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

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

How can AFGE Update YOU!

February 6th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Did you know? | Local 1395 | National Updates | New Address - (0 Comments)

Dear AFGE Activist,

When’s the last time you checked the contact information we have on file for you? Got a new mailing address, phone number or email address?

Now is the perfect time to make sure your contact information is update with your union. We’re in for a long road ahead with the upcoming administration and it is imperative that we are able to stay connected with members, leaders and activists all across the country.

Take 2-minutes to check your info!

Orange and white button that reads update your contact info

Our ability to stay connected is critical to our success now and in the future.

In Solidarity,

Q & A on deferred Resignation Program Email

February 5th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Did you know? | Executive Orders | JOIN AFGE | National Updates - (0 Comments)

Dear AFGE Activist,

We know this is a difficult moment for public servants. You are being asked to make a decision about resigning from the federal service on a short timeline and without enough information. That’s why, yesterday, AFGE and our allies filed a lawsuit against the Deferred Resignation Program seeking to prevent AFGE members from being misled.

In the meantime, we have updated some frequently asked questions we previously sent to provide you with the best guidance we can given the current uncertainty. You can also click here to view this guidance online.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on OPM’s Deferred Resignation Program Email

  1. What is the Deferred Resignation Program?

The Deferred Resignation Program (“Program”) was introduced by an email sent to federal employees on January 28, 2025. Preceded by threats to modify and downsize the federal workforce, the Program purports to allow federal employees to submit a resignation letter that will become effective on September 30, 2025. In exchange, the Program claims that employees will be exempt from “Return to Office” requirements and will maintain their current compensation and benefits until the effective date of their resignation.

Employees should not take the Program at face value. The Program documentation, including the introductory email, an associated guidance memorandum issued by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) on January 28, 2025, and OPM-issued FAQs, is riddled with inconsistencies and uncertainties. It is also unclear whether OPM has the legal authority to support the Program or its alleged benefits, and the eligibility criteria are vague.

  1. Is the Program a buyout?

No, the Program is not a buyout nor is it a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (“VISP”) program. Instead, it purports to offer employees the ability to submit a deferred resignation and claims that employees who do so will continue to receive pay, while still possibly working, until September 30, 2025.

Notably, however, the Program contains no guarantee that an employee’s resignation will be accepted. Nor does the Program guarantee that an employee whose resignation is accepted will receive the benefits that the Program purports to offer.

  1. If an employee chooses to accept the program, are they required to work during the deferred resignation period?

They may be. OPM’s statements are conflicting on this point. According to the OPM email and letter, employees will not be required to work in person but may be assigned remote work duties. The OPMFAQ page also suggests that employees will not be required to work except in “rare cases,” without defining what constitutes “rare cases.” At the same time, the FAQ’s describe the deferred resignation period as a “nice vacation” and the Program states that employees may be placed on “paid administrative leave.”

  1. Can an employee take another job during the deferred resignation period?

The FAQ states that the resignation letter does not explicitly prohibit outside employment. However, other existing policies, such as agency-specific regulations requiring prior authorization for outside work, are likely to apply.

  1. Are all federal employees eligible for the program?

No. Employees in positions related to immigration enforcement and national security, as well as those in any positions specifically excluded by their employing agency, are not eligible. USPS employees and military personnel are also excluded. There is no guidance on how employees can confirm their eligibility or if their agency has specific exclusions.

  1. Will employees who opt-in be protected from termination before their resignation date?

Nothing in the Program documentation prohibits the termination or separation of an employee who accepts deferred resignation. While the OPM email suggests that employees will maintain their compensation and benefits until the effective date of their resignation, it does not explicitly state that employees are shielded from layoffs or other adverse actions before September 30, 2025. There is no guarantee that employees opting in to the Program will not be targeted by such actions.

The Program also does not indicate what may occur in the event of a lapse in congressional appropriations. At present, many agencies of the federal government are only funded through March 14, 2025.

  1. What happens if an agency requires an employee to continue working despite OPM’s FAQ stating that continued work should be rare?

While OPM’s FAQ states that work will only be required in “rare cases,” the Program’s details vary across the different OPM documents. If an agency insists on continued work, employees may not have a clear administrative remedy, as the enforceability of the promises and statements in OPM’s FAQ is uncertain.

  1. What legal recourse do employees have if the government does not honor the terms of deferred resignation?

It is unclear what recourse, if any, employees might have if the government fails to honor the terms of their deferred resignation. There is no certainty that the statements made in the OPM Program documents will be legally enforceable. Even if the email and FAQ page are interpreted as an implied contract or offer, there is no guarantee that such a claim would be enforceable. For example, while each case will be fact-specific, resignation is generally considered to be a voluntary action. It is therefore unclear whether violations of the policy would be appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board, through the grievance process, or any other forum.

