To Do For All That Which No One Can Do For Oneself
Header

Head of Social Security abruptly resigns after clash with Elon Musk over DOGE’s access to sensitive data

February 17th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Events | National Updates | News | Political - (Comments Off on Head of Social Security abruptly resigns after clash with Elon Musk over DOGE’s access to sensitive data)

Article can be found with this Link:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14407481/michelle-king-social-security-resigns-elon-musk-doge-access-irs-data.html

PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE GUIDANCE

February 17th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Did you know? | Political - (0 Comments)

Dear AFGE Activist,

Below you will find AFGE’s recent guidance regarding probationary employees.

Stay up to date with all the information you need to know at www.afge.org/AFGEStrong.

1. What is a probationary employee?

Generally speaking, a probationary employee is an employee who is still serving a probationary or trial period following their appointment to a position.

The probationary period in the competitive service is 1 year. 5 C.F.R. § 801(a); 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A).

The probationary period for preference eligible employees in the excepted service is 1 year. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B).

The probationary period for non-preference eligible employees in the excepted service is two years. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C).

2. When do employees acquire full adverse action appeal rights for the purposes of Merit System Protection Board (“MSPB”) appeals and union grievances?

Competitive Service

Employees in the competitive service acquire adverse action appeal rights after either completing their probationary or trial period or completing 1 year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A).

Excepted Service

Preference eligible employees in the excepted service acquire adverse action appeal rights after completing 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in: a) an Executive agency; or b) the United States Postal service or Postal Regulatory Commission. U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B).

Non-preference eligible employees in the excepted service acquire adverse action appeal rights after either completing their probationary or trial period or completing 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar position in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less. U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C).

3. When can agencies terminate probationary employees?

Probationary employees may be terminated at any time during their probationary period. OPM regulations also provide that agencies are required to terminate probationary employees if the employee “fails to demonstrate fully his or her qualifications for continued employment.” 5 C.F.R. § 315.803(a).

4. What is the process for terminating probationary employees?

a.       Terminations for Performance or Conduct During the Probationary Period

When an agency decides to terminate a probationary employee “because his work performance or conduct … fails to demonstrate his fitness or his qualifications for continued employment,” the agency is required to notify the employee in writing of “the agency’s conclusions as to the inadequacies of his performance or conduct” and the effective date of the removal action. 5 C.F.R. § 315.804(a).

Under these circumstances, a probationary employee is not entitled to an opportunity to respond to the notice of removal.

b.     Terminations for Pre-Employment Conduct

When an agency decides to terminate a probationary employee for pre-employment conduct, in whole or in part, the employee is entitled to advanced notice and an opportunity to respond to the proposed termination. 5 C.F.R. § 805. The notice of proposed removal must provide “the reasons, specifically and in detail, for the proposed action.” 5 C.F.R. § 315.805(a). The agency must provide the probationary employee with a reasonable amount of time to provide a written response to the notice of proposed removal. 5 C.F.R. § 315.805(b).

Should the agency decide to terminate the employee, the written notice of removal must be provided on or before the effective date of the action, contain the reasons for the action, and inform the employee of his or her MSPB rights of appeal. 5 C.F.R. § 315.805(c).

5. What MSPB appeal rights do terminated probationary employees have?

The MPSB appeal rights of probationary employees are extremely limited and controlled by regulation.

Probationary employees in the competitive service who are terminated under 5 C.F.R. § 315.804, i.e., for performance or conduct during the probationary period, may appeal only if they allege that their termination “was based on partisan political reasons or marital status.” 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b)

Probationary employees in the competitive service who are terminated for pre-employment reasons under 5 C.F.R. § 315.805, may allege that their termination was based on partisan political reasons or marital status and/or that their termination was procedurally deficient, i.e. the agency failed to provide the employee with advance notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b)-(c).

Finally, a probationary employee in the competitive service may only file an appeal with the MSPB alleging unlawful discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, age (as defined by the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, as amended), or disability” provided that the appeal also alleges that the termination was based on partisan political reasons or marital status or, for pre-employment conduct terminations, was procedurally deficient. 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(d).

Probationary employees in the excepted service generally have no right to appeal their removal to the MSPB. 5 U.S.C. § 1201.3(a)(3).

6. What Equal Employment Opportunity rights do probationary employees have?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has long held that probationary employees cannot be removed based on unlawful discrimination. Ileen C. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC DOC 0120182464, 2019 WL 1988386 (2019).

