LIUNA Local 1776 News Feed

Disturbing Allegations at SC Army National Guard AASF #1

Tue, 26 Aug 2025 03:33:31 GMT

Mismanagement, Employee Mistreatment, Violations of Aviation Maintenance Protocols, and Safety Concerns Plague Once Top Apache Facility

Local 1776 Calls for Urgent Investigation Following Preliminary Report on Allegations at Army Aviation Support Facility #1

Columbia, SC – August 25, 2025 – Union Local 1776, representing federal employees of the South Carolina Army National Guard (SCARNG), today released a preliminary report of investigation based on statements from current and former workers at Army Aviation Support Facility #1 (AASF #1), located at McEntire Joint National Guard Base. The report compiles concerns regarding workplace misconduct, including employee mistreatment, violations of aviation maintenance standards, and safety hazards. These allegations remain unsubstantiated and are derived solely from witness statements provided to the Union; they necessitate a comprehensive inquiry by SCARNG to establish facts and ensure accountability.

Investigation Raises Serious Concerns

The preliminary findings outline potential issues such as harassment through arbitrary leave denials, schedule disruptions, and retaliatory actions that allegedly fostered a hostile environment and prompted resignations. Concerns also extend to maintenance practices, where workers reported pressure to bypass technical manuals, resulting in risks to aircraft integrity. Safety allegations include exposure to hazardous weather conditions and insufficient protective equipment, potentially endangering personnel.

The current state of affairs at AASF #1 is particularly disappointing, as this facility was once regarded as perhaps the best in the entire Army National Guard, if not the US Army. In fact, LIUNA Local 1776 Business Manager Ben Banchs, in collaboration with then AASF 1 Commander COL James Fidler, highlighted this facility and its supported military unit, the 1-151st Attack Reconnaissance Battalion (ARB), during his testimony before the National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA) in support of the argument that the US Army should not take AH-64 Apache aircraft away from the National Guard. Banchs, extremely familiar with the facility and personnel in question, emphasized in his 2015 testimony how the Guard's aviation units exemplify efficiency and readiness. He argued that removing assets like the Apache from the Guard would reverse decades of progress under the Total Force Policy, underscoring the Guard's proven excellence.

Union Local 1776 emphasizes that these claims, if verified, may infringe upon federal laws protecting against prohibited personnel practices and disability accommodations, as well as Army regulations on fair treatment, maintenance protocols, and safety. As a union committed to safeguarding members' rights, we urge SCARNG to initiate an impartial investigation promptly, incorporating witness interviews, record reviews, and command assessments. Interim steps, such as enhanced training and temporary reassignments, are essential to protect employees during this process.

"The safety and dignity of our members must be paramount," stated a Union Local 1776 representative. "We stand ready to collaborate with SCARNG to address these serious allegations and uphold standards of professionalism and compliance." The Union's goal is to help the SCARNG identify the issues, resolve them, and restore this facility to its rightful standing.

Underlying Pay Issues

In addition to the concerns outlined in the investigation, one unresolved matter merits attention: substandard compensation, which has exacerbated existing tensions within the facility. Maintenance technicians were effectively assured a pay increase by leadership for at least two years, yet this has not materialized. The Union offered assistance, but according to a maintenance officer, facility leadership was instructed to exclude the Union from the process, proceeding independently. This decision overlooked valuable expertise, as the Union's Business Manager is a recognized authority on Special Rates. Meanwhile, pilots have received salary enhancements in recent years, while maintenance personnel continue to receive wages that fall below those in comparable private-sector roles, such as positions with defense contractors and local automotive manufacturers.

False Statements by Management Representatives

The investigation stemmed from a Union request posted on Facebook, inviting employees to submit concerns directly, following a surge of complaints over a short period. In response, at least two supervisors convened impromptu meetings and "sensing sessions" to ostensibly address employee issues, which may have been intended to alter perceptions or discourage submissions to the Union.

During one such session, a supervisor reportedly made inaccurate assertions, including the claim that a recently resigned employee left to avoid termination for misconduct. In reality, the employee departed after raising safety concerns and facing alleged retaliation. The supervisor also stated that all personnel actions are coordinated with Labor Relations and the Union—a claim that does not align with standard procedures. Furthermore, the supervisor asserted personal involvement in assembling a pay increase packet with Union input. This is incorrect; while the Union reviewed a draft, its recommendations were apparently disregarded. More critically, even a completed packet would require approval from senior SCARNG leadership to allocate funding, which has not occurred to our knowledge.

Advisory to Employees

We advise employees to approach statements from certain management officials and supervisors with caution. Should any individual experience retaliation related to this investigation, please contact the Union immediately for support.

Report of Investigation (ROI) - SCARNG AASF1

DoD's Plan to Terminate 60k Employees is Slap in the Face to Veterans

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:50:03 GMT

Bullsh*t Meets Reality

By Ben Banchs | Business Manager | LIUNA Local 1776

February 22, 2025

Mandeville, LA - Based on the most current numbers available, Veterans make up a very large portion of the Department of Defense (DoD) workforce. According to the latest data, the Air Force has the most with 57% of its civilian employees claiming Veteran status. The Army comes in second with around 50%. Navy boasts 41%, and other DoD components have around 37%.

The cuts announced this week will result in tens of thousands of Veterans being kicked to the street jobless. This is the opposite of what we, as a society, are supposed to be doing, which is taking care of Veterans. This is also further evidence that the cuts being enacted by Trump and his sidekick Musk are being made without any consideration on the impact it will have on employees and their families or whether they are even needed.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the employees losing their jobs are not faceless assholes. The arbitrary cuts are having real effects on American families, especially Veterans. They are your neighbors, friends, and family members. It also shows a disconnect between what Trump claims to be and what he really is. Does he really care for our men and women in the military? Does he really care for Veterans and their families? What does it say that in the next month or so, nearly 30,000 Veterans will be jobless, just in DoD alone. When you take into account the rest of the federal workforce, the total number of Veterans that will eventually lose their jobs will be closer to 100,000 and possibly more.

For some, it’s been pretty clear how Trump feels about Veterans. He says he’s all about taking care of and honoring Veterans, but he’s also faced criticism for disparaging the service of those that disagreed and challenged him in the past, most famously, John McCain. However, even if you believe Trump does care for Veterans, taking away their paychecks and making them financially unstable as inflation keeps making everything more expensive surely doesn’t feel like the kind of support Veterans and their families need at this moment. There’s an old cliche, don’t piss on my back and tell me it’s raining. To the Veterans that are about to get their walking papers, it’s pretty clear, those aren’t rain drops.

X (Twitter): https://x.com/LIUNA_Local1776/status/1893337477454205398

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15ECuWZ7g9/

Did You Know...Veterans Make Up 1/3 of the Federal Workforce

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:09:10 GMT

Purge of Federal Workforce Impacts Veterans Disproportionately

By Ben Banchs | Business Manager | LIUNA Local 1776

February 13, 2025

Mandeville, LA - Before we get into the whole Veteran topic let's just say it...many of the things the Trump administration is currently doing should not come as a surprise to anyone. He told us exactly what he was going to do. However, the "Fork in the Road" offer that seeks to gut the federal workforce was not one of them. Right after the "fork you" email offer came out, most people ran to their respective corner of the political boxing ring. Many Trump supporters screamed "hell yeah" in response to the cuts while opponents stood mouth agape in disbelief and loudly voicing opposition. But who's correct? The reality is both sides are. The federal government could probably use a little trimming, but the way that Trump and his acolyte Musk are going about it is unnecessarily chaotic, illegal, and to some extent disconnected from reality.

This is not the first time that a massive adjustment of the federal civil service workforce has taken place. Bill Clinton took an ax to the federal workforce back in the early 90's when he came to office in an effort to streamline the workforce and reduce the deficit. At the time, the federal workforce was around 2.1 million employees-strong, not much different than today. By the time it was all said and done, he reduced it by 273,000 (13%), which is significant. The majority of reductions came from the Department of Defense (DoD), the Veterans Administration (VA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and Health and Human Services (HHS).

Here's the difference, Clinton's reduction efforts came as a result of a bi-partisan act passed by Congress called the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994. In other words, legislation was proposed and both the House and Senate deliberated on the measure, which eventually cleared both chambers and was sent to Clinton and then signed into law. The Act also spelled out in detail how the reductions were going to be enacted, primarily through attrition (abolishing certain positions as incumbents left the workforce) and early retirement buyouts under the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP) program. In other words, the Clinton administration had legal standing to reduce the work force, and it also had bi-partisan Congressional support. That's not to say there wasn't opposition to the job cuts, but at least it was a deliberate process.

The way Trump and Musk are going about it is not only illegal, but also ridiculous. More importantly, if the Trump administration fails to follow federal law and regulation when it comes to reducing the work force, there will likely be thousands of appeals and lawsuits filed by federal employees who were dismissed without being provided due process, eventually resulting in potential reinstatements and back-pay settlements as well as legal fees to attorneys representing these employees, which in the end would negate any cost savings that would have resulted from reducing the workforce. This is because the federal government isn't Twitter, as much as Musk and others want to act like it is.

Aside from the chaos and partisan politics that are plaguing the current "fork you" offer, here's the problem I and others have with all of this. Because this has become such a hot button political topic, and because many Trump supporters, including Republican politicians, follow him blindly never daring to question what he's doing, there's a disturbing trend taking place where every federal employee is being labeled...pardon my French...as a lazy sack of shit moocher, feet propped up on their desk or sitting at home in their jammies eating Bon-Bons, suckling tax dollars from the government teet and offering absolutely nothing in return. Well, that's just bullshit. Are there folks like this in the workforce? Of course, there's people like this in every sector, whether they work for the government or at Twitter or at Trump Tower or at McDonalds. Lazy employees don't only work for the federal government, but to the extent that they do then they should be shown the door, I don't have a problem with that. In reality, the vast majority of federal employees do their job and do it well, and the vast majority provide necessary services, like Air Traffic Controllers, or National Guard Dual Status Technicians.

Now, regarding Veterans...before Trump ran the first time in 2016, there was one area where most could agree, and that was Veterans. To some extent, most still agree that Veterans should be respected and honored for their service. Great, I can get on board with that. I'm a Veteran, and like me, most are ok with just flying under the radar, and if someone thanks me for my service to this great country, I always say that it was my privilege to serve. Here's the point, a full 30%-plus of the federal civil service workforce is made up of military Veterans. I just ask that you think about that next time you hear anyone, whether it be Trump or a friend or neighbor or Musk, shit on federal employes. Remember, 1 out of every 3 feds are those same Veterans you claim to support. And, regardless of whether they are Veterans or not, before you go full "all federal employees suck" remember that they are no different than you or me. They are your neighbors, and they have husbands, wives, children, a mortgage, bills, they get sick, their cars break down just like yours does, they're paying the same for eggs as you are, they are not faceless assholes stealing your tax dollars. And, also, many of them are the ones that stay behind and run towards the hurricane, fire, flood, whatever other disaster plagues your community when you are running away from it.

Remember Hurricane Katrina? Yeah, that one. While the majority of SE Louisiana was running away from the storm, it was federal employees like me and thousands of others, the majority of us Veterans, that were wadding through water up to our necks saving those that stayed behind, or dangling from helicopters picking people off of roofs, or making sure people had food/water/ice, doing whatever we could to secure our towns and make sure the city of New Orleans and its surrounding areas wouldn't devolved any further into something that resembled a war zone more than it did a city in the United States. And, yes, it was guys and gals like me that for months picked up the remains of nearly 2000 of our fellow citizens that perished in the storm.

So, my advice is that you think before you go around parroting talking points that are, essentially, bullshit. Not every federal employee is a slacker. I personally know thousands of federal employees that work for the National Guard throughout the country, many of them good friends to the point that I consider them family. 90% or more are Veterans. Many of them are not just good at what they do, they are some of the best people you could ever know. And there are legit heroes among them. Some of these folks have served in combat not once but multiple times in the last 20 years, some almost dying because they were hit by an IED or received mortar fire or because they were trying to rescue a hurricane victim in Louisiana or a fire victim in California. I implore you and anyone else who reads this, don't be an asshole. It's time to start taking politics out of the equation. I'll agree with you that we could probably use a few reductions in the federal workforce if you agree not to paint everyone that works for the government with the same broad political brush, and also, that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things, and this "fork you" email is not the right way to do it.

(Most) Management Doesn't Care About You...

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Sat, 25 Jan 2025 00:30:47 GMT

...and they don't even try to hide it

Yes, it's true. Call me cynical, negative, full of crap, whatever you like, it still won't change the fact that I'm right. You could even say that I need it to be this way, otherwise I wouldn't have a job, and you would also be 100% correct. Truth of the matter is that in a perfect world I wish I was wrong, but the reality is that management can't help itself and as long as people are in charge of others then people like me will be here because management doesn't care about you, they only care about themselves. Hear me out.

You may be wondering, man why so negative? No reason, really, other than people in charge trying to screw other people over. The summer time always heats up. For whatever reason, the cycle repeats itself every year. Right around the end of spring - begining of summer we start getting bombarded with request for help from employees.

LIUNA Local 1776 Business Manager Ben Banchs Joins America's Daily Union Podcast

Thu, 14 Apr 2022 23:12:31 GMT

Local Seeks to Amend National Guard Requirement for Some Civil Workers

Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA) Local 1776 Business Manager and Secretary-Treasurer Ben Banchs joined the America’s Work Force Union Podcast and discussed Dual Status Technicians — a class of civil employees required to maintain military membership in the National Guard as a condition of their civilian employment — and why this status should be changed to a Title 5 federal employee in order to safeguard workers’ rights.

Local 1776 represents federal employees of the National Guard in 10 states and the territory of Guam.

There are about 30,000 Dual Status Technicians in the federal government. Banchs explained the problem these individuals face is the potential loss of military employment. If they were to leave the National Guard, they would also lose their civilian position. For instance, if a person 60 years old is forced out of the military and does not have enough years on the job to qualify for retirement, they will not be able to keep their full-time government position because it depends on their military status. Local 1776 is pushing the federal government to get rid of Dual Status requirements and simply consider these employees regular federal civil servants, he said.

Banchs also talked about what it was like serving a union of federal public service employees during the Trump administration. During his presidency, Trump issued three executive orders, which Banchs described as horrible for federal unions. These orders renegotiated Collective Bargaining Agreements, hamstrung a unions’ ability to represent workers and encouraged federal agencies to abandon fairness concepts.

It was an indication federal bargaining rights are particularly flimsy and can be changed with the stroke of a pen, Banchs said. He hopes President Biden is able to implement rules to protect federal bargaining rights from future anti-union onslaughts.

Listen to the entire episode to learn more about these topics:

GovExec: Appeals Court Reinstates Biden's Vaccine Mandate for Federal Employees

Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:45:21 GMT

Agencies will soon be able to start punishing unvaccinated workers

ERIC KATZ

Senior Correspondent

APRIL 7, 2022 08:04 PM ET

A federal appeals court has reinstated President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for the federal workforce, overturning a lower court’s nationwide pause that had been in effect since January.

The plaintiffs who brought their suit over Biden’s executive order did not have standing in the federal circuit, a panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in a 2-1 opinion Thursday evening, and instead must pursue their appeals through the Merit Systems Protection Board or Office of Special Counsel as laid out in the Civil Service Reform Act. The court vacated the injunction and instructed the district court in Texas that issued it to dismiss the case upon remand.

Federal agencies are largely not currently enforcing Biden's executive order requiring employees to either receive the vaccine or request a medical or religious exemption, following a district court in Texas issuing the injunction in January. About 98% of federal employees were in compliance with Biden’s executive order at the time of the injunction, with 93% vaccinated. With some exceptions , agencies have paused punishing non-compliant workers or adjudicating requests for religious or medical exemptions. The Fifth Circuit court previously declined to stay the injunction after the Biden administration sought emergency relief.

The Biden administration quickly appealed the district court decision in Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, arguing last month that previous presidents had implemented orders impacting conditions of work such as drug and ethics policies. Charles Scarborough, the Justice Department attorney arguing on behalf of the government, said the president is the CEO of the executive branch and therefore has the authority to issue mandates for its workforce. He added that market constraints would prevent the president from abusing that power.

Those arguments were not addressed in the majority’s opinion, however, which instead rested on another of the government’s points: that federal employees cannot seek relief before actually incurring a workplace penalty, as the Civil Service Reform Act sets up a system by which civil servants must go before MSPB only after an adverse action.

“You don’t get to come in and challenge in advance,” Scarborough said, noting the current system allows employees to win back pay if they successfully bring a challenge to MSPB.

Judge Carl Stewart, who wrote the ruling on behalf of himself and Judge James Dennis, noted that the Fifth Circuit previously ruled that the Civil Service Reform Act precluded district courts from adjudicating federal statutory and constitutional claims.

The plaintiffs—the newly created Feds for Medical Freedom and a union representing some Homeland Security Department employees—were seeking “to circumvent the [Civil Service Reform Act’s] exclusive review scheme,” Stewart said. “There is no dispute that the plaintiffs have not attempted to avail themselves of this potential [civil service act] remedy, which could provide meaningful review.”

Judge Rhesa Barksdale dissented on the decision, saying there was not yet any agency action for employees to appeal to MSPB. Instead, he argued, the matter hinged on Biden’s attempt to “impose a sweeping mandate against the federal civilian workforce.”

The decision will likely cause a new wave of work at federal agencies, though it could also save them some money. The administration has said the injunction left agencies scrambling to overhaul their return-to-office plans, as they were designed assuming enforcement of the mandate. Additionally, the White House estimated it will spend up to an extra $5 million per week the injunction is in place on testing unvaccinated employees for COVID-19.

Agencies had been on the precipice of enforcing the mandate through suspensions when the injunction was ordered. The administration’s Safer Federal Workforce Task Force will likely oversee the reimplementation of the mandate, though the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Feds for Medical Freedom, which could seek further appeal before the full Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court, declined to comment on Thursday. Individual employees could still wind up in the federal circuit if they take their cases to MSPB and appeal further after an initial decision. The Supreme Court may be less inclined to weigh in on the case, as it already ruled on two vaccine mandate cases in January.

Opponents of Biden’s mandate for federal workers have pursued more than a dozen cases seeking to strike down the order, but have yet to find success in any other court. Courts have paused or struck down the president's orders affecting large private employers and federal contractors.

Original Article: Appeals Court Reinstates Biden's Vaccine Mandate for Federal Employees - Government Executive (govexec.com)

GovExec: Biden Proposes a 4.6% Raise for Federal Workers for 2023

Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:49:40 GMT

If enacted, the figure would mark the largest pay increase for federal employees in two decades.

MARCH 28, 2022 11:00 AM ET

By ERICH WAGNER

President Biden called for federal workers to receive their largest annual pay raise in 20 years Monday, releasing a budget proposal that would grant civilian employees an average pay increase of 4.6%.

The figure is nearly double the 2.7% average pay increase federal employees received in 2022 and a significant improvement over the 1.0% across-the-board pay increase they saw in 2021. Budget documents released by the White House do not specify how the figure will be split between across-the-board increases in basic pay and average boosts to locality pay, although traditionally 0.5% of the overall figure has been set aside for locality pay. Military service members also would receive a 4.6% pay increase as part of Biden's fiscal 2023 budget proposal.

In budget documents, the White House said that the pay raise is part of a larger effort to improve the effectiveness and equity of the federal government, arguing that ensuring that all federal jobs are “good jobs” empowers employees to do their best work.

“These efforts will help agencies retain qualified employees, empower workers to make their agencies better, create a pipeline of qualified leaders, and provide better services to the public,” the White House wrote. “The budget supports these objectives by ensuring that all those in federal jobs earn at least $15 per hour and providing a pay increase of 4.6% for civilian and military personnel.”

For years, federal employee groups had to fight tooth and nail for sizeable pay raises, as the Trump administration’s budgets pushed for pay freezes and cuts to non-salary benefits, while agencies underwent sequestration in the Obama administration. Biden’s fiscal 2023 budget includes no major proposals related to federal workers’ health care or retirement benefits.

The pay raise figure comes following months of high inflation across the American economy. The last time feds saw a pay raise of this size was in 2002, when the George W. Bush administration provided them the same level of increase.

Despite that, Biden’s plan is not the most generous proposal on federal employee pay this year. Earlier this year, Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., and Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, introduced legislation that would provide federal workers an average 5.1% pay raise in 2023. That plan would be split between a 4.1% across-the-board pay increase and a 1% average increase in locality pay.

Connolly lauded Biden’s budget proposal in a statement, although he made no mention of his own competing federal pay raise plan.

“With this budget, President Biden again makes clear that his commitment to the federal workforce is ironclad,” he said. “This would be the largest pay increase for federal workers in decades, and it would be critical to our efforts to attract and retain the next generation of federal employees.”

National Treasury Employees Union National President Tony Reardon described Biden’s pay raise proposal as a “great starting point,” but said his union still supports Connolly’s 5.1% raise plan.

“The White House proposal to give federal employees an average 4.6% pay increase in 2023 makes clear that this administration understands that improving salaries will help attract and retain highly skilled workers around the country, a sentiment that NTEU strongly supports,” he said. “That said, NTEU has already endorsed the Federal Adjustment of Income Rates Act calling for an average 5.1% pay adjustment for federal workers next year . . . Over the years, federal pay increases have barely kept up with inflation, and the average pay disparity between the federal government and the private sector, according to the last report by the Federal Salary Council, is 23.11%.”

The American Federation of Government Employees also said that it appreciated Biden’s proposal, although it prefers Connolly and Schatz’s 5.1% raise.

“The 4.6% pay raise for federal employees proposed by the White House is a good opening offer, but to bring federal salaries close to market rates and compensate for the recent surge in inflation, we ask Congress to approve the 5.1% increase under the FAIR Act,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley.

But Ken Thomas, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, was more unreservedly complimentary.

“With the 4.6% average federal pay increase proposed for 2023, Biden demonstrates appreciation for the millions of hardworking public servants who keep the government running day after day,” Thomas said. “If enacted, the 4.6% average pay increase would be the largest since 2002. The amount tracks with recent increases in private-sector pay and the expected military pay increase for the second consecutive year. Keeping up with private-sector pay growth is essential to maintaining the federal government’s ability to recruit and retain a highly qualified and effective workforce.”

Original Article: Biden Proposes a 4.6% Raise for Federal Workers for 2023 - Government Executive (govexec.com)

GovExec: Federal Court Orders Nationwide Pause on Biden's Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate

Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:28:03 GMT

The Biden administration has already filed an appeal of the injunction.

January 21, 2022

ERIC KATZ

Senior Correspondent

A federal court in Texas has issued an injunction against President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for the federal workforce, pausing implementation of a requirement for more than 2 million civilian servants.

The Biden administration has already had sweeping success with the mandate, as most agencies have seen virtually their entire workforces come into compliance. Still, federal offices across the country were just beginning to move forward with suspensions—which could eventually result in firings—for those who did not meet the requirements. Biden issued the mandate by executive order in September.

Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by President Trump to the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Texas, said the case was not about whether individuals should be vaccinated or even about federal power generally.

“It is instead about whether the president can, with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress, require millions of federal employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment,” Brown wrote. “That, under the current state of the law as just recently expressed by the Supreme Court, is a bridge too far.”

The Supreme Court last week struck down a Biden order that would have required private sector employers with more than 100 workers, and the U.S. Postal Service, to test or vaccinate their employees. The federal employee case was brought by Feds for Medical Freedom, which filed three different lawsuits against the mandate, as well as an American Federation of Government Employees council that represents workers in the Homeland Security Department's Federal Protective Service.

The Biden administration immediately filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit court. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the mandate had already led to 98% of federal employees getting vaccinated, which she called a “remarkable number.”

“Obviously we are confident in our legal authority here,” Psaki said.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the private employers case last week, Brown had tasked both Feds for Medical Freedom and the Biden administration with issuing new briefs to reflect the decision.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandate for health care workers at facilities that receive federal funding that the court upheld was much more narrow in focus, Feds for Medical Freedom argued, whereas the Occupational Safety and Health Administration lacked clear statutory authority for its broad rule focused on the private sector. Like the OSHA rule that the Supreme Court struck down, the federal employee mandate applied to every worker indiscriminately. Because the requirement applies regardless of an individual’s job, Feds for Medical Freedom argued the court’s finding that the risk of COVID-19 is untethered from the workplace applied to its case as well. The pandemic is part of the hazards of daily life, they said, again quoting the court’s majority ruling, and both OSHA and the president have never issued such mandates before.

The Biden administration had pushed back in a new filing this week, saying the federal government, like any employer, can choose to impose a mandate on its employees.

“The president possesses independent constitutional authority to act as CEO of the executive branch, even absent confirming statutory authority from Congress,” Justice Department officials in Texas wrote. They added the OSHA rule affected 84 million private sector employees, whereas the president’s mandate is aimed at a much smaller group.

It is “not at all surprising” the president has never issued such a mandate previously, the officials said, and restricting the executive branch’s ability to respond to novel circumstances would prevent it from dealing with the pandemic at all. They further suggested that President Reagan’s drug-testing mandate for feds was an example of the executive branch responding to a new epidemic of drug use. The officials also said the Merit Systems Protection Board, rather than the federal circuit, would be the appropriate forum to resolve the case.

In his ruling, Brown noted that Friday was the first day that some employee suspensions were scheduled to take effect. Agencies are currently sorting through the hundreds of thousands of requests for medical and religious exemptions to the mandate and have just started issuing some of those decisions.

Brown argued the mandate amounted to a “Hobson’s choice” between their “jobs and their jabs.”

“Regardless of what the conventional wisdom may be concerning vaccination, no legal remedy adequately protects the liberty interests of employees who must choose between violating a mandate of doubtful validity or consenting to an unwanted medical procedure that cannot be undone,” he said.

The judge further suggested the high vaccination rate within the federal workforce means his ruling will have little impact on public safety and the public could face even worse consequences if agencies are allowed to fire their employees.

“The government has not shown that an injunction in this case will have any serious detrimental effect on its fight to stop COVID-19,” Brown said. “Moreover, any harm to the public interest by allowing federal employees to remain unvaccinated must be balanced against the harm sure to come by terminating unvaccinated workers who provide vital services to the nation.”

Brown rejected the government’s assertion that employees should go to MSPB, as they would only be able to do so after a suspension or firing is issued. Waiting for enforcement denies those employees “meaningful review,” the judge said. He further argued that of the statutory authorities the government pointed to defend the president’s authority to issue the mandate, “none does the trick.” The Biden administration’s interpretation of existing law would allow the president to prescribe federal employees activities outside the context of their employment, Brown said. He added the Supreme Court’s ruling in the OSHA case made clear the pandemic and employees' vaccination status is not “workplace conduct” and a mandate exceeds the president’s constitutional powers.

Marcus Thornton, a foreign service officer at the State Department and president of Feds for Medical Freedom, said their “fight is far from over” and the group will pursue “every lawful avenue available” to strike down the mandate. The group is expecting thousands of its members to join a march in Washington on Jan. 23.

“Today’s decision by Judge Brown is a victory for the thousands of men and women who want to serve their government without sacrificing their individual rights,” Thornton said. “The 6,000-plus members of Feds for Medical Freedom want nothing more than to continue their service to this country without being subjected to unconstitutional mandates.”

This story has been updated with additional detail.

Original Story: Federal Court Orders Nationwide Pause on Biden's Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate - Government Executive (govexec.com)

GovExec: Defense Department Grants First Religious Waivers for COVID Vaccine

Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:38:18 GMT

Two Marines are the first successful applicants among the 18,500 U.S. troops who have sought exemption from the vaccination mandate by citing religious beliefs.

January 14, 2022

By ELIZABETH HOWE

Assistant Editor, Defense One

The Marine Corps is the first U.S. military branch to report the granting of a religious exemption to the mandate that troops be vaccinated for COVID-19. Two Marines have received exemptions, officials said Thursday.

In all, some 18,500 U.S. troops have requested such exemptions. The Air Force received the highest number of requests with 10,766, followed by the Marine Corps with 3,350, the Navy with 2,844, and the Army with 1,746. No other branch has reported an approved request, but have provided data on the number of disapproved accommodations.

Each branch has been handling requests for religious exemption in its own way, but the processes generally include multiple tiers of case-by-case consideration.

For example, all religious accommodations in the Marine Corps are reviewed by the Marine’s lieutenant colonel commander, colonel commander, and commanding general. Then, if cleared, it moves on to the adjudication authority: the Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Within Manpower and Reserve Affairs, a three-person religious-accommodation board reviews each package and makes a recommendation to the deputy commandant. The deputy commandant then personally reviews the content of each package.

The Marine Corps did not say whether the two approved exemptions were for active-duty or reserve component Marines.

The process takes time. And even though each branch’s self-appointed deadline for 100% vaccination came and went long ago, requests for accommodation have prevented any branch from achieving that goal. Shortly before the holidays, the Air Force reported that it still had 8,636 of its 10,766 requests to work through.

“The Marine Corps recognizes COVID-19 as a readiness issue. The speed with which the disease transmits among individuals has increased risk to our Marines and the Marine Corps’ mission. We are confident the vaccine protects our Marines, our communities, and the nation,” an emailed Marine Corps memo with updated COVID-19 vaccination data reads.

The memo also includes that 88% of the Marines hospitalized with COVID-19 are unvaccinated.

Original Story: Defense Department Grants First Religious Waivers for COVID Vaccine - Government Executive (govexec.com)

***************************************************************************

LIUNA Comments:

With the Marines approving less than 0.06% of the exemptions requested and the Air Force saying last month that they had granted ZERO exemptions to date, if you've submitted a request to be exempt from the COVID vaccine for religious reasons, the chances of your exemption being granted is not very good. At some point in time, you will more than likely have to make a decision as to whether you will take the vaccine or end your career in the US military.

GovExec: Hill Proposal Would Give Federal Employees a 5.1% Average Pay Raise in 2023

Thu, 13 Jan 2022 21:17:47 GMT

A bill from Democratic lawmakers would provide federal workers with a 4.1% across-the-board boost, along with an average 1% increase in locality pay.

January 13, 2022

By ERICH WAGNER

Democrats in both chambers of Congress on Thursday introduced legislation that would grant federal employees an average 5.1% pay raise in 2023.

The Federal Adjustment of Income Rates Act, introduced by Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., in the House and by Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in the Senate, would increase federal workers’ basic pay by 4.1% across the board next year, and provide an average 1% increase in locality pay.

The bill is similar to previous efforts by the lawmakers to secure a bigger pay raise for federal employees, although the legislation is rarely acted upon. Last year, the lawmakers pushed for feds to receive an average 3.2% pay increase, but the bill failed to gain traction, leading to President Biden implementing an average 2.7% raise for both civilian federal employees and military service members.

This year, the bill has the support of eight cosponsors in the House, all of whom represent the Washington, D.C., region, and 10 senators, all Democrats. Connolly said in a statement that federal employees deserve a 5.1% raise due to their dedication to service during the Trump administration and two years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“For two years, federal employees have risked their health and safety working on the frontlines of this pandemic,” Connolly said. “For four years prior, they were subjected to the Trump administration’s cruel personal attacks, unsafe work environments, pay freezes, government shutdowns, sequestration cuts, furloughs and mindless across-the-board hiring freezes. Still, our federal workforce serves with dedication and distinction every day. Federal employees are our government’s single greatest asset, and they deserve better.”

The bill quickly drew endorsements from unions and other federal employee groups. Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said such a raise is vital, particularly in light of recent metrics measuring inflation.

“Like all workers in this country, federal employees are experiencing higher costs for housing, food, medical insurance and other basic necessities due to wages that have not kept pace with inflation,” Kelley said. “But unlike other employees, federal workers depend on Congress for their annual pay raises-and these adjustments in recent years have fallen short.”

National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association National President Ken Thomas said the FAIR Act would put federal workers’ pay increases in line with private sector wage growth.

“This 4.1% across-the-board pay increase would allow the federal government to better compete with the private sector to attract and retain a highly qualified, top-performing federal workforce, as well as improve morale of current employees,” Thomas said. “The proposed raise for 2023 would represent the biggest pay raise in nearly two decades; feds last saw a 4.1% hike in 2004 under President George W. Bush.”

National Treasury Employees Union National President Tony Reardon added that it is important for the government to provide sizeable raises in an effort to retain federal workers at a time where employees in the private sector are increasingly leaving their jobs, particularly over the issue of pay.

“The pandemic has caused an upheaval in the labor market and rising costs continue to chip away at federal employee paychecks,” he said. “Our nation’s public servants deserve a pay increase that brings their salaries closer to their counterparts in the private sector.”

Original Story: Hill Proposal Would Give Federal Employees a 5.1% Average Pay Raise in 2023 - Government Executive (govexec.com)

CNS: Justices deny dual-status pension payments for Guard technician

Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:01:30 GMT

The ruling says a former civilian military technician working for the National Guard could not be considered a member of the National Guard.

By KELSEY REICHMANN

WASHINGTON (CN) — Against a lone dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Thursday against a military technician seeking dual-status pension payments as a federal civilian employee who also provided assistance to the National Guard.

David Babcock worked as a dual-status military technician from 1975 to 2009 serving as a pilot and pilot instructor. While Babcock was a civilian employee, he was also required to maintain membership in the National Guard where he observed military protocols, wore a uniform indicating his rank, and was deployed on active duty to Iraq.

The case concerns a unique provision known as the windfall elimination provision because of Babcock’s dual status as a civilian employee who also provided assistance to the National Guard member. The provision was enacted by Congress to compensate for retirees whose jobs exempted them from Social Security taxes resulting in artificially high earnings in benefits. When Babcock applied for Social Security benefits, the agency applied the windfall elimination provision lowering his payments by about $100 per month. Babcock argued that the provision should not apply to him.

Babcock sued the agency, but a district court rule against him and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

The courts found that Babcock could not prevail in his suit because he served as a technician for the National Guard instead of as a member of the guard.

“If a private employer hired only moonlighting police officers to be security guards, one would not call that employment ‘service as a police officer,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority Thursday. “So too here: the fact that the Government hires only National Guardsmen to be technicians does not erase the distinction between the two jobs.”

Barrett said the court was unpersuaded that Congress’ classification of technicians work as civilian was irrelevant to the uniformed-services exception. She continues that Babcock’s classification as a member of the National Guard doesn’t depend on factors like the uniform he wore to work but instead how Congress classified his job.

“Babcock’s civil-service pension payments fall outside the Social Security Act’s uniformed-services exception because they are based on service in his civilian capacity,” Barrett wrote.

Gorsuch said he had “trepidation” writing the lone dissent on such a narrow question but recognized that military technicians hold a unique position in federal employment. He said because these members sometimes serve on active duty, have to wear a guard uniform, and must maintain membership in the National Guard, they should be considered part of the National Guard.

“Given these features of their employment, I would hold that dual-status technicians ‘serv[e] as’ members of the National Guard in all the work they perform for this country day in and day out,” the Trump appointee wrote.

Drawing on Barrett’s analogy to police officers, Gorsuch argued that military technicians are more like part-time police officers than security guards.

“I expect most Guardsmen who serve as ‘dual-status technicians’ — who come to work every day for the Guard, in a Guard uniform, and subject to Guard discipline — would consider all of their work to represent ‘service as . . . member[s]’ of the National Guard,” Gorsuch wrote.

Original Story: Justices deny dual-status pension payments for Guard technician | Courthouse News Service

******************************************************************************************************

Comment by LIUNA Local 1776

While unfortunate, this is the correct ruling. Technician service is not military service, and the Supreme Court has recognized as much. We'll have to see how this will affect retirees living within the boundaries of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, the only court that had ruled otherwise. We suspect the Social Security Administration will issue a new Acquiescence Ruling soon.

Here's another article published today on the SCOTUS decision:

Justices Barrett and Gorsuch Clash Over Military Pensions (lawandcrime.com)

You can also check out previous LIUNA Local 1776 articles on this subject, below:

Explaining the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals WEP Decision (local1776.org)

6th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules WEP Applies to Dual Status Technicians (local1776.org)

GovExec: Lawmakers Push to Fix Controversial Tax Rule Affecting Federal Retirees (local1776.org)

GovExec: Biden Administration Delays Vaccine Mandate Penalties Until 2022

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:07:57 GMT

OMB and OPM officials said agencies should extend the counseling portion of enforcement of President Biden’s vaccine mandate through the end of the year, citing recent progress in the federal workforce’s vaccination rate

NOVEMBER 29, 2021 01:09 PM ET

by erich wagner

The Biden administration announced Monday that it would delay until 2022 issuing suspensions and other serious penalties related to noncompliance with its mandate that the federal workforce be vaccinated against COVID-19.

President Biden’s vaccine mandate required federal workers to be fully vaccinated or request a medical or religious exemption by Nov. 22. The White House advised agencies that they should deal with noncompliant employees by providing a week of counseling to encourage them to get vaccinated, followed by suspensions and, eventually, more severe adverse personnel actions, including removal.

But on Monday, Office of Personnel Management Director Kiran Ahuja and Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director for Management Jason Miller said in an email, obtained by Government Executive, that agencies should wait until January to begin suspending noncompliant feds, citing the news last week that about 92% of the 3.5 million federal employees and military service members have been inoculated against COVID-19.

“We have been clear that the goal of the federal employee vaccination requirement is to protect federal workers, not to punish them,” they wrote. “Last week’s deadline was not an endpoint or a cliff. We are continuing to see more and more federal employees getting their shots. Given that tremendous progress, we encourage your agencies to continue with robust education and counseling efforts through this holiday season as the first step in an enforcement process, with no subsequent enforcement actions.”

Ahuja and Miller wrote that in most cases, agencies should at most issue a letter of reprimand for noncompliant federal workers “if warranted” this year. But they acknowledged that there are rare circumstances where agencies should move forward with adverse personnel actions more quickly.

“We understand that your agencies may need to act on enforcement sooner for a limited number of employees, such as where there are additional or compounding performance or workplace safety issues under consideration, but in general, consistency across government in further enforcement of the vaccine requirement after the start of the new calendar year is desired,” they wrote. “We believe this approach is the best one to achieving our goal of getting the federal workforce vaccinated.”

The delay came as welcome news to the American Federation of Government Employees, which called on the White House earlier this month to push back enforcement of the vaccine mandate until January to ensure it is aligned with the deadline for federal contractors to be inoculated. That deadline itself was delayed to align with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s enforcement of the requirement that employees at private sector companies with at least 100 workers must be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing.

“AFGE previously asked the administration to harmonize the vaccine deadlines for federal workers and contractors,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley, in a statement Monday. “This announcement, in effect, responds to that request. Once again, President Biden has demonstrated his commitment to hearing from rank-and-file federal employees through their unions and responding to workers’ concerns. While we applaud the new policy that defers suspensions and removals, we continue to encourage all our members who are able to obtain one of the [Food and Drug Administration-approved] anti-COVID vaccines as soon as they possibly can.

Original Story: Biden Administration Delays Vaccine Mandate Penalties Until 2022 - Government Executive (govexec.com)

DoD Issues Updated Force Health Protection Guidance

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Wed, 20 Oct 2021 18:42:46 GMT

This memorandum replaces Force Health Protection Guidance (Supplement 23) dated September 7, 2021, and the Administrative Leave for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination of Department of Defense Employees dated April 14, 2021. It also provides updated guidance for implementing additional force health protection and workplace safety measures directed by the White House Safer Federal Workforce Task Force.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has issued new/updated guidance concerning the COVID vaccine mandate . The latest memo, dated October 18, 2021, reinforces the requirement that all "DoD civilian employees" must be fully vaccinated by November 22, 2021. It further clarifies that "employees" includes anyone working remotely or teleworking. The memo also makes clear that the vaccine requirement does not apply to individuals accessing DoD facilities for ad hoc or non-official purposes such as delivery drivers (e.g., UPS and FedEx), taxi services, residents of DoD housing, or anyone accessing DoD facilities to "receive a public benefit" like the commissary or BX, to attend an airshow or visit a museum, to attend a DoD medical facility, or to access MWR resources.

