Fers sick leave credit

[James48843]

The FY2010 Defense Authorization Bill. H.R. 2647, was voted on in the Senate tonight. It passed 68-29. The FERS Sick Leave credit was part of the bill.

Now, the only thing left is for President Obama to sign the bill, and it becomes law.

Effective as soon as the President signs it, it will extend, for retirement purposes, the time credited for any remaining sick leave for FERS, just like CSRS is.

They will count 50% of sick leave immediately upon signature of the bill, and then it goes to 100% in 2013.

Here is the exact language:
-----------------------------------------------
SEC. 1901. CREDIT FOR UNUSED SICK LEAVE.

• (a) In General- Section 8415 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--

• • (1) by redesignating the second subsection (k) and subsection (l) as subsections (l) and (m), respectively; and

• • (2) in subsection (l) (as so redesignated by paragraph (1))--

• • • (A) by striking `(l) In computing' and inserting `(l)(1) In computing'; and

• • • (B) by adding at the end the following:

• `(2)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (1), in computing an annuity under this subchapter, the total service of an employee who retires on an immediate annuity or who dies leaving a survivor or survivors entitled to annuity includes the applicable percentage of the days of unused sick leave to his credit under a formal leave system and for which days the employee has not received payment, except that these days will not be counted in determining average pay or annuity eligibility under this subchapter. For purposes of this subsection, in the case of any such employee who is excepted from subchapter I of chapter 63 under section 6301(2)(x) through (xiii), the days of unused sick leave to his credit include any unused sick leave standing to his credit when he was excepted from such subchapter.

• `(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `applicable percentage' means--

• • `(i) 50 percent in the case of an annuity, entitlement to which is based on a death or other separation occurring during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this paragraph and ending on December 31, 2013; and

• • `(ii) 100 percent in the case of an annuity, entitlement to which is based on a death or other separation occurring after December 31, 2013.'.

• (b) Exception From Deposit Requirement- Section 8422(d)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking `section 8415(k)' and inserting `paragraph (1) or (2) of section 8415(l)'.

• (c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to any annuity, entitlement to which is based on a death or other separation from service occurring on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

------------------------------------------------------

The votes FOR this bill were:

YEAs ---68 Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)




The votes AGAINST this bill were:

NAYs ---29 Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

 

[McDuck]

The FY2010 Defense Authorization Bill was voted on in the Senate tonight. It passed 68-29. The FERS Sick Leave

FERS Sick Leave is beans compared to FERS not getting COLAs. The Labor FatCats soldout the FERS back the early 1980s.

 

[McDuck]

James,

The people that voted nay voted based on the whole bill, not one little section ie Section 1901. You know better than that. If Tom is going to allow you to be a moderator, you need to show more creditibilty than that.

 

[James48843]

James,

The people that voted nay voted based on the whole bill, not one little section ie Section 1901. You know better than that. If Tom is going to allow you to be a moderator, you need to show more creditibilty than that.

I reported accurately. I said the name and number of the bill. What did I say that was not accurate?

You are free to post and make comment on the reasons those who voted against the Defense Authorization Bill gave for their vote.

Nearly EVERY bill passed by Congress has a wide range of things they cover. This one is no different than any other.

I report.

You decide.


The fact is that the FERS sick leave language was authored by Rep. James Moran, D-Va.

And now the language has passed the final hurdle -the full Senate voting on the Conference Report- as part of a larger bill.

Thank you Congressman Moran, and to those who voted Yes on this bill.

 

[McDuck]

Please post here all the text that a yes/no was voted for. Instead of just one-tenth of 1 percent.

I reported accurately. I said the name and number of the bill. What did I say that was not accurate?

You are free to post and make comment on the reasons those who voted against the Defense Authorization Bill gave for their vote.

Nearly EVERY bill passed by Congress has a wide range of things they cover. This one is no different than any other.

I report.

You decide.


The fact is that the FERS sick leave language was authored by Rep. James Moran, D-Va.

And now the language has passed the final hurdle -the full Senate voting on the Conference Report- as part of a larger bill.

Thank you Congressman Moran, and to those who voted Yes on this bill.

 

[poolman]

James,

The people that voted nay voted based on the whole bill, not one little section ie Section 1901. You know better than that. If Tom is going to allow you to be a moderator, you need to show more creditibilty than that.

McDuck,

This would have been better posted in a PM. Now You know better than that.

James has always been Credible IMO.

