Stop the Title 5 Repeal!
Public Comments (592)
-
Apr 25th, 2017Someone from Grayling, MI writes:
They need to get it repealed ASAP!!! The Federal Technician program is already one of the HUGE wastes of taxpayers money. The only way to control the lack of work is to hope that the individuals get cut by the guard. If they move to title 5, we will be overwhelmed with not only those that refuse to work or do their job; but also can't even meet the minimum requirements of the guard (which is not very high to start with). This title 5 is a great idea for a few, and very helpful..........But, the vast majority of "us" will take advantage of it and it will do nothing except for hurt taxpayers more! -
Apr 25th, 2017Travis K. from Stockton, CA signed.
Apr 21st, 2017Someone from Cheyenne, WY writes:
Follow through on the Title 5 conversations and the overall work force will be happier and more productive than they are right now. Also you won't have the readiness issues that their trying to use as a scare tactic.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, CancelApr 20th, 2017Amnerys M. from Humacao, PR signed.
Apr 20th, 2017Eric D. from Tucson, AZ writes:
We wear the uniform everyday and get absolutely nothing for it. No retirement points and no equal pay to the rank we are wearing. Get rid of the uniform for air techs. Plain and simple. They want it as a control tool but we need to speak up now!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, CancelApr 18th, 2017Someone from Helena, MT writes:
It's all about control. It's to bad the people who make the laws don't ask the people who do the work for their input. I have 28 years in military and 20 as a technician and subject to QRB every 2 years. It seems to me that the QRB process has been abused to the extent that those in charge use it as an attrition tool to open up dual status positions? I would like to work past 60 and keep my dual status job, feel like I earned it and not only that I am certainly qualified most likely more than anyone else? Wouldn't that be a good thing and keep the experienced people you already have? I like the idea of 20 / 20 as a way to begin the conversion. Those with 20 years military and 20 years dual status should be automatically converted to Title 5 in first wave, with the rest to follow to 100% conversion.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, CancelApr 17th, 2017Someone from Kew Gardens, NY signed.
Apr 17th, 2017Someone from Caguas, PR writes:
We need title5, make justice for those who give more than a weekend a month. That was our decision, we thank the opportunity, approving is a form of retribution.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, CancelApr 17th, 2017Someone from Brainerd, MN signed.
Apr 15th, 2017Someone from Latham, NY 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, CancelREPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelApr 6th, 2017Charlandis N. from Shreveport, LA writes:
Stop the repeal! This is good for the technicians!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, CancelApr 1st, 2017allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
Mar 30th, 2017Someone from Salem, OR writes:
I agree with one of the other posts... I find it appalling that NGB, NGAUS, AGAUS and CoG have not even bothered to ask us, Title 32 Technicians how we feel about it. Our NG workforce has changed dramatically since 1968. Since 2001, our OPTEMPO is nothing like it was before. I personally do not believe that converting to Title 5 will have the impact on readiness that they are saying. There might be a sting initially of those that are already retirement eligible and get out immediately, but there will be people that have a few more years on their enlistments that will stay in. In fact, I think it would assist in allowing members to have more opportunities to achieve rank. As it stands now, if you are a tech and you are in the only E7 slot, guess who gets to get promoted? Nobody.... until that guy/gal retires. That could be 15 -30 years from now. So it would actually improve retention because there would be more upward mobility, more often. And they say retention is one of their number 1 priorities? Hardly. Don't even get me started on the bonus payback, not authorized for technicians BS. How can you give an active duty soldier a bonus and employ them fulltime, but deny a NG a bonus because they are employed fulltime? Does that make sense to anyone?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, CancelMar 30th, 2017Ian G. from Los Angeles, CA writes:
As a federal technician myself with 15 years in the military but only 5 years as a technician i think it woulnd be very hard for me to serve 20 more years in the military on order to be eligable for my technician retirement. I dont think it is fair for any soldier who has served his country 20 years but get forced out of his career and livelihood due to the retirement, eqrb, or any other reason of honorable separation from the military. I shouldnt loose my job because i retire from the military. I and everyother soldier in the technician program should have the same opportunity to have a long and successful career as any civilian who has never served in the military.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, CancelMar 30th, 2017Someone from Burbank, CA writes:
As a dual status Federal Technician I support the stop to repeal title 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, CancelMar 30th, 2017Roy s. from Cape Coral, FL signed.
Mar 30th, 2017Someone from Carolina, PR 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, CancelREPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelMar 28th, 2017Someone from Saint Joseph, MO signed.
Mar 24th, 2017Kristen A. from Crete, IL signed.
Mar 24th, 2017Someone from Windham, NY signed.
Mar 22nd, 2017Brandie A. from Twin Falls, ID signed.
Mar 22nd, 2017Someone from Hansen, ID signed.
Mar 22nd, 2017Robert A. from Twin Falls, ID writes:
Its crap the military can kick you out after 20 years of service because of budget contrastinsts and that person loses his or her full time job becauses of it, even though that person is more the fully capable of continuing there Tech 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, CancelMar 22nd, 2017Someone from Lingle, WY writes:
We get to keep experts in their field that have done their service on the military side. People are walking away form good jobs and not considering good jobs because they done want to have to serve in military status maybe for 35-40 years. Give the option "if you serve 20 years on the military side you can op to title 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, CancelMar 22nd, 2017Someone from Riverton, WY signed.
