Change the language that removes from the Technician Act (32 U.S.C. § 709) the requiring of the wearing of uniforms for excepted service Technicians
- Target:
- United States Congress
- Region:
- United States of America
The Montana case from years back concerned whether Technicians must wear military uniforms to work. There were strong feelings on both sides of the issue. On one side, were most of those inside the Guard’s leadership across the country. They believed that wearing of the uniform was an essential component of “dual status” employment.
In their estimation, any GS or WG Technician could be activated into military status at any time. Moreover, their 40-hour/week jobs were contingent on their willingness and ability to wear those uniforms.
On the other side of the argument were the unions – especially ACT. Their leaders and members felt the uniform represented only half of a Technician’s status. When doing their day-to-day duties (on an air base, in Army maintenance facilities, developing logistics plans, or in an HR office) Technicians are paid per Federal schedules and regulations. If these workers are classified like other Feds, why require them to wear military uniforms?
Caught between these opinions was the Montana Air Guard. Their leadership agreed to contract provisions that would, with management approval, allow Technicians to work in civilian attire. Such a provision had gone unnoticed in a 1981 version of their labor-management agreement but when the Montanans agreed to carry the same language into a subsequent document, the fireworks were lit.
- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/07/01/the-uniquely-unionized-national-guard/#sthash.v9i8hD1W.dpuf
Like most decentralized agencies, the Guard has a headquarters advisory service – the National Guard Bureau (NGB). “Bureau” as it’s known around the country provides coordination and policy that cross state lines. NGB also has a staff of subject matter experts including some who advise HR Offices located in each state.
At the time the Montana Air Guard agreed with ACT over the uniform issue, Bureau provided technical assistance in reviewing the completed agreement per 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7114(c)(2) for all of the states. When the NGB specialists and lawyers saw language allowing civilian attire for Military Technicians, they rejected it, declaring that wearing the uniform for dual status employees to be a management right per 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7106(a)(1) Assuming that to be the case, providing an option to sport civilian attire was an illegal contract provision and could not remain in the negotiated agreement.
At Bureau’s insistence, the Montana Air Guard repudiated the already-negotiated provision and years of litigation ensued including trips to the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s (FLRA) General Counsel, the FLRA itself, US District Court, and the Circuit Court of Appeals. In the end, Bureau lost its case and turned to the late Gillespie “Sonny” Montgomery, a Congressman from Mississippi and retired National Guard General.
Montgomery was one a handful of elected officials who actually understood issues relating to dual status Technicians. He introduced a bill to amend the Technician Act (32 U.S.C. § 709) by requiring the wearing of uniforms for excepted service Technicians while performing their 40-hour/week jobs. It passed, and that statutory provision ended the controversy concerning whether Technicians would wear military uniforms to work every day.
- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/07/01/the-uniquely-unionized-national-guard/#sthash.v9i8hD1W.dpuf
The ART program was first implemented in 1958 as the result of an Air Force study which showed that Air Force Reservists and Air National Guardsmen could be trained, and their operational readiness maintained, by fewer full-time Air Reserve Technicians than by a larger number of full-time active duty Regular Air Force personnel. The Air Reserve Technician program saved the Air Force $13 million (in 1958 $USD) during its first year of operation.
As of 2012, Air Reserve Technicians comprise over 10,500 of all personnel assigned in the Air Force Reserve Command, or approximately 15% of total AFRC manning. ART manpower in the Air National Guard comprises a slightly higher percentage, numbering approximately 18,000 personnel or +/- 17% of total Air National Guard personnel strength in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.
We, the undersigned, are advocating change based on blatant labor violations which have been demonstrated in different arenas such as those by AFGE Council 214 blocked its implementation at Air Force Material Command (AFMC) bases. The decisive factor was a 2003 MOA on AFI 36-703. Civilian Conduct and Responsibility which bans application of “military grooming standards” to civilians. To date Council 214 bargaining unit ARTs remain exempt from the military uniform requirement.
Both in the U.S. to include Nellis AFB and abroad U.S. troops are being instructed thru directives not to wear uniforms off base in order to blend in more with the locals.
Furthermore, civilians are not in command of the troops they supervise, said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, who served as Air Force deputy Judge Advocate General from 2006 to 2010 and now teaches law at Duke University.
“The only civilians in the operational chain of military command are the president and the secretary of defense,” Dunlap said in an email. “Service secretaries also have certain authorities, but not in the same operational sense.” While civilians in higher pay grades may get the same benefits entitled to general officers, that is “a matter of protocol and comity, not because they are legally equivalent,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoff Corn, a former judge advocate officer who now teaches at South Texas College of Law in Houston. Civilian supervisors still have lots of authority over troops, Corn said in an email. For example, they can assign tasks, and assess troops’ performance. “But they cannot perform functions of command, such as process disciplinary actions,” Corn said in an email. “Instead, they are supposed to recommend such actions to the soldier’s commander. When the commander is not available, a subordinate military officer assumes command, not the civilian.”
The petitioned signatures challenge the validity of uniform wear by ARTs merit, and call for change to the language that will remove from the Technician Act (32 U.S.C. § 709) the requiring of the wearing of uniforms for excepted service Technicians while performing their 40-hour/week jobs for three additional real merits: Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2903 Subparagraph 9.12.2.1 uniforms indicate combatant status under the international laws of armed conflict by distinguishing military members of the armed forces from civilians and other noncombatants, AFI’s 36-801 2.4 subparagraph 2.4.7 which states Coordinate with Labor Relations Officer to ensure that all bargaining obligations are completed prior to implementation of uniforms. AFI 36-2903 paragraph 1.4 sub paragraph 1.4.7 While working in an off-duty, civilian capacity. This change would then foster a change in all other AFI’s that pertain to ARTs and uniform wear.
You can further help this campaign by sponsoring it
The Change the language that removes from the Technician Act (32 U.S.C. § 709) the requiring of the wearing of uniforms for excepted service Technicians petition to United States Congress was written by glenn edwards and is in the category Civil Rights at GoPetition.