Return to Article: Bipartisan panel urges agencies to order civilians to Iraq
-
21272
A recent Army job announcement says, "Position may be designated Emergency Essential (E-E) in support of mobilization and wartime mission. If designated E-E, employee will be required to remain in the overseas position in the event of hostilities or mobilization until relieved by proper authority. E-E employees are required to undergo nuclear-biological and chemical training and to participate in readiness tests, mobilization, alerts, and field training exercises. Employee must pass a medical examination and receive required immunizations for the overseas/deployed location. Prior to appointment to the position, employee will sign a statement agreeing to the E-E condition of employment. ** All INSCOM employees may be subject to extended TDY or worldwide deployments during crisis situations to perform mission essential functions as determined by management. ** Must be willing to relocate with the ESC to locations within Europe. ** Must successfully pass a pre-employment counterintelligence scope polygraph examination and re-examination on a periodic basis.** Must be able to obtain and maintain a TOP SECRET/SCI clearance. ** May be required to work irregular or prolonged shifts."
-
21090
When I got my Civil Service job in 2005 they made me sign a form saying I'm not subject to military call up. The position description said it was "emergency essential" and I'd be subject to deployment or call up on condition of accepting the job.
Now they are saying I'm only "key" and not "emergency essential." "Emergency essential" are entitled to benefits while "key" Civil Servants are not entitled to benefits and by labeling them "key" it says they could be deployed if need be. Pretty smart 'eh?
I transport Nuclear and Conventional Weapons for the US Armed Forces and am supposed to be getting paid Environmental Differential Pay for this hazardous work. They ain't paying it. I wish they would contract my job out soon....at least then I could sue my employer or go to the Department of Labor and force them to pay me the Federal mandated entitlement.
We have Civil Servants here quitting. Does anyone remember the days when US Civil Service jobs were envied for their retirements and benefits? Not anymore. Their retirement now is their social security checks. Thus why they aren't keeping folks in the jobs under the new system.
-
20477
There are many Civil Service Army Materiel Command (AMC) logisticians serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of their job requirement. As a term of their employment, they voluntarily sign Emergency Essential (EE) agreements when hired. Ironically, they often supervise contractors who gross up to twice as much pay. On top of that, federal employees are denied tax benefits provided to contractors and military members serving in the same war zone. Of the three mentioned categories of Americans in Iraq, civil service employees are the only ones required to pay taxes for wages earned while in a war zone. Soldiers and contractors are tax exempt for the first $85,000.00 of their annual earnings if they meet the annual time requirements established by the IRS. There are procedures that allow AMC civil servants to carry weapons. If the employee requests to carry a weapon he or she initiates a request through their command. The process is a bit lengthy but does work. If approved, the employee is authorized to carry a weapon in the assigned war zone.
-
20193
Guardsman/Civil Servant,
I hope that the "we" (military) versus "them" (civilians) of your commentary can be put away. Read the responses and you will see that there are civilians serving (shoulder to shoulder) not only in Iraq but in all of the hot spots of today and in the past. They are or have served on the ground, on the water, in the air and now even through your space satellite support systems.
That the federal civilian workforce has to look for any means it can grasp to secure a modest increase from those in charge is to be sympathized with rather than be ridiculed. Congress passed in 1990 the Federal Pay Comparability Act and it has never been followed. Administration after administration has used the loop hole to avoid granting the raises that they were informed of as being necessary to close the public/private pay gap. So civilians have to grasp at any meaningful straws they can obtain to fight for a modest, meaningful increase. That they call upon comparable pay percent increases with military pay increases is not the straw of their choosing. It really is about the only straw they have.
For me, having served on active duty for 27 years and now nearly 15 years as a federal civilian, I (and you) know the differences in pay received and the advantage goes to the military. I believe most civilians do not begrudge you your pay so please do not throw it in their faces if they have to fight for a little for themselves and their families and do not try to confuse that issue with being ordered to Iraq! There is no relationship, and if more civilian servants are needed in Iraq (voluntarily), then the incentives should be there to encourage such.
-
20174
Guardsman,
You know full well those references to working side-by-side with uniformed personnel referred to working side-by-side in an office. No one would deny uniformed personnel actually in harm's way deserve just compensation.
-
20141
Issue me a weapon or let me take my own and I have no problem going to Iraq. I repeat "Read my lips, I will be armed" no ifs, ands, or buts -- end of discussion.
