Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Law Enforcement Officer Equity Act...HR 962.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Law Enforcement Officer Equity Act...HR 962.

    Support it. Tens of thousands of federal LEOs will benifit from its passage. Contact your Congressperson.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...2/text?r=5&s=1
    Last edited by merlin436; 05-16-2021, 05:19 AM.

  • #2
    "the duties of whose position include activities relating to the efficient and effective custody, management, and disposition of seized and forfeited property;”.

    Sitting at a desk, logging evidence into a vault is not tough LE work. Retirement at age 50 from that soft gig? Hard no from me.
    The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

    -Japanese proverb

    Comment


    • Lady_Corrections
      Lady_Corrections commented
      Editing a comment
      I think they included seized property specialists because they carry firearms and handcuffs when they go out to assist with seizures. To be honest, many federal 1811 and 0083 gigs are soft.

    • merlin436
      merlin436 commented
      Editing a comment
      I think in any comprehensive bill to address inequalities they'll be some borderline cases...and maybe even some objectionable cases. I'd say look at the big picture. Even if the law isn't written perfectly, it's the just and moral fix for tens of thousands of FLEOs that should be the focus...not the relatively few who might benefit undeservedly.

    • Exbpa340
      Exbpa340 commented
      Editing a comment
      If it becomes a 6C/12D for all the big loser is BOP. Absolutely zero reason to work for BOP (the only advantage is the covered retirement).

    • Ratatatat
      Ratatatat commented
      Editing a comment
      They don't make arrests, they don't clear buildings during warrants, they carry guns solely because they handle piles of dope and money.

      6c exists because the G doesn't want old people going hands on because of the higher odds for death or injury. Persuading me that SPSs and TEOs and MSSs and mail clerks should get early retirement isn't going to work, but maybe Congress can be moved to buy into the life isn't fair argument....

  • #3
    This bill for "law enforcement equity" has 2 out of the 5 listed that are not law enforcement. Why should IRS tax collectors and property specialists get LE retirement? Makes no sense.

    Comment


    • #4
      Originally posted by CoastalCop1811 View Post
      This bill for "law enforcement equity" has 2 out of the 5 listed that are not law enforcement. Why should IRS tax collectors and property specialists get LE retirement? Makes no sense.
      I agree with Merlin. Even though a couple of the categories are not positions with arrest powers, the vast majority of the federal employees who would benefit from this would be police officers. I doubt there are many seized property specialists. To me, there's no point in getting hung up on the minority. Besides, revenue officers and revenue agents go to irate taxpayers' homes and businesses to enforce tax laws without being allowed to carry any weapons. Their jobs are just about as dangerous as the glorified security guards securing federal properties.

      Comment


      • Lady_Corrections
        Lady_Corrections commented
        Editing a comment
        That is also true. Revenue officers and revenue agents are often mistaken for special agents. You're in a suit and flashing federal credentials; people don't know the difference.

      • Winter_Patriot
        Winter_Patriot commented
        Editing a comment
        I see what you mean there. And actually I will say, third parties are usually what pose the greatest risks for us in fed probation. It's not the actual clients/offenders who are likely to assault us.

      • CoastalCop1811
        CoastalCop1811 commented
        Editing a comment
        I'll go one further....I don't believe BOP should be getting LE retirement either nor should they be allowed to carry under LEOSA.

      • CoastalCop1811
        CoastalCop1811 commented
        Editing a comment
        Look most DoD police and VA police are those that retired from other gigs. Giving them LE retirement would cause an issue with that and thus lead to a decent loss in their ranks. It would probably hurt more than it would help.

    • #5
      FWIW, the FOP endorses the bill.

      "The FOP strongly supports the passage of H.R. 962, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Equity Act.” This legislation would expand the definition of “law enforcement officer (LEO)” for retirement benefits to include all Federal law enforcement officers.

      Nearly 30,000 Federal law enforcement officers do not receive the same retirement benefits as their other Federal law enforcement colleagues. This legislation would provide all law enforcement with 6(c) retirement benefits and the ability to retire after twenty (20) years of service at the age of fifty (50) or after twenty-five (25) years of service at any age. This same benefit is currently received by most Federal law enforcement officers. This bill will also provide for savings in training costs, improve recruitment and retention of qualified officers, and enhance public safety.

