though.

Standard/daylight savings time mean nothing except as documentation. Working hours aren't always 9-to-5, schools, companies, government are presumably free to set their own schedules as they see fit, including seasonally or periodically varying their schedules. Why does it matter whether Florida is permanently on standard time or daylight savings time, if Floridians can set their schedule as they wish?

Does the Federal government really require certain working hours? The OPM sets shift differential pay only if the majority of work hours are outside 8 AM-3PM, so work schedules of 11AM-7PM, 10AM-6PM, 9AM-5PM, 8AM-4PM, 7AM-3PM, 6AM-2PM, 5AM-1PM, and 4AM-12PM are all considered basic pay scale schedules. https://www.opm.gov/policy-dat...

No, they actually do not. Government jobs currently have the equivilent of 401k, where you pay into the program that funds your retirement. The pensions went out long ago.

https://www.opm.gov/retirement...

The retirement plan is ok, about equal to private sector, and the pay is pathetic. All a gov job offers any more is stability, and even that is questionable with all the budget issues recently.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

It is impossible to break the law in following orders of your superiors, remain silent when you know that laws are being broken, and/or act in direct conflict with multiple facets of the Constitution, and remain true to this oath. It is not defensible under US law to say "I was just following orders.". It is also not defensible to say, "But I told my boss I thought it was wrong.". If there's a pattern of attempts to resolve the conflict between orders you are receiving and the oath you have taken, it is a brave person who effectively puts their future, their freedom and even their life at stake to attempt to hold true to that oath.

What's so "unreasonable" about keeping a government monopoly to a higher standard?

The standard you are defending is excessively high given that approximately zero people live 75 years after retirement. (If I understand FERS, https://www.opm.gov/retirement... it looks like if you start working at 18 the earliest you can possibly retire with pension is after 25 years of work at age 43, assuming a "major reorganization")

Additionally you are forgetting to include the federal government's price controls against the USPS as part of the "higher" standard you are insisting they follow. If they did not have to beg Congress to allow them to raise rates (or even keep the rates they have, since Congress required them to drop 2 cents from first class this year), they would be in a better position to meet this higher standard.

since you need a refresher on accomodations:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-dat...

To have a government like Finland or the Netherlands requires pretty left-wing policies and attitudes, including paying civil servants well, which requires a lot of tax money. If you keep insisting on low tax rates because we don't have a government type that doesn't arise unless one has somewhat higher tax rates, I'm not sure what to say.

Feds earn 74% more than people in the private sector.

The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards compared data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis to show that, in his view, civilian federal workers are overcompensated. Factoring both salary and benefits, Edwards pointed to BEA data showing the average federal employee earns about $119,000 annually, compared to the private sector worker who earns $67,000 per year. When comparing just salaries, feds collect 50 percent bigger paychecks, Edwards said.

Since the 1990s, federal workers have enjoyed faster compensation growth than private-sector workers.

More sources:
U.S. Office of Personnel Management: "Senior Executive Service Performance & Compensation"
Congressional Research Service: "The Federal Workforce: Characteristics and Trends"
Congressional Budget Office: "Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees".

Apparently our Government is starved for cash? Here's where we tax. Look at how it's spent.

That one confused me, but I think they found his SF86 in his email, not other people's SSNs

https://www.opm.gov/investigat...

https://www.opm.gov/investigat...

The information is quite extensive. That is why the OPM breach is so very bad. I am amazed more people haven't been owned from this breach, but I haven't heard of the information being used at all.

BTW, EQIP is the online site used to fill it out, the form is the SF86.

You would be safe in assuming your wife's data was also taken: https://www.opm.gov/cybersecur...

Scroll down to "how you may be affected"

Until about a year ago, I had a security clearance. So I'm one of the 22 million. I've already been contacted by our site clearance officer. They gave me this link from the OPM about the breach, which has more information than the links in the article.

For those who haven't gone through it, during a background search they send actual human beings around to your friend and family, and then to second-order contacts they know who know you, to ask questions about you. So the OPM, and now the hackers, literally know stuff about me that I don't know.

Nobody I know does their SF-86 form on paper. It is an online form completed through a system called "e-qip".

A source "with detailed knowledge on the matter" told Reuters that hiring screeners for Booz Allen had found some details of Snowden's education that "did not check out precisely," but decided to hire him anyway

Resume falsified, yup sounds like a typical "expert" to me.

