1:19 pm, July 11, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 13
       

  • AWOL???
    marine69
    ..."If you are on vacation and are declared to be "excepted" you must report for work. Otherwise you will be declared AWOL...." Really? Someone's smoking crack because IF I was on leave and this happened I'll be damned if I'd come back until my 'leave' was over. Which begs the question, instead of 'AWOL' wouldn't it be more logical to just furlough those people? That's what happened in 95/96...since leave cannot be granted nor earned, and a person is sick, lame, or lazy and/or has a doctor appointment, do yo really think they're going to be declared AWOL, Mr Causey??? Why do you put out such misinformation since you're not a Federal employee nor were you one the last time? I was 'late' for work, absent for a day or two, etc...the last time and as my boss described it, we were 'furloughed' for the time we had to take off...and guess what??? It wasn't abused!!! Show me the stats that Feds were declared AWOL and will be and I'll think about it but to be quite honest, you're dead wrong!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • AWOL
    Mark
    As silly as it sounds, Mr. Causey is correct. I read the same thing in the OPM explanation of furlough policies. Obviously, for practical purposes, if you're on vacation (originally being granted leave), you should be considered furloughed. I would think that would be an automatic. One question I do have is concerning LTC premiums. I believe I read in the OPM explanaiton of furlough policies that LTC premiums would not be paid and that it would be up to the employee to make arrangements for payment. We were supposed to check the OPM website for information on how to make that payment.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Pre Furlough Waste
    Taxpayer Too
    Even though we haven't been furloughed (yet) can you imagine the time government employees have spent just talking about the furlogh? Talk about waste!! Maybe that's a study that should be funded by the government just to see what the dollar figure is on that and report it back to the elected officials to let them know about the additional money they're wasting.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • AWOL
    Linda
    Marine69....I believe Mike is correct on the AWOL. Whether an agency chooses to do something about it or not is up to to Agency. On 9-11 there was a Government wide shut down. I was sent home. M brother, who was a Colonal in the Amry was on vacation (luckily at home), and had to return to work. He wasn't sure why as he was in charge of a medical research group and was a Doctor, and nothing to do with actual security. But, to work he went. I was just happy he wasn't in one of his meetings at the Pentagon that he did go to on occasional even though he worked at the Walter Reed Research facility. He wasn't happy about giving up his vacation, but did it.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Shutdown Survival Kit
    Celtic Wolf
    Intimidation, miscommunication, or misrepresentation, the key is to get as much advise as possible and then make your own decisions. Leadership, agency heads, did their best these past few days. Federal employees need to define the true enemy. It is not the personnel office who tries to define AWOL, LWOP or other leave category during such crisis (furlough or no furlough). It is not the manager, executive, or supervisor who tries to communicate with the limited information they have. The key culprit is the politician. The problem is both political parties were at fault. They brought it all to the table and the federal employee was the carved turkey on the table. We (federal employees) need to repeal the Hatch Act, gain more political power, and vote out those who speak poorly about us. Mike Causey reports what he has, he promotes dialog, and he (like all us Irish) likes to exagerate and also to light the fires to allow the public to cry out against injustices. We as federal employees need to focus our attention - Vote Out the Losers!
    Celtic Wolf
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Congress abdicating their responsibility
    Linbob
    Congress has failed to pass a budget more than this one time. I propose two amendments to the Consititution. First, Congress is respsonsible t=for creating, appropriating, and authroizing budgets for the next year. Congress also is constiutionally supposed to be paid, but the constitution makes no mention of when or how often. Therefore, I propose an amendment that states that Congress shall receive no pay after 31 August if the budget, along with all of the appropriations and authorization bills, have not been passed and shall not recieve pay until all of those conditions are met. The second amendment is that Congress shall make no law from which it is excepted. I think these might pass the 2/3 majority across the 50 states.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Constitutional amendment
    Moderate
    To put an amendment before the state legislatures, you need either 2/3 of each house of Congress or 2/3 of something to do with the states. I am not sure of exactly how the latter works. You then need 3/4 of the states to pass the constitutional amendment.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • SO SORRY
    marine69
    ...to be picking on poor ol' Mr Causey but then again, a good news person is supposed to 'vet' their sources not just be an 'organ' for the system! Nuff said on that! As for what the 'system' can or can't do, I challenge any of the readers out there in Fed Diary Land to cite for us the chapter and verse from the Code of Federal Regulations, etc...where it states that a person will be designated as AWOL, LWOP, or some such other verbiage using the word 'LEAVE', when Vulcan logic says that you can't have a person in a 'LEAVE' status during a 'FURLOUGH' and yet charge them with 'Absent without LEAVE', etc....one does not 'accrue' leave during a furlough nor can one request leave nor have leave deducted from their balance during a furlough!!! There ARE 'regulations' concerning those issues but I have yet to see or nor can I find any 'regulations' addressing the issue of being in a non0-leave status and being charged for 'AWOL' if one doesn't show up for work? All I hear is what appears to be a 'policy' being spewed by OPM with no further guidance as to what to do with personnel who, unfortunately, are sick, etc...as I stated earlier! So, all you geniuses out there, my experience in 1995/1996 was addressed as being put on FURLOUGH for my 'absense' back then because LEAVE is not authorized!!! Maybe the nitwits in OPM were not here then or maybe the Administration is afraid that if a shutdown drags on, that people will not even bother to come in, especially when they may have to decide if the commuting expense is worth it more than food for the family??? Do you GET IT yet???
