PDA

View Full Version : Air Force screws its civilians



ConfusedAirman
04-22-2013, 03:57 PM
It appears the AF did a grave disservice to its civilians by halting the original RMD 703 actions and announcing this latest RIF action. Once positively identified to lose a job for a RIF, the individual gets hiring preference for other federal jobs. That preference could not be used last year because there was no official RIF. Now it can be used but it appears there may be significantly less federal job opportunities being advertised now versus the end of last year into early this year. So that RIF hiring preference now no longer has as much effect. Thanks a lot, Air Force!

Tak
04-22-2013, 04:02 PM
It appears the AF did a grave disservice to its civilians by halting the original RMD 703 actions and announcing this latest RIF action. Once positively identified to lose a job for a RIF, the individual gets hiring preference for other federal jobs. That preference could not be used last year because there was no official RIF. Now it can be used but it appears there may be significantly less federal job opportunities being advertised now versus the end of last year into early this year. So that RIF hiring preference now no longer has as much effect. Thanks a lot, Air Force!

Af owes them nothing.

ConfusedAirman
04-22-2013, 04:16 PM
Owes them nothing, to include a screwing. Could have just called the RIF last year and let them have priority to get jobs with other agencies versus keeping them on the books in non-existent AF positions earning AF money.

Tak
04-22-2013, 04:24 PM
Owes them nothing, to include a screwing. Could have just called the RIF last year and let them have priority to get jobs with other agencies versus keeping them on the books in non-existent AF positions earning AF money.

Yes, you are right, they should have taken care of them and set them up for success. It's the people they care about.

Tak
04-22-2013, 04:25 PM
I'm more concerned with how it screws its AD folks. N

AF civilians are always so sweet and caring and supportive of AD folks.

JD2780
04-22-2013, 04:26 PM
I'm more concerned with how it screws its AD folks. N

Thunderhorse19
04-22-2013, 07:11 PM
I hope you get more specific on your thread. Who, what, where, how and why should be answered. I can give you some specifics. Offutt has been involved in grade creeping of their civilians, meaning they have GS15's doing GS12 jobs, and GS12's doing GS7 jobs. They also have GS14's as deputy commanders of groups and GS13's as deputy commanders of squadrons. The average salary at Offutt is $90,000, but the average salary in Nebraska is only $42,000. Offutt has been sued twice for abusing their civilians and unpaid volunteers. Their EEO reps side with the military commanders 100% of the time, meaning it's useless to file a complaint. Offutt should be number 1 on any RIF or furlough.

TVANSCOT
04-22-2013, 07:26 PM
Every since that civilian safety guy at Reese AFB in 88 wrote me a up for having temp tags on my Bike that I just bought the day before... well I simply don't care about them because it doesn't seem like they care that much about me. Sorry, harsh, I know... but there it is.

Jamethon
04-22-2013, 08:09 PM
I have a slight problem with having to listen to civilians tell me what to do when they aren't either an enlisted or commissioned member of the military. I have no problem with legitimate positions that civilians should hold, but the problem comes when they are put in supervisor roles or positions where they make decisions that affect my pay and career. I have been through mirror image situations with military and civilian counterparts and ALWAYS get better service from the military counterpart.

CYBERFX1024
04-22-2013, 08:59 PM
Not all civilians are bad just some. But yes it does screw over the civilians do to the sequester. Because most but not all federal agencies are under a hiring freeze as of right now. I know the USGS who I work for is. We have 3 open positions right now and we can't do anything to fill those spots because we are under a hiring freeze.

JD2780
04-22-2013, 09:04 PM
I have a slight problem with having to listen to civilians tell me what to do when they aren't either an enlisted or commissioned member of the military. I have no problem with legitimate positions that civilians should hold, but the problem comes when they are put in supervisor roles or positions where they make decisions that affect my pay and career. I have been through mirror image situations with military and civilian counterparts and ALWAYS get better service from the military counterpart.

