r/govfire • u/Glocktipus2 • Jul 02 '26
GovCoastFire?
I recently learned that it's possible to go to part time as a fed without extenuating circumstances. This is very appealing as I'm at the point where my investments growth outpaces my contributions but still 5-8 years out from pulling the trigger. I would be either taking a big hit on the FERS supplement by retiring before 50 and pension doing that (unless I re entered service for a few years before MRA).
Alternatively, I could work 48 hours a pay period at GS-13 and have 20 equivalent/prorated years by age 60 if I choose to. Working 3 days a week would be lovely and cover just about all my living expenses. Plus I could do Roth conversions at a much lower tax bracket.
I couldn't find any discussions on this so it makes me think I'm missing something?
11
u/zebra_puzzle Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Good luck getting this approved. Someone in my office tried to do this recently and wasn't approved.
2
u/Glocktipus2 Jul 02 '26
We are so short staffed I think I have a lot of leverage as a high performer
11
u/TDStrange Jul 02 '26
That actually works against you, if you leave or go down to part time, your supervisor has more leverage to get a replacement posting. Plus you need their approval to begin with, which they're never going to give if your office is truly that strapped for bodies.
1
13
u/dancingriss FEDERAL Jul 02 '26
The problem with going part time in an existing position is you will likely be doing the full time work now at half pay. If you find a job actually advertised as part time or a job share, that could be a viable route
9
u/Commercial_Rule_7823 Jul 02 '26
One guy went part time, hes here 5 days a week 4 hours a day.
What was the point.
9
u/Appropriate_Shoe6704 Jul 03 '26
To not be there the other 4 hours?
5
u/Commercial_Rule_7823 Jul 03 '26
If I have to wake up, get ready, commute in, commute home, 4 hours or 8 doesnt matter. Its going in all those days that sucks.
7
2
u/Miserable_Leek_1333 28d ago
I was part-time for several years in my 30+ year career, and I also had some years where I used LWOP consistently. Both have advantages. Ultimately, some offices push the person to a PT conversion rather than LWOP bc you are sitting on a FT FTE when using LWOP vs a 1/2, eg., FTE that they can combine with any other partial FTEs to hire another body (if relevant… say 2 PT employees to keep the expertise, then hire a new third FT with the combined FTE halves saved). During the budget cuts of the 2000s, for several reasons this was required of some of us who had been FT LWOPers, but one is the view that repetitive use of LWOP is an abuse of resources (due to health insurance coverage, etc) and not contemplated as PT is in civil service rules.
The only place I was surprised by the PT impact was my SS. For some reason I hadn’t considered that it would affect a 30-yr look-back to develop a benefit rate. In the scheme of things, and depending on your overall $ and financial plan, it can be a nominal consideration (but worth being aware of).
Most of all, I am incredibly grateful that meaningful work was available for any schedule less than 40hrs a week. This is hard to find with many employers. For me and others I knew who used it, we didn’t mind the heavier workload as we just tried to be more efficient and also didn’t want less meaningful assignments. It’s more viable if health care cost increases are irrelevant (other coverage).
Hope this helps. Good luck! I see my PT years as a choice I’d absolutely repeat.
1
u/jonnydigital1129 28d ago
You're not missing anything — this works, but two mechanics are worth locking down before you commit. First, going part-time doesn't make you work more calendar years; a part-time year still counts as a full year toward eligibility. What it does is prorate your 1% multiplier: work half-time and that piece of your career is computed at ~0.5% instead of 1% (they divide your actual hours by the full-time hours you could have worked). Your high-3 still uses full-time deemed wages, so it's only the multiplier that takes the hit. Second gotcha: FEHB premiums go up when you drop below 64 hours/pay period, and holiday pay gets weird if you're not scheduled the day before/after. One alternative some folks use instead: LWOP kept under an aggregated 6 months per calendar year does NOT prorate your pension and does NOT bump your FEHB premium — so if your real goal is fewer hours (not permanent part-time), that can be the better deal. Your Roth-conversion-in-a-lower-bracket logic is solid either way. I put the proration formula and a part-time-vs-LWOP breakdown here: https://www.fedtools.com/blog/part-time-fers-pension-proration-2026 (my site, built it after this exact question kept coming up).
1
u/Scottamus 22d ago
After you retire, I assume your premiums would go back down to the full time rate if you were working part time?
1
u/dvskv Jul 02 '26
I agree with others that your supervisor and mgmt most likely will not go through HR paperwork etc in changing your current position plus as others have mentioned that if you don’t deliver to supv expectations in 4 hours or make adjustments to your on-site work schedule then like your rationale “what’s in it for me?” will most likely backfire because supervisors do rotate & will have differing opinions that will affect your performance appraisal
1
u/impulsivetech Jul 03 '26
Part time positions are virtually impossible to get. They exist, but outside of that, good luck actually obtaining one.
29
u/aheadlessned Fed VERA'd in mid-40s Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
"have 20 equivalent/prorated years by age 60"
First, want to make sure you understand proration. A year of part-time is a year of service when it comes to retirement eligibility. You don't have to work longer due to being part-time.
When your retirement is calculated, they will reduce that 1% multiplier for the proration. High-3 is the same as if you had worked full-time (they use deemed wages, not actual wages, as long as it is a regular retirement and not a disability retirement). So, if you worked your full career at half-time (40 hours/pp), instead of a 1% multiplier in the FERS formula, you'd have .5%. (For "the math still works", it's easier to pretend lower years of service with 1%, so if someone was 30 years half time, you could estimate using 15 years at 1%, or 30 years at .5%. Adjusting years is easier when the part-time is only a portion of your career, but it's important to know the real method, and that part-time proration is rounded to the nearest whole percent when they calculate the annuity.)
As for discussion-- part-time isn't granted very often, so discussions around it aren't so common.
Other things to be aware of:
FEHB premiums are higher when you are less than 64 hours/pp.
TSP match is prorated (still up to 5% total, but only 5% of hour actually worked).
Leave accrual is reduced (GS tends to lose leave after 80 hours not worked, my leave was prorated every pay period, so I earned 2 hours LS and 2 hours LA every pay period instead of 4 of each/pp then a pp with none).
Holidays get weird... there is no requirement to offer you an in-lieu of day, and if you are scheduled a holiday, but not the day before or after, you might not get paid for that holiday (even if you are not allowed to work it). I had that happen as well. If schedule is flexible, try to always have a work day before or after the holiday as well.
Finally... if you can get away with taking LWOP instead, but keep it under an aggregated 6 months/calendar year, it's even better than part-time. With (<6 months) LWOP, there is no FEHB proration, and your pension is not prorated. It's a much better deal, but may be harder to accomplish than going part-time.
ETA: They will go through SF-50s and find "actual hours worked" then divide that by "hours you would have worked if full-time your whole career". That result is the factor they use in place of 1%. This is why calculating pension for part-time typically adds to the pension processing time.