Time is running out. Depending on which brand of vaccine you plan to take, for some the time has already passed in order to meet the deadline. Below is the list of vaccines and the dates by which you should have received the first dose in order to comply with the November 22nd target date:

October 11: first dose deadline (if receiving the Moderna vaccine)
October 18: first dose deadline (if receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech/COMIRNATY vaccine)
November 8: second dose deadline (if receiving the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech/COMIRNATY vaccines)
November 8: first (only) dose deadline (if receiving the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine)
If DoD civilian employees use an authorized vaccine other than those listed above, they are responsible for being fully vaccinated by November 22, 2021

Reasonable Accommodation

Absent from the latest guidance is a process/procedure for how DoD and its subordinate agencies will evaluate reasonable accommodation (RA) requests for exemptions to the vaccine mandate. The best we can surmise is that anyone who submits an RA request will be allowed to continue to come to work as long as they comply with the masking and testing requirements of the DoD memo dated July 2021 .

If you are seeking an RA exemption for either a religious or medical reason you should have already began that process. Even though there is no current guidance on how to process such a request that does not mean you should delay initiating the RA process until they issue guidance, and you should definitely not wait until November 9th to claim or request a reasonable accommodation. There is no specific form or method for you as an employee to initiate the RA process. All it takes is that you notify a management representative, usually your immediate supervisor, that you're seeking a reasonable accommodation for either religious or medical reasons. The notice can be either verbal or in writing, but we do recommend that you at least submit your request via email.

Please be aware that, as of today, the only recognized religion that has allowed for an exemption from the vaccine is the Catholic Church , and that the statement technically applies to "service members" of the military only, not civilian DoD personnel. Also, DoD has not explained how they will apply the exemption.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has some very detailed resources on reasonable accommodation. Feel free to visit the links below:

National Guard Technicians

The National Guard Bureau (NGB) released guidance to the field on October 8, 2021 , regarding the COVID vaccine mandate. However, the guidance only applied to Title 5 employees. That is because, according to NGB's interpretation of the Executive Order (EO) issued by President Biden, the order does not consider technicians to be civilian employees of the DoD. So, since they are not covered by the EO then they are to be treated as members of the military for purposes of the vaccine and will be required to meet whatever deadline for vaccination applies to them in their military capacity.

NGB's interpretation is flawed and confusing. Technicians are most definitely civilian employees of either the Army or Air Force, period. Anyone with a basic command of the English language would be able to figure that out. Why they came to this conclusion no one knows. Perhaps someone has a personal agenda. Perhaps those involved in the administration of these types of issues/matters are in over their heads and utterly unqualified for the job they hold. Frankly, it is anyone's guess. The one thing that is certain is that it reinforces the long-standing tradition of erring on the side of incompetence by those running and working within NGB's Technician Branch. All they have done is cause confusion at the implementation level (something they are extremely good at, in fact experts) with some states moving forward with a November 22nd deadline for technicians while others have pushed it out to as late a June 2022.

At this time we are awaiting clarification from DoD as to whether technicians are to be treated as civilians or military members for the purpose of the vaccine mandate. For now, technicians should abide by whatever guidance is being issued by their individual state/territory concerning the deadline for vaccination.

Latest Guidance from OPM on Vaccines for Federal Employees

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Fri, 01 Oct 2021 15:35:05 GMT

Employees Must Be Fully Vaccinated by November 22, 2021

By Ben Banchs

October 1, 2021

OPM has released new guidance concerning the vaccine requirement for federal employees. The guidance reiterates the November 22nd deadline for employees to be fully vaccinated unless they have a legal exception. It also clarifies which vaccines are recognized by OPM, and also how the requirement applies to new hires.

It is important to note that employees are required to be fully vaccinated by November 22nd. That means that they must receive their second dose by November 8th.

For those that have not received their second dose by November 8th, the Agency can begin their enforcement of the requirement on November 9th. That does not mean they can terminate an employee on November 9th, that means they will more than likely be counselled about the vaccine mandate and will be ordered to get vaccinated. At that time the employee will be provided one more opportunity to begin the vaccination process. OPM recommends they be provided 5 days to comply with the first dose after that initial counseling. If an employee does not comply after they are counselled and ordered then the Agency can begin the disciplinary process up to and including termination. It's important to note that the guidance makes clear that immediate termination is not the only option.

Please read the guidance below as it is very well written and easy to understand. Also, employees should keep in mind that any guidance or communication you receive about the vaccine mandate, especially any communications that deal or affect conditions of employment, needs to be cleared by the Union.

OPM Memo on Current and New Employee Vaccine Requirements - October 1, 2021

OPM Memo on Enforcement of Vaccine Requirement - October 1, 2021

OPM FAQs on EVaccine Enforcement Guidance - October 1, 2021

Union's Role in Vaccine Mandate

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:38:28 GMT

Vaccine Requirements Are Well Established in Federal Law Even In Cases Where the Vaccine Has Only Received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

By Ben Banchs

September 10, 2021

Yesterday, President Biden issued an executive order requiring all Federal employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The order requires each Federal Agency to issue guidance to their workforce within the next 7 days. For employees represented by LIUNA Local 1776, that implementation guidance will come from the Department of Defense (DoD).

We have already received numerous inquiries from members asking about the vaccine requirement. Bottom line, most all employees will have to be vaccinated. The only accommodations to be made will be for those with a sincerely held religious belief that prevents them from being vaccinated or for those with a medical condition , and even those exceptions are not absolute. To put it bluntly, the Federal government can require that employees be vaccinated against COVID or any other disease as a condition of employment. Aside from religious or medical exemptions, an employee who refuses to be vaccinated will be subject to termination.

Vaccine mandates are not new. The Supreme Court has ruled on these before both in and out of the workplace. When it comes to the workplace, the case law is well established that if/when the government issues a requirement that you as an employee or member of the military be vaccinated as a condition of employment or service, then you have two choices: comply or lose your job. The DOJ, EEOC, and Federal Courts have ruled as such for decades, way before COVID. Again, the only exceptions are religious and medical, and those are very narrowly applied.

I've provided a few links to websites and/or articles regarding vaccine mandates:

For those wondering whether the Union can stop or delay the mandate, the short answer is no. The only concerns that we will have as a Union will be:

Will adverse reactions to the vaccine be covered by Workers Compensation (i.e., OWCP)?
Will the vaccines be provided to the employee at no cost and during duty hours?
Will employees be provided information/materials about the vaccine they are receiving as required by applicable law?
Is personal medical information being safeguarded IAW applicable law?
Are the vaccines being administered by trained medical personnel?
Outside of religious/medical exemptions, what happens to an employee that refuses the vaccine?

Once the above questions are satisfied then management can proceed with implementation of the vaccine mandate. We suspect most if not all of these questions/concerns will be addressed in the implementation guidance due out in the next 7 days. Outside of the questions listed above, we have no legal way to prevent management from requiring employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment.

Many of our members are dual-status technicians. We have been notified that some states will begin administering vaccines to military personnel during their upcoming unit training assemblies (UTA's or drill weekend). Unfortunately, we have no legal say on how the vaccine mandate is implemented on the military side of the house, and the military can and will move forward with vaccinating folks without any legal obligation to answer the above questions. However, the main difference between receiving a vaccine while you are in a military versus a civilian status is who pays for medical care and loss of income should you experience an adverse reaction to the shot that renders you incapable of work. The best advice we can give you is that if you do receive your vaccine while on military status and experience an adverse reaction make sure you demand that they place you in an Incapacitation (INCAP) Pay status and immediately file a line of duty (LOD) claim. Do not allow them to return you to civilian status until your medical condition has been resolved. What is important to know is that you have a legal entitlement to INCAP Pay; it is your right to remain on orders and be compensated if you are injured while on military duty status, and that injury is not due to your negligence or misconduct. Do not agree to their taking you off of orders. If the reaction happens after drill has ended, immediately notify unit medical personnel and demand to be placed on orders as required by law and regulation and do not delay initiating the LOD process. We recommend you familiarize yourself with INCAP Pay provisions just in case you find yourself in that situation not just for vaccines but also for any injury incurred while in a military duty status:

Just to reiterate:

The Federal government as your employer can require that you receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
If you refuse the vaccine you will be terminated.

AP: Biden requiring federal workers to get COVID shot

Thu, 09 Sep 2021 18:54:28 GMT

Those who don’t comply will be referred to their agency’s human resources department for counseling and discipline, to include potential termination.

By ZEKE MILLER

September 9, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Thursday is toughening COVID-19 vaccine requirements for federal workers and contractors as he aims to boost vaccinations and curb the surging delta variant that is killing thousands each week and jeopardizing the nation’s economic recovery.

Just weeks after he mandated that federal workers get shots or face rigorous testing and masking protocols, Biden will sign a new executive order to require vaccination for employees of the executive branch and contractors who do business with the federal government — with no option to test out — according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki.

The word comes ahead of the president’s speech Thursday afternoon outlining a six-pronged plan to address the latest rise in coronavirus cases and the stagnating pace of COVID-19 shots just two months after he prematurely declared the nation’s “independence” from the virus.

After months of using promotions to drive the vaccination rate, Biden is getting firmer, risking fresh backlash.

Psaki said Biden’s “overarching objective here is to reduce the number of unvaccinated Americans,” noting about 80 million adults remain unvaccinated.

Biden’s order includes exceptions for workers or contractors seeking religious or medical exemptions from vaccination, according to Psaki. Federal workers and contractors will have 75 days to get fully vaccinated. Those who don’t comply will be referred to their agency’s human resources department for counseling and discipline, to include potential termination.

“We would like to be a model” to other organizations and business around country, Psaki said of the federal workforce.

Biden is also expected to outline plans to increase virus testing in schools, in an effort to keep them open safely, amid other measures to show that his administration is working to tackle the alarming rise in COVID-19 cases, which he has blamed for last month’s weaker-than-expected jobs report. He’s warned the surge could further imperil the nation’s economy as some pandemic safety net protections expire.

Biden has encouraged COVID-19 vaccine requirements in settings like schools, workplaces and university campuses, and the White House hopes the strengthened federal mandate will inspire more businesses to follow suit. On Thursday, the Los Angeles Board of Education was expected to vote on requiring all students 12 and older to be fully vaccinated in the the nation’s second-largest school district.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services, the Indian Health Service, and the National Institutes of Health have previously announced vaccine requirements for much of their staffs, and the Pentagon moved last month to require all servicemembers to get vaccinated. Combined, the White House estimates those requirements cover 2.5 million Americans. Thursday’s order is expected to impact nearly 2 million more federal workers and potentially millions of contractors.

More than 208 million Americans have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 177 million are fully vaccinated, but confirmed cases of the virus have shot up in recent weeks to an average of about 140,000 per day with on average about 1,000 Americans dying from the virus daily, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

An AP-NORC poll conducted in August found 55% of Americans in favor of requiring government workers to be fully vaccinated, compared with 21% opposed.

Most of the spread — and the vast majority of severe illness and death — is occurring among those not yet fully vaccinated against the virus. So-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated people occur, but tend to be far less dangerous.

Compared to the same time last year, the U.S. is seeing about 300% more new COVID-19 infections a day, about two-and-a-half times more hospitalizations, and nearly twice the number of deaths, said Dr. Leana Wen, a former Baltimore health commissioner who comments regularly on the pandemic.

“We cannot accept this to be the new normal,” said Wen. If the pandemic continues unabated, it will mean 500,000 deaths a year. “Surely no one wants that.”

Wen has been urging the White House to take a stronger line on vaccine requirements, including the use of so-called vaccine “passports” for travel and workplace mandates that leave little wiggle room.

“I want to see the full power of the federal government here, and not more half measures,” she said. “I want to see a hard reset from the Biden administration, not more nibbling around the edges.”

Federal officials are moving ahead with plans to begin administering booster shots of the mRNA vaccines to bolster protection against the more transmissible delta variant of the virus. Last month Biden announced plans to make them available beginning on Sept. 20, but only the Pfizer vaccine will likely have received regulatory approval for a third dose by that time. Federal regulators are seeking additional data from Moderna that will likely delay its booster approval until October.

Officials are aiming to administer the booster shots about eight months after the second dose of the two-dose vaccines.

___

This story has been corrected to say that Biden has not yet signed the executive order.

—-

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed.

Original Story: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-executive-branch-18fb12993f05be13bf760946a6fb89be

FEDWeek: Biden Reaffirms Intent for 2.7 Percent Raise

Thu, 09 Sep 2021 18:50:14 GMT

0.5 Would be Split Off as Locality Pay

August 31, 2021

President Biden has reaffirmed his intent for a 2.7 percent federal employee pay raise in January, meanwhile stating an intent to split the raise with 2.2 percent paid across the board and funds for the other 0.5 percentage points split off and divided up as locality pay.

Biden stated that intent in a letter to Congress that is a routine but needed step when Congress has not enacted a raise figure into law by the end of August. In almost all cases, as in this one, the late-August letter has repeated the raise proposal presidents originally made in their early-year budget message to Congress.

The letter sets an “alternative” raise to be paid by default should no raise figure be enacted into law by year’s end—alternative to the increase that otherwise would take effect automatically. That would be 23 percent, based on Federal Salary Council data on the private/federal sector pay gap.

In language similar to that of his predecessors, Biden wrote cited federal pay law as “if, because of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,” I view the increases that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate.”

Breaking off 0.5 percentage points of the raise for the locality component would result in raises varying among the GS localities from slightly above to slightly below 2.7 percent. Unless Congress enacts a different figure by year’s end, the raises would be finalized by a late-year executive order and effective with the start of the first full pay period of 2022—January 2, in most cases.

Federal employee organizations praised Biden for the raise but also indicated their intent to keep pushing for a 3.2 percent total. However, by remaining silent on the raise in a spending bill it recently passed, the House effectively endorsed the 2.7 percent figure as a default. The Senate has not acted on a counterpart bill.

Congress meanwhile is moving to set 2.7 percent as the 2022 raise for uniformed military personnel; by long-standing practice, the federal raise does not exceed the military raise although there have been years in which the former was brought up to the level of the latter in the name of “pay parity.”

Also under long-standing practice, the GS raise figure is paid to wage grade employees locally even though they are under a separate locality-based system. Raises for federal senior executives and certain other career employees at senior levels are based on performance ratings, with the GS raise lifting the caps on their salaries.

SecDef Orders Immediate Implementation of Mandatory Vaccine Requirement

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 17:48:11 GMT

Order Applies to All Service Branches Including National Guard and Reserves

DoD has issued guidance to all military entities to take immediate steps to vaccinate all members of the US Armed Forces, including the National Guard and Reserves. The memo, dated August 24, 2021, can be accessed at the following link:

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Aug/25/2002838826/-1/-1/0/MEMORANDUM-FOR-MANDATORY-CORONAVIRUS-DISEASE-2019-VACCINATION-OF-DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE-SERVICE-MEMBERS.PDF

GovExec: Biden Announces Vaccine-or-Masks Mandate for Feds, Some Contractors

Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:31:32 GMT

Federal employees will have a choice: get vaccinated, or wear masks when indoors at federal facilities and subject themselves to regular COVID-19 testing

By Erich Wagner

July 29, 2021

President Biden on Thursday announced a new safety mandate for federal employees and contractors who work on-site at government facilities: “attest” that you have been vaccinated, or agree to wear masks at all times and submit to regular screening for COVID-19.

The new directive comes just days after the president indicated some form of vaccine mandate for federal workers was under consideration, and after the Office of Management and Budget reinstituted a mask mandate for both vaccinated and unvaccinated employees and visitors to federal facilities in regions experiencing “substantial or high” transmission of COVID-19, amid spiking case numbers due in part to the more virulent delta variant of the virus.

Under the new policy, federal employees and onsite contractors must “attest” to their vaccination status by signing a form. Those who do not confirm that they are fully vaccinated will be required to wear a mask at work, physically distance from other employees and visitors, and agree to weekly or twice-weekly screenings for COVID-19. They also will be subject to restrictions on official travel.

Visitors to federal facilities must also sign attestation forms confirming their vaccination status, and if they are not vaccinated, they must wear masks and bring proof that they have received a negative COVID-19 test within the last three days.

Biden also directed the Defense Department to look into adding the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of vaccinations that military service members are required to get. And he directed the administration to “take steps” to apply similar standards to all federal contractors, not just those who work at federal facilities.

According to guidance from the White House Safe Federal Workplace Task Force, each individual agency will be responsible for establishing a program to test federal employees and contractors who are not fully vaccinated or decline to disclose their vaccination status.

“What I’m trying to do is keep people safe,” Biden said. “So if, in fact, you’re unvaccinated, you present a problem to yourself, to your family and to those with whom you work because, as I pointed out, I’ve been asked, ‘Why would people already vaccinated get [COVID-19]?’ Well, 2% to 3%, according to the last study that was done, can still get COVID. They don’t get very sick and they don’t get hospitalized and it’s not serious, but they can catch it. So the concern is they may be able to pass it on. The important thing is if people are vaccinated, the transmission rate drops through the floor, and that’s all we’re trying to do.”

The decision has drawn a mixed response from federal employee groups. Some groups, like the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, blasted the directive as a “civil rights violation.”

“FLEOA fully supports individuals who voluntarily choose to be vaccinated, agree that it is safe and the most effective means of combatting the pandemic, and encourage our members to be vaccinated,” said FLEOA President Larry Cosme in a statement. “However, forcing people to undertake a medical procedure is not the American way and is a clear civil rights violation no matter how proponents may seek to justify it.”

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2021/07/biden-announces-vaccine-or-masks-mandate-feds-some-contractors/184161/

AP News: Biden signs bill making Juneteenth a federal holiday

Thu, 17 Jun 2021 22:47:27 GMT

NOTE: The legislation authorizing the new Juneteenth holiday was signed late on Thursday, June 17, 2021. As a result, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was not able to issue detailed guidance to Agencies on how to implement the holiday. OPM tweeted earlier today that most Federal employees will officially observe the Juneteenth holiday on Friday, June 18, 2021. However, some employees were not notified in time and will be coming to work tomorrow. Then there are others who are on a compressed work schedule and tomorrow is their regular day off (RDO). If, for whatever reason, you fall into one of those categories and are not able to observe the Juneteenth holiday on June 18, 2021 (as provided for by OPM), you will be provided an in lieu of holiday (off day) on either Monday, June 21, or Tuesday, June 22, next week.

By Kevin Freking

June 17, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed legislation Thursday establishing a new federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery, saying he believes it will go down as one of the greatest honors he has as president.

Biden signed into law a bill to make Juneteenth, or June 19, the 12th federal holiday. The House voted 415-14 on Wednesday to send the bill to Biden, while the Senate passed the bill unanimously the day before.

“This is a day of profound weight and profound power, a day in which we remember the moral stain, the terrible toll that slavery took on the country and continues to take,” Biden said.

Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers brought the news of freedom to enslaved Black people in Galveston, Texas — two months after the Confederacy had surrendered. That was also about 2 1/2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the Southern states.

It’s the first new federal holiday since Martin Luther King Jr. Day was created in 1983. One of the federal holidays, Inauguration Day, happens every four years.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is the human resources office for the federal government, tweeted Thursday that most federal employees will observe the new holiday — Juneteenth National Independence Day — on Friday since June 19 falls on a Saturday this year.

Biden noted the overwhelming support for the bill from lawmakers in both parties. He had run for president promising to unite the country and work with Republicans, but his first major legislation to provide more COVID relief to American consumers and businesses was passed along party lines and he has struggled to unite lawmakers to support a major public works bill.

“I hope this is the beginning of a change in the way we deal with one another,” Biden said.

Biden signed the legislation surrounded by members of the Congressional Black Caucus as well as the lead sponsors of the legislation in the Senate, Sens. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and John Cornyn, R-Texas. He was introduced by Vice President Kamala Harris, the nation’s first African-American vice president.

“We have come far and we have far to go, but today is a day of celebration,” Harris said.

The White House moved quickly to hold the signing ceremony after the House debated the bill and then voted for it Wednesday.

“Our federal holidays are purposely few in number and recognize the most important milestones,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. “I cannot think of a more important milestone to commemorate than the end of slavery in the United States.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, speaking next to a large poster of a Black man whose back bore massive scarring from being whipped, said she would be in Galveston on Saturday to celebrate along with Cornyn.

“Can you imagine?” said Jackson Lee. “I will be standing maybe taller than Sen. Cornyn, forgive me for that, because it will be such an elevation of joy.”

The Senate passed the bill Tuesday under a unanimous consent agreement that expedites the process for considering legislation. It takes just one senator’s objection to block such agreements.

The vote comes as lawmakers struggle to overcome divisions on police reform legislation following the killing of George Floyd by police and as Republican state legislators push what experts say is an unprecedented number of bills aimed at restricting access to the ballot box. While Republicans say the goal is to prevent voter fraud, Democrats contend that the measures are aimed at undermining minority voting rights.

Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus went to the floor Wednesday to speak in favor of the bill. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., said she viewed Juneteenth as a commemoration rather than a celebration because it represented something that was delayed in happening.

“It also reminds me of what we don’t have today,” she said. “And that is full access to justice, freedom and equality. All these are often in short supply as it relates to the Black community.”

Some Republican lawmakers opposed the effort. Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., said creating the federal holiday was an effort to celebrate “identity politics.”

“Since I believe in treating everyone equally, regardless of race, and that we should be focused on what unites us rather than our differences, I will vote no,” he said in a press release.

The vast majority of states recognize Juneteenth as a holiday or have an official observance of the day, and most states hold celebrations. Juneteenth is a paid holiday for state employees in Texas, New York, Virginia and Washington.

Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., said he would vote for the bill and that he supported the establishment of a federal holiday, but he was upset that the name of the holiday included the word “independence” rather than “emancipation.”

“Why would the Democrats want to politicize this by coopting the name of our sacred holiday of Independence Day?” Higgins asked.

Rep. Brenda Lawrence, D-Mich., replied, “I want to say to my white colleagues on the other side: Getting your independence from being enslaved in a country is different from a country getting independence to rule themselves.”

She added, “We have a responsibility to teach every generation of Black and white Americans the pride of a people who have survived, endured and succeeded in these United States of America despite slavery.”

The 14 House Republicans who voted against the bill are Andy Biggs of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Ronny Jackson of Texas, Doug LaMalfa of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom McClintock of California, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Mike Rogers of Alabama, Matt Rosendale of Montana, Chip Roy of Texas and Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin.

Original Article: https://apnews.com/article/biden-juneteenth-federal-holiday-9bb62a3448376e05d87ac79cf27970d2

GovExec: Biden Proposes 2.7% Raise for Feds in 2022, Restoring Pay Parity

Tue, 01 Jun 2021 12:53:58 GMT

Although it is unclear how plan breaks out between locality pay and across-the-board increases, the topline number matches the president's proposed pay raise for members of the military

May 28, 2021

By Erich Wagner

President Biden on Friday formally proposed an average 2.7% pay increase for federal civilian employees in 2022 as part of his fiscal 2022 budget proposal.

The figure marks a stark improvement over the 1.0% across-the-board increase feds received in 2021 after former President Trump pushed for a pay freeze in the final days of spending negotiations last year. But it falls short of a proposal by some Democratic lawmakers to provide feds with a 3.2% average pay raise next year, as well as the average 3.1% pay increase approved for 2020 .

“The administration is committed to empowering, rebuilding and protecting the federal workforce, which is why the budget provides for a 2.7% percent pay increase for the federal civilian workforce,” the White House stated in budget documents.

It was unclear Friday how Biden’s proposal would be divvied up between an across-the-board boost to basic pay and increases in locality pay. In recent years, pay raise provisions have included a 0.5% average increase in locality pay, although it was frozen at 2020 levels this year. The Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for comment on the split between basic and locality pay.

The proposal also marks a return to the principle of pay parity between the civilian and military workforce, as service members would also receive a 2.7% pay raise in 2022. The Trump administration often proposed pay freezes on the civilian side, while consistently pushing for military pay raises.

In a statement, National Treasury Employees Union National President Tony Reardon described Biden’s pay raise proposal as a “solid start,” although he continues to support the 3.2% pay increase proposal.

“NTEU is working in Congress to pass the Federal Adjustment of Income Rates Act, which would provide federal employees a 3.2% average pay increase next year,” Reardon said. “This legislation has broad support and provides a 2.2% average across the board increase and a 1% adjustment to locality pay, which is essential for employees who live in high-cost areas of the country. We look forward to working with the administration and lawmakers to meaningfully recognize the contributions of the federal workforce, a bedrock of our democracy.”

Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said that while the nation's largest federal employee union appreciates many of the federal workforce investments across Biden's budget proposal, a 2.7% pay raise is not sufficient to properly compensate workers.

“While we are supportive that the long tradition of military-civilian pay raise parity has been honored in the President’s proposal, 2.7% is simply not nearly enough to compensate for the losses in buying power of federal wages and salaries over the past decade,” Kelley said. “On average, federal workers are underpaid by 23% compared to those doing the same jobs in the private sector and state and local government. We ask Congress to support the modest 3.2% increase included in the FAIR Act.”

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2021/05/biden-proposes-27-raise-feds-2022-restoring-pay-parity/174388/

GoveExec: 5 Things To Know About Supplemental Retirement Benefits

Tue, 18 May 2021 19:48:05 GMT

The ins and outs of the FERS supplement

May 6, 2021

TAMMY FLANAGAN

Retirement Counseling and Training www.retirefederal.com

Federal workers who are younger than 62 and eligible for an unreduced Federal Employees Retirement System benefit also are eligible for a temporary extra benefit, the FERS annuity supplement . This group includes those who retire under special provisions for law enforcement officers, firefighters and air traffic controllers as well as regular FERS retirees who retire at their minimum retirement age with 30 or more years of service or at age 60 or 61 with at least 20 years of service. Those who retire under Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (also known as “early out” offers) are entitled to begin receiving the FERS supplement at their MRA.

The supplement represents what you would receive for your FERS civilian service from Social Security. It is calculated as if you were eligible to receive Social Security benefits on the day you retired. The supplement is paid by the Office of Personnel Management as part of your FERS retirement.

Here are five things to know if you’re thinking about retiring with a FERS supplement—or are already receiving one:

The supplement has no impact on your eventual Social Security benefit. In fact, the Social Security Administration is not even aware you’re receiving the benefit. There is an indirect impact on Social Security benefits: While you’re getting the supplement, you’re not working and paying the FICA tax on your wages, so you may wish to estimate your future Social Security benefit using the year you stopped working. The estimate you may have received from Social Security shows your earnings as if you continued working to age 62, your full retirement age or age 70.

There is no reduction to your supplement, even if you are working, until after the first calendar year you receive the benefit. Don’t be alarmed if you receive the supplement even if you started working the day after your federal retirement. You’re entitled to the benefit and won’t need to report your earnings until the next year. Then the earnings you receive after retirement (or after reaching your MRA if you retired at a younger age) will be compared to the Social Security earnings limit for the same year. Your monthly annuity supplement will be reduced by 1/12 of the annual excess earnings.

Don’t forget to fill out your earnings report. If you retired in 2020 or earlier or you reached your MRA as a FERS retiree in 2020, you may have received the Annuity Supplement Earnings Report. (They may not all have been mailed or delivered yet.) Be sure to return your supplement survey before the deadline (generally May 15) or as soon as possible if you didn’t receive it until after the deadline, which happens sometimes. This year’s form asks you to report earnings greater than $18,240 that you earned in 2020. If you didn’t have any earned income in 2020 after your retirement, then you don’t need to return the form.

You’ll see the reduction or termination of your FERS supplement in your July retirement benefit (payable on Aug. 1). For example, let’s say John retired on June 30, 2020, was over the FERS MRA and earned $30,000 from July 1 to Dec. 31, 2020 for consulting work. He would report this income on his 2020 Annuity Supplement Earnings Report. He earned $11,760 more than the 2020 earnings limit, so his supplement will be reduced by $5,880. Between January and June of 2021, John would have already received his unreduced supplement for six months. So the reduction to John’s supplement starting with his July 2021 retirement payment would be $490.

If you stop working before age 62, your supplement can be reinstated. According to OPM, the amount of time throughout the year that an individual works is not a variable in the computation of eligibility. What is a variable is how much the annuitant received in countable work earnings within the tax year in question. If the countable earnings that they received from just working one month, 10 months, or a year far exceed the earnings limitation for that tax year, then their request for a reinstatement of the supplement for January following the tax year in question might be denied.

According to Dan Jamison, author of the FERSGUIDE, when you receive an earnings survey for the first time, it is imperative to include documentation of when exactly you received your earnings. Suppose you receive biweekly paychecks from a post-government job and you reached your MRA on June 30, 2020. You need to send OPM copies of your pay stubs or earnings records with pay dates between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, along with your earnings report and a letter explaining the income that you reported is just the income after your MRA.

If you only report the income division without any justification and pay records, OPM will just look at the amount of earnings reported in your Social Security earnings file, which will reflect money you received for the entire year and not just from your MRA date onward. That will likely cause your supplement to be adjusted downwards, and it will take considerable effort to get the issue resolved.

Original article: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2021/05/5-things-know-about-supplemental-retirement-benefits/173864/

DoD Removes Mask Requirements for Vaccinated Individuals

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Tue, 18 May 2021 18:58:59 GMT

Updated Mask Policy is Based on New CDC Guidance

Last Thursday, May 13, the Department of Defense issued interim policy guidance rescinding the requirement for vaccinated personnel to wear masks indoors. The memo reads:

In support of updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines released this afternoon, subject to any applicable labor relations obligations, fully vaccinated DoD personnel (who are at least two weeks beyond their final dose) are no longer required to wear a mask indoors or outdoors at DoD facilities. All DoD personnel should continue to comply with CDC guidance regarding areas where masks should be worn, including within airports. Personnel who are not fully vaccinated should continue to follow applicable DoD mask guidance, including continuing to wear masks indoors. The Department will review and revise all applicable Force Health Protection guidance to address the new CDC guidelines.

Until this updated Force Health Protection guidance is issued, commanders and supervisors may make exceptions to this memorandum as necessary to ensure a safe workforce. Commanders and supervisors should not ask about an employee ' s vaccination status or use information about an employee ' s vaccination status to make decisions about how and when employees will report to a workplace instead of teleworking.

GovExec: What Federal Employees Need to Know About Evolving Marijuana Laws

Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:11:32 GMT

New policies don’t mean federal workers should rush to their local dispensary, and national security leaders in particular are urging caution

By LINDY KYZER

APRIL 23, 2021

Changing public sentiment about marijuana—even about what to call it—has led to a number of policy changes and legislative proposals that could significantly impact employers and workers in the coming year. But if you work for the federal government or in the national security space, it’s important to remember that “just say no” is still the law of the land.

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act , which passed the House in December and is expected to be reintroduced this session, would not only remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs, but also change the name from marijuana to “cannabis” wherever the drug is mentioned. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled he’s on board for Congress to make major moves on drug reform this year. All of that policy signaling doesn’t mean federal workers should rush to their local dispensary, and national security leaders, in particular, are urging caution.

“We’re reiterating the federal drug free workplace,” noted Valerie Kerben, senior security advisor for the special security directorate at the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, speaking at a briefing for clearance reform and policy advisors last week. She emphasized that a 2014 memo from the Director of National Intelligence on federal drug policies in light of state law changes still stands, and all national security workers and federal employees should follow the 2014 guidance and abstain from any drug use—even in states where it is legal. That doesn’t mean changes won’t come in the future, however.

“We’re considering putting out clarifying guidance, and also monitoring legislation,” Kerben emphasized.

Where Legalization May Not Apply

Even if drugs were made legal at the federal level, drug involvement remains an adjudicative guideline and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence would need to change the existing policy before security clearance holders should feel free to partake in drugs. Granted, it is highly likely that if the federal law changed, the adjudicative criteria would soon follow, or executive orders or correspondence would clarify the change. But it’s worth noting that while Congress has the purview to change federal laws, it is the White House that has the purview to change security clearance policy . If federal drug laws change, national security workers should tread carefully with any new-found legal authority.

Federal workers also should keep in mind their individual agency or company policies may continue to preclude drug use. The coming year may usher in new laws concerning drug use, but until those laws become agency policies, all government employees should continue to say no, whether it’s a toke or an edible being offered.

Past Drug Use Isn’t a Career Killer

Contrary to popular belief, as evidenced by the angst of many security clearance applicants, past drug use does not prevent obtaining a security clearance. Honesty is the best policy when it comes to drug use, even recent drug use. While policy guidelines used to caveat that one to two years of abstinence was advisable prior to applying for a security clearance, this is one area where changes in state laws are somewhat favorable to today’s security clearance applicants. Security clearance adjudicators today appear much more interested in how applicants have separated themselves from drug culture or other users. Even if an individual has used drugs in the past—that’s not a clearance killer.

Agency matters when it comes to recent drug use, however. In addition to the adjudicative criteria for obtaining a security clearance, each agency has its own suitability guidelines for applicants and employees. What the State Department will allow in terms of recency of drug use is obviously different than what the Drug Enforcement Administration allows.

For more information about drug use and national security employment, read “ Cannabis and Clearances: What Government Workers Need to Know About CBD, State Marijuana Laws, and Drug Use .”

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/04/what-federal-employees-need-know-about-evolving-marijuana-laws/173576/

GovExec: Federal Agencies Can Require COVID-19 Testing for Employees, CDC Says

Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:37:18 GMT

Employees who refuse tests could face "consequences," while those forced to quarantine should be supported, guidelines say

ERIC KATZ

Senior Correspondent

APRIL 20, 2021 03:16 PM ET

The Biden administration has issued guidelines for agencies to test their workers for COVID-19, spelling out when widespread testing is appropriate and confirming that federal offices can mandate employee testing.

Federal employees who have a testing requirement to enter their workplace and refuse can face “consequences,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, though it did not specify what those might look like and said all facets of testing policy were up to individual agencies. CDC issued the guidance in response to an executive order from President Biden, emphasizing it consisted of strategies for agencies to consider rather than policy requirements.

CDC noted the Americans with Disabilities Act allows for employer-mandated testing of workers if it is “job related and consistent with business necessity,” and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has deemed it acceptable to make COVID-19 testing a condition to enter a workplace. Agencies must have an employee’s consent to administer a test and predetermine any consequences for those who decline. CDC encouraged federal agencies to “consider providing alternatives as feasible and appropriate” for employees who do not agree to tests, such as reassigning them duties that can be completed remotely.

Agencies have multiple options in pursuing a testing strategy. A less aggressive approach would allow them to only test employees who are showing symptoms or had a known exposure to someone with COVID-19. Agencies should determine in advance where they will send employees for tests, how they will cover costs, their plans for reporting results to local health departments, how they will conduct contact tracing and their modified work plans if an outbreak occurs. Any employee exposed at work should be provided with a test at a convenient time and place and at no personal cost, CDC said.

Some federal offices should set up screening testing, which would most likely occur at regular intervals and use antigen tests with quicker results. All employees at a workplace with such a strategy, even those without symptoms or exposures, would be subject to the tests. Federal offices should consider the approach if located in areas with high community spread or without easy access to medical care, or if their employees have frequent interaction with the public, physical distancing is difficult, continuity of operations is particularly critical or their workforce is considered high-risk for severe illness from the virus. Agencies establishing onsite testing capacity must receive a waiver from the Food and Drug Administration.

CDC stressed that any testing strategy should supplement, not replace, existing COVID-19 protocols agencies have in place. The Office of Management and Budget in January issued revised pandemic requirements for agencies, including mask mandates in federal offices and ensuring they not exceed 25% capacity in areas with high community spread. The General Services Administration previously issued guidance for reorganizing federal buildings to make them safer to reopen during the pandemic. A task force Biden created to oversee federal workforce health and safety amid the pandemic instructed agencies to pursue discipline for employees who refuse to wear a mask at their workplaces.

CDC recommended a broader testing strategy for specific workforces, such as air traffic controllers, those in communal living spaces such as wildfire fighters and those most critical to government operations. It noted the guidance was not intended for feds in health care, long-term care facilities or at prisons or detention centers. It also declined to comment on how to fund agency-issued tests.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2021/04/federal-agencies-can-require-covid-19-testing-employees-cdc-says/173488/

GovExec: Lawmakers Push to Fix Controversial Tax Rule Affecting Federal Retirees

Mon, 05 Apr 2021 18:14:13 GMT

A new bill would set up a new formula to calculate how much retirees get in Social Security benefits if they also receive a defined benefit pension, in some cases replacing the controversial Windfall Elimination Provision

By ERICH WAGNER

April 2, 2021

A group of more than 100 House lawmakers on Thursday introduced legislation to effectively get rid of a controversial rule that reduces the Social Security benefits that federal employees are eligible to receive when they retire.

The windfall elimination provision reduces the Social Security benefits of retired federal, state and local government employees who worked in private sector jobs in addition to a government job where Social Security is not intended as an element of their retirement income, like employees in the Civil Service Retirement System.

The Public Servants Protection and Fairness Act (H.R. 4540), introduced by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., would introduce an alternate “public servant protection” formula to calculate Social Security benefits for those who retire beginning in 2022 and would be affected by the windfall elimination provision.

“The PSP formula will apply to workers who are receiving a pension based on noncovered earnings and who have less than 30 years of substantial work in Social Security covered employment,” the bill’s sponsors wrote in a document explaining its provisions. “Individuals will receive the higher of the two formulas, PSP or the current windfall elimination provision. This approach ensures both fairness (an equitable benefit formula based on actual earnings) and protection (no benefit cuts relative to current law) for all public servants.”

In addition, the legislation authorizes the payment of up to $150 each month to retirees already impacted by the windfall elimination provision but who are ineligible for the new formula because they have already retired.

“The WEP negatively impacts nearly 2 million retired public servants across the country, including 83,000 in Massachusetts,” Neal said in a statement. “Public employees like firefighters, teachers and police officers should not miss out on the Social Security benefits they earned over decades of hard work.”

In a statement, National Active and Retired Federal Employees National President Ken Thomas said he supports the bill, although his organization would prefer legislation to get rid of the windfall elimination provision altogether, like the Social Security Fairness Act, introduced by Reps. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., and Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., earlier this year.

“NARFE continues to support full repeal of the WEP, as the status quo has harmed too many hardworking and dedicated public servants for too many years,” Thomas said. “While this bill does not provide WEP-affected individuals the full repeal they are due, it represents a good first step in allowing some relief from this unreasonable penalty.”

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2021/04/lawmakers-push-fix-controversial-tax-rule-affecting-federal-retirees/173124/

Other WEP Articles:

May 15, 2020: https://www.local1776.org/6th-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-wep-applies-to-dual-status-technicians

April 9, 2012: https://www.local1776.org/explaining-the-8th-circuit-court-of-appeals-wep-decision

LIUNA: DOL Will Be Restored and Re-Energized as Powerful Guardian of Workers

Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:46:29 GMT

Marty Walsh Confirmed as US Secretary of Labor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: (202) 942-2246 or communications@liuna.org

Washington, D.C. (March 22, 2021) – Terry O’Sullivan, General President of LIUNA – the Laborers’ International Union of North America – made the following statement today:

The confirmation of Marty Walsh as U.S. Secretary of Labor heralds a new day for the working men and women of our nation.

Secretary Walsh is a dues-paying, card-carrying, second-generation member of the Laborers’ International Union of North America whose dedication and devotion to the cause, the purpose, and the mission of the Labor Movement is unwavering. I am confident that he will restore and re-energize the Department of Labor’s role as a powerful guardian of workers, and strong and effective enforcer of labor laws. He will fight for all working people, regardless of where they come from, what language they speak, or what kind of work they do. He will work to bring skills training and a stronger voice on the job to millions of American workers who too often have been exploited or disregarded.

Secretary Walsh is an inspirational embodiment of the American Dream: he worked his way up from the field to become a leader of LIUNA Local 223, the head of the Boston Metropolitan Building Trades Council, Mayor of Boston, and now, Labor Secretary. As a labor leader, Marty Walsh helped thousands of workers build strong, middle-class lives for themselves and their families. As mayor, he proudly wore his union affiliation on his sleeve, never forgetting where he came from. As Labor Secretary, he will continue to fight for an economy that rewards work and working people.