You have bought into the administration smear campaign and government propaganda. Booz Allen isn't necessarily lying, here, but this statement, along with the ridiculously picayune reasons for rejecting candidates based on some detail not being perfect, it's likely something as innocuous as listing the wrong day of the month for a graduation, or misspelling of an instructor's name.

You might educate yourself by checking out the form Snowden was required to complete. I challenge anyone to be able to fill it out completely and include nothing that does not "check out precisely".

Government salaries are public knowledge.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-dat...

If someone else is making more than you with the same GS level, then you have good reason to complain.

... take a look at the bottom of this page.

Total Federal personnel (thousands) = 4,185

this includes contractors (like I was).

... take a look at the bottom of this page.

Total Federal personnel (thousands) = 4,185

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data...

A GS-15 in Atlanta's starting pay is $120034 and they top out at $156043. Now, that's the top level, but you can make decent money as a gevernment employee.

Your basic FBI/DEA/ICE/Secret Service agent is a GS13. Their range is $86,355-112,261. I'm sure some people on here make more than that, but I bet a the majority don't. If you go here (http://www.whatsmypercent.com/), it states someone making $100k is in the 96%. That is the entire US workforce, but should paint a relevent picture.

I think you didn't have what you thought you had. Qualifying HDHPs have had a minimum deductible of over $2500 for individuals and over $5000 (yes, deductible) for the last 6+ years. I know because I've been on one. And, yes, it's awesome.

FWIW, a standard, large group medical will run about $1000/mo for a family. If you're curious what the rates are for the biggest healthcare group (i.e. best leverage) in the nation are, see this: http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-...

I hate to rain on your parade with facts, but here are some relevant facts:
The Minimum Retirement Age (MRA) for someone currently in the workforce is around 57 (or any age with 25 years of service).
Payments don't start until you actually hit MRA.
The average federal worker makes 78K/year (let's not debate this too much, as president Obama is in these numbers).
While you can start payments at MRA with only 5 years in service (woo!) the amount of that pay is 1% of your average salary for your three highest salaried years per year. In other words, you'd get less than 5% of your ending salary (about $325/month).

The person in your example works for 20 years (let's say 18-38), "retires", begins receiving payments at 57 (no inflation adjustments during this time period). Let's pretend that this is the first year they receive payments (they retired in 1995) and that they made average salary ($61,000) at that time. They are now entitled to begin those lucrative payments you speak so highly about... $12200/year.

Your point that they will receive this payment until the end of their life is accurate, and they may receive this $12K/year (which is now adjusted upwards yearly for inflation) until they are 90 years old.

Sources:
https://www.opm.gov/retirement...
https://www.opm.gov/retirement...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf

I hate to rain on your parade with facts, but here are some relevant facts:
The Minimum Retirement Age (MRA) for someone currently in the workforce is around 57 (or any age with 25 years of service).
Payments don't start until you actually hit MRA.
The average federal worker makes 78K/year (let's not debate this too much, as president Obama is in these numbers).
While you can start payments at MRA with only 5 years in service (woo!) the amount of that pay is 1% of your average salary for your three highest salaried years per year. In other words, you'd get less than 5% of your ending salary (about $325/month).

The person in your example works for 20 years (let's say 18-38), "retires", begins receiving payments at 57 (no inflation adjustments during this time period). Let's pretend that this is the first year they receive payments (they retired in 1995) and that they made average salary ($61,000) at that time. They are now entitled to begin those lucrative payments you speak so highly about... $12200/year.

Your point that they will receive this payment until the end of their life is accurate, and they may receive this $12K/year (which is now adjusted upwards yearly for inflation) until they are 90 years old.

Sources:
https://www.opm.gov/retirement...
https://www.opm.gov/retirement...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf

The five million number doesn't make sense.

According to official reports the federal government only employ's 4.3 million including 1.5 million military personnel.

The American population is essentially either taking welfare or working for the Gubment.

That's the Fox News view of the world, sure. In actual reality, American workers are more productive, yet thanks to conservative economic policies have been losing income (measured in constant dollars) since the Reagan era. The number of people employed by the federal government is lower than it was in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. The number state or local government employees per capita grew a little from 1980 to 2008, almost entirely because of more teachers being hired, but declined from 2008 to 2011.

So, in reality, Americans are working more productively, getting paid less, and fewer of them are working for the government.

