CBPO's getting covered this year??

[Maverick24]

Question to all you CBPO's out there. Is it true that you guys are finally getting covered in July? Heard this on another site and was curious to see if it was true.

[sparty]

Supposedly July 2008 is the date. The President signed the bill the day after Christmas. Of course the implementing regs have to be written yet so who knows if it will actually happen then.

[Maverick24]

Thats great news. I know you guys have been fighting for coverage forever.

[normal1]

What does this mean?

[rix031]

What does this mean?

this means there wont be a mass exodus from cbp as in the past!

[bluelightzgrl]

What does this mean?

It means they are going to be 6c covered.

[normal1]

Ohh!






I still don't get it :D

[bluelightzgrl]

Here is one thread I found, this doesn't cover all of the aspects of 6c. But in a quick nut shell it covers a few things.

6c thread


Big, Joey, Switch or one of the other 1811s who have 6c will be able to go into more detail.


*edit*
found an old page (dated 09-30-2005), this may help a bit more.

Who is considered a federal “law enforcement officer” for purposes of retirement benefits? The term “law enforcement officer” is defined in Title 5 as follows: an employee, whose duties “are primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States, or the protection of officials of the United States against threats to personal safety.” The law states further that “law enforcement officers’ jobs are “sufficiently rigorous that employment opportunities should be limited to young and physically vigorous individuals…” Today, many but not all federal police officers are covered under this definition, including the Capitol Police, FBI, Park Police, Secret Service Officers, and supervisory CBP Officers, but not CBP Officers themselves.


In addition, Members of Congress, federal air traffic controllers, and federal firefighters also enjoy the same retirement system rules as LEOs.

source

[ExUSPP]

this means there wont be a mass exodus from cbp as in the past!

Don't count on that. There are plenty of jobs with 6c coverage that still have high turnover rates.

[Big Sexy]

this means there wont be a mass exodus from cbp as in the past!

BIG disagrees with this statement. Now Chewy, Sparty and other CBPO's can speak upon this far better than BIG can, but he is going to give it a go anyway.

The USBP has a turnover rate, which though may not be as high as CBP, it is still a good amount of folks who leave. The USBP is, has been and will continue to be 6(c) covered.

It isn't the lack of coverage or the having of coverage which effects a lot of the turnover. It is job satisfaction. This is true, even if one is covered or not, in investigations or not, uniformed or not. Some folks thrive in each of these, while others haven't quite found their nitch yet.

But to say CBP or before them, USCS or USINS had such a high turnaround was because of a lack of 6(c) coverage is wrong, in BIG's opinion. They can have all the coverage in the world, but if the jobs sucks for you, is coverage really going to change your day to day??

[chewy]

this means there wont be a mass exodus from cbp as in the past!

Mmmmmm, I wouldn't go that far. We are still going to lose a ton of people for a REAL covered position but it'll help keep some people. More importantly it'll help bring more new people in. They'll apply and get hired before they realize what it's really like!

[chewy]

BIG disagrees with this statement. Now Chewy, Sparty and other CBPO's can speak upon this far better than BIG can, but he is going to give it a go anyway.

The USBP has a turnover rate, which though may not be as high as CBP, it is still a good amount of folks who leave. The USBP is, has been and will continue to be 6(c) covered.

It isn't the lack of coverage or the having of coverage which effects a lot of the turnover. It is job satisfaction. This is true, even if one is covered or not, in investigations or not, uniformed or not. Some folks thrive in each of these, while others haven't quite found their nitch yet.

But to say CBP or before them, USCS or USINS had such a high turnaround was because of a lack of 6(c) coverage is wrong, in BIG's opinion. They can have all the coverage in the world, but if the jobs sucks for you, is coverage really going to change your day to day??

There you go, that's the BIG factor... If there isn't a change in policies and management issues then all of the coverage in the world won't keep people here.

[rix031]

guys,
read my statement again. i simply stated that the MASS exodus will not occur as in the past. people will leave for every reason you guys stated, however, as a cbp officer myself, i hear people stating they are going to stay now. will the attrition rate continue to be high, of course. the job basically sucks and alot of people want to leave, however, that # is going to decrease. believe me, im one of those who is jumping ship!

[Kimble]

i simply stated that the MASS exodus will not occur as in the past. people will leave for every reason you guys stated, however, as a cbp officer myself, i hear people stating they are going to stay now. will the attrition rate continue to be high, of course. the job basically sucks and alot of people want to leave, however, that # is going to decrease.

Not necessarily. How can you be sure that the number of officers with CBP who left previously for 6c-covered positions will not be equal to, if not less than, the number who will leave to go onto other 6c-covered positions (ex: 1811, FAMS, USBP, etc.). Just because people left for one reason before doesn't mean the same number won't be leaving for a new reason now that CBP will be 6c-covered.

[BP348]

Big, Joey, Switch or one of the other 1811s who have 6c will be able to go into more detail.

What about us USBP guys we have 6c ;)

read my statement again. i simply stated that the MASS exodus will not occur as in the past.

Don't bet on it!!! Like big said USBP is 6c covered and we too have a retention problem.