Secretary Walsh is also committed to labor-management cooperation. Marty understands that labor and management are co-dependent; our members rely on our signatory contractors to create good jobs and economic opportunity, and our signatory contractors rely on our safe, well-trained members to perform quality work on time and on budget. Marty knows that labor and management cannot succeed without each other, and that true labor-management cooperation moves our country and our economy forward.

On behalf of the half-million members of LIUNA, I can say we are awed and inspired that the top labor post in our great country is occupied by one of our own. We congratulate Secretary Walsh on his confirmation and look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.

###

The half-million members of LIUNA – the Laborers’ International Union of North America – are on the forefront of the construction industry, a powerhouse of workers who are proud to build and defend the United States and Canada.

GovExec: House Sends COVID Relief Bill with Sick Leave for Feds to Biden, and More

Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:48:24 GMT

A weekly roundup of pay and benefits news

By ERICH WAGNER

UPDATE: The COVID-10 Relief Bill was signed by President Biden on Thursday, March 11, 2021.

The House on Wednesday voted 220-211 to pass the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill as modified by the Senate, which includes provisions on federal employee sick leave and workers’ compensation, sending the bill to President Biden for enactment.

The bill includes a provision that grants federal employees, including those in the U.S. Postal Service, up to 15 weeks, or 600 hours, of paid sick leave—capped at $1,400 per week—if they are suffering from symptoms of the coronavirus, if they are caring for a family member who has COVID-19, if they are getting vaccinated or experiencing symptoms related to the vaccine, or if they are caring for a child whose school or child care center is closed or engaging in virtual learning due to the pandemic.

The additional leave will be available from when the bill is signed into law until Sept. 30. As the Senate debated the bill, Republicans attacked the sick leave provision, arguing that it was a “bailout” that was too generous to “bureaucrats” and that it lacked proper oversight.

Over the weekend, Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., proposed an amendment to the bill that would have removed the sick leave provision, which cost $570 million, and replaced it with $300 million for chemical screening devices for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to look for drugs and other illicit substances at ports of entry. That amendment failed by a 47-50 vote.

The bill also includes a provision that codifies the federal government’s policy that states that agencies will presume that frontline federal employees who test positive for COVID-19 contracted the virus during the course of their official duties for the purposes of workers’ compensation claims.

The Labor Department administratively updated its rules regarding COVID-19-related workers’ compensation claims for federal employees to reflect this last May . The so-called “presumption of workplace causation” makes it much easier for workers to receive these benefits.

The White House has announced that President Biden will sign the COVID-19 relief package on Friday.

On Sunday, President Biden signed an executive order on expanding Americans’ access to voting in elections, which could expand the availability of time off for feds to exercise their right to vote and volunteer to help administer elections.

The order instructs the Office of Personnel Management to expand the federal government’s policy to grant federal workers time off to vote in elections at all levels of government, specifically to “include efforts to ensure federal employees have opportunities to participate in early voting.”

In last year’s election, OPM policy was that agencies should grant “limited” excused absences to federal employees so that they can vote, only providing time off on Election Day if polling stations are closed fewer than three hours before or after work hours, or if a federal employee’s polling place is beyond normal commuting distance and they are unable to cast an absentee ballot. The agency also said that agencies should not provide time off for early voting if the hours that polling places were open were shorter than the voting hours on Election Day, because the employee “has opted to vote at that time.”

The new order also instructs agencies to find new strategies to “better support” feds who want to volunteer to work on elections in nonpartisan positions like manning polling stations or serving as election observers.

OPM’s recommendations on the issue are due Sept. 23.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2021/03/house-sends-covid-relief-bill-sick-leave-feds-biden-and-more/172589/

GovExec: Spending Agreement Would Allow 1% Pay Raise, Fails to Ban Schedule F

Mon, 21 Dec 2020 23:31:42 GMT

Provision in the fiscal 2021 omnibus appropriations bill would give feds until the end of next year to repay payroll taxes deferred by the Trump administration from September through December

ERICH WAGNER

DECEMBER 21, 2020 04:53 PM ET

After weeks of negotiations and multiple short-term continuing resolutions, lawmakers are set to approve a $1.4 trillion omnibus appropriations package to fund agencies through the end of fiscal 2021, although the measure would allow for only a 1% across-the-board pay raise for federal employees and fails to block implementation of President Trump’s controversial plan to politicize the civil service.

The bill, which was finalized and released Monday afternoon, is silent on federal employee compensation for next year, which effectively endorses the alternative pay plan that President Trump submitted in February. That plan provides civilian federal workers with a 1% across-the-board pay increase next year and no change to locality pay rates, a figure that falls far short of the 3% pay raise that military service members are slated to receive in 2021.

The provision marks an improvement over the pay freeze advocated by Senate Republicans and the White House in recent weeks. Trump must sign an executive order finalizing the pay raise before the end of the year.

The bill also makes no mention of Schedule F, the controversial plan unveiled by Trump in October that would strip the civil service protections of potentially hundreds of thousands of career federal workers, making them effectively at-will employees. Experts warn that even partial implementation of Trump’s executive order establishing Schedule F could have broad ramifications and will be difficult for the Biden administration to roll back.

In a statement, Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., blamed Republican intransigence for the failure of a provision blocking implementation of Schedule F to make it into the final bill.

“I am deeply disappointed Republicans were unwilling to stand up for our federal employees and reject President Trump’s Schedule F executive order that undermines our 140-year professional civil service,” Connolly said. “Congress must protect the civil service and I will look forward to working with the Biden administration to reverse this executive order with all deliberative speed.”

But sources told Government Executive that Democratic appropriators failed to adequately push for the language’s inclusion, saying lawmakers “don’t get” how quickly some agencies might implement the plan or how difficult it will be to reverse.

“What I’m hearing is that, since Republicans are a hard ‘No’ on this and Biden can rescind it, this doesn’t need to be part of the negotiations,” a source familiar with the negotiations said earlier this month. “If you’re [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi or [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer or whoever and you think that Biden can easily rescind this, why would you trade this for something else?”

In a statement Monday, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association National President Ken Thomas blasted lawmakers’ inaction on the issue.

“Congress has given the Trump administration a green light to continue its implementation of Executive Order 13957, which creates a broad exception to competitive civil service rules through a new Schedule F job classification, removing protections that ensure civil servants are hired and fired based on merit, as opposed to political motivations,” Thomas said. “Unfortunately, Congress has abrogated its responsibility to ensure checks on either the current or future administration’s implementation of the executive order and use of the new authority.”

One positive provision for federal workers in the omnibus spending bill is language setting the deadline to repay deferred payroll taxes to the end of 2021, rather than next April. The Trump administration came under fire earlier this year for forcing all executive branch employees to defer their Social Security and Medicare taxes between September and the end of 2020, after private sector employers balked at the plan.

National Treasury Employees Union National President Tony Reardon applauded the decision to spread repayment of the deferred taxes over a full year of pay checks.

“NTEU was concerned that requiring employees to pay the deferred taxes in just four months was too short and would present a financial burden to federal employees, especially because they were forced to participate in the deferral with little or no notice,” Reardon said. “NTEU commends Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and other congressional allies who fought to give federal employees more time. The amount of deferred taxes will be withheld over 26 pay periods instead of eight, which is a fair resolution to a shortsighted policy that only affected civilian and military federal employees in the executive branch, and no one else.”

The House is expected to pass the measure Monday evening, and senators reportedly will vote to send it to Trump’s desk overnight. With government funding slated to expire Monday night, Congress is also expected to pass a 1-week continuing resolution to ensure that government stays open during the process of sending the omnibus to Trump and waiting for him to sign it.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/12/spending-agreement-would-allow-1-pay-raise-fails-ban-schedule-f/170948/

Collection of 2020 Social Security (OASDI) Deferred Payroll Taxes

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:28:03 GMT

Uncle Sam Giveth...and He Taketh Away...

By Ben Banchs

Last September, President Trump issued a Memorandum titled "Deferring of Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of the Ongoing COVID- 19 Disaster," which directed the Secretary of the Treasury to defer certain payroll tax obligations for the remainder of 2020. Specifically, if an employees' wages, subject to Social Security Tax (aka Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance), were $4,000 or less in any given pay period, then they would have their Social Security Tax Deductions deferred until 2021.

While private sector employees had the ability to opt out, federal employees and members of the military did not have the same option, and per Trump's directive, DFAS temporarily began deferring the 6.2% OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) tax withholding from employees that met the earnings threshold starting with the pay period ending September 12, 2020,

The deferral temporarily increased employee take-home pay. However, much to the dismay of most, deferral doesn't mean gift. Rather, it was more like a forced loan, and Uncle Sam wants his money back. So, effective the pay period ending January 16, and through the pay period ending April 30, 2021, t he amount of Social Security taxes deferred on your behalf in 2020 will be deducted from your regular pay in eight separate installments.

If you separate or retire before the first pay period of 2021, well you're still not out of the woods. Uncle Sam likes his money and he's coming for you one way or another. If the owed taxes cannot be deducted from your regular pay because you are no longer an employee. you are still responsible for repayment of the deferred taxes. In that case, DFAS will pay the deferred Social Security taxes to the IRS on your behalf, which means you will now owe DFAS for this repayment. Once they pay your debt to the IRS they will send you a collection letter, which will be posted to your myPay account in January 2021. You will also receive a copy of the letter at your home of record via US Mail. The debt letter will provide instructions for repayment; payments can be made online via Pay.gov.

Early estimate of current DoD employees impacted by the tax deferral is 598,245 (includes bargaining unit employees and non-bargaining employees). This number is likely to increase at the end of the upcoming pay period.

For more information make sure to check out the DFAS FAQ page:

https://www.dfas.mil/taxes/Social-Security-Deferral/Civilian-Employee-FAQs/

Defense One: National Guard Helping to Roll Out COVID Vaccine

Tue, 15 Dec 2020 17:00:33 GMT

Guardsman will divvy up some vaccine batches, backfill medical staff in nursing homes and prisons

BY PATRICK TUCKER

TECHNOLOGY EDITOR

DECEMBER 14, 2020 05:50 PM ET

The National Guard is helping with the rollout of an initial batch of 2.9 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, part of a complicated nationwide effort by federal and state governments and the private sector undertaken as the country passes 300,000 coronavirus-related deaths, health and Guard officials said Monday.

In some states, Guardsmen and women are helping to break up shipments of the vaccine, which Pfizer releases in batches of 975 doses and which must be kept at minus 70 degrees Celsius. Guardsmen won’t generally be transporting the vaccine or giving shots, though some will help backfill medical staff in some nursing homes and prisons, Guard officials said on a conference call with reporters on Monday.

The first batches began going out on Friday, largely to health workers. People who receive the shot will get a second dose in three weeks, completing a course of vaccination that has tested as 95 percent effective.

“By Wednesday, sites in Washington to the shores of Guam” would have doses to administer, first and foremost, to healthcare workers, then to residents in nursing homes, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said at a press event on Monday.

The U.S. government will also purchase 100 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine once it receives emergency use authorization, probably this week, said Azar. “This new federal purchase can give Americans even greater confidence we will have enough supply to vaccinate all Americans who want it by the second quarter of 2021,” he said. Some health logistics watchers had said that March or April was about the earliest to anticipate that the healthy general public would be able to access the vaccine. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, expressed a similar view on Friday in a conversation on NBC .

The Guard is also surging staffing into some nursing homes and prisons, for instance in Ohio, to help offset high absenteeism due to COVID-19 spread among those workforces.

“The limiting factor for our healthcare community and the greatest concern we have across the board that’s happening here in Ohio is the ability to staff not only hospital beds but nursing facilities,” said Maj. Gen. John C. Harris, Jr. of the Ohio National Guard. “When nursing homes have a shortage of staffing because of positive COVID-19 cases, we put together special rapid response teams to go in and backfill that staffing, not to administer the vaccine but provide patient care.”

That will occur when the numbers of sick workers exceed minimum staffing levels at those facilities. It’s a similar story with the prisons. “We give our soldiers and airmen two days of training by the Department of Corrections and then they will go in and backfill that corrections staff, side-by-side with the staffing in those prisons,” Harris said.

Local jails have the same problem, so the National Guard has received special authority to backfill positions in those facilities as well. A CDC study from October shows that about 6 percent of adults hospitalized for COVID-19 were healthcare workers.

The news of vaccine distribution comes as the United States grapples with a tragic new milestone, the number of COVID-19 deaths surpassing 300,000 on Monday, according to data from Johns Hopkins . Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Redfield has said the country could see 450,000 COVID-related deaths before February.

Original Story: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2020/12/national-guard-helping-roll-out-covid-vaccine/170758/

GovExec: Federal Employees to Get a Full Day Off on Christmas Eve

Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:53:34 GMT

President Trump issues an executive order that breaks with recent precedent by granting vacation for all of Dec. 24, rather than a half-day

By COURTNEY BUBLÉ

DECEMBER 11, 2020

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday giving federal employees an extra day off on Christmas Eve.

Christmas Eve falls on a Thursday this year and it was previously expected that the federal workforce would get a half-day off. President Obama granted the half day in 2015 and 2009 , when Christmas fell on a Friday, as did President Clinton in 1998.

Trump has been relatively generous with granting federal employees vacation around Christmas. Last year the president surprised federal employees by giving them Dec. 24 off despite the fact that Christmas fell on a Wednesday. Trump also gave Christmas Eve off in 2018, to allow the federal workforce a four-day weekend. Christmas Eve is not an official federal holiday.

“The heads of executive departments and agencies may determine that certain offices and installations of their organizations, or parts thereof, must remain open and that certain employees must report for duty on December 24, 2020, for reasons of national security, defense, or other public need,” the order notes.

This is Trump’s last Christmas as president, with President-elect Biden preparing to take over on January 20, despite the fact that Trump is still contesting the results of the election.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/12/federal-employees-get-full-day-christmas-eve/170710/

GovExec: White House Now Supports 2021 Pay Freeze, but Only for Civilians

Thu, 03 Dec 2020 03:03:29 GMT

The announcement marks a reversal for the Trump administration, which previously proposed a 1% across-the-board pay increase for all federal employees

By ERICH WAGNER

DECEMBER 2, 2020 12:23 PM ET

The Trump administration released a statement this week saying that it now supports Senate Republicans’ proposal to freeze civilian federal employees’ pay next year, further complicating ongoing negotiations over federal compensation in 2021.

In a letter, dated Nov. 30, to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought confirmed the White House’s support for a pay freeze for civilian feds as proposed in the Senate’s omnibus spending bill , which was unveiled last month.

“In the context of budgetary constraints and recent, pandemic-related impacts on non-federal labor markets, the administration supports the policy in the bill to maintain for 2021 the current level of federal civilian pay,” Vought wrote.

The move marks a reversal for the administration, which had previously proposed a 1% across-the-board pay increase for federal workers as part of its fiscal 2021 budget plan. Under that proposal, locality pay for civilian feds would remain at 2020 levels.

Over the summer, the House passed appropriations legislation that was silent on the prospect of a pay raise for federal employees, essentially endorsing the White House’s original plan. But a group of lawmakers in that chamber has continued to push for a greater pay increase, particularly in light of the fact that the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act is slated to include a 3% pay raise for members of the military.

“The administration appreciates the [appropriations] committee’s support for the 3.0% military pay raise as requested in the fiscal 2021 budget,” Vought wrote.

In a statement late Tuesday evening, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association National President Ken Thomas blasted the pay freeze proposal.

“In a year when federal employees have stepped up to respond to a global pandemic, with tens of thousands on the frontlines working on behalf of the American people and contracting COVID-19 in the process, a 1% pay increase was the least our nation could do to honor the commitment of feds,” Thomas said. “But now, the White House has come out in support of a proposal . . . which would freeze federal pay at 2020 levels, while at the same time, the administration affirmed its support for a 3% pay increase for military members. This disparity devalues the contributions of civil servants, who tirelessly and expertly meet the needs of not only our military, but also of our nation as it struggles through this historic crisis and attendant rocky economic conditions.”

If enacted, a pay freeze next year would effectively serve as a pay cut for many federal employees, in light of the fact that the Office of Personnel Management has announced that feds will pay an average of 4.9% more toward their insurance premiums in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/12/white-house-now-supports-2021-pay-freeze-only-civilians/170422/

GovExec: Several Federal Agencies to Deliver COVID-19 Vaccines to Employees Directly

Mon, 30 Nov 2020 17:18:44 GMT

The agencies will receive their own allocations of the immunizations and then distribute them to their workforces

ERIC KATZ Senior Correspondent

Originally Published NOVEMBER 23, 2020

Some federal agencies will create their own distribution networks to ensure their employees receive COVID-19 vaccines, according to Trump administration planning documents.

The departments of Defense and State, as well as the Veterans Affairs Department’s Veterans Health Administration, the Bureau of Prisons and Indian Health Service, will all receive a direct allocation of vaccines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The plan was spelled out in a COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook, which was first reported by CNBC.

Vaccine distribution will take place in three phases based on population prioritization and the availability of doses. The document did not say specifically when the federal agencies would begin vaccinating employees, but it did list several of their relevant occupations as part of the first phase. CDC is relying in part on guidance on the “essential critical infrastructure workforce” created by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency earlier this year. After agencies receive vaccine allocations from CDC, they will likely have leeway to interpret federal guidelines and determine which employees get the immunizations first.

Defense will distribute the COVID-19 vaccine directly to all of its personnel, both civilian and military. Department contractors, retirees and dependents of active duty personnel for all services but the Coast Guard will also receive the vaccine from Defense. The administration has not yet made a determination for Reserves and National Guardsmen.

A Defense official said the department submitted a combined response with other agencies to complete the Federal Entity Plan for COVID-19 vaccine distribution.

At VA, all employees—including volunteers and trainees—at VHA facilities would receive the vaccine from their department. VA announced last week it would carry out a “limited-supply phase” for distribution followed by a “general implementation phase,” though it did not say whether all employees would be included in the first phase. Tribal nations that previously selected the Indian Health Service for vaccine allocation would receive it from CDC.

The plan lists the agency as only “potentially” including its own staff for vaccine distribution, but a separate, internal IHS plan released on Monday suggested the agency would distribute immunizations to tens of thousands of health care and other essential workers. An IHS spokesperson declined to comment on whether that population would include all of the agency’s 14,000 workers, but the internal plan provided instructions for at least some employees to receive the vaccine.

“Ensuring an equitable and transparent distribution plan when a vaccine is available is a priority for IHS,” an agency spokesperson said. “Operation Warp Speed will allocate vaccine doses directly to the IHS, and we will implement Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations on prioritizing our populations for vaccination.”

Front-line health care workers will be the very first to receive the vaccine as part of Phase 1-A of the distribution plan, according to CDC documents and officials.

Officials at the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said at a meeting on Monday that research has demonstrated it is more effective to prioritize vaccinations for health care workers rather than patients. They added that 40 million vaccine doses—or enough immunizations for 20 million individuals, as a full dose requires two shots—could be available in December.

All domestic civil service employees at the State Department are slated to receive the vaccine from their employer, as well as any personnel eligible to receive care through the department. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Justice Department component that runs all federal prison facilities, would provide vaccines to all staff and inmates under the interim plan. Employees and inmates at private contract facilities are not slated for inclusion. In a recent memorandum for staff obtained by Government Executive, the bureau said employees, rather than inmates, would receive "initial allocations." CDC will determine the size of that allocation. The memo also provided a glimpse into the process federal workers will follow to receive a vaccine from their agencies: staff will follow a specific link that will allow them to register and, once registered, they can set up an appointment at their facility's health services department.

Spokespeople at all five agencies, as well as at CDC and the Office of Management and Budget, declined to say or did not respond to inquiries into the potential timelines for CDC sending vaccines to their federal partners. CNBC reported the agencies have told employees they can expect vaccines within the next eight weeks, though the Food and Drug Administration has yet to authorize any vaccine for use. Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca have all reported successful results from human trials of their vaccine candidates. CDC said in its interim plan that large employers like the federal agencies tapped to receive their own vaccine distributions could use their internal occupational health settings to deliver the doses to their workers.

More federal employees could also become eligible for immunization before the vaccine is made available to the general public. CISA’s guidance on “essential critical infrastructure workers” includes as part of that definition federal government employees “who support mission essential functions and communications networks.” It also covers workers who support the “essential services required to meet national security commitments to the federal government and U.S. Military.” That includes those working in aerospace, nuclear matters, related software engineering and IT support, and several other vocations. “Essential workers” are slated to receive vaccines in Phase 1-B under CDC’s plan.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/11/several-federal-agencies-deliver-covid-19-vaccines-employees-directly/170276/

GovExec: Free Tutoring Now Available for School-Age Children of Federal Employees

Mon, 09 Nov 2020 16:59:17 GMT

Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund partners with online tutoring company to provide service

By Joyce Warner

Have you heard about the “COVID slide”? Like the more well-known “summer slide,” when students lose academic ground while away from school, it refers to educational losses students are experiencing due to the pandemic and disruptions to schooling.

If you are a parent of a student in grades K-12, you are probably feeling at least some anxiety about the current school year. Whether your children are back in their school building full time (with social distancing and other safety measures in place), in a hybrid attendance model or completely virtual, I think we can agree it’s not the school experience kids have been used to. It’s also likely putting extra pressure on you as a parent to manage schooling, child care and working differently than you have before.

We at the Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund , the national charity for and by federal employees, are worried about how the pandemic is affecting federal workers and their children. We applaud agencies that are offering maximum schedule and leave flexibilities to working parents, but we also know navigating work and school is still a challenge for many families. Most children are now in the second quarter of the 2020-21 school year, and we’ve heard many could use some extra help. Teachers are not always as available for one-on-one assistance as they had been, and parents sometimes lack available time and subject knowledge to assist.

A recent Brookings Institution article found that “tutoring is remarkably effective at helping students learn, with over 80% of the 96 included studies reporting statistically significant effects…In other words, with the help of tutoring, a student at the 50th percentile would improve to the 66th percentile. In the field of K-12 education research where there is little agreement on what works, these findings are remarkable not only for their magnitude but also for their consistency. The evidence is clear that tutoring can reliably help students catch up.”

FEEA wants to help reduce parental stress and prevent or reverse potential learning losses for their children. This is why we have just started a partnership with Tutor.com to provide free one-on-one online help from professional tutors in nearly all K-12 subjects to children of federal employees. We are currently enrolling employees who earn under $100,000 per year, but we might increase that threshold if funding permits in the future. You can learn more and sign up here . We are very grateful to the Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program for sponsoring the launch of this program.

So whether you have a first grader who needs help with reading, a high schooler who needs guidance on AP Chemistry, or you would like some one-on-one parent coaching on how to help your child improve their study techniques, know that you are not alone. In October 2020, Tutor.com delivered 49% more tutoring sessions than in October 2019. A lot of people are seeking extra help in the current environment.

We encourage you to sign up for the program now so you will have your login whenever you need it, including on a Sunday afternoon when your child lets you know they need extra help to prepare for a test or finish a project due Monday (applications are processed by FEEA on weekdays). We also encourage you to spread the word to your colleagues so they can also get the help their families may need.

We can get through this together.

Joyce Warner is executive director of the Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/11/free-tutoring-now-available-school-age-children-federal-employees/169864/

DefenseOne: No Need To Federalize State's National Guards, Leaders Say

Thu, 29 Oct 2020 14:28:14 GMT

“I cannot think of any scenario where we would recommend or ask for being federalized,” Tennessee’s adjutant general told reporters.

BY KATIE BO WILLIAMS

SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT - DEFENSE ONE

OCTOBER 28, 2020 06:40 PM ET

National Guard leaders for four states, including one key battleground state, on Wednesday argued fiercely against putting the Guard under federal control to deal with any potential unrest related to the presidential election next week.

“There would be no added benefit of federalizing those Guard forces,” Army Maj. Gen. Jeff Holmes, adjutant general for the Tennessee National Guard, told reporters. “We can do more in the Title 32 [status] but under the governor’s control as commander-in-chief.

“I cannot think of any scenario where we would recommend or ask for being federalized.”

General officers from the Nebraska, Washington, and Wisconsin National Guards also said that they saw no need for the Guard to be federalized in their state.

President Trump’s increasingly heated rhetoric questioning the integrity of the election combined with sporadic and nationwide civil unrest related to the killing of George Floyd by police in June have raised fears that Nov. 3 may be marked by chaos — and, among critics, fears that the president may seek a disproportionately militarized response either to intimidate voters or to challenge the outcome should Democratic nominee Joe Biden appear to be winning. Trump offered a potential preview in June, when he used a controversial loophole to use National Guard units to clear protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House, and considered invoking the Insurrection Act to allow him to use active duty troops to quell the protests.

Right now, National Guard units across the United States are preparing for a variety of support roles related to the election, including acting as poll workers in their civilian clothes and assisting state election authorities bolster their cybersecurity. Most state guards have been wary of being seen as enforcing polling security or managing unrest — although the Texas Guard on Monday said it was prepared to send up to 1,000 troops to five cities to “in support of civil disturbance operations.”

Guardsmen in Wisconsin “will not be responding to any civil unrest at the polling stations,” Army Brig. Gen. Robyn Blader said. “If there is any civil unrest, it will go through the normal 911 channels.”

“Federalizing” a given state’s Guard would mean that Trump would assume the role of commander-in-chief — but with limits. If a state guard is brought under what is known as Title 10 status, it is forbidden by the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act from practicing domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by statute.

Under what is known as “State Active Duty” status, the Guard remains under a governor’s control and can operate in a law enforcement capacity. That, in theory, keeps the Guard accountable to a state and its community — not the president. A third option, known as Title 32 status, leaves the Guard under a governor’s command but lets the federal government pick up the paycheck.

The nuclear option would be for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which stipulates that the president determine “as a result of a natural disaster [that] domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.” In that instance, he could countermand a state’s governor and use both federalized National Guard troops and regular military forces for law enforcement purposes.

The debate over whether to invoke the Insurrection Act is both recurring and deeply controversial. As lawlessness spread after Hurricane Katrina, President George W. Bush debated invoking the act, pressing Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco to accept military law enforcement assistance and allow federalization of the state Guard. Blanco was unwilling to relinquish control to the president, out of practical concerns that it would smack of martial law and political fears that Bush would blame the state government for a failed response to the disaster.

Broadly, the military has sought to downplay any role the Guard might serve in November and rejected any suggestion that it might be called upon to ensure a peaceful transition of power. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley insisted in an interview with NPR this month that there is “zero” role for the military in the event the Nov. 3 election results are contested.

If anything, Guard leaders said Wednesday, they are preparing to help local law enforcement with traffic management in the event of any unrest. The Tennessee National Guard has plans to “backfill” highway patrol so that those officers can respond directly to potential unrest, Army Maj. Gen. Jeff Holmes said.

All four said that so far, they have received no credible threats of violence at polling stations.

Several cautioned that if it weren’t for unusual polling conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic, they might not be helping with the election process at all.

Original Story: https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2020/10/no-need-federalize-national-guards-state-leaders-say/169644/

GovExec: Trump's Order Sets the Stage for Loyalty Tests for Thousands of Feds

Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:04:27 GMT

The president’s executive order sweeps aside 140 years of federal policy promoting professional expertise

By DONALD F. KETTL - Professor, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas

With a stroke of his Sharpie, President Trump has launched the biggest effort in history to sweep aside 140 years of federal policy promoting professional expertise in government. It would have a vast impact on government, on its workers, and on the public’s trust in getting a fair and impartial shake from government programs.

On Wednesday, the president signed an executive order creating a new category of federal employees. Top officials could classify positions as having “a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.” Then they could sweep employees holding those positions into a new “Schedule F,” where employees would lose all protections , including those against discrimination, forced reassignments and relocations, and any rights to organize or appeal personnel decisions, for example. Most important, employees could be dismissed for any reason whatsoever.

The presidential order is the explosive culmination of a volcano that’s been building within the Trump administration to root out public employees viewed as disloyal and part of the “deep state.” President Trump has tweeted that he has the authority “to fire any Executive Branch Employee.” The order puts in place the machinery to make that happen.

But this order would do more than pave the road for a vast transformation of the federal workforce in a second Trump administration. If the administration can meet the tight timetable in the order, the president could define large numbers of current career public servants, who are now protected from political interference, as “policy-making” officials, put them into Schedule F, and order them fired right before the inauguration of a Biden presidency.

The sheer power of the order lies in its simplicity. It does not define what a “policy-determining” or “policy-making” official might be. Indeed, the terms are so broad that they could describe thousands of federal employees. Anthony Fauci’s counsel on how best to guide the nation’s pandemic response could fit the definition. But the administration could argue that the same would be true of a GS-9 analyst deep in the Centers for Disease Control, who analyzes how virus particles spread and writes a memo on the options for using masks to prevent their spread.

Thus, given the order’s unprecedented scope, its fuzziness gives it extraordinary power to uproot employees throughout the federal service. And given the truly astonishing war on expertise that’s muddied the debate on the battle against COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic, the order would severely erode trust when it comes to making policy. We elect public officials to use their values in making decisions. We employ career public servants to put the facts before us and to administer the law impartially. If every act of a career public servant is seen through the “policy-determining” or “policy-making” lens, how can we trust the analysis of facts or the impartial application of the law?

Since the creation of the federal civil service with the 1883 Pendleton Act , we have almost 140 years of policy that’s developed our doctrines of fact-based, impartial administration. President Trump’s executive order sweeps it away in just a few pages.

But there’s more. The president asserts the right to change existing federal regulations through an executive order. Now those regulations, defined in the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, are the product of a process originally set by Congress in the Administrative Procedure Act, passed in 1946. The APA sets out a process that requires the administration to lay out its proposed rules, to provide an opportunity for public comment, and to require the administration to take those comments into account before issuing a final rule. This is part of the delicate balance of power between Congress and the president: Congress delegates broad authority to the executive branch to exercise great discretion in exchange for an open process that allows for public input.

" This is an aggressive effort to uproot the traditions of a highly skilled and politically impartial public service that have made the country great for more than a century. "

In pushing aside the APA, the executive order dramatically shifts the balance of power away from Congress and towards the presidency. There’s a fierce debate about whether the president can amend existing regulations through executive order, and any actions by the Trump administration to execute that order are certain to end up in court. The ultimate irony of President Trump’s push to confirm Amy Coney Barrett for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court might be that the conservatives would be his undoing, since it would be hard for conservative justices to embrace such an extraordinary grab for power.

But make no mistake about it: This is an aggressive effort to uproot the traditions of a highly skilled and politically impartial public service that have made the country great for more than a century. It is a bold effort to shift the constitutional balance of power, to weaken Congress, and to push aside the public’s right to participate in the process that shapes the regulations affecting them.

The executive order’s implications for the government’s ability to perform —and for citizens’ trust in government’s impartiality—could not be greater. This is a very, very big deal.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/10/trumps-order-sets-stage-loyalty-tests-thousands-feds/169492/

DoD Issues Preliminary Guidance on Paid Parental Leave for Civilian Employees

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:02:57 GMT

New Benefit Grants New Parents Up To 12 Weeks of Paid Leave

DoD issued interim guidance this week to implement the new Paid Parental Leave (PPL) benefit for civilian employees. The new benefit became effective October 1st and provides eligible employees with 12 administrative work weeks of PPL to covered employees for the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a child. The new benefit is similar to the Parental Leave Program implemented for active duty members in 2017.

Eligibility is determined by reference to the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and those who are covered may elect to substitute up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave for unpaid FMLA leave, for the purpose of caring for a son or daughter. Covered employees must use the paid parental leave within 12 months of the date of birth or placement of a child. PPL is not retroactive and may only be used to cover absences for qualified births or adoptions that occur after October 1, 2020.

Although the notice and guidance are in draft format, we do not expect much to change when the final documents are published sometime after November 4, 2020. It is important to note that employees are eligible to use PPL now. The guidance below is merely a procedural matter:

- DoD Memo on Paid Parental Leave (Draft)

- DoD Interim Implementation Guidance for PPL (Draft)

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns please do not hesitate to contact us .

GovExec: Feds Will Pay 4.9% More Toward Health Care Premiums Next Year

Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:41:21 GMT

The Office of Personnel Management said Wednesday that it has revamped its online plan comparison tool and encouraged greater transparency from insurance carriers to tamp down on surprise billing

By Erich Wagner

Federal employees and retirees will spend an average of 4.9% more on their health insurance premiums in 2021, a sizeable increase that nonetheless is an improvement from last year’s price hike.

The government’s share of Federal Employees Health Benefits Program premiums will increase by an average of 3% next year and agencies will cover around 70% of each enrollee’s total premium costs, the Office of Personnel Management announced Wednesday. The increase in employee contributions is an improvement over last year, when the average increase was 5.6%, but remains sharply higher than the 1.5% increase in 2019.

On average, non-postal federal employees will spend an additional $7.89 per paycheck in insurance premiums next year. That comes out to $4.67 more on average for feds enrolled in “self-only” plans, while family plans will cost an average of $10.94 more per paycheck, and workers on “self plus one” plans will pay an additional $10.90 in 2021.

Employees of the U.S. Postal Service will pay an average of $7.96 per pay period in 2021, although the exact amount will vary based on the individual insurance carrier and plan.

Laurie Bodenheimer, OPM’s acting director of health care and insurance, said much of the premium increase in 2021 is driven by recent increases in health care spending. Last year, Congress repealed the Health Insurance Provider’s Fee, which OPM had waived for 2019 but reinstated for last year.

“For this plan year going into 2021, COVID-19 did have a significant impact, but not in the way many people might think,” Bodenheimer said. “There was a period from mid-March until the end of May where a lot of people deferred certain routine care, perhaps anything that wasn’t absolutely necessary. So elective surgeries were deferred or delayed related to the COVID-19 pandemic, but before COVID and again beginning in June, health care utilization and costs have been higher than in prior years.”

OPM officials touted a revamped plan comparison tool to help employees to choose their plans, with increased functionality to help show retirees how plans interact with Medicare. And insurance carriers are working to provide greater transparency on which hospitals and other urgent care facilities—and their staff—are in network, as part of an effort to tamp down on surprise medical billing.

“No later than the 2022 calendar year, they will be expected to display the network contracting status of selected specialties of physicians, and groups or categories of services that provide urgent or emergent care service,” Bodenheimer said. “So the status of pathology, radiology and anesthesia will be on the plan’s website. These changes were enacted to help eliminate surprise billing and allow enrollees and consumers to determine if a provider is in network or out of network, to reduce instances of surprise billing.”

A new seven-year contract for the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program brings new insurance carriers into the federal employee marketplace and an array of enhancements at no additional cost to workers, Bodenheimer said.

“All of the carriers who are part of the current FEDVIP contract will carry over into the new contract period, and those carriers did not increase overall premiums despite many changes and enhancements in the contract,” she said. “[As] part of this procurement, carriers were offered the opportunity to propose new benefits, and many took advantage of that with additional wellness-focused services, including benefits for pregnancy, children and persons with chronic conditions. And some dental plan options for 2021 will include up to three prophylaxes—or exams—per year for those with diabetes.”

Open season will run from Nov. 9 until Dec. 14. More information on the plan options and OPM's plan comparison tool are at the agency's website .

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/10/feds-will-pay-49-more-toward-health-care-premiums-next-year/169237/

cyberFEDS: Payroll Tax Deferral Must be Repaid in 2021

Tue, 08 Sep 2020 14:18:16 GMT

IN FOCUS: Employees must be aware that any payroll taxes deferred as a result of President Trump's recent presidential memorandum must be repaid.

By Anjali Patel, Esq., cyberFEDS® Legal Editor Washington Bureau

The memo defers an employee's portion of Social Security taxes for those making less than $4,000 taxable wages during a biweekly pay period starting Sept. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020. Employees making $4,000 or above in taxable wages per biweekly pay period may not defer their portion of Social Security taxes.

Federal Practice Group partner Debra D'Agostino told cyberFEDS® that even though COVID-19 has devastated the economy, "federal employees, despite other forms of hardship, have stayed on payroll with a steady income stream and benefits intact." So "there is no evidence that federal employees want this deferral, or want the hassle of having to pay it back, with interest and a potential penalty."

Agencies "will have to waste labor and resources to execute the tax deferral, and then waste more to collect it back, which may be complicated if some are allowed to pay it back in a lump sum while others opt for installments," she added.

Attorney John Mahoney told cyberFEDS® that "federal employees deserve prompt answers" from the administration about the impact, both during the deferral period prior to Dec. 31, 2020, as well as next year when those deferred taxes will likely be due to be paid. If possible, "employees should consult a certified public accountant or a tax attorney to best determine how to handle the impact of those deferred taxes" or put the increased pay they receive this year into an escrow account, "so they are not caught off guard if and when they have to ultimately pay those taxes in 2021."

Interest and penalties

According to Internal Revenue Service guidance , employers must withhold the deferred payroll taxes from wages and compensation paid between Jan. 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021 or "make arrangements to otherwise collect the total Applicable Taxes from the employee."

If the employers do not collect the deferred payroll tax, interest and penalties will begin to accrue on May 1, 2021, the IRS said.

However, the National Federation of Federal Employees said in a press release that the "administration has not issued any guidance to employees on how to keep accurate track of the taxes they must set aside and pay in April of 2021." So, employees could be surprised in early 2021 if agencies take unilateral action to recoup the deferred taxes via installments or lump-sum payments.

A senior administration official from OMB said that they have been working with federal payroll providers since the IRS guidance came out to address any issues with implementation.

Less in retirement

Even if the administration issues a permanent deferment order for these taxes in the future, "federal employees will have paid less into their Medicare and Social Security accounts which can lower their benefit annuities when they retire," NFFE explained.

"Either way, the employee loses," NFFE national president Randy Erwin said. "If the tax deferment becomes permanent, and provided it is legal, the employee could get a lower payout in retirement. If the deferment is temporary, the employee risks getting a huge tax bill plus interest and penalties early next year."

Unions want more information

The National Treasury Employees Union noted that "information to federal employees about the payroll tax deferral, as ordered by the president, has been incomplete and conflicting."

In a letter to OMB Director Russell Vought, NTEU president Tony Reardon raised concerns about how repayment would work, including the impact of salary increases and retirement during the deferral or repayment period. Specifically, NTEU asked OMB to clarify:

How the deferred taxes will be repaid, such as having extra taxes taken out of several paychecks in early 2021 or in one lump sum, and whether employees will be able to choose how and over what period of time they can pay back the deferred taxes.
Whether payroll processors are prepared to make proper tax calculations on differing amounts for employees who receive a raise starting in 2021. This would require separate calculations for the taxes owed on the previous wage and new wage in 2021.
How to calculate payroll taxes when a federal employee retires or leaves the federal service during the deferral period or during the repayment window.
Options for employees who may have trouble paying back the deferred taxes.

Calls to allow opting in or out

The NTEU also asked whether federal agencies or employees may opt out of the deferral, an option provided to private sector employers.

If forced to defer taxes, the repayment may be cumbersome for some people. For example, federal employees who make $70,000 a year -- or $2,693 per pay period -- will get an additional $167 in their paychecks if payroll taxes are deferred, but they must repay the government about $1,500 in 2021, the NTEU explained.

In a similar letter to OMB, American Federation of Government Employees national president Everett Kelley requested federal workers be allowed to opt in or at a minimum be allowed to opt out "rather than be forced to participate, as most federal agencies appear to be doing."

However, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, a federal payroll provider, allegedly emailed instructions to agencies that do not allow employees to opt out of the deferral.

DFAS referred questions to OMB. OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel told cyberFEDS® that the "President put forward this action to give relief to all Americans during this pandemic -- as an employer, the Executive Branch is implementing the deferral to give our employees relief as quickly as possible, in line with the Presidential memo."

GovExec: 5 Questions You Need to Ask Yourself Right Now

Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:44:23 GMT

Federal employees need to be financially ready in case they’re affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

TAMMY FLANAGAN - Retirement Counseling and Training www.retirefederal.com

This week the National Institutes of Health announced that a phase three trial had begun to test a potential COVID-19 vaccine developed by biotechnology company Moderna Inc. and NIH. Moderna said it is on track to deliver as many as 1 billion doses annually starting in 2021. This potentially promising development is most welcome, because otherwise the COVID-19 news has been grim of late.