Unlawful discrimination is discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, and genetic discrimination. Additionally, agencies may not remove probationary employees in retaliation for engaging in protected activities, e.g., opposing or reporting unlawful discrimination.

Consequently, probationary employees who reasonably believe their termination was based on unlawful discrimination or in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity may file an EEO complaint. It should be noted however, that it is exceedingly rare for the EEOC to overturn the removal of a probationary employee.

7. Can probationary employees file a complaint to the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) to challenge their termination?

Yes, a probationary employee may file a complaint with OSC if he or she reasonably believes that the termination was a prohibited personnel practice under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b), such as reprisal for protected whistleblowing.

If the OSC finds that the employee’s complaint has merit, the OSC can request that MSPB stay the employee’s removal from federal service. The MSPB will issue a stay when the OSC is able to show: 1) the employee engaged in protected activity; 2) agency officials knew of the employee’s protected activity; 3) the agency took a personnel action against the employee; and 4) there exists a causal connection between the protected activity and the personnel action taken. Special Counsel ex rel. Rigdon v. Dep’t of Army, 98 M.S.P.R. 110, 113 (2004); see also Special Counsel ex rel. Hoyt v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 84 M.S.P.R. 314, (1999).

Employees should understand, however, there is no guarantee of MSPB review of an OSC complaint. This is because not every complaint to the OSC will generate an MSPB case or allow an employee to file an Individual Right of Action (“IRA”) appeal to the MSPB in the event that the OSC does not move forward with the complaint or decides to drop an existing complaint. IRA appeals, e.g., appeals that may be filed with the MSPB by an employee alleging their termination was the product of a prohibited personnel practice, are controlled by 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a) and may only be filed over certain prohibited personnel practices described in 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2302. An IRA appeal also may only be filed if: (a) the OSC notifies the employee that the investigation has been terminated and no more than 60 days have elapsed since that notice; or (b) 120 days after filing a complaint seeking corrective action from the OSC, the employee has not been notified by the OSC that it will seek corrective action.

8. Can probationary employees, or their unions, file a grievance over the removal of a probationary employee?

It depends. Many collective bargaining agreements exclude grievances challenging the removal of a probationary employee from the negotiated grievance process. Even for those CBAs that don’t, grievances challenging the removal of a probationary employee are likely limited to alleging that the removal was motivated by union animus. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, I.N.S. v. FLRA, 709 F.2d 724, 728-29 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (explaining that unions cannot bargain for substantive or procedural protections of probationary employees’ continued employment that exceed the protections granted by statute and regulation); see also NTEU v. FLRA, 848 F.2d 1273, 1276-77 (D.C. Cir. 1988)(holding a proposal non-negotiable that would allow grievances to challenge probationary removals motivated by unlawful EEO discrimination).

Consequently, unions may be limited to filing grievances challenging probationary removals only where there is evidence that the decision to remove was based on union animus. See Dep’t of Navy, Pascagoula, Miss. and Nat’l Assoc. of Gov’t Emps., 73 F.L.R.A. 443, 449 (2023) (explaining that agencies may not terminate probationary employees for a reason that violates the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute); Dep’t of Agric., Food and Nutrition Service and NTEU, 61 F.L.R.A. 16, 22 (2005);see also Indian Health Serv., Crow Hospital Agency, Montana and Marcella A. Knaub et al., 57 F.L.R.A. 109, (2001) (ordering the reinstatement of two probationary employees whose terminations were motivated by union animus). Once a union makes the case-specific and fact dependent determination to file such a grievance, the union should allege an unfair labor practice and explain the basis for the claim of union animus.

9. Can probationary employees, or their unions, file an unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charge with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA”) to challenge a probationary removal?

Yes, but only if the employee or the union has a reasonable belief based on demonstrable evidence that the termination was motivated by union animus. AFGE, however, advises against filing a ULP charge at this time, as the FLRA cannot issue a ULP complaint until the Trump Administration appoints a General Counsel to the FLRA. It is also unlikely that the Administration will appoint a General Counsel favorable to employees or labor.  

Please Note: This publication is for informational purposes only and does not guarantee any particular result in a specific case. The information provided is not, nor is it intended to be, a substitute for individualized legal or professional advice.

In Solidarity,

AFGE

Source: AFGE Insider

AFGE is urging President Joe Biden to restore pay parity between civilian and military employees by increasing the 2025 pay raise for federal workers from 2% to 4.5%. 

