GovernmentExecutive.com

COMMENTS

• Here’s another fact: the sky is blue. What does this have to do with retirement? The same thing arrest totals have to do with it -- nothing. 6c means something as that law is why inspectors haven’t been reclassified. I also refer to previous comments that explain the criteria for meeting 6c coverage, which does not include arrest totals or any other activities noted in your post. Some jails claim an arrest stat every time another agency dumps a body off to be housed, so I believe the setting makes a difference. This again has nothing to do with 6c coverage. I’ve also explained that cops not doing investigations means nothing seeing as they aren’t covered by 6c. Again, a new law is needed. One problem is that while I was a Customs inspector, I heard certain colleagues who berated the agents and whined about how they had been wrongfully turned down for the job. I was “educated” by many of these colleagues about the details of the job of an agent. I later became an agent and realized these former colleagues were full of crap. By all means make a job comparison. I don’t need you to seeing as I have been an inspector, but please don’t say I wouldn’t want you to. There’s no mystery about the job of an inspector to me, which should be obvious seeing as I was one. I also didn’t make the “tollbooths” comment, although I spent many hours in a “little tollbooth” while I was an inspector and am not afraid to admit it. Perhaps it was different a quarter century ago, but civil fraud cases make up such a miniscule amount of our investigations that I don’t know any colleague I work with or keep in touch with who spends even a portion of his time working them. Very few agents in my office (probably less than 10 percent) have ever worked such a case. How are you therefore qualified to discuss how much time agents spend doing non-criminal work when you have never been one? You obviously didn’t get an accurate understanding elsewhere as your comments prove you are out of the loop. GovExec.com reader Posted September 17, 2006 7:26 PM
• Again, I feel compelled to comment. I am the writer of the first and fifth articles from the postings. Apparently there are many commenters. Go back and re-read my posts. If you will note I never compared our job to another nor did I say that our job can be dangerous. You are receiving comments from many individuals. I merely provided facts. Here is another one. Customs Inspectors have made more arrests than any other law enforcement agency. I don't care if they were made in an airport setting. Should others care? Isn't that apprehension! Apprehension leads to detention. The letters 6c mean nothing. What counts are the benefits bestowed by that title. You really wouldn't want me to make job comparisons. Others did, but not me. Mentioning a comparison that street cops don't spend their tours in little booths are the type of comments that caused my remarks. It brings thoughts that most fraud investigations (the backbone of Customs investigations for quite some time)are not prosecuted criminally but in civil court or by the administration of civil penalties. I mentioned this merely to note that special agents spend much time outside the realm of criminal investigations. As for the comment regarding out of shape CBP officers, the commentor should look at some among his own ranks. The job of inspector changed drastically beginning in the late 1970's when inspectors were required to carry weapons. Just like everything changes as was the case when Customs Special Agents were given 6c status. I concede that investigations require a higher grade. I emphasized in my writings that we do not seek a higher grade. We seek fairness based on job conditions from which you were long ago removed. Do you feel this would harm you in any way? It is puzzling why you would immerse yourself in our battle when it does you no harm. Need we continue with this. You should look at all the others covered under Title V. GovExec.com reader Posted August 24, 2006 10:15 AM
• There is nothing new under the sun. This issue has been kicking around for over 30 years. I don't see it happening in the lifetime of any current employee. It would have happened by now. Also, included in this, are IRS employees whose duties were collecting delinquent taxes and securing delinquent returns. Revenue Officers. These are the last people that I would expect to get this. Years ago, Revenue officers conducted many seizures of property, such as, cars, real estate, ect. Seizures would be the action that would most likely generate confrontation resulting in the danger to a Revenue Officer. The authority to make seizures has for all intents and purposes been reduced to virtually nil. Starting with the GM leasing case in 1977 which required a writ of entry, followed by a court decision prohibiting "no equity" seizures, and culminating with RRA 98 which provided a taxpayer with so many rights and avenues of appeals it would make your head spin, as well as prohibiting by law all no equity seizures, there is virtually no basis for law enforcement and 20 year age 50 retirement status. When I started in 1971, initial contacts were always field calls. With all the notice requirements prior to enforcement and 3rd party contact after RRA 98, any Revenue Officer would issue these letters first, and in many cases, these would result in a response by phone from the taxpayer. In short, if there was any danger to a Revenue Officer before (and there was some), there is virtually none now. Most of the taxpayers we deal with are also heavily insulated by Powers of Attorney, and is coded as such on the computer, and little or no contact is made with the taxpayer himself (or herself). The greatest danger is getting hit by a car going to coffee or lunch. GovExec.com reader Posted August 23, 2006 11:30 PM