According to the CDC, more than 4.4 million Americans have tested positive for the coronavirus since the outbreak began. Since the onset of the pandemic, nearly 1 percent of federal employees have tested positive. Almost 19,000 civilian employees have contracted COVID-19, in addition to more than 20,000 military members. As of June 16, the Division of Federal Employees' Compensation had received 2,866 COVID-19 claims, including 48 death claims.

We can all hope that an end to the pandemic isn’t too far off. In the meantime, it’s a good idea to assess your readiness in the event you are impacted by COVID-19. Here are five questions every federal employee should be able to answer “yes” to. If your response to any of them is “no,” then you have some homework to do. I’ve included links to resources to help you do that.

Do you know how long you could continue to remain financially secure if you were diagnosed with a serious illness?

Federal employees accrue 104 hours of sick leave every year. Over 10 years, that adds up to six months of paid time off. Of course, you may have used some of that leave for your own illness or to care for a family member. How long would your current sick leave (and annual leave) balance last if you weren’t able to work for an extended period?

The handy Geico Leave Record is a good way to plot out how long your leave will last. (Don’t forget to include the leave you will earn while using your leave.) You can contact your human resources office to learn if your agency has a leave transfer program or a voluntary leave bank to assist you if your leave runs out.

How much do you have available in cash? Cash reserves can sustain you if you need to go on a period of leave without pay. The CARES Act passed in March has made federal employees’ Thrift Savings Plan funds more accessible through liberalized loan and withdrawal programs for those affected by COVID-19. Separated employees who are subject to required minimum distributions do not have to take them in 2020, and can return money already received this year by Aug. 31.

Do you know what your dependents would be entitled to if something happened to you?

Are your designation of beneficiary forms up to date?

Designation of Beneficiary: Federal Employees Retirement System
Designation of Beneficiary: Civil Service Retirement System
Designation of Beneficiary: Thrift Savings Plan
Designation of Beneficiary: Unpaid Compensation
Designation of Beneficiary: Federal Employees Group Life Insurance

The Office of Personnel Management has information regarding death in service benefits for CSRS and FERS employees. Your spouse and your dependent children may be entitled to recurring survivor annuity benefits. Social Security provides benefits to your dependent children, your spouse aged 60 or older, or your spouse at any age if caring for your dependent children.

If your illness or death was work-related, then benefits are payable to your family through the Division of Federal Employee’s Compensation in the Labor Department’s Office of Worker’s Compensation. In order to claim compensation benefits related to COVID-19, the office says, federal employees “are required to have in-person and close proximity interactions with the public on a frequent basis—such as members of law enforcement, first responders, and front-line medical and public health personnel.”

Did you stay the course with your retirement savings despite the stock market volatility this year?

It’s been an unprecedented year for the market—to say the least. After one of the worst first quarters in history for U.S. stocks, the second quarter was one of the best in decades. At the end of March, the C Fund was down 19.65%, the S Fund was down 28.14%, and the I Fund was down 22.7%. If you had $500,000 invested on Dec. 31, 2019 in the TSP at 50% in the C Fund, 30% in the S Fund and 20% in the I Fund, your balance by March 31 would have fallen by $114,043 to $385,957.

If you then moved everything to the G Fund, by June 30, your balance would have grown to $388,740. But if you had left your investments alone, by June 30, your balance would have recovered all but $27,730 of its losses, and would be at $472,270.

Do you have an investment strategy for retirement?

To develop a good strategy for your retirement savings, it’s important to understand your ability to withstand volatility in the market and how you manage risk. This is generally determined by several factors, including your age, income, and how long you have until you retire. Generally, the younger you are, the more risk you can take on.

One way to easily manage your retirement savings is to let someone else do it for you. Some federal employees work with a qualified financial advisor. And many others simply let the TSP’s 10 lifecycle funds do the diversification and rebalancing for them.

Do you know the current value of your life insurance?

OPM has an online FEGLI calculator that makes it easy to figure the premiums for the various combinations of coverage. The calculator will also allow you to see how life insurance carried into retirement will change over time. You may want to look at your pay stub or the FEGLI code on a Notification of Personnel Action (SF 50) form to find out the actual amount of FEGLI coverage you currently have.

FEGLI also offers a living benefit that applies if you’re diagnosed as terminally ill with a life expectancy of nine months or less, and you have not assigned your insurance. The FEGLI Handbook has details about this and other important insurance information.

If you need additional life insurance and you are insurable, you may wish to consider a private term insurance policy with level payments that could be less expensive than FEGLI Option B. Option B provides insurance amounts valued in multiples of your basic salary rate, but the premiums increase every five years as you get older. Be sure to consider the fact that FEGLI will pay your beneficiary regardless of the cause of your death—unless your beneficiary intentionally caused your death.

It’s generally a good idea to maintain Basic FEGLI coverage while you’re a federal employee because you receive a government contribution to the premium and the insurance amount increases with every salary increase during your career.

Right to Privacy - Annual Leave and After Duty Hours

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Wed, 15 Jul 2020 02:08:13 GMT

You're not Active Duty!

Business Manager Ben Banchs shares his thoughts on your Privacy Rights.

Do I Have to Tell My Boss What I'm Doing After Duty Hours?

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:22:02 GMT

Also, can my boss tell me what I can and can't do after duty hours?

Do I have to tell my boss what I'm doing after duty hours? Also, can my boss tell me what I can and can't do after duty hours?

It depends, but the general answer is a resounding no !

We've been getting these types of questions from employees regarding whether management can dictate or place limits on the types of activities that they can engage in after duty hours. We're also being asked whether supervisors can ask about an employee's movements (i.e., where they went or are planning on going) when off duty, and whether an employee is compelled or required to provide such information. In some cases the questions were the result of management attempting to place restrictions on what employees could do or what types of establishments they could or could not go to after duty hours by issuing policies or modifying SOPs, to include travel restrictions, due to COVID-19.

Bottom-line, unless you are in a stand-by or on-call status, you are not required to report or request permission from your supervisor or any other management official in order to engage in activities after duty hours, and they cannot dictate to you where you can go, how far you can go, and whether you have to disclose those activities. Your time is your time, period.

Most of our collective bargaining agreements have a provision in Article 5, Employee Rights, that makes clear that whatever legal activities you engage in on your own time is your business and your business alone. For example, our latest contract in Illinois has the following statement (emphasis is for the purposes of this article):

The Agency affirms the right of an employee to conduct his or her private life as they see fit , within the constraint of Federal law and Agency regulations. Employees have the right to engage in outside legal activities of their own choosing without any requirement to report said activity to the Agency, except as required by law or Agency regulations . However, employees shall not accept a fee, compensation, gift, payment or expense, or any other thing of monetary value in circumstances in which the acceptance may result in or create the appearance of conflicts of interest. Employees may not engage in outside employment that would interfere with the performance of their assigned duties, and they are also prohibited from receiving compensation or anything of monetary value from a private source in exchange for government services.

This also includes annual leave. Your supervisor cannot ask you to provide any justification whatsoever as a condition of approving an annual leave request. The only criteria that determines whether your leave request is approved or denied is whether you are physically needed at work because of mission requirements. If the mission allows you to take leave as requested then that's it, nothing further needs to be provided to your boss as a condition of annual leave approval. You do not have to let them know why you want to take annual leave, where you're going, etc. It's your time, not theirs.

If your chain of command is placing any types of restrictions or conditions on what you can and cannot do after duty hours, to include trying to limit how far you can travel from your home, or if they are requiring that you disclose your off-duty activities, please let us know as soon as possible. If we don't know then we can't fix it.

Understanding Your State or Territory’s Rules for the Use of Force

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 00:09:57 GMT

COVID-19, Protests, and Hurricane Season Expose National Guard to Potential Use of Force Situations with the Public

2020 is turning out to be one of the busiest years on record for the men and women of the National Guard. COVID-19 was the first major emergency to trigger activation. Then came the nationwide protests, riots, and looting in the aftermath of George Floyd's death in Minneapolis. Now, the Gulf Coast braces for hurricane season as Tropical Storm Cristobal approaches the Louisiana coast. Since m any of Local 1776's members are also in the National Guard and have either already been activated or will be activated in the near future, we wanted to share some thoughts to keep in mind as you are sent out to respond to these emergencies.

Anytime you are activated in response to an emergency there is a near 100% chance that you will be interacting with the public. Sometimes, those interactions come from you fulfilling some type of law enforcement role, especially if you have been activated in response to rioting and looting. For this reason, we asked Attorney Doug O'Connell, Local 1776's Military Counsel, for some general guidance on what our members should keep in mind if they are activated in response to the protests in a security or law enforcement role involving the general public. Doug provided the following:

DOWNLOAD PDF COPY

NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS - HAVE YOU BEEN ACTIVATED?

Understanding Your State or Territory’s Rules for the Use of Force

For Guardsmen called to support civilian law enforcement during the ongoing nation-wide protests, you should be rightfully proud. You’re being called on to protect your fellow citizens’ right to peaceful protest. This is exactly what the 1st Amendment is all about.

At the same time, you’re being placed in an incredibly difficult, potentially dangerous situation. You may need to use force, possibly deadly force in the execution of your duties.

Here are some things you should consider:

Your leadership should provide you with the Rules for the Use of Force. If you’ve not been given Rules for the Use of Force, ask immediately for this information. If you’ve deployed before, you may remember receiving Rules of Engagement. The rules for using force here in the United States is drastically different. Don’t rely on what you remember from your deployment.

Rules for the Use of Force are based on your State/Territory’s Law. If you use force in a manner that violates state/territory law, you can be arrested and face criminal prosecution for your actions. Depending on your state/territory, you could also face a civil lawsuit for actions considered illegal.

If you have questions about what your Rules for the Use of Force mean – ask!

Try to avoid using any kind of force. Whenever possible, let law enforcement officers handle violent offenders.

Understand who is in your Chain of Command. Do your orders require you to obey the commands of law enforcement officers? Or are you strictly under the command and control of your organic chain of command. If this is not clear, ask. This is important because law enforcement officers have different training, policies and authorities.

If you’re given an order that sounds illegal, immediately ask for clarification. If you’re given an order that sounds possibly illegal, ask for the order to be put in writing, if possible. Ultimately if you are given an illegal order, you have a duty to disobey.

You always have the right to defend yourself and defend others. This means if you are being attacked, or another Guardsman, law enforcement officer or protester is being attacked, you can use force to protect yourself or others.

Your state/territory’s Rules for the Use of Force should specify when you can use deadly force. Specifically, you need to understand when you can legally fire your issued military weapon. Typically, this will only be in response to someone using deadly force against you or someone else. Your specific rules may also allow for using deadly force when you are threatened with deadly force. Ask, and keep asking until you get clear answers that you understand.

The amount of force you use must always be limited. Only use the minimum amount of force needed to safely neutralize the threat you’re facing. If a fellow Soldier or Airman is using excessive force, stop them.

If you are required to use any kind of force – do the following:

As soon as possible, make notes of what happened and why you took action. For example, document, as specifically as possible, the number of protesters you were dealing with at the moment you used force. Who else was present at the scene? What force was used against you? Did you feel scared and why? The more details the better. Save this document. Investigations may not be immediate, and you could face allegations weeks or months later.

If you seriously injure or kill someone – your actions will be scrutinized. Specifically, your use of force will be investigated to determine if you violated criminal laws. Seek the help of a criminal defense attorney immediately.

If you are required to use force of any kind, you may be questioned by law enforcement officers. You have the right to remain silent. Resist the urge to “make a statement,” until after you speak with an attorney.

About the Author

Attorney Doug O’Connell is a retired National Guard Colonel. Based in Austin, Texas, Doug routinely helps National Guardsmen around the country with legal issues. Doug can be contacted at Doug@DougOConnell.com or (512) 547-7265.

Disclaimer

This information is provided for general purposes only and should not be interpreted to indicate a certain result will occur in your specific situation. Even though certain information above might be useful or relevant to your individual situation, professional legal advice requires an in-depth discussion with you about your case, a thorough investigation into all the relevant facts, and substantial research into applicable laws. This content is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date as of the date indicated. This content is not intended to be a source of advertising, solicitation, or legal advice; thus, the reader should not consider this information an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act or rely solely upon any information contained herein. Legal questions arising out of your military service should be directed to the appropriate legal office or individual responsible for legal matters within your chain of command, or to a personal attorney.

Virtual Meet-N-Greet with NASCAR Rookie of the Year Tyler Ankrum

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:16:10 GMT

Join Tyler Ankrum and LIUNA Members for a Zoom Meet-N-Greet!

NASCAR 2019 Rookie of the Year Tyler Ankrum wants to chat with LIUNA Members before his race on Saturday! Click here to register, a zoom link will go to your email address. One lucky guest will receive a prize package!

Here are the details:

- Zoom Meet-N-Greet: Saturday, June 6, 2020 @ 10am EST/ 7am PST.

- LIUNA Members must register in advance here

- Download the Zoom the app

- Tyler will answer a few questions and then take a screenshot of everyone on the Zoom.

Then Tune into the Vet Tix Camping World 200 Race: Saturday June 6, 10am PST

Broadcast: FS1

Let's show Tyler Ankrum some LIUNA love!!

Thanks!

Amber Novey

LIUNA PSW Field Coordinator

The Concerns With Using the National Guard as First Responders

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Fri, 29 May 2020 19:14:23 GMT

Ultimately, it's about money, not emergency response....

With the current developing situation in Minnesota it seemed appropriate to discuss the use of National Guard men and women in responding to domestic emergencies.

"We've activated the National Guard...."

A short phrase, and one that carries so many implications for the Guard folks that get activated. It's a phrase that has become very familiar to the public over the last 20 years. After the 9/11 attacks, it was for airport security and to guard the skies from follow-on attacks. After the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, it was to serve on the front lines along active duty. Then came Katrina, Rita, Ike, Gustav, Maria, and every other hurricane and natural disaster since, and each time the Guard is activated. Now, if it floods in the Midwest, "we've activated the National Guard." If there's a blizzard in the Northeast, "we've activated the National Guard." Fire breaks out in California, "we've activated the National Guard." COVID-19? Yes, they've activated the National Guard. Now, in Minneapolis, the Guard is once again on the front lines of a domestic emergency. But what does that really mean to all involved?

While it may surprise some, the average Guard member is not necessarily a trained first-responder because the vast majority of them are in the business of either combat, maintenance, or in support of one of these two functions. In other words, a tank or aircraft mechanic is not a "trained first responder" in any way because the Guard was not created to respond to emergencies. The modern-day Guard, as created by the Military Act of 1903 , the Dick Act, is there to train on, use and maintain US military equipment, and to augment the regular military components in time of war. Domestically, the Guard's role had primarily extended to situations involving security and the protection of life and property, as they're now being used in Minneapolis. Relying on the Guard to the degree that we do today to respond to natural or man-made disasters is something that didn't really start until the 90's in response to Hurricane Andrew . Even after Andrew, the Guard's role in first response was limited. Katrina became the catalyst for reinventing the National Guard into the first response force it is now portrayed to be.

Does the Guard have equipment and personnel that can have a dual military/civilian use? Yes. Large military transport vehicles can access areas impacted by high flood waters, helicopters are invaluable for search and rescue, and Guard military police units can easily be incorporated alongside local law enforcement. Other specialized units within the Guard can also be used in response to things like chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) disasters. However, outside of these scenarios, and unless they have personally acquired some type of first-response experience in the civilian world, most Guard members are not trained by the military in first response of any kind, not even CPR. Even right now in Minneapolis, we don't necessarily know what type of Guard unit was activated. Governor Tim Walz is former National Guard so he knows the Guard better than most and one would hope he activate the right personnel. Otherwise, he would be putting both the public and Guard members in a dangerous situation. The point is, to blanket-label the National Guard as a pool of trained first responders is ambitious at best, misleading at worst.

This doesn't stop governors and other public officials from making the claim because, ambitious as it may be, the label "first responder" serves as a very effective way to secure tax-payer funding (mostly federal) and stay relevant. This funding provides governors with the ability to throw large numbers of very cheap manpower (bodies) at an emergency situation in a short amount of time, ideally on the Federal government's dime, to be used for all manner of taskings that would normally be performed by a state or local agency. For example, in late January 2014, the Southeast was hit by freak winter storm Leon. The storm caused major disruptions and the National Guard was activated in several states , tasked with distributing food, helping stranded motorists, and rescuing citizens. All noble tasks, no doubt, but also tasks that can and should have been performed by civilian agencies like law enforcement, the department of transportation, the department of health and human services, and non-profits like the Red Cross. One of the most glaring examples of how not to use the Guard came from Louisiana. The photo below (taken from the link) was released nationally to spotlight how the Guard responds to emergencies, and i t really captures the severity of the situation. A freak winter storm catches authorities by surprise and the Guard comes to the "rescue" - all neatly packaged like an episode of Law and Order.

But once you come down from the "Go Guard" high and really stop to examine the photo, a lot of questions come to mind. For example, why is Louisiana using members of the National Guard to salt roads instead of the department of transportation (LA DOTD)? Isn't the LA DOTD staffed and adequately prepared for a major winter storm? Do they not have enough employees or equipment? Louisiana experiences winter conditions every year so they should be more than capable of responding, so what's really going on? And, e ven if we assume that LA DOTD was not prepared for the storm, is this really the solution? To fill the bed of National Guard-owned pick-up trucks with rock-salt and drive down the interstate while soldiers stand up unrestrained in the back of a moving vehicle as they shovel salt, by hand, onto the road? This is the best idea someone came up with? This is how our tax dollars are spent? Forget for a second that there is no job in the Guard that trains anyone to stand in the back of a moving pick-up truck and shovel salt onto a roadway. However, even if you make the argument that it doesn't take much skill to shovel salt onto a road, the conditions are unnecessarily dangerous, so why even do it? The truth is that this is not an example of the Guard as first responders, this is an example of the state using the Guard because the cost and liability of using these personnel is much cheaper than using LA DOTD employees and paying them overtime. It definitely makes for good PR, though.

Unfortunately, this happens all the time. Whether it's handing out food and water, driving school buses with evacuees, staffing or securing shelters (like the Superdome during Katrina, which turned out to be a disaster), cleaning nursing homes in response to COVID-19, or augmenting local law enforcement, the increased reliance on the National Guard to perform these types of functions not only creates a false sense of security for the public, it also places our Guard men and women in danger because they not only lack the training, expertise, and (often times) proper equipment, they are also placing the citizens they interact with at risk of injury or death. Except during unforeseen emergencies, like a tornado or a terrorist attack, most other situations provide state leaders with ample notice to allow for the identification and use of the appropriate civilian personnel, not the Guard, to respond. For example, if there's a hurricane over water or a developing snow storm, modern day forecasting provides ample warning so that states can position and utilize local law enforcement as well as employees and equipment from other responsible agencies and even private firms and non-profits to respond to whatever the emergency calls for. Even during Katrina, we had days of warning. What we didn't have was a solid plan at any level of government. Unfortunately, the folks on the ground are the ones that ultimately pay the price of poor planning and even poorer leadership.

Even in Minnesota right now, is there really a need to activate 500 Guard members, or is it more of a public relations/show of force tactic? There's also the matter of escalation symbolized by military-type personnel patrolling on US soil, which begs the question, is there really a need for it? Think about Kent State University in 1970, when four unarmed students were shot dead and nine others wounded by Ohio National Guard troops that indiscriminately fired into a crowd of demonstrators, allegedly in fear for their lives. It was definitely a tense and chaotic situation, but perhaps the reason for what happened had more to do with a lack of leadership and training and less to do with the actual demonstrations. Specifically, why would the on-scene commander allow his troops to be put in a position where they were cornered by the students on the football field for about 10 minutes, the whole time under a barrage of rocks and other objects? Eventually, the Guard soldiers were ordered to retreat from the field, but, as they backtracked, the situation escalated beyond anyone's control resulting in the shooting and four dead students, one of whom wasn't even involved in the protest, she was just trying to get to her next class. The point is that the Guard was placed in an impossible situation and it didn't have to be that way. They shouldn't have been there at all.

Fast forward to Minneapolis. According to Wikipedia, in 2008 the US Bureau of Justice reported that Minnesota had "448 law enforcement agencies employing 9,667 sworn police officers, about 185 for each 100,000 residents." Assuming the figures are still fairly accurate, and recognizing that the near-10,000 number is statewide and not all would have legal jurisdiction in Minneapolis, the state could still bring in officers from other jurisdictions under an emergency declaration to help in the response. Using trained law enforcement personnel would be a better approach than to activate the Guard. But, why go through the trouble of bringing in other law enforcement agencies, paying them regular pay plus overtime and probably some type of hazard stipend, and having to deal with the police union and potential complaints and lawsuits from citizens and business owners when you can activate the Guard for a fraction of the cost and not have to worry about most of those other issues? Exactly.

Training aside, the men and women of the Guard always rise to the challenge. That's not a tribute to the Guard so much as it is a tribute to the everyday people who serve their community, the individual soldiers and airmen who find a way to get it done every time, often times in the most dire of circumstances, and sometimes in spite of bad leadership. They get it done, nonetheless, and they do it because they want to be part of the solution...because they want to help their community and fellow citizens. And that's the truly frustrating aspect of all this. They don't mind doing it, but if they're going to be asked to respond, all they ask from the higher ups is to give them the proper tools, training and equipment, to have a solid plan, and to take care of them with adequate pay and benefits. You can't control Mother Nature, for example, but you certainly should be able to control or at least be prepared to respond to her. T he public may feel safer because they think "1,000 trained, well-equipped, and ready members of the Guard" are manning their posts, but i n reality, what you may often have is a hodgepodge of next door neighbors, men and women in military uniforms, running around doing someone else's job, with limited to no first-response training, ill-equipped, with little idea what their "emergency" function is from one day to another, often times sitting idle doing absolutely nothing because there aren’t enough taskings or missions to go around, and then worried whether they're going to get paid or not (that's a discussion for another day).

There's one other aspect that's overlooked, especially by the general public, and that's that since Guard members are also citizens of the same community where they're usually asked to respond to emergencies, these activations usually force members to leave their families behind to fend for themselves. This is true every time. Even during Katrina, when tens of thousands of Guard troops were sent from other states to help, the Louisiana National Guard did not release their folks to go home. This was because, since the response to the initial call-up was such a disaster, senior leaders were worried that if they released people to go home to deal with their own families and flooded houses, that they wouldn't come back (they were right - many probably wouldn't have). For that reason, when Rita started approaching the Louisiana coast a few weeks after Katrina hit, Guard leaders actually locked their folks down on base for days to make sure they didn't go home. You can only imagine what that did for morale, not just of the Guard members but also their families who were home or displaced in some shelter struggling to take care of things all by themselves.

This is a multi-faceted issue and there's just absolutely no way to capture or address all the different aspects in a short article like this one. The bottom line is this: does the Guard have a role to fulfill in response to domestic emergencies? Yes. It's clear that we as a nation have and will continue to rely on the National Guard to be part of a preventative securing response framework. There's really nothing anyone can do about that since the genie is out of the bottle and there's no going back. However, if that's going to be the case then there needs to be a deliberate effort to provide the proper tools, training, equipment, and pay/benefits to Guard members who are going to be part of that response, and there needs to be a plan that's followed and that the Guard trains to execute. We may be better prepared to respond domestically today than we were on August 29th 2005 when Katrina came ashore, but we still have a very long way to go, and regardless of training, activating the National Guard should be treated as a last resort.

Mr. Banchs joined LIUNA in 2005. He has served as Business Manager and Secretary Treasurer on the Local 1776 Executive Board since December 2010. He also served in the Louisiana Air National Guard for 27 years in the aircraft maintenance field, from 2003 to 2010 as a dual-status technician. He has a BA in Communications from Ashford University.

LIUNA Brother and NASA Astronaut, Col. Robert L. Behnken PhD, Lifts-Off for International Space Station today at 4:30pm EDT

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Wed, 27 May 2020 18:17:38 GMT

This will be the first spacecraft launched in the
United States since the space shuttle program ended in 2011

Photo Credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky

LIUNA Brother to Launch into Space

Dear Brothers and Sisters

I hope you will join me today at 4:30 pm EDT to watch our LIUNA brother, USAF Colonel Robert L. Behnken PhD, and his crew-mate, retired Marine Colonel Douglas Hurley, launch into space for a mission aboard the International Space Station. A second-generation Laborer, Colonel Behnken worked out of LIUNA Local 110 in St. Louis and is the son of a proud 54-year-member, Lou Behnken. Lou joined the Laborers on June 30, 1966 and finished his active career working as an instructor at the Laborers’ Training Center in High Hill, MO from 1995 till 2010.

This will be Colonel Behnken’s third space flight, having flown aboard the Space Shuttle in March, 2008 and February, 2010. An F-22 test pilot before becoming an astronaut, in August, 2008, Brother Behnken spoke to our Leadership Conference about his experiences in space, in the Air Force, and growing up in our great International Union. Colonel Behnken’s wife, Megan McArthur, is a fellow astronaut who was a member of the shuttle crew of STS-125 that repaired the Hubble Space Telescope in 2009.

We are all inspired not only by Colonel’s Behnken’s significant achievements, but by his more than two decades of service to our country. He epitomizes the very best of LIUNA, and I know he makes his father, Lou, all the members of Local 110, and every member of our union throughout the United States and Canada very proud.

The launch will be broadcast live on NASA’s website at https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive .

I know you will join me and your 500,000 strong, proud, and united LIUNA brothers and sisters in wishing Colonels Behnken and Douglas a successful mission aboard the International Space Station, and a safe return to Earth.

About Colonel Behnken

NASA Bio

Summary

Robert L. Behnken was selected as an astronaut by NASA in 2000 and is a veteran of two space shuttle flights. He is currently training for the Demo 2 flight of SpaceX’s CrewDragon spacecraft, the first crewed flight for that vehicle. Behnken and his crewmate are working closely with SpaceX to develop their new spacecraft systems, which will provide roundtrip crew transportation services to the International Space Station and, along with Boeing’s Starliner, return the ability to launch humans into space from United States soil. A native of Missouri, Behnken flew STS-123 in March 2008 and STS-130 in February 2010, logging more than 708 hours in space, and more than 37 hours during six spacewalks.

Personal Data

Hometown: St. Ann, Missouri.

Education

Pattonville High School, Maryland Heights, Missouri, 1988; Bachelor of Science degree in Physics, Washington University, 1992; Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering, Washington University, 1992; Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, 1993; Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, 1997.

Experience

Colonel Behnken’s thesis research was on control of rotating stall and surge in compressor systems. The research included nonlinear analysis, real-time software development, and hardware construction. During his first two years of graduate study, Colonel Behnken developed control algorithms and hardware for flexible robotic manipulators.

Colonel Behnken was commissioned via the Air Force Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC). His first assignment was at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida managing and developing new weapon systems. He next attended the Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, California with a follow on assignment to the F-22 Combined Test Force (CTF) where he served as the lead Flight Test Engineer for the 4th F-22. He has flown more than 1,500 flight hours in more than 25 different types of aircraft.

NASA Experience

Colonel Behnken was selected by NASA in July 2000, and following the completion of astronaut candidate training was assigned to support launch and landing activities at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Since then, within the Astronaut Office, he served in the Exploration branch, as Chief of the Space Station Operations Branch, and between July 2012 and July 2015 as NASA’s Chief Astronaut. As Chief Astronaut, he was responsible for flight assignments, mission preparation, and on-orbit support of international space station crews as well as organizing astronaut office support for future launch vehicles.

Colonel Behnken trained as an international space station crew member following the loss of Columbia and as a mission specialist for STS-400 the launch-on-need rescue flight for the last Hubble servicing mission. He flew STS-123 in March 2008 and STS-130 in February 2010, logging more than 708 hours in space, and performing more than 37 hours in six spacewalks. Colonel Behnken is currently assigned to the cadre of astronauts that will train and fly the initial test flights of the Boeing CST-100 or Space X Dragon commercially built spacecraft.

Colonel Behnken is currently training for the Demo 2 flight of SpaceX’s CrewDragon spacecraft, the first crewed flight for that vehicle.

Spaceflight Experience

STS-123 Endeavour (March 11 to March 26, 2008) was a night launch/landing and the 25th International Space Station assembly mission. Endeavour’s crew delivered the first component of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Kibo Laboratory and the final element of the station’s Mobile Servicing System, the Canadian-built Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator, known as Dextre. Colonel Behnken served a flight deck Mission Specialist for ascent and entry, performed three spacewalks, and operated both the station robotic arm and the Dextre robot. The mission was accomplished in 250 orbits of the Earth, traveling 6,577,857 statute miles in 15 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 54 seconds.

STS-130 Endeavour (February 8 to February 21, 2010) was a night launch/landing and the 32nd International Space Station assembly mission. Endeavour’s crew delivered and outfitted Node 3 (the station’s habitation module) and the Cupola (the station’s seven window Earth facing observation portal). Colonel Behnken served as a Mission Specialist, operated the space station robotic arm, served as the spacewalking lead and performed three spacewalks. The mission was accomplished in 217 orbits of the Earth, traveling 5,738,991 statute miles in 13 days, 18 hours, 6 minutes and 24 seconds.

Awards/Honors

Outstanding Mechanical Engineering Senior, Washington University (1992); National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow (1993 to 1996); United States Air Force Meritorious Service, Defense Meritorious Service and Defense Superior Service Medals; NASA Space Flight Medal (2008, 2010); NASA Exceptional Service Medal (2011), Washington University Young Alumni Achievement Award (2009); Distinguished Alumni Award (2013).

Source: NASA

For more information on SpaceX got to: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/dm2/

Defense One: Lawmakers Ask Trump to Extend National Guard Missions for One Crucial Day

Tue, 26 May 2020 15:33:51 GMT

Many pandemic-response missions are slated to end just before Guard troops become eligible for federal benefits

BY COURTNEY BUBLÉ - READ BIO - MAY 23, 2020

Lawmakers are calling on President Trump to not end National Guard deployments by June 24 because that could prevent many from becoming eligible for federal benefits.

Politico reported on Tuesday that the Trump administration is ordering a “hard stop” on the deployments of over 40,000 National Guard members who are helping states with their coronavirus responses. For those who were first deployed in March—when the president declared a national emergency for the pandemic—they would be short one day needed to qualify for federal retirement and education benefits. The news outlet said Thursday the administration is now considering extending the deployments until July, but no decision has been made yet.

Over 70 House members called on Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Wednesday to extend the deployments. “This deadline would leave many guardsmen just shy of the 90 days of service required to qualify for certain benefits, like the Post-9/11 GI Bill,” they wrote. “While we hope this is a coincidence, not policy, we request an explanation of the choice of expiration date. To battle this unprecedented crisis, we asked our neighbors in uniform to serve our nation in its time of need.”

The lawmakers added that the administration cutting off support from the National Guard would hinder the national response to the pandemic and shift the burden to states that are already struggling with resources and finances. House Democrats took the lead on the letter, but it has bipartisan support, with Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., as one of the signatories.

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., sent a similar letter to President Trump on Wednesday. “States remain dependent on the support of National Guard personnel and there are no indications these needs will disappear by June 24th,” he wrote. Also, “purposefully withholding benefits they have earned would be an insult and harm morale, recruiting and retention within the National Guard.” Peters is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve.

In addition to the letters, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., introduced the “National Guard COVID-19 Response Stability Act” on Wednesday, which would ensure all National Guard troops activated during the coronavirus response receive their full benefits. Specifically, it would amend the law to allow governors to order National Guard members on duty for the pandemic to active duty status, so they are guaranteed full federal benefits. This authority would be in place until 30 days after the administration declares the end of the public health emergency for the pandemic. Seventeen Democrats and one independent co-sponsored the bill.

Also, Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., plans to introduce legislation on Friday that would affirm guards members can receive benefits by requiring the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments to give Guard members credit for at least 90 days of service, regardless of when their service is supposed to end, according to Politico.

When asked for comment on the report about the “hard stop” for deployments, a Federal Emergency Management Agency spokesperson gave the following statement:

To date, the president has approved 50 National Guard requests for federal support for the use of National Guard personnel in a Title 32 duty status. Through this order, the federal government will fund 100% of the cost for T-32 National Guard orders through June 24. As of May 21, 39,983 National Guard troops have activated in T-32 status and 896 troops have activated in State Active Duty status to help with testing and other response efforts.

A National Guard Bureau spokesman told Government Executive the agency is working with the Defense Department and FEMA “to determine the best ways to care for our guard men and women in this unprecedented response” and they will help for as long as they are needed.

“As in all national-level emergencies, FEMA makes the final decisions regarding the length of time National Guard members are activated under federal orders, while the soldiers and airmen remain under the operational control of the governors,” said the spokesman.

Last Friday, at the White House’s launch of “Operation Warp Speed” to hasten the development, manufacturing and distribution of a coronavirus vaccine, Esper commended the work to help with the pandemic that more than 60,000 service members have done since January.

“Whether it’s doctors and nurses in hospitals, whether it’s National Guard on the streets of America, or the Corps of Engineers continuing to build out capacity in America’s hospitals, we are there and we will be there,” he said. “And we look forward to this next greatest phase of this fight against the coronavirus.”

Courtney Buble is a staff correspondent who covers federal management. Prior to joining Government Executive, she worked for NBC News. Courtney graduated from The George Washington University in 2018.

Flashback 2005: Seattle Times - Reservist Deaths High in Iraq

Fri, 22 May 2020 16:23:58 GMT

The National Guard and Reserves are suffering a strikingly higher share of U.S. casualties in Iraq...

By ROBERT BURNS - AP National Security Writer - Originally published October 11, 2005 at 12:00 am

WASHINGTON — The National Guard and Reserves are suffering a strikingly higher share of U.S. casualties in Iraq, their portion of American military deaths nearly doubling since last year.

Reservists have accounted for one-quarter of all U.S. deaths since the Iraq war began, but the proportion has grown over time. It was 10 percent for the five weeks it took to topple Baghdad in the spring of 2003, and 20 percent for 2004 as a whole.

The trend accelerated this year. For the first nine months of 2005 reservists accounted for 36 percent of U.S. deaths, and for August and September it was 56 percent, according to Pentagon figures.

The Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve accounted for more than half of all U.S. deaths in August and in September — the first time that has happened in consecutive months. The only other month in which it even approached 50 percent was June 2004.

Casualties in Iraq have shifted toward citizen soldiers as their combat role has grown to historic levels. National Guard officials say their soldiers have been sent into combat in Iraq in numbers not previously seen in modern times — far more than were sent to Vietnam, where active-duty troops did the vast majority of the fighting.

Charles Krohn, a former Army deputy chief of public affairs, said the reservists are taking up the slack for the highly stressed active-duty Army.

“Decisions made years earlier made going to war in any significant way impossible without Guard and Reserve participation,” Krohn said. “But I can’t imagine anyone postulated the situation we face today: We don’t seem very anxious to bring back the draft and we can’t get enough volunteers for a war that is not universally popular.”

Forty-five percent of all Guard and Reserve deaths since the start of the war occurred in the first nine months of 2005, according to Pentagon figures. The deadliest month was August, when 49 Guard and Reserve members died.

The mounting casualties among reservists in Iraq has been overshadowed by the attention focused on a rising overall U.S. death toll, now approaching 2,000. It complicates recruiting for the National Guard and Reserve, which often attract people who think of the military reservists’ role as something other than front-line combat.

No longer do the National Guard and Reserve serve mainly as “rear-area” support, far from the front lines.

In Iraq the front line is everywhere — on rural roads where Guard and Reserve soldiers drive supply trucks, at urban checkpoints, in remote villages and at major supply bases. Some units also have been attached to active-duty units that conduct offensives.

The casualties have contributed to what has been the most challenging time for the Guard and Reserve since the military became an all-volunteer force in 1973. In addition to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and helping keep peace in the Balkans, the Guard in particular was called to action in large numbers after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

At one point this year more than half of the combat forces in Iraq were members of the National Guard.

“That’s a first,” said Army Maj. Les Melnyk, historian for the Pentagon office that manages the Army and Air National Guard. “The Guard can’t claim that [level of combat] for World War II or World War I — the other major wars we fought in. Never more than 50 percent of the combat forces were Guard.”

Of the 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about half are reservists: 49,000 Army National Guard, 22,000 Army Reserve and 4,000 Marine Reserve, according to figures provided by those organizations.

The trend is almost certain to be reversed next year, when the active-duty Army is scheduled to make a proportionally larger contribution to the overall force. The number of National Guard brigades in Iraq, for example, is set to drop next year from seven to two.

Since the Vietnam era, the military has given the Guard and Reserve more vital support functions such as military police and engineers, so any major conflict would involve more than just the active-duty force.

Thus it was inevitable that a sizable portion of the force in Iraq would be Guard and Reserve; what has made the Iraq experience so different is the large numbers of reservists getting killed and wounded.

At least 300 soldiers of the National Guard, 78 of the Army Reserve and 93 of the Marine Corps Reserve, have died in the Iraq war. The Navy Reserve has lost 13, the Air Force Reserve three and the Air National Guard one. Together that is one-quarter of the total U.S. death toll, which stood at 1,947 yesterday, by the Pentagon’s count.

Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for operations, said the increased reliance on the Guard and Reserve in 2005 was planned to allow active-duty units to complete a reorganization before they returned to Iraq.

ROBERT BURNS

Original Story: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/reservist-deaths-high-in-iraq/

GovExec: Federal Advisory Group Finds Feds Are Paid 26.71% Less than Private Sector Counterparts

Thu, 21 May 2020 13:46:45 GMT

In their annual report, members of the Federal Salary Council recommend updates to datasets used in determining a region’s eligibility to become a locality pay area.

By ERICH WAGNER - MAY 20, 2020 04:12 PM ET

An advisory board tasked with examining pay disparities between the federal government and the private sector recently found that federal employees on average make 26.71% less than their private sector counterparts, although the group's methodology is hotly debated.

A recently published report from the Federal Salary Council dated April 2 said that, when including locality pay, federal employees continue to earn significantly less than workers in the private sector. The 2020 figure marks a nearly 5 percentage point decrease in the gap over previous data, which indicated that feds were making 31% less than employees outside of the federal government.

The figure is based on analysis conducted by the Office of Personnel Management and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But conservatives fault the statistic for not including non-salary compensation and other benefits that come with federal employment, like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and the defined benefit pensions of the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. Critics instead prefer to cite a Congressional Budget Office report that found that feds make 17% more than private sector workers.

Federal employee groups fault the CBO survey for not adequately comparing jobs between federal agencies and the private sector, relying only on an employee’s educational attainment rather than job duties.

Elsewhere in the report, the salary council said that it would not recommend any new locality pay areas by virtue of newly becoming eligible according to its formula for calculating pay disparities. But members agreed that Wayne County, Pa., should become part of the New York locality pay area, as it would meet all of the requirements when accounting for staffing vacancies in the region.

The council also agreed to recommend a number of updates to how the body does its work each year. The first is instituting a 2018 update to how OPM and BLS compare general schedule jobs and private sector Standard Occupational codes—the council has been using comparisons generated in 2000. And the board agreed to continue studying whether to change the minimum number of federal jobs in a region to justify a locality pay area, which currently sits at 2,500.

But much remains unsettled six months after the council’s annual fall meeting . Although the council’s two political appointees, Chairman Ronald Sanders and Member Katja Bullock, want to update the U.S. Census American Community Survey data on commuting patterns, the members that represent federal labor unions said that should only be done if the council adopts revised Office of Management and Budget metropolitan and combined statistical areas, upon which there remains disagreement.

The labor leaders have argued that the new OMB data should only be used in an additive way—regions that were added to statistical areas should be added, but regions that were removed should be grandfathered into locality pay indefinitely. Bullock and Sanders have been reluctant to sign onto this plan, and have insisted on further study before making a decision.

The results of that study, and any subsequent recommendations, will be sent as an addendum to the president’s pay agent later this year.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/05/federal-advisory-group-finds-feds-are-paid-2671-less-private-sector-counterparts/165544/

US Army: CA ARNG Welder Sews Face Masks to Combat COVID-19

Mon, 18 May 2020 21:56:58 GMT

CA ARNG Technician and LIUNA Local 1776 Member Edwin Rodriguez
Is on the Front-Lines of the COVID-19 Fight

By Staff Sgt. Kimberly Hill - California National Guard - May 14, 2020

LONG BEACH, Calif. – It’s not the usual scene one expects in a U.S. Army maintenance shop.