The only civilians in my chain of command should be elected officials in DC. Civilians don't belong bossing around military members.

Sperry1989
04-22-2013, 09:14 PM
Not all civilians are bad just some. But yes it does screw over the civilians do to the sequester. Because most but not all federal agencies are under a hiring freeze as of right now. I know the USGS who I work for is. We have 3 open positions right now and we can't do anything to fill those spots because we are under a hiring freeze.

What you say is correct and has been implemented DoD wide with some exceptions. I have been told that the reason for the freeze was to stockpile vacancies so that RIF'd individuals can be placed instead of getting the pink slip. Under RIF, applicants only need to be minimally qualified to be placed. I could go on as to why RIFs are inefficient, but I think most readers here are already familiar with them. I just hate to see folks lose their jobs in this tough economy. We all have bills to pay.

CYBERFX1024
04-22-2013, 09:17 PM
What you say is correct and has been implemented DoD wide with some exceptions. I have been told that the reason for the freeze was to stockpile vacancies so that RIF'd individuals can be placed instead of getting the pink slip. Under RIF, applicants only need to be minimally qualified to be placed. I could go on as to why RIFs are inefficient, but I think most readers here are already familiar with them. I just hate to see folks lose their jobs in this tough economy. We all have bills to pay.

You are correct. I feel bad for people that lose their jobs in this way. Hell we thought that we would be furloughed 10% of pay until the end of the year. Which would make it effective 20% of our pay would be cut. But luckily we haven't heard anything so far.

FLAPS
04-23-2013, 04:32 AM
What you say is correct and has been implemented DoD wide with some exceptions. I have been told that the reason for the freeze was to stockpile vacancies so that RIF'd individuals can be placed instead of getting the pink slip. Under RIF, applicants only need to be minimally qualified to be placed. I could go on as to why RIFs are inefficient, but I think most readers here are already familiar with them. I just hate to see folks lose their jobs in this tough economy. We all have bills to pay.

The qualification waiver is total horseshit, and goes to show that gov employment is nothing more than a jobs program. How about spending taxpayer money on hiring qualified people? Sorry, but if you are clueless on how to perform your duties, then you are out of a job.

VFFTSGT
04-23-2013, 07:16 AM
Not all civilians are bad just some. But yes it does screw over the civilians do to the sequester. Because most but not all federal agencies are under a hiring freeze as of right now. I know the USGS who I work for is. We have 3 open positions right now and we can't do anything to fill those spots because we are under a hiring freeze.

Many agencies are getting around hiring freezes by hiring "status candidates."

Not sure who would take a job with the government right now...just to walk into a 20% pay cut. I guess it's good if you cannot do any better - but the job security that has been perceived so long with government employment just isn't there anymore.

Not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing....the government workforce is pretty large...

ConfusedAirman
04-23-2013, 12:33 PM
The qualification waiver is total horseshit, and goes to show that gov employment is nothing more than a jobs program. How about spending taxpayer money on hiring qualified people? Sorry, but if you are clueless on how to perform your duties, then you are out of a job.

It's not a full qualification waiver. The agency cutting positions will review opening vacancies and compare requirements with qualifications of employees sitting in cut positions. If minimally qualified, they are offered the position. If no one is minimally qualified, the job is advertised as normal. This has been going on at AF bases since the RMD 703 cuts were first announced in late 2011. As any AF office submits an application to advertise a job, Civ Pers tries to fill the position with surplus employees (employees who have been working in established positions but then those positions were cut). The fact that so many surplus employees are still on the books while AF jobs are still being advertised shows that Civ Pers is paying attention to the minimal qualifications and is unable to find surplus employees meeting the vacancy's qualifications. When the agency gives up trying to find internal positions for its surplus employees, it starts a RIF - which is what is happening now in the AF. Those employees let go by the AF get a bit of preference with other agencies via the InterAgency Career Transition Plan. Such preference requires more than the minimal qualifications required for an in-house transfer but does give the displaced employee some advantage. Both of these options are no different than any company hiring from within which supports good employer-employee relationships that provides immediate benefit for the employee and a longterm benefit for the employer. Such benefits are probably not as generous as hiring outsiders with special preferences, to include veterans' preference.