Biden has proposed a 2% pay raise for federal workers and 4.5% for military personnel. In a letter spearheaded by AFGE from the Federal Salary Council to Biden, the council urged the president to issue an executive order to give federal workers a 4.5% pay raise with 4% allocated as an across-the-board cost of living adjustment and 0.5% as locality pay supplements that vary by region. 

“There is a long tradition of parity in pay adjustments for civilian and military employees of the federal government,” the council wrote in the Nov. 8 letter. “This tradition is rarely broken, and although your Fiscal 2025 Budget proposed just 2% for civilians and 4.5% for the military, we believe that using the occasion of the end-of-year executive order to revert back to this tradition is warranted. President Obama did so in 2016, and we ask that you do the same.” 

AFGE President Everett Kelley and Public Policy Director Jacqueline Simon serve as the union’s two presidential appointees on the council, an advisory body that provides recommendations to the administration on the federal employee locality pay program. 

AFGE is also working with Congress to push for higher pay. 

In a Dec. 11 letter to Biden, a group of 27 Democratic lawmakers from the House and Senate urged the president to restore the bipartisan support for pay parity across the federal workforce. 

“Although we understand this decision was made under the constraints put in place by the Fiscal Responsibility Act caps, we believe it is imperative you revise your budget to align military and civilian employee pay raises,” they wrote. “Specifically, we request you issue a revised alternative pay plan seeking a 4.5% pay increase for the entire federal workforce, including military and civilian employees alike.” 

The lawmakers noted that both military and civilian employees work hard to keep us safe and provide critical services to the American people. 

“Of the federal workforce, more than 2.2 million civilian employees work to ensure resources and services are provided to countless communities across America,” they added. “By aligning military and civilian pay raises for 2025, you will recognize the efforts of the entire federal workforce.” 

Biden has until the end of December to finalize the pay raises. 

Source: AFGE Insider

Sen. Joni Ernst, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy and other politicians have continued to make incorrect statements about the federal workforce. Their statements have eroded their own credibility and are just an attempt at tarnishing the reputations of civil servants to make it easier to fire them and contract out their jobs to for-profit corporations. 

We believe that facts matter, and AFGE will continue to debunk these misconceptions as they come in.

Myth: 

The federal government is too centralized in the Washington area, and relocating agencies around the country will make it more effective. 

Fact: 

Just 15% of our nation’s 2 million federal workers live in the Washington, D.C. metro area. The remaining 85% already live across the country, in all 50 states, in big cities and rural areas, on military installations and in our communities, and everywhere in-between. 


Myth: 

The bloated federal workforce is at an all-time high. 

Fact: 

Over the past 50 years, the number of federal workers has grown by roughly 6%. At the same time, the U.S. population has increased by 57%. The ratio of federal workers to national population has steadily decreased for the more than a half-century at this point. In 2024, the total federal workforce compensation of $293 billion amounted to just 4.3% of the federal budget. Meanwhile, federal contractors accounted for $759.2 billion, or 11.4%. If federal workers were paid equally to private sector workers, their pay would make up a 10% share of the budget.


Myth: 

Federal workers are overpaid. 

Fact: 

Federal workers earn nearly 25% less than private sector and state and local workers who perform similar jobs.


Myth: 

Federal workers don’t seem to understand or care who they work for. 

Fact: 

About 642,000 federal workers are veterans of the U.S. military. More than half (58%) of all federal workers hold jobs that directly support our troops (Army, Navy, Air Force, DoD), our veterans (VA), or our seniors (SSA, CMS). Federal workers know better than anyone who they work for – the American people – because they devote every single day to delivering vital public services that hundreds of millions of American rely on. They do not cater to any corporate contractor’s bottom line; they serve only their fellow American citizens. 


Myth: 

Federal workers have “fake jobs.” 

Fact: 

Federal workers perform essential work on behalf of everyone who calls this nation home. They’re the doctors and nurses who care for our veterans, the people who get Social Security benefits out on time, the corrections officers in federal prisons who protect us from dangerous criminals, the USDA inspectors who make sure our food supply is safe, the FEMA specialists who assist disaster survivors, the TSA screeners who protect the flying public, the border patrol agents who stop drug smugglers and human traffickers, and so much more. 


Myth: 

We only have 6% of our federal workforce actually going into work every single day. 

Fact:  

54% of federal workers hold jobs that require them to report in-person to their duty station every day… Among those whose jobs permit telework, 61.2% of working hours are spent in-person. 


Myth: 

Americans are being put on hold by bureaucrats who are phoning it in. 

