Romney's View of Federal Pay
By Allan Holmes | Friday, February 08, 2008 | 11:14 AM
By Allan Holmes | Friday, February 08, 2008 | 11:14 AM
I'd like to draw your attention to -- if you haven't already seen it (and by the looks of it, many of you have) -- my colleague Tom Shoop's blog post on former presidential candidate Mitt Romney's withdrawal announcement. You can read the excerpt in Fedblog, but the gist is that government bureaucrats make too much money compared to their private-sector counterparts and that Americans should stand up to federal unions. Romney's comments have sparked a lot of heated responses from the federal workforce, to put it mildly. Please join the discussion and offer your viewpoint from an IT perspective.
As for the IT angle here? Federal IT executives and managers make far less than their private-sector counterparts. Top federal CIOs make in the neighborhood of $135,000. Private-sector CIOs running companies that rival the size of federal agencies make in the high-six-figure range, sometimes seven figures if they perform well enough to receive incentives. Differentials exist for lower level federal IT managers and their private-sector counterparts. Some CIOs in the private sector left their high-paying jobs to join the federal IT workforce out of a sense of duty, to serve the public. By doing so, they took huge salary cuts.
Comments
They all are making the big bucks I don't see any of them saying they don't need there salary.
You have the Clinton's one will collect a Presidential salary for the rest of his life and now his wife is trying to collect the same amount. I don't see them saying they have enough money I won't collect when I'm in office. The only President who did not collect a salary to run this country is Kennedy. What the Members of Congress collect and what a Federal employee makes is no comparison to what big CEO's make in the private sector.
Charles I couldn't agree more we have to reign federal spending and wages so the private sector can generate the jobs needed. The government doesn't produce a darn thing and sucks the wind out of the sails of the economy
dan ketter | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 09:48 PMGET PAID has it right; you haven't taken a cut by electing to work in federal service. You elected to forego an opportunity if one can believe what the "local market" offers. There's lots of reasons discussed here although no mention of personal satisfaction about serving one's country outside the military. Romney on the other hand has it wrong. He hasn't held a real federal job in Washington. In fact has he really had a job anywhere where he's had to work up from the bottom without having a "Daddy" somewhere? When you're sitting on millions it all to easy to lose touch with reality. Hopefully he won't be afforded an opportunity for any exec position in DC if all he can do is pander to the ignorant who choose to use the slur "bureaucrat".
Bill Also a Fed | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 02:12 PMTo all, we know what we are worth and we know what we get paid both private and federal, if there is such a "HUGE" difference in pay, well if you want the high pay, go get it, if you want the job security, go federal. Romney, you know what you make, but are you really worth what "YOU" make? Probably not!! That is why you are OUT!!
GET PAID | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 12:43 PMSo, if this jerk had been elected President, he would have unilaterally cut his own paycheck, and the VP's, and the cabinet, and then the senate and house of representatives salaries all? NOT. In reading these comments, I am now extremely glad that he dropped out of the race, although his fellow republican minons will do all in their power to continue to emasculate the federal workforce, driving more and more public service employees out of their jobs, so that more political cronies can take their place. The first place that salary caps should be imposed is on our elected officials--Senators and Congresspeople. Before either are to receive any increases in their salaries and benefits, it should be put to a vote from the public that they are serving. It will never happen, but it should!
jd | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 11:28 AMI was a private sector CIO at a $100m company and made $250K. But, I worked every weekend, had to hire and fire people weekly, was required to meet unit goals that make my job now seem easy. And, boy if any sensitive information ever escaped our control I would be fired (and for good reason).
Sooooo. Stop whining. If you don't like the cush job you have as a fed whos performance is based on the number of sick days not taken, then by all meens go out and compete in the real world. Otherwise, relax. You are used to it by now. My publicy available VA records prove it. I have been in the fed for three years now and have not seen one person fired despite repeated subpar performance. Nice.
David Fed | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 11:00 AMI was unaware of Romney's remarks. I want to say that i believe everyone in power is missing the point. A recession is here and it is here to stay for quite awhile because there aren't enough decent paying jobs around to have a middle class as we once knew. Disparity between rich and poor is increasing. Everyone is critizing unions and low paying jobs are being created. The rich have plastered their walls with flat screens. They are up to there necks in luxury items. No one is able to continue the purchase pace. Executives are earning 400 times the average worker who doesn't have enough to bolster the economy. We must begin to reign in executive compensation and spread the wealth a little more so that our economy can recover. Top tier tax rates must be increased and the government should cut corporate tax breaks. Unions do have a purpose even with some flaws.