  1. How can employees ensure the administration will follow through on the Program?

Given the inconsistencies among the Program’s documents issued by OPM, as well as the ambiguous and conflicting language regarding work obligations and exclusions, there is no guarantee that the claims in the Program will be honored by the Government. The Program may also face legal challenges that could alter the terms of all or portions of the Program. Employees who opt-in to the Program will be at the mercy of the administrators of the Program, whose claims contain inconsistencies and lack stated legal underpinning.

  1. Is there an assurance that the promised continued salary will be funded?

No. Nothing in the OPM documentation contains such an assurance. Moreover, because current appropriations for most civilian agencies are set to expire March 14, 2025, it is not guaranteed that agencies subject to the current appropriations bill will continue to have adequate funding for the promised salary beyond the bill’s expiration.

  1. Why did AFGE file a lawsuit challenging the Program?

AFGE’s lawsuit aims to protect its members and force OPM to produce information supporting the legitimacy of the offers as stated in the Program. It is critical for employees to ensure that any offer from OPM is legally supported and that any participation in the Program will be honored and is enforceable. Based on the current terms of the Program, and the manner in which it has been implemented, government claims of its legitimacy are specious.

  1. What is AFGE asking for as relief in the lawsuit?

AFGE is seeking that the Program be declared a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and remanded to OPM to provide the reasoned basis and support for the Program as required by law. AFGE is also seeking to enjoin OPM from implementing the Program until such time as Defendants can provide justification for the legitimacy of the Program and assurance of its terms.

  1. Does AFGE’s lawsuit affect my ability to accept the offer?

Not directly or immediately. Unless and until the court issues an injunction or similar order, there is no change to the Program as presented by OPM. If the court does issue an injunction or otherwise grant the relief sought in the lawsuit, that could preclude employees from enrolling in the Program.

  1. I have received an agreement from my agency. Should I sign it?

Even if you have received an agreement or form regarding the Program from your agency, AFGE continues to advise its members not to participate in the Program or sign any related documents. Employees should carefully review the terms presented in the Program and pay special attention to the inconsistencies, vagueness, and lack of legal support.

  1. What would I be waiving by signing the agreement?

The updated language in the Program and accompanying distributed agreements contain language that waives employees’ rights to appeal or challenge any claims arising from their employment or participation in the Program in any judicial or administrative forum. OPM states that employees who enroll cannot rescind their choice and that the agency head has the sole discretion to unilaterally rescind enrollment in the Program. OPM further asserts that the agency head’s decision to rescind an employee’s enrollment is not subject to review by the Merit Systems Protection Board or any other forum. These waivers are troubling, to say the least.

  1. What actions can Locals and Councils take to protect bargaining unit employees from the Program?

Locals and councils may:

  • Consider filing requests for information under 5 U.S.C. § 7114(b)(4).
  • Consider filing a demand to bargain over the Program.
  • Consider grievances alleging the Program violates terms of their collective bargaining agreement or regulations (e.g. regulations concerning administrative leave).
  • Locals and councils may also have a basis for a grievance or unfair labor practice charge alleging, among other things, a bypass of the Union with respect to communications about the Program directly to employees.

Please Note: This 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

LINK TO ARTICLE ON LAWSUIT: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/federal-worker-union-sues-trump-over-fork-in-the-road-offer?fbclid=IwY2xjawIQ0rxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRi9oSxhy68paVKrMPkmLwbuxCHrmxrS_xhQYDeATrRopKrZ5vFOkgmBSA_aem_jUa4CBCx_Luo9aYh2z3l9w

Local 1395 Notice of Election & Nomination Meeting

February 1st, 2025 | Posted by admin in Did you know? | ELECTIONS | Uncategorized - (0 Comments)

AFGE Notice of Election and Notice of the Nomination Meeting has been mailed to all members at the last known address of record.

If you have not received this notice contact the Local 1395 Election Committee via email at 1395e2025@gmail.com to update your mailing address.

notice of election 01-19-2025 NOMINATION NOTICE and FORM AFGE 1395Download

Updates on Telework

January 30th, 2025 | Posted by admin in JOIN AFGE | TeleWork | Uncategorized - (0 Comments)

On January 29, 2025 via e-mail to AFGE General Committee SSA rescinded the January 23, 2025 directive that all employees return to their Official Duty Station 5 days per week.

AFGE Analysis of Executive Orders (EO)

January 23rd, 2025 | Posted by admin in Contract | Did you know? | Events | Executive Orders | KNOW YOUR CONTRACT | National Updates - (0 Comments)

Trump 2.0 EO Breakdown

Schedule Political/Career (PC) Executive Order

Soundbites:

  1. “This action will transform the professional civil service into an army of political appointees loyal to Trump, not their mission.”
  2. “It dismantles the merit-based civil service, jeopardizing professionalism and impartiality.”