Fact:  

Mischaracterizing telework as failing to show up for work is a deliberate attempt to demean and disparage federal workers and ultimately eliminate and/or outsource their jobs. Both private and public sector employers have found that hybrid telework arrangements improves employee engagement, recruitment and retention. Hybrid work arrangements actually reduce wait times and allow better service for citizens.


Myth: 

Federal workers are low-skill workers who would be unqualified for private sector employment. 

Fact:  

Federal workers are both highly skilled and highly qualified. 66% of the federal workforce has a bachelor’s degree, compared to 43% of private sector workers, while 33% of federal workers have an advanced degree, compared to just 15% of private sector workers. 


Myth: 

98% federal bureaucrats are enrolled in a taxpayer-funded pension (compared to just 15% of private sector employees with access to a defined benefit pension plan). That locks federal employees into government employment & comes with a massive cost: nearly $1.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the main federal pension system. The cost of pensions is a key reason why most employers have moved away from them. 

Fact:  

While federal pay continues to lag far behind private sector pay, the average yearly pension for Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) retirees is just $25,000. As it stands, those benefits are no match for rising costs and exorbitant health care expenses that many seniors face. Yet, even as President-elect Trump, Elon Musk, and Ramaswamy plan to extend tax cuts and handouts to the wealthy, they are plotting to cut the key retirement benefits that federal workers have earned. 

AFGE/SSA ShutDown MOU

December 20th, 2024 | Posted by admin in Did you know? | Political | Shutdown - (Comments Off on AFGE/SSA ShutDown MOU)

The federal government shuts down when Congress fails to pass funding bills that allocate money to agencies so they can function. The current budget will expire at 11:59pm December 20, 2024. If a budget is not approved SSA will not have funds approved for payroll, and has historically required the essential employees to continue working. If the government goes into a shutdown your pay scheduled for January 3, 2025 will only cover hours worked from December 16-20, 2024. All subsequent pay will be delayed until a budget is approved.  

The Attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between AFGE and SSA was updated in October 2023 to add the following language: #13 Management will consider excepted employees furlough request similarly to leave requests made under Article 31 of the National Agreement. Preapproved leave will normally be honored with a lapse occurs. Employees on preapproved leave may request to substitute furlough time for their leave.

Please see the full agreement below.

FIGHT… FIGHT… FIGHT…

December 17th, 2024 | Posted by admin in Political | TeleWork - (0 Comments)

Dear Members,

In response to comments made by the president-elect threatening the SSA contract and telework agreement, AFGE National President Everett Kelley released the following statement:

“We support telework where it delivers for both the taxpayers and the workers who serve them. Telework and remote work are tools that have helped the federal government increase productivity and efficiency, maintain continuity of operations, and increase disaster preparedness. These policies also assist agencies across the government, including the Social Security Administration, in recruiting and retaining top talent.

“Rumors of widespread federal telework and remote work are simply untrue. More than half of federal employees cannot telework at all because of the nature of their jobs, only ten percent of federal workers are remote, and those who have a hybrid arrangement spend over sixty percent of working hours in the office.

“Collective bargaining agreements entered into by the federal government are binding and enforceable under the law. We trust the incoming administration will abide by their obligations to honor lawful union contracts. If they fail to do so, we will be prepared to enforce our rights.”

AFGE has also released a fact sheet dispelling many of the common myths related to telework and federal employees.

In Solidarity,

AFGE

The Trump Administration will waste no time dismantling the government and targeting AFGE for extinction. We can’t afford to waste a moment preparing ourselves to survive and thrive in this hostile environment. Here is one step you can take now to keep updated.

Update Your Contact Information

  • Update your contact information at www.afge.org/update so we can get you the latest information and alerts when it matters most. Sign up for text alerts: text AFGE to 59129

AFGE President Everett Kelley pushed back on the incoming administration’s plan to drastically cut the federal workforce and agencies without analyzing the impact they have on the American people. 

Appearing on C-SPAN Nov. 22, Kelley responded to recent statements by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy that 75% of the federal workforce and agencies need to be cut in addition to the use of reduction in force and moving federal agencies outside Washington, D.C. The business duo, who have no previous experience in government, have been tasked by Trump to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency.  

“First of all, when you say you want to cut them without further analyzing and see what our government really needs, I think is misguided,” Kelley said. “I welcome an opportunity to sit down and talk about how we can make the government more efficient. To think that you can take the federal employees inside of D.C. and send them out into the states to work, well guess what? Only 15% of federal employees work inside of D.C. They’re already dispersed throughout the United States. I just think that they need to educate themselves on what federal employees really do and where they are located.” 