      Officers classified as “0083s” in agencies like the Department of Defense and Armed Services, Veterans Affairs, FBI Police, U.S. Postal Police, Federal Protective Service, National Institute of Health, U.S. Mint, and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing are among those Federal officers who do not receive these specific benefits. Yet these GS-0083 officers attend the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and are just as highly trained as those Federal law enforcement officers who do receive the 6(c) retirement benefit. Their job is no less dangerous and these officers who do not receive 6(c) benefits are asked to face the same hazards as their State and local counterparts. They have been seriously injured and killed in the line of duty and their sacrifices are no less or different than any other Federal officer. Nor are they any less dedicated—during the government shutdown, these officers reported to work just as their counterparts from covered agencies did and continued serving the American people with distinction to ensure our nation’s infrastructure, government facilities and institutions remained safe."


      https://fop.net/government-and-media...rs-equity-act/

      ​​​​​
      In addition to the nearly 30,000 that the FOP speaks of, there's also nearly 25,000 CBP Officers who would also see some benefit...along with others like Supreme Court police, who...while 12D covered, are not currently defined as "law enforcement" under Title 5, and therefore lose out on other benefits, like GL pay, PLI reimbursement and other perks.

      Comment


      • #6
        My other post was flagged as possible spam because it included a lot of links to articles on assaults, murders, and threats against IRS revenue agents and revenue officers. So, I'll just give a summary. In 1984, there were 1,000 assaults and threats made against IRS employees, and there was an employee who was murdered in 1983. In 1991, there were 267 assaults against field IRS employees making them the most assaulted federal law enforcement officials. There was a 1998 article that reaffirmed that revenue officers were the most assaulted federal employees.

        In 2014, a person was convicted for threatening to assault and kill a revenue agent. In 2015, a person plead guilty to assaulting a revenue officer. In 2016, someone pointed a shotgun at a revenue officer. Only a fraction of these incidents make the news.

        Comment


        • Exbpa340
          Exbpa340 commented
          Editing a comment
          There were three USDA inspectors killed in the line of duty by a factory owner after his factory was closed due to health code violations. Should they be covered under the enhanced retirement? At least that incident happened in this century. Using statistics and articles from the 1990s doesn’t help your cause. I

          The reason that IRS revenue officers are not covered is because they do not meet the definition of an LEO.

          “law enforcement officer” means an employee, the duties of whose position are primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States,

          IRS revenue officers are not armed nor do they have powers of arrest (nor do they perform detention duties). The argument to cover 0083 police positions is a much better argument (gun toting, powers of arrest). The IRS should reclassify these positions as gun toting and give them powers of arrest (this would entail a much more difficult academy) and would require all current revenue officers to return to to FLETC for additional training. And then they could get the enhanced 12d retirement. Short of that there is zero basis for their inclusion. Your claims of “danger” have no bearing on whether a position is or is not covered under 12d.

        • Lady_Corrections
          Lady_Corrections commented
          Editing a comment
          Correctional officers only go through a 3-week academy, so that shouldn't be a problem. Even seized property specialists receive more academy training than that. What has a bearing on whether a position is covered under 6(c) or not is what's the law. Congress can designate these positions to be law enforcement if they want to. That's the whole point of the bill.

          By the way, I provided articles from 2014, 2015, and 2016. By the definition you quoted, IRS revenue officers would fall under the definition of LEO because they investigate suspected criminal offenses; they just take civil enforcement actions for offenses that are not egregious. It says investigate, apprehend, OR detain.
          Last edited by Lady_Corrections; 05-19-2021, 10:30 AM.

        • Exbpa340
          Exbpa340 commented
          Editing a comment
          Name another covered position that investigates without powers of arrest or the ability to bring criminal charges? I don’t know of one.

          Even after altering the definition of an LEO (in this bill) the IRS position still doesn’t qualify and must have special verbiage in the bill to be included. You are obviously personally vested in this bill and maybe things will work out but I wouldn’t bet on it. Govtrack puts it at 19 percent likelihood that it will be passed and enacted. No movement since it was introduced. Time will tell.

          https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr962

        • Lady_Corrections
          Lady_Corrections commented
          Editing a comment
          The passage of the bill would make no difference for me. There are covered firefighter and forestry technician positions that are completely unrelated to law enforcement.
          Last edited by Lady_Corrections; 05-21-2021, 10:26 AM.

