Stop the Title 5 Repeal!
Public Comments (592)
-
Dec 27th, 2016Someone from Scott, AR writes:
Making this change in my opion will not affect organizations as much as they are trying to say. I am already considered a MDay Soldier and being Title 5 will not change that. If you need Soldiers for State Active Duty mission usually the first one called are the MDay Soldiers who are not full time anyway. Just because you would not be in uniform during the work week doesn't stop you from being a Soldier. -
Dec 21st, 2016Someone from North Highlands, CA signed.
Dec 21st, 2016from Saint Joseph, MO writes:
When a good part of your full time force is a day away from being medically discharged, "non-retained", close to retirement age, or mandatory deployment, this conversion seems like the most logical thing to do to keep the knowledge and maintain mission readiness. It also benefits the traditional workforce as it frees up a lot of top rank. So instead of them being "staff-sergeant for life", there will be many opportunities for upward mobility. To repeal this act helps no one except the bureaucrats fighting against it.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, CancelDec 20th, 2016Someone from Saint Joseph, MO writes:
NGAUS is clearly not concerned about all of its members. Glad I stopped paying dues.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, CancelDec 20th, 2016Someone from Saint Joseph, MO writes:
This needs to be passed and finalized. Stop NGB from dragging its feet. Technicians are expected to work all kinds of overtime and on call when off duty without being properly compensated.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, CancelDec 19th, 2016Someone from Hermitage, TN signed.
Dec 19th, 2016Someone from Rapid City, SD writes:
We deserve protection from loss of employment due to forced retirment, or medical disqualification. This needs to happen for all title 32 technicians, not just administrative. Title 32 program blocks career progression for traditional guard.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, CancelDec 17th, 2016allen m. from sparks, NV signed.
Dec 16th, 2016allen m. from sparks, NV writes:
This needs to happen already and quit being pushed back. Good employees will lose their jobs because they get retired from 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, CancelDec 15th, 2016Carrie N. from Lansing, OH signed.
Dec 15th, 2016Someone from Lansing, OH signed.
Dec 13th, 2016COL Dave H. from Williamsburg, VA signed.
Dec 12th, 2016David W. from Elgin, SC signed.
Dec 8th, 2016Someone from Cadott, WI signed.
Dec 8th, 2016Someone from Necedah, WI signed.
Dec 7th, 2016Someone from Ettrick, WI signed.
Dec 7th, 2016from Madison, WI writes:
Title 32 was initiated for "maintenance and repairing of NG equipment". This has been soooo abused by AG's. They can take these positions and use them as they see fit. Less then half of Title 32 employees are in the job of "maintaining equipment". They are "created" positions for HQ staff, mostly consisting of high level, high salary positions. This highly abused power needs to be removed from AG's, and have some oversight. If conversion to Title 5 is the answer, so be it. 2 downsides though: 1-no more Military Leave, and 2-no more "early disability retirement".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, CancelDec 7th, 2016Eric R. from Alma Center, WI writes:
Change is long overdue! A new DST has an extremely low chance of reaching retirement age under the current ties with military membership.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, CancelDec 6th, 2016John V. from Benton, AR writes:
We get abused, I feel demoralized holding to the same standards without benefits as active soldiers. I'm not treated like a soldier. The work environment tends to be hostile.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, CancelDec 6th, 2016Verona J. from Cave Junction, OR signed.
Dec 5th, 2016allen m. from Sparks, NV signed.
