Fox News reports Border will be left Unsecure

Foxnews has run a report we need to make sure all our political representatives see. Go to NBPC.net to view the news report and post the link to your social media pages.

nbpc.net
 

Summary of Senate Appropriations

The National Border Patrol Council would like to thank McAllister & Quinn for creating the below summary of the Senate appropriations: 

http://www.nbpc.net/

California Representatives letter of support

Local 1613 would like to thank the following representatives for their letters to Speaker of the House Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor supporting the Border Patrol.

Members of Congress who signed the letter:

Susan Davis
Juan Vargas
Scott Peters
Juan Ruiz

Please click the link below to read the full letter.

http://t.co/WWdtUG92ps

Stop Sequestration Rally March 20, 2013

The demonstration was a success and I would like to thank George McCubbin III, AFGE District 12 Vice President for getting the media there and inviting us. Not all media representatives that were invited showed up but we appreciate those that did and the coverage they provided.

Check the link below for video footage from UT-San Diego TV.

http://bcove.me/nvg9qv03

Continuing Resolution to Fund Customs and Border Protection

The House passed a continuing resolution (CR) to authorize the full-funding for the Agency. The Senate is working on their version, which is expected to pass as well. If the two bills are reconciled, the Agency will be fully funded and the de-authorization of AUO will not be necessary. The furlough days are still a possibility, but in the end, it will depend on the funding authorized by Congress.

Go to NBPC.net for the full update!

Furlough oral template

The National Border Patrol Council has created a template for those who wish to exercise their right to have an oral reply to the adverse actions proposed by Customs and Border Protection. Go to NBPC.net to download and read instructions. Get with your local representative or e-board member if you need further assistance.
 

Repeal Sequestration Rally

March 20, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    

 

 

  Location: Corner of Yama and Main, San Diego

 

 Sequestration implemented the way DHS has chosen will jeapordize National Security!

Who is behind the CBP Sequester Plan to Attack Border Patrol Agents' Pay?

Sunday, 17 March 2013

The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) is frequently asked who is behind the plan to reduce the number of Border Patrol agents on the border, which is what will occur if Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is successful with de-authorizing Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO). In one prior article, the NBPC reported how Bianca Warner openly stated in a meeting with the NBPC how she believed Border Patrol agents are overpaid. In response, the NBPC reported Bianca Warner's base salary in 2011, which was $170,512.00. Interestingly, after reporting this information, the NBPC heard from several sources who said they have heard Bianca Warner make similar outrageous statements on various occasions. The NBPC just discovered there is a chart of the 1000 highest paid employees in Customs and Border Protection. The data was obtained from the same source that was previously used to report the base salary of Bianca Warner and the Labor Employee Relations Specialists in CBP. Guess what? Bianca Warner is number 31 on the CBP highest paid list. The NBPC still does not know all of the people behind the plan to de-authorize AUO for Border Patrol agents. However, we now understand why the other individuals who are responsible for this offensive plan continue to hide behind people like Bianca Warner, and it probably due to the fact that their names probably appear on this list with her name. They know they are being paid an inflated base salary to sit in the comfort of their office and develop a plan to attack Border Patrol agents. They also know they are among the highest paid salaries in CBP and the federal government. Even though the base salary they earn is inflated and most likely well-above the salary of an employee performing the same job in the private sector, they have the nerve to attack the pay of Border Patrol agents when the salary an agent receives is directly attributed to the shift they work, which includes at least ten hours per day, five days a week. For the record, AUO is a reduced-rate system that was specifically designed to save money while at the same time providing the necessary manpower to protect the border. AUO is unlike the Customs Officer Pay Reform Act (COPRA), which is the other system used for select employees in CBP. In case you are wondering, Border Patrol agents do not earn COPRA. The NBPC created a chart to compare AUO and COPRA, and the chart illustrates the cost savings of AUO. Ironically, none of the CBP plans have ever attempted to address COPRA. Instead, all plans have been aimed at attacking Border Patrol agents and the AUO that agents receive as compensation for the extra hours they work each day to protect the border.

