🚀 go-pugleaf

I included the below just because I think it is interesting. I do not work for Lewis so I really don't know what to make of these numbers. Good luck getting a contractor to post corresponding numbers. I can say that most everyone
I work with would be making some 45-50% better at NASA if they got the
average pay listed. But that really is missing the point. The real issue
is how squashing the market for talent is effecting the space industry. 
Some automatically conclude that by definition a government program cannot
hire and keep the best and brightest Americans. IMHO NASA seems to 
be living that out in microcosm. What used to be an aggressive organization
that saw no technological limits to their vision is rapidly becoming
a weighted bureaucracy. Someone posted something tho the effect that this
happens in all organizations. That eventually alot of dead weight accumulates
whether it be a government agency or not. At some point those who work hard
get all the work and those who don't get paid for sitting around. 
I think I can testify that at this company if you don't work you get laid off.
No foolin. Maybe most companies allow dead wood to hang around but not this one. Most people here put in 60-70 hours a week. Some even more.
But alot of these people are very talented and they will not hang around
forever. If things do not change then they will leave. If the recent
government shut down had gone on for very long the consequences
to the space program would have been dire.

In article <48e896$87e@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, allenk3965@aol.com (AllenK3965) writes:
|> To All:
|> 
|> In recent weeks, there has appeared, in this and some related
|> newsgroups, a debate relative to U.S. Government civil servant
|> salaries compared to contractor, or private sector salaries.  Many of
|> the postings on this topic have been anecdotal, with very little real
|> value in addressing the question of Civil Servant vs. Private Sector
|> pay, in the aerospace business.
|> 
|> I have some data taken from two publications available at the NASA
|> Lewis Research Center which does provide specific information on
|> Civil Servant Salaries. I am posting this information not to get
|> involved in that debate, but to present some actual data for those
|> who are involved in the debate to, as the saying goes "hang their
|> hats on."
|> 
|> For FY 94, the data is "hard" data.  I.e., no assumptions on my part
|> were required. The only qualification is that the data are for the
|> Fiscal Year 1994 (10/01/93-9/30/94).  The data are taken from a
|> presentation entitled "Civil Service Workforce at Lewis Research
|> Center, Fiscal Year 1994." I am writing this on my word processor and
|> am trying to format it so it is as readable as possible. If the
|> formatting gets trashed during posting, my apologies in advance.
|> 
|> 
|>                         SALARY DATA (FY 1994)
|>                         =====================
|> 
|>                                              AVERAGE ANNUAL
|> JOB CATEGORY               NO. OF EMPLOYEES      SALARY
|> ------------------------------------------------------
|> Scientists/Engineers           1437             $62,678
|> Administrative Professionals    309              49,962
|> Technicians                     314              45,773
|> Wage Grade                      262              38,025
|> Clerical                        205              26,920
|> 
|> Total Workforce                2527              53,566
|> 
|> 
|> EDUCATION BY JOB CATEGORY
|> =============================
|>                                                  % OF JOB
|> JOB CATEGORY                NO. OF EMPLOYEES     CATEGORY
|> ---------------------------------------------------------
|> Scientist/Engineers
|>      Doctorate                  236                16.4%
|>      Master's                   478                33.3
|>      Bachelor's                 723                50.3
|>      Other (Associate,            0                 0
|>        High School, etc)
|> ........................................................
|> Administrative Professionals
|>      Doctorate                    6                 1.9%
|>      Master's                    60                19.4
|>      Bachelor's                 133                43.0
|>      Other (Associate,          110                35.6
|>        High School, etc)
|> ......................................................
|> Technicians
|>      Doctorate                   0                  0 %
|>      Master's                    0                  0
|>      Bachelor's                 11                3.5
|>      Other (Associate,         303               96.5
|>        High School, etc)
|> .....................................................
|> Wage Grade*
|>      Doctorate                   0                  0 %
|>      Master's                    0                  0
|>      Bachelor's                  8                3.1
|>      Other (Associate,         254               96.9
|>        High School, etc)
|> ........................................................
|> Clerical
|>      Doctorate                   0                 0  %
|>      Master's                    1                 0.5
|>      Bachelor's                  4                 2.0
|>      Other (Associate,         200                97.5
|>        High School, etc)
|> .......................................................
