Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

6c retirement for all 0083 Law Enforcement Officers.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • 6c retirement for all 0083 Law Enforcement Officers.

    http://www.fedsmith.com/2016/05/20/l...ral-employees/

    https://nfop.velarium.com/CmsDocumen..._2016-0518.pdf
    copter
    Forum Member
    Last edited by copter; 05-22-2016, 12:59 PM.

  • #2
    An actual smart bill introduced by dems. Am I dreaming?

    Comment


    • #3
      This really needs to pass.
      1*

      Comment


      • #4
        I was going to ask what the timetable for this was, and how long you guys thought it may take, then I went to the govtrack site.

        It says "Prognosis: 4% chance of being enacted (details)"

        In details

        "This bill has a . . .

        8% chance of getting past committee.
        4% chance of being enacted.

        Only 15% of bills made it past committee and only about 3% were enacted in 2013–2015."

        Those are some damn good odds!
        I don't know everything, but I am a superlative Googler.

        Comment


        • #5
          And this impacts non LE how..?

          Comment


          • #6
            LE retirement coverage is a strange concept to those that don't get it (I'm at one of the multitude of agencies that have police that don't get it).

            If your main job does actually include enforcing the laws periodically and locking up those that can't work and play well with others, I'm not sure how the same government that gives you authority to enforce laws doesn't consider you law enforcement?

            I'm not saying everybody with a badge and a sidearm should get it(CSOSA, BOP, most 0080's and 0085's), but those that do don weapons, body armor and are ready to stand between civility and chaos should be thought of and rewarded the slightest bit better than the super majority of Feds who enjoy the safety which we provide.

            As with seemingly all of my honest and direct posts, a lot of people are going to feign absolute and unjustifiable levels of offense, but I am not, by any measure, trying to demean the work performed by the vast majority of federal employees. We all have different responsibilities, skill sets and abilities that are absolutely necessary to making this the greatest country in the history of the planet. I just feel that those that have a marked chance of encountering violence and even death on a daily basis should be given that tiny upgrade to salary and retirement. Maybe I'm wrong?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by m.p.c View Post
              An actual smart bill introduced by dems. Am I dreaming?
              Yea, but the chances of it passing and being signed into law is slim.

              Costs way too much money.......................if you confer LEO retirement to all those people

              Originally posted by AgentDiNozzo View Post

              I'm not saying everybody with a badge and a sidearm should get it(CSOSA, BOP, most 0080's and 0085's), but those that do don weapons, body armor and are ready to stand between civility and chaos should be thought of and rewarded the slightest bit better than the super majority of Feds who enjoy the safety which we provide.
              BOP has had 6c retirement for a long, long time
              Iowa #1603
              Senior Veteran
              Last edited by Iowa #1603; 05-22-2016, 08:24 AM.
              My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
                Yea, but the chances of it passing and being signed into law is slim.

                Costs way too much money.......................if you confer LEO retirement to all those people



                BOP has had 6c retirement for a long, long time
                Yes they do. This is likely gonna start serious ***** storm but BOP and CSOSA shouldn't have LEO coverage before actual police officers. 99% of those they encounter on duty have already been caught. Said laws that have been broken have by definition been enforced by somebody else. That's my personal opinion. Fire away with the criticism.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AgentDiNozzo View Post
                  LE retirement coverage is a strange concept to those that don't get it (I'm at one of the multitude of agencies that have police that don't get it).

                  If your main job does actually include enforcing the laws periodically and locking up those that can't work and play well with others, I'm not sure how the same government that gives you authority to enforce laws doesn't consider you law enforcement?

                  I'm not saying everybody with a badge and a sidearm should get it(CSOSA, BOP, most 0080's and 0085's), but those that do don weapons, body armor and are ready to stand between civility and chaos should be thought of and rewarded the slightest bit better than the super majority of Feds who enjoy the safety which we provide.

                  As with seemingly all of my honest and direct posts, a lot of people are going to feign absolute and unjustifiable levels of offense, but I am not, by any measure, trying to demean the work performed by the vast majority of federal employees. We all have different responsibilities, skill sets and abilities that are absolutely necessary to making this the greatest country in the history of the planet. I just feel that those that have a marked chance of encountering violence and even death on a daily basis should be given that tiny upgrade to salary and retirement. Maybe I'm wrong?

                  While I agree with you regarding who should have 6c retirement, your rationale for it is not what 6c is meant for.

                  6c coverage is meant to allow individuals in "rigorous" or "physically demanding" occupations to retire at 20 years instead of 30. It's for occupations that are (arguably, to some) a "young man's game."

                  It is not a reward, perk, or benefit extended for performing duties that involve the protection of others - even if that's exactly what's being done. As polarizing as law enforcement is in this country, there are too many people who don't want to hear what LE officers do and don't agree with rewarding them for it.

                  I bring this up because if your reasoning is used to try and justify it for any group, it will likely fail. It has in the past. The way you get 6c is to show that 1) the position is a "law enforcement" position, per OPM's definition, and 2) show there's a benefit to the G for extending it to that group.

                  Number two shouldn't have to apply, but it's the reality of working in government. If you can show some kind of massive cost savings, for example - like eliminating an expensive overtime program - that will go a long way towards garnering votes for it.
                  "Sir, does this mean that Ann Margaret's not coming?"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GreenLine View Post
                    While I agree with you regarding who should have 6c retirement, your rationale for it is not what 6c is meant for.