But keep the American voter ignorant and angry, and they'll re-elect you, even as you fsck them over.

Meh. I disagree - I think most NSA employees love that they get to do something really james-bond-ish, get a blank-check budget, and have essentially unlimited power over everyone else. There is no doubt a strong voyeuristic angle to the whole thing. They're also, by and large, getting paid obscene amounts of money.

This shows exactly how much you know.. basically nothing. Tell me again how much a worker bee GS 7 through 12 is getting paid? Fuck you. Focus on the contractors and there's your problem, which is what Snowden was.

I've met a number of people who work government jobs with clearances and they all act so goddamn smug about it, I've wanted to punch them in the mouth.

Retired military here.. I'd have put you down hard, sweetie. In addition, I'm from the old school.. if somebody is acting smug about something, then they're likely a) a nobody or b) a contractor.. see above.

I think they were all quite happy nobody knew the power they had; they were "getting away with it." Now that we do, they're demoralized because they don't get to lord over us with the mystique. Plus, robbing the cookie jar isn't fun when everyone sees you do it.

Fuck 'em. I hope the place becomes a miserable place to work and the whole thing falls apart at the seams.

Again, amatuer hour on your part. It sucks not being able to tell your family what you're working on, let alone anybody else. Any sort of 'mystique' is in your envious eyes only. In addition, if 'the whole thing falls apart' then we as a nation are fucked.

You seem to have a lot of animus. Focus on the contractors. Seriously. I'm no longer in the game, but in my amateur opinion (which is apparently a lot more informed than yours) this is the result of relying on contractors instead of federal civil service. When I was in the field, they could throw us in the clink and then throw away the key; the sorts of things these contractors are getting away with is astounding.

You didn't have to inform us that you're retired military...you're condescending (Sweetie, implies you're a real man and OP is a b1tch), aggressive (I would take you down hard...please, its a nerd forum, you're physical threats have no power here, take a tax Xanax, I pay good money to keep you vets medicated), and talking about salaries..please, those are average salaries. No one is forcing them to work a GS 7...

Meh. I disagree - I think most NSA employees love that they get to do something really james-bond-ish, get a blank-check budget, and have essentially unlimited power over everyone else. There is no doubt a strong voyeuristic angle to the whole thing. They're also, by and large, getting paid obscene amounts of money.

This shows exactly how much you know.. basically nothing. Tell me again how much a worker bee GS 7 through 12 is getting paid? Fuck you. Focus on the contractors and there's your problem, which is what Snowden was.

I've met a number of people who work government jobs with clearances and they all act so goddamn smug about it, I've wanted to punch them in the mouth.

Retired military here.. I'd have put you down hard, sweetie. In addition, I'm from the old school.. if somebody is acting smug about something, then they're likely a) a nobody or b) a contractor.. see above.

I think they were all quite happy nobody knew the power they had; they were "getting away with it." Now that we do, they're demoralized because they don't get to lord over us with the mystique. Plus, robbing the cookie jar isn't fun when everyone sees you do it.

Fuck 'em. I hope the place becomes a miserable place to work and the whole thing falls apart at the seams.

Again, amatuer hour on your part. It sucks not being able to tell your family what you're working on, let alone anybody else. Any sort of 'mystique' is in your envious eyes only. In addition, if 'the whole thing falls apart' then we as a nation are fucked.

You seem to have a lot of animus. Focus on the contractors. Seriously. I'm no longer in the game, but in my amateur opinion (which is apparently a lot more informed than yours) this is the result of relying on contractors instead of federal civil service. When I was in the field, they could throw us in the clink and then throw away the key; the sorts of things these contractors are getting away with is astounding.

Government kicks in $755 a month, for a toal of $1006. But ultimately you can't ignore what real individuals pay, as Congress is learning as employees threaten to quit government work if they have to buy their own insurance through government exchanges. Older workers were shocked to learn that this means paying 3x-4x their old premium contribution. While Obamacare does bring affordable coverage to those with limited income, the so-called "good deals" may be financially crippling to those whose incomes make them exempt for subsidiaries (starting at about $45K for individuals) if they have to purchase their own insurance through the exchanges. Adding insult to financial injury, a younger billionaire could pay a lower premium that's less than half the cost paid by someone older who makes $45K.

