Unions and Democrats blasted Biden’s proposed 2 percent pay raise for federal workers

Here are some of their frustrated reactions:

● Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees: “We are extremely disappointed in the way this budget turns its back on the long-standing practice of pay raise parity for civilian and military employees of the federal government.”

● Doreen Greenwald, president of the National Treasury Employees Union: “The average 2 percent federal pay raise in the president’s proposed 2025 budget is unacceptable. Federal employees are the backbone of our country, yet they continue to be underpaid. Like many Americans, front-line federal workers face increasing costs that stretch their families’ budgets to the breaking point and this cannot continue.”

● Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.): “As a longtime champion of pay parity between uniformed members of the military and civilian federal employees who often work alongside each other, I am disappointed that, for the first time, President Biden’s budget does not observe the concept of pay parity. Instead, it includes a 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment for federal civilian employees — including the more than 80,000 who live in Maryland’s 5th District — while proposing a 4.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment for uniformed members of the military.”

Just last month, federal labor leaders were applauding Biden for his workplace policies and the access he provides them. Greenwald was enthusiastic as she told NTEU’s legislative conference about “a special meeting” in which “we heard directly from administration officials about pay and telework and were able to ask questions.”

“And I don’t mind telling you,” she added, “how special it is for NTEU leaders to be invited to the White House complex and get to experience some of the grandeur of these historic spaces.”

But as helpful as access is, that grandeur’s glow means nothing for her members’ bank accounts.

At AFGE’s legislative conference, Kelley said: “We must do everything in our power … and then some … to reelect Joe Biden and Kamala D. Harris.” Now he says Biden’s plan means “efforts to recruit, hire and retain top talent will never be successful because of the albatross of low pay.”

For Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), an ardent supporter of federal workers and Biden, the 2 percent raise is more than a disappointment, it’s a reversal. “This goes backward,” he said by phone. “I don’t see how the White House can justify 2 percent.”

The White House and its Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not directly respond to questions about the pay raise proposal and its critics. OMB pointed to a blog post from leaders of the agency and the Office of Personnel Management, who said: “The Administration continues to prioritize Federal compensation and also looks forward to working with Congress” on pay-related issues. Hoyer said he would raise the 2 percent plan as the top Democrat on the House Appropriations financial services and general government subcommittee.

Connolly wants more, much more.

He and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii.) reintroduced the Federal Adjustment of Income Rates Act in January. It would authorize a 7.4 percent boost for federal employees next year. Complaining the 2 percent “sets back the progress President Biden has made in catching up with the private sector and with inflation,” Connolly added that Biden has been “a good, strong, pro-federal employee, pro-union president. This is an anomaly that needs some explanation and just runs counter to his own record from my point of view.”

It also is far from the 27.5 percent that the Federal Salary Council determined federal salaries lag behind their private sector counterparts. Conservatives have long disputed the council’s annual pay gap figures as inaccurate. Nonetheless, the budget document says “the differential between Federal civilian pay and private sector pay has expanded in the past three decades over this period, creating attrition risk within the existing workforce and reducing the competitiveness of Federal jobs.”

One persistent problem with the federal workforce is the age of its workers. “Over 28 percent of employees are older than 55, while 8.7 percent of employees are younger than 30,” according to the “Strengthening the Federal Workforce” section of the budget.

Federal workforce age demographics are a serious and ongoing issue that Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, has pounded for years. “One of the most obvious and prominent issues that they’ve put some good data around,” he said, “is the lack of young people in the federal workforce and the importance of using internships as a way of bringing them in.”

Biden’s budget narrative took a swipe at former president Donald Trump’s promise to “very aggressively” enforce his plan to gut civil service protections for many employees. “Proposed regulations would protect employees from involuntary loss of their earned civil service protections for reasons unrelated to poor performance or conduct,” the budget document says. “… Americans deserve a Federal workforce selected and retained for its merit, skill, and experience not favoritism or political loyalties.”

The spending plan also says the 2 percent proposed raise “illustrates the Administration’s continued strong commitment to the civil service, reflecting the need to attract the talent necessary to serve Americans and recognizing the fiscal constraints Federal agencies face.”

But will a 2 percent raise attract talent when it’s less than two-thirds of the 3.2 percent inflation rate, and when there were pay hikes of 5.2 percent for 2024 and 4.6 percent for 2023?

“As we get more and more people in the baby boom area retiring,” Kelley said in a telephone interview, “it’s going to be hard to sustain employment in the federal system until we fix this issue.”

Kelley generally has strong praise for Biden, but union leaders were blindsided by the White House plan.

“It was a surprise,” Kelley said. “I had no indication that it would be that low. … This one he got wrong.”