 Compensation Cats DO MATH |
We have done the math. We have come to the conclusion that it is better to have 100% pay with increases in pay along with COLA or CPI. and pay taxes and be uninjuredthan to be injured at work and have 75% pay with no chance for an increase in pay have to depend on Cola or CPI to keep up with expenses . |
IT HURTS A LOT LESS TOO
The proposal that 3000 injured federal employees over the age of 65 have compensation pay for work related injuries removed and replaced by retirement benefits is a key goal of Senate Bill 261 The Federal employees Compensation Reform Act of 2011 proposed by Susan Collins.
According to Senator Collins 2000 of the injured federal employees over 65 collecting federal workers’ compensation were formerly employed by the post office. If all 2000 were removed from OWCP rolls it would have no effect on the government budget, not only because of the small number involved as it is for the other 1000, but also because the Post Office, which is not supported by taxes, reimburses OWCP for payments made to injured postal employees plus an administration fee.
1.8% of the Federal and Post Office payrolls costs provided by the Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation compares favorably to to 2,3% for private insurance and state funds. Overhead for the Division of federal Employees’ Compensation is 4% of benefits. If the 3000 older injured employees were removed from OWCP rolls it would have no noticeable reduction on the 1,8% of the Federal and Post Office payroll compensation costs or on the national budget deficits. What it would have a immediate negative impact on is the 3000 older injured workers she has targeted for a substantial reduction in income as they have no way to make up for this loss except partially through food banks, state sponsored health care, food stamps, housing assistance as well as other programs which may be supported by state or federal taxes.
The circumstances of the 3000 injured federal employees over 65 will be different depending on several factors such as what pay their OWCP Compensation is based on, the income of their mate which is likely Social Security payments or if the person receiving Compensation is single.
Even though it is touted as an extra benefit that OWCP compensation isn’t taxed it hasn’t been proved that income from OWCP payments by those over 65 years are high enough to be taxable even if combined with income of a mate.
Would Susan Collins if injured at work be satisfied with 50% of her pay when she reached 65 if her pay was based on, not what a senator gets, but on what a postal clerk got years before?
Consider this example:
A male postal clerk was hired at 18 years of age in 1962. Seven years later in 1969 at the age of 25 when his yearly salary was $8,442.00, he suffered a work related injury. His employment with the post office was ended because the Postmaster refused to, or was unable to, provide work within his physical limitations. No offer was made to retrain him for other employment that could be done within his physical limitations.
After his claim was accepted as work related, because he was married, his compensation was based on 75% of $8,442.00 which was his yearly salary before injury. Every four weeks for 13 weeks he received $487.00 which totaled $6,331.00 for his first year on compensation.
He now would need to depend on yearly cost of living or CPI increases based on his meager income to meet increased costs in housing, health insurance, utilities, transportation and clothing .
Because he had at least 5 years employment with the post office he would be eligible to apply for Disability Retirement under the Civil Servants Retirement System ( CSRS ) if done within one year of being separated from the post office..His income would be based on 40% of his high three.
Using the pay he received for 1969 of $8442.00 as a base for Disability Retirement he would receive $281.33 a month or $3376.00 a year which is $2959.00 less than the compensation he received in the first year .There will be no increase in his income through step or negotiated wage increases .There will only be COLA or CPI added to his income on a yearly basis.
All future income would be based on what he had earned in 1969.
He was also eligible to apply for Disability Retirement and although he applied for and was approved for Disability Retirement he choose to receive Federal Workers Compensation in lieu of Disability Retirement because Workers’ Compensation while still $2111.00 less than the income he would have had, had he been able to work was $2959.00 more than CSRS payments for a year.
However if Susan Collins’s Bill S261 for F.E.C.A. to remove older injured workers from federal compensation rolls were passed he would have been better off if he had worked less than 5 years for the Post Office because then, not being eligible for CSRS retirement he could NOT be forced to retire.
It appears that he could not be removed from receiving compensation from OWCP as his income would drop to ZERO.
A website to verify time of employment to qualify for CSRS (5 years) and FERS (18 months) along with other general information regarding Disability Retirement is provided in the website below.
http://federaldisabilitylawyer.com/frequently-asked-questions.html
To summarize:
An injured federal worker’s compensation,while better than what he would receive under an individual state system, still entails a minimum of 25% loss of income as well as loss of future wage increases and a loss in retirement pay based on wage and step increases as well as amount of years work.
While on compensation this same clerk didn’t receive 14.39% on $8442. in 1970 for an increase of $1215.00 to equal $9657.00 for that year.
. Instead he received on $6311.00 a cost of living increase of approx. $330.00. So one year into receiving compensation that clerk has already had{ $9657-6641) $3016.00 less in income than if he had continued working.
And that’s for starters.