If one plugs the First Family's income and ages into the web-based DC Health Link Calculator, the annual health care cost estimates for the Obama household come out to be $20,125 (Bronze), $19,537 (Silver), and $21,902 (Gold), not a good deal at all when compared to the starting-at-under-$200-a-month family health coverage available to the President and Congress through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. By the way, if the Obama family members were 10 years older and their combined household income was reduced to $95,000, the estimated cost would be a staggering $26,339 (Bronze), $25,728 (Silver), and $29,021 (Gold).

If one plugs the First Family's income and ages into the web-based DC Health Link Calculator, the annual health care cost estimates for the Obama household come out to be $20,125 (Bronze), $19,537 (Silver), and $21,902 (Gold), not a good deal at all when compared to the starting-at-under-$200-a-month family health coverage available to the President and Congress through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. By the way, if the Obama family members were 10 years older and their combined household income was reduced to $95,000, the estimated cost would be a staggering $26,339 (Bronze), $25,728 (Silver), and $29,021 (Gold).

The horse's mouth says it has dropped since 2009:

2009: 4,430,000
2010: 4,443,000 (the site notes that this includes temporary workers hired for the census)
2011: 4,403,000

So we can conclude that there were less federal government employees in 2011 than there were in 2009 when President Obama took office. Not much less, mind you, but certainly less.

Here's the new Oath for Federal employees (Office of Personnel Management):

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constipation of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The original, with a single major word change:
http://archive.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

Seriously, we get up in arms when the flag is burned, but when the Constitution of the United States is involved it appears to be toilet paper.

Define "good pay". Back when I looked at working for a similar agency, the pay was usually GS-9 at max to start.

GS-9 is $47,448-$61,678 according to the 2012 locality tables - not very good at all considering someone with a similar education could earn 90-100k in private industry.

Sure, it's better than most people in Utah make, but by no means "good" pay by any objective metric.

It gets worse. During an administrative furlough employees are not permitted to use earned paid leave, or to volunteer his or her services to his or her agency. Even Family and Medical Leave must be taken as Leave Without Pay. Any outside work is always restricted due to various federal ethics rules. Source: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/supplemental-guidance-administrative-furloughs.pdf

I think US Office Of Personnel Management has better data than your article: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp

So, federal government: 4.4 million employees

Plus, state and local, 16 million: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb12-156.html

Terrifying: Increases in Real Per Capita Federal Spending Over The Past 35 Years

It appears the Federal government is hiring again under the Obama administration.

Historical Federal Workforce Tables - (In thousands)

Year.Civ.. Mil..L/J*.Total
2008 2,692 1,450 64 4,206
2009 2,774 1,591 66 4,430
 

*Legislative & Judicial

I joined the Cybercorps in its first year of operation after two decades in an unrelated field; the reason you've never heard of the program is it was scheduled to be announced on Sept. 12, 2011. There are probably hundreds of schools certified as Centers of Excellence by the NSA; some of them are top notch, some of them not so much. I've been working for the government for nearly a decade now: Operations, compliance, and even teaching. Happy to discuss. Here's a link to the official Cyber Corps Web site, run by the Office of Personnel Management: https://www.sfs.opm.gov/

If you're going to get a Fed security clearance of any kind, you're going to *start* the process by filling out this form (127 pages, although large parts are skipped for most people):

http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

Just so you know the kinds of questions they start with. It gets more invasive from there. They generally only care about the last 7 years of your life, however.

Oh, and skip to page 96 if you want to get to the "what drugs have you done?" part.

Federal employees have the Thrift Savings Plan, which is similar to 401k plans.
I'd like to see where you get the idea that government employees have higher salaries? The people I know who work for the Fed gov tend to have lower salaries than the people I know that work for corporations. Fed salaries can be found here: http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/index.asp
As for insane job security, the people laid off would disagree. http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10191199-good-news-for-government-workers-layoffs-easing?lite

What job has a salary range of 60,000 to 150,000? Look at the Federal Govt pay scale for the DFW area, http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/pdf/DFW.pdf Note, you would see that a entry level engineer (no adv degree) is a GS-9 about 55,000 whereas a senior level manager, GS-15, pay tops out at about 150,000. Personally I doubt that a senior level manager could do the tasks assigned to the entry level engineer any better than the new hire, except of course design powerpoint slides. In really, the important senior level skills are cost, time and personnel management Not the same job at all.

The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions. Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life.