BRUWIN
04-23-2013, 12:52 PM
I have a slight problem with having to listen to civilians tell me what to do when they aren't either an enlisted or commissioned member of the military.

I am a GS-11. I am equal in rank to a Capt.

FLAPS
04-23-2013, 01:28 PM
It's not a full qualification waiver. The agency cutting positions will review opening vacancies and compare requirements with qualifications of employees sitting in cut positions. If minimally qualified, they are offered the position. If no one is minimally qualified, the job is advertised as normal. This has been going on at AF bases since the RMD 703 cuts were first announced in late 2011. As any AF office submits an application to advertise a job, Civ Pers tries to fill the position with surplus employees (employees who have been working in established positions but then those positions were cut). The fact that so many surplus employees are still on the books while AF jobs are still being advertised shows that Civ Pers is paying attention to the minimal qualifications and is unable to find surplus employees meeting the vacancy's qualifications. When the agency gives up trying to find internal positions for its surplus employees, it starts a RIF - which is what is happening now in the AF. Those employees let go by the AF get a bit of preference with other agencies via the InterAgency Career Transition Plan. Such preference requires more than the minimal qualifications required for an in-house transfer but does give the displaced employee some advantage. Both of these options are no different than any company hiring from within which supports good employer-employee relationships that provides immediate benefit for the employee and a longterm benefit for the employer. Such benefits are probably not as generous as hiring outsiders with special preferences, to include veterans' preference.

I forgot where I read it (af.mil?), but the RIF story mentioned waiving qualifications. Even going the min qual route, our boss said he'd rather let the position go vacant than hire someone not fully qual'd. I fully agree with this approach. The right people need to go into the right jobs!

SeeBee
04-23-2013, 01:47 PM
I am a GS-11. I am equal in rank to a Capt.

"And that's when the fight started"

SeeBee
04-23-2013, 01:54 PM
I forgot where I read it (af.mil?), but the RIF story mentioned waiving qualifications. Even going the min qual route, our boss said he'd rather let the position go vacant than hire someone not fully qual'd. I fully agree with this approach. The right people need to go into the right jobs!

I'm a civil servant. I agree with your boss--some technical jobs just can't afford to accept 'without qualification' or 'minimally qualified' applicants. That said, I believe I read the same (af.mil?) article you mention, and I think the intent is to transfer as many (but not all) of the RIF'd folks into existing, empty slots...so long as they can get meet minimums and (in theory) go on to full qualification. I believe, in the long run, that saves $$ and pain for the local unit as well as an employee.

Remember, last year at this time the USAF had 17K funded slots without employees filling them. That was seen as a waste of money--and that kind of obviously idle money becomes an easy target for budget cutters. This program, hopefully, will fix some of that. Otherwise the slot goes unfilled (and eventually cut) and the work goes undone.

Tak
04-23-2013, 03:12 PM
"And that's when the fight started"

Actually, in the AF a gs-11 or 0-3 holds FAR
More weight then an e-9.

ConfusedAirman
04-23-2013, 04:09 PM
I forgot where I read it (af.mil?), but the RIF story mentioned waiving qualifications. Even going the min qual route, our boss said he'd rather let the position go vacant than hire someone not fully qual'd. I fully agree with this approach. The right people need to go into the right jobs!


