How People Voted
 |
 |
49% For, 51% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 2780, To amend section 8339(p) of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the method for computing certain annuities under the Civil Service Retirement System which are based on part-time service, and for other purposes
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Comparing revision saved on June 30, 2007, 18:17:45 (webmaster), with revision saved on July 23, 2007, 18:48:10 (webmaster):
H.R. 2780 would amend section 8339(p) of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the method for computing certain annuities under the Civil Service Retirement System which are based on part-time service.
== Detailed Summary ==
<summary>
(Log inApplies provisions governing the computation of an annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) for a federal employee whose service includes service that was performed on a part-time basis to: (1) service performed before April 7, 1986, with respect to editbasing average pay on the wikibasic pay for full-time service; and be(2) service performed after such date with respect to calculating the firstbenefit by prorating total service to provide a detailed summaryreflect part-time service. Provides for the recomputation of an annuity for any individual who performed any service creditable under CSRS (or under the bill!)Federal Employees Retirement System, to the extent of any portion of such annuity which is computed under CSRS) before such date and who was separated from the service on or after such date and before the enactment of this Act. Directs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to inform individuals entitled to have an annuity recomputed under this Act.
</summary>
<!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Status of the Legislation ==
<status>
Latest Major Action: 6/28/2007: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia.
</status>
<!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Points in Favor ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
== Points Against ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Kathy Smith
March 19, 2008, 8:56pm (report abuse)Very few employees knew how being on a part-time schedule would effect their retirement calculation when they retired. I was part-time for 9 years after 1986. Once it was explained how it affected my retirement, I immediately went full-time. The damage was done at that point.
Walter Rapka Jr
May 11, 2008, 11:11am (report abuse)This bill will save the Federal Government money in the long run when it comes to BRAC and training replacement people. This will reduce PCS costs for the government and reduce the emotional impact of not having to move during the last 3 years of CSRS service. The quick passage of this bill will save millions in training costs and improve the performance of future govenment employees.
Ed Katz
June 17, 2008, 1:30pm (report abuse)CSRS is based on "high 3" and length of service. If this bill passes does it mean that the length of service will reflect part-time BUT the average pay will be AS IF the work was full-time??
Is this correct?