|> Total Workforce
|>      Doctorate                 242                 9.6%
|>      Master's                  539                21.3
|>      Bachelor's                878                34.7
|>      Other (Associate,         868                34.4
|>        High School, etc)
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> *I believe that individuals paid under the Wage Grade Schedule (WS)
|>  are primarily skilled mechanics, electricians, machinists,
|>  carpenters, and other craftsman.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|>                        FISCAL YEAR 1995
|> 
|> The corresponding data for FY 1995 is not available (to me, at any
|> rate). However, with a fair amount of arithmetic, and one assumption,
|> approximate overall data on salaries for civil servants at Lewis
|> Research Center can be derived from a Lewis Publication (available to
|> all employees at Lewis) entitled "Lewis Research Center: Equal
|> Opportunity and Diversity Management and FY96 Affirmative Employment
|> Program Plan"
|> 
|> The data in that publication are broken up by Pay Grade and further
|> subdivided into a variety of cultural diversity/equal opportunity
|> employment groups. I am presenting the properly weighted averages
|> from this publication. It is NOT the intent of this posting to
|> initiate a debate on affirmative action/multicultural diversity, etc,
|> and I will not post the breakdown of these figures.
|> 
|> The Job Categories in this publication are broken down somewhat
|> differently than above. There are only two categories which contain
|> pay grade information: Professional and Administrative. Furthermore,
|> the information is only presented for pay Grades 12-15, and the SES
|> (Senior Executive Service).  I do not know what constitutes
|> "Professional", but assume it includes individuals with earned
|> degrees in the sciences, engineering, mathematics, and law. To my
|> knowledge there are very few, if any, Medical Professionals at LeRC.
|> Our Medical Services organization is a contractor operation.
|> 
|> Finally, I had to make one important assumption: that the average
|> individual in any given Pay Grade Level is at step 5 (out of 10)
|> within that grade.
|> 
|> For Fiscal year 1995, then the figures are:
|> 
|> No. of Civil Servant  "Professionals" :   1320
|> Average Salary:                        $60,382
|> 
|> 
|> A couple of observations and this posting will, for those who have
|> read this far, mercifully end.
|> 
|> 1. There was a statutory 4.3 % pay increase between 1994 and 1995 for
|>    civil servants in the General Schedule at Lewis.  This consisted
|>    of an annual nationwide "pay comparability" increase of about
|>    3.7 % (erroneously called by many a COLA, which it most assuredly
|>    is NOT), and an additional amount based on variations of changes
|>    in the cost of living from one locality to another.  This was
|>    about 0.6% for Cleveland. For Houston it was about 4.8%; for
|>    Huntsville about 0.7%; for the Bay Area (NASA Ames); about 4.4%,
|>    for Washington, D.C. about 1.8%.
|> 
|> 2. I believe that the "apparent decrease" in average Civil Servant
|>    salary between 1994 and 1995 at LeRC is due to a number of
|>    factors.  The weighted average I computed for 1995 did not include
|>    SES personnel, the numbers for 1994 do. These are principally
|>    Senior Level Managers, and SES pay varies between $92,900 and
|>    $115,700.  Also, there was a relatively large exodus (about 400
|>    people, I believe) during the "buyouts" in the last year or so.
|>    Those taking the buyout were for the most individuals with 30 or
|>    more years of service, and would necessarily have been at the
|>    higher pay grades, on average.
|> 
|> 3. I believe that the two figures above, for 1994, and 1995, are
|>    representative of all the NASA Field Centers (after accounting for
|>    the locality pay differentials).  I have no reason to believe that
|>    the job, skill, and education mix would be much different from one
|>    center to the next. It is probably an understatement of the
|>    average Civil Servant salary at NASA HQ, however, because of the
|>    relatively large number of senior agency managers there.
|> 
|> 4. If I have offended any particular group of workers or profession
|>    at Lewis by failing to mention them, or providing incorrect
|>    information, then I apologize in advance. My phone number is in
|>    the LeRC Directory. I have a thick skin.
|> 
|> 
|> It would be interesting to have similar information posted from any
|> of the contractor organizations supporting the respective NASA
|> Centers, if it is available.
|> 
|> 
|>     Allen K.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> =========================
|> Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
|> =========================