TOPICS
TOPICS
Tenure no longer a factor in senior execs' annual leave
The Office of Personnel Management last week made permanent a new rule providing all federal executives with about five weeks of annual leave each year, regardless of how long they have worked in government.
In an Oct. 19 Federal Register notice, OPM published final regulations giving every member of the Senior Executive Service and equivalent senior scientific or professional positions one day off for every two weeks worked.
Traditionally, federal employees have accrued more annual leave the longer they have served in government. Until interim regulations took effect in October 2004, senior executives with three years or less of service earned 13 days off, those with three to 15 years earned 20, and those with more than 15 years earned 26 days of annual leave a year. That system still stands for the lower ranks of federal employees.
The rule change for executives was prompted by the 2004 Federal Workforce Flexibility Act and seeks to ease recruitment for employees who do not spend their entire careers in government.
"We believe this additional leave benefit will assist agencies in recruiting mid-career individuals, who may be hesitant to enter federal service if they have to surrender a considerable amount of personal or vacation time without an opportunity to accrue additional paid time off in a timely manner," the regulations state.
In addition to members of the SES, OPM included in the new rules the Senior Foreign Service, the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service, the Senior Cryptologic Executive Service, the FBI's Senior Executive Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration Senior Executive Service and the Senior Intelligence Service.
Annual leave in the federal service accrues incrementally as employees work. Senior executives can carry up to 90 days of annual leave over to the next calendar year; other employees can transfer 30 days.
COMMENTS
- Perhaps I’m a day late and a dollar short, but I have two comments: First, if I may digress from the topic to the discussion. I must agree with “Contract Specialist Intern” about the ease in blaming the mysterious and misunderstood. The minuscule training I’ve had in college (business law and some minor governmental courses) and my own observations have led me to believe that a contractor, with full intentions of doing right, may have difficulty complying with a government contract. Oh yes, there are scoundrels and scallywags about, but I can not blame the majority; perhaps from naiveté or hope and faith in my fellow Americans. In our field we teach (and I have performed) interviewing techniques. Often a “customer” (this time i.e. the government) will have a need, has normally done some research, and perhaps a possible solution. That does not mean it is the best, most economical, legally correct, or available solution. The interviewer must determine what the best solution is. When marrying up any two diverse disciplines such as automation, supply, or major weapons systems with the law, there will always be discrepancies; and the amount of money of which we speak can make or break careers. So saying, if you need a specialist (particularly in contract law), find one! And now (second), back to the topic: Does anyone know the stats on these SES receiving this largess? What percent have been in one to three years? Four to 15 years? Sixteen or more? What’s the total number of SES? Only with these figures can we determine/calculate the cost, and perhaps the degree of equity. Tip off. GovExec.com reader Posted November 28, 2006 10:17 AM
- Taxpayer, I have been around this board for several years, and you have made a number of complaints about military members getting more benefits than civil servants. I suppose it would have been more accurate to say you were anti-active duty. I am a veteran myself, and although an intern in this field, I have over 17 years of civil service. The thing I have come to learn about contracting is, it’s easy to blame contracting when the process, rules, and laws are not understood. In truth, I have seen program managers and engineers come running to us as their existing contract is about to expire, begging us to put them first. I saw one project come through in September, end of the year rush, PM screaming to get it awarded. He had the funding and the statement of work since June. Then he wanted us to sidestep the laws to get it done, because his boss was screaming at him. We are required to have a lot of technical training, and smart commands send their PMs and engineers at least to some of the basic Level I courses so they can better understand the process. GovExec.com reader Posted November 14, 2006 1:00 PM
- Contract Specialist Intern, Your comment that I am anti-military and now anti-contracting is so bad it is a wonder you’re in your position. If someone wants the function to be structured and operate correctly, you think that is anti! You are so wrong! I went to work for the military because I believe our military is outstanding in terms of the people involved; however, they are poorly managed and do not set priorities properly for the current world. Their entire pay and benefit structure is designed around the old days of the draft and needs to be totally revised to fit the volunteer nature of the military today! You support me in that the contracting people want to dot the i's and cross the t's because they can go to jail. But that still does not excuse them from being a useful part of the team and they should become more involved in getting things done instead of after the fact holding everything up. I am not anti-contracting I just think that contracting should help and not just hinder. Taxpayer Posted November 7, 2006 7:40 AM
