GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Federal telework, hiring bills advance

• 78358
  

  I got mixed feelings about the rehire issue. I am in the last third of my career, high GS-14, in a shop with many new up and comer Gen-Y'ers. I am conscientious about teaching them the work. This has personally worked to my disadvantage in most cases as I am a lot less indispensable than I was and received little/no recognition from uppers or the recipients of my help. I am sorry to say that the folks in my echelon who have NOT done their duty have done better than me - GS-15, SES, and so on because they are not burdened. No matter, that is the job - if you won't/can't make some sacrifices you have no business being a civil servant. But, given the influx of VERY high-maintainance employees the economic collapse has brought in, bringing in some rehired annuitants who are not going to pay the penalties of being helpful would make my life a lot easier as I pursue my high-three

  Old Bunny Posted May 24, 2009 10:35 AM
• 78348
  

  Rehiring retirees can be beneficial. Now you'll have people in place who can say with authority "that's the way we always have done it", "the regulation says... the book says... it may be easier that way but we need to make 20 copies.

  dan m ketter Posted May 23, 2009 10:03 PM
• 78331
  

  Not to rain on anyone's parade, or be a wise guy -- but as federally mandated telework increases -- in asolute numbers, in federal legal requirements placed on the Executive Branch, and sprill-over/support for private sector increases -- what is the total effect on "urban spral" -- likely decrid by former VP Gore, and a topic of legislative remedy in the last Congress? I suspect increased telework will marginally, at least, increase urban spral -- in DC Metro -- why not buy a house in Harrisburg, PA; Richmond, VA; or even New York City, NY -- depending on the telework schedule. Finally -- not too controversial I believe-- there are on record many studies -- check DOE -- that do not sustain a clear conclusion that increasing telework will result in decrease gasoline consumption. In short, there may be less rush hour traffice down I-95, but, drive time and cars on the road, in say, Fairfax County, VA will not necessarily decrease. Oh may, figuring the cost-benefit -- assuming there is a true curiousity -- of improvements to programs can be very complex. Plus ca change.

  Concerned Retiree Posted May 22, 2009 5:10 PM
• 78284
  

  I like the comments made by "Riding it Out". I agree that there should be a new law to eliminate the unfair factors for retirees to come back and work for the government, but I am even more concerned with the already very exclusive "Fed senior club" become more exclusive. How many of us know some GS-15s and SES retired and come back as consultant in this area? If the arrangement is focused on teaching new generations about the government practice and is temperary, part-time, and not taking up an FTE slot, that's fine. But I have seem is most current managers who are close to retirement just use this practice to hire their old friends and just to avoid the pain of hiring and traiing younger, less expereince employees. If so, the younger generation will never get their chance fairly and competetively. How can you compete a job with a retiree who is doing and writing the exact KSA for 30 years under this current OPM hiring process and requirements? In private sector, managers will be encouraged to hire younger folks - they listen, execute, and got paid a lot less. While in the public sector, cost and efficiency are not the priorities, and training and transitioning are not the strength of managers, so they just continue their routine practice all those years and claimed that expertise... As a society, we should care about both younger generation and the wellfare of elderly. It's nice to have independent elderly to work and pay their life all the way, but more importantly we have to learn how to pass on things to younger generations. If we are never comfortable to give them some chance and pass on to them, how they are going to see their place in the world and how they can build on our success and make it more successful? Sometimes I wonder why so many younger people get lost and lack of motivations, maybe we the older generation are too selfish to give them one.

  American Island Posted May 22, 2009 11:12 AM
• 78269
  

  Goodness Scott, are we a little bitter? Get a grip! You must have been denied something that YOU thought you were entitled to. I am sure you always took a break that was negotiated by AFGE, training, negotiated by AFGE, travel entitlements, negotiated by AFGE, overtime, once again negotiated by AFGE. Entitlements are not an automatic given in any Agency. AFGE, once again has fought for equal rights, entitlements, pay, etc. for all, even you. Better think about it a little before you bite the hand that feeds you. Why anyone would want to come back as a rehired annuitant is beyond me. Why would you loose part of your retirement. By the time you loose $1 from your retirement for every $3 you make as a rehire, then pay taxes on your earnings as a rehire!!!! Come on now you DON'T come out ahead. We were all new and had to learn the jobs. There was always someone left behind that could help you and that IS what supervisors are for. Just because someone has worked a position for 30 years does not mean they cannot be replaced. We are ALL replaceable. New people may not get the job done the same as the "old timers" but who is to say that change is bad? As long as the job gets done promply and correctly what does it matter? Suck it up folks, if you aren't ready to retire don't! BUT don't make life miserable for those who do or the new employees.

  destrello Posted May 22, 2009 9:35 AM
• 78232
  

  Hooray for the telework legislation! It's about time! I just spent five hours and 45 minutes (yes, that is correct) commuting to day between Northern VA and Maryland (round trip). It is ridiculous that so many people are on the roads who could be getting work done at home or in local telework centers.

