Border Patrol Agents Singled-Out Again for Huge Reductions in Pay

On February 19, 2013, the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) received official notice from Customs and Border Protection (Agency) regarding the Agency’s proposed sequestration plan. The Agency intends to implement these plans if Congress does not do what is necessary to avoid sequestration. Included with this message is a copy of the notice that details the proposed cuts for the Office of Border Patrol (OBP), Office of Field Operations (OFO) and Office of Air and Marine (OAM). Some of the cuts outlined in the notice include: decertification of administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO), furloughs, a reduction of travel expenses, and assigning two agents to a vehicle.

While it is great to finally receive a notice from the Agency that actually contains some information, the NBPC would like to address a false statement that appears in the beginning of the notice. The statement leads one to believe that the NBPC failed to respond to the invitation to engage in discussions regarding fiscal uncertainty. This statement is a blatant lie, and NBPC representatives are in possession of email correspondence that proves it. Fortunately, when confronted about their lie, the Agency agreed to retract this erroneous statement.



From the onset of the possibility of sequestration, the NBPC actively and consistently attempted to elicit information from the Agency in order to properly inform and educate our members. In fact, as of 3:00 p.m. on February 19, 2013, the Agency was still unable or intentionally refused to release any information to the NBPC about the Agency’s plan for sequestration.



On February 20, 2013, NBPC executive committee members met with Agency officials and received the fiscal uncertainty briefing. The Agency highlighted the plan but acknowledged how it may change and is subject to Secretary Napolitano’s approval. As is illustrated below, the discrepancy in pay cuts is shocking and offensive:



1. The Agency budget for Salary and Expenses is $8,169,959,000. The Agency needs to cut $558,257,000 from this figure. Of this amount, approximately $5,915,000,000 is actual salary and related benefits that are paid to all Agency employees (72.4% of the total Salary and Expenses budget.)



2. The Agency’s proposed overtime cuts in each component are:



a. OAM: 2 million

b. OFO: 35 million

c. OBP: 248 million



3. Administrative furloughs will be mandatory for all Agency employees. Administrative furlough days will be up to fourteen (14) non-consecutive workdays throughout FY 2013.



4. There are several other categories where cuts will be made, some of those are:



a. Buildings and maintenance

b. Fleet management

c. Travel

d. Relocation



One thing that should leap off of the page is the enormous disparity of overtime cuts between the three components. The manpower figures for OAM are unknown, fairly inconsequential to this argument, and therefore will not be addressed. OFO and OBP have almost the same number of employees, with OFO having a few hundred more. The Agency is mandated by law to cut 6.4% from the aggregate Salaries and Expenses budget, from which the Border Patrol appears to be picking up the lion’s share of the tab (87% of the proposed cuts).



Naturally the NBPC inquired about the disparity and nobody can or will tell us the real reason. However, Bianca Warner, the Executive Director of Mission Support, was nice enough to point out how she believes Border Patrol agents are simply overpaid and confirmed how the Agency has been targeting AUO to pay Agency bills for several years, regardless of sequestration. This is rather unsettling considering Bianca Warner’s salary for 2011 was $170,512.00.



The Agency has consistently attacked Border Patrol agents for several years with pay reform proposals that have singled-out Border Patrol agents for huge pay reductions. The intended purpose of the proposals is to redistribute Border Patrol agent salaries to fund OFO management salaries. The complete disdain for Border Patrol agents needs to be addressed by the Agency and not encouraged as it has been in the past.



For now, the drastic, proposed cuts are only necessary if Congress does not act. In circumstances like this, the NBPC may negotiate the impact and implementation of select topics that are related to conditions of employment. In other words, not every topic is considered negotiable. The NBPC cannot just say that we do not agree with implementing furloughs, decertifying AUO, reducing the vehicle fleet, rationing gas, reducing training, or assigning two agents to vehicles. Instead, the NBPC can only try to mitigate the way these measures are implemented through impact and implementation bargaining and hopefully ensure they are implemented in a fair manner.



The NBPC met with AFGE to request assistance on pressuring the Agency to reconsider the decision to take such drastic and lopsided cuts from the Border Patrol, which in turn makes the border less secure. We are in the process of drawing up a form letter for members to use to communicate with Congressional representatives. We will need all agents to utilize this letter to contact their elected officials. Please keep an eye on the NBPC website for further updates, when available.

HONOR OFO FIRST?

Don't drink the Kool-aid!

Castration by Sequestration

In light of the current events Local 1613 would like to put out what we know about the upcoming possibility of sequestration and how it will affect our members. 

 Here is the definition of Sequestration: 

An administrative furlough is a planned event by an agency which is designed to absorb reductions necessitated by downsizing, reduced funding, lack of work, or any budget situation other than a lapse in appropriations. Furloughs that would potentially result from sequestration would generally be considered administrative furloughs. 

This type of furlough is different than what those of us who were around in the past went through, when there was no budget. In that case that was a “Shutdown Furlough.” You worked regularly scheduled hours but did not receive any pay until the budget was passed and funds were available. 

In regards to the sequestration it would be considered an Administrative furlough as defined above. The important thing to note is that no immediate action should be taken on March 1, 2013. I quote from OPM.Gov (http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/) and their supplemental guide on administrative furloughs section B Employee Status: 

Employees who are scheduled to work on March 1, 2013, should report for work. Under sequestration agencies would still have funds available after March 1, but the overall funding for the remainder of the fiscal year would be reduced. This means that agencies will not be executing any immediate personnel actions, such as furloughs. On March 1. If furloughs or other personnel actions prove to be necessary, agencies will provide affected employees the requisite advance notice.

