Fiscal 2020 budget request reduces overall number of leave days for feds

The fiscal year 2020 budget request includes a proposal that would change how federal employees accrue and take paid time off, and would also reduce the overall number of leave days.

Currently, federal employees receive 10 paid holidays and up to 13 sick days annually, as well as 13 to 26 vacation days, depending on tenure.

The 2020 budget proposes to combine all forms of leave into a single “paid time off” category, similar to that of the private sector. The change would reduce the total number of leave days, but would add a short term disability insurance policy to protect employees.

“This budget proposes to transition the existing civilian leave system to a model used in the private sector to grant employees maximum flexibility…” the budget states.

Learn more.

Reader comments

Tue, Apr 23, 2019 mm

Venezuela quit investing in its infrastructure "because" of socialism. America has stopped investing in its infrastructure "because" of capitalism. The reasoning might be different but the results will be the same. A rich billionaire, cannot by definition, "invest" in a public works project such as government.

Tue, Apr 23, 2019

I really despise the way the GOP continues to compare the public and private sectors as though they should operate the same. This will really hit the leave donation as people who get sick and those who have chronic illnesses need more leave, it won't be there to donate because more people will need it and we will have less to donate. Its bad enough to lump the leave into 1 pot so we lose out, but its even worse to mess with benefits of those who have already retired. The public sector is not the private sector and should not have to be just like it. If they want to make improvements, it should be on the merits of the sector and stop comparing to the private sector.

Mon, Apr 22, 2019 appalled U.S.

Absurd to encourage a pay plan that increases the amount of "Term" positions (short-term employees)...then govt offices would have to absorb the hidden costs of constant turnover: retraining, gaps between leaving & refilling, expertise lost, and production loss from remaining employees having to spend more time doing hiring work instead of actual work. The current proposal mentions reducing the number of Leave days, but doesn't specify how much reduction. This could be a massive slash...and will definitely be a loss of retirement income for those who've worked hard at staying healthy & saving their sick leave for retirement income. Eliminating the Special Retirement Supplement is DETRIMENTAL to folks who are scheduled to retire in the near future. Special Retirement Supplement goes to Law Enforcement and Firefighters who are forced to retire after 20 years and are not allowed to work until the Social Security age of 62. SRS normally fills in the gap between the forced retirement (age 50 to 57) and their 62nd birthday. Many of us chose these high-risk dangerous careers because of the retirement benefit. To now deny us retirement income 'til 62--yet still FORCE us to retire in our 50's--is a travesty. Government will never be able to retain Law Enforcement/Firefighters when causing them such tremendous (years-worth of ) income loss. The combination of remaining proposals are hideous: --freezing your pay, --slowing down step increases, --reducing retirement pay by basing it on lower-paid years, --reducing the interest you make on your retirement investment (G-fund), --taking away cost-of-living increases for retired folks. These proposals are financially severe for current govt employees, and will cripple the government's production and performance, at every office.

Mon, Apr 15, 2019

I worked under a combined system in the past. you are penalized for using leave, and in the end, this system of combined leave is yet another way to take away benefits from hard working employees and put it in the bonus pockets of CEOs

Mon, Apr 15, 2019

The idea of running the Government like a private business, oh how novel. Fact: Private industry is all about making a buck. Considering the number of times "private, ergo the few" businesses have tanked the economy of our Country and the Government "the public aka the many" had to bail US out, business should be required to run more like the Government and provide valuable goods and services to the public instead of profits for the stock holders/management (the few). If the plan is to reduce federal employees benefits and use the "savings" to pay a private insurance company to provide a long term disability policy then it looks like some people are enriching themselves by redirecting government resources.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Contributors

Edward A. Zurndorfer Certified Financial Planner
Mike Causey Columnist
Tom Fox VP for Leadership and Innovation, Partnership for Public Service
Mathew B. Tully Legal Analyst

Free E-Newsletter

FederalDAILY

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.

Stay Connected

Latest Forum Posts

Ask the Expert

Have a question regarding your federal employee benefits or retirement?

Submit a question