The TSP part of FERS is an account that your agency automatically sets up for you. Each pay period your agency deposits into your account amount equal to 1% of the basic pay you earn for the pay period. You can also make your own contributions to your TSP account and your agency will also make a matching contribution. These contributions are tax-deferred. The Thrift Savings Plan is administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

OMG how dare they pay into their own retirement plan, and get some matching from the org they work for...Just like the commercial sector. I think that you might have read more into FERS than is actually there :)

source:
http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp

This is just like a 401k, but for the gov. It is not anything like a pension, as the org's contribution is while the employee is employed, not after.

I am 40 years old with almost 20 years experience

Since you're sharing, do you mind telling us how much vacation you get?

If all 20 years of AC's experience were in federal service, then the AC should be receiving 8 hours of vacation for every two weeks of work. Here's the link to annual leave entitlements on the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) website: http://www.opm.gov/oca/leave/html/annual.asp

Those 8 hours per two weeks are just for vacation/personal use; AC should also receiving sick leave accruals each pay period.

If Corporate IT got paid what these guys get paid, they'd be at another IT shop faster than you could say "Federal Pay Freeze"

Everyone bitches that Federal Civilians are paid too much, but this is the reality of a compensation system that is 15-30%+ below the prevailing market rate (by their own employer's standards). http://www.opm.gov/oca/payagent/2010/PayDisparities.asp Imagine if your employer put out a report that said you got paid 35% less than you were worth and then asked you to take a pay freeze while campaigning on further reducing your compensation so they can get reelected. It becomes hard to attract and retain talent.

If you worked for the United States Federal Government and were paying into FERS, the Federal Employees Retirement System, or CSRS (the old system) and only have 1.5 years of creditable service then you are not eligible for payments from EITHER. You have to have 5 years of creditable service just to be eligible. See: http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligibility.asp and look under the heading Deferred Retirement for FERS and http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/csrs/eligibility.asp under the heading Optional for CSRS. I'm going to assume we aren't talking about CSRS though, because that was eliminated for all new employees hired after 1987.

Good news though! Unless you got a payout of your retirement contributions you can always go back and work for the Feds for another 3.5 years to qualify. With 5 years of service at age 62 you could very well get the $320 a month payment you mention.

Generally speaking, the FERS payment follows this formula:
(1% * (AVERAGE(your highest 3 yearly salaries)) * Years of Creditable Service)

So for example, if you become well paid GS-12 employee for 3.5 years in the Washington DC area (I'll assume step 1, 2, and 3) (Ref: http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/html/dcb.asp), then when you turn age 62 you would be eligible and receive . . .

(1% * ((74872 + 77368 + 79864)/3)) * 5 = $3868.40 per year ... roughly $322 a month.

Now, your personal retirement situation may be entirely different, but I'd go call your previous HR department and validate whether or not you are currently eligible, because unless you didn't state a key fact in your post that changes the situation, I do not believe you currently are.

If you worked for the United States Federal Government and were paying into FERS, the Federal Employees Retirement System, or CSRS (the old system) and only have 1.5 years of creditable service then you are not eligible for payments from EITHER. You have to have 5 years of creditable service just to be eligible. See: http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligibility.asp and look under the heading Deferred Retirement for FERS and http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/csrs/eligibility.asp under the heading Optional for CSRS. I'm going to assume we aren't talking about CSRS though, because that was eliminated for all new employees hired after 1987.

Good news though! Unless you got a payout of your retirement contributions you can always go back and work for the Feds for another 3.5 years to qualify. With 5 years of service at age 62 you could very well get the $320 a month payment you mention.

Generally speaking, the FERS payment follows this formula:
(1% * (AVERAGE(your highest 3 yearly salaries)) * Years of Creditable Service)

So for example, if you become well paid GS-12 employee for 3.5 years in the Washington DC area (I'll assume step 1, 2, and 3) (Ref: http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/html/dcb.asp), then when you turn age 62 you would be eligible and receive . . .

(1% * ((74872 + 77368 + 79864)/3)) * 5 = $3868.40 per year ... roughly $322 a month.

Now, your personal retirement situation may be entirely different, but I'd go call your previous HR department and validate whether or not you are currently eligible, because unless you didn't state a key fact in your post that changes the situation, I do not believe you currently are.