NBPC Issues Cease and Desist Notice to CBP

Friday, 15 March 2013

Donald R. Stakes, Director Labor Management Relations U.S. Customs and Border Protection 1400 L Street NW Washington DC 20229 Subject: Sequestration Dear Mr. Stakes, On Feb. 19,2013, CBP provided notice of its intent to furlough all CBP employees for up to 14 work days and to reduce overtime compensation by decertifying all Border Patrol Agents ("BPAs") who had been authorized to work Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO). These proposed actions constitute changes in the employee's conditions of employment. In a Feb. 25, 2013 letter, the National Border Patrol Council ("NBPC") demanded to bargain over CBP's sequestration plan, including, but not limited to the plan to furlough employees and decertify all BPAs for AUO. In addition to listing a number of initial bargaining positions, NBPC requested information needed to forward its proposals. Although the agency has not yet responded, NBPC was forced to set a bargaining date because the agency had unilaterally and inappropriately begun to implement its proposals. You and I have agreed to commence bargaining on Tuesday, March 19,2013, and you have further agreed to exert your best efforts to provide me with our previously requested information prior to the start of bargaining. As you know, CBP has a duty to bargain -- on a pre-implementation basis --with the NBPC over its proposals to impose furloughs and to decertify BPAs for AUO. While we recognize that CBP has the right to determine whether furloughs will take place, its rights are limited because it is seeking to impose administrative as opposed to emergency furloughs. As such, CPB must bargain with NBPC over, among other things, the procedures by which furloughs will be implemented, the timing and method by which furlough hours will be imposed on employees, the employees or groups of employees that will be furloughed or exempted from furloughs and the appropriate arrangements for employees who may be adversely impacted by furloughs. All such bargaining must be conducted prior to the implementation of furloughs. See e.g. Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base and National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23, 19 FLRA 136 (1985). Despite CBP's obligation to participate in pre-implementation bargaining and despite the fact that we have set March 19 as the start date for such bargaining, CBP began unilaterally sending out furlough notices to employees last week even though the wording of such notices are themselves subject to pre-implementation bargaining. NBPC is now demanding that CBP cease and desist from such activity and that it rescind its furlough notices until such time as the parties have agreed to the wording to be used in such notices. At this early date, CBP can rescind the notices with no diminishment in its ultimate ability to impose furlough days since more than half of the current fiscal year remains in front of us. However, if CBP refuses to rescind the current notices, it could be disastrous if a third-party authority reversed the subsequently imposed furlough days. In a similar vein, Thomas S. Winkowski, CBP's Acting Chief Operating Officer, has directed CBP's Office of Human Resources Management (HRM) via memorandum to begin the process of de-authorizing the payment of AUO for all employees currently authorized to receive it. The effective date of the AUO decertification is April 7, 2013. NBPC questions Mr. Winkowski's legal authority to de-authorize the payment of AUO and it therefore requests any and all documents that provide the authority for the Acting Chief Operating Officer to decertify Border Patrol Agents for AUO. CBP's proposal to decertify Border Patrol Agents from AUO or to otherwise deauthorized the payment of AUO for Border Patrol Agents, due to sequestration or otherwise, is equally subject to pre-implementation bargaining. See, e.g. U.S. Customs Service, Northeast Region and National Treasury Employees Union, 20 FLRA 190 (1985). While we again recognize that CBP may have the right to assign work, including overtime, appropriate arrangements for employees who will suddenly lose a substantial portion of their normal pay, along with the procedures by which AUO is computed and paid are subject to preimplementation bargaining. See, e.g. National Border Patrol Council and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 23 FLRA 106 (1986). As such, NBPC believes that CBP's current, prebargaining efforts to decertify BPAs for AUO is premature, not consistent with the requirements of the Statute and the CBA and should be immediately terminated. Furthermore, NBPC has serious reservations and concerns about any decision to decertify BPAs for AUO, even under the extreme circumstances of sequestration. Nothing has changed, or will change, in regards to the amount of work or number of hours of work that BPAs are required to perform each day to secure out nation's borders and to keep the American public safe. NBPC firmly believes that any move to end AUO for BPAs will have immediate and serious consequences for the integrity of our nation's borders and for the sovereignty of the United States. Such a step would substantially erode and in some cases terminate an agent's ability to detect and arrest aliens, smugglers and other criminals, including terrorists, who use the border area to further perpetuate their often violent and unlawful schemes. Without AUO, there will be fewer BP As available to patrol the border on any given shift and aliens, gun-runners and drug smugglers will quickly learn and begin to exploit the vulnerabilities directly caused by CBP's decision to decertify BPAs for AUO. Without a doubt, the end of AUO would result in vast areas of the United States being unpatrolled and thus ceded to the control of criminal cartels, bandits and smugglers with all of the attendant crime that follows their activities. Accordingly, NBPC reiterates its previous demand to bargain over any and all matters relating to CBP's sequestration plans, including, but not limited to, its proposals to furlough employees, to decertify BPAs for AUO or to otherwise de-authorize the payment of AUO to BP As. NBPC further insists that CBP promptly furnish NBPC with the information it previously requested, including a copy of its sequestration plan, so that NBPC may further develop and perfect its negotiable proposals and engage in a meaningful dialogue with CBP during the upcoming bargaining scheduled to commence on March 19, 2013. NBPC also demands and insists that CBP immediately cease and desist with any further implementation of its sequestration plans, or with implementing any other measure that result in a change to employees' conditions of employment until such time as CBP has fully and completely satisfied its duty to bargain with the NBPC over all such matters.