Key Details:

  • Creates a hiring authority in the excepted service (Schedule PC) for policy-influencing decisions.
  • Could make hundreds of thousands of non-partisan roles into at-will positions.
  • Purports to remove due process protections and collective bargaining rights.

Legal Analysis:
Nothing in this Executive Order, as written, should abrogate existing collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), which remain in full force and effect. If agencies attempt to violate CBAs, unions should notify their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National. Members are encouraged to comply and grieve to ensure rights are upheld.

President Kelley:
“This order is a blatant attempt to corrupt the federal government by removing protections for workers, making them answerable only to one man.”

Return to Worksite Directive

Soundbites:

  1. “Telework isn’t new—over half of federal employees never worked remotely, even during the pandemic.”
  2. “Smart telework enhances productivity, recruitment, and retention. Rolling it back disrupts operations and progress.”

Key Details:

  • Directive allows agencies discretion in implementation, with no specific timeline.
  • Hybrid schedules negotiated in contracts remain binding.

Legal Analysis:
This directive does not, as written, violate collective bargaining agreements. Hybrid telework schedules detailed in CBAs remain legally binding. Should agencies implement policies contrary to CBAs, unions must notify their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, comply, and grieve.

President Kelley:
“This directive undoes decades of workplace progress. Rather than regressing, we urge the administration to focus on improving government programs for the public.”

Federal Hiring Freeze Memorandum

Soundbites:

  1. “The federal workforce hasn’t grown since the 1970s, while the U.S. population has skyrocketed.”
  2. “Freezing hiring worsens workforce shortages and skills gaps, undermining vital services.”

Key Details:

  • Freezes civilian hiring for up to 90 days, with exceptions for national security and public safety roles.
  • Prohibits outsourcing to circumvent the freeze.

Legal Analysis:
The hiring freeze does not, on its face, abrogate CBAs. However, agencies’ implementation must align with negotiated agreements. If violations occur, unions should escalate to their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, ensuring compliance and filing grievances as necessary.

President Kelley:
“This isn’t about efficiency—it’s about chaos and targeting patriotic Americans. These actions only harm the services the public relies on.”

Targeting DEI Programs

Soundbites:

  1. “Merit-based systems require fairness for all, ensuring opportunity regardless of background.”
  2. “Federal agencies have the lowest gender and racial pay gaps because hiring decisions are based on ability, not bias.”

Key Details:

  • Ends all DEI initiatives and reviews federal employment practices for compliance with the EO.
  • Risks undermining workplace equity and military readiness, as per defense leaders.

Legal Analysis:
The EO’s directive to review employment practices must comply with existing CBAs. If agencies attempt to implement changes that conflict with CBAs, unions should notify their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, comply, and grieve to uphold the negotiated terms.

President Kelley:
“DEI programs promote fairness and build a workforce that mirrors America’s diversity. Their elimination jeopardizes progress and inclusivity.”

Lawsuit Against DOGE

Soundbites:

  1. “Fairness, accountability, and transparency—these are at the heart of our lawsuit.”
  2. “Federal employees aren’t the problem; they are the solution. Excluding them threatens good governance.”

Key Details:

  • DOGE’s composition excludes federal employees’ voices, violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
  • AFGE and partners demand fair representation and transparency in government decision-making.

Legal Analysis:
While this lawsuit focuses on transparency and accountability, it is also critical for agencies to honor CBAs. If DOGE-led initiatives infringe on CBA terms, unions should escalate issues to their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, comply, and grieve.

President Kelley:
“This fight is about fairness and integrity. Federal employees’ voices are crucial to decisions affecting their work and public service.”

Reforming Federal Hiring

Soundbites:

  1. “Replacing objective criteria with vague ideals is a path to cronyism. Federal jobs should go to the most qualified, not the most connected.”
  2. “Merit-based hiring ensures federal employees serve the public, not political interests.”

Key Details:

  • Proposes subjective hiring criteria tied to “American ideals” and “efficiency,” undermining the current merit-based system.

Legal Analysis:
This EO, as written, does not eliminate protections afforded under CBAs. Should agencies adopt hiring practices inconsistent with CBAs, unions must escalate issues to their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, comply, and grieve to protect merit-based hiring systems.

President Kelley:
“The federal government already hires and promotes exclusively on the basis of merit. The results are clear: a diverse federal workforce that looks like the nation it serves, with the lowest gender and racial pay gaps in the country. We should all be proud of that.”

AFGE Pushes for 4.5% Pay Raise for Feds in 2025

December 29th, 2024 | Posted by admin in Budget | COLA | Did you know? | Political - (0 Comments)

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. 

AFGE Continues to Debunk Misconceptions About Federal Workers

December 29th, 2024 | Posted by admin in Did you know? | Labor History | National Updates | Political | Your Rights - (0 Comments)

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.

UPDATED Government Shutdown AFGE MOU Signed (002)Download

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