      • #7
        AFGE supports passage,

        "American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley today issued the following statement in response to the introduction of the Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act (HR 962):

        “Existing law does not treat all federal law enforcement personnel equally when it comes to determining their pay rates and retirement benefits. Specifically, officers with the Federal Protective Service and police officers at the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments and the U.S. Mint have lower rates of pay than other federal law enforcement professionals and are not eligible for full law enforcement retirement benefits until years after their peers. These inequities lead to high turnover and lower employee morale at agencies that are unable to offer comparable pay and benefits.

        “On behalf of the 700,000 federal and D.C. government employees AFGE represents, including tens of thousands of law enforcement professionals, I sincerely thank Representatives Bill Pascrell Jr., Gerry Connolly, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Andrew Garbarino for reintroducing the Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act. This bipartisan bill would expand the definition of law enforcement officer under Title 5 of the U.S. Code to include all federal employees who are authorized to carry a firearm and whose duties involve the investigation or apprehension of suspected or convicted individuals.

        “This important legislation would close a loophole in existing law has resulted in second-class status for many federal law enforcement officers, ensuring they are treated equally when it comes to setting their pay rates and qualifying for full retirement benefits. AFGE look forward to working with Congress to ensure its passage.”

        https://www.afge.org/publication/afg...rs-equity-act/


        Comment


        • #8
          FLEOA supports passage.

          "We are writing to you today on behalf of the almost 29,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association to advise you of our continued strong support for the "Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act.” We are grateful for your leadership on this issue and your efforts to ensure that all law enforcement officers within the federal government are treated equally.

          Federal law enforcement officers place themselves in harm’s way every day in order to keep our nation safe. Over this past historic year, whether it be border security, violent attacks and riots in the streets of America, the attack on the U.S. Capitol or responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, law enforcement officers across the federal government have distinguished themselves with their dedication to duty. Despite an equal dedication to duty, however, many of these same federal law enforcement officers are in disparate pension systems due to the various statutes enacted by Congress over the years. This has created a division among the federal law enforcement workforce with respect to pay and retirement benefits. In our view, a "law enforcement officer” in the federal service is a law enforcement officer no matter which agency they work for. Yet under federal law, the definition of law enforcement officers excludes thousands of federal police officers and others— an anachronistic concept no longer matches the realities of modern-day law enforcement.

          That is why we are proud to continue supporting the "Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act,” a bill that would address this inequity and permit all law enforcement officers in the federal workforce to receive law enforcement retirement status. Specifically, this legislation would apply to any law enforcement employee whose duties include the investigation or apprehension of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the U.S., including uniformed officers from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs Police Department. In so doing, this bill will bring equity to the pay and benefits for all federal law enforcement officers and ensure that the federal government has the tools necessary to continue to recruit and retain the best law enforcement officers available.

          Thank you again for your leadership on this issue and we look forward to the passage of this bill.

          Sincerely,

          Larry J Cosme
          National President"

          https://www.fleoa.org/news-story.aspx?id=9960


          Comment


          • Winter_Patriot
            Winter_Patriot commented
            Editing a comment
            No one's really discussed the drawbacks here of converting existing employees to a covered a position. The maximum appointment age of 37 or the mandatory retirement at age 57 for instance. There are some great 1800-series jobs like DEA Diversion Investigator that are not covered positions, and some people start there after retiring from a covered 6c position. Those positions also often attract people with advanced degrees and job experience who are over age 37. Is this act going to change any of the age restrictions or at least grandfather people in?

          • Lady_Corrections
            Lady_Corrections commented
            Editing a comment
            For those who are already over the age of 37, they could either continue under the current retirement system or pay a deposit to make up for the missing years. New hires would need to meet the new age requirement.

          • merlin436
            merlin436 commented
            Editing a comment
            On one hand, I think Winter makes a good point. This would screw with some the 37/57/older applicant crowd.

            On the other hand, we're talking about equity. As Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".. well, it seems to me that the tree of equity must be refreshed by the blood of budgeting, hiring and recruitment.

        MR300x250 Tablet

        Collapse

        What's Going On

        Collapse

        There are currently 2474 users online. 121 members and 2353 guests.

        Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

        Welcome Ad

        Collapse
        Working...
        X