-
20132
This story has completely shaken my confidence in the value of the Baker report. The short-sightedness of this recommendation is breathtaking, for the reasons well-put in the other comments. The bipartisan group has clearly found common ground in its contempt for the civilian workforce.
-
20113
The last time I was ordered to a war zone was Vietnam. I had enlisted in military service, wore a uniform, and expected to go. None of these conditions apply in my current civil service status.
Given the fact that the lessons of Vietnam have not been learned, or have been forgotten, I don't see myself marching off to another failed conflict. How long before we see choppers making a last ditch effort to evacuate civilians from the Green Zone, as they did from the rooftop of the U.S. embassy in Saigon? Some of us still remember those images all too vividly.
-
20103
I had heard years ago that agencies could not order civilian workers to go overseas, and such assignments were voluntary in nature. I worked for Treasury and now DHS. I don't know if the Defense Department is different, but am I correct on this, or not? If anyone knows for sure, please let me know!
-
20091
Still stuck on stupid.
-
20087
Wow, what happened to all those folks who complained about the military pay raises over the last couple of years (as compared to the civil service pay raise). You all said you work side by side with the military and should receive the same pay increases. Well, here's your chance to put your money where you your mouth is!
Guardsman/Civil Servant
-
20071
The very first civilian ordered to Iraq should be President Bush, to head the government there. Then all the political appointees should follow soon after. Anyone who orders civilians to a war zone should be executed for treason!
-
20070
With 12 years of service to my organization whose number one mission is support of GWOT, I have little support from my home office during my tour of duty in Iraq. Maybe the reason we do not have volunteers is because volunteering will have negative impacts on your career. Would being a directed employee instead of a volunteer employee eliminate the negative impacts on the person? There is little to no recognition of the individual (no performance awards) and the home district does not recognize your contribution to the organization. Before directing employees to support GWOT, examine why the pool of volunteers is so small and address those issues.
-
20069
I am near end of my civil service career after having been an Army Civilian Engineer for 30-plus years. In order for me to volunteer to serve here for the Rebuilding Program and actually get here -- I had to "sneak in the back door" with personal contacts. It seems because I am in the DCIPS (Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System), I automatically become "disqualified" for deployed service in any of the USACE (Corps of Engineers) temporary positions in Iraq or Afghanistan. How can they be serious about recruiting volunteers when they automatically disqualify the thousands of engineers employed in the Defense Intelligence Agencies? Also service in Iraq or Afghanistan seems to be the key to career oblivion when returning to former domestic positions and facing civilian management retribution for the extended vacation.
-
20055
These people have got to be out of their minds! What is the purpose of sending civilian employees into a war zone? To do what? Give the enemy another target to shoot at? Will the civilian employee be issued weapons and protective gear or will they have to purchase their own, like office supplies? Will the civilian employee be offered the $400,000 life insurance coverage like the military? What does the American embassy in Iraq look like these days -- the 104-acre compound? Until the Iraq citizens and clergy step up and take responsibility of their own country, please don't send us. We all have a purpose on this earth and I don't think mine is to work in a country where a religious cult despises my very existence of being an American.
-
20053
Have them sign the dotted line like the military and issue them a uniform. Sounds like they have enlisted, like it or not.
-
20049
I have written at this Web site and other Web sites stating that the whole purpose of NSPS was to make it possible for the administration to treat civilians as "civilian soldiers." All those personnel under NSPS are now trapped. If they refuse to go to Iraq they can be fired. That's why the NSPS regulations allow the administration to move personnel wherever necessary, under the guise of national security. It was also one of the reasons the administration wanted NSPS. Government civilians used to have rights and the unions used to be able to protect us. NSPS will change all that and allow the administration to send us to our deaths. I served my time in the military (voluntarily) -- now they want to force me to serve in a war that stupid Bush started. He can't even admit he screwed up. Bush will continue to fight the war in Iraq until every one of our soldiers is dead. Once all our soldiers are dead he will send civilians to do his bidding. Bush will continue to send Americans to their death until he is the only one left, then he will withdraw!
Un-Civil Servant
-
20045
Hold the phone. At some point in time the study group should have talked to some of the 5,000 plus federal employees who have served, or are serving in a theater of operations as part of their jobs as federal employees. Most of whom have volunteered, and some who have served more than one tour.
I also believe, at least from my read, the study group's concern was with employees who had secondary language skills. In their quests for personnel reforms, some agencies forgot about making sure the current workforce was funded to a level and provided the training needed for just such an event.