As I alluded to, zero qualifications does not cut it and at least basic minimal qualifications must be met. Every job being advertised at an AF installation (and maybe even every empty but funded position) that still has surplus employees is being evaluated to determine if a surplus employee at that installation could be put into the job. The fact that jobs are still being advertised shows that some attention is being paid to the minimum qualifications. Here at Langley we see what would seem to be BS jobs (protocol officer for one) still being advertised versus filling with one of the 60+ surplus employees, many of whom are retired senior military with years of administrative experience who could read and implement the various protocol directives. You and your supervisor would probably think differently if it was either of you whose position was cut and you faced being put on the street because some other supervisor chose to ignore AF concepts of caring for fellow AF members, whether civilian or military, for his or her own personal beliefs.

JD2780
04-23-2013, 05:17 PM
Actually, in the AF a gs-11 or 0-3 holds FAR
More weight then an e-9.

Which is sad. In the Army the SGM is the right hand of God. God being the BN CC.

BUDJR8
04-23-2013, 06:01 PM
I've dealt with both good and base GS employees. With that being said, I have no issue if the DoD made sweeping cuts tommorow. However, I'd like them to revisit all the overseas SOFA agreements and cut some of these sorry LNs off the pay roll. Most bases could cut hundreds of both GS and LN and never miss a beat.

Tak
04-23-2013, 06:14 PM
Which is sad. In the Army the SGM is the right hand of God. God being the BN CC.

I have NEVER seen an AF chief thought of as that

Maybe right hand of base CC.

JD2780
04-23-2013, 06:19 PM
I have NEVER seen an AF chief thought of as that

Maybe right hand of base CC.

Perhaps used his right on the base CC. Very sad how Chiefs have gone down hill.

imported_CLSE
04-23-2013, 06:25 PM
As I alluded to, zero qualifications does not cut it and at least basic minimal qualifications must be met. Every job being advertised at an AF installation (and maybe even every empty but funded position) that still has surplus employees is being evaluated to determine if a surplus employee at that installation could be put into the job. The fact that jobs are still being advertised shows that some attention is being paid to the minimum qualifications. Here at Langley we see what would seem to be BS jobs (protocol officer for one) still being advertised versus filling with one of the 60+ surplus employees, many of whom are retired senior military with years of administrative experience who could read and implement the various protocol directives. You and your supervisor would probably think differently if it was either of you whose position was cut and you faced being put on the street because some other supervisor chose to ignore AF concepts of caring for fellow AF members, whether civilian or military, for his or her own personal beliefs.


Part of the problems is just meeting the KSAs for the job. There are plenty of office manager jobs around, doing memos, doing DTS, etc, things that anybody who's been in the military for a few years knows how to do.

Yet, if you don't answer the KSAs correctly, the computer pulls you from the list.

There's also the possibilty that some of those surplus personnel don't want the advertised jobs because of the type of work. Going from a professional/technical position to an administrative position isn't attractive to some people.

Sucks about the RIF, though, depending on how they did it. If it was a targeted RIF to clear out positions that are actually excess, it makes sense. If it's just a X% across the board cut so that it's "fair", it's going to screw a lot of organizations because they may be forced to cut when they're already undermanned.

Measure Man
04-23-2013, 07:36 PM
Perhaps used his right on the base CC. Very sad how Chiefs have gone down hill.

The irony is that they've gone down hill since trying to be more like Army SGMs.

JD2780
04-23-2013, 07:48 PM
The irony is that they've gone down hill since trying to be more like Army SGMs.

No, most SGM I've ran across weren't that bad and were more concerned with the mission that socks.

Measure Man
04-23-2013, 10:04 PM
No, most SGM I've ran across weren't that bad and were more concerned with the mission that socks.

Because we don't have the same mission...but wanted to "Command Chiefs" to be like the "Command SGM", etc.

So, without the same mission, but with the same star...we filled that void by shooting out 5MTs about sockwear.

RetC141BFCC
04-27-2013, 06:43 PM
I have NEVER seen an AF chief thought of as that

Maybe right hand of base CC.
Tak
I guess its where you have been based and your AFSC. I have worked for more Chiefs then E9s. That said I seen some E-9s who a Sra could work rings around those so called experts.