Stop the Title 5 Repeal!
Public Comments (592)
-
Oct 4th, 2016Christopher L. from Wyandotte, MI signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Daniel W. from Albuquerque, NM signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Someone from Sonoma, CA signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Someone from Albuquerque, NM writes:
I am a Technician in the NM Air National Guard. Please do not repeal the Title 5 provision in FY-16 NDAA Section 1053. After 25 years of service, I believe I deserve a fair shake at retirement, without worrying about being separated at the whim of one commander.Oct 4th, 2016Daniel O. from Harrison Township, MI signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Someone from Ball, LA writes:
I need this. We want our NG benifits back. Tricare back. Bonuses back. Our enlistment options back. Not to have this job used as a club to force us to do things others don't.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 4th, 2016Someone from Linden, MI signed.
Oct 4th, 2016David M. from South Haven, MI writes:
Why are we allowing the Ag's to trump congress and 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 4th, 2016Frank M. from Santa Rosa, CA writes:
It has been way to long since there has been any changes to the technician program. As it stands the system is very unfair and people don't want to stay. Our shop looses Mechanics and Admin alike regularly to ADOS orders, Deployments, and AGR positions. Simply put we get paid far less then ADOS and AGR for doing the same job. TAG's around the nation don't want to support this because we are cheap labor. It's basically Legal Slavery. We all just want fair and equal treatment for doing the same job. Lets not forget that the technician program requires at least 25 years of employment to be fully vested for retirement. After 20 years in the military we are subject to EQRB. And with restrictions like grade inversion, promotion availabilities, cut backs on slots in units etc... It becomes increasingly difficult for technicians to stay in past their 20 years. Especially when most technicians do not even start their careers until they have had around 10 years in the military. The system is very well designed to ensure that very few technicians will actually reach their 25 years.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 4th, 2016Ryan H. from Slidell, LA signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Someone from Carson City, NV writes:
I feel that if the right employees are selected to convert, there will be no detriment to the readiness of the National Guard. We are regularly crippled by mobilizations, the most recent for my State was a Signal Company mobilization. We lost virtual all of our G6 staff, and one of the critical full time technicians not on that mobilization retired from the National Guard, we could have retained a valuable employee had his position been converted to Title 5. That is just one instance that I can think of off the top of my head.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 4th, 2016Jaline M. from Westland, MI signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Mark R. from New Baltimore, MI writes:
I strongly support the title 5 conversion. There will finally be a clear line as to us being civilian or military. This will allow us technician to finally be treated as a civilian employee rather than the National Guard's "whipping boy", deciding to treat us as military of civilian when it benefits National Guard Bureau's agendaREPORT 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 4th, 2016Levon M. from Westland, MI signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Vanny P. from Cary, IL writes:
It's a struggle to manage both our Fed tech jobs and our military career, title 5 will allow us to really separate military career from out civilians careers.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 4th, 2016emmanuel b. from Highland Park, IL signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Bret T. from Minooka, IL signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Jeff B. from Carlisle, AR writes:
There needs to be changes in the technician program it is long past due!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 4th, 2016James R. from Hernando, MS writes:
Strongly support conversion to Title 5. This will save money and avoid duplication of personnel systems.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 4th, 2016Willie H. from Alexander, AR writes:
Arkansas Guardsmen are in favor of the conversion of Title 32 to Title 5 dual status techniciansREPORT 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 4th, 2016Emily Y. from Stockton, CA signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Randall B. from Westwego, LA signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Donald D. from Green Sea, SC signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Kenneth V. from Lawrenceburg, KY writes:
There must be a change to the antiquated system known as Title 32 dual status technician. Repealing the conversion to Title 5 ultimately affects the employee and will only keep a broken system of business. Keep the path towards Title 5 conversion. It is not only the smart thing to do, but the right thing to do.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 4th, 2016Mike N. from Mount Pleasant, SC signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Bruce J. from Mansura, LA signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Someone from Cambridge, WI writes:
The technician program is outdated and causes anger and confusion for supervisors and workers alike, countless hours are wasted trying to figure out pay status and benefits. This change is long overdue!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 4th, 2016Lee S. from Lexington, SC signed.
Oct 4th, 2016Phillip L. from Romeoville, IL writes:
I got retired from the military after 26 years of service, 20 in the Guard then they forced me out of my full time Federal Technician job before i could retire. Great system they have!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 4th, 2016Kevin K. from Valley Springs, CA signed.
Oct 3rd, 2016James S. from Deerfield, MI signed.
Oct 3rd, 2016Dustin L. from Metairie, LA signed.
Oct 3rd, 2016Ryan C. from Stockton, CA signed.
Oct 3rd, 2016Tyler M. from Sacramento, CA signed.
Oct 3rd, 2016William H. from Baton Rouge, LA signed.
Oct 3rd, 2016Someone from Cissna Park, IL signed.
Oct 3rd, 2016Randy M. from Sacramento, CA signed.
Oct 3rd, 2016William P. from Cabot, AR signed.
Oct 3rd, 2016Kenneth B. from Alto, MI writes:
As a Technician and M-day side, having Techs on the FERS retirement plan (retire at age 55-60), and M-day at 20 years (age 37-47), there is in inherent time where technicians get stacked up at higher ranks, which prevent other, sometimes better soldiers who have chosen other civilian careers, from getting promoted. Title 5 allows a 20yr vet to retire from the Guard and retain his civilian job, which allows other soldiers to get promoted.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.