I recall statements made during the "meet and confer" process on NSPS that the Defense Department wanted the capability to deploy any civilian employee, anywhere on the globe, within seven days notice. The Defense Department has not lacked for volunteers in meeting these obligations and its federal employees have served honorably.
The study group should have asked a worker from DCAA, DCMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, DLA, and scores of other organizations with missions in Iraq.
-
20022
What am I missing here? Better yet, what are those who are in charge missing?
Probably nothing. Government contractors seem to be able to "rake in" willing and capable people to perform in Iraq. But then, they pay their people a load of money which has few or no tax obligations. The study group says "order" the government civilians over and have a little mercy on them by allowing some tax relief too. So if a civilian is ordered and refuses to go, will he or she then be thrown into the brig or be forced to retire or resign?
-
20018
OK, now with approximately 50 percent of the federal workforce soon eligible for retirement and the high concerns for hiring and retaining federal employees how would ordering civilians to go to Iraq going to help the situation? If anything, it will deter new employees from wanting to work for the government, and expedite the decision of those near retirement to do so sooner. Then you would an even smaller federal workforce. Or is the real intention behind this?
By the way, even though it was ridiculous as it was originally stated, wasn't it someone who recently said, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Well, it doesn't look like studying, doing homework, or being smart is going to keep you from being stuck in Iraq.
-
20015
"The nature of the mission in Iraq is unfamiliar and dangerous." Yet the very people that protect the civilians (who may not carry a weapon) are going to be shifting out of country! Are you crazy! How can anyone in one breath state it is dangerous, grave, deteriorating and then ask civilians to serve without protection. The U.S. soldier is our protection! If you want civilian expertise then I would suggest someone figure out how you're going to protect our bottoms!
-
20012
I'd go in a heartbeat. It has nothing to do with serving the troops or being patriotic. I like to think that maybe I can help improve the infrastructure or education of the locals. Put me on camels or horses, place books in pouches on their backs and off I go. Just one thing though, I want body armor, a 9mm and a box of water with me at all times. So, Secretary Gates, when can I expect my call?
-
20008
Ordering civilians into a war zone. What a stupid idea. I would sue, and then resign my position before I let this government send me to support an action I am openly hostile toward. If the rest of this commission's ideas are like this one, God save the United States.
This war reflects the hypocrisy of what was once a great nation. A war which was never declared by Congress, a war to stop the production of WMDs that did not exist. A war to stop "terrorists" who came from other nations. A war to ensure the free supply of cheap oil to this oil hungry nation. And a failed one at that.
The only appropriate course of action for this government is to realize that we should stop mucking around in other nations' affairs and go home.
This nation learned nothing from Vietnam. Feel free to substitute F's in the appropriate places.
Sad.
-
20007
Just when I thought I'd seen everything Washington could dream up -- and I've been watching for many decades now -- this brilliant concept surfaces from folks who should know better.
I'm a patriot, but when I took off my uniform for the last time, and hung it in my closet, because my service "really appreciated my 24 years of service in the Reserve but couldn't pay me any more," I also hung up any expectation that I would be going in harm's way in the future.
There's a reason why job descriptions are required in the civilian world -- and this is a perfect illustration.
If the government needs people to do this, let it start building in the support infrastructure (hospitals, housing, health coverage, life insurance, etc.) as well as paying the risk premium (in the form of pay and allowances and retirement) that already is in place for the military folks.
My family is not going to absorb that risk. I'm glad I'm not in NSPS.
Hey! I've got an idea! Why not pay more contractors to go? You say you can't hire them at any price? What does that say about this idea?
Been there, done that, have the medals, and don't want more.
-
20000
Can someone explain the common sense used in this recommendation? They want to pull military personnel, that are trained to survive and protect in unstable hostile environments, and possibly force civilians to go there and "work"? We are not talking about sending them to a country where the possibility that they may be kidnapped and/or murdered "may" exist. Please, someone explain. Are these civilians going to be trained for combat before being forced to serve in Iraq? Why not just start drafting people again, only this time it should only be people with college degrees and a high proficiency in the Arab language?
-
19997
I am a GS-13 management analyst who worked construction design as an engineer many years ago. A few months after U.S. forces invaded Iraq, I encountered a recruiting kiosk in the main concourse of the Pentagon. The Army Corp of Engineers was aggressively recruiting civilians to volunteer for Iraq. The recruiters swarmed over me with solicitations that they needed anyone who could verify contract accomplishments. I was assured that I could make a contribution in Iraq, even with stale credentials. I was stunned when the on-site personnel specialist stated that the sum total of my benefits would be a 25 percent raise in wages during the months I was deployed. I inquired what happen to the packages civilians had received for deployment and hardship tours; e.g., the 15 percent gratuity of the retirement base for serving in Panama, or a temporary overseas grade increase. The circle of Army Corps people lowered their heads in abject resignation and stated, "All we can offer is the 25 percent raise in wages while deployed."