While the air is filled with the scent of diesel and most Soldiers are busy turning wrenches underneath military vehicles, operating forklifts, or repairing generators, one lone service member is hard at task operating a seemingly out of place piece of equipment – a sewing machine, tucked away in the back of the shop.

Scraps of fabric and thread litter the green table, and beneath the clatter of wrenches and heavy machinery, you can hear the faint thrum of the sewing machine.

Sgt. Edwin Rodriguez is a full-time welder for the California Army National Guard’s combined support maintenance shop (CSMS) in Long Beach. But today, his attention is focused on nimbly working a piece of black cloth through the needle of the sewing machine.

The entire process takes less than 3 minutes, as he gestures to the newly created cloth mask that will help protect his fellow service members from COVID-19.

“Sewing is the easy part,” he says. “I’d say cutting and cleaning takes the most time.”

Rodriguez, who also serves as a wheeled-vehicle mechanic with 1st Battalion, 140th Aviation Regiment, 40th Combat Aviation Brigade, at nearby Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos, has sewn over 90 masks for fellow Soldiers since COVID-19 began to influence uniform standards. The Department of Defense and the California National Guard require service members to include face coverings as part of their personal protective equipment (PPE) when physical distancing cannot be achieved.

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Ben Johnson and Chief Warrant Officer 2 Mark T. Bun, both California National Guard technicians who work with Rodriguez, approached the Compton native with the idea of making masks for their fellow Soldiers.

“Sgt. Rodriguez has always been outgoing and willing to support anybody who needs help, whether it be at drill or here at the shop,” said Johnson, an allied trade supervisor with the CSMS.

After guidelines required the use of face masks to help slow the spread of the virus, Bun, the CSMS foreman, began thinking of ways he and his Soldiers could help those without access to PPE.

Bun consulted with his mother, an avid sewer, to create a prototype based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specifications. He showed the design to Rodriguez and they began crafting a plan to create the masks for troops in need.

“I asked him if he could start sewing some stuff for us to protect the Soldiers. That’s the least we could do, make them feel safer here and give them peace of mind,” Bun said.

Sewing machines aren’t commonly thought of as maintenance shop equipment, but they are occasionally used to repair Humvee doors, said Rodriguez.

While Rodriguez knew the CSMS had three 40-year-old sewing machines, he also knew some hadn’t been used in years. After bringing them down from storage, he discovered only one of the machines was in working order.

After repairing two of the three sewing machines, Rodriguez began sewing, using his civilian skills as a former upholstery technician. Johnson and Bun went to work gathering fabric donations of T-shirts and trousers from the maneuver area training equipment shop (MATES) at Fort Irwin, as well as the 118th Maintenance Company in Stockton.

While making the masks, Rodriguez noticed an issue when sewing the fabric together. He solved the dilemma by adding a layer of gauze within the fabric, he said.

“He’s extremely creative; he’s able to think on a different level on how to make something and repair something,” said Johnson, a Palmdale native.

The masks created by Rodriguez were distributed to California Guard Soldiers working at the CSMS, MATES and the 118th Maintenance Company facility.

While sewing fabric may not be his usual duty at the maintenance shop, Rodriguez is happy to use his skills to help his fellow service members.

“It makes me feel good,” he said. “If I can help them then why not?”

6th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules WEP Applies to Dual Status Technicians

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Fri, 15 May 2020 18:32:22 GMT

"...dual status technician employment is essentially ...not wholly military in nature."

Earlier this week the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the latest decision concerning whether a dual-status technician who retires under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) can have their Social Security benefits reduced by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) , even though they claim a military-service exemption due to their being required to be in the National Guard as a condition of their technician employment. The short answer is, yes, the WEP reduction still applies, except in states under the jurisdiction of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (i.e., Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota). Technicians who retire under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) are not subject to WEP since their earnings were taxed by Social Security.

WEP can affect you if you earn a retirement or disability pension from an employer who did not withhold Social Security taxes (like CSRS annuitants) and you also qualify for Social Security retirement or disability benefits from work in other jobs for which you did pay Social Security taxes (like service in the National Guard and Reserves). However, claimants can request to be exempt from the WEP reduction if the non-taxed work qualifies as "a payment based wholly on service as a member of the uniformed service." For those whose eligibility year is 2020, benefits can be reduced by upwards of $480 per month, but that amount is adjusted for every year over 20 that you worked at the job where you paid Social Security taxes, so if you paid Social Security taxes for 30 or more years then your benefits will not be reduced by WEP.

Most CSRS annuitants (other than dual-status technicians for example) may have only worked for the Federal government their entire career, so they are not eligible to receive Social Security since they did not pay into it. However, some CSRS annuitants also worked other jobs where their pay was subject to Social Security withholding for a minimum of 40 quarters (10 years). For example, a dual-status technician who was covered by CSRS also earned military pay that was subject to Social Security for the entire time they were "dual-status." If they earned military pay for at least 10 years then they are eligible to receive Social Security benefits. However, since they retired under CSRS then their Social Security benefits are subject to the WEP reduction.

Technicians have tried to make the case for years that since they were required to be in the military as a condition of their civilian employment then they should be exempted under the WEP's military clause. In 2011, one such technician, David Petersen from Nebraska, was able to argue his case successfully before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result of Petersen v. Astrue , all technicians residing in the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction who apply for Social Security benefits after 2012 will be exempt from the WEP reduction. Since then, several other technicians outside of the 8th Circuit have tried to appeal the Social Security administration's application of WEP. None have been able to duplicate Petersen's success.

The latest decision came on May 11, 2020, when the 6th Circuit court issued a decision in Babcock v. Commissioner of Social Security , adopting the 2018 analysis of the 11th Circuit in Martin v. Social Security , that technician employment is essentially rather than wholly military in nature, and "is not subject to the uniformed services exception" in the WEP. Babcock tried to raise three arguments in support of his appeal: 1. that technician service is military and should be exempt from the WEP reduction; 2. that previous 6th Circuit decisions concerning the Feres Doctine established precedent that technician employment is indeed military; and, 3. that because technicians residing within the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction are exempt from WEP reductions, that he (Babcock) was being treated differently and that this is a violation of his due process and equal protection rights. The 6th Circuit judges were not persuaded by any of the arguments.

While these two recent decisions represent a split from the 8th Circuit's Petersen v. Astrue, the 6th and 11th Circuit merely re-affirm the Social Security Administration's longstanding policy on WEP and technicians; basically, that technicians do not meet the WEP's military-service exception and that their retirements are subject to reduction. The 6th Circuit's decision in Babcock is just the latest in a long line of court battles that attempt to unravel where, exactly, dual-status technicians fall within the federal construct. Yes, they are military...no, they are not military...as long as the language in the law remains vague so will the lasting effects. Bottom line, if you want a little extra scratch, you may have to move!

Guam: TAG Signs Work Schedule Policy

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Mon, 11 May 2020 22:10:27 GMT

Employees Have 30 Days to Submit Work Schedule Request

Last December, 2019, the Union secured an agreement with the Guam National Guard (GUNG) to implement an Employee-Choice Work Schedule Policy . This policy allows employees to choose one of several different work schedule options, including 4/10s. Approval of an individual request will be primarily based on mission requirements, however, an employee's request for a particular work schedule should "normally be approved as requested and shall not be unreasonably denied" unless their supervisor can show that the requested work schedule will have a negative impact on the GUNG's mission.

The new policy was due to be rolled out in January, and it was to some degree. However, it had not been officially approved by the Adjutant General. Also, the roll-out was somewhat interrupted by COVID-19. For these reasons, we requested that it be re-implemented. Yesterday, the email below was sent from HRO to all employees notifying them of their ability to request a new work schedule:

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Quichocho, Francine R MSgt USAF PACAF PA (USA)

Date: Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:56 AM

Subject: ALTERNATE WORK SCHEDULE

To: NG GU GUARNG List TECHNICIAN PERSONNEL, NG GU GUARNG List TECHNICIAN SUPERVISORS , NG GU GUARNG List TEMPORARY TECHNICIANS

Cc: Ben <benbanchs@liuna-ngdc.org>, Iglesias, Jameishalynn A SGT USARMY (USA), Fanoway, Petra T SGT USARMY (USA)

Hafa Adai Technicians, Title 5 Employees and Supervisors,

Our organization, in coordination with Liuna (Union), is offering our

Full-Time Federal Employees (Title 32 and Title 5) an opportunity to select

an ALTERNATE WORK SCHEDULE. The intent of the organization is to have all

sections "manned" from the hours of 0800 to 1600 Monday thru Friday, so

please review and discuss with your work centers. All the schedules allow

for a 30-Minute Lunch and 2 paid 15-minute breaks, one in the morning and

one in the afternoon.

Please read the GUNG Work Schedule Policy, Enclosure 1 (Work Schedule

Options) and use Enclosure 2 (Work Schedule Request Form) to begin your

process to request for an Alternate Work Schedule. Each form will be

completed by the employee, then routed to your supervisor for approval, then

to HRO for review and processing.

If you have any questions, or require clarification, please contact our

office.

Francine R. Quichocho, MSgt

Human Resources Specialist

J1-HRO-Technician Program

Guam National Guard

315-344-1037

---------- End of message ---------

Now that the policy has been re-introduced, GUNG technicians and T5 employees who have not yet had the opportunity to request a work schedule will be allowed to do so over the next 30 days. Once your selected work schedule is approved, you will be required to stay on that schedule for a minimum of 12 months. If your request is denied and you believe that the reason for denial is not due to mission requirements, you will have the ability to file a grievance in accordance with Article 12 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) ,

If you have not yet submitted a request for an alternate work schedule we encourage you not to delay and to make sure you submit your request ASAP. If you fail to request a work schedule over the next 30 days you will have to wait until Open Season, which runs from January 1-30 of each year.

Also, please make sure to read the entire GUNG Work Schedule Policy for other requirements. If you have any question/comments, please feel free to post them here or contact us directly.

GoveExec: When Can You Afford to Retire?

Fri, 08 May 2020 16:22:59 GMT

Questions to ask yourself if you’re considering early retirement

TAMMY FLANAGAN - Retirement Counseling and Training www.retirefederal.com - MAY 7, 2020 02:47 PM ET

Would you like to retire at your minimum retirement age (55-57, depending on your year of birth) under the Federal Employees Retirement System? That decision will depend not just on your age, but whether or not you can afford to leave the working world behind.

The three parts of FERS retirement—an annuity (including a supplement for some of those who retire early), Social Security benefits, and personal investments in the Thrift Savings Plan—were designed to work together to provide the income needed in retirement.

How early you personally can comfortably retire requires asking yourself the following questions:

How much income will you need to cover your expenses?
Will you have enough income to last the rest of your life?
Have you considered the tax implications of your financial decisions?
Have you accounted for future inflation?
Have you factored in unforeseen future events, such as the potential need for long term care and the volatility of your investments?
Do you plan to continue to work after you retire from federal service?
Can you afford to delay claiming Social Security retirement?
Do you understand how much net income you’ll get from your FERS retirement benefit after reductions and withholdings?
If you are married, have you considered your income requirements while you and your spouse are both living, but also when one of you may become the survivor?
Do you have others who depend on you for financial support?

Let’s consider the case of Joe, a federal employee covered under FERS who has 35 years of federal service and is unmarried. His current salary is $99,741 per year. After withholdings for retirement, taxes and insurance, his net income is $2,062 biweekly, or about $4,500 a month. Here’s what his retirement would look like today at age 57:

His FERS retirement benefit will provide 35% of his high-three average salary of $94,506. That’s $33,077 a year, or $2,756 per month. After withholdings for federal and state income tax and insurance benefits, Joe’s benefit will provide him with a net monthly income of $2,082 a month.
He will be entitled to a FERS supplement that will provide about $1,600 a month. After taxes, it will add about $1,250 per month to his benefit, for a total of $3,332. That’s within $1,168 of his current net income.
Let’s assume Joe has saved $300,000 in his TSP account. If he begins to withdraw $1,500 a month from his savings to produce enough income after taxes to meet his current needs, he will run out of savings before he turns 80—even if he earns a 3% average rate of return. Joe could use the TSP life expectancy calculator to lower the amount of these withdrawals. Or he could use the $300,000 to purchase a life annuity from the TSP’s annuity provider. But the annuity options would not produce $1,500 a month in income.

Can Joe afford to retire at 57? That depends on a number of factors:

Are his living expenses going to go down once he is retired? He could downsize to a less expensive home, or move to a state without income tax.
On the other hand, might his living expenses increase? Suppose he wants to travel, buy a boat, or provide financial support to family members.
Has he accounted for the fact that his FERS retirement benefit will not receive a cost of living adjustment until he turns 62? As a result, he may need to withdraw more from his TSP than he currently needs.
Does he plan to work after he retires? If so, that could delay the necessity to withdraw from his TSP and increase his future Social Security retirement, but he might lose the FERS supplement due to the earnings test.
Will he need long-term care in the future?
Does Joe have a former spouse? He may have to provide a portion of his retirement and survivor benefits to them.

As you can see, there are many considerations to take into account when planning for retirement. In this example, Joe may not be able to afford to retire at 57 unless he’s willing to make some sacrifices in how much he can spend or be willing to continue to work after his federal retirement.

Remember, the earlier you begin to save for retirement, the less you will have to save overall due to the compounding of your investment over time. In addition, if you’re covered under FERS and you save 5% of your biweekly salary, you’ll receive 5% in automatic and matching agency contributions.

LIUNA Health & Safety COVID-19 Resources

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 07 May 2020 20:34:50 GMT

LHSFNA's COVID-19 Website Offers Comprehensive Resources

LIUNA's Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) is committed to the safety of our members and the employees we represent. This commitment is more important than ever as a result of the COVID-19. In an effort to support the safety of ongoing operations, or the reopening of work facilities after they were shutdown for COVID-19, LHSFNA has developed a number of different products and materials to assist employers and employees in mitigating the spread of COVID-19 at work and beyond in order to protect our worker's families and dependents.

LHSFNA has made available these materials on their website at their COVID-19 page located here:

https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/coronavirus/

We encourage you to visit their site and take a look at the many resources available. Please make sure to come back and visit to see updates as the situation develops.

If you have any questions or concerns about a particular COVID-19-related situation at your worksite, please do not hesitate to contact us .

Free College Benefit Alert: Sign-Up for Summer Classes Now

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Wed, 06 May 2020 16:54:26 GMT

Complete Your EGCC Application Today - Classes Begin June 1

We wanted to remind all Local 1776 members and their families that Eastern Gateway Community College is accepting applications for their Summer 2020 semester, which starts June 1. You can enroll in a variety of in-demand programs, including Human Resources, Accounting, and Paralegal. With the Associate of Arts degree you can take courses that transfer to other Universities and Colleges all over the country; many students transfer to junior status upon completion. The Free College Program will cover your tuition, fees, and e-books. You can also e nroll full time or take just one class.

LIUNA Local 1776 members have access to a variety of benefits and programs that them save money, enhance their lifestyle and well-being, and also help them achieve their educational goals. The Free College Degree Program offered through Union Plus and Eastern Gateway Community College is just one of the many different programs our members and their families have access to. This program allows our members as well as their spouses and dependents to achieve an Associates Degree completely online and complete free.

Make sure to visit the Union Plus site for complete details on the Free College Degree Program, as well as the follow-on Low Cost Bachelor's Degree.

Degree Programs

Free College Areas Of Study

With the Free College program, Eastern Gateway Community College offers a variety of programs and classes to fit your needs.

Whether you’re starting college, enhancing skills, changing careers, or looking for classes to enrich your life, we have a place for you. And many of our students have transferred their courses and credits to institutions all over the country.

Remember, you can complete your degree online from anywhere. The programs and classes are designed to allow working professionals the opportunity to fit online education into their busy lives. Please review the course catalog on EGCC.edu for additional details about the academic programs.

Programs offered through Free College

- Accounting

- Associate of Arts (General Studies and Transfer)

- Criminal Justice

- Teacher Education Degree (Associate of Arts)

- Paralegal

- Patient Health Navigator

- Professional Office Management Degree

- Healthcare Administration

- Business Management Degree and Certificate

As part of the Business Management Degree the college offers several focus areas designed to give students a solid foundation in business and an additional introduction to specialized areas of the business world.

Business Management focus options include:

- Advertising

- Cyber Security

- Data Analytics

- Digital and Social Media

- Environment and Conservation Studies

- Entrepreneurship

- Finance

- Hospitality: Food and Beverage Management

- Hospitality: Hotel and Event Management

- Human Resources Management

- IT Help Desk

- Labor Studies

- Marketing

- Operations and Logistics

- Programming & Development

- Project Management Fundamentals

EGCC offers some additional programs in which students can enroll, but some content fees may apply.

Those programs include:

- Information Technology

- Health Information Management

- Medical Coding Specialist

- Medical Scribe Specialist

- Fire Science

Program details: For further detail, please review EGCC’s course catalog here Course Catalog

Students must complete an average of 60 credits (depending on the program) for each of EGCC’s degree programs. Note that depending on the number of credits taken per semester, and the number of any previous credits earned and transferred, 60 credits usually takes a full-time student 2 years to complete. Students utilizing the Free College Benefit are not required to attend full time and can take just 1 class per term. EGCC is committed to helping working adults complete their education in a way that promotes success!

Defense-One: Esper Says Pentagon Is Bracing for a ‘New Normal’ That Lasts ‘An Extended Period of Time’

Mon, 04 May 2020 18:36:30 GMT

"What do we do over the next 6, 12, 18 months?” the defense secretary asked at a Monday virtual event

BY KATIE BO WILLIAMS - SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT - 1:05 PM ET

The U.S. military is preparing to live with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic for the foreseeable future, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Monday.

“The long-term view is: What do we do over the next 6, 12, 18 months?” Esper said in a virtual Brookings Institution event. “There will be a new normal that we will have to adapt to for an extended period of time at least until we have a vaccine that we’re confident in.”

But amid the planning to maintain readiness during the pandemic is planning to reopen the Pentagon “in phases,” Esper said.

“For the past few weeks, our chief management officer has been developing plans to reopen the Pentagon,” Esper said.

He added that he had been “pleasantly surprised” by the level of productivity that Pentagon employees were able to maintain while teleworking.

Esper’s words confirmed earlier reporting and senior Pentagon leaders’ statements that the U.S. military is preparing to operate under pandemic restrictions for the foreseeable future even as some states are beginning to lift coronavirus lockdowns. The differing policies of military and state officials demonstrate the lack of national consensus about how and when to “reopen.”

“We’re going to be living with this virus for some period of time. So making sure we adjust the protocols and adjust the process I think is absolutely critical,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told reporters last week. “The new abnormal I’m defining as living and operating with a cyclical virus until we get a vaccine. All the projections are no vaccine for upwards of a year.”

There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to reopening military installations, senior Army leaders told Pentagon reporters on Thursday.

“The virus did not impact the country uniformly, so we need to tailor our approach to reopening,” Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said. “By developing Army-wide standards and protocols now, the Army will help ensure our senior mission commanders are ready once DOD and local movement restrictions ease.”

For more on how the U.S. military is preparing for COVID-19’s long-term effects on the force, read: States’ ‘Reopening’ Might Not Apply to Troops, Military Families.

Katie Bo Williams is the senior national security correspondent for Defense One, where she writes about defense, counterterror, NATO, nukes, and more. She previously covered intelligence and cybersecurity for The Hill, including in-depth reporting on the Russia investigations and military ... FULL BIO

GovExec: The Value of the FERS Annuity Supplement

Fri, 01 May 2020 20:11:20 GMT

How the FERS supplement is calculated, and when it can be reduced

TAMMY FLANAGAN - Retirement Counseling and Training www.retirefederal.com - APRIL 30, 2020

Last week, I provided an overview of the Federal Employees Retirement System annuity supplement. This week, let’s take a closer look at how the supplement is calculated, and how it can change over time.

According to the Office of Personnel Management, the FERS supplement is computed as if you were age 62 and eligible for a Social Security benefit when the supplement begins. If you’re divorced and your FERS benefit is being apportioned to provide a benefit to your former spouse, the supplement is also divided, unless a court order specifically states not to include it.

To calculate the value of the supplement, OPM first estimates what your Social Security benefit would be at 62. Then they calculate the amount of your creditable civilian service under FERS and reduce the estimated full career Social Security benefit accordingly.

You can estimate your Social Security benefit payable at 62 by using one of the tools available from the Social Security Administration. Then determine how many years of civilian federal service you will have at the time you retire. Time spent performing military service during a period covered by military leave with pay or leave without pay from civilian service is counted as civilian service under the 1994 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. (If your military service was performed prior to your federal civilian employment, it won’t be included in the computation of the supplement, even if you have paid a military service deposit.)

For example, if your estimated Social Security benefit at age 62 would be $2,200 and you had 30 years of service under FERS, OPM would divide 30 by 40 (0.75) and multiply that by the estimated benefit ($2,200 x 0.75 = $1,650). The result would be the approximate value of your FERS annuity supplement, before any reductions.

Potential Reductions

The supplement is paid until you are eligible for Social Security, so it will stop at the end of the month before you turn 62. It’s your decision when to actually apply for Social Security benefits. You are not required to apply for benefits at 62, even though the supplement stops. You can wait to apply later to receive a bigger benefit.

The supplement will not receive a cost of living adjustment, so the amount will not grow, but it could be reduced due to the application of an annual earnings test. If you’re not earning income above the annual limit, then eligibility for the supplement continues.

The earnings test is similar to the earnings limit that applies when you claim Social Security benefits before your full retirement age. The supplement is reduced by $1 for every $2 of earnings over the annual limit ($17,640 for 2019 and $18,240 for 2020). It’s possible that for some people, that would mean the supplement would be eliminated. But the FERS basic retirement benefit that is paid for the rest of your life will not be reduced.

Earnings include wages, salaries and net income from self-employment. Not included are retirement income, a lump sum annual leave payment, investment income, survivor benefits, and gifts or inheritances. For retirees who are receiving FERS benefits under special provisions for law enforcement officers, firefighters and air traffic controllers, the earnings limit doesn’t apply to earnings prior to reaching the FERS minimum retirement age.

The Earnings Test

FERS annuity supplement surveys are mailed every yeat in the spring to federal retirees who received the supplement during the past benefit year. The earnings test is always performed using the data from the previous tax year.

Current law requires that the reduction be “effective with respect to the annuity supplement payable for each month in the 12-month period beginning on the first day of the seventh month after the end of the calendar year in which the excess earnings were earned.” OPM interprets this guidance to mean from July through June.

Let’s look at a couple of examples of how the earnings test works:

Judy retired on Aug. 31, 2019 and receives a FERS supplement of $1,450 per month. She returned to work for a government contractor in September. From September through December, she earned $25,000 in wages, exceeding the 2019 earnings limit by $7,360. Her FERS supplement will be reduced in July 2020 (for the Aug. 1 FERS payment) by $3,680 per year, or $306.67 a month, but she will continue to receive $1,143.33 a month. Suppose Judy continues working throughout 2020 and earns $75,000 during the year. When she receives her earnings survey in April 2021, her 2020 earnings will exceed the 2020 earnings limit of $18,240 by $56,760. In July 2021, her supplement will be reduced by $2,365 a month, which will result in the supplement being terminated. If Judy stops working in January 2021 and is under age 62, she should contact OPM to have her supplement restored.

Ryan retired on Dec. 31, 2019 as an FBI agent at age 52 under FERS law enforcement provisions. He is receiving a FERS supplement based on his 22 years of service with the FBI of $1,250 per month. He goes to work in the private sector in January 2020 and will earn $120,000 a year in wages. Ryan will not report his earnings to OPM until he reaches age 56 and six months (his minimum retirement age). In the year he reaches his MRA, he will start reporting his wages beginning with the month after he reaches his MRA. Ryan will continue to receive the FERS supplement until he reaches age 56 and six months.

If you’re a retiree and have questions about the supplement, OPM suggests contacting the agency’s Retirement Information Office at 1-888-767-6738.

Photo: Flickr user Marco Verch

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/04/value-annuity-supplement/165040/

GovExec: More That 10k Feds Have Contracted COVID-19

Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:53:04 GMT

The number of positive cases in the federal workforce has more than quadrupled since early April

ERIC KATZ - Senior Correspondent - APRIL 28, 2020 04:12 PM ET

As the United States topped 1 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 on Tuesday, the number of federal employees who have tested positive for the virus has surpassed 10,000.

While most federal employees are still teleworking, many agencies have missions that cannot be performed remotely and hundreds of thousands of federal workers continue reporting to their work stations. Federal offices, like those in all sectors in the country, have struggled to keep their employees safe. Workers have complained of insufficient protective supplies, equipment and distancing policies. The total number of positive cases within the federal workforce has more than quadrupled since early April.

At some agencies, employees are instructed to continue working even after exposure to the virus. At others, thousands of workers are home on quarantine as they await test results or to see whether symptoms develop. The work of the government must go on, however, leaving employees exposed to the novel coronavirus. Here’s a look at the agencies in which the most federal workers have contracted COVID-19.

Defense Department: As of Tuesday afternoon, the Pentagon had confirmed 1,091 cases among civilian workers. An additional 4,265 military personnel tested positive, as well as 427 contractors.

Veterans Affairs Department: VA has confirmed 1,633 cases among its Veterans Health Administration employees. VA employees have expressed significant concern about the lack of personal protective equipment, policies that threaten discipline or loss of pay if they do not come in after exposure and poor communication from management. Twenty VA employees have died from symptoms related to the virus.

U.S. Postal Service: USPS has confirmed 1,606 employees tested positive for the virus in its workforce of 630,000. The Postal Service has sought to make gloves and masks available in all of its work stations after employees for weeks said basic items were not available. Cases among postal workers jumped by 33% in the last week.

State Department: State has confirmed 436 cases in its workforce, most of which are currently active. More than 2,800 employees are self-isolating due to possible exposure. Five State Department employees have died from symptoms related to the virus.

Transportation Security Administration: TSA has seen 495 employees test positive for COVID-19. All told, about 1,000 Homeland Security Department workers have tested positive, according to a Buzzfeed report. At least 17 Federal Emergency Management Agency workers have contracted the virus.

Agriculture Department: At USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service, at least 100 employees have tested positive. The agency is struggling to keep employees safe as hotspots have developed at meat processing plants around the country.

Internal Revenue Service: 100 IRS employees have contracted the coronavirus. The agency asked 10,000 workers to return to their offices this week.

Health and Human Services Department: HHS has spearheaded and coordinated much of the federal response, and so far 74 employees have tested positive for the virus.

Interior Department: At least 10 National Park Service employees have tested positive. NPS made all parks free during the pandemic, though a growing number have since closed. Interior also declined to provide updated figures across its bureaus.

Most agencies did not disclose how many employees are home on quarantine due to potential exposure to colleagues who tested positive, though that number is also at least in the thousands. Agencies like VA, TSA and others are also dealing with widespread absenteeism as employees are declining to work and risk contracting the virus. The White House has instructed agencies to develop ways to bring employees back to the office, though it advised top officials to follow the guidance of state and local leaders and public health officials.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/04/more-10000-federal-employees-have-contracted-covid-19/164986/

GovExec: FERS Supplement - The Frequently Misunderstood Benefit

Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:27:54 GMT

A look at the FERS supplement

TAMMY FLANAGAN - Retirement Counseling and Training www.retirefederal.com - APRIL 23, 2020 02:53 PM ET

The Federal Employees Retirement System annuity supplement is a fairly simple concept: It’s a special payment for FERS employees who retire before age 62. The supplement is designed to act as a monetary bridge between retirement under FERS and the time a retiree qualifies for Social Security retirement. It is paid in addition to the monthly FERS annuity benefit, but unlike the annuity, it is not a lifetime benefit.

Since the FERS supplement was created in the 1980s, it has attracted its share of controversy. Indeed, it’s been on the chopping block in Congress and the White House many times, most recently in the Trump administration’s fiscal 2021 budget proposal. (That recommendation is a long way from becoming law , if it ever does.)

This week’s column is designed to clear up some of the confusion and provide a comprehensive overview of this valuable and sometimes misunderstood benefit.

What It Is

FERS was designed to provide benefits through Social Security, a defined benefit government pension, and the Thrift Savings Plan (an employer-sponsored savings plan like a 401(k) plan). FERS also was designed to allow federal employees to retire at an early age, like the older Civil Service Retirement System, which allowed regular retirement as early as age 55. FERS gradually increased the minimum retirement age to 57.

The FERS supplement represents what an employee would receive for their FERS civilian service from Social Security, and is calculated as if the employee were eligible to receive Social Security benefits on the day they retired. The supplement is subject to an earnings limit, which can cause it to be reduced or eliminated.

Who Gets It

The supplement is available immediately upon retirement to FERS employees who retire on a non-disability, immediate, unreduced retirement before age 62. An immediate annuity is one that is paid to employees who retire at the FERS minimum retirement age or later who have 30 or more years of creditable civilian service, or at age 60 with at least 20 years of service. Employees who retire at age 62 or later with at least five years of service will not be eligible for the supplement, because they are retiring when they are eligible for Social Security retirement.

This includes those who retire under special retirement provisions, such as law enforcement officers, firefighters and air traffic controllers, who typically are eligible to retire before the FERS MRA and are subject to mandatory retirement before age 62. You may also receive the supplement if you retired involuntarily before attaining your MRA or voluntarily because of a major reorganization, reduction in force, or an early retirement in the case of members of Congress. But in these three instances, you will not be eligible for the annuity supplement until you reach your MRA.

Those who transferred from CSRS to FERS can receive the supplement based on their civilian service subject to FERS if they were under FERS for at least a full calendar year.

Who Doesn’t Get It

Employees who are already 62 or older are obviously not entitled to the FERS supplement. Also ineligible are employees who retire under immediate or postponed MRA+10 retirement provisions. In addition, employees who resign before they are eligible for an immediate retirement will not receive the supplement, even if they claim their deferred retirement before age 62.

Here are a few examples of eligibility for the FERS supplement:

John retires at 56 (his MRA) with 37 years of service. He will get the supplement immediately upon retirement.

Jackie is a Border Patrol agent and will qualify to retire under FERS law enforcement provisions at age 48 with 25 years of law enforcement service. She will get the supplement immediately upon retirement.

Louis entered federal service at age 38 and will resign at 58 with 20 years of federal service. Although he is eligible for a reduced, immediate retirement under the MRA+10 provision, he will postpone his retirement application to age 60 to avoid a 20 percent penalty on his retirement benefit. Regardless of when Louis applies for his retirement, he will not be eligible to receive the FERS supplement. However, if Louis decides to continue working to age 60—when he would be eligible for an immediate, unreduced retirement—then he would be entitled to receive the supplement from age 60 to age 62.

Helen will retire at age 50, with an immediate retirement under an early out opportunity at her agency. She will not be entitled to the FERS supplement until she reaches her MRA.

How To Get It

This one’s easy, because the answer is you don’t have to do anything. If a retiree is entitled to the supplement, it will be included automatically in their FERS basic retirement benefit once their retirement claim has been finalized.

There is no specific application to receive the FERS supplement. In fact, there is no mention of the supplement on the FERS Application for Immediate Retirement . Nor is the supplement mentioned in the instructional pamphlet given to employees at retirement, Applying for Immediate Retirement under FERS .

You can read about the supplement in a pamphlet titled Information for FERS Annuitants . Your agency's retirement calculator software can compute the approximate value of the supplement in your FERS retirement estimate report.

Next week, we’ll look at how the supplement is computed, and how it can change over time.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/04/frequently-misunderstood-benefit/164848/

GovExec: OPM Issues Guidance on Additional Paid Sick Leave for Feds During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Thu, 23 Apr 2020 20:39:01 GMT

The federal government’s human resources agency confirmed this week that most federal workers are eligible to take up to two additional weeks of paid sick leave this year related to COVID-19.

ERICH WAGNER - APRIL 23, 2020 03:42 PM ET

The Office of Personnel Management on Wednesday issued guidance to agencies providing clarity on how they should implement a provision of the coronavirus relief bill signed last month that provides two weeks of paid sick leave in connection with COVID-19.

In a memo posted to the OPM website Wednesday the agency confirmed that, with few exceptions, federal employees are entitled to two weeks of paid sick leave through the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act if they contract the coronavirus or are instructed to quarantine after being exposed to the virus.

OPM noted that in most cases, federal workers are not eligible for another chunk of paid leave provided under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act, which provides some American workers with partially paid leave for up to 12 weeks to care for a child because their school or child care provider is closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In short, all federal workers are eligible for two additional weeks of paid sick leave between April 1 and Dec. 31, unless their agency excludes them because they are a “health care provider” or “emergency responder,” or if the director of the Office of Management and Budget excludes them from the benefit “for good cause,” OPM wrote.

Although most federal employees are theoretically eligible for the additional sick leave, there are some requirements to fulfill before a worker can take advantage of the benefit. The employee must be subject to a federal, state or local governmental quarantine or isolation order related to the coronavirus, they must be instructed to isolate by a health care professional, or they must be caring for an immediate family member who is quarantining or suffering from the virus.

“[The agency must grant the leave if] the employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19 [or if] the employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis,” OPM wrote. “[An] employee may not take EPSLA paid sick leave if he/she unilaterally decides to self-quarantine for an illness without medical advice, even if he/she has COVID-19 symptoms.”

The guidance does not address the issue of whether employees need a positive coronavirus test result, but it does allow for the use of the leave to seek a diagnosis from a medical professional.

OPM noted that the cap of extra leave—80 hours for full time workers—is a “per-employee limit,” meaning that employees cannot receive an additional two weeks of leave if they change jobs or encounter multiple instances in which they could qualify for the benefit.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/04/opm-issues-guidance-additional-paid-sick-leave-feds-during-coronavirus-pandemic/164849/

GovExec: White House Instructs Agencies to Begin Process of Returning Some Employees to Their Offices

Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:49:47 GMT

Operations will remain abnormal for the coming months and will vary widely across the country

ERIC KATZ - Senior Correspondent - APRIL 20, 2020 04:43 PM ET

Federal agencies should begin considering ways to bring employees back to their offices, according to new Trump administration guidance, though the White House left much of the decision making to individual leaders based on local conditions.

The new guidance, released jointly by the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget, seeks to align federal agencies with guidance the White House unveiled last week for states to use when assessing how and when to reopen businesses and other entities in the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Agencies will therefore follow state mandates and maintain significant discretion on when to take a variety of steps. Much of the memorandum spelled out policies that agencies could or may take, without prescribing specific timelines or actions.

“Given the diversity of federal workforce missions, geographic locations and the needs of individuals within the workforce itself, this transition will require continued diligence and flexibility from federal agencies and the federal workforce,” OMB and OPM said.

For now, agencies should continue deploying maximum telework. They should then move toward lifting mandatory telework in low-risk geographic areas while still allowing additional telework flexibilities as needed, especially for those employees with child care needs. Finally, agencies should lift “maximum” telework at all locations before settling into normal, “optimized” operations. The administration encouraged “creative solutions,” such as creating rotational cohorts in which employees come into the office for five days per month.

“As conditions change, agency heads should revisit telework policies and agreements in order to continue progressing to normal operations or address changing conditions while retaining the needed flexibility during the response,” the guidance stated.

Employees at a higher risk for serious complications from COVID-19 should remain on telework until “risk is minimal." OMB and OPM reminded agencies of their ongoing authority to grant weather and safety leave or excused absences for employees who are not eligible for telework.

Healthy employees under the age of 65 “may return” to the workplace and “may” wear a face covering for their entire workdays, OMB and OPM said. Agencies can issue their own masks or “may approve” employees’ own face coverings.

OMB and OPM told agencies to prioritize the opening of some facilities before others.

“Agencies must prioritize capacity building for those services that are the most public-facing as well as those critical to implementing COVID-19 response efforts to help the nation's recovery,” the memo stated. They must also prioritize the opening of facilities with classified settings.

OPM and OMB acknowledged, however, the decision may not be up to agency heads. Each General Services Administration-run building has its own designated official to make decisions on the status of the facility. Agencies should consider implementing screenings, they said, such as “a set of questions to be asked upon entry, temperature checks, visual inspection, or other methods.” They should also ensure social distancing within offices and adequate supply of hand sanitizer, sanitizing wipes, toilet paper and other items.

“Agencies must remain vigilant to minimize and control the impact of COVID-19 in their workplace,” OPM and OMB said.

Agencies should make state and regional assessments the “starting point for discussion” of resuming normal operations, but should also consider school and daycare closures, mass transit availability, facility requirements and missions. Agencies may consider continuing travel restrictions for employees.

Agency heads should delegate decision making to bureau and competent leaders, and designate a point of contact for each office location to assist with gathering relevant local information. That individual should communicate with employees in their areas to keep them apprised.

“The role of a public servant requires a unique responsibility to lead in times of crisis and during a period of recovery,” OMB and OPM said. “In the face of this historic pandemic, the federal workforce has continued to ensure mission critical and essential services continue to meet the nation's needs. Across the nation, public servants will continue to perform a key leadership role in supporting the American people.”

In a recent survey, most federal employees said the pandemic has had a “major” or “extreme” impact on their agencies’ operations.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/04/white-house-instructs-agencies-begin-process-returning-some-employees-their-offices/164757/

GovExec: Survey - Most Feds Say the Coronavirus Pandemic Has Had a 'Major' or 'Extreme' Impact on Agency Operations

Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:16:11 GMT

Only 4-in-10 of those still reporting to work say their agencies have provided adequate protections

ERIC KATZ - Senior Correspondent - APRIL 20, 2020 01:52 PM ET

A majority of federal employees say the novel coronavirus outbreak has had a “major” or “extreme” impact on their agencies’ operations, according to a new survey, though they generally give positive marks to the actions their offices have taken to prevent its spread.

About 3-in-10 federal workers are still required to report to their normal work stations, according to the survey conducted by the Government Business Council, the research arm of Government Executive. Many of those are on the frontlines of the fight against COVID-19, such as Homeland Security Department officers, Veterans Affairs Department health care providers and Army Corps of Engineers employees. Only about 40% of federal workers still reporting to their normal work stations, however, said their agencies have provided them with the materials and equipment they need to stay safe, while 37% said they have not.

Overall, nearly 70% of federal employees said they approve of their agencies' efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The same rate of employees said ensuring the safety of the workforce was their agencies’ top priority. Nearly 6-in-10 respondents said the pandemic has had a “major” or “extreme” impact on operations, while just 2% said it has had no impact at all.

One-in-three federal workers said it is not at all important to physically be in the office to do their jobs, while just 25% said it is very or extremely important. The respondents overwhelmingly said their supervisors have supported them working remotely, with just 9% saying their agencies have been “not at all supportive” of the transition to work from home.

One employee at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services highlighted the “major impact” the pandemic has had on operations, noting, “We had to cancel thousands of interviews for permanent residency and naturalization, and many ceremonies to make people U.S. citizens.”

“Catching up will take months,” the employee said.

Another federal worker said top leadership was supportive of teleworking, but that message was muddied as it worked its way down the ranks. “It was the management in between that disagreed and required the workforce to come in during the pandemic,” the employee said.

Several respondents said they are on partial telework, with their agencies requiring employees to go into the office for part of each week. Others are worried about eventually returning to their work stations. “I'm concerned that if or when employees are told to report back in the office, will there be personal protection equipment provided?” one worker said.

The survey was sent to a random sample of Government Executive Media Group subscribers from April 8 through April 17. It received responses from 728 federal employees and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4%. You can see the full results here.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/04/survey-most-feds-say-coronavirus-pandemic-has-had-major-or-extreme-impact-agency-operations/164746/

GovExec: VA Instructs Coronavirus-Exposed Staff to Continue Working, Places Those Who Don’t in AWOL Status

Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:33:13 GMT

"This is the absolute worst-case scenario of anything I have ever experienced in my nursing career," according to one registered nurse.

ERIC KATZ - Senior Correspondent - APRIL 17, 2020 02:12 PM ET

Employees at the Veterans Affairs Department are feeling pressured to return to work even after they've been exposed to the novel coronavirus—a new VA policy requires them to continue showing up, and threatens discipline along with the possibility of losing pay for those who stay home.