Please back your words up with proof before trying to Discredit him. :notrust::laugh:

 

[James48843]

Please post here all the text that a yes/no was voted for. Instead of just one-tenth of 1 percent.

See if this link works- I am not sure if it does- because of the way THOMAS does things:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp111:FLD0101(hr288)

Nearly EVERY bill contains a lot of things-

This was the "Conference Report" that they voted on.

A Conference Report is the meeting of members of the House, and members of the Senate, meeting and going through the House Version, and the Senate version, and then negotiating the differences between the two versions of legislation. Whatever they end up negotiating, then has to be approved one final time by the House, and one final time by the Senate, before it is sent to the President for signature, and becomes law.

When someone wants to get legislation passed, they try to get it "tacked on" to something that is moving through the process. Either a House bill, or a Senate bill. Then, it has to survive in the conference committee report.

In this case, Moran (D-Va), offered it up in the House. It wasn't in the Senate bill.

When it came time to "fish or cut bait", the language survived.

It's the way Washington works.

What I said was that section 1901 WAS IN THE FINAL BILL. No one was sure whether or not it was going to make it through conference, if you had been following this legislation. We thought it might, and was glad when the conference report was published last week, and it was in there. SO the only thing left to make this into law, was the final Senate vote.

That final Senate vote happened tonight.

And I reported it- accurately, that the Senate passed the final bill.

Yes, section 1901 was in the final version voted on tonight.

Yes, many, many other things were in that bill. I identified section 1901 so you could go find it if you wanted to.

And some things got cut as well- in the conference. You can read for yourself, what stayed, and what was tossed out, if you read the conference report.

As I said previously- you are free to post what reasons some Senators gave for their no votes. Several of them talked about their reasons today on the Senate floor. You are welcome to post whatever you like to talk about their reasons as you wish.

I posted this thread because I figured FERS employees might want to know that it passed.- and it effects every single FERS employee here.

If you want to start another thread about what else is in the bill, you are free to do so. I would suggest that you place that thread in the politics forum, however, as this forum is titled "The Day Job", and is for information that affects all federal employees conditions of employment- and things connected to "The Day Job".

 

[Bullitt]

Please post here all the text that a yes/no was voted for. Instead of just one-tenth of 1 percent.

Do you really care about what else was voted for? That's like saying to ESPN, "thanks for the USC vs Notre Dame highlights and analysis but you should show me the highlights from Nicholls State vs. Sam Houston State because they played a game also."

 

[James48843]

By the way - for those of you in Defense, covered by NSPS- this bill also has something in it for you. Here is govexec.com's writeup on the passage last night in the Senate of this bill:

Senate sends bill ending Pentagon pay system to president's desk

By Alyssa Rosenberg
arosenberg@govexec.com
October 22, 2009

President Obama's signature is the only obstacle remaining to a full repeal of the Pentagon's pay-for-performance arrangement, after the Senate passed legislation that would roll back the controversial system and provide members of the armed forces with a 3.4 percent pay raise in 2010.


The Senate on Thursday approved the final version of the fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill by a vote of 68-29, sending it to the president's desk. In addition to language dismantling the National Security Personnel System and allowing a military pay raise 0.5 percentage points higher than that requested by Obama, the measure contains significant changes to federal retirement law.

The final version of the policy bill repeals NSPS in full and requires that all NSPS employees return to their previous pay system by Jan. 1, 2012. It asks the Defense secretary to begin moving NSPS employees back into their old pay system within six months, and prohibits the Pentagon from decreasing the salaries of employees who got raises under NSPS. Until they are returned to their old pay systems, NSPS employees will be guaranteed the full pay hikes given to General Schedule workers.

The bill also sets the course for changes in how Defense Department employees are evaluated. It directs the Defense secretary to work with the Office of Personnel Management chief to create a "fair, credible and transparent" performance appraisal system for employees and a similar system "for linking employee bonuses and other performance-based actions to performance appraisals of employees." Employees are to receive "performance assistance plans," giving them access to on-the-job training and mentoring.

The bill also gives the Defense secretary the ability to propose new personnel flexibilities, pending congressional approval.

Beyond the Defense Department, the final authorization bill contains governmentwide changes to retirement rules, including a provision that would allow workers in the Federal Employees Retirement System to count unused sick leave toward their retirement. Until Dec. 31, 2013, employees would receive 50 percent credit for unused sick time; they would receive full credit beginning on Jan. 1, 2014.

