Return to Article: Senators take new stab at redefining law officer jobs
-
18745
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.
-
18424
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.
-
18406
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.
-
18169
As for 6c retirement specifically, I am aware that the phrase, "conducts investigations," has been used as an excuse to deny that status. I think you know as well as I do that this phrase is an easy excuse to avoid the issue. But the law does specify primary responsibilities that include investigation, apprehension (which is probably how Border Patrol gets 6c), or detention (which is limited to four specific groups in the law) of individuals relating to U.S. criminal laws. It doesn't state, "carrying a firearm, possessing arrest authority, or testifying in court." So perhaps a new retirement system for CBP officers will have to fall under some type of coverage other than 6c, in which there are other considerations seeing as the retirement would have to be due to something other than investigation, apprehension or detention.
The point that street cops don't do investigations, which I do understand, is totally meaningless in making a case for better retirement for CBP given the extreme job differences and the fact that retirement systems for street cops are not due to 6c coverage. You can say that danger is not always quantifiable, but comparing rates of injuries and deaths absolutely does provide meaningful and telling information. If danger isn't a consideration, why did you bother arguing that a CBP officer's job can be dangerous just like a police officer's? And why did you point out some cases you know where CBP officers on the border have been exposed to dangerous situations?
I agree that some type of better retirement system would take care of the problem of geriatric inspectors. That's a solid argument, unlike the other ones (street cops don't do investigations either, CBP's job can be dangerous just like the job of street cops, add-ons besides arrest authority and carrying a firearm are of lesser consideration, etc.).
-
18100
Again, Mr. DHS missed my point! The phrase "conducts investigations" has been used for several decades to deny LEO status to ex-Customs/INS inspectors. Not the danger factor, not age, but that one phrase. But historically inspectors have exercised and been responsible for most LEO functions. Who detains and gains initial custody of millions of dollars of narcotics? Who testifies in federal court? Who is obliged to qualify four times per year with an agency issued firearm? Danger is a variable not always quantifiable. As I understand it, the reason given for 6c status was "to have a young and vigorous workforce" based on the needs of the job. Of course you don't need geriatric inspectors. Well, 6c would take care of that based on the age and fitness for duty regulations. Any other problems?
-
17964
Any insinuation that our comments were mean-spirited, vindictive, or were posted for "unknown reasons" is just plain ridiculous. Go back and re-read those posts. Exactly which portions of those posts are vindictive? It was one of the inspectors who referred to agents as "elite" and "arrogant," not the other way around. Those comments are coming from people who were also Customs inspectors like yourselves and have performed both jobs, so if the comments are insulting (which they clearly are not), then we must have also insulted ourselves.
It's true that street cops don't do investigations nor do inspectors, but the jobs entail a bit more than that. Stating that inspectors deserve 20-year retirement because street cops get it without performing investigations implies that investigations are the only factor that matters to retirement. The level of complexity of the work involved is also an issue. Hazard is also a consideration, and although anyone including school teachers can point to incidents of danger that have happened to someone else in their field, the ultimate reality is that overall, the danger posed to an inspector is in a different ballpark than that posed to a uniformed officer.
Yes, even though both can be dangerous, one poses a significantly higher incidence of danger than the other. I don't think you want to get into comparing actual statistics of injuries and/or deaths of police officers versus those of CBP officers. I am also aware that an inspector stopped the 20th hijacker (although not the first 19) and inspectors have achieved other great successes, as would be expected as the first and last line of presence in the United States. But it is not a list of exceptional circumstances that define what a job truly entails. It is the overall picture of what most employees can expect to deal with during their careers. The record does indeed speak.
Again, I agree that something has to be done to improve the retirement system for inspectors to prevent senior citizens from manning our nation's borders. But attempting to exaggerate the dangers of the job by pointing out exceptional circumstances or limit the issue to only being a matter of conducting investigations is not the way to go.
-
17961
"...your comments are stale, mean-spirited, and vindictive."
And, unfortunately, in far too many cases, true! Although I have worked with many fine Customs inspectors and CBP officers who were great at what they did, and probably deserved LEO status, I have also worked with those who were alcoholics; over 70 years old; legally blind; grossly overweight; or just not very smart. While I know you can't paint everyone with the same brush, if CBP wants LEO status, it had better weed out the unfit and unqualified from its ranks, before seeking this status for all of its officers. When and if that is done, then I'll be happy to welcome the rest of you as fellow LEOs.
-
17925
For unknown reasons two previous commentators found it necessary to derogate our qualifications for LEO status. As fellow Americans and co-workers in DHS we are all working to protect America from terrorists. I find their comments unjust. We are not trying to compare our work with others. If such comparisons were used most special agents would lack LEO status. A few raids a year does not qualify one as a LEO. The street cop is the only true LEO. Apparently the commentators are unaware that it was a CBP officer who stopped the 20th hijacker, a CBP officer who stopped a suicide bomber and a Custom Inspector who stopped the explosive carrying terrorist at the Canadian border. The record speaks. How many agents have been fired upon as has been the case numerous times on the border. Whatever your motive your comments are stale, mean spirited and vindictive.
-
17922
Sorry, Mr. DHS, but you missed my point, which was simply that uniformed police officers don't do investigations, as detectives do, period. Of course a police officer's job is different than a CBP inspector. But guess what, both can be dangerous. I have friends on the land border with Mexico, and they have been involved with shootings, stabbings and all the rest. I've also seen cops who haven't done anything more dangerous than fall out of a swivel chair. So what? LEO powers generally confer upon the officer the legal authority of arrest and the need to carry a firearm in performance of their duties. Any other add-ons are just related to the needs of the job.
