Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics

[jimh406]

You probably shouldn't try thinking, there absolutely is equivalent private sector work in every FS position.

You say you want equal rules, but you would be the first to cry and whine if that were to ever happen...and that's a fact.

FS is just one set of federal workers.

Since there aren't equal rules, we'll never know.

 

[BuzzH]

FS is just one set of federal workers.

Since there aren't equal rules, we'll never know.

Did you happen to notice the thread title?

Feel free to start another thread that matches your opinions.

 

[sapperJ24]

I don't think there is usually equivalent work in the private sector.

However, I don't personally care if they are paid less or more. I'm ok with whatever the market will bear. I do think there should be the same employment rules as the private sector. I don't think that's the case now.

I'm sure it's an outlier, but the top TVA employee recently resigned after a limit was placed on the maximum pay. He wasn't the only one, but what sense does it make for many employees of the federal government to make more than the President?

The Forest Service isn't the TVA. FS pay has long been capped at a much lower rate, I believe $228,000 for 2026.

https://openpayrolls.com/rank/highest-paid-employees/forest-service

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

Should anyone make more than the President?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Having enjoyed a long career working in the military (4 yrs active Army, 25 yrs+ Army National Guard), a decade as state employee, thirty years plus in private sector (mostly construction industry), and closely with federal contracts and federal employees ... I can tell you that the strong American work ethic prevails. However, with every human endeavor there are mostly those who are givers (productive workers) and sadly also takers (self-centered slackers). That is a common thread throughout the private sector and at every level of government. At the state and federal level unfortunately those perceived with the criticism and negativity expressed by Jimh406 and others are often hampered and restrained in certain respects by laws, regulations, and policies which are often much more stringent and restrictive than those for the private sector. It's called red tape and results in hampered productivity and higher costs.

For those who are the armchair critics of governmental employees ... you only have yourselves to blame as you voted in and support the red tape.

 

[BuzzH]

Having enjoyed a long career working in the military (4 yrs active Army, 25 yrs+ Army National Guard), a decade as state employee, thirty years plus in private sector (mostly construction industry), and closely with federal contracts and federal employees ... I can tell you that the strong American work ethic prevails. However, with every human endeavor there are mostly those who are givers (productive workers) and sadly also takers (self-centered slackers). That is a common thread throughout the private sector and at every level of government. At the state and federal level unfortunately those perceived with the criticism and negativity expressed by Jimh406 and others are often hampered and restrained in certain respects by laws, regulations, and policies which are often much more stringent and restrictive than those for the private sector. It's called red tape and results in hampered productivity and higher costs.

For those who are the armchair critics of governmental employees ... you only have yourselves to blame as you voted in and support the red tape.

I would also argue that not all the red tap, laws, and regulations the agencies are required to adhere to are always a bad thing.

For instance, a private timber company doesn't have to adhere much to any "red tape" to liquidate their timber resources. They can take that timber as cheaply and efficiently as they can by building roads, not having to worry about wildlife considerations, etc. etc. Its 100% a maximize profit and screw the rest attitude.

In response to that largely unfettered timber liquidation by private industry, I'm glad that the same thing doesn't happen on Federal land and that we have different mandates (often called red tape, laws, regulations). I like that Federal timber lands are managed in different ways than private and that they have to follow other regulations and consider more than a balance sheet.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

In response to that largely unfettered timber liquidation by private industry, I'm glad that the same thing doesn't happen on Federal land and that we have different mandates (often called red tape, laws, regulations).

As well as public comment. Not much of a comment period before they turn a piece of north idaho or coast range oregon private land into a moonscape.

 

[BuzzH]

As well as public comment. Not much of a comment period before they turn a piece of north idaho or coast range oregon private land into a moonscape.

Excellent point.

 

[WC53]

Utah has trees?

 

[Hunting Wife]

I'm sure it's an outlier, but the top TVA employee recently resigned after a limit was placed on the maximum pay. He wasn't the only one, but what sense does it make for many employees of the federal government to make more than the President?

Yes, this is a ridiculously skewed outlier. I’m continually baffled that people seem to think regular federal employees are making huge salaries.

President- $400K/yr
Cabinet officials (political appointees)- tops about $253K/yr
Senior Executive (“career” pay scale)- tops out around $209k-$228k/yr
General Schedule (and other similar schedules like Wage Grade, LE, etc) generally maxes out at GS-15, $183K/yr.

The vast, vast majority of people in the federal agency workforce are pay scale employees (GS or similar). Very few of those are GS-15. Most are somewhere in the GS 7-12 levels at land management agencies I’ve worked for. These are your boots-on-the-ground wildlife biologists, hydrologists, engineers, natural resource managers, etc. I imagine Forest Service is similar.

TVA is Excepted Service I believe, so is FDIC and a couple of others. They are not capped, but they are also not rank and file federal employees. They are typically appointed and do not get hired through competitive application to their position. They get paid “market rate”. Less than 10% of the workforce falls into that model, and it’s mostly attorneys, financial and banking jobs, things like that.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Yes, this is a ridiculously skewed outlier. I’m continually baffled that people seem to think regular federal employees are making huge salaries.

President- $400K/yr
Cabinet officials (political appointees)- tops about $253K/yr
Senior Executive (“career” pay scale)- tops out around $209k-$228k/yr
General Schedule (and other similar schedules like Wage Grade, LE, etc) generally maxes out at GS-15, $183K/yr.

The vast, vast majority of people in the federal agency workforce are pay scale employees (GS or similar). Very few of those are GS-15. Most are somewhere in the GS 7-12 levels at land management agencies I’ve worked for. These are your boots-on-the-ground wildlife biologists, hydrologists, engineers, natural resource managers, etc. I imagine Forest Service is similar.

TVA is Excepted Service I believe, so is FDIC and a couple of others. They are not capped, but they are also not rank and file federal employees. They are typically appointed and do not get hired through competitive application to their position. They get paid “market rate”. Less than 10% of the workforce falls into that model, and it’s mostly attorneys, financial and banking jobs, things like that.

And until recently most entry level positions were starting at GS5 or 6.

Seasonal techs are still hired as 4s. That's $15/ hr for a job that requires a bachelor's degree.

 

[sclancy27]

And until recently most entry level positions were starting at GS5 or 6.

Seasonal techs are still hired as 4s. That's $15/ hr for a job that requires a bachelor's degree.

View attachment 407469

GS-4 doesn't require a degree. GS-5 and above do.

Also, your chart doesn't include the "rest of US" price adjustment. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...es-wages/salary-tables/26Tables/html/RUS.aspx

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

GS-4 doesn't require a degree. GS-5 and above do.

Also, your chart doesn't include the "rest of US" price adjustment. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...es-wages/salary-tables/26Tables/html/RUS.aspx

Meh. May not be listed in the requirements, but it's essentially a de factor thing.

And even with the price adjustment, $40k for a hyper competitive position that requires a degree.

That would have been $10/ hr in 2000. Pay is shit.