Charles McCollum | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 10:53 AMJoe -
The CIO's with earning potential in the mid-6 figures work for companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenues. Do you know how many companies that is? Not representative of the occupation as a whole; the pinnacle of the profession. And note the word "potential" -- pay at risk here is 40-50% of total compensation. It's not automatic, it's relentlessly results driven. That's why tenure in these jobs is short (per the earlier paragraph, three to four years).
For the record, I think Romney is a moron on this (and other) issues, too. But you don't effectively counter glib, misleading statements with more glib, misleading statements.
Compensation Consultant | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 10:26 AMWhat was the "credible data source" for Mr. Romney's announcement that Federal Government "bureaucrats" make too much money as compaed to their private-sector counterparts?
I wonder....do State of Massachusetts' Government "bureaucrats" also make too much?
Maybe Mr. Romney is just a sore loser.
Peg | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 10:24 AMI agree with the comments from other Fed employees. I think it's great he stepped down, nice of him to take a stab at the workers on his way out as he failed to succeed in his running for the President. I'll bet if he was a Fed employee he would not have made that remark.
Don in the Fed | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 10:19 AMWell I guess that's what freedom of speech is about, you can say whatever you want even if it's not true. Isn't it funny that the salary of congress is not mentions. With their health care and benefits and for what that have done for (or better put to) this country, I think he should be ashamed of himself... except that he has no clue what shame is.
TomL | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 09:21 AMDid you really compare Federal GS-15 IT managers with "private sector CIOs running companies that rival the size of federal agencies." Oh, wait, and this was to show how absurd Romney's comment was.
Not Surprised | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 09:11 AMWhat figures are included in Mr. Romney's analysis? I'm not sure if it is appropriate to compare the private sectors general lack of a comprehensive benefits package with the health and retirement package offered to federal workers. By the way, federal workers pay greater health insurance premiums than private sector employees. Federal workers also have to pay for their own retirement.
Loose Change | Monday, February 11, 2008 | 08:40 AMMr. Compensation Consultant, I found the below article in the Jan 4 2008 Wall Street Journal... note with bonuses some CIO's are up in the 600-700K range and that is just the avearage!
Toughening Up Chief Information Officers
Chief information officer jobs are getting ever more demanding
That’s according to Reynold Lewke, a recruiter at executive search outfit Egon Zehnder International in Palo Alto, Calif., who helps run the firm’s CIO practice. Over the past 10 years, Lewke notes, CIOs’ jobs have morphed from technical-oriented roles to increasingly becoming business partners who can help influence a company’s strategy. Alongside that change, companies now want CIOs who can work across global cultures, collaborate better with other business units, and who can develop strong teams.
“Time and again, we’ve seen people who are technically brilliant but who can’t sell ideas to a management team and so are ineffective” under the new CIO job description, says Lewke. Lewke—who notes Egon Zehnder conducted 50 searches for CIOs in North America last year, more than twice the volume of two years ago—adds that it’s imperative new CIOs demonstrate results within 92 to 180 days of their hiring, with most CIO jobs spanning just three to four years. In the past, CIOs had longer time frames to execute changes.
The increased demands on CIOs mean that job-hopping activity is brisk. A recent Egon Zehnder CIO survey found a quarter of respondents thought they would be changing their roles within a year, with 60% saying they believed they would change jobs within two years. Of those, one in ten respondents said they expected to move into non-tech jobs and take on a more business-oriented and operational role within a company.
CIOs are being handsomely compensated for the rising demands on their time, says Lewke. For CIOs working at companies that make up to $1 billion in revenue a year, annual salaries now average $225,000 to $250,000, with bonuses and stock options plumping those packages up to around $500,000 a year. For CIOs at companies that generate more than $1 billion in revenue, annual salaries hover at around $350,000, with bonuses and other extras bumping up overall compensation to $600,000 to $700,000 a year, he says.
As for what he’s heard from CIOs about 2008, Lewke notes that IT investment remained strong throughout 2007 but says he’s hearing more questions about IT spending this year. In particular, CIOs are being asked what they’re getting out of all the money they spent on IT last year and are aiming to take out costs through efforts like outsourcing. “There’s a little bit of caution,” he says, which jives with what we’ve heard.
Read articles on cio.com. CIOs in the private sector make between 200-300k, hardly the high six-figures. However, much more than the fed cio....allan 1/2 right - romney completely wrong.
Mike in the Fed | Sunday, February 10, 2008 | 12:59 AMI defy you to identify any credible data sources -- salary/comp surveys, etc. -- that substantiate your claim that corporate CIO's earn in the high 6 figures, let alone 7 figures.
To echo former President Clinton, this is yet another "fairy tale."
Compensation Consultant | Friday, February 08, 2008 | 04:19 PMABOUT THIS BLOG
Allan Holmes on what's happening and what's being discussed in the world of federal information technology.
feed