To make the government more efficient, Kelley pointed to Medicare, which has an opportunity to save $60 billion by combating fraud. Tax evasion also cost the government $1 trillion this year alone. 

The AFGE president took issue with Musk and Ramaswamy calling federal workers “bureaucrats,” reminding them that these employees are Veteran Affairs doctors and nurses taking care of our country’s veterans, Transportation Security Officers who keep our skies safe, the meat inspectors who make sure the food we eat is safe, Bureau of Prisons correctional officers who protect their communities, Social Security Administration workers who cut checks to seniors, and the list goes on. 

“It’s a little patronizing to even think about the possibility of cutting 75% of the federal workforce. I see it as a direct attack against veterans. I am a veteran myself. Of the workforce, about 642,000 of that workforce are veterans, so when you say you’re gonna cut 75%, that means it’s a direct attack on veterans and I am appalled by that,” Kelley added.  

He also doesn’t think the new administration is trying to make the government more efficient. Rather, they want to drive away workers so they can give the jobs to contractors who are two to three times more expensive than federal employees.  

As a federal contractor, Musk himself has benefited from taxpayers’ dollars. 

“It’s not a matter of not their patriotism of people that I represent. It’s about the bottom line. It’s about making the dollar,” Kelley said. 

Kelley has also appeared on CNN and wrote a letter to the editor to the Wall Street Journal combating the slash and burn philosophy of Musk and Ramaswamy. 

DO NOT OPEN/READ ON AGENCY EQUIPMENT

October 17th, 2024 | Posted by admin in ELECTIONS | News | Political - (0 Comments)

Project 2025 is a blueprint for the hostile takeover of the federal government under an anti-union presidential administration. Everything from our jobs and union rights to the very existence of our agencies and our union are on the line.

 Authored by the ultra-conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, much of what is included in the 922-page document has to do with recommendations for enormous changes to the terms of federal employment, such as eliminating the GS and WG pay systems, making huge changes to the retirement system by cutting federal employee pensions and increasing the Social Security age, reinstating discriminatory hiring practices, making it almost impossible to reverse disciplinary actions and more.

Project 2025 threatens the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of federal employees and the unions that represent them by recommending budget cuts to shrink the government, privatize portions of the government and convert hundreds of thousands of jobs to Schedule F, which demands loyalty to the president, not the Constitution. It also recommends ordering agencies to reopen existing collective bargaining agreements to attain the strongest management rights and to decertify unions at DOD and DHS.

AFGE needs all hands-on deck to stop Project 2025 because if it succeeds, AFGE will no longer exist.

Share These Resources With Your Colleagues: 

AFGE in the News

Paid for by AFGE PAC (www.afge.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

2025 COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT (COLA)

October 15th, 2024 | Posted by admin in Benefits | COLA | News | Political - (0 Comments)

Most Feds to Receive Diet COLA – Again – in 2025

October 15, 2024

The 2025 cost of living adjustment (COLA) was announced last week, and most federal workers will again receive a reduced COLA due to a flawed rule in the current law.

For 2025, Social Security beneficiaries and Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) retirees are expected to receive a 2.5% COLA, while Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) retirees, those hired in 1984 or later, will only get a 2% increase.

Under the current law, the COLAs for Social Security, CSRS, and FERS are all calculated based on the rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). If CPI is 2% or less, the FERS COLA is the same as the CSRS and Social Security COLA. But if the CPI is between 2.01% and 3%, the FERS COLA is 2%. If the CPI is greater than 3%, then the COLA for FERS is 1% less than the CSRS COLA.

What does that mean for a FERS retiree? It means they will lose $128 a year just for 2025, assuming the same average pension. But for those who retired four years ago with the same average pension, their pension would have lost more than $1,000 to rising costs because the losses are compounded.

This unfair penalty places FERS retirees further away from keeping pace with the cost of living.

That’s why AFGE supports the Equal COLA Act (S. 3194 introduced by Sen. Alex Padilla and H.R. 866 introduced by Rep. Gerry Connolly) which would eliminate this unfair penalty for FERS Retirees. The legislation would also eliminate the arbitrary pension cost of living reduction federal employees face in high inflation years.

“Our nation’s public servants shouldn’t see their hard-earned retirement benefits eroded by a COLA set at the start to be arbitrarily lower the real inflation rate,” said AFGE Legislative Director Julie Tippens.

AFGE Stories

afge.org

AFGE Stories

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal emp