Mar 21st, 2017Someone from Casper, WY writes:
Do your homework and call your state representatives in Congress and the House. If you are a technician then you have seen the ills of a dual-status position. We must rally together and support either making us civilian employees where we can be afforded the rights of a civilian, or make us AGRs where we can partake in the same benefits of Active Army. But, if you stay silent, we will continue to be tasked as AGRs with less benefits than our M-Day counterparts and less pay and protection than a federal civilian. Arm yourself with knowledge and be prepared to rebuff the readiness, cost, and control argument of senior state leadership and others opposed to this transition.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, CancelMar 21st, 2017Jacob T. from Skowhegan, ME signed.
Mar 16th, 2017David D. from Saratoga Springs, UT signed.
Mar 16th, 2017james v. from Roy, UT writes:
maybe more flexible with soldiers who can no longer serve in the guardREPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelMar 16th, 2017Someone from Orem, UT writes:
AGs and other military leaders are not happy with this new law because it will take some control out of their hands, and if they do something extremely wrong, to answer for their actions. We dual-status federal employees, should not be treated in any manner differently than other fellow federal employees. Moreover, many good dual-status employees with great skills, lost their jobs due to "wear and tear" that comes with age, not being able to keep up with the young soldiers entering the force, but as a consequence leaving a void of experience, wisdom, skills and abilities unmatched by their replacements. The new force needs to focus on abilities, knowledge and skills, and not on the old mindset that was implements decades ago. To add on this, there is a lot a fraud, abuse and waste of tax payers by leadership, and with this new reform, AGs and subordinates will have to be walking on egg shells and do everything by the book and not "my way or the highway".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, CancelMar 16th, 2017Someone from Cheyenne, WY writes:
Title 32 dual status positions severely limit the talent pool our state can draw upon for administrative positions. Additionally, we constantly face retention and training issues as departments have become "revolving doors" as Soldiers and Airmen separate, retire or take AGR positions or promotions else ware in the state. The reduction in emergency responsiveness cited by NGB, AGAUS, the NGAUS, and the CoG is a farce. If I am performing my Title 32 administrative function, it is illegal for me to be ordered to go fill sand bags or fight fires unless I am placed on state active duty orders. I can still be placed on state active duty orders if I am a Title 5 civilian. It is frustrating to be held to the same standards and expectations as my AGR counterparts. Commanders do not think about what status you are in because you are in uniform and therefore they believe you are AGR. I've been directed to perform duties outside of my PD multiple times. I don't receive the pay and the benefits but I get all of the taskers and the additional duties. Furthermore, Title 32 enables higher ranking officers and SNCOs to intimidate and pressure lower ranking personnel to bend and/or break the rules if it is convenient for the superiors. The lower ranking member has to deal with the fear of reprisals and discharge in his or her military career. The conversion to Title 5 would help decrease this horrible practice. Lastly, why hasn't anyone from NGB, AGAUS, the NGAUS, and the CoG polled Title 32 employees and asked what they want? I find it ridiculous that leaders haven't sought the opinions of the very workforce that the conversion would impact. The are most likely fearful of the resounding support for the conversion.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, CancelMar 15th, 2017Someone from Cheyenne, WY writes:
I've been in the guard 7 years and think converting to title 5 is a step in the right direction. All the fuss is about control....Period. I believe at the end of the day there will be less turnover and a healthier NGB. The arguments of limiting the response in emergencies is false. 20 percent of support type function jobs would be too easy to convert for even a dumb enlisted guy like me. Convert Oct 2017 Don't let the generals or governor's bully you! Don't even bother to compromise to lower than 20 percent.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, CancelMar 14th, 2017Someone from Camarillo, CA writes:
As a title 32 technician I have all of the burden of wearing the uniform with none of the benefits. We fall under the UCMJ since we are forced to wear the uniform, however, we are considered to be in a civilian status. So we are only considered military when it is convenient, most often for punishment purposes. I have seen many Civilian technicians lose their job due to being discharged from the military regardless of how well they have performed their civilian duties. This transition needs to happen. The argument that readiness would be reduced is such a ridiculous and outlandish claim and has no merit. If anything, readiness would be improved. If a title 5 employee left the military, they would continue to work and support the mission at home while at the same time opening up a new slot for a new military member to join the unit. The only reason the above agencies are fighting this bill is because they lose power over their members. Any other argument they have is not supported by any sound evidence.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, CancelMar 10th, 2017Joe P. from Gulfport, MS writes:
I have been in the Military for 33 years. The guard is worried about end strength but they continue to have retention boards. Yet they fight to keep the conversion from happening. I say let it happen. I would leave the guard tommorow but I can't because I am dual status. I would retire from the guard and it would allow for other soldiers to move up. They shuld look at the big picture and allow those of who want to convert to do it now.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, CancelMar 9th, 2017Camp s. from Hattiesburg, MS writes:
we are civilians being forced to adhere to active duty standards for half the pay and benefits. very few techs can make retirement age because of the "have to be in NG to hold job", We are faced with no other choice but to cover up and hide injuries or other issues that would kick you out of the guard in order to keep our job. Just because you cannot stay in guard does not mean you cant perform the federal technician duties. No other federal job in existence shafts you out of not being able to retire like the DUAL STATUS TECHNICIAN does! So, you end up with a system that forces you to seek medical discharge and disability.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, CancelMar 9th, 2017Camp s. from Hattiesburg, MS writes:
we are civilians being forced to adhere to active duty standards for half the pay and benefits. very few techs can make retirement age because of the "have to be in NG to hold job", We are faced with no other choice but to cover up and hide injuries or other issues that would kick you out of the guard in order to keep our job. Just because you cannot stay in guard does not mean you cant perform the federal technician duties. No other federal job in existence shafts you out of not being able to retire like the DUAL STATUS TECHNICIAN does! So, you end up with a system that forces you to seek medical discharge and disability.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.