The situation is creating a stressful environment in which VA workers worry their colleagues may be hiding symptoms while they have insufficient equipment to protect themselves and others from spreading the virus. Government Executive spoke to employees at more than a half-dozen facilities, all of whom said management was providing inconsistent guidance and creating unsafe working conditions.

To date, more than 5,000 patients and 1,600 staff at VA facilities have tested positive for COVID-19; more than 300 patients and more than a dozen staff have died from the disease. Until recently at some facilities, staff told Government Executive, some administrative staff were not even allowed to wear masks, either because there weren't enough to go around and they were being reserved for medical personnel with more sustained patient contact, or because supervisors were worried about alarming patients and visitors.

At some facilities, VA officials have instituted policies under which employees who worked with COVID-19 positive patients before their status was known—and therefore were not wearing the proper equipment—should continue to work until they develop symptoms, after which they could be tested for the virus. In some cases, those employees included nurses and doctors who subsequently tested positive for the virus but returned after seven days when their symptoms were no longer evident, employees said. One memorandum sent by a top official at a medical center in Indianapolis said VA facilities should consider enabling employees “who have had an exposure to a COVID-19 patient to continue to work after options to improve staffing have been exhausted.”

Christina Noel, a VA spokeswoman, said the department was following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, as well as its own protocols, in allowing employees to continue working after exposure to the virus. Contradicting reports from employees, she said staff who test positive can only return to work after being asymptomatic for 10 days.

Those who take time off to self-isolate after a potential exposure without experiencing symptoms risk being labeled “absent without leave,” according to employees at multiple facilities, a status that cuts off paychecks and negatively impacts future pay, promotion opportunities and performance metrics. Employees may take sick leave if they have it available, but supervisors have discretion to reject such requests.

Those with a positive test or a known exposure but who are asymptomatic are told to return to work and wear a mask. While VA has said it has sufficient personal protective equipment for its employees, the Veterans Health Administration sent out a departmentwide memo last week notifying employees it had implemented “crisis capacity strategies for mask and N95 respirator conservation until supply chains are optimized.” At VA facilities across the country, employees working in areas thought to be less at risk for COVID-19 exposure, including nursing homes, spinal cord injury facilities and mental health wards, are receiving only one face mask per week. One employee working in a high-risk unit said she and her colleagues had to keep their masks “until they are falling from our faces.”

"Care should be taken to not touch the outer surface of the mask when removing the mask from a paper storage bag when used,” the memo read.

The more sophisticated N95 masks that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has deemed most effective in protecting workers from the virus are rarely seen anywhere in a VA medical center or clinic, according to every employee with whom Government Executive spoke. Only those in intensive care units or emergency rooms receive them, the employees said. As recently as early March, supervisors at multiple VA facilities were instructing employees to remove masks as they were causing unnecessary alarm with patients. Employees at three facilities said workers were not wearing masks until last week.

One nurse in Indianapolis said her surgical mask was “saturated” with sweat during her 12-hour shift, but she was denied a new one.

"How infected is a wet mask?” she said. “There’s no barrier when it’s soaking wet.”

Noel said VA “has not encountered any PPE shortages that have negatively impacted patient care or employee safety.” She added on Thursday the department shifted from “crisis” capacity posture for PPE use to “contingency.”

Reporting Staff AWOL

At a clinic in the Las Vegas area, an advanced medical support assistant whose job involves the administrative aspects of coordinating VA patient care, was directed by her personal physician to be tested for COVID-19 in March after she developed a sore throat and a fever of 102 degrees. She told her boss she would stay home until she received her test results and forwarded the doctor’s note instructing her to do so. At that time, it was taking up to two weeks to receive test results. Without being told, she was placed on AWOL status for nine of the 10 work days she missed. The employee, a cancer survivor with a weakened respiratory system, had already exhausted all of her sick leave.

Before she returned to work after testing negative for the virus, her doctor gave her an N95 mask from the doctor's own supply due to concerns about her vulnerability as a cancer survivor, but her supervisor at VA prohibited her from wearing any mask at all. Later, VA provided her one standard mask per week. She is now home again with pneumonia on unpaid status.

The situation is straining her finances “beyond words,” she said. “It stresses me. I’m trying my best not to get that way because it’s exacerbating my illness. I’m not healing.”

Myoshi North is also an advanced medical support assistant, in Biloxi, Mississippi. Last month, she was assigned to screen patients coming into the medical center for coronavirus symptoms. Her requests for PPE were ignored, she said. North subsequently contracted the virus and upon receiving a positive test was forced to quarantine for 14 days.

But when she received her next paycheck, North learned she had been placed in an unpaid status during part of her absence. North said her supervisor explained that she wasn't paid because she wasn't teleworking during that time—despite the fact that North has not been trained and lacks the equipment necessary to perform her job remotely, she said.

“Now, not only do I have to worry about recovering from the COVID-19 virus, I have to struggle with my financial obligations as well,” North said.

VA headquarters has given its facilities broad discretion in how to charge leave to its employees, according to multiple individuals familiar with the plan, leading to inconsistent policies around the country. A nurse in Iowa who tested positive for the virus, for example, told Government Executive she was provided advanced sick leave to cover her time off. She now has negative-88 hours of leave accrued.

Richard Stone, acting head of the VHA, issued a memo last month authorizing facilities to provide administrative leave to anyone forced to quarantine or otherwise unable to come into work due to the pandemic. Each facility has its own discretion to implement that order, however, anecdotal evidence suggests it is seldom being used. Noel said VA is encouraging employees to use sick leave if they are ill, but did not address questions about employees in AWOL status.

Another Las Vegas employee took her twins to the hospital after one developed a fever. A doctor there suspected the 5-year-old had COVID-19, and, upon learning the mother worked at a VA hospital, told her not to return to work. The employee provided her supervisor with a note from the doctor saying she was “instructed to stay home.” Her supervisor responded that she would be placed in AWOL status, noting in an email it was "not ideal" but "it will not be avoidable."

The employee returned to her clinic, but within days began to feel sick. She went to work anyway, not wanting to risk more unpaid time off. A facility employee checked her temperature before she entered one morning and it registered as 102 degrees. She was directed to a tent outside the facility, where a doctor confirmed the temperature reading and told her she could not work that day. He called her supervisor to relay the news, but the supervisor told her to go to another area for employee medical treatment.

“Take some Tylenol and you’ll be fine,” the employee was told. “Just go back to work.”

So she did.

'This Clinic Is a Petri Dish'

Conditions for those still reporting to work are just as difficult. An Alabama-based employee noted that five employees at a VA clinic in Anniston had tested positive for COVID-19, leading the department to require tests for all of its roughly 25 workers there. VA kept the clinic open and told employees to continue reporting to work.

“This clinic is a petri dish,” the employee said. Staff there is “panicked,” she said, because one of those who tested positive was a supervisor who “has come in contact with everyone in the clinic.” It is also an outlier, as VA employees around the country said their facility was not authorizing tests for any employees who were asymptomatic.

The Indianapolis nurse who said she was denied a replacement for her sweat-saturated surgical mask has cycled in and out of her medical center’s COVID-19 unit. When with coronavirus patients, no one else is allowed into the room. She brings in a phone so doctors and specialists can speak to the patients. The rooms are not cleaned until a patient leaves, meaning the nurses, rather than janitorial staff, have to clean feces and urine that wind up on the floor. They make do with wash cloths, but do not have sanitizing products available, the nurse said.

Nurses are supposed to change their scrubs before going into the COVID unit, she said, but they do not currently have enough to carry out that policy. Employees place their personal items in a bag and then place the bag on a floor in the hallway. They have to change in the break rooms, where they leave their clothes, including their shoes, because they do not have sufficient foot coverings. There are “shoes and clothes everywhere” when employees take a break to eat, she said.

The nurse said when the virus first began to spread, employees were told to quarantine for 14 days after they were exposed to it. That was reduced to seven days, then three, and now they must continue working unless they develop symptoms.

“And that’s if you’re lucky enough to know you’ve been exposed,” she said, noting the facility has stopped notifying employees about their exposure to the virus.

Multiple nurses in Indianapolis said the COVID units are overwhelmed, meaning patients are sent back to regular parts of the hospital at the first sign of a fever breaking, before they have been retested for the virus to determine if they are still positive. On several occasions, the fever returned within 48 hours, exposing more individuals to the virus before the patient was returned to the COVID unit.

“Patients are coughing in your face,” one nurse said of the veterans who were cleared to return to a non-COVID ward. Inevitably, she said, their fevers develop again, and they are sent back down.

“I know I’ve been exposed four times,” said the first nurse. She explained the facility briefly screened nurses upon entering each day, but then stopped when the facility began running out of disposable thermometers. After reporting one exposure to her supervisors, a facility official told the nurse to take her temperature on the same thermometer being used on a patient.

Another nurse at the facility who is pregnant had saved up her paid time off to take maternity leave. But after she tested positive for the virus she used all of her accrued leave while home recovering. She recently was retested but continues to test positive for COVID-19, forcing her to remain at home on leave without pay. At this point, she no longer has any leave available for maternity leave. To avoid a similar fate, nurses at several facilities said they knew of colleagues who are hiding their symptoms to avoid being sent home.

“Right now we call it a cesspool,” one said. “You just don’t feel safe. You don’t feel like it’s clean.”

One of the Indianapolis nurses was sent home by VA because she developed symptoms. A test came back negative, however, so the facility opted to charge her for sick leave rather than administrative “safety leave,” for the time she missed, she said. She returned to work, but a few days later the symptoms worsened. She was again sent home, and now that she has exhausted her leave, is unpaid. She said she received another test on Thursday, April 16, and is awaiting results.

“At this point I really don’t care about getting paid,” she said, noting she feels an obligation to protect those around her. “I can’t go to work. It’s not fair to my patients or myself.”

‘This Is So Heartbreaking’

VA employees expressed some sympathy with management. They understand the strain the entire VA system—the largest hospital network in the country—is under, and remain committed to helping veterans, they said. While they applauded their colleagues for the service they are providing, they faulted the department for failing to act sooner to train employees to work in other units, develop a stockpile of equipment, fill staffing vacancies, and communicate new policies and potential exposures. As of April 16, 1,633 VA employees had tested positive for COVID-19 and 14 have died from the disease.

“The nurses are tired,” said one, who has worked at VA for decades. “We’re overworked. We’re overwhelmed.”

Several VA employees broke down in tears when telling their stories, typically out of concern for colleagues whose plights were worse than their own.

“This is so heartbreaking, the things that I’ve endured,” one employee said. “Not just myself. Thousands of us.”

Rhonda Risner, a registered nurse in Dayton who represents VA employees with National Nurses United, said her facility is asking her "to go against everything I learned in nursing school."

“This is the absolute worst-case scenario of anything I have ever experienced in my nursing career,” Risner said.

Another nurse cited VA management for callous leave policies and a general lack of empathy with what employees were enduring.

“You feel like you are alone,” she said, “fighting this thing alone.”

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/04/va-instructs-coronavirus-exposed-staff-continue-working-places-those-who-dont-awol-status/164693/

Stars and Stripes: DOD-wide Coronavirus Cases Surpass 4,500, Up 26% Over The Weekend

Wed, 15 Apr 2020 19:23:47 GMT

By COREY DICKSTEIN | STARS AND STRIPES - Published: April 13, 2020

WASHINGTON — More than 4,500 U.S. military-linked individuals had tested positive for the coronavirus by Monday representing a roughly 26% spike in illnesses reported since Friday, according to new Pentagon data, which included the second death of a U.S. service member.

The Defense Department said 4,528 service members, DOD civilian workers, military dependents and defense contractors worldwide had tested positive for the virus, which was responsible for at least 15 deaths among them. The latest death was that of a sailor on Monday who had been battling the disease in an intensive care unit on Guam after contracting the coronavirus aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt.

Navy officials on Monday declined to provide identifying information about that sailor, including the service member’s name, age or rank, citing Pentagon policy to withhold such details until 24 hours after family have been notified. The sailor was among 585 aboard the Roosevelt to test positive for the virus, by far the largest known outbreak of the disease among U.S. military troops across the globe. That outbreak, which has sidelined the nuclear-powered carrier on Guam’s coast, accounts for more than half of the Navy’s reported 999 coronavirus cases and nearly 20% of known cases among all American troops, according to the Defense Department report.

The latest data showed cases continued to rise across all of the military’s services. But Pentagon policy to restrict data about cases at individual military installations makes it difficult to determine where other outbreaks might have occurred, other than among the Roosevelt’s crew. DOD’s top leaders have defended that policy as needed to keep such information away from military adversaries, but some officials in the department have said they do not agree with the decision.

After the Navy, the Army — the largest military service — reported the most cases with 523 positive tests among its soldiers. The Air Force reported 288 cases, the Marine Corps reported 203, and the National Guard reported 513 among its Army and Air National Guard members.

Pentagon officials acknowledged discrepancies in their total numbers and statistics reported by the services. A defense official said last week that it was difficult to capture data collected from the DOD’s worldwide enterprise, but the Pentagon was committed to providing statistics every weekday throughout the crisis.

Monday’s data showed 76 service members were hospitalized by the virus, an increase of nine since Friday. Defense officials declined to provide information about the status of its troops hospitalized by the virus.

On Friday, about one-third of 146 DOD-affiliated individuals who were hospitalized were in intensive care units, military.com reported, citing Defense Health Agency statistics. By Monday, 166 military-linked individuals were hospitalized, according to the Pentagon. DHA officials did not immediately return a request for the numbers of the people in ICUs.

The ICU cases on Friday included the sailor who died Monday. The 15 deaths is up from six reported one week earlier. In addition to the two service members, it includes six DOD civilian workers, two military dependents and five defense contractors.

The latest data provided by the Defense Department removed from the tally the death of one civilian, after medical professionals determined the person died of other causes not related to the virus, an official said. It’s at least the second time that the department has removed a death from its statistics for that reason.

dickstein.corey@stripes.com

Twitter: @CDicksteinDC

Original Story: https://www.stripes.com/news/us/dod-wide-coronavirus-cases-surpass-4-500-up-26-over-the-weekend-1.625939

Photo Caption: U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jordan Rigor, 48th Medical Support Squadron conducts COVID-19 testing at RAF Feltwell, England April 9, 2020. MATTHEW PLEW/U.S. AIR FORCE

GovExec: Agencies Can Launch Retaliatory Investigations Into Whistleblowers, Court Rules

Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:21:34 GMT

Ruling Sets a New Government-wide Precedent

ERIC KATZ - Senior Correspondent - APRIL 13, 2020 05:10 PM ET

Federal agencies can launch retaliatory investigations against employees who blow the whistle on wrongdoing without violating anti-reprisal laws, a federal court has said in a precedent-setting ruling.

While agencies cannot dock pay, deny promotions or engage in several other retaliatory personnel actions against whistleblowers, investigating a worker who has attempted to shed a light on inappropriate or illegal behavior is allowable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said. Federal whistleblowers have long complained agencies seek to turn the tables on them in an effort to discredit their claims or remove them from their positions.

The case involved Leonard Sistek, who served as a director at a VA facility in Denver. Sistek made multiple disclosures to the VA inspector general protected under whistleblower law, raising concerns about agency spending and “contractual anomalies.” In 2014, Sistek was interviewed by an Administrative Investigation Board examining inappropriate office relationships, during which he realized he was himself subject to an investigation. He notified the IG that he suspected this was in retaliation for his whistleblowing. Later that year, the board cited Sistek for failing to report that a colleague had an “inappropriate sexual relationship” with the colleague’s subordinate, and VA issued a letter of reprimand.

In early 2015, VA rescinded Sistek’s letter and struck it from his record. Later that year, the IG validated two of his claims of department wrongdoing.

Sistek brought a case before the Merit Systems Protection Board, arguing that VA retaliated against him for blowing the whistle. An MSPB administrative judge, however, ruled in VA’s favor, leading him to appeal the decision in the federal circuit court.

To qualify for relief under whistleblower law, employees must demonstrate their agency took a qualifying personnel action such as a denial of an appointment, a pay decision or another "significant change" in duties or working conditions. The MSPB judge ruled, and the appeals court subsequently affirmed, that “a retaliatory investigation, in and of itself, does not qualify as a personnel action eligible for corrective action” under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The court stated further that Congress "acted purposely in excluding retaliatory investigations" from prohibited behavior under the law.

VA was therefore well within its rights to launch an investigation into Sistek, even if it was in retaliation for his disclosures, the court found.

Sistek argued the investigation and subsequent letter of reprimand created a hostile work environment, which amounted to a “significant change” in his working conditions. The court rejected that argument, saying under Sistek’s definition any investigation would create a hostile work environment.

The court noted a retaliatory investigation into an employee who blew the whistle could be subject to additional relief if that employee can prove some other improper personnel action.

Sistek retired from VA in 2018.

Original Story: https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/04/agencies-can-launch-retaliatory-investigations-whistleblowers-court-rules/164586/

NGB Sends Guidance to States/Territories on COVID-19 Emergency Sick Leave

Mon, 13 Apr 2020 20:29:40 GMT

The following message was sent from NGB to the 54 States/Territories on Friday, April 10, 2020:

HRO's and Deputy HRO's,

Good Morning, sir/ma'am! I hope that you are all staying safe & healthy. The below and the attached INTERIM guidance provides information on the eligibility and procedure for FFCRA Paid Sick Leave.

BLUF: Due to FFCRA, all individuals employed as federal civilians in the States are entitled to two cumulative weeks of paid sick leave. Employees covered by Title I FMLA in the National Guard are entitled to an additional 10 cumulative weeks of Emergency Family and Medical Leave, but only for reason 5 listed in attachments 2 and 3.

1. State HR Specialists should read the DCPAS message in attachment 1 and the Department of Labor Poster in attachment 2.

2. States may use attachment 3 to assist in determining eligibility and processing FFCRA Leave requests.

3. States should display the FFCRA poster in all locations in which Family Medical Leave Act posters are already displayed and are encouraged to share the poster with employees through all available means.

It is important to note that FFCRA has a maximum amount that is payable. An employee who elects to use this entitlement may have better leave options available to them by using regular sick leave, annual leave, advanced annual, or other types of paid leave applicable to the situation. Additionally, DFAS will initially pay the employee their full rate of pay and then recoup the overpayment as a debt at an unknown later date. DCPAS issued the INTERIM guidance until more comprehensive information can be compiled due to the complexity of the leave. Please watch for new guidance as it comes available. Attachment 4 is an OPM Fact sheet that may provide additional information for the HR Specialist. The OPM Fact sheet target audience is the HR Specialist with experience in FMLA, Federal Leave, and employment regulations, therefore it is complex.

If bargaining unit employees are being used for these purposes, consult labor relations staff to determine any applicable bargaining obligations. If you or your labor relations staff have questions regarding this they may contact one of our NGB-TCPL labor relations staff. They are Mr. Skip Ragels at lathe.l.ragels.civ@mail.mil and Mr. Scott Pier at scott.e.pier.civ@mail.mil.

NGB-J1-TCP stands ready to answer questions and will provide additional information as it becomes available. In addition, we coordinate all NGB civilian questions and concerns with appropriate stakeholders, as appropriate, and publish all answers to the NGB COVID-19 Q&A GKO Page. If you have any COVID-19 questions or concerns please contact my POCs: Ms. Angela Mullins at angela.m.mullins18.civ@mail.mil and WO1 Conway at lena.j.conway.mil@mail.mil.

Thank you for all you do!

v/r,

Mr. Joey L. Keyes, GS-15, DAFC

Chief, Technician and Civilian Personnel Policy Division (TCP)

Directorate Manpower and Personnel (J1)

National Guard Bureau (NGB)

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204-1373

Office: (703) 601-2980

Cell: (571) 438-2446

Email: joey.l.keyes.civ@mail.mil

Attachment 1: DCPAS Message FFCRA

Attachment 2: See poster below

Attachment 3: FFCRA Leave Information Sheet

Attachment 4: OPM Fact Sheet FFCRA

New Local 1776 Website Enhances Ability to Represent Our Members

Fri, 10 Apr 2020 20:28:43 GMT

Modern Interface Standardizes Content Across All Platforms

New Orleans, LA (April 10, 2020) - LIUNA Local 1776's website just got an upgrade. The recent COVID-19 travel ban has provided the perfect opportunity to upgrade our web presence in order to better serve our members.

The new website presents a seamless look and user interface regardless of how visitors access it, whether that's via desktop computer, tablet, or mobile phone. While most of the functionality of the old website has already been migrated to the new platform, we are still in the process of transferring content over, to include old archived news articles.

Another reason for transitioning is to bring our news platform in-house. For the past several years we have been using Facebook as our primary means of communication. However, while Facebook is still a useful communication tool, it is no longer the most effective way to share content. The clutter, privacy concerns, and constant barrage of ads has turned many subscribers away reducing our overall reach. For that reason, all new Local 1776 stories and articles will be generated internally using our custom blog application. This will allow all visitors, including non-Facebook users, to benefit from the information provided. We will continue to share all stories on Facebook, but those stories will be linked to articles hosted on the Local 1776 website.

We hope you enjoy the new interface and encourage you to share the website with your coworkers.

VIDEO: CA National Guard Fails to Meet Deadlines on Critical Benefits Requests

Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:58:37 GMT

California led the nation in delays processing ‘line of duty’ claims for service members

By Tony Kovaleski, Liz Wagner and Jeremy Carroll and Scott Pham • Published October 5, 2015 • Updated on October 6, 2015 at 11:40 am

VIDEO: CA National Guard Tries to Serve Firing Papers to Member After Suicide Attempt

Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:54:05 GMT

The California National Guard sends termination paperwork to Guard member in hospital hours after third suicide attempt

By Tony Kovaleski and Liz Wagner and Felipe Escamilla • Published June 25, 2013 • Updated on August 21, 2014 at 5:34 pm

Dual Status Technicians

Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:45:30 GMT

The Federal Employees in these Hybrid Civilian/Military Roles are a Breed Apart...

This comprehensive story was originally published in the August 2015 issue of NARFE Magazine.

Army Could Fly Apache Helicopters Away From Utah's 'Air Pirates'

Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:28:39 GMT

Story Originally Published in the Star Lake Tribune

Utah National Guard is worried that jobs could go with the aircraft...

By Nate Carlisle ( February 9, 2016) - West Jordan - Army National Guard Sgt. Andrew Riggs was working on the tail rotors of an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter here Thursday. He paused to ponder what he would do if that aircraft flew away from Utah.

The Army is talking about eliminating some of its Apaches in the National Guard ranks.

Riggs, who is 25, lives in Orem and has been in the Utah National Guard for six years, said maybe he would seek a new job with the National Guard. But it's not clear that job would be full time, like the one he has now.

"We've been kind of nervous with all that," Riggs said.

A report released last month from the National Commission on the Future of the Army calls for reducing the number of Apache battalions in the National Guard ranks to four from eight. Each now has about 20 aircraft; the survivors would have their Apache numbers increased to 24, with the rest of the helicopters going to active-duty units.

The battalions that lose the Apaches could receive some Black Hawk helicopters, mostly used to transport troops and equipment, in return.

It's unclear if the Army will follow the recommendation. It could leave the Apaches — the fast and sleek helicopters that can fire rockets, missiles or bullets at ground targets and provide cover for infantry — dispersed as they are or operating under an alternative.

But, for the moment, Utah's 1st Battalion, 211th Aviation Regiment — nicknamed the Air Pirates — is pitted against Apache battalions in Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

About 120 soldiers and civilians work full time maintaining Utah's Apaches. Black Hawks don't require as many maintainers, so some of those 120 jobs would disappear, the Utah National Guard has said.

The Utah National Guard believes it has some strong arguments for keeping its 16 Apaches. The first is that the state's topography looks and has atmospheric conditions a lot like where the Army most often operates these days — Afghanistan.

"You look outside," said Lt. Col. Matthew Badell, as he nodded toward a window at the National Guard armory in West Jordan, "you see Afghanistan."

Altitude and atmosphere are important factors in how a helicopter performs. Badell, an Apache pilot who deployed to Afghanistan in 2004 and 2005, said Utah provides better training than a pilot will experience at sea level.

The Utah National Guard also uses the same selling point that supporters of Hill Air Force Base have used every time it has faced a cut from the Pentagon. The Air Pirates fly and target practice in the sky above Dugway Proving Ground, the Utah Test and Training Range and the massive swath of west desert airspace that is reserved for the military.

The Utah National Guard also has produced statistics showing its Apaches are maintained as well and as cheaply as any active-duty unit.

Cost savings are a major reason the Army has been pondering what to do with its Apaches and why the issue was handed to the National Commission on the Future of the Army.

The commission considered a proposal to keep six Apache units in the National Guard ranks, but found that would have added between $90 million and $175 million to the budget proposed by the Obama administration.

Laborers International Union of North America Local 1776, which represents civilian employees working for National Guards across the country, has been fighting the Apache transfers. Local 1776's business manager, Ben Banchs, contends the Army will reduce cost-saving National Guard units in favor of the more-expensive active-duty battalions.

"If the Army's intent is to do the mission at a reduced cost," Banchs said, "then their plan to take the Apaches out of the National Guard is particularly ridiculous."

Banchs expects Utah's arguments about the benefits of its altitude will have limited effectiveness.

"I don't think it will have any weight with the bean counters," he said. "With the war fighters, absolutely."

The commission's plan says any National Guard Apache battalions that survive will have to be deployed more often. Badell said that won't be a problem. The Air Pirates have had multiple deployments through the years, most recently in 2012.

Chief Warrant Officer Ken Jones recently retired from the Utah National Guard as the first Apache pilot to fly more than 10,000 hours.

"We've done it before; got the T-shirts," Badell said. "There's still room in the drawer."

Original Story Link: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3494491&itype=CMSID#gallery-carousel-446996

ncarlisle@sltrib.com

Twitter: @natecarlisle

Change in Titles for Guard Hits Delay

Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:21:59 GMT

Story Originally Published in the Journal Gazette

By Brian Francisco - Washington Editor (Friday, June 17, 2016) - Federal legislation converting National Guard military technicians into federal civilian employees will be stalled for nine months.

The conversions were scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. But Senate and House versions of the fiscal year 2017 defense bill would delay the switch until October 2017.

The original conversion provision, contained in the fiscal 2016 defense bill passed last year, stipulated that at least 20 percent of dual-status technicians become civilian employees. Dual-status technicians are National Guard members who also work for the Guard in administrative, clerical, finance and mechanical repair positions.

The measure would have affected more than 11,000 technicians nationwide, including 45 at the Air National Guard’s 122nd Fighter Wing in Fort Wayne.

But in March, 44 governors of states and U.S. territories, including Indiana’s Mike Pence, asked congressional leaders to repeal the provision, saying it would reduce the number of Guard forces available to respond to state emergencies. Gen. Frank Grass, chief of the National Guard Bureau, sought the conversion delay when testifying in March before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"We would have preferred a full repeal but appreciate the delay and will continue to work on the issue with the IN National Guard and the National Governors Association," Matt Lloyd, spokesman for Pence, said in an email.

Laborers’ International Union of North America had pushed for the personnel reclassification. LIUNA says it would remove military requirements from civil service workers, make them eligible for overtime pay and allow them to appeal demotions, suspensions and firings to the agency that has jurisdiction for federal merit employees rather than to the military.

Ben Banchs, business manager for LIUNA National Guard Council Local 1776, said in an email that LIUNA is "not overly concerned with the delay" and is "fairly confident the T5 conversion will not be repealed."

Title 5 is the section of federal law governing civil service employees. Dual-status technicians are covered by Title 32, which requires them to be Guard members and military employees.

Banchs did predict that the Defense Department and the National Guard Bureau "will use the delay to get one more shot at repeal leading up to" the fiscal 2018 defense bill.

But he also noted that Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and the panel’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, have supported the conversion. In a letter this year to the National Governors Association, the two senators said the types of jobs performed by technicians range far beyond those established by a 1968 law: training members of the National Guard and maintaining and repairing military supplies.

The office of Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., a member of the Armed Services Committee, said the conversion delay provision was a bipartisan compromise that continues to give National Guard commanders authority for their personnel.

Original Story Link: https://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/Change-in-titles-for-Guard-hits-delay-13615160

bfrancisco@jg.net

Corruption in Louisiana

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:33:07 GMT

SAF IG Finds Rampant Misconduct at the LA ANG

SAF IG Investigative report concerning conduct by Brigadier General Brod Veillon.

VIDEO: Corruption in California

Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:23:36 GMT

NBC Bay Area Special Report

Local news affiliate NBC Bay Area's investigative reporting of corruption in the California National Guard.

Corruption in Arizona

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:16:56 GMT

Arizona Republic Special Report

Local news affiliate Arizona Republic's investigation into corruption in the Arizona National Guard.

LIUNA Local 1776 Business Manager Testifies Before Army Commission

Thu, 09 Apr 2020 19:55:03 GMT

Tells panel technicians are more experienced & affordable than active duty counterparts

July 16, 2015 (Arlington, VA) - Local 1776 Business Manager Ben Banchs appeared before the National Commission on the Future of the Army today on behalf of Army Technicians everywhere to let panel members know that the secret to the National Guard's success is the affordability and experience of its small yet knowledgeable technician workforce.

The conference room was packed with representatives from the Army, the National Guard, and many other areas within the defense community, as well as members from the press. In addition to Banchs the Commissioners heard testimony from Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Debra Wada, and retired Major General Arnold Punaro, USMCR.

The Commission was established by Congress to study what the Army of the future will look like as it emerges from nearly 15 years of continuous combat, a period which saw the Army's reliance on the National Guard and Reserve increase significantly.

While the Commission's task is to look at the entire Army, its existence is largely due to the Army's controversial proposal to remove all Apache helicopters from the National Guard, a move Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno initially blamed on budget shortfalls, but later said it was also due to the Guard's sub-par capability. The latter claim caught many in the Guard community by surprise and became the catalyst for a grass roots effort to stop the Army's proposal.

Read Banchs' full written testimony here.

Wear of Military Uniform Does Not Equal Pay or Duty Status for National Guard Dual Status Technicians

Thu, 09 Apr 2020 19:50:36 GMT

Sequestration Serves to Settle Long Standing Debate; Uniform Merely a Condition of Civilian Employment

New Orleans, LA (July 4, 2013) - As the Nation celebrates Independence Day and showers itself in patriotism and fireworks, there's a group of about 52,000 men and women who are feeling outright rejected for their service to their country. They've answered the call to duty two, three, four, some even five times over the last decade; they wear the military uniform to work everyday, just like their counterparts in the active duty Army and Air Force, but starting July 8th these 52,000 men and women that form the backbone of the National Guard will begin to serve 11 days worth of furlough while other military personnel will continue to receive uninterrupted pay and benefits. And there's the rub; if technicians are military then why are they treated as civilians? Well, because they are...

For nearly 50 years the question has gone unanswered: are National Guard Dual Status Technicians military or civilian personnel? The search for an answer has puzzled almost everyone that has been asked to sort out the mess that is the National Guard Dual Status Technician program. Honestly, it depends who you ask, and almost everyone, even the Federal court system, has weighed in at several different times over the last few decades, and more often than not, the answer has been that National Guard Dual Status Technicians are, first and foremost, military. The real answer seems to be whatever is convenient to the government at that moment in time.

But Sequestration has changed the game forever because duty status is all about who's writing the check, and for technicians it has become clear that Uncle Sam considers them to be civilians first, and that the uniform confers nothing upon their status in the grand scheme of things, other than headaches. The requirement that technicians wear the military uniform, as it turns out, is nothing more than a relic of an outdated Federal law that created the National Guard Dual Status Technician Program back in 1968, otherwise known as Title 32 Section 709 of the United States Code. Ironically, the requirement that a technician wear a military uniform is a condition of their civilian employment...go figure.

For years, the National Guard Bureau, along with the Adjutant Generals of the 54 States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, have passionately argued that the wear of the uniform is integral to the structure, good order, and discipline of the National Guard and the technician program; that technicians are military first, civilian second, and that wearing the uniform preserves that unique military mentality needed within the organization in order for it to succeed. I'm here to tell you...it's all a big load of horse manure. If you believe that you have to wear a military uniform in order to observe the rules, and in order to repair or fly an F-15, repair or drive an M-1 tank, or even to oversee the management of these machines, then you must be an advocate for the eradication of Federal contractors and all other Federal civilians who work at depot facilities throughout the world, and who fly, drive, and fix these same machines on a daily basis...only difference is that they do it in a pair of Levi's jeans and a Rolling Stones t-shirt.

In reality, the wear of the military uniform is nothing more than an institutional tool to facilitate the micro-management of a labor pool that exists solely to keep the Army and Air National Guard humming on a day to day basis. The wear of the uniform serves only to confuse those technicians wearing the uniform into believing that they are in the military when in fact the US Government sees them exactly for what they are: a special category of Federal civil service employees that are more knowledgeable, experienced, and cheaper than their less experienced and higher paid active duty counterparts. In fact, the National Guard Dual Status Technician program is the best kept secret in all of the Department of Defense. The wear of the uniform further serves to deny these same employees the same rights to due process and legal protections that other employees in the United States enjoy under Federal and State law.

It's going to be interesting to see how DoD, the National Guard Bureau, and the individual states and territories deal with the reality that technicians are civilians, first and foremost. Technicians, individually, need to start thinking as civilians first. They are paid less than their active duty counterparts, they receive less benefits than their active duty counterparts, and they are often penalized for their military service because if they return injured from combat they will, more than likely, get kicked out of the military and will subsequently lose their civilian employment. So, who does the technician program really benefit? Not the employee, that's for sure. The National Guard is the ultimate benefactor of this inexpensive yet expert labor pool who has to be ready to do whatever is asked of them, whether that's repairing and operating military equipment, serving as first responders during natural disasters, or enforcing the law, yet when push comes to shove they are treated no different than a food inspector. In fact, they are treated with less importance than food inspectors since the FDA was deemed exempt from the furlough. So if you're a National Guard Dual Status Technicians, how does it feel to know that an FDA meat inspector is considered more important to the safety of the United States than you are? Think about it the next time your boss calls you soldier, airman, or sergeant, and tries to treat you like you're in basic training. You only get paid 40 hours per week, not 24 hours per day; maybe it's time you start acting like it!

NGB Rescinds Controversial Language From All Dual-Status Position Descriptions

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 09 Apr 2020 19:43:41 GMT

"...does not fall within the scope of the National Guard Technician Act of 1968..."

New Orleans, LA (March 11, 2014) - Guidance recently issued by NGB suggest that management of the National Guard (NG) dual-status technician (DST) program is taking a step in the right direction. A memo issued by NGB's Technician Branch orders all states and territories to rescind certain language from all DST position descriptions (PDs); language that only served to blur the lines of what types of military duties a dual-status technician can and can't legally perform while in a civilian status.

On March 10, 2014, NGB Technician Branch Chief COL Susan Niemetz served notice to all Human Resources Offices (HROs) to delete a 2005 PD Addendum which basically authorized the assignment of military-type duties to DSTs of the National Guard during civilian work hours. Niemetz's most current guidance is just the latest in a string of policy decisions that are breathing life back into a program once on the verge of regulatory collapse. The move also serves to rebuild confidence and bring respect to the Technician Branch, a section of NGB that for the better part of the last 10 years has been plagued by poor leadership, and has consistently issued policy and recommendations that were unclear, contrary to regulation, and sometimes violated law, much to the detriment of the overall technician workforce.

To that end, COL Niemetz has had the unenviable task of righting past wrongs, most of which were committed under the tenure of COL William Kolbinger. It's hard to describe the damage that Kolbinger caused National Guard technicians. His "anything goes" attitude turned NGBs Tech Branch into a place where policy was concocted to fit the needs of the organization, even if said policy went against Federal statute and regulation. In fact, Kolbinger became so bold that he would issue policy by way of written opinion, or white paper, to the point where he convinced some states/territories that the Technician Act (32 USC § 709) allowed Adjutant Generals to circumvent OPM Competitive Hiring procedures, and even USERRA.

Needless to say, COL Niemetz has her work cut out, but so far she's doing a stellar job. Since assuming the top spot at Tech Branch, Niemetz has initiated an audit to enforce compatibility requirements, has rescinded incorrect/illegal policy memoranda, and voluntarily plunged head-long into the arduous task of updating all of NGBs Technician Personnel Regulations (TPRs), a task that's well overdue by almost 20 years. On top of all this, Niemetz has found a way to do what her two predecessors were either incapable or unwilling to do...work with (not against) the Labor Unions representing technicians.

In order to understand the significance of NGBs latest action one has to first understand how it all started. The rescinded language was initially added to all National Guard DST PDs in June 2005 via an NGB PD Release notice to all HROs. The implementation guidance sent by NGB in 2005 read:

Due to the military nature of National Guard (sic), there are a variety of infrequent non-occupational specific duties inherent in all dual status technician positions. To ensure these duties are a recognized part of all dual status position descriptions, NGB-J1-TNC has developed a mandatory task statement for all dual status standards and exception position descriptions.

The addendum then read as follows (the final sentence was added in January 2007 at the request (pleadings) of the Labor Unions):

d. OTHER SIGNIFICANT FACTS

Incumbent may be required to prepare for and support the mission through the accomplishment of duties pertaining to military training, military readiness, force protection and other mission related assignments including, but not limited to, training of traditional Guard members, CWDE/NBC training, exercise participation (ORE/ORI/UCI/MEI/OCI/IG, etc.), mobility exercise participation, FSTA/ ATSO exercise participation, SABC training, LOAC training, weapons qualification training, participation in military formations, and medical mobility processing within the guidelines of

NGB/ ARNG/ ANG/State/TAG rules, regulations and laws. These tasks have no impact on the classification of this position and should NOT be addressed in any technician's performance standards.

A quick history lesson

Prior to the 2005 PD addendum the issue of whether technicians could legitimately and legally be assigned to perform military-type duties or tasks while on technician status had not been legally addressed. The general unwritten rule was that tech-time was for tech duties and that military tasks could only be performed in a military status (i.e., drill, AT, etc.). The increased ops tempo after Desert Storm, leading up-to and following the 9/11 attacks, and the pressure to train more often for inspections and prepare for deployments, was forcing the states/territories to invest more and more time on military training activations albeit without any extra money. So in order to maximize their military budget while at the same time meeting the extra training demands, states/territories started assigning technicians more and more military-type duties during the civilian work week. This included participation in training exercises that require the wear and use of combat-specific gear like Kevlar helmets/armor or Mission Oriented Protective Posture gear (aka MOPP or chem-gear), and required DSTs to accomplish other tasks specifically linked to military mobility requirements, like firing small arms for qualification during civilian duty hours. In other words, the states/territories were forcing technicians to perform tasks that were completely outside the scope of their civilian position description.

In response to this increased military ops tempo, the Association of Civilian Technicians (ACT), a Union representing technicians of the Kansas Air National Guard, attempted to include language in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) addressing the assignment of military duties to DSTs while in a civilian status. As expected, the proposed language was challenged by the National Guard as being nonnegotiable, and in 2002 the matter was appealed by the Union to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). While the Union's intentions were good and justified, the fact is the proposal was rather extreme, and placed numerous administrative controls on the assignment of military duties, specifically regarding the wear of chem-gear during technician work hours. In other words, it was doomed to fail from the beginning. The Union's appeals lasted for nearly three years, even making the trip to Federal court and back, and on April 13, 2005, the FLRA denied the Union's motion for reconsideration one last time. In the end, the matter was deemed nonnegotiable because it "substantively affected the Agency's right to assign work." It was a pretty big blow.

After the FLRA issued their final decision NGB wasted no time implementing the FLRA decision, and in June 2005 they issued CR 05-1006 adding the now rescinded PD Addendum to all DST PDs. The case is a classic example of unintended consequences. ACT's actions, well intended as they might have been, made a bad situation worse. Again, prior to the FLRAs decision most states/territories, and even NGB, still (and for the most part) operated under the unwritten rule that tech-time was for tech duties and military tasks were to be done while on military orders. After the FLRA decision, and NGBs issuance of the PD Addendum, states/territories took things to the next level. Now, instead of being limited to the statutorily required one weekend per month and two weeks per year of inactive duty training, the National Guard had a blank check to force technicians to participate in military-type activities 365 days per year.

