Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

End of Early Retirement for Federal LEOs?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • End of Early Retirement for Federal LEOs?

    http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cf...ref=todaysnews

    He singled out federal law enforcement officers in particular. "Almost no federal law enforcement today is physical in nature. Early retirement in most federal law enforcement can no longer be justified," he said. "Working as a waiter or waitress is more physically demanding than most federal government positions for which we now grant early retirement."
    This in particular has me pretty upset and I can see how clueless this guy is. Having worked for the BOP and currently the Border Patrol, I know that there are some very physically demanding aspects to these jobs and that they can wear you down fast. A statistic that I know as fact is that Correctional Officers have one of the highest rates of on the job injuries of any profession.

    This guy must have the impression that federal leos are all sitting in an office somewhere typing on a computer.
    What is Perseverance?
    -Perseverance is commitment, hard work, patience, endurance.
    -Perseverance is being able to bear difficulties calmly and without complaint.
    -PERSEVERANCE IS TRYING AGAIN AND AGAIN.


    BOP - BPA - ICE

  • #2
    The way he worded it sure does leave a bad taste it ones mouth. I can see going after the 20 and out and immediate collection of benefits from military members way before screwing over those who are already working way longer than others in the same gov. system.

    My wife is in the Marine Corps so I know how much they would hate that. But I see that being way more fair than pushing people to work into theor seventies in LEO careers compared to military getting just as much in their late thirties.

    Comment


    • #3
      Another example of how out of touch with reality some of these politicians are.
      "You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall... I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it."

      Comment


      • #4
        How about we stop lifetime benefits for politicians after 1 term in office? Or did they do that already?
        Originally posted by RSGSRT
        We've reached a point where natural selection doesn't have a chance in hell of keeping up with the procreation of imbeciles.
        Why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot, but not acceptable for me to point it out?

        Comment


        • #5
          It will never pass.......................
          Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

          My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

          Comment


          • #6
            +1. I think it's more of the political grandstanding we've seen since the economy hit the skids, aka "let's take more away from government employees...."
            "Sir, does this mean that Ann Margaret's not coming?"

            Comment


            • #7
              "Almost no federal law enforcement today is physical in nature. Early retirement in most federal law enforcement can no longer be justified," he said. "Working as a waiter or waitress is more physically demanding than most federal government positions for which we now grant early retirement."

              Another example of a "clueless" politician hoping to cash in on a natural result of tough economic times-envy towards those who are working by those who aren't. It's nothing more than a pathetic form of demagoguery and one of the reasons I recently dropped by Republican party affiliation after being registered as such for nearly 40 years. You can't say you "support law enforcement", while repeatedly failing to support those who take on this stressful and dangerous career.

              In years past; cops, firefighters, paramedics and those in the military composed a significant number of those who embraced "conservative principals." How do you continue to do so, when morons like this congressman show such contempt for those who place their lives on the line in the interest of protecting the public safety?
              "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pulicords View Post
                In years past; cops, firefighters, paramedics and those in the military composed a significant number of those who embraced "conservative principals."
                Very true. Conservative principles such as a smaller limited government, minimal taxation, individual rights not collective rights such as labor unions, transparency, individual liberty, etc. What is called conservatism these days is merely "liberal light" - even conservatives ignore conservative principles when it suits them.
                The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by eyesopen View Post
                  Very true. Conservative principles such as a smaller limited government, minimal taxation, individual rights not collective rights such as labor unions, transparency, individual liberty, etc. What is called conservatism these days is merely "liberal light" - even conservatives ignore conservative principles when it suits them.
                  When politicians (such as this congressman) fail to recognize the value of public safety employees and refuse to provide decent wages and benefits, it's only natural for those workers to unionize. The words "individual rights" doesn't mean a thing, when employees aren't even provided the option to obtain a fair contract through collective bargaining. While I certainly support a "limited" government, if you believe in the value of our criminal justice system, professional firefighters and well trained paramedics, you'd better expect to pay for them.

                  Edited to add: Federal law enforcement officers and agents are not allowed to unionize. The proposed legislation by this congressman and other equally stupid proposals clearly demonstrates how easily LEOs can be stripped of their pay and benefits if certain agendas are allowed to proceed.
                  Last edited by pulicords; 10-14-2011, 12:41 PM.
                  "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't think anyone could argue that there are many other jobs that are physically demanding.. that's not when the job is all about.. none of the jobs they compare include people are willing to risk their lives to protect others. I think that should count as something..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Pulicords, your information is incorrect.

                      Federal Law Enforcement ARE unionized. I spent six years with Border Patrol and twenty-two years with Customs and Customs & Border Protection. All three agencies have unions. They have had unions since long before 1978.

                      From my experience, the unions do three things: Provide money to Democrat candidates for pubic office, regardless of what the union members desire; protect the absolutely worthless union members (if you don't know who I mean, lucky you); and work as hard as possible to keep union members and 'bargaining unit' employees from any meaningful duties or action.

                      My years with Customs/ Customs & Border Protection were varied. Most of it is fairly routine examinations of merchandise and people entering the U. S.; however, I was involved in four or five wrestling matches/fist fights in my time. Also physically demanding were the fifty and sixty hour work weeks - for which I was paid handsomely, but they were still long hours. Border Patrol work can be described as 'invigorating' at the very least. Not to mention long hours on a regular basis.

                      What I do not understand is the phrase 'end early retirement'. Is the premise new hires will have to work until age 65, rather than the 'age X with Y years of service'? I'm already retired - thank you very much - and enjoying it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Border patrol and CBP unions are the exception among Feds - not the rule. 1811's, for example, cannot belong to unions that I'm aware of.
                        "Sir, does this mean that Ann Margaret's not coming?"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GreenLine View Post
                          Border patrol and CBP unions are the exception among Feds - not the rule. 1811's, for example, cannot belong to unions that I'm aware of.
                          Up until the merge in 2003, the 1811's that worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service were union employees under AFGE.

                          The Federal Labor Relations Act gave Federal employees the right to unionize. This included 1811's unless they worked for certain agencies that were listed in the Federal labor Relations Act. The formation of the Department of Homeland Security further reduced the number of 1811's that qualified to belong to a union. The litmus test the government uses to determine if the law enforcement employee can belong to a union is generally possible exposure to information or investigative situations that will involve national security.

                          FB

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Archie View Post
                            Federal Law Enforcement ARE unionized. I spent six years with Border Patrol and twenty-two years with Customs and Customs & Border Protection. All three agencies have unions. They have had unions since long before 1978.

                            What I do not understand is the phrase 'end early retirement'. Is the premise new hires will have to work until age 65, rather than the 'age X with Y years of service'? I'm already retired - thank you very much - and enjoying it.
                            Sorry for the confusion Archie, but I relied on information provided to me by FBI, U.S. Secret Service, and other federal LEOs that I've known over the years, not Border Patrol/Customs.

                            It's my understanding that the advocates of "ending early retirement" expect LEOs to work until they reach their 60's. Nonsense like this and protecting the rights of employees is exactly why we need collective bargaining. No one (including members of unions) wants to work side by side with "slugs", especially in a profession as hazardous as this one.
                            "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TheKansan View Post

                              This guy must have the impression that federal leos are all sitting in an office somewhere typing on a computer.
                              I think the guy has the Feds pretty much summed up!






                              J/k

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3470 users online. 215 members and 3255 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X