Dec 3rd, 2016Robert J. (COL retired) K. from Buckhannon, WV writes:
As a retired military Title 32 Technician, Active Army Officer and Traditional Guardsman I am proud of the National Guard for it's contribution to the support of the nation and their respective states, but it is time for a change. The Title 32 "Dual Status" program is out of date and needs changed. Politics plays too much of an extreme role in the longevity of these young men and woman. I highly encourage our Congressional delegations to implement the Title 5 conversion now, do not delay. The title 32 program is outdated and needs eliminated. This conversion will not only strengthen the support to the Guard for their federal mission it will eliminate the unwarranted dual status our young families are subjected to on a daily basis.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, CancelDec 3rd, 2016Barbara K. from Buckhannon, WV writes:
Based on my experience as a mother of two federal technicians under the Title 32 program I highly encourage our Congressional delegation. To implement the Title 5 conversion for these young patriots. The double standard is cumbersome nerse and unfair for family members. It is definitely time for a change.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, CancelDec 1st, 2016Someone from Buckhannon, WV writes:
I have been in Title 32 for 16yrs and Army National Guard for almost 21yrs, I have deployed and enjoyed my guard life but with 21yrs of the Army its a scary feeling that if they choose not to keep me in the guard anymore that I would lose my technician job, for not being retained in the military (which is Happening a lot) anymore and that's a scary thought for me and my family, as for losing readiness or state emergency ill be honest when state emergency's comes up we are the last to be asked they ask their M-day soldiers. I would like to know that my life as a technician is no longer at jeopardy because of my military career. Please let the title 5 conversion take effect it would be so wonderful.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, CancelNov 29th, 2016Someone from Helena, MT writes:
It seems to me that some "middle ground" could be found here? In order to appease both sides of the argument. How about a 20 \ 20 plan. 20 years in the military and 20 years as a dual status technician, the incumbent gets to convert if he \ she wants to? It's a way to get the "ball rolling". New hires are all 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, CancelNov 20th, 2016Eric B. from Romeoville, IL signed.
Nov 17th, 2016allen m. from Sparks, NV writes:
Too many qualified individuals are lost due to being non-retained at retention boards and unable to keep their jobs. Most technician jobs require a minimum of E5 to qualify for and we are unable to reach full federal retirement age before being forced out of the guard. Wearing a uniform has no benefit at all to the technician force and only serves to let AGR's attempt to force tasks on us that is illegal.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, CancelNov 16th, 2016Jose H. from Santa Maria, CA writes:
It is time that our country take care of our Soldiers that have risked and done so much for us to be given the chance to have their position changed to title 5 and have the same rights as anyone else. One is not doing our nation a favor by getting rid of Soldiers that are the experts in the field when they retire. I am tired of seeing all the good people leave. Its time for change!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, CancelNov 16th, 2016Someone from Memphis, TN signed.
Nov 10th, 2016Someone from J B P H H, HI writes:
Don't allow repeal of law, system is outdated, and should have been improved years ago from a train, and maintain force, to a full blown operational force (Total Force Integration wth Active Duty). Personally I prefer they move technicians into the law enforcement/fireman retirement system (25 yr retirement) it would definitely fit in todays environment, but hey Title 5 is fine...and its about time.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, CancelNov 8th, 2016Someone from Bolingbrook, IL signed.
Nov 7th, 2016David W. from Long Prairie, MN signed.
Nov 6th, 2016Someone from Austin, TX signed.
Nov 2nd, 2016Reinaldo C. from Barranquitas, PR signed.
Nov 1st, 2016John B. from Las Vegas, NV signed.
Oct 31st, 2016Someone from Albuquerque, NM writes:
I became a technician later in my military life. I will reach my 20 way before even touching the retirement age or being close to it on the technician side. We get paid far less then ADOS and AGR for doing the same job. The program is outdated and it is due for a change to be able modernize.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 30th, 2016Someone from Dauphin, PA writes:
It is time for the technician force to be title 5 where applicable. It has been far too long that we are treated as AGR Soldiers and not afforded the benefits of or being one. We deserve the proper respect and representation that our union cannot offer right now because of the hierarchy we fall under. As an expecting mother being allowed to take 12 weeks off WITHOUT PAY is unconscionable while expecting mothers that are AGR are afforded the same twelve weeks off WITH PAY and benefits and accruing time off is unbelievable. It is impossible for me (or anyone for that matter) to take the time off from work as needed to stay home with my new child or if there is a family emergency and not be covered. I, like many families, am the only income in my household and this is just not feasible. We need to be converted to title 5 in order to better perform our duties and be able to communicate equally with those entities we deal with in order to make the mission happen and take care of Soldiers and also be able to take care of our families.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 30th, 2016Someone from Reading, PA signed.
Oct 27th, 2016Someone from Elgin, SC signed.
Oct 27th, 2016Someone from Salem, OR writes:
Don't allow them to delay a well thought out program and much needed change. It all about power and nothing about readiness or the health of the guard employee 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, Cancel
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.