  Managers need support and education to recognize that telework is good. You will have some employees abusing telework, but you currently have employees not doing their jobs right there in the office (but I have not seen this as a widespread problem in the agencies that I have worked in, truly). No matter where the employee is NOT doing their job, it is the manager's responsibility to step in and correct the problem.

  MJ Posted May 21, 2009 7:47 PM
• 78228
  

  The use of re-hired annuitants is a way to insitituionalize cronyism and nepotism. The use of retired Secret Service Agents in upper eschelons of the various IG's has been a disaster as evidenced by the extablishment of Empires rather than the combating of waste, fraud and corruption. The Dept of Homeland Security IG and CPB IA are widely known as "the Assisted Living Center for Retired Secret Service Agents".

  ICE routinely brings retirees back to the positions they retired from, typically to work either the same job they should have been training their replacement to fill prior to their departure or to take jobs that they have never worked particularly in the asset removal program and detention and removal. It would be much more cost effective to fill the higher exchelon positons with older employees and to train younger folks to fill a position before the vacancy occurs. Experience does count, promote experience and pass it on before you leave.

  John Chak Posted May 21, 2009 6:36 PM
• 78219
  

  "NTEU praised the telework bill." One has to wonder what the good of something is if the NTEU supports it. It appears to be an additional AWS day for collective bargaining employees. We don't need telework.

  NoBodySpecial Posted May 21, 2009 4:24 PM
• 78215
  

  If the FAA does not start hiring back the retired controllers( most who left because of the IMPOSED work rules by BUSH) the NAS will totally collapse. The new hires out of college are years from certifying if at all. 6 day work weeks will soon burn out whoever is left. The taxpayer got bamboozled by Bush on this one.

  Retired Air traffic Controller Posted May 21, 2009 3:19 PM
• 78212
  

  Has anyone heard of workforce planning? That's what managers are supposed to do to ensure that there's a trained employee to take over from someone, when that person retires. Very few people retire out of the blue. You usually know for years that it's coming. Having to rehire an annuitant should be an exception. If you really need someone's expertise, you shouldn't be concerned with whether or not they're a vet.

  Erich Darr Posted May 21, 2009 2:49 PM
• 78196
  

  After 28 years with DoD and seeing the up's and downs of the USG the only benefit I have seen from this recent project of rehiring retiree's is they do fill a critical technical gap. The problem - once they are hired management fails to hire a permanent full time position to take advantage of the technical experience from the retired annuitant to train a new employee, thus what good did it do, other than put a band-aid on the issue. Also about 40% of the retired annuitants that I've dealt with don't want to share their technical knowledge (the old adage Knowledge is power - I have the knowledge I have the power), I believe they feel they have the knowledge needed to fulfill the mission of the office and the agencies will find work around to bring them back so they don't want to teach or pass on the Tribal knowledge they have obtained over the years, Big problem. They also have no tolerance for the younger generation, less than 40 year's old. I've heard from several 55+ employees and rehired annuitants "you got the job you should know what you're doing, I'm not helping you" - wrong attitude, doesn't help anyone or the government and when you mention to management you get told you are discriminating based on age, yea I've heard it. Tried to discuss the situation with management as a third party observer got nowhere. As with anything it could be managed much better and stricter guideline would help. Don't hire a retired annuitant GS-14 to do GS-11, work it's been years since the individual actually work in the technical area.

  Riding it Out Posted May 21, 2009 1:08 PM
• 78194
  

  Granted from a selfish perspective but I would love to go from full time to part time - 2 days per week for a few years. During this time I could help to hire and train my replacement. I see this as a win-win. This alternative is much more attractive to me than finding part time work with a federal contractor.

  Jim Posted May 21, 2009 12:45 PM
• 78176
  

  I do not understand why "government" is pushing a program which has not been and will not be accepted universally by senior management. Certainlly they will give it lip service, but action will be lacking or so to come. One comment heard from a senior leader, if you can stay home and owrk, then perhaps the job is not needed. So, do you believe telework is supported(?)

  Grsoka Posted May 21, 2009 11:12 AM
• 78170
  

  Rehiring federal or civilian retirees, while a worthy and intelligent OPTION, is ONLY a patch job on a much bigger problem and should be extremely limited in scope.

  Any organization rehiring ANYONE under these conditions WITHOUT a program/plan to replace and train said replacement is shooting themselves in the foot and doing a terrible disservice to their current employees. The vast majority of such rehires will only work for a relatively short period of time, merely delaying the solution. I'm guess-ta-mating about 5 years for a statistical max.

  Additionally, this option may encourage employees to retire early and "lock in" their fixed incomes; hoping to turn around and come back to work rather than to continue on in their career.

  I ask once more, should an experienced retiree come back to work (particularly a supervisor), would their trainee or replacement be likely to listen to their advice or consider it "the old guard" way of doing things and take decisive action in their own way? And would you want to foster such dependence or independence of action?