Chief Beeson has said that San Diego sector is planning for the worst and looking at zero AUO for everybody. Chief Beeson further stated that even if an agreement is made, San Diego sector is looking at reducing or cutting AUO in the future due to budget concerns. 

These statements contradict the guidance on the OPM website and reek of an agency agenda. An agenda to make AUO seem as unpleasant and unworkable as possible in order to force us into another pay system. This battle is ongoing and the agency continues to dress it up in different clothes but it is the same. I am sorry but I am not going to feel sorry for an agency that can’t keep its word. I will not feel sorry for an agency that will not bargain in good faith and attempts to use politics and strong arming to get its way. The Chiefs statements to me are another attempt to place the blame for our misfortune on someone or something else beyond his control. It’s time for someone to put on their big boy pants and take responsibility. 

According to OPM the agency should not decertify agents immediately upon this date. This would be a personnel action. Decertification is a personnel action I don’t care how the agency frames it. To even consider this as an option to me is simply castrating this agency and affecting our mission in a way that would do serious harm to its employees as well as compromise the safety of this country. I don’t know if the politicians and mangers that are in charge of this understand the ramifications of their actions and inaction. Agents and employees perform a dangerous and stressful job. Now you are telling them that on top of that it is possible you will have to also worry about how you are going to support your family and pay your bills. 

Managers will be visiting the stations and discussing this topic throughout sector in the upcoming weeks. I suggest you ask them a few questions: 

1. The OPM website states that no personnel action will be taken on March 1, 2013. Will the agency ignore that fact and decertify agents on March 1, 2013 if sequestration occurs? 

2. If decertification occurs how will it be implemented in a way that will not jeopardize the mission of the Border Patrol? 

3. The OPM website states that employees should contact human resources about how sequestration will impact them. Human resources has been contacted and they have not been given any directives on how this will impact employees. Who will we be notify employees as to the impact of sequestration? 

4. If agents are decertified and they cannot meet their financial obligations will the service propose disciplinary actions on employees during this sequestration? 

As always keep your questions and demeanor professional but make sure they answer your questions. If they say they will get back to you ask them when and who should you contact if they don’t? If you have questions that are not answered contact your local representative and have them forward it to an executive board member. 

Members of the National Border Patrol Council are asking questions at the national level and will pass that information on to us as it becomes available. All we know as of now is there has been no national direction from headquarters. 

I hope that this information helps soothe some of the worries that you, our members have. Know that your union is working diligently to protect your right to provide for your families. This job is stressful enough without the added pressure of pay cuts and furloughs. We will get you the information you deserve and notify all of you as soon as we do. 

I suggest every member call and write congress and the senate in regards to this issue. 

Find your senator at http://www.senate.gov/. 

Find your congressmen at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/. 

As one of my mentors, a retired Border Patrol Agent, quotes: 

Rest easy, sleep well my brothers. Know the line has held, your job is done.

Thank you, 

Terence L. Shigg 

NBPC 1613 VP

Former Executive VP of NBPC Passes Away

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (UPDATED 2/08/13)

 

The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) is extremely saddened to report the death of Richard Pierce, chief of staff for the NBPC, longtime executive vice president, and retired Border Patrol agent. In early December 2012, Rich was diagnosed with cancer. As a result, he spent his holidays preparing to battle the cancer. Regrettably, the battle ended abruptly on February 3, 2013 while he was in the hospital. Rich was 58 years old.

 

Rich entered on duty with the United States Border Patrol on May 12, 1980 and was a member of session 135 of the Border Patrol Academy. After graduating the academy, Rich was assigned to the Border Patrol station in Sierra Blanca, Texas. Several years later, Rich transferred to the Border Patrol station in Tampa, Florida where he stayed until he retired on March 31, 2005.

One of Rich’s classmates said he remembers passing through the checkpoint and stopping to speak with Rich. He recalls being so surprised to see a guy from New York who had so much enthusiasm about living and working in West Texas. Another classmate who worked with Rich said he was always willing to work extra hours in order to catch a smuggling load or track down smugglers in the desert because he enjoyed his job so much.

Throughout his career with the Border Patrol, Rich was involved at every level of the NBPC. Although most would have gladly walked away after retirement, Rich offered to continue assisting the NBPC and was ultimately appointed as the first NBPC chief of staff. He was always eager to accept challenges involved with helping agents and keeping the NBPC operating smoothly. He was instrumental in setting up the first NBPC website in the late 90s and made every attempt at improving internal communications throughout the years. He served as liaison to PORAC and worked with PORAC to identify attorneys throughout the country to represent our members under PORAC's legal defense fund. He willingly traveled around the country helping agents with a wide variety of issues.

Rich was honest, dependable and a champion of the field agents. He preferred to remain out of the spotlight and never drew attention to himself. His vast experience, his quick wit and even quicker smile will be sorely missed.

The NBPC expresses condolences to the Pierce family as they mourn his passing. Please keep the Pierce family in your thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. 

Services for Rich were just confirmed as follows: 

On February 14, 2013 at 7:00 p.m., a memorial service will be held at Stowers Funeral Home - 401 W. Brandon Blvd., Brandon, FL 33511 ; (813) 689-1211. 

February 15, 2013 at 11:00 a.m., a service will be held at the Florida National Cemetery - 6502 SW 102nd Avenue, Bushnell, FL 33513 ; (352) 793-7740.