Fourlough appeal response letters and instructions

By this time, you may have already submitted the request for information that the NBPC published to the website on March 7, 2013. Some have questioned why the Union is not submitting one response to all of the proposed actions. This is due to the fact that every employee has a right to respond verbally and in writing to a proposed adverse action. As previously mentioned, a furlough is an adverse action and this is your opportunity to challenge the Agency's action and recommend alternatives to the proposal.

 
 

Therefore, the Union recommends that every employee exercise their right to respond to this proposed action. The right to respond also includes a right to request a reasonable amount of administrative time in order to review all of the materials, to consult with a Union representative, to develop the written response, and prepare for the oral response.

 

To aid in the process, the NBPC developed the Request for Information Template and published it to the website on March 7, 2013. Now, the NBPC has developed the Employee Response Template to be used to respond to the proposed action. Remember, the response must be submitted within ten days of receiving the proposed action. Below are the instructions, to include some of the prior instructions, to ensure everyone properly understands the process:

1. Identify a station Union representative/steward to represent you in this matter;

2. Request administrative time wtih your supervisor to review the proposal notice, to review the materials that the Agency provided with the notice, and to complete the applicable forms (G-956, request for information, and written reply) to this proposed action;

3. Download a copy of Form G-956 and complete the following: your name, the name of your station Union representative/steward, your signature, and the date.

4. Download the Request for Information Template. Fill in the reps name in the header after consulting with your representative on the other information in the header. Then, add the date; the name, and location of the deciding official; add your name to the "RE" line; add the deciding officials name to the opening line; complete the other information in the first paragraph; and add the rep's name to the signature line.

5. Make three copies of your G-956 and your request for information. Provide one to your Union representative/steward, save one for your records, and give one to the deciding official or your first line supervisor. Make sure you have your supervisor or the deciding official date stamp all three copies of the request for inforrmation.

6. Download the Employee Response Template and complete the following information: Union representative information in the header of the letter; location of the deciding official; the date that appears on the notice that you received, and your Union representative's name in the signature line at the end of the document.

7. Make three copies: one for you, your representative, and one for your representative/steward to deliver to the deciding official. Again, if possible, have the deciding official date stamp all three copies.

