Stop the Title 5 Repeal!
Public Comments (592)
-
Oct 12th, 2016Zachary B. from Blacksburg, VA writes:
Although not a technician myself, I am both a traditional guardsman and a federal, Title 5, employee. I have personally witnessed numerous abuses of power by dual status supervisors: mostly when attempting to conflate their part-time rank with their full-time employment. Additionally, the disparity of benefits between technicians and other federal employees is shockingly absurd. Finally, I don't really understand the purpose of needing a 'military status' to accomplish the mission of the organization. -
Oct 11th, 2016Someone from Waukee, IA signed.
Oct 11th, 2016Someone from Oxnard, CA signed.
Oct 11th, 2016Someone from Stafford, VA signed.
Oct 11th, 2016Jason P. from Willow Spring, NC writes:
Please leave 1053 alone. DO NOT allow a repeal of any type. Convert the Title 32s so that they have the same chances as other federal employees. Also enforce it on Jan 1st when NGB decides to ignore the law!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 11th, 2016Jacob A. from Wichita, KS signed.
Oct 11th, 2016Luana W. from Monticello, IN signed.
Oct 11th, 2016Christopher G. from Dayton, OH signed.
Oct 11th, 2016Christopher G. from Dayton, OH signed.
Oct 11th, 2016Robert E. from Roan Mountain, TN writes:
Title 5 should be left in place. The National Guard Technicians are the most discriminated federal employees. Please research this issue. Most politicians do not realize the injustices to this program.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 11th, 2016Paul H. from Acworth, GA signed.
Oct 11th, 2016eric s. from Mount Airy, MD signed.
Oct 11th, 2016Jimmy A. from Hazen, AR signed.
Oct 11th, 2016Ryan M. from Hurst, TX writes:
We can't let this happen, or get swept under the rug.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 10th, 2016Bryan S. from Sullivan, IL writes:
The fact that I've seen title 32 federal technicians loose their jobs just a couple of years short of retirement due to being non-retained on a QRB is reason enough to support this. The dual status requirement for employment is unfair when a person can work 15+ years towards a retirement and loose it to a QRB. Technicians should also be eligible for extension bonuses and Tricare Reserve Select while they are serving. My wife shouldn't have list her 6 year bonus just because she accepted a technician position. AGR are also not eligible for extension bonuses even though their Active Duty counterparts are, it just doesn't make sense and should be changed.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 10th, 2016Angela R. from Fort Worth, TX writes:
Do something to protect these jobs!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 10th, 2016Someone from Hanscom Afb, MA writes:
I agree with this. We have lost so many people who were highly qualified and skilled. They had to leave their federal job because their military service had come to an end. When most of these people left their skills and knowledge left the organization and many times those skill set and knowledge were not replacedREPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 10th, 2016Dustin R. from Fort Worth, TX writes:
As a Military Tech that is currently looking at losing all forms of income, this is a long overdue change. I have served in the Army for the past 22 years and as a Mil Tech for the past 8 now my state adjutant general is forcing me to retire from the Army and thus lose my Mil Tech well before I have the time needed to retire.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 10th, 2016Alexander t. from Alvarado, TX signed.
REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 10th, 2016Someone from Helena, MT writes:
Title 5 conversion for the National Guard would modernize a now broken system. Once the dust settles after conversion, I think the status quo will stabilize and will not be a detriment to the readiness of forces.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 10th, 2016Someone from Morganton, NC signed.
Oct 10th, 2016Chadwick W. from Hampton, FL signed.
Oct 9th, 2016Donald S. from Bossier City, LA signed.
Oct 9th, 2016Brett W. from Roselle, IL signed.
Oct 9th, 2016Someone from Urbandale, IA signed.
REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 9th, 2016Nathan W. from Paola, KS signed.
Oct 9th, 2016Someone from Marshfield, MO signed.
Oct 9th, 2016Lonnie M. from Columbus, OH signed.
REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 9th, 2016Someone from New Philadelphia, PA signed.
Oct 9th, 2016Francis C. from Palmyra, PA signed.
Oct 9th, 2016Deann R. from Ward, AR signed.
Oct 9th, 2016Someone from Princeton, IA writes:
I accepted a technician job after being laid-off and I love my new job. However, I also have 17 years in the military prior to starting as a technician. I don't feel it's fair I have to serve another 20 to 30 years just to provide services for a job that has nothing to do with my military responsibilities. I don't think my body could handle another 20 years either. But I am good at my job and am fully capable if doing it and don't think it's fair I lose my job and family's livelihood if I am QRB'd out. I should not be punished after serving for such a long time. Therefore, I fully support this conversion so I can continue to serve.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 8th, 2016Ricky B. from Bienville, LA writes:
I'm so fed up with Congress making these issues so complicated and tied up with other issues so this or that group can slip something by!!!! This is a yes or no issue!!! No !!! These technician's jobs shouldn't be changed from 32-5!!!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 8th, 2016Gerald P. from Whitinsville, MA writes:
10 yrs as a dual status tech and I am looking at medical retirement from the guard. The title 5 conversion would save my civilian job.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelOct 8th, 2016Jeremy W. from Mendon, UT writes:
Title 5 works for other branches of service and they still maintain their readiness standards, the National Guard should be the same. To many technicians on dual status get removed from tech status prior to retirement age or 20yrs of technician service due military related issues and then have no retirement to job in the civilian sector because of the dual status program.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, Cancel
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.