Not off to a good start...

[Hermskii]

My new year is not off to a new start. Work told me I had to pass a Microsoft Certification Exam in order to get a raise that equals less than $1 per hour. I have provided awesome professional service all year and they agree but won't give me the raise unless I pass this test.

The test cost $150 to take. I was sick on the first scheduled day I had to take it so I rescheduled which gave me several more days to study for it. That cost me $35 to reschedule. So now I'm up to $185 spent and I took the test and failed with a 48 out of 100 score.

I am offended that they are holding what was originally listed as a personal goal of mine against me. The test was the "Microsoft 70-680 Configuring Windows 7" exam. Failing costs me more than 1/2 the spare money we have each month and work is already asking if I have rescheduled to take it again.

Am I right to be pissed? I talked to a security guard at the IRS the other day. He made more money than me. In fact, if I were to take this test every year and pass it and get the raise too each year I still would not make as much as the guard after 10 straight years. That drives me nuts.

[Kelly]

You've already wasted a big part of the year's raise so I'd just take a pass on it. Here's what I mean:

If you make (for example) 90 cents more an hour for passing it and you have spent $185 already towards getting it then you've reached forward quite a ways into the year.

The 90 cents more you will make works out to about 66 cents after taxes. You'll have to work 280 hours to just break even on the deal (just shy of two months). Also you can about double that since you need to take the test again and this puts you at 3.5 months into the year before you gain any at all from the venture.

Now tack on the fact that this will increase your taxes AND you've already spent 1/3 of the years earnings and you could very well not break even on getting the raise.

Sorry Herm, this is how I think. I've always loved statistics and it can surprise you how something that seems so right (it's a raise after all!) could actually turn out to benefit you to pass on. In this case unless they fund the test I'd just not do it. There is too much risk versus reward.

[Hook]

Yeah, I was thinking similar to Kelly here.
One thing - Your company should pay for the testing - most do for that sort of thing or certifications.

[Hermskii]

Kelly,

I think that way too. I am aware that this sucks. I know I'm supposed to be happy that I even had a chance at a raise but I know the down side too as you mentioned. You took it even farther than I would have though and I thank you for the additional clarity you provided.

That last part I was putting up before the last post but I never hit submit. This part is in reply to the post: I think they will pay if I pass but not otherwise.

[a nameless entity]

Am I right to be pissed? I talked to a security guard at the IRS the other day. He made more money than me. In fact, if I were to take this test every year and pass it and get the raise too each year I still would not make as much as the guard after 10 straight years. That drives me nuts.

I am offended that they are holding what was originally listed as a personal goal of mine against me. Failing costs me more than 1/2 the spare money we have each month and work is already asking if I have rescheduled to take it again.

Are you saying that you now work for the Internal Revenue Service? You work for the government?

If that is the case, take it from me that this kind of disappointment is probably a normal fact of life in the civil service. My mother worked for the Federal government up here for 24 years, and her whole career was one long story of being let down. I'm betting that it's the same in the US. (Government bureaucracies are probably the same the world over.)

The only good thing I can take from your story so far is that at least the security guard is making a living wage.
Five will get you ten that he will be gone in a few more years, replaced by someone from Brinks or Securicorp who makes all of eight bucks an hour. I cannot imagine any of those guys who are expected to put their lives on the line when there's trouble for only eight bucks an hour actually giving a sh!t about anything related to their job.

I'm sorry to seem so negative Herm, but I think I should warn you now what life can be like in the civil service.

[Hermskii]

I don't work for the IRS. I was talking to a guy that worked in a security firm that was contracted by homeland security. I think I have decided to stay in IT but will go in a different direction for more certifications to pad the resume with. I will see what happens.

I did not spend this weekend thinking about it but I did give it some thought and discussed it with others. I have several other options I will go after. Thanks everyone for your opinion! I really do appreciate it.

[Hook]

Hey, as far as that security guy's pay goes, anybody that has some sort of contracting with the Feds gets paid better than most, and with great perks and benefits.
I know - both my brother-in-laws are like that.
One, a USPS worker just retired at age 55 (Yep age 55) with an envious awesome pension and FREE Great Benefits for LIFE (Same as Fed Employees get) - all paid for 100% for them by us USA citizens.
Even though the USPS isn't still under the Feds, they still get the benefits from the Feds.
The other, a Detective (sometimes FBI contracted) cop, retired under similar compensation at age 50 - WOW age 50!!!

This is why we have to work until we are almost ready to die - to support the ones who suck it from us.
Too bad us "normal" US citizens can't get that kind of compensation, but if we all did, like the government workers, there would be no one to PAY for it all, so it will only be reserved for the federal few.

[Kelly]

One, a USPS worker just retired at age 55 (Yep age 55) with an envious awesome pension and FREE Great Benefits for LIFE (Same as Fed Employees get) - all paid for 100% for them by us USA citizens.
Even though the USPS isn't still under the Feds, they still get the benefits from the Feds.

This is why we have to work until we are almost ready to die - to support the ones who suck it from us.
Too bad us "normal" US citizens can't get that kind of compensation, but if we all did, like the government workers, there would be no one to PAY for it all, so it will only be reserved for the federal few.