-
17829
99.9 percent of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations special agents' duties consist of non-custodial interviews with cooperative witnesses and document reviews of regulatory violations. They do not have criminal investigative authority, arrest powers or carry weapons, and only one OI Special Agent was deputized in some twenty years. Because of their improper classification, GS-1811-13/14/15, they get premium pay, early retirement, 25 percent availability pay, and, unlike at other agencies, consider the first two hours at home as their qualifying time for availability pay!
Never before have federal investigators done so little for so much.
The basic issue is that a group of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) employees have obtained criminal investigator job classifications which are not warranted by their positions, which involve only civil investigations of "wrongdoing," defined as an "intentional violation of regulatory requirements or a violation resulting from careless disregard of, or reckless indifference to, regulatory requirements." This was done through an eight-year (09/75 - 05/84) exchange of letters with the Civil Service Commission and its successor, the Office of Personnel Management.
The result: The above employees improperly obtained early, 20 year retirement, a more favorable retirement package, and 25 percent more salary. A very conservative analysis puts the value of these unjustified benefits at $640,000 per year; this has gone on for some 23 years.
-
17820
The writer who stated that this has been ongoing for over 30 years is quite correct.
-
17817
As a former Customs inspector myself, I agree that something has to be done about limiting the age at which current CBP officers can be employed. The days of hiring (or even employing) employees at the age of 65 or 70 have to stop, as this is utterly ridiculous. We don't need grandpa manning the nation's ports of entry.
On the other hand, comparing inspectors to uniformed officers is not the way to go, as there really isn't a comparison. Inspectors don't kick in doors or assist in warrants as do police officers (with the possible exception of canine officers, who always wait until after the entry has been made before going in), they don't encounter vehicles and individuals alone on the street, and they don't get involved in high-speed chases. Virtually all encounters are made at ports of entry, in which individuals are far less likely to be a problem given the fact that they know they will be examined while entering/exiting the country. This is especially true at airports where individuals aren't even allowed to board planes without first going through a metal detector and TSA exam. Border Patrol officers, on the other hand, who do get the 6C coverage, often do experience the same types of situations as police officers. But the risk to a police officer is exponentially higher than the risk to an inspector. I know, because I was one. The fact that both police officers and inspectors wear uniforms and carry guns does not classify them as being the same.
-
17805
I am grateful to those in Congress who are attempting to push for fairness with the introduction of this bill. I do want to correct a misconception that is perpetrated by this article. The figure of $22,000 annual increase in retirement benefits is grossly out of line. The figure is more on the order of $7,000 annually. AFGE should review its calculations. One must bear in mind that this bill (H.R. 1002) doesn't provide for a higher graded position and the higher salaries that normally come with the investigative duties; it merely grants a system designed to enhance retirement benefits but still calculates retirement benefits using the lower pay grades that these officers receive throughout their careers. I hope Congress will realize that they are not giving away the store as the article would lead one to believe.
-
17783
Street cops also don't spend their tours of duty checking passports in little booths! I too was a Customs inspector who left that job in the 1980s for an 1811 position, because it wasn't considered a real law enforcement job. While I sympathize with my former colleagues, I have to disagree. Although I wore a uniform and carried a badge, I wasn't allowed to carry a firearm unless I worked on CET, worked overtime on the piers, or boarded a vessel after normal working hours or on a weekend. At the airport, I couldn't carry at all. I collected duty on imported merchandise, and did manual labor searching suitcases or stripping containers searching for contraband. I was discouraged from taking law enforcement action by ancient bosses who preferred liquid lunches to police work. Many of my colleagues were horrified by the prospect of carrying a gun, let alone making an arrest, and considered themselves to be glorified clerks. Others were over 70 years old, and way out of shape, both mentally and physically. And people wonder why they don't have law enforcement retirement benefits, like 1811s? Now with CBP, I understand things are even worse, at least at the airports and seaports. The land borders are more dangerous by nature, and an entirely different job. Be careful what you wish for! 20-year retirement sounds great, but will you become non-bargaining unit like us, and subject to PCS moves, a different overtime system, and other things you currently don't have to deal with.
-
17777
This is not an issue that federal unions have worked on "for a decade." I know from personal experience that it has been an issue for far longer than that. I was a chief steward of the NTEU back in the early 1970s, when NTEU was working to make Customs Inspectors "law enforcement," and it was not a new issue then. I know it goes back to before 1969, which is when I became a Customs Inspector. It's thirty-seven years later and the battle still goes on.
-
17771
Hopefully with a bill in the House and Senate we can get someone to push this through. We are losing way too many good people to 6c covered positions and can't afford to lose many more. Border security is lacking due to losing the good officers and keeping the dead weight. Something needs to change to retain these people.
-
17770
Uniformed officers in the old Customs Service (like myself) interviewed passengers, conducted pat-downs and strip searches, manned the narcotics elimination, testified in federal courts, and did everything necessary to qualify for LEO status except conduct investigations. Why have these officers not been rightfully reclassified? Simple: The elitist Special Agents have fought for many years to deny this status because of arrogance and the misperception that this inclusion would somehow take away their cache!! Go figure. Take out that stupid phrase and include the many uniformed federal officers who have earned the LEO title. Street cops don't do investigations, yet they get the 20 year bill.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.