                    6c coverage is meant to allow individuals in "rigorous" or "physically demanding" occupations to retire at 20 years instead of 30. It's for occupations that are (arguably, to some) a "young man's game."

                    It is not a reward, perk, or benefit extended for performing duties that involve the protection of others - even if that's exactly what's being done. As polarizing as law enforcement is in this country, there are too many people who don't want to hear what LE officers do and don't agree with rewarding them for it.

                    I bring this up because if your reasoning is used to try and justify it for any group, it will likely fail. It has in the past. The way you get 6c is to show that 1) the position is a "law enforcement" position, per OPM's definition, and 2) show there's a benefit to the G for extending it to that group.

                    Number two shouldn't have to apply, but it's the reality of working in government. If you can show some kind of massive cost savings, for example - like eliminating an expensive overtime program - that will go a long way towards garnering votes for it.
                    Hey GreenLine I hear what you are saying and I agree and disagree. The easiest solution would be to have the high priests who make the determinations read the law they passed. 5 USC 8401 lays out who and what is intended to be included and nobody would be taken seriously if they wanted to argue federal police officers don't count under section 17 of the aforementioned statute. And while BOP as an entire agency is covered, CSOSA has no argument. They don't enforce laws, fight fires or perform anything physical or vigorous. They won't go talk to a convict anywhere in DC without an MPDC escort but glorified GPS ankle monitors are getting enhanced retirement while thousands of employees that exceed the definition of the law aren't. Like I said, it smacks of a giant insult to those of us who don't work for the budget blessed, overhyped, alphabet soup crews who get to be the subject of prime time TV.

                    Again, just my opinion. Those who desire to cuss me out who work for one of the previously referenced agencies are welcome to their opinion but comparing gate access folks and parole and probation officers to actual police is kind of a weak attempt.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by AgentDiNozzo View Post
                      Hey GreenLine I hear what you are saying and I agree and disagree. The easiest solution would be to have the high priests who make the determinations read the law they passed. 5 USC 8401 lays out who and what is intended to be included and nobody would be taken seriously if they wanted to argue federal police officers don't count under section 17 of the aforementioned statute. And while BOP as an entire agency is covered, CSOSA has no argument. They don't enforce laws, fight fires or perform anything physical or vigorous. They won't go talk to a convict anywhere in DC without an MPDC escort but glorified GPS ankle monitors are getting enhanced retirement while thousands of employees that exceed the definition of the law aren't. Like I said, it smacks of a giant insult to those of us who don't work for the budget blessed, overhyped, alphabet soup crews who get to be the subject of prime time TV.

                      Again, just my opinion. Those who desire to cuss me out who work for one of the previously referenced agencies are welcome to their opinion but comparing gate access folks and parole and probation officers to actual police is kind of a weak attempt.
                      I've worked patrol and investigations as a local LEO. I've also worked in a county jail and for the BOP. Corrections is on strictly an average day to an average day basis, much harder duty than being a "force protection" type LEO that most 0083s are.

                      Until you've been surrounded by dozens to hundreds of known convicted felons with only a radio and a set of handcuffs (just now the BOP is getting OC), you have no idea how much easier "the street" is.

                      And trying to argue that the 40,000 employees of the BOP who currently have the coverage don't deserve it is not the way to get it for yourself.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Having been on the street as an officer, and then working corrections I can say that Fed is correct. At many USPs staff run to serious brawls involving some sort of weapon every day. Some prisons have more serious incidents in one day than some city precincts do. 6c is indeed about keeping a young workforce, not rewarding a position per se.
                        Most of the public does not realize how low the basic retirement is, nor do they care as they have no retirement any longer.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The law defines 6c coverage eligibility as follows:

                          "LEO is defined as an employee occupying a rigorous position, whose primary duties are the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States, or the protection of officials of the United States against threats to personal safety (as defined under 5 CFR 842.802)."

                          The detention part is what covers the BOP.
                          I’ll die with blue in my veins.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            While it is likely that all of us are mostly deserving of said enhanced retirement based on the wording, meaning and interpretation of the statute, it's even more likely that the least respected federal employees ever-Congress-won't ever kick in that extra 7/10th's of a percent. Neither side could get the other to agree and none of them would ever give money to those who deserve it as opposed to those who think blowing money on observation of lions walking on treadmills or the effects of giving rabbits Swedish massages is fiscally necessary and useful. Where would we be as a nation if we didn't use tax dollars to open a heritage center...for cheese?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is a 2004 report done by OPM which answers many of these questions as to who rates Leo pay and who doesn't. It's really fascinating and what it all boils down to according to OPM is if your main job is to investigate crime you rate 6c retirement and LEO pay. If you're main job is to prevent and deter crime you don't rate it. Obviously I'm paraphrasing but that was the jest of it. It's also bull**** on every level and demeans what so many people do who aren't covered. No way you can ever look me in the eye and tell me the Supreme Court Police and agencies like it rate 6c retirement. Now I'm not picking on them just pointing out the obvious. At the end of the day if you have leadership who supports it's law enforcement you will get it, if you don't you never will.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3961 users online. 237 members and 3724 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X