The bill also allows federal retirees to return to government for limited, part-time appointments without having to take cuts in their annuities. And it will let employees who work part time before they retire use higher salary figures to calculate how that work factors into their retirement benefits. FERS employees who left and returned to government service would be able to redeposit savings in the retirement system and earn credit for years they already worked in government.

In addition, the bill moves federal employees who work outside the continental United States from a cost-of-living-adjustment system into the locality pay system. COLA payments do not count toward retirement calculations, and they are not matched as part of Thrift Savings Plan contributions.

The leaders of federal employee groups praised the legislation, and urged President Obama to sign it swiftly.

"The administration and Congress have tasked federal employees with immense responsibility in the face of an ambitious agenda to restructure the federal government's role in the delivery of services to the American public," said Darryl Perkinson, president of the Federal Managers Association. "We need experienced individuals to lend their expertise as we tackle the challenges ahead and to mentor those who will serve the nation in the future. Signing this bill into law will ensure the federal government builds on its successes as we transition to the next generation of public servants."

Randy Erwin, legislative director for the National Federation of Federal Employees, praised the provision ending NSPS, noting the union has been battling the pay system for six years. "Had NSPS been implemented as first proposed, federal employee unions probably would not even exist today," he said. "DoD would have stripped our right to collectively bargain and we would have disappeared."

Source: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=43862&dcn=todaysnews

 

[CountryBoy]

James,

The people that voted nay voted based on the whole bill, not one little section ie Section 1901. You know better than that. If Tom is going to allow you to be a moderator, you need to show more creditibilty than that.

Though I agree with you on principle regarding the actions and the POV slanting of posts by Mods, we all realize that even they have biases and will slant any story or link such that it makes their point. We know which way they all swing, though I don't know any that swing both ways, (oohh almost over the line :blink I've got no problem there, cause if they couldn't join in on our spirited debates, Tom would have a hard time getting good, qualified Mods, which I think we have.

We all cherry pick the facts to a certain point, even me. :nuts: So the mods are only human and as long as they address the facts, keep things factual, and heck even a blatant opinion post does't bother me, but censorship should be a no no, especially when you haven't crossed the line.

The mods do a good job of keep the MB a good place to discuss all matters. Hats off to them.

Now back to our regurlarly scheduled program.

CB

 

[Show-me]

The rest of you FERS guys and gals don't get COLA?

 

[James48843]

...We know which way they all swing, though I don't know any that swing both ways, (oohh almost over the line :blink ...

Ok CB- I'll make you a promise- about swinging both ways..???

My promise is.....

If you dont' ask.....I won't tell.




(Yes- I loved your line.... )

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

By the way - for those of you in Defense, covered by NSPS- this bill also has something in it for you. Here is govexec.com's writeup on the passage last night in the Senate of this bill:

Senate sends bill ending Pentagon pay system to president's desk

By Alyssa Rosenberg
arosenberg@govexec.com
October 22, 2009

President Obama's signature is the only obstacle remaining to a full repeal of the Pentagon's pay-for-performance arrangement, after the Senate passed legislation that would roll back the controversial system and provide members of the armed forces with a 3.4 percent pay raise in 2010.


The Senate on Thursday approved the final version of the fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill by a vote of 68-29, sending it to the president's desk. In addition to language dismantling the National Security Personnel System and allowing a military pay raise 0.5 percentage points higher than that requested by Obama, the measure contains significant changes to federal retirement law.

The final version of the policy bill repeals NSPS in full and requires that all NSPS employees return to their previous pay system by Jan. 1, 2012. It asks the Defense secretary to begin moving NSPS employees back into their old pay system within six months, and prohibits the Pentagon from decreasing the salaries of employees who got raises under NSPS. Until they are returned to their old pay systems, NSPS employees will be guaranteed the full pay hikes given to General Schedule workers.

The bill also sets the course for changes in how Defense Department employees are evaluated. It directs the Defense secretary to work with the Office of Personnel Management chief to create a "fair, credible and transparent" performance appraisal system for employees and a similar system "for linking employee bonuses and other performance-based actions to performance appraisals of employees." Employees are to receive "performance assistance plans," giving them access to on-the-job training and mentoring.

The bill also gives the Defense secretary the ability to propose new personnel flexibilities, pending congressional approval.