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I accepted your Challenge
    sim
    MARINE69: I accepted your challenge, however I could not find a regulation or law governing the authorization of AWOL during a furlough. However, here is what I did find: 5 CFR 630 focuses on Absence and Leave, but furloughs and unauthorized absences are left out of that section. Instead (as AFGE has shown on their website) 5 CFR 752 governs adverse action which agencies can take against employees who have been furloughed for 30 days or less. It does not address, at all, anything regarding AWOL during a 30 day or less furlough. 5 CFR 351 focuses on RIFs or furloughs that are more than 30 days, yet does not address the issue of AWOL during a 30+ day furlough. Moreover, since the issue at hand concerns whether or not an individual can be considered AWOL while in a non-pay status, during a furlough, it appears to me that this idea of AWOL (while in a non-pay status, during a furlough) is simply OPM policy. I say that for the following reasons: One, there does not appear to be a legal definition for what exactly constitutes an "excepted employee," during a furlough. We simply have OMB guidance (from the 1980's), which is OPM's policy, which defines "excepted work activities." Two, the legal defintion for AWOL is, as defined throughout the CFR, basically not requesting leave (whatever kind you wish) from your supervisor prior to not showing up from work. But can you request leave when you're not accruing any? Obviously not. I find it hard to believe that "excepted" Federal Employees would be considered AWOL during a furlough, when they cannot even request leave to prevent being considered AWOL in the first place. Nevertheless, the closest legal support for such a policy is contained in 5 USC 7513, which stipulates that "Under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, an agency may take an action covered by this subchapter against an employee only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service." The subchapter is what 5 CFR 752 is governed by. Yet, even in this case, it says nothing about "excepted employees" being considered AWOL during a furlough, and only (as all the other regs have addressed) focuses on employees who have been furloughed. Therefore, I submit that Marine69 is correct, that the being AWOL during a furlough as an excepted employee is merely OPM policy, and is supported by Federal Law and Regulations.
    Fed Till The End
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Self-Correcting
    sim
    My last sentence should read: "Therefore, I submit that Marine69 is correct, that being AWOL during a furlough as an excepted employee is merely OPM policy, and is not supported by Federal Law and Regulation."
    Fed Till The End
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • AWOL
    Tea Partier
    This would be a good test court case. Suppose a Federal Employee had put in for and been approved for 2 weeks of annual leave 6 months in advance of a last minute gov't shutdown, because they had planned for and paid for a vacation overseas. Suppose they are on said vacation when a gov't shutdown occurs, and they are declared "excepted/essential." I would love to see the outcome of the lawsuit that would be filed if that employee were declared AWOL for being on a pre-approved overseas vacation when a shutdown is announced.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • AWOL
    Moderate
    Good points tea partier. I am not an expert in this area so correct me if I am wrong. Wouldn't the employee first have to be personally notified of this situation that he (she) was to be considered essential. That would be difficult to do as the person does not have to say where he (she) is going on vacation (at least where I work) Assunme no electronic devices either. Then the government would still have to pay for any loss incurred by the employee.-------------------------------------- My guess is that, unless the employee is totally critical, and unless there are no alternatives, the government would let the employee finish is (her vacation).--------- Since I am no expert please correct me on my conclusions if I am wrong.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • No Lawsuit in Scenario
    sim
    TEA PARTIER: There would be no lawsuit in such a case, because in your scenario the employee's leave would have been cancelled anyway. During an emergency furlough (i.e. government shutdown) all leave is cancelled. So the employee would simply be notified that their leave is cancelled and they're either henceforth furloughed or considered excepted. MODERATE: You're correct that the employee would have to be first notified, but not in all cases. There are exceptions to receiving notification of being furloughed in advance. Also, assuming the employee could not be contacted and are considered excepted, I'm sure they would simply be re-designated as furloughed for administrative purposes. So in this scenario I don't think the government would incur a financial loss.
    Fed Till The End
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }