Challenging a Uniform Policy
Remember the item about the Air Force's move to require its air reserve technicians (who technically are civilian federal employees, but must join the reserves as a condition of their employment) to wear military uniforms on the job? Officials at the American Federation of Government Employees, who represent the technicians, were not happy about the move, and now they've taken action. AFGE has filed an official complaint challenging the policy.
“We are arguing that the regulation regarding the uniforms is capricious and contrary to law,” said Eugene Fidell, an attorney handling the case on behalf of AFGE. “A civilian employee cannot be required to wear a military uniform. Requiring ARTs to wear military dress while serving in their civilian capacity improperly upsets settled expectations and confuses military and civilian status.”
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
There is a more practical solution eliminate the ART program, make them either reservists or NG and that will eliminate the food fight
maxketter Posted Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:26 PM"...confuses military and civilian status.” What the h*** does that mean? Without your military status, you don't have a civilian one. Stop your typically union gripping and get back to work.
USAF Retired Posted Friday, April 25, 2008 2:36 PMThe DoD keeps asking (actually trying to force)civilian employees to work in war zones then they pull this! Not very politically correct at this time. If I was to work in a war zone as a civilian I'd expect to report to civilians. I'd want a buffer between my myself, my job and the military. This does not shed a very good light on how that situation would end up. Additionally, they'd have to pay me as much as they're paying the military to begin with. Check out what the GAO is saying a E-6 is making even without hazardous duty pay! Hoo-rah!
Bill Posted Friday, April 25, 2008 4:45 PM"...want a buffer between myself, my job and the military." Hogwash. If you work for the military there should be no buffer. Grow up and do your employer's bidding or find another job. I would be proud to wear the uniform again.
Ex-military, current civil servant Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:39 AMIf you are wearing the uniform, people expect you to "be" military, to act military, and they will treat you as military. This is a good thing. It raises the bar. Unfortunately, they are expected to meet these higher expectations without the without the compensation of the rank they wear. There is no housing allowance, basic allowance for subsistence, and they pay toward their health care, just like other civilians. This is just a military way to have their cake and eat it too. All the work, without having to pay people as they should. Completely brilliant, only if your a tax payer.
Corrine R. Loyola Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:06 AMART's are civilians until they are activated. They should NOT be wearing a military uniform until that event occurs.
Federal Employee Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:12 AMI wonder what disciplinary action was taken against the General Officer who implemented a regulation change counter to public law?
My guess would be nothing, and they were probably pronoted.
James Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:18 AMI wonder what disciplinary action was taken against the General Officer who implemented a regulation change counter to public law?
James Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:18 AMMy guess would be nothing, and they were probably promoted.