Fast-forward to 2014

While the deletion of the military-duties PD Addendum was revealed rather unceremoniously, the implications are potentially far reaching. NGB validates their action by saying that the addendum was outside the scope of the 1968 Technician Act, which is absolutely correct. The Technician Act (32 USC § 709) states that the primary purpose of DSTs is to organize, administer, instruct and train members of the National Guard, and to maintain and repair equipment issued to the National Guard (or the armed forces). There's a third purpose listed in the statute and that's to perform certain "additional duties to the extent that the performance of those duties does not interfere with the performance" of the tasks previously described. Those additional duties may involve supporting operations or missions undertaken by the technician’s military unit at the request of the President or the Secretary of Defense, supporting Federal training operations or Federal training missions assigned in whole or in part to the technician’s military unit, and CONUS instruction or training of active-duty members of the armed forces, members of foreign military forces, Department of Defense contractor personnel, or Department of Defense civilian employees. Notice that nowhere in the Technician Act does it state that technicians will actually perform military duties.

This means that according to Federal law DSTs can, for example, participate in the training or instructing of other personnel, however, instructing others on military subjects and actually taking part in military training exercises are two totally different things. One can teach another person how to do something theoretically or practically, but not actually participate in the activity being taught. Therefore, a technician could certainly instruct a class of drilling Guardsmen on the proper use and wear of chem-gear as part of his/her official civilian duties, but that technician doesn't actually don the equipment, nor do they actually perform actual work for prolonged periods of time while wearing the chem-gear. This is a huge distinction.

That distinction also extends to supporting operations, missions, or training of a technician's assigned military unit while in a technician status because that support should only extend as far as the technician position description allows. For example, if a technician working as a pay clerk is asked to respond to a natural disaster, that technician could theoretically remain in a civilian status so long as their role in the emergency response was supportive in nature, and along the lines of their regular duties (i.e., processing pay). However, if that same pay clerk is going to be expected to distribute water and ice to citizens displaced by a natural disaster, is going to be sleeping in a tent at a remote location, and the tasks which they are accomplishing have nothing to do with processing pay, then said technician needs to be placed in some form of active duty status, whether that be Federal or State. Otherwise, that pay clerk should remain either at home station processing pay, or they should be released from duty. So, while National Guard leaders always like to claim that the proverbial line between civilian and military is blurry, the truth is the line itself is much clearer than they want to admit.

Aside from going against the intent of the Technician Act, the addendum also went against OPM guidance concerning position classification standards. The bottom-line is that an employee's position description is meant to document major duties, responsibilities, and organizational relationships of a job. Even though the majority of the National Guard technician workforce is dual-status, which means they have to be in the military in order to keep their civilian position, that does not necessarily mean that they are considered military, per se, while working in their technician capacity.

In the same way that 32 USC § 709 addresses what a technician's duties actually are, it also addresses what military aspects a technician is required to fulfill in order to comply with Federal law. The fact is that the term "Military Technician" is deceiving because the military aspects of a technician's job are actually conditions of their civilian employment, not vice versa. The only military requirements that exist in the statute are that a technician be a member of the National Guard, that he/she hold a rank compatible with their civilian position, and that technicians wear the military uniform to work, period. Nowhere does the Technician Act require that technicians accomplish military duties; it doesn't require that a technician wear the military uniform outside of their civilian work hours or participate in formations, for example. It does not require technicians to be on-duty 24/7, like their military counterparts, and it definitely does not compensate technicians like a member of the military considering technicians pay out-of-pocket for life and health benefits, must request leave to cover periods of absence due to sickness and (yes) even military activations, and do not receive tax-free compensation in the form of housing and subsistence allowances. In fact, the difference between civilian and military couldn't be any clearer, and that difference is further reinforced by the clear and legal divide between what a dual-status technician can be legally required to do while in a civilian status, and what is inherently military and only permissible while the member is in an active or inactive duty status. For anyone to claim the line is blurry then it is out of voluntary ignorance, nothing more.

Of course there are those that would argue with this article. Perhaps they're legitimately confused, or perhaps they slept through 2013, but if there was still any confusion regarding whether technicians are civilian or military it was cleared up last year when all National Guard Dual Status Technicians were furloughed for being civilians, along with the rest of their Federal Civil Service cohorts. So, while many in management would like to make technicians believe otherwise, the truth of the matter is that dual-status technicians are, first and foremost, civilian employees of the Department of Army or Air Force ( 10 USC § 10216(a) ) who in accordance with Federal law are managed by the Adjutants General of their respective state or territory, and as a condition of their civilian employment are required to be in the National Guard.

The question that every manager, employee, and Union representative will probably be asking is: what does NGBs decision ultimately mean? The answer is fairly simple: dual-status technicians can only be assigned to perform duties that are directly connected with their civilian position, regardless of whether that duty is considered to be military in nature, or not. Union Officials should request to I&I the deletion of the PD Addendum and use this opportunity to evaluate whether there are any technicians in their bargaining units that may be performing duties that are military in nature and/or outside the scope of their PD. If situations like these are identified then the Union should work with management to correct the discrepancy and make sure the technician's duties do not conflict with the revised guidance. There can be serious and unforeseen consequences for technicians who are performing duties outside the scope of their position. At the very least, a technician who is injured on the job in the course of performing a job or task not covered by their position risks being denied coverage under the workers compensation program. It's bad enough to get injured on the job. It's even worse to find out your injury is not covered because you were working outside of your position description.

There is one humorous note and that's concerning the fact that the Union who got us into this PD mess, ACT, is taking credit for NGB rescinding the controversial PD language. While the Unions have been working with NGB on a multitude of topics affecting technicians, the PD language was just one of those. The truth is credit goes to COL Niemetz and her team at Technician Branch for getting this done.

But what about that 72-hour deal, you say? That's a whole other story....

More Troubles for the 129th RQW; Another Officer with DUI Arrest Fills High Profile Position, Baldwin Does Nothing

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 09 Apr 2020 19:28:51 GMT

Leadership Void Plainly Evident Within the Ranks of the California National Guard

Sacramento, CA (September 4, 2013) – Troubling new information continues to surface about the leadership of the California Air National Guard’s 129th Rescue Wing (RQW). Following the two most recent unflattering news stories concerning the handling of an attempted suicide by one of their own, and of how an officer with a DUI conviction is holding two high-profile positions within the Wing, the Union has learned of yet another senior leader within the 129th RQW who had a run in with local authorities earlier this year.

We have received credible information via email concerning the arrest of one Charles Vincent Pratt for violating California Vehicle Code 23152, driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs. On January 11, 2013, at approximately 1:49am, Pratt was pulled over at 15th and West Streets in Sacramento and was subsequently booked with driving under the influence of alcohol. According to court papers obtained by the Union, the breathalyzer test performed by the officer on scene revealed a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of 0.08%, which is the legal limit in the State of California. Pratt eventually pleaded no-contest to a lesser charge under Section 23103.5, also known as a wet and reckless, was referred to a 12-hour rehab program, and was placed on probation for 3 years. The court order was signed on April 18, 2013. The information contained in the email seems to be confirmed by information that is publicly available on the County of Sacramento web site.

According to the the email's author, the Charles Vincent Pratt in the arrest record is also Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Charles Pratt of the 129th RQW, who currently serves as the Maintenance Squadron Commander (MXS). Pratt also fulfills the role of Deputy Commander for the 129th Maintenance Group (MX) under Lt. Col. Daniel Lapostole. The author of the email is Major Connie Wong, former Equal Opportunity chief for the 129th RQW. Major Wong has fashioned herself as the lead whistleblower amongst a group of approximately 20 to 30 other current and former members of the California National Guard that have come forward over the last three years to shed light on what they believe are violations of rule and law by high ranking members of the Guard. Wong’s email is, in her words, a notice of her intent to file multiple Inspector General (IG) complaints against Pratt for a slew of alleged violations of Air Force regulations and the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). She addressed the email to a number of high profile individuals including: Major General David Baldwin, California Adjutant General; General Frank Grass, Chief of the National Guard Bureau; and several members of Congress including California Senator Barbara Boxer.

The arrest and conviction of Pratt, while noteworthy, is not the real story here. Assuming the information is true, what is significant is that Pratt would be the second 129th RQW commissioned officer to be arrested for DUI within the last two years. On June 9th, 2013, we reported about Capt. Donald LeBlanc’s DUI arrest in October of 2011, and how that incident had not prevented him from holding two high-profile positions within the Wing, and (at the time) also be on the promotion list for the rank of Major. Like LeBlanc, it appears Pratt has been able to not only hold on to his command position within the 129th RQW, but he has also received no other punitive action that we’re aware of. We submitted requests for comments specifically about the allegations that Pratt was arrested and convicted of DUI to both the California National Guard Human Resources Office in Sacramento, and to the 129th RQW’s Public Affairs Office, but neither has been returned.

The fact that two officers at the same military unit were convicted of a DUI offense with zero consequences is unique in today’s military. With the service branchs' efforts to increase awareness of drug and alcohol abuse, and the drive to hold everyone accountable for misdeeds, just being arrested for a DUI usually carries a pretty stiff penalty for a military member, not to mention an actual conviction. In fact, an arrest and conviction for any type of substance abuse usually means a loss of grade at a minimum, and loss of command for your average line officer, so it is puzzling that not one but two officers within the California National Guard have DUI arrests and related convictions on record and yet still hold positions of responsibility. It’s even more baffling when you consider that the California National Guard has a zero-tolerance policy towards drug and alcohol abuse. On August 15, 2011, Major General (MG) David Baldwin issued Policy Memorandum 2011-07 which sets forth the state’s substance abuse policy. According to the heading, the policy memo applies to “all service members of the California National Guard.” MG Baldwin states unequivocally that substance abuse is incompatible with National Guard service. The last sentence makes it clear that any “personnel who fail to meet the National Guard’s standards in regard to abuse of drugs or alcohol will be subject to appropriate administrative and disciplinary action.” As we stated earlier, there is no evidence that either Pratt or LeBlanc received any kind of administrative or punitive action as a result of their alcohol related offenses, not even a Referral Officer Performance Review (OPR), which is a negative performance appraisal and would be considered standard in these types of situations. In fact, our sources claim that in addition to having a clean record, LeBlanc was recommended for a command position within the 129th RQW in spite of leadership’s knowledge of his DUI.

The pass that Pratt and LeBlanc received is in sharp contrast to the punishment an enlisted member of the California National Guard received earlier this year for merely being a passenger in a vehicle who's driver was arrested for DUI. It's important to note that this particular individual was not even cited by local authorities for doing anything against the law, yet the California National Guard saw it fit to penalize him because he was "senior" in rank to the individual driving the vehicle. Among the remarks contained in the decision letter informing him of his punishment, his commander states that he "brought disgrace" upon his unit, and that his "inaction...caused me to question my trust and confidence in you to make appropriate judgments and to take responsibility when more senior NCO's and officers are not present." The employee was suspended without pay for a period of 15 days, which was a reduction from the 30 days they originally wanted to suspend him for. Compare this tongue lashing and very real punishment of a low ranking individual within the organization to the absence of punishment rendered upon Pratt or LeBlanc in light of actual arrests and convictions, and you have a clear double standard.

In addition to the DUI-related offense that Pratt was convicted of, the email received by the Union also claims that Pratt failed at least one physical fitness test, which (in accordance with Air Force regulations) would require an automatic Referral OPR, a mark that is never welcomed, but which has yet to be placed in Pratt’s file. In accordance with (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406 , paragraph 1.8.3, “all personnel must meet established standards...Failure to meet fitness requirements or minimum fitness scores will result in a referral evaluation, unless exempt from fitness...” We have no indication that Pratt is officially exempt from fitness standards. AFI 36-2406, paragraph 1.4.10.1.4, further requires that the individual’s OPR be marked with an “X” to indicate that he/she “Does Not Meet Standards.”

Wong goes on to make further disturbing allegations about another incident that took place under Pratt's watch, which NBC reported on, regarding the theft of ammunition from the base . In addition to the allegations made by Wong, we have also received information about a Staff Assisted Visit (SAV) Inspection conducted by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) from November 28 thru December 5, 2012, a period during which Pratt was already the commander in charge of the MXS. The inspectors found less than favorable conditions present throughout the 129th RQW, especially when it came to the safety of aircraft and personnel. Some of the excerpts provided to the Union included a comment that “maintenance was rushed to support a Christmas party. Personnel were allowed to work in an unsafe environment to complete the work.” Another excerpt from the report states that “the CTK (tool accountability) program had lost virtually all control and was unusable…The MXG/CC took swift action to ground the aircraft and conduct lost tool searches and FOD walks. A 48 hour period was established to inventory all assets and recover control, it was extended to 72 hours due to the massive size of the problem...in Avionics alone 60-70 items were still not accounted for.” However, trusted sources tell us that the SAV Team was incredibly generous in reporting their findings. The sources claim that the supposed “quick action” by the MXG Commander, Lt. Col. Lapostole, came only after repeated urging form the NGB inspection team for him to do something about the findings. Successful tool control and accountability programs center on a dedicated tool room staffed with attendants that are responsible for the issue, return, and inventory of all tools and technical manuals used by maintenance personnel. These types of tool rooms are considered fairly standard throughout aircraft maintenance facilities world-wide. It’s important to note the 129th RQW had an operation tool room prior to the SAV inspection. According to our sources, that tool room was ordered disbanded by Lt. Col Lapostole and Lt. Col Pratt. It's also important to note that it's a rare occurrence for a SAV Inspection Team to call for such drastic measures, like the grounding of aircraft. Usually, the inspection team observes operations from the sidelines and then provide their views and recommendations during their debrief. In this case, the inspectors apparently felt the situation was so dire that immediate intervention was needed to ensure the safety of personnel and assets.

These excerpts and anonymous source accounts, if true, are particularly disturbing when you consider that the 129th RQW is in the business of safely maintaining mission ready aircraft in order to save lives. The excerpts from the SAV Team’s findings mean that between November 28th and December 5th of 2012, the 129th Rescue Wing of the California Air National Guard was unable to fly for a period of atleast 3 days because they were not able to account for their tools and equipment. Had there been a need to launch aircraft for a real world mission such as search and rescue or firefighting (during a different time of the year), the Wing would not have been able to respond to the call(s) for help.

The negative exposure is not good for the 129th RQW. The Wing, which is commanded by Colonel (Col.) Steven Butow, has repeatedly come under fire over the last year for claims that senior leaders participate in, and allow, the coercion and retaliation of subordinates, and fails to protect its employees from discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault. In one of the most glaring examples of failed leadership ever recorded, Col. Butow went on camera and very coldly admitted to NBC Bay Area Investigative Reporter Tony Kovaleski that rather than provide comfort to a fellow airman in her time of need, he instead authorized his staff to serve termination papers to Master Sergeant Jessica Brown as she lay semi-conscious in a hospital bed following her third suicide attempt. Jessica had publicly blamed Butow and his staff for exacerbating her PTSD symptoms following the unit’s failure to properly handle her claims of sexual assault at the hands of another member of the 129th RQW.

Clearly, there is a “do as I say and not as I do” mentality within the senior ranks. Pratt and LeBlanc are continued proof that something is amiss within the leadership of both the 129th RQW and the California National Guard, as a whole. Wong’s email is but the latest claim of an organization run amok. The lack of accountability at the higher ranks, and the clear double standard that exists within the entirety of the organization is confirmed, once again, by the fact that Pratt is allowed to continue his command with zero consequences while lower ranking personnel suffer severe administrative and disciplinary action for much lesser offenses. But as much as Butow and his staff may be responsible for the failures at the 129th RQW, ultimate responsibility for leadership failures throughout the entirety of the state rest squarely on the shoulders of Major General Baldwin, who very publicly stated the buck stopped with him as he assumed command in early 2011, yet continues to allow commanders like Butow to run their military units as if they were an independent branch of a much larger organized crime family.

This is not the first time Wong has sounded the alarm concerning questionable practices at the 129th RQW. In her most recent email, Wong also claims that Pratt retaliated against members under his command after she personally warned him not to do so when she was in charge of the Wing’s Equal Opportunity Section. Wong also makes very strong allegations that Pratt engaged in the sexual harassment of, and created a hostile work environment for, a female subordinate. Pratt allegedly made unwanted advances towards his subordinate including showing up at her home with flowers, chocolates, and alcohol “unannounced and without invitation.” This pattern of sexual harassment by those in senior leadership positions at the 129th RQW is disturbing to say the least, but seems par for the course as has been documented by both print and television media over the last several years, and by independent bloggers. In fact, another former member of the 129th RQW stunned Senators on the California Rules Committee during Major General Baldwin’s confirmation hearing when she publicly called out another member of Col. Butow’s staff, Chief Master Sergeant Jason Red, for allegedly shouting profanities at her and threatening to punch her in the throat during an overseas deployment. Not only did she recall the expletives to the Committee, she also called him out by name and pointed to him as she exclaimed, "that's him back there, the one y'all clapped for," a reference to earlier in the hearing when Red testified on behalf of Baldwin. When questioned by Senator Steinberg as to whether he was aware of these allegations, the General seemed visibly aggravated, indicated that that was the first he had heard of the incident, and promised that he would be initiating an investigation "tomorrow." Apparently, either an investigation was conducted and nothing was found, or no investigation was conducted at all since Red’s bio says he was appointed to the position in October 2011, and appears to still hold the top enlisted billet for the Wing.

To say that the Union is disappointed with Major General Baldwin’s leadership is an understatement. Shortly after our public endorsement at his confirmation hearing for the Adjutant General position, Baldwin and his staff began to show signs that the change he was promising was never going to take place. While he certainly did fire or force some to retire, instead of appointing capable leaders to fill the now vacant positions, Baldwin merely replaced someone else’s ‘Good Ole Boys’ with his own. Our first encounter with Baldwin’s lack of sincerity came in regards to his request that the Union review CW4 Kathryn Lindberg’s claims of discrimination and retaliation, a matter which he testified to in front of the California Senate Rules Committee that he personally asked us to do. Lindberg confronted Baldwin on the record in front of the committee, publicly opposing his nomination as Adjutant General, and complaining that her discrimination case had been deliberately slow-played and mishandled. Baldwin promised her an unbiased review, and told her and the Rules Committee that he asked the Union for an independent look and opinion on the case. Not even a week after his testimony we began to encounter resistance to our requests for the case file, ultimately doing our case review based solely on the employee’s records because Baldwin's staff refused to release the case file. It's hard to understand how Baldwin wanted us to review Ms. Lindberg's case without having access to the file, but nevertheless we found clear evidence of discrimination and retaliation within the papers that Lindberg provided, a fact that we let Baldwin know in no uncertain terms. However, Baldwin and his staff chose to ignore the findings and eventually forced Lindberg to retire. This began a downward spiral of events that culminated in the Union all but retracting our endorsement of Baldwin during an on air interview with NBC Bay Area Investigative Reporter Tony Kovaleski. At this point it seems no one either inside or outside the California National Guard is prepared to take the steps necessary to end the corruption and fear. So long as that’s the case, the abuses will continue.

If you have any information you feel is relevant to this story, or if you have an issue or concern that you are afraid to bring up to your leadership, please feel free to contact us.

129th RQW Troubles Continue; Officer with DUI Conviction Fills High Profile Positions, Awaits Promotion

Thu, 09 Apr 2020 19:17:55 GMT

Appointment of Same Officer to Fulfill the Role of Both SARC and PAO is Glaring Conflict of Interest

Mountain View, CA (June 9, 2013) - The troubles continue to mount for the leadership of the 129th Rescue Wing (RQW) based at Moffett Field in Mountain View California, and for Major General David Baldwin who continues to sit on the sidelines pretending everything is fine.

On the heels of Master Sergeant Jessica Brown's suicide attempt, and the subsequent gross mishandling of the response to her incident, it appears that the person assigned as the 129th's Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) may also occupy a simultaneous position as Public Affairs Officer (PAO), or at the very least serves in a Public Affairs capacity within the Wing.

When Jessica's story first broke we contacted the California National Guard Public Affairs Office (PAO) at Joint Forces Headquarters (JFHQ) in Sacramento to ask for their comment. A representative by the name of Lt. Sweeny referred us to the 129th RQW's PAO. We then contacted the 129th RQW and spoke with a Capt. Donnie LeBlanc who found it "interesting" that the JFHQ's PAO punted our questions over to their office, and then indicated they had no comment regarding Jessica's case because it was still under investigation.

That the Public Affairs section of the Wing would have no comment is not surprising. In cases like these you rarely receive any commentary from within an organization like the 129th RQW, and that's understandable. All we wanted to do was give them an opportunity to weigh in on our report. Usually, this would be the end of our story. However, as seems to be the case lately with anything involving the California National Guard, there is more, and what we discovered after we did Jessica's story is disturbing.

Most people are familiar with the role that a military Public Affairs office fulfills. They are there to tell the "feel good" stories of what our men and women in uniform are doing to serve their community, their state, and their Nation. You would be hard pressed to ever hear a bad news report come out of the Public Affairs office. They are there to be the commander's mouthpiece. In fact, some might even say that their job is more propaganda than news.

Most people are a lot less familiar with the role of the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC). Even in the current state of affairs, when military sexual assault is the hot button topic, the public has a very limited knowledge of how the military handles sexually-based complaints or concerns. In a nut shell, the military employs the use of SARCs throughout all the branches of service to be the first point of contact for victims of sexual crimes. According to the 129th RQW's own web site, the SARC "reinforces the National Guard Bureau commitment to eliminate incidents of sexual assault through a comprehensive policy that centers on awareness, prevention, education, and victim advocacy." Pay attention to the very last requirement...victim advocacy.

Looking at the roles and duties of both positions it would be safe to say that the duties of the PAO couldn't be any more different than those of the SARC. In fact, one could easily envision a situation where the duties of the PAO would pit them directly against the duties of a SARC, especially in the area of victim advocacy because if a SARC is required to call local authorities to report a sexual assault, for example, a PAO's job is the complete opposite. A PAO is there to minimize the amount of damage and negative exposure that such a "story" could cause the organization. However, at the 129th RQW, apparently such conflicts of interest do not prevent Wing leadership from appointing the same person as both PAO and SARC.

Lets go back to Jessica's story. As we mentioned earlier, when we called the CNG HQ Public Affairs office in Sacramento for comment on Jessica's suicide attempt they referred us to the 129th RQW PAO and the point of contact that I was given was Capt. Donnie Leblanc. The problem is that, based on this screenshot of the 129th RQW's SARC page taken on June 2nd of this year, Capt. LeBlanc is also assigned as the SARC.

This is a huge conflict of interest that doesn't need explanation. You cannot be a SARC who is supposed to be a confidential and "independent" entity, and a victim's advocate, and also serve as the Public Affairs Officer who's role is to be the Wing Commander's mouthpiece to the public and is never supposed to report negative information. The appointment of the same person as SARC and PAO is yet one more in a long line of leadership failures by the Wing Commander, Colonel Steven Butow. There's just no way to defend these simultaneous assignments, and it cannot be dismissed as accident or oversight because the organization is too small for a person like Capt. LeBlanc to just get lost in the shuffle. Not to mention that the SARC and PAO positions are very high visibility, so the appointment of Capt. LeBlanc has to be labeled deliberate. Not only is this situation detrimental to the integrity of the SARC program, it is almost the perfect scenario if Wing leadership is intent on suppressing the truth. In lay terms, the guy in charge of propaganda is also in charge of the program that victims are supposed to use if/when they are assaulted. One could easily see how this would be a problem.

Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. As it turns out, Capt. LeBlanc should not be in the SARC position to begin with. The person assigned as SARC should be someone of impeccable moral character and standards considering the type of cases and situations that they will possibly be dealing with. Because of this high standard, Capt. Donnie LeBlanc should have been the last person considered for the job. That's because in October of 2011 Capt. LeBlanc plead no contest to a charge of DUI (see court decision page 1 and page 2 ). On September 9, 2011, LeBlanc was arrested for driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. His blood alcohol level at the time of his arrest was 0.24, three times the legal limit. The fact that LeBlanc is not only still an officer in good standing within the California National Guard, but that he also occupies two very high profile positions, highlights a glaring double standard, and demonstrates that discipline and accountability is not applied equally throughout the ranks.

Earlier this year the Union represented another member of the California National Guard who was merely a passenger in a vehicle, the driver of which was arrested for being under the influence. Even thought he was a passenger, and was not charged with any type of criminal violation by civilian authorities, the California National Guard wanted to initially suspend him without pay for a period of 75 days. We got involved and managed to lower the punishment to 30 days. Using that standard, it would be safe to say that Capt. LeBlanc should have been fired. On the contrary, not only is he still in good standing and occupying two very high profile positions, but he is also awaiting promotion to the rank of Major , this month.

This story continues to highlight a complete disregard for common sense, and a lack of respect for the Sexual Assault Response process within the California National Guard. It also demonstrates a clear double standard between those considered "good ole boys" and those that aren't. Capt. LeBlanc has a DUI conviction, yet is allowed to be promoted and have his career flourish by being assigned two positions of trust and high visibility. However, those seeking redress like Jessica Brown, or those demanding that their leaders do the right thing, like Maj. Connie Wong, are retaliated against and raked over the coals because they blew the whistle on the shenanigans that are perpetrated by those in charge - because they didn't toe the line and cover for "the boys" and all their misgivings.

If the Adjutant General had any real interest in cleaning up the corruption within his organization, this would be a good place to start. For one, he should immediately demand that Capt. LeBlanc be dismissed from his assignment as SARC. He should also halt LeBlanc's promotion to Major for his DUI conviction. Lastly, he should recognize that the 129th RQW is in dire need of new management, and summarily fire Col. Butow and the rest of his ineffective cadre of so-called leaders. It's time for Major General Baldwin to stop playing games with the lives of the soldiers and airmen of the California National Guard, and start doing the job he was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to do...clean up this corrupt organization, now.

NGB Decides It's Easier to Change the Law than to Actually Follow It

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 09 Apr 2020 19:09:08 GMT

Attempts to Strip Away Equal Employment (EEO) Protections from Military Technicians

New Orleans, LA (May 4, 2013) - At a time when the US Air Force is coming under fire because a top General used his legal discretion to overturn a jury conviction of sexual assault against a fellow officer , it would seem odd that another branch of the DoD would be thinking of doing anything but enhancing protections against sexual harassment and assault, and other workplace violations. Right? Wrong. The folks at the National Guard Bureau (NGB) are working hard to do just that, deny Dual Status Technicians the ability to have complaints heard by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Dual-status technicians are the backbone of the full-time National Guard workforce. The majority of technicians work in the maintenance field, although some serve in administrative roles. For the most part, these are the folks that keep fighter planes in the air, make sure tanks are rolling, and ensure helicopters are flying. They are the first ones to respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, you name it. Whenever you see National Guardsmen on TV responding to some event or natural disaster you can rest assured the majority of them are full-time technicians.

There are approximately 52k of these men and women working throughout the 50 states, 3 territories, and the District of Columbia. They are all Civil Servants and, for the most part, are paid just like any other civilian employee of the Federal government. However, in order for a technician to retain their civil service job they must maintain concurrent military membership in either the Army or Air National Guard, and if they lose this military membership then they also lose their civilian job. This hybrid status causes many problems for these employees. For example, the law requires that they wear the uniform of their respective military component to work everyday, even though they are paid and administered as Federal civilians. They also work side-by-side with Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) individuals, who are essentially the Reserve version of active duty personnel, and who (by and large) earn much more per year than their technician counterparts do for, basically, the same job and work requirements.

Along with all the mixes of statuses, and the confusion that is caused by a civilian having to wear a military uniform to work everyday, their right to due process is just as confusing and often abused by their leadership structure. For the most part it lacks any real substance because most of the complaint resolution avenues end with the Adjutant General, the state's highest military official, and the one legally deemed to manage and administer the technician program in each state. The Adjutant General's decision on a matter cannot be reviewed nor overturned by anyone, not even a Federal Court, so the opportunity for abuse is there for the taking, especially since the Adjutant General also controls who gets hired, who gets promoted, who gets fired, you get the picture. So, even in the few instances where an employee has the ability to bring forth a complaint, they are reluctant to because of the real possibility of reprisal. If you file a complaint as a civilian there is a real possibility that you can get kicked out of the military side of the house. Since you have to be in the military to keep your civilian job, once they kick you out of the military your cease to be a civilian employee, and viola...no more complaint, no more "problem employee." This extends to almost all areas of employment including discipline, performance, etc., except for one: Equal Employment Opportunity.

While technicians are currently barred from being heard by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in cases of discipline, performance, retaliation and whistleblower (yes, even in retaliation and whistleblower cases), technicians are still afforded the right to have equal employment-type complaints be adjudicated and processed by traditional EEO methods, and even heard by the full Commission. That is, unless NGB has any say in the matter.

Even though technicians, legally, have the right to file EEO complaints, the National Guard does a horrendous (some would even say criminal) job of handling complaints properly. They mislead and coerce employees, almost on a daily basis, to discourage them from availing themselves of their legal right to due process. If an employee actually files an EEO complaint, the National Guard always muddies the waters and tries to convince EEO agents that since the employee is a "military technician" then all their complaints should be considered "inherently military in nature" and thus not able to be heard by the EEOC. The National Guard has been doing this for a long time and they are often successful in having complaints dismissed, and eventually having the employee dismissed, as well, without any fear of having to answer for its misdeeds.

But, as successful as they are at denying technicians their EEO rights, they do lose sometimes, and they lose BIG! Take the case of Theresa Devine vs. NGB, for example. Mrs. Devine was a technician who filed a complaint against the National Guard for sexual harassment. The circumstances surrounding her complaint were truly disappointing. She was repeatedly propositioned for sex in the most explicit of ways by coworkers, and was harassed to the point of being sent flowers to her house with sordid proposals. She filed a complaint in October of 2010, and the National Guard did what it always does...nothing. The case made it all the way to the EEOC, and they issued a default judgment against NGB for their gross mishandling of the case, and for repeatedly ignoring their duties under the law.

The Commission's ruling read, in part, "the Agency was warned that it could face sanctions for failure to complete an adequate investigation in this case. Nonetheless, the Agency produced an incomplete investigative file...that did not include affidavits, except those (Devine) supplied herself...The complaint file the Agency produced was incomplete because the Agency never undertook any investigation of the case...Other than the reasons set forth in the (Agency's) Motion to Dismiss, most of which were rejected..., the only reason the Agency gave for this failure was that this was (Christopher) Martin's first civilian Formal Complaint, implying that he was unfamiliar with the civilian side EEO procedure."

Christopher Martin was (at the time) and still is (to our knowledge) the State Equal Employment Manager (SEEM) for the District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG). The ironic part is that Mr. Martin has been hailed as somewhat of a subject matter expert (SME) when it comes to EEO complaints not just within the DCNG, but also in other states such as California. His "expertise" and "advice" has been relied upon on numerous occasions over the last few years.

Martin was also involved in a subsequent case that ended in a default judgment for another DCNG technician. See Vikki L. Rouleau v. NGB. Once again, Rouleau was repeatedly sexually harassed by a co-worker, and when she finally met with Martin, he failed to inform the her of her rights to file an EEO complaint. Clearly there's a patter of either incompetence or willful ignorance and misapplication of the law.

Sadly, the above narrative is par for the course when it comes to technician EEO complaints in the National Guard. What's even sadder is that not only does NGB wipe their proverbial butt with the EEOC Compliance Manual, they always seek to dismiss technician complaints saying they are ALL military in nature. The problem is that they don't attempt to address the problems in that venue, either. It would be one thing if NGB told the EEOC "hey, we think this is a military issue, and we will deal with the problems, accordingly, in that venue," and then actually took affirmative action to correct these types of behaviors. In reality, NGB's only goal is to just make the problem (the employee) go away, save face, and protect the Adjutant Generals and their coffers. Seldom, and I mean seldom does justice truly get served. In light of all this one would think NGB would be hard at work to identify problems with its enforcement of EEO laws...wrong.

LIUNA was recently asked to provide our comment and input regarding a proposal to change Federal law that was being floated about for possible introduction into the FY14 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The language reads as follows:

SEC. ___. FORUM FOR PROCESSING OF COMPLAINTS OF WRONGFUL DISCRIMINATION BY NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL STATUS).

(a) IN GENERAL - Section 709 of title 32, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(j) A complaint of wrongful discrimination by a person employed under subsection (a) who is a military technician (dual status) and otherwise subject to the requirements of subsection (b) shall be considered a complaint of wrongful discrimination by a member of the armed forces."

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE-The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a complaint of wrongful discrimination initiated on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

We didn't know, definitively, that NGB was proposing the legal change, but we had our suspicions. In any event, we signaled our tentative opposition in order to do more research. Our immediate concerns were that we do not want to push the technician program any further towards the military than it is already. If we were to agree to this we would do our members a disservice and we would be going away from what we're trying accomplish with our tech equity legislation. Technician complaints that are based on purely civilian issues need to be dealt with thru the currently available due processes accessible to all other Federal employees. If we subject technicians to yet one more military proceeding we're regressing not progressing. Plus, it'll just be one more complaint process that has no further review outside of the military chains. In short, we did not want to support this provision.

A few days later we received an anonymous email with a very interesting attachment (see images below).

Now it became clear why the language was being proposed, and by whom. LIUNA's initial reaction after reading this email excerpt was disgust. With it's troubled history of trampling on employee rights, and it's sheer inability to do the right thing, NGB sunk to a new low. They finally decided that it was easier to change the law than to follow it, plain and simple. If they strip EEO rights away from technicians they, effectively, get rid of the last semblance of due process available. They would give Adjutant Generals complete authority over all workplace-related complaints, and you would see the end of what little justice there may be left within the ranks of the National Guard. Not on our watch.

LIUNA put together a comprehensive document outlining why we're opposed to this legislative proposal, and we submitted copies to both the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. We will make sure that this legislation doesn't even see the light of day, and we will continue to fight to allow technicians the right to have their complaints heard beyond the level of the Adjutants General.

NGB Misled the EEOC About Rep's Lack of Experience

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 09 Apr 2020 19:02:56 GMT

Claimed EEO Manager was Inexperienced; Recognized Him for Being "One of the best in his field..."

New Orleans, LA (May 10, 2013) - As we previously reported, the National Guard Bureau's (NGB) is trying to convince Congress to enact legislation that would change who's responsible for hearing dual-status technician complaints of harassment, discrimination, and even sexual assault.

In accordance with Federal law, National Guard dual-status technicians are civilian employees of the Department of the Army or Air Force. As such, whenever a technician has one of these types of complaints they can seek remedy through the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) process available to all Federal employees under Title VII . NGB's request to change the law would force technician complaints to be dealt with via military channels, and would limit the appeals process to the Adjutants General level, allowing no further review by anyone, not even Federal courts.

Based on reports in the last few weeks, the Department of Defense is reeling from one sexual assault scandal after another. From General Officers vacating military jury verdicts to the head of the USAF Sexual Assault and Prevention Program being arrested for groping a woman in a parking lot, it's clear that the direction NGB should be headed towards is that of enhancing protections, not reducing employee avenues to have their complaints heard. NGB's request to change the law has shed new light on two EEO cases involving technicians of the District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG). Each of the cases was handled by Chief Master Sergeant (CMSGT) Christopher Martin, who at the time was serving as the DCNG State Equal Employment Manager (SEEM).

Chris Martin has been around the EEO and Equal Opportunity (EO) communities for quite some time now. During my brief 21 month-stint (March 2009 to December 2010) as the Labor Relations Specialist (LRS) for the Louisiana National Guard I can recall Martin assisting on two EEO cases. The reason we requested his input was because he was considered an "expert" in the field. And that's what's so puzzling about sworn affidavits which Martin submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Devine v. NGB, a case he handled as SEEM for the DCNG. Mrs. Devine was a technician who filed a complaint against the National Guard for sexual harassment. The circumstances surrounding her complaint were truly disappointing. She was repeatedly propositioned for sex in the most explicit of ways by coworkers, and was harassed to the point of being sent flowers to her house with sordid proposals. She filed a Formal complaint in October of 2010, and the National Guard did what it always does...nothing. The case made it all the way to the EEOC, and they issued a default judgment against NGB for their gross mishandling of the case, and for repeatedly ignoring their duties under the law.

The Commission's ruling read, in part, that "the Agency was warned...it could face sanctions for failure to complete an adequate investigation in this case. Nonetheless, the Agency produced an incomplete investigative file...that did not include affidavits, except those (Devine) supplied herself...The complaint file the Agency produced was incomplete because the Agency never undertook any investigation of the case...Other than the reasons set forth in the (Agency's) Motion to Dismiss, most of which were rejected..., the only reason the Agency gave for this failure was that this was (Christopher) Martin's first civilian Formal Complaint, implying that he was unfamiliar with the civilian side EEO procedure."

Mrs. Devine initially sought EEO counseling from Martin in March of 2010, and subsequently filed a Formal EEO complaint in October 2010. In July of 2011, NGB filed a motion to dismiss Mrs. Devine complaint. The EEOC eventually rejected the motion, and was not kind to NGB in their justification for the denial. In particular, they took serious issue with Martin's role in the mishandling of the case. They found that Martin provided Devine with "materially misleading advice," that he failed to advise her in writing of her Title VII rights as required by law and regulation, and that he "misled her into even thinking she had to make an election and could not go forward with both civilian side and military side complaints."

The fact that the EEOC found Martin to be "materially misleading" is a huge finding considering his "expert" credentials, not to mention all the other shortcomings they took issue with. However, the real story here is NGB's counter-argument that this was Martin's "first civilian Formal Complaint." This assertion, that Martin was inexperienced, is a bold faced lie, and directly contradicted what was reported in a human interest story released by the DCNG profiling Martin's accomplishments in the field of EEO during the Fall of 2010.

On October 7, 2010, right in the midst of the Devine case, the DC National Guard published an article about Martin receiving the Blacks in Government 2010 Meritorious Service Award. Ironically enough, Martin was being recognized for being "one of the best in his field" during the same time that he was grossly mishandling the Devine case. The press release claimed that Martin had been "long known for getting results," and for being an "expert at making lemonade from lemons." The article explained that "in addition to being the equal employment manager, Martin serves as the Joint Force Headquarters Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, Alternate Dispute Resolution Manager, Violence in the Workplace Manager, and Employee Assistance Manager." It further claimed that "not only does (Martin) hold a lengthy list of titles and the duties, he is sought after by units throughout the nation in assisting with the resolution of difficult disputes."

The article makes no sense when you consider NGB's testimony in front of the EEOC. How can NGB claim, on the one hand, that Martin was inexperienced in the processing of EEO complaints, yet turn around and present him with an award recognizing his "expert" EEO credentials? In fact, the article claimed that in the previous 2 years, Martin had mediated 146 disputes in 17 different states, and that his efforts helped NGB lead all other Federal agencies in mediation. How? Why would the DCNG and NGB rely on or recognize someone as inexperienced as Martin? And how can Martin be trusted to resolve any complaint when he so grossly mishandled the Devine case? In fact, Devine was but one of two cases that Martin was involved in during the same time period. In the other case (Rouleau v. NGB) he was also found to have mishandled the complaint.

Sadly, this is status-quo for the way NGB and the individual states handle EEO complaints. NGB lacks any respect for the EEO process, and their attempt to deny technicians their rights under the law should be investigated further. Martin is but one example of how NGB likes to resolve EEO complaints by providing employees misleading information, and by dragging the process out so long that complainants get discouraged.

You would think that Martin would have been disciplined or even fired. You would be even more inclined to believe that there's no possible way he's still around considering that his actions played a pivotal role in why NGB ended up paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars to both Devine and Rouleau. If you do, you would be wrong. Not only is Martin still around, he now works for NGB Complaints Management and Adjudication Division (CMAD), the office who's primary responsibility is to resolve and process EEO complaints for the entire National Guard, and the primary driver behind denying technicians their rights under the law.