Folks, I am surrounded by military people who at the most do one to two years in hardship tours, or harm's way, during their 20 tour and then receive an attractive retirement package. The Dec. 6 article suggests that civilians may be asked to serve in manner not much different that their military counterparts, but no mention is made of a responsible change in benefits to acknowledge those contributions.
This is the "center of gravity" to what is wrong in Iraq. From the lack of troops to stop the looting and further lack of resource support to stand up an Iraqi police militia, everything the about the Iraq war has been, "let's do on the cheap and then be in position to just walk away." (Note, the incredible resources directed to contractors!) In previous wars that was not the American way. I joined the Navy my junior year in high school on a delayed entry program. Shortly after high graduation I was in Vietnam waters in harm's way. I am not afraid to go in harm's way again, but that is a difficult decision when our government is processing the war with the obvious approach, "how cheap can we do this." No wonder Iraq is a mess!
-
19996
This is the perfect opportunity for agencies to get rid of alleged deadwood, push people they want leave toward retirement, etc. Just order them to Iraq!
-
19995
I completely agree with the concept; however, we and others have attempted to institute special programs for war time with little/limited or no success. What makes us think we can force our workers to Iraq? What it requires is volunteers/incentives etc. or contract workers, which has definite draw backs. The government does have a program for U.S. government "Emergency Essential Personnel." But under that program, the employee must agree (volunteer) to join the program and even then when selected for one of these assignments can simply choose to resign, quit, or be medically disqualified etc. During Casper Wienberger's time the Defense Department thought about getting civilian contractors declared "Emergency Essential Personnel" with appropriate clauses in contracts. I do not believe the proposal was ever submitted to Congress.
Again, I agree with the concept and believe we need to do something to establish a viable program for now and in the future.
-
19993
Another fine idea! 1.) Directing people to go to Iraq amounts to militarizing the civilian work force 2.) Recruiting new hires with the possibility of being forced into a war zone? Right! 3.) Who do you think is going to be told to go? Not the best and brightest of the group, I assure you! The draft has ended -- this is just another form of it!
-
19992
Who will look after the kids? Old parents? Sick spouses? What will happen to the homes and apartments of single employees? Our cars? How long will civilians be forced to stay? How will medical care be given? Civil servants are 20-plus years older that the military and have more health problems.
The government should ask for volunteers. I worked at an Army Depot during Desert Storm. We sent 300 people and had to turn hundreds away.
-
19990
I had not realized that the current president's disregard for the constitutional and legal rights of U.S. citizens had spread so far into other areas. So the panel wants to force civilians to go into combat areas, whether or not they volunteer? I think this is far overstepping the government's authority under the constitution.
-
19989
Sometimes life just amazes me. After all the rubber stamping for the past six years, the American public felt so strongly that the war was unjustified and the current leadership incompetent that they spoke through the ballot. They are finally forcing a congressional response. And what is that response? Congress recommends sending civilians into harm's way.
This is a classic example of one of the most heinous portions of the fiasco that is NSPS, and it has been buried from the rank and file's view. This is crossing the dividing line that truly separates the military from the civilian mission; unless you are assigned to the diplomatic corps or one of the protective services. I've defended the military's mission, unique benefits, and deployed tax-exemption status, etc. just because of the critical difference in the two missions.
But I must draw the line at this unstated compulsory draft. Today's military members are volunteers, trained, and compensated with just cause. The diplomatic corps and protective services, likewise, are volunteers and know what risks their jobs entail.
All government civilians deployed should receive, at a minimum, the same benefits as the military; government housing/subsistence pay, dislocation allowance, combat-zone pay, tax-exempt status, etc. If government civilians, in otherwise non-deployable careers, are involuntarily deployed then there is even be a case for additional compensation due to the involuntary nature of their servitude, lack of combat training preparedness, and unarmed service.
Still stunned and amazed, consider: the public is too sensitive for the government to broach the topic of a draft in a time of "war," and yet that same draft applies to civil servants. Wow!
This particular part of the Iraq report hasn't even made the news, probably due to the highly controversial nature. Thank you for bringing this travesty to light.
Tip off.
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.