8. Then, discuss your oral response with your Union representative/steward so he or she can coordinate scheduling the oral response.

9. Make sure you contact your elected officials. Although the Union is meeting with key elected officials, many of them want to hear from their constituents and in many cases, question why they have not heard from you.

 

10. If you are having any trouble getting approved for official time contact an eboard member immediately.

Union Meeting March 12, 2013

NBPC Local 1613 Meeting Tuesday March 12, 2013

WHO: Union Members Only

WHERE: The Handlery Hotel, 950 Hotel Circle North, CA 92108

The Local 1613 Executive Board is usually in full session from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Directors, Lead Union Representatives, and Union Representatives are invited at 6:00 p.m. to attend the Executive Board's meeting to discuss any issues affecting their respective Border Patrol Stations. General membership meeting begins at 7:00 pm. 

Agenda Items this month:

 

1.      Sequestration

a.       Furloughs

b.      Decertification

c.       Appeals

2.      Budget

3.      Training

4.      Payroll reform

5.      Updates from the National Convention

 

If you are not able to attend and have questions please email or contact a union representative to have your issues brought up at the meeting.

 

AFGE press release on impact of sequestration on Border Patrol

AFGE DENOUNCES SINGLING OUT OF BORDER PATROL FOR LARGEST SEQUESTRATION HIT

Union says DHS decision will have dire consequences for border security

WASHINGTON—J. David Cox Sr., national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, today issued the following statement on sequestration’s impact on border security:

“On Friday, March 1, hours after he signed the sequester order, President Obama tried to describe to the press the impact of sequester on federal employees, active duty military and their families. He referred to ‘Border Patrol agents in the hot sun getting a 10 percent pay cut…’

“Just as ‘the hot sun’ is hardly the biggest risk Border Patrol agents take while performing their duties, the 10 percent pay cut to which the president referred is only a small portion of the economic pain the Department of Homeland Security has in store for them. In fact, DHS has singled out Border Patrol agents to receive by far the largest financial penalty of any other group of federal workers. The plan DHS has chosen for Border Patrol agents will mean a 35 percent decline in their paychecks for the rest of the fiscal year and beyond.

“Border Patrol agents have been singled out to lose 75 percent more of their paychecks than even civilian Department of Defense workers who face 22 days without pay (for a 20 percent pay cut). Secretary Napolitano has announced that she intends not only to furlough Border Patrol agents for 14 days, but also to impose a total moratorium on routine overtime pay. Together these policies will reduce the paycheck of a typical Border Patrol agent by 35 percent. Even within their own agency, these cuts stand out for lopsidedness and severity. For example, officers who police the ports and provide customs enforcement will be furloughed 14 days but retain overtime; there is every reason to believe that they will make up wages lost to furlough with compensatory overtime so that cargo and passengers will continue to move through ports of entry. But with this anti-Border Patrol policy, illegal “cargo and passengers” will likely flow into the U.S. as well.

“Guarding the border is not a nine-to-five job. Overtime work is routine, and when they are hired, agents are informed that they will almost never work a regular eight-hour shift. Instead, they are expected to work at least 10 hours every day and often more because they do not stop when they are in pursuit of drug and gun smugglers and others engaging in criminal activity on the border. But with the sequester policy DHS has fashioned for Border Patrol, agents will be instructed to stop working at the moment their straight shift ends. Good news for criminals and others who would enter our country illegally; but very bad news for Americans who rely on the courage and devotion of Border Patrol agents who risk their lives every day to keep drugs and guns and gangs outside our borders.

 

“We urge Secretary Napolitano to rethink this terrible decision. It is wrong for border security, and it is wrong to single out Border Patrol agents for such drastic and undeserved economic pain. Border Patrol agents are law enforcement professionals, and this policy will undermine their ability to carry out their mission to guard the border and protect American citizens. Apart from the inequity in the size