There are serious concerns regarding Martin's current and previous position, and his involvement with the adjudication and processing, and even mediating, of EEO complaints. In fact, one has to seriously question whether any of the apparently hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints which he has been involved in need to be reviewed for legal sufficiency.

This problem is not going to go away anytime soon. NGB will continue to deny technicians their rights, especially those that are not aware of their entitlement to due process under the law. In the mean time, LIUNA will continue to fight for the rights of technicians, and make sure that NGB is held accountable.

CA Air National Guard Whistleblower Attempts Suicide

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 09 Apr 2020 18:46:14 GMT

Guard Leadership Sends Employment Termination Paperwork to ER Via Courier as She Lay Semi-conscious in Hospital

Mountain View, CA (May 14, 2013) - Master Sergeant Jessica Brown, an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) member of the 129th Rescue Wing (RQW) based at Moffett Field in Mountain View, California, attempted suicide last Thursday, May 9th, after apparently finding out that a technicality may have derailed a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) process she had been waiting on for over 18 months. The information is based on an email LIUNA was 'courtesy-copied' on that was sent to General Frank Grass, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, by another member of the 129th RQW and fellow whistleblower, Major Connie Wong. The email's subject line read 'Unfit to Command, Lead, or Supervise...'

Both Brown and Wong were part of a group of current and former California Army and Air National Guard employees that came forward with allegations of sexual assault and harassment, racial harassment and discrimination, and retaliation for their attempts to shed light on what they feel are gross examples of civil rights violations being perpetrated and condoned by CA National Guard leaders. The two women, along with other whistleblowers, have been the subject of several investigative reports conducted by local NBC affiliates in LA and San Francisco . Jessica came public and bravely stood up to her chain-of-command to help expose the corruption that's been festering for years behind the gates of the 129th RQW, and the abuse she's taken at the hands of those who are supposed to protect her. They have failed her, once again.

At approximately 12:30pm last Thursday Jessica texted Maj. Wong a suicide note (shown below). According to Maj. Wong, this was not Jessica's first suicide attempt, but Maj. Wong immediately felt the situation was more serious because it was the first time Jessica composed a suicide note. Maj. Wong began "frantically" calling and texting Jessica without success. After failing to make positive contact, Maj. Wong reported the situation to 129th RQW Security Forces and 911 to try and find Jessica. "I was scared to death; I was in tears, my chest was tight, I could not breathe, and I was lightheaded," wrote Maj. Wong in the lengthy email she sent Gen. Grass. It took Maj. Wong about an hour to get a location on Jessica, which she then relayed to the police. The police found Jessica in her car "overdosed on OTC and prescription drugs." She had also "self-mutilated herself." Emergency personnel were able to get Jessica to the hospital in time to save her life.

The US Military has been dealing with a disturbing spike in suicides over the last 14 years. The statistics are very sobering. According to a study released by the Department of Veterans Affairs that covers the time period between 1999 and 2010, a Veteran commits suicide "every 65 minutes, on average." As a result, the military has implemented many tools to educate on the causes and signs of distress and depression, and help prevent suicide. In 2007 the Air National Guard created the Wingman Project "as a collaborative solution, including chaplains, family support, medical community, and safety, for all Airmen and their families to address suicide intervention." The website offers training materials, '1-800' hotlines available 24/7, videos, and even a smartphone app. One of the center pieces of the program is the ACE Suicide Intervention Model, which stands for 'Ask, Care, and Escort.' ACE is required training for all personnel. The California National Guard also hosts a separate suicide prevention web site titled Resilience, Risk Reduction, Suicide Prevention (R3SP) . This web site provides even more 1-800-type numbers and resources for suicide prevention unique to the State of California, and also has resources for military commanders and leaders to help enhance suicide prevention awareness.

Clearly, the military's focus when it comes to suicide is to prevent, and to help military members and their families recover from these traumatic situations, and they place a huge responsibility for implementation of these programs on leaders at all levels of the command chain. Sadly, in spite of all the money that has been invested into prevention programs, and despite the emphasis that commanders be aware of warning signs and take affirmative action, the suicide rate has not declined, and those in charge bear the brunt of the blame. Jessica's story demonstrates how those in charge don't practice what they preach, and, instead, exacerbate already volatile situations.

When suicide prevention fails and a military member attempts suicide, their chain of command is required to take deliberate action to ensure the member and their family is taken care of, to help the member recover, and attempt to address whatever the issue(s) are that may have pushed the member to try and take their own life. Unfortunately for Jessica and her family, that is not what happened last Thursday.

As we mentioned at the beginning of the story, Jessica is a member of the 129th RQW, commanded by Colonel Steven J. Butow; Vice-Wing Commander is Col. Jeffrey W. Magram; and, the Senior Enlisted Advisor is Command Chief Master Sergeant Jason E. Red. You may remember CMSgt Red from a previous article. Not one of these senior leaders showed-up to the hospital or attempted to make contact with Jessica and her family. It could be argued that they were not immediately aware of Jessica's situation, but that was not the case. Not only were they aware of Jessica's situation, but rather than make a trip to the hospital to check on a fallen troop, 129th RQW leadership decided instead that it would be a better idea to hire a private courier/process server to present Jessica with employment termination paperwork (AGR Tour Curtailment orders). So, as Jessica lay semi-conscious in her hospital bed with her parents and friends at her side trying to make sense of her suicide attempt, the courier breached hospital security and entered her room without permission and without the hospital's knowledge. He then tried to leave the paperwork by her bedside in the ER, but when a nurse challenged him, the server attempted to serve Jessica's mother.

It is hard to comprehend how supposedly experienced and educated leaders can make such ill-advised decision. How can a commander in the military, a "full-bird" colonel, whose number one priority is to ensure the welfare of those under his command, decide that instead of paying Jessica a visit to check on the state of her physical and mental well-being, he is going to cut ties with her at the lowest point in her life. What's even more puzzling is that, in light of their boss' obvious absence of tact or decency, those advising him don't have the integrity, themselves, to point out the obvious and let him know what the right thing to do is in that situation. In our opinion, not only are the actions of 129th RQW leadership truly offensive, they reflect a dereliction of duty on the part of Col. Butow and the rest of the senior leaders. Col. Butow is falling way short of fulfilling the unit's motto "These Things We Do...That Others May Live." The question now is whether the California National Guard's top officer, Major General David Baldwin, will take any action, whatsoever, to address the leadership-void at Moffett. At this point we continue to have serious doubts about his ability to do any of the things he said he would do to garner our endorsement of his appointment as Adjutant General.

We contacted the California National Guard Public Affairs Office (PAO) at Joint Forces Headquarters (JFHQ) in Sacramento to ask for their comment. A representative by the name of Lt. Sweeny referred us to the 129th RQW's PAO. We then contacted the 129th RQW and spoke with a Capt. LeBlanc who found it "interesting" that the JFHQ's PAO punted our questions over to their office, and then indicated they had no comment regarding Jessica's case because it was still under investigation.

LIUNA Endorses MG David Baldwin as the new Adjutant General of the California National Guard

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 09 Apr 2020 18:45:45 GMT

Endorsement Proved to be a Mistake

Sacramento, CA (February 15, 2012) - The Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) submitted endorsement letters (see left menu column) and testified on behalf of Major General David Baldwin as he was grilled for several hours by the California Senate Rules Committee on his appointment as Adjutant General of the State of California.

During the confirmation hearing MG Baldwin stood his ground, and was unshakable, as he sat through question after question, and as he came face to face with his opponents during a confirmation hearing that harkened back to the days of Robert Kennedy vs. Jimmy Hoffa. Neither the Committee nor the opposition witnesses pulled punches. The General was asked about everything from the conditions at Camp Robert to the "double-dipping" and "dozing for dollars" scandals, and was confronted by very compelling and emotional witnesses, some of which were visibly nervous and anxious.

Aside from our support letters and live testimony in favor of MG Baldwin, the Union was also front and center in connection with another issue. In response to an opposition witness, the General testified to the Committee that he personally requested that the Union look into a certain complaint and provide him an independent opinion on the affected employee. The testimony came towards the end of the hearing. As the General sat and listened, Ms. Kathryn Lindberg testified about her frustration with the lack of resolution of an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint which she filed 4 years ago. In response to Ms. Lindberg's testimony, Senator Darrell Steinberg, Senate President pro Tem, questioned whether MG Baldwin knew about her case and about the status of the complaint. The General indicated that he met Lindberg earlier in the week and that he felt her "statement...was so compelling" that he requested his brand new Human Resources Officer (LTC Kim Derouen), to look into the matter. The General also indicated to Senator Steinberg that he personally "asked the Union to look at it from their side" so that we can provide him with "an independent look" and "review all technician as well as command actions" in the Lindberg's case. We're hoping to begin that process soon.

Of all the opposition witnesses who came forth, the last proved to be the most compelling. The witness was a retired enlisted female maintenance technician of the California Air National Guard who told the Committee of certain complaints of sexual harassment and workplace violence which she filed (and according to her were substantiated) against the recently appointed Command Chief Master Sergeant of the 129th Rescue Wing, CMSGT Jason Red. According to the witness, Red shouted profanities at her and threatened to punch her in the throat during an overseas deployment. Not only did she recall the expletives to the Committee, she also called him out by name and pointed to him as she exclaimed, "that's him back there, the one y'all clapped for," a reference to earlier in the hearing when Red testified on behalf of MG Baldwin. When questioned by Senator Steinberg as to whether he was aware of these allegations, the General seemed visibly aggravated, indicated that that was the first he had heard of the incident, and promised that he would be initiating an investigation "tomorrow." It would be safe to say that if the witness was telling the truth, then Red probably won't hold the title for very long. According to his bio, he was appointed to the position in October 2011.

After the final opposition witness testified, the Senators began expressing their intent to support MG Baldwin's confirmation. Senator Alquist went as far as making a motion (which was adopted) to have MG Baldwin form an Advisory Committee composed of personnel from all ranks and leadership levels in order to allow open and honest discussion of systemic problems, and to allow the formulation of solutions without fear of reprisal. She also motioned to require MG Baldwin to report back to the Senator pro Tem on the progress and status of all the issues brought up during the hearing. It would be safe to say that MG Baldwin will be one busy man. He should know that the Union is here to assist him in any way we can, especially with the Advisory Committee that Senator Alquist asked him to form.

The bottom line is that MG Baldwin was impressive during his testimony. He genuinely seems to want to make things right in the California National Guard. The challenge he faces is that the California National Guard is made up of countless departments and a staff of over 20,000 personnel. It's easy for wrongdoers to hide corruption, and It is impossible for one person to oversee every detail of the operation without having eyes and ears out in the field that are willing and able to provide him the administrative intelligence he needs. As a result, we believe his ultimate success or failure will depend on the people he surrounds himself with at the senior levels of leadership, especially at the Directorate and Key Staff Levels, and how willing he is to do away with leaders who are violating the rules.

In that sense, MG Baldwin should be "slow to hire and quick to fire," and needs to ensure that his Senior Leaders accomplish everything he promised the Senators that grilled him. LIUNA first met with MG Baldwin approximately one year ago, immediately after he was appointed to the post of Adjutant General by Governor Jerry Brown. During that meeting he agreed to work with us on a list of broad issues, and also granted our request to allow one of our members a disciplinary appeal which eventually saved his job. We have confidence in the General, and our promise to him is to work with him and his staff to ensure that Federal Technicians in California are treat fairly and in accordance with the laws and regulations that govern their employment. And, conversely, if he or his staff cannot get the job done, to report immediately to the Senate Committee on his or his staff's inability to implement the much needed change.

To this end, if you're a Federal Dual or Non-Dual Status Technician of the California National Guard, regardless of your actual position, who encounters violations of law or regulations, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Ben Banchs who will attempt to assist you with questions or concerns stemming from your employment, and can help point you in the right direction.

Endorsement Letters

Senator Alquist

Senator De Leon

Senator Dutton

Senator Fuller

Senator Steinberg (pro Tem)

NBC/LIUNA Cross Paths: Kathryn Lindberg's Story Validates Corruption Claims

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Thu, 09 Apr 2020 18:27:32 GMT

Career Pilot Was Grounded For Raising Concerns About Discrimination

New Orleans, LA (November 19, 2012) - As NBC continues to look into allegations of corruption, their investigation has crossed-paths with a case the Union became involved with at the request of MG David Baldwin. During his Senate Rules Committee testimony, Baldwin was confronted by numerous current and former California National Guard (CNG) men and women who opposed his confirmation for a number of different reasons, the main one being that they had zero faith in the ability of the CNG's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office to properly handle complaints of discrimination and retaliation. Of the witnesses to take the stand, one of those was Kathryn Lindberg; a career aviator with over 4000 hours of flying experience in different Army helicopters, primarily the UH-1 Huey, the workhorse of the US Army for almost 50 years.

A Complicated Situation

To understand why employees like Kathryn can be mistreated you have to first understand the program she was working under. Kathryn was employed as a Dual-Status Technician of the National Guard; there are approximately 52,000 of these types of employees Nationwide. They are, without a doubt, the backbone of the entire National Guard structure. These types of employees fulfill a "dual role" just as their title alludes to: they are both members of the military and Federal Civil Servants at the same time. Regarding their civilian status, they are no different than an employee of the US Postal Service or an employee of the US Forest Service. The main difference is that in order to retain their Federal job, Dual-Status Technicians have to maintain satisfactory military membership in the National Guard.

It gets even more complicated. Based on the way current laws are written, these Dual-Status Technicians are employed and administered by the Adjutant Generals of the individual States and Territories. So, as far as the US Government is concerned, including the Federal Courts, although these individuals are full-fledged Federal employees, they are technically managed by a state official since the Adjutant General is appointed by the Governor of his/her respective State or Territory. Therefore, since the Adjutant General is considered a state employee, the Agencies of the Federal Government that normally have oversight and say over issues such as discrimination and whistleblower protection, like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), cannot legally order the Adjutant General to take any action in respect to these Federal employees. A 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report summarized it best:

Appendix V (pages 40-41):

Among all National Guard whistleblowers, federal civilian employees of the National Guard (technicians) 14 face the most difficult jurisdictional and corrective action issues. They are not protected from reprisal by the military whistleblower protection statute because, as civilians, it does not apply to them.

Civilian guard technicians who allege reprisal for making a protected disclosure face at least two “severe and significant restrictions” according to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [Singleton v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 244 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001)]. First, some adverse actions (for example, suspension, furlough without pay, reduction in rank, or compensation) against civilian technicians cannot be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board 15 . Second, adverse actions not covered by the guard technicians act can be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, but the appeal is meaningless because of the board’s limited enforcement powers. The board has determined that its orders are not enforceable against state National Guards, and for that reason, the board is without power to supply an effective remedy even in the instance of a federal employee who can prevail on the merits of a civilian whistleblower protection act claim.

In essence, Adjutant Generals (or their representatives) can violate the law, at will, and get away with it because there is no enforcement mechanism legally in place to protect Federal employees of the National Guard.

In addition to the complications faced by Technicians on the Federal Civil Servant side of the house, Dual-Status Technicians also have limited recourse to appeal administrative actions on the military side. They truly get the worst of both worlds. This is because if an individual's military membership is terminated for any reason then they are eventually terminated from their Federal civilian job as well. This becomes a real concern after a member of the National Guard reaches 20 years of military service. Every year after 20, a National Guard member's continued military service is evaluated by a process called the Qualitative Review Board. This Board is composed of representatives appointed by the Adjutant General with the authority to decide who stays in and who is discharged from the military service. The Board is tasked with evaluating each individual's service, and then recommend retention or removal. While the process is supposed to be concise and deliberate, the Boards are usually rife with nepotism and cronyism. The decisions reached as to whether a person is retained or let go can boil down to who's friends with who, who's related to who, and who knows who. The Boards are also used as a way to get rid of Dual-Status Technicians who are "troublemakers." In other words, back-door retaliation. Basically, the decision of the Board is arbitrary, and no justification has to be given regarding the decision to keep one person or let go another. More importantly, those that are arbitrarily let go have no method of appeal or redress even if there are credible allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing. The Board's decision becomes the Adjutant General's by proxy, and no one, again, not even a State or Federal court, can overturn it.

Kathryn's Case Review

Ms. Lindberg confronted Baldwin in front of the Senate Rules Committee and told him that inaction and feet-dragging on the part of the California National Guard's EEO office emboldened those in her chain of command to continue discriminating against her. MG Baldwin addressed Ms. Lindberg's testimony directly, and assured the Senate Rules Committee that he was intent on fixing these types of issues. Baldwin went on to tell the Senators that he had asked the Union to do a 3rd Party review of Ms. Lindberg's EEO case to determine whether her allegations had merit, and whether the Agency had acted inappropriately. For the record, MG Baldwin never reached-out to the Union concerning this matter prior to his testimony. In other words, the first time the Union heard that MG Baldwin wanted us to do a 3rd party review of Ms. Lindberg's case was when he told the Senate Rules Committee during the course of his testimony.

In any event, the Union agreed to review Ms. Lindberg's case. In order to conduct a thorough investigation the Union needed access to the case file. However, we met with resistance from Baldwin's staff as soon as we tried to get any information; specifically, his Chief of Personnel, COL Michael Wells, and his Human Resources Officer, LTC Kimberly Derouen. After repeated request for the documents, they refused to release any information of substance. The only documents the Union received from COL Wells and LTC Derouen were copies of personnel action forms that are used to document administrative moves from one position to another, but they did not release any files regarding their internal investigation or handling of Ms. Lindberg's complaints.

The Union went on to conduct their review based on what Ms. Lindberg herself provided to us. Although the employee did not have access to all the relevant documents, especially internal investigatory documents, the Union was still able to piece together enough information to determine that Ms. Lindberg was most definitely discriminated against, and subsequently was the victim of retaliation for voicing her complaints. We provided our findings to MG Baldwin in a detailed 10-page report dated June 24, 2012 . However, to this day no action has been taken to correct the infractions that the Union was able to discover, even though our review of this case was done at his request.

We reached out to the California National Guard Public Affairs office for comment on this story. We asked them to answer the following questions:

1. In light of the fact that MG Baldwin himself asked the Union to do the case review, why did his staff, specifically COL Wells and LTC Derouen, refuse to release Ms. Lindberg's case file to the Union so that we could do a comprehensive review of this case? Did they make the decision not to cooperate with our case review on their own, or were they instructed/advised not to cooperate by MG Baldwin or someone else within the CNG (i.e., JAG)?

2. What action, if any, did MG Baldwin, or his staff, take regarding the findings contained in our report?

3. If no action was taken, why did MG Baldwin tell the Senate Rules Committee that he asked us to do a 3rd Party review?

4. In his testimony to the Senate Rules Committee MG Baldwin also indicated that he asked his "brand new" HRO LTC Derouen to look into the case. What, if anything, did LTC Derouen find, and what did she recommend to MG Baldwin?

At this time we have not received a reply to the questions above.

It's a very demoralizing experience when any employee has to go through this type of ordeal. It becomes even more frustrating and discouraging when you find out that the laws that are supposed to protect you don't apply because of some legal technicality. It's also inexcusable how those in power fail to protect those that work for them. It's especially frustrating when you hear leaders give lip service about how important the men and women of the military are, and how it's their duty to protect them, and then stories like Kathryn's seem to be the norm and not the exception.

In Kathryn's case, her removal from the CNG was a long and humiliating process. Little did Kathryn know that her complaint would set off a chain reaction which would eventually marginalize her, and sentence her to a no-title position behind an isolated desk where she served out the remainder of her National Guard days hoping that someone would listen to her complaints. Let's hope Kathryn's story, and the stories of the others that have come forward to NBC, will finally force the CNG to do the right thing.

Timeline

Kathryn filed her first complaint in January of 2008 after she was told by her supervisor at the time, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Mark VanDyke, that he was thinking about demoting her from a Supervisory Maintenance Test Pilot to just an Aircraft Pilot.

Approximately 2 months later LTC Van Dyke issued a desk memo essentially grounding her for filing an EEO complaint, an action which is considered "direct retaliation," and a clear violation of Federal law.

Almost immediately after being grounded Kathryn received her demotion paperwork in the form of an SF50 Personnel Action From. The paperwork states that it was done with Kathryn's "concurrence," but evidence the Union was able to look at shows that she was forced to accept the demotion.

One year later, in January of 2009, Kathryn was detailed to an "Un-established Position," and she would remain there until her removal.

Her nearly three-decade long flying career was unceremoniously ended by CNG leaders 3 years and 8 months after she raised concerns about discrimination. Kathryn was militarily discharged from the CNG on Aug 31, 2011, and subsequently terminated from her Federal Civil Service job on Apr 20, 2012. The way the law is written right now, Kathryn's termination, even if found to be the result of retaliation, cannot be heard or overturned in Federal Court. LTC VanDyke is still a member in good standing of the California National Guard.

The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same

Thu, 09 Apr 2020 18:17:37 GMT

USA Today Documents Rampant Corruption At Highest Guard Levels...Over 10 Years Ago!

New Orleans, LA (December 17, 2012) - With all the recent stories about corruption in the California National Guard, we felt it was important to provide some context and remind our readers of a very thorough USA Today Investigative Report into the National Guard, which took place well over 10 years ago.

The USA Today report detailed wide-ranging abuses by Guard officials at the highest levels of command, including several Adjutant Generals, and even the director of the National Guard Bureau at the time. The fact that these stories were published over 10 years ago, and the fact that the same things are still going on today, are very important to the discussion about the changes that need to take place within the National Guard.

The lack of Federal oversight, and the unwillingness of the individual states to police their own, combine to create a recipe for abuse of power. The result is that Guardsmen and women are afraid to go against the powers that be, and those who do are sure to feel the brunt of retaliation, ultimately getting run out of the organization. Anyone who believes these are exaggerations is either unwilling to confront the truth, or has never been within the walls of the Guard machine.

One has to wonder why no one at the Federal level has taken any action, whatsoever, to bring serious reform to the National Guard. The NGDC will continue to bring these issues to the forefront in order to someday bring meaningful reform to those we represent. Until that happens, the men and women of the National Guard will continue to be harmed by the illegal practices of corrupt leaders in California and elsewhere.

Blow are links to the individual stories from 2001:

USA TODAY: INSIDE THE NATIONAL GUARD

Day 1 Stories

Misconduct marks Guard command

Guard has formidable lobbying power

FBI sting nabs Illinois Guard's chief of staff

What is the National Guard?

Day 2 Stories

'Ghost soldiers' inflate Guard numbers

People who blow whistle 'get crucified'

Most adjutants make more than governors

MO Guard Violated USERRA Rights

Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:05:09 GMT

Source: Military Times

Karen Jowers ( March 12, 2013) - The Missouri National Guard will give leave credits to 138 civilian National Guard technicians, and has agreed to rescind policies that allegedly violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, as part of a settlement with the Justice Department, according to an announcement Thursday.

The settlement involves the case of Guard member Kinata Holt, who was forced to quit her job as a civilian National Guard dual technician as a condition of being called to active duty under the Active Guard Reserve program. According to a Missouri National Guard spokeswoman, Holt is an Army sergeant.

This policy meant that Holt lost paid military leave that she would otherwise have been entitled to, Justice Department officials alleged. The Missouri National Guard has agreed to pay Holt for 30 days of military leave and also will give leave credits of 15 days to each of 137 other Missouri National Guard civilian dual technicians who were also denied benefits because of this policy.

The agreement notes that there is no admission by the Missouri National Guard of any wrongdoing or violation of any federal or state law or regulation.

Before implementing the policy in question, Missouri National Guard officials were advised by the National Guard Bureau that the policy did not violate law, according to Maj. Gen. Steve Danner, adjutant general of the Missouri National Guard, in an email response. "As such, the Missouri National Guard implemented the policy in good faith and did not believe it was violating anyone's rights," he said.

"In fact, the disputed policies date back to 2010. However, the agreement reached this week only requires the Missouri National Guard to change its policy prospectively for fiscal year 2015 forward. Therefore, all issues considered, it was Missouri National Guard's determination that given a favorable outcome with the settlement, there was no further need for litigation," Danner said.

"The Missouri National Guard, like other state employers, has a legal obligation under USERRA to provide the full range of rights and benefits to military service members that are permitted under the statute," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, in a statement announcing the settlement.

She said the department "will continue to vigorously enforce the rights of uniformed service members in retaining their civilian employment benefits while on an absence due to military service obligations."

In Danner's response, he said "The Missouri National Guard desires an equal employment playing field for all its employees, not just dual-status technicians."

The settlement was filed Thursday with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division, and awaits approval from the court. The court previously ruled that the Missouri National Guard had violated USERRA by requiring Holt to accept separation from her job when she was called to active duty with the AGR.

The settlement addresses the pending claims of the other 137 Guard members, and Justice officials' claims that the Missouri National Guard discriminated against Holt and other similarly situated dual technicians by treating them less favorably than other employees.

According to court documents, the Missouri National Guard "denies that it discriminated against Holt and other similarly situated individuals in violation of USERRA." Guard officials also maintained that they did not violate the rights of other technicians in similar situations "because these technicians knowingly and lawfully waived the benefits at issue."

Holt filed a claim with the Labor Department, whose Veterans' Employment and Training Service investigated and subsequently referred the case to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

Original: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2015/03/12/justice-missouri-guard-violated-userra-rights/

About Karen Jowers :

Karen has covered military families, quality of life and consumer issues for Military Times for more than 30 years, and is co-author of a chapter on media coverage of military families in the book "A Battle Plan for Supporting Military Families." She previously worked for newspapers in Guam, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fla., and Athens, Ga.

Changes to USERRA Law and What it Means to Guardsmen

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Wed, 08 Apr 2020 23:59:53 GMT

Know Your Rights

New Orleans, LA (April 22, 2011) – The FY12 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contained a provision that has gone largely unnoticed, but one that will have a significant impact on National Guard members who are ordered to stateside active duty by either the President or the Secretary of Defense, from now on.

For more info on USERRA, or if you need assistance with a USERRA complaint, go to ESGR.mil

Section 575 of the FY12 NDAA changes the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) to exclude from the cumulative 5-year duty limit any time that a Guardsmen spends on orders under the authority of Title 32 United States Code (USC) Section 502(f)(2)(A) "for the purpose of responding to a national emergency declared by the President and supported by Federal funds."

As every Guardsman or Reservist should know, USERRA law guarantees a service member's right to return to their civilian employment (private or public sector) after completion of military training or active service, regardless of whether the service was voluntary or involuntary. The law also requires that employers treat the service member as if they had never left in regards to pay and benefits. This "restoration right," as it is sometimes referred to, is guaranteed for up to 5-years of cumulative service. However, there are some service categories that are excluded from the 5-year limitation, such as drill, annual training, or service performed during times of war or national emergency. Section 575 expanded that list of exempted service categories to include stateside service in support of national emergencies, like the 9/11 terror attacks.

Some of our members asked whether this change affected those individuals serving on Active Guard Reserve (AGR) tours under 32 USC 502(f). The short answer is no. Based on our research, and on the answers received from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the change applies specifically to service under 502(f)(2)(A), which is ordered by either the President or the Secretary of Defense. Service authorized under 502(f) is the more common tour of duty that is ordered under governor's authority, 32 USC 328. These run-of-the-mill AGR tours do not qualify for the 5-year exemption. Thus, employees serving on such a tour who are approaching the 5-year deadline must make a decision as to whether restore to civilian employment or not.

We received other questions from some of our members and decided to ask OPM to weigh in on these. Below is a list of questions with the answers we got from OPM:

Q1. How will this affect people that are currently serving under this authority (502(f)(2)(A))?

A1. They are covered assuming their Uniformed service was authorized by the President or the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of responding to a national emergency declared by the President and supported by Federal funds.

Q2. How will this affect indefinite employees who were hired as backfills and are expecting to be converted to permanent if that tenured employee doesn't return after 5 years?

A2. The same way it would have affected them if the vet returned after, say 4 ½ years; that is to say the agency’s first responsibility is to reemploy the vet consistent with OPM regulations.

Q3. Would a service member be able to stay on active duty for, say, 10 years and still have restoration rights to their civilian jobs?

A3. Yes, provided they meet this new statutory exemption.

Q4. When does Sec 575 become effective?

A4. The new provisions are effective upon the date of enactment - the NDAA was effective January 5, 2012.

Q5. What about individuals that have already exceed 5 years and have lost their right to restore to their civilian job, will they get that right back?

A5. Yes. If they are still on active duty they would be covered under these new provisions.

Q6. Is OPM going to issue proposed regulations based on the changes to the law and allow comment?

A6. We will explore, and may update our regulations at some point, but the law seems to be pretty cut and dry on the matter. A more effective approach may be to issue a memo to agency heads, CHCOs, HR Directors, alerting them of this change.

Explaining the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals WEP Decision

bbanchs@local1776.org (Ben Banchs) — Wed, 08 Apr 2020 23:51:31 GMT

Decision Will Have A Significant Impact on Technician Retirement Calculations

This article was first published on April 9, 2012. Shortly thereafter, the Social Security Administration issued their Acquiescence Ruling concerning application of the 8th Circuit decision. Click the following link to read their decision:

UPDATE FROM SSA - FEDERAL REGISTER

Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 12–X(8); Petersen v. Astrue, 633 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2011); Whether a National Guard Technician Who Worked in Non-covered Employment Is Exempt From the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)—Title II of the Social Security Act

New Orleans, LA (April 9, 2012) – In February of 2009 the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a person who retires as a Dual-Status Technician of the Army or Air National Guard is excepted from the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). Even though the case was decided over 3 years ago, it just recently made its way to the forefront, and over the last few weeks several members and outside organizations, including NGAUS and EANGUS, asked us to weigh in on the meaning of the decision, and the potential impact it would have on retired Dual-Status Technicians.

To summarize, the Court ruled that due to the "unique" requirements of the National Guard Dual-Status Technician program, that a person employed as a Dual-Status Technician performs work “as a member of” the uniformed services, and is therefore not subject to WEP.

Detailed Explanation of WEP and How it Affects Dual-Status Technicians

So what is the meaning of the Court's ruling? Basically, that individuals who retire as Dual-Status Technicians should not have their Social Security benefits adjusted under the WEP. This would have meant that, in 2010, a Technician's Social Security retirement benefit would have been reduced by approximately $380.50 per month, or $4566 for the year. This is a significant amount of money lost over the course of a normal retirement.

Prior to the court challenge, the Social Security Administration (SSA) had consistently held that despite the various military requirements imposed upon National Guard Technicians, the fact that Technicians are defined as “Federal civilian employee[s]” necessarily means that their work was “by” a member of the uniformed service and not “as” a member of the uniformed service, and were, therefore, subject to the WEP.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the SSA and found that the law (USC 415(a)(7)(A)) only requires that the service be "as" a member of the uniformed service, and that Dual-Status Technician pensions meet the limited requirements of the statute. Due to these unique requirements imposed on National Guard Technicians, the court ruled against the SSA.

This case will have a significant impact on the way Dual-Status Technician retirements are calculated, especially within the 8th Circuits jurisdiction. The Appeals Court decision is unambiguous in that Dual-Status Technician employment is work performed “as” a member of a uniformed service, not “by” a member of a uniformed service. This simple distinction is all that is statutorily required to be exempt from the WEP.

Questions & Answers

Q1: Who does the 8th Circuit Appeals Court decision apply to?

A1: The 8th Circuit’s decision is binding only in those States under their jurisdiction. These are: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

If you’re a retired Dual-Status Technician of the Army or Air National Guard, and you live in a State covered by the 8th Circuit’s decision, we recommend that you immediately contact your respective Social Security office to find out how to claim your retirement benefits.

Q2: When does the decision become effective, and is it retroactive?

A2: The decision becomes effective immediately. In this case, the decision was rendered February 23, 2009. However, since the court did not address retroactivity, the SSA can apply the decision with discretion. In the absence of a retroactive order, it is unlikely the SSA would make such adjustments due to the magnitude of cost.

Q3: How is the SSA dealing with the courts decision?

A3: According to Roger Moore, the attorney that successfully argued the Petersen case, the SSA did not appeal the circuit court’s decision. Moore writes that all cases which his firm is currently handling are in the “process of being approved.” (National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives [NOSSCR] Magazine, Volume 34, No.1, Pg. 23-24). Moore goes on to say that it is unclear whether “the SSA is approving all WEP cases on a nationwide basis or not.”

Q4: How does the 8th Circuit ruling affect States outside of their jurisdiction and what should I do?

A4: Legally, the 8th Circuit’s decision is not binding on the rest of the U.S. This means that the SSA can continue applying the WEP to Dual-Status Technicians outside of the 8th Circuit’s territory. However, in the absence of any other contradictory Circuit Court case law, the 8th Circuit's decision is highly persuasive, and retired Technicians should, at the very least, ask their local SSA office for clarification.

Related Items:

- 8th Circuit Court Ruling: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/02/092374P.pdf

- NOSSCR Magazine article: http://workerscompensationwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/NOSSCR-Article.pdf

LIUNA Local 1776 News Feed

Disturbing Allegations at SC Army National Guard AASF #1

Mismanagement, Employee Mistreatment, Violations of Aviation Maintenance Protocols, and Safety Concerns Plague Once Top Apache Facility

DoD's Plan to Terminate 60k Employees is Slap in the Face to Veterans

Bullsh*t Meets Reality

Did You Know...Veterans Make Up 1/3 of the Federal Workforce

Purge of Federal Workforce Impacts Veterans Disproportionately

(Most) Management Doesn't Care About You...

...and they don't even try to hide it

LIUNA Local 1776 Business Manager Ben Banchs Joins America's Daily Union Podcast

Local Seeks to Amend National Guard Requirement for Some Civil Workers

GovExec: Appeals Court Reinstates Biden's Vaccine Mandate for Federal Employees

Agencies will soon be able to start punishing unvaccinated workers

GovExec: Biden Proposes a 4.6% Raise for Federal Workers for 2023

If enacted, the figure would mark the largest pay increase for federal employees in two decades. ﻿

GovExec: Federal Court Orders Nationwide Pause on Biden's Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate

The Biden administration has already filed an appeal of the injunction.

GovExec: Defense Department Grants First Religious Waivers for COVID Vaccine

Two Marines are the first successful applicants among the 18,500 U.S. troops who have sought exemption from the vaccination mandate by citing religious beliefs.

GovExec: Hill Proposal Would Give Federal Employees a 5.1% Average Pay Raise in 2023

A bill from Democratic lawmakers would provide federal workers with a 4.1% across-the-board boost, along with an average 1% increase in locality pay.

CNS: Justices deny dual-status pension payments for Guard technician

The ruling says a former civilian military technician working for the National Guard could not be considered a member of the National Guard.

GovExec: Biden Administration Delays Vaccine Mandate Penalties Until 2022

OMB and OPM officials said agencies should extend the counseling portion of enforcement of President Biden’s vaccine mandate through the end of the year, citing recent progress in the federal workforce’s vaccination rate

DoD Issues Updated Force Health Protection Guidance

Latest Guidance from OPM on Vaccines for Federal Employees

Employees Must Be Fully Vaccinated by November 22, 2021

Union's Role in Vaccine Mandate

Vaccine Requirements Are Well Established in Federal Law Even In Cases Where the Vaccine Has Only Received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

AP: Biden requiring federal workers to get COVID shot

Those who don’t comply will be referred to their agency’s human resources department for counseling and discipline, to include potential termination.

FEDWeek: Biden Reaffirms Intent for 2.7 Percent Raise

0.5 Would be Split Off as Locality Pay

SecDef Orders Immediate Implementation of Mandatory Vaccine Requirement

Order Applies to All Service Branches Including National Guard and Reserves

GovExec: Biden Announces Vaccine-or-Masks Mandate for Feds, Some Contractors

Federal employees will have a choice: get vaccinated, or wear masks when indoors at federal facilities and subject themselves to regular COVID-19 testing

AP News: Biden signs bill making Juneteenth a federal holiday

GovExec: Biden Proposes 2.7% Raise for Feds in 2022, Restoring Pay Parity

Although it is unclear how plan breaks out between locality pay and across-the-board increases, the topline number matches the president's proposed pay raise for members of the military

GoveExec: 5 Things To Know About Supplemental Retirement Benefits

The ins and outs of the FERS supplement

DoD Removes Mask Requirements for Vaccinated Individuals

Updated Mask Policy is Based on New CDC Guidance

GovExec: What Federal Employees Need to Know About Evolving Marijuana Laws

New policies don’t mean federal workers should rush to their local dispensary, and national security leaders in particular are urging caution

GovExec: Federal Agencies Can Require COVID-19 Testing for Employees, CDC Says

Employees who refuse tests could face "consequences," while those forced to quarantine should be supported, guidelines say ﻿

GovExec: Lawmakers Push to Fix Controversial Tax Rule Affecting Federal Retirees

A new bill would set up a new formula to calculate how much retirees get in Social Security benefits if they also receive a defined benefit pension, in some cases replacing the controversial Windfall Elimination Provision

LIUNA: DOL Will Be Restored and Re-Energized as Powerful Guardian of Workers

Marty Walsh Confirmed as US Secretary of Labor

GovExec: House Sends COVID Relief Bill with Sick Leave for Feds to Biden, and More

A weekly roundup of pay and benefits news

GovExec: Spending Agreement Would Allow 1% Pay Raise, Fails to Ban Schedule F

Provision in the fiscal 2021 omnibus appropriations bill would give feds until the end of next year to repay payroll taxes deferred by the Trump administration from September through December ﻿

Collection of 2020 Social Security (OASDI) Deferred Payroll Taxes

Uncle Sam Giveth...and He Taketh Away...

Defense One: National Guard Helping to Roll Out COVID Vaccine

Guardsman will divvy up some vaccine batches, backfill medical staff in nursing homes and prisons

GovExec: Federal Employees to Get a Full Day Off on Christmas Eve

President Trump issues an executive order that breaks with recent precedent by granting vacation for all of Dec. 24, rather than a half-day

GovExec: White House Now Supports 2021 Pay Freeze, but Only for Civilians

The announcement marks a reversal for the Trump administration, which previously proposed a 1% across-the-board pay increase for all federal employees

GovExec: Several Federal Agencies to Deliver COVID-19 Vaccines to Employees Directly

The agencies will receive their own allocations of the immunizations and then distribute them to their workforces

GovExec: Free Tutoring Now Available for School-Age Children of Federal Employees

Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund partners with online tutoring company to provide service

DefenseOne: No Need To Federalize State's National Guards, Leaders Say

“I cannot think of any scenario where we would recommend or ask for being federalized,” Tennessee’s adjutant general told reporters. ﻿

GovExec: Trump's Order Sets the Stage for Loyalty Tests for Thousands of Feds

The president’s executive order sweeps aside 140 years of federal policy promoting professional expertise ﻿

DoD Issues Preliminary Guidance on Paid Parental Leave for Civilian Employees

New Benefit Grants New Parents Up To 12 Weeks of Paid Leave

GovExec: Feds Will Pay 4.9% More Toward Health Care Premiums Next Year

The Office of Personnel Management said Wednesday that it has revamped its online plan comparison tool and encouraged greater transparency from insurance carriers to tamp down on surprise billing ﻿

cyberFEDS: Payroll Tax Deferral Must be Repaid in 2021

IN FOCUS: Employees must be aware that any payroll taxes deferred as a result of President Trump's recent presidential memorandum must be repaid.

GovExec: 5 Questions You Need to Ask Yourself Right Now

If enacted, the figure would mark the largest pay increase for federal employees in two decades.

Employees who refuse tests could face "consequences," while those forced to quarantine should be supported, guidelines say

Provision in the fiscal 2021 omnibus appropriations bill would give feds until the end of next year to repay payroll taxes deferred by the Trump administration from September through December

“I cannot think of any scenario where we would recommend or ask for being federalized,” Tennessee’s adjutant general told reporters.

The president’s executive order sweeps aside 140 years of federal policy promoting professional expertise

The Office of Personnel Management said Wednesday that it has revamped its online plan comparison tool and encouraged greater transparency from insurance carriers to tamp down on surprise billing

This will be the first spacecraft launched in the
United States since the space shuttle program ended in 2011

CA ARNG Technician and LIUNA Local 1776 Member Edwin Rodriguez
Is on the Front-Lines of the COVID-19 Fight