If you worked for the United States Federal Government and were paying into FERS, the Federal Employees Retirement System, or CSRS (the old system) and only have 1.5 years of creditable service then you are not eligible for payments from EITHER. You have to have 5 years of creditable service just to be eligible. See: http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligibility.asp and look under the heading Deferred Retirement for FERS and http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/csrs/eligibility.asp under the heading Optional for CSRS. I'm going to assume we aren't talking about CSRS though, because that was eliminated for all new employees hired after 1987.

Good news though! Unless you got a payout of your retirement contributions you can always go back and work for the Feds for another 3.5 years to qualify. With 5 years of service at age 62 you could very well get the $320 a month payment you mention.

Generally speaking, the FERS payment follows this formula:
(1% * (AVERAGE(your highest 3 yearly salaries)) * Years of Creditable Service)

So for example, if you become well paid GS-12 employee for 3.5 years in the Washington DC area (I'll assume step 1, 2, and 3) (Ref: http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/html/dcb.asp), then when you turn age 62 you would be eligible and receive . . .

(1% * ((74872 + 77368 + 79864)/3)) * 5 = $3868.40 per year ... roughly $322 a month.

Now, your personal retirement situation may be entirely different, but I'd go call your previous HR department and validate whether or not you are currently eligible, because unless you didn't state a key fact in your post that changes the situation, I do not believe you currently are.

I believe "recently" was 1986 http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

Not to mention certain forms: http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf (even includes expunged/stricken records!)
Also, any rental, mortgage, or employment application.

Sweden could be different.

Beardo, here's the short of it.

1. President signs HSPD-12 which mandates issuing a new, more secure, id card to all federal employees. HSPD-12 is all about "secure and reliable" id. It has nothing to do with background checks. Full text: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1217616624097.shtm

2. OMB is tasked with carrying out HSPD-12.

3. OMB arbitrarily adds background checks and "employee suitability". HSPD-12 does not authorize this. This bears repeating. HSPD-12 does not mandate background checks. The background check is a fantasy invented by OMB.

4. Presumably because there are too many background checks to be done, the background checks are being partially outsourced. For example, ChoicePoint handled JSC. Here's a nice article about ChoicePoint: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2005/02/66685. An old article now, but was relevant 3 years ago.

5. SF85 is the form that landed on my desk with instructions to "sign or else resign". The "carte blanche" part is the first paragraph on the last page. It basically says, "authorize any investigator ... obtain any information ... is not limited". Full text is here: http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf85.pdf

I would be happy to undergo an actual real background check and receive an S or TS clearance. Such a check has real value and would open up work opportunities to me. I an not willing to let some random dude investigate me and store that information in some unknown location to be stolen or shared with arbitrary entities.

A lot of these jobs require that you be a US Citizen in order to pass the background check to be granted a security clearance. There are lots of jobs posted at clearancejobs.com and other sites that reflect this need. It may take 6-9 months for that process to complete itself (or up to ~2 years in some cases) but once that gauntlet has been run, it becomes much easier the next time.

If you're a qualified networking or IT geek that meets those criteria, there are plenty of jobs available.

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/ may also be of value to you as well.

Some of these jobs are serious cash $119k+ ($10k/mo)

As a conservative, to me the problem isn't with private unions of workers of private companies. In truth there should be no bailouts for a company that signs labor contracts that bankrupt themselves, nor for labor unions that force such companies to go under, and themselves out of a job with ever-increasing demands - Free Market demands that both are responsible for their own demise, no matter how they shift the blame. Unions that partner with their companies for mutual benefit (or unions that take significant ownership) will always make sense for everyone.

The problem is with public unions (Police, Fire, Teachers, Social Workers) who both get to write their own contracts and then tell their bosses (elected politicians) to approve them, or else. Have you seen the union-dictated pay-rates for federal road-construction contracts? Have you seen the pensions for your city employees? Did you know it takes government workers only 5 years of employment to be eligible for a pension at age 62? http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligibility.asp

Even Roosevelt was wary of the power of the public union. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

And one more thing: "Manufacturing in the US was healthiest when labor unions were healthiest."
Correlation =\= Causation. Manufacturing and Labor were both healthy at the same time because of large postwar demand and no outside competition. Once the markets started getting tough in the 70's and 80's Labor refused to bow to the cuts Manufacturers needed to stay competitive, Manufacturers couldn't force the issue because of those meddlesome kids in congress (more public union interference in the free-market) and, in the end, both have crashed.