knew we would be pleased that we were not throwing these folks to the wolves. Maybe a solution now is to open up-maybe now that we have a piece of Pitney Bowes, their system for all of us. Well, anyway, thank you very much. Mr. FAULKNER. And we will submit it for the record. [The information follows:] Π After further review of the CRS comparison of the benefits packages for House employees affected by the outsourcing effort of the House Postal Operations, I requested that CRS re-examine and clarify information on the benefit package offered by the House specifically and not the federal government as an whole. This was done in order to more closely compare the two packages and provide the most accurate information possible. The attached document is an updated version issued by CRS. As a reminder, this documentation is procurement sensitive. TIME SENSITIVITY This is information provided at the request of the Committee staff. STAFF CONTACT Philip G. Kiko, Associate Administrator, Procurement and Purchasing, x52921 CRS Congressional Research Service. Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20540 This memorandum is in regard to your request of December 4, 1995, for a comparison of the benefit package offered to employees of Pitney Bowes Management Services with the benefits available to Federal employees. House postal employees are expected to be "privatized" and covered under the benefit package of the vendor selected. Consideration is being given to providing pension benefits to congressional employees on the same, lower basis as other Federal employees. It was therefore agreed that the table below should reflect the benefit package offered to executive branch employees. Moreover, the comparison is limited to Federal employees covered under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) because the majority of the postal employees affected are currently under that retirement system. In comparing the benefit package, it is important to remember that the information included in the following table is only a general description. The cost of each benefit to the employer and the value of the benefits to the employees will differ. According to Pitney Bowes, the total cost of their employee benefit package is 32.4% of payroll (see enclosure). A comparable figure is not readily available for Federal benefits. However, the Government's share of the cost of FERS retirement benefits alone (excluding Social Security) is from 12.4% of payroll to 16.4% of payroll (depending on the worker's voluntary contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan and the Government matching funds those contributions require). If you would like more detail on any particular item, or if we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. We can be reached at extension 7-5885. |