Let me set a few things straight. First, no one in the USPS costs taxpayers a single copper penny. That's just not right and I'll explain to you why.

Since 1964 the US Postal Service has been entirely self-funded solely from the sale of postage, and we are the only government agency to put money back into the federal coffers that came from a surplus of our operating expenses (to the tune of million$ and million$). Also the post office has never taken a penny from the government's collected taxes. (That's kinda restating the whole 'self-funded' thing but I wanted it to be clear).

If you take the time to google it you can see that the USPS is far from a 'bumbling wreck' of mismanagement and is in fact one of the government's most productive endeavors. Oh, and add to that we do have a quite enviable health and benefits plan but do you know why that is? Overall the USPS has the healthiest workforce in the government so we have the power to create our own health care network, which offers some of the best protection available for the cheapest rates because we have the least overall claims rates.

I'm not trying to be defensive about this but it does irritate me when people think we have some exclusive club thing going. I guess in a way we do but it's been earned by two generations of mailmen busting their cans to ensure the guys coming up below them had it better than they did. The NALC (the carrier's union) has been diligent to ensure that our good performance was quietly rewarded and that the surpluses we helped create were not given away to other agencies and it came back in the form of good benefits.

In the end though it costs you exactly nothing, and it never has.

[Hook]

I am really sorry Kelly - I stand corrected I guess.
My little rant comes from a lot of needling LOL and ergo assumptions from them.
Not really from the one B-in-law, but from the other retired from the USPS.
He loves to rub it in my face whenever he can.
He has moved a zillion times around the country within the USPS system and every time it was all on the USPS, moving expenses and all - the USPS even bought his house once so he could buy the next in another town and position.
Anyway, he was touting that his pension and his Free of charge for Life benefits package that he gets is the same as, and is funded from the same plan as US Fed employees - even like Senators, Congressmen and politicians, etc., which I thought was funded from taxes (I assumed), since taxpayers pay for those employees.

If I am wrong than I stand corrected - sorry!
But it just seems real wasteful, if nothing else, the amount of benefits and perks my B-in-law has gotten, in his case anyway, and then they actually Paid him a big bonus to retire early at the ripe old age of 55 - arg.

Anyway, my rant stems from all his bragging and needling I guess - Sorry!
(and to think that my Wife got him his job there to start with arg)

[Kelly]

I didn't take it defensively at all, and trust me I have this particular conversation a couple of times a week with people. There is a huge difference between what the public's perception of the post office is and what the reality truly is.

I'll even step it out one more. You've seen the 'postal bailout' that the media has been kicking around? Well, that one is another that people just judge then go on without ever looking at. Here's why this is in the news:

Back in the late 80's and into the 90's the post office was the single best performing government entity. We were killing productivity, doing more each year with less workers. We successfully automated most work without ever laying anyone off, dealing with needing less bodies simply through attrition. Well it got so good that the Senate wanted our surplus monies (those greedy #@$%$). Legally they couldn't take it so they cooked up this plan where we are the ONLY government entity that has to pre-fund our ENTIRE retirement package for every worker from the moment they are hired. No other agency has anything like that but it allowed them to take our money since the retirement checks are written on government rag. Now every year we have to pay 5.5 billion (with a B) dollars to pay ahead for people who haven't even been hired yet.

Of course with the economic downturn mail has slowed so no way can we keep that up. The problem is that Congress has spent that money already and won't let us off the hook. This has set a real showdown that is currently going on and I find fascinating that the truth is so glaringly absent from discussions. We have functioned just fine even in the downturn and if you remove the prefunding obligation the P.O. has still turned a small profit every year.

Ok, I'm done

[a nameless entity]

How many Americans feel that the Post Office is "just more US government in my face" like so many people seem to like to rant on and on about?

What the US Post Office is doing is showing the way that any good government agency can and should be run. Their example is a good refutation to all those whose knee jerk reaction is that "if the government runs it, then it will be totally mucked up".

This is how health care should be administered also, and would no more be in the public's face than the Post Office is now.

[Kelly]

Health care...ugh, now there is a place that real changes could be made but they never will.

The only way to deal with health care is to put a cost cap into place. The fed should say "OK, you give X test and this is the maximum you can charge for it". Then they ought to be like the phone company and FORCE every provider to give itemized cost sheets of every visit down to the penny. No hidden costs anywhere. If they are charging $7 for a tylenol then you ought to know that.

It'll never happen though because the medical lobby in the US is only slightly behind petrochemical in pure power on capital hill. Much like you'll never get reform in the oil industry until financial reform forces it, the same thing will happen in the medical sector.

As an aside though, isn't it interesting that gas prices have stayed low for so long? Personally I think that the retail sector bigwigs got pinched too hard by the oil sector this holiday season and it just killed retail sales for Christmas. Oil got greedy and really hurt the other guys in the game and I think they are trying to balance the sheet some, lest the retail giants happen to find and promote a bunch of new "gas saving" brands like electric cars, propane, etc. It could be easily done and it surprises me year after year when it doesn't happen.