  Lastly, I must ask, if the federal government is SOOO desperate as to hire retirees; where do they think these THOUSANDS of new employees are coming from? I would admit to thinking the surplus college graduate pool, but how would they and the retirees get along? We seen MANY disagreements between those demographic groups right here in these blog/comment pages now.

  Tip off Posted May 21, 2009 10:39 AM
• 78165
  

  DoD has had authority to hire reemployed annuitants for several years, and it is becoming common for people to retire and come back soon after (much like retired military officers). All agencies should have the same ability to tap into retired expertise. However, with unemployment high, federal recruiting should be at an all-time high. We should put equal effort towards bringing new talent into the workforce rather than focusing so much on hiring retired people.

  MB Posted May 21, 2009 10:22 AM
• 78150
  

  Typical AFGE pushback. There are current hiring authorities that allow the non-competitive appointment of ex-feds with status without regard for vet's pref. AFGE's argument is stupid. This doesn't create new appointing systems that abuse anything. It simply incentivizes the call for HELP!!!, but of course AFGE is not in the game to actually help. As far as employee development and promotion, who does AFGE think is going to help develop the thousands of new hires that know nothing about the business! This is ALL about developing them... the "bench" for promotions. And how long do you think an annuitant is going to work? Answer: until about the time a new hire is ready for promotion. Come on, they're not coming back forever... they just retired for God's sake! AND about vet's pref, my God, it's time for Congress to enact a Veterans Preference reform bill that disallows the use of the vet's pref when the candidate is a status federal employee on an open-conpetitive certificate (list of non-federal candidates). It is criminal that a current, career stauts, federal employee, who also has veterans preference, can block a whole list of U.S. citizens needing employment in a down-turned economy, and this, while the government needs new blood! Fix that one Congress. As for re-emplying annuitants, come on, we need their smarts to train the thousands of new hires that need their mentorship. AFGE, why don't you try to make government work instead of being a roadblock, enabling whiners, and defending mediocrity and poor performers. That is all I have ever seen you do.

  Scott Posted May 21, 2009 9:21 AM
• 78149
  

  Hopefully, not only will government agencies be required to submit their plans to OPM, but they will be required to implement them no later than January 2010, if not sooner....and the plans will be flexible and robust enough to allow a full range of employees to be considered. In today's world, telework is feasible for a huge number of positions. Every day that telework is prohibited contributes to environmental damage as well as potential for transmitting infections. The government needs to embrace a "speed to action" mentality in this day and age, and not allow itself to continually be bogged down by "the perfect process."

  lorraine Posted May 21, 2009 9:12 AM
• 78147
  

  It's encouraging that even in a watered down form, a version of the common sense proposal introduced in Congress over a year ago to permit the temporary reemployment of Federal retirees without an offset against their retirement pensions has advanced in the Semate. As originally envisioned last year, this would have permitted retirees to be reempoyed on up to a half time basis for a maximum of six years. The current bill cuts that maximum in half, but still recognizes the principle that agencies need a tool such as this to help with the transfer of knowledge to new hires being brought on board. It's deplorable that AFGE and the other short-sighted "usual suspects" oppose the proposal and have been able to lessen its positive benefits on specious grounds, but the old principle of a half loaf being better than nothing applies. My own agency desperately needs such a flexibility, and we are watching its progress through the legislative process closely.

  Jeremiah Posted May 21, 2009 9:02 AM
• 78125
  

  I think this would be very profitable if they would allow many of the older workers to go parttime and or either do telework. Maybe even do the telework parttime.

  This would be profitable for the government and those needing to retire but unable to live on the amount they would draw if they retired.

  This is expecially needed for those on a lower graded duties and have not been able to advance due to things that cannot be mentioned. For one thing I only have a highschool education but I don't beleive that is the reason.

  I hope they pass the bill for any of us to do telework from home for 2 or more days a week. That would be a big help and savings with the cost of fuel and also help to eliminate the traffic problems.

  You may use my initials and location if you wish.

  Thelma McClure Posted May 21, 2009 7:35 AM
• 78118
  

  Rehiring annuitants is a bad idea unless the rehire must be approved by OPM. Rehiring should only be done for highly technical jobs and for short periods of time. In SSA there would abuse. Management would rehire CSRS managers after one year to give them FICA coverage and there is no real protection against friends and relatives getting the jobs. If GAO investigated they would give in Boston Region's SSA there is an overabundance of relatives of high management relatives and significant others along with a LOT of husband and wives each managing field offices. The current nepotism laws have too many loopholes that should be plugged with $$$$ reawards for uncovering practices to OPM.

  On telework, high regional officials who are NOT accountable will be taking telework while denying its use in the field in order to protect management grades and management control. An OUTSIDE agency must be the evaluator of whether telework can be used in the field offices or not.

  George Sincavage, AFGE AVP Posted May 21, 2009 6:30 AM