Beyond the Defense Department, the final authorization bill contains governmentwide changes to retirement rules, including a provision that would allow workers in the Federal Employees Retirement System to count unused sick leave toward their retirement. Until Dec. 31, 2013, employees would receive 50 percent credit for unused sick time; they would receive full credit beginning on Jan. 1, 2014.

The bill also allows federal retirees to return to government for limited, part-time appointments without having to take cuts in their annuities. And it will let employees who work part time before they retire use higher salary figures to calculate how that work factors into their retirement benefits. FERS employees who left and returned to government service would be able to redeposit savings in the retirement system and earn credit for years they already worked in government.

In addition, the bill moves federal employees who work outside the continental United States from a cost-of-living-adjustment system into the locality pay system. COLA payments do not count toward retirement calculations, and they are not matched as part of Thrift Savings Plan contributions.

The leaders of federal employee groups praised the legislation, and urged President Obama to sign it swiftly.

"The administration and Congress have tasked federal employees with immense responsibility in the face of an ambitious agenda to restructure the federal government's role in the delivery of services to the American public," said Darryl Perkinson, president of the Federal Managers Association. "We need experienced individuals to lend their expertise as we tackle the challenges ahead and to mentor those who will serve the nation in the future. Signing this bill into law will ensure the federal government builds on its successes as we transition to the next generation of public servants."

Randy Erwin, legislative director for the National Federation of Federal Employees, praised the provision ending NSPS, noting the union has been battling the pay system for six years. "Had NSPS been implemented as first proposed, federal employee unions probably would not even exist today," he said. "DoD would have stripped our right to collectively bargain and we would have disappeared."

Source: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=43862&dcn=todaysnews

Isn't this the same bill that the Dems slipped in a revision to the Hate Crimes Bill adding additional penalties for crimes committed against Homosexuals?

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Ok CB- I'll make you a promise- about swinging both ways..???

My promise is.....

If you dont' ask.....I won't tell.




(Yes- I loved your line.... )

I believe you're saying "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies." :laugh:

 

[James48843]

Isn't this the same bill that the Dems slipped in a revision to the Hate Crimes Bill adding additional penalties for crimes committed against Homosexuals?

Yes- that is Section "E". Items 4701 through 4713 address Hate Crimes. The definition now covers:

RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY.


That section also includes making it a hate crime if the person being attacked is a U.S. Serviceman, if the attacker is doing it on account of military service status of the victim:

----------------------------------------------

SEC. 4712. ATTACKS ON UNITED STATES SERVICEMEN.

• (a) In General- Chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1389. Prohibition on attacks on United States servicemen on account of service

• `(a) In General- Whoever knowingly assaults or batters a United States serviceman or an immediate family member of a United States serviceman, or who knowingly destroys or injures the property of such serviceman or immediate family member, on account of the military service of that serviceman or status of that individual as a United States serviceman, or who attempts or conspires to do so, shall--

• • `(1) in the case of a simple assault, or destruction or injury to property in which the damage or attempted damage to such property is not more than $500, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $500 nor more than $10,000 and imprisoned not more than 2 years;

• • `(2) in the case of destruction or injury to property in which the damage or attempted damage to such property is more than $500, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $1000 nor more than $100,000 and imprisoned not more than 5 years; and

• • `(3) in the case of a battery, or an assault resulting in bodily injury, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $2500 and imprisoned not less than 6 months nor more than 10 years.

• `(b) Exception- This section shall not apply to conduct by a person who is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

----------------

Just some of the provisions included in the bill.

 

[James48843]

Wrong. I was referring to the FERS retires don't get COLA until they are 62 (which will probably be raised in the future).

Ah. you are absolutely correct. Those FERS employees who retire at their minimum retirement age, and who get a FERS Social Security Supplement until they are age 62, do not get ANY COLA until they are age 62. This IS a very important point to keep in mind, when deciding whether to retire at 55/30 (or full retirement age of 57/30 for those born later) and age 62.

Standard FERS employees get no COLA in that time period.

The only exception is those with special retirement provisions- Firefighter, Loaw enforcement, Air traffic controllers, and (of course) Congresscritters, who DO get a COLA, even if they are only in their 40's by the time the retire. Those lucky FERS folks get full COLA from the day they retire.

But the rest of us either have to work until Age 62, or learn to live without any COLA until we turn age 62.

that's something to keep in mind when you are deciding at what age to retire.

thanks for pointing that out McDuck- a lot of folks don't know about that particular issue.