Share:

Stop the Title 5 Repeal!

Public Comments (592)
  • Mar 8th, 2017
    Someone from Elgin, IL writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    we all believe repeal is wrong
    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
  • Mar 8th, 2017
    David S. from Jackson, TN signed.
  • Mar 7th, 2017
    Someone from Queens Village, NY signed.
  • Mar 7th, 2017
    Someone from Hattiesburg, MS writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    A NG positions need to and probably will be converted to Title 5 or AGR. Let's break it down like this... Almost all your higher up GS positions are filled by LTC, COLs, generally LTC's are GS12 or GS13's and COL are GS13's to GS15's. So by default, even if your education and experience exceed that of the LTC or COL you will not be afforded the opportunity to even apply for said job because they will put a rank restriction on it "Restricted to current on board federal tech in the grade of O5 or O6". Not to mention you can't really enforce the standards, say you are a middle grade supervisor, if your weekend boss who is the COL and GS14 at USPFO calls you and tells you to make it happen. If you tell him/her to "pound sand" you might get away with it for that week but come time for your OER you can bet that you are doomed.
    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
  • Mar 6th, 2017
    Someone from Los Angeles, CA writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    Title 5 would be great for technician across the board.
    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
  • Feb 15th, 2017
    Someone from Cheyenne, WY writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    Backfill for deploying Title 35 employees is generally expensive, disruptive and ineffective for the first 3-4 months while this temporary employee learns what is expected of him/her. Make the technician workforce Title 5, keep the experience in-house, don't force talent out because they served and were used/abused by their service and then thrown away (Med Board) by the Armed 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, Cancel
  • Feb 14th, 2017
    Someone from Douglasville, GA signed.
  • Feb 13th, 2017
    Someone from Topeka, KS signed.
  • Feb 10th, 2017
    Someone from West Hartford, CT signed.
  • Feb 10th, 2017
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Feb 9th, 2017
    Someone from Sioux Falls, SD writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    The current and expected future optempo of our National Guard makes the expectation of staying in the military until age 56-60 (normal civilian retirement eligibility) unrealistic. This is related to many of the other comments I have read. Because of this, many of our folks are being forced out of their full time positions even though they have served honorably for many years. It is the only situation I know of in which your full time job is contingent on you keeping a part time job and ironically, the requirements for the part-time job are often much more stringent. Add to that the fact that if you are released medically from the military, it automatically qualifies you to receive a civilian medical retirement even if you are fully medically qualified to perform the civilian job. Although this is necessary because of the circumstances, it amounts to a taxpayer ripoff. If you read the NGAUS counter to this, most of it has been addressed in the new 2017 NDAA and most of the rest is simply inaccurate. For example, a counterargument is that the governors have less personnel to respond to state emergencies. This is simply not true as nothing in this conversion has any effect on numbers of military members. Technicians are not activated as civilians, they are activated in their National Guard military capacity. If a technician retires from the military under this authority they will be replaced by another military (often younger and better able to handle the physical demands of an emergency) and that person will be subject to a call-up by the governor. Virtually all of the resistance to this is either from a misunderstanding of the truth or a misrepresentation of the truth.
    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
  • Feb 8th, 2017
    VM from Greenwood, MS writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    With the modern reduction of the armed forces and as a DS I am looking at least five years left in the Guard to hit my 20, only 10 on the FED side. I think it's unfair that I should have to worry about getting kicked out because I decided to serve my country for the full 20 years, follow orders and leave my family for deployments and worry if I my body can take it for another 20, which barely anybody will see 30+ years anymore unless you are a GO. It's a slap in the face for a dedicated workforce. I support 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, Cancel
  • Feb 6th, 2017
    Someone from Maple Shade, NJ writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    With due process long overdue, this modernization of the Federal Technician Workforce is beyond needed.
    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
  • Feb 6th, 2017
    from Somerset, NJ signed.
  • Feb 6th, 2017
    from Browns Mills, NJ signed.
  • Feb 5th, 2017
    Someone from Halethorpe, MD signed.
  • Feb 2nd, 2017
    Someone from Okeana, OH signed.
  • Feb 1st, 2017
    Someone from Wauseon, OH signed.
  • Jan 30th, 2017
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Jan 28th, 2017
    Someone from Hattiesburg, MS writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    After 20 years in the guard a lot of us would love to get out of guard and retain our fed tech job but we are being held hostage by the dual status handcuff. So we clog up slots that a younger man should have in the guard. Its a real incentive killer on both ends.
    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
  • Jan 25th, 2017
    Guillermo M. from Columbia, SC signed.
  • Jan 25th, 2017
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Jan 24th, 2017
    Someone from Blackstone, VA writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    DO NOT repeal!! Please extend to ALL title 32 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, Cancel
  • Jan 23rd, 2017
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Jan 20th, 2017
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Jan 20th, 2017
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Jan 19th, 2017
    john d. from Madison, TN writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    I strongly support title 5. I'm a supervisor being forced to non-retain a technician because an O6, who is located at JFHQ 2 hours away and does not directly supervise this airman, refuses to extend him. He meets every requirement of the USAF to serve. He can pass his PT test, has no DAV codes/medical problems, and is a superior performer. He is simply being non-retained because he has over 20 years technician service and 30 years military service. He is 55 years old. The maximum age for the military members without waivers is 60. I also support a moratorium on non-retention of technician forces who are fit for duty until this title 5 business is concluded by congress. i excluded my name for fear of reprisal within my state which has touted 100% officer membership in NGAUS for several 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, Cancel
  • Jan 19th, 2017
    John L. from Herriman, UT signed.
  • Jan 18th, 2017
    MICHELE H. from ALEXANDRIA, VA signed.
  • Jan 17th, 2017
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Jan 17th, 2017
    David M. from Columbia, SC signed.
  • Jan 13th, 2017
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Jan 9th, 2017
    David S. from Jackson, TN signed.
  • Jan 5th, 2017
    Someone from Lafayette, TN writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    This is for the good of the National Guard and greatly helps our older dual status service members, that when in their greying years they are not cast out into the streets, their lively hoods cut short, because they did not pass their PT test and were not able to keep up with the twenty year olds. Let us have a safe place where if we choose we can retire with dignity and respect with a full career not cut short by missing your mile and a half by 15 seconds or because of having bad knees and bones that bore the brunt of service in the defense of our nation for decades.
    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
  • Jan 5th, 2017
    Someone from Lafayette, TN writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    I support the conversion. It offers a way for older technicians to continue their civil service without fear of non-retention or unfavorable repercussions due to PT failure or medical issues. There are plenty of technicians who are in non-deploying positions and it wouldn't affect the mission to convert them. I would gladly do it so that I can do my job without the never-ending fear of being non-retained because I am getting older or the stress of one day being booted because I cannot pass my PT.
    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
  • Jan 4th, 2017
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Jan 2nd, 2017
    ABBY N. from Christiansted, VI writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    I support Section 1053
    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
  • Jan 1st, 2017
    Someone from Lacey, WA writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    So many great points in all comments posted. Adding my support in brief.
    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
  • Dec 30th, 2016
    allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
  • Dec 27th, 2016
    Someone from Gore, VA writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    I agree that NGAUS is clearly not concerned about all of its members or they would support the Title 5 positions. NGB need to support this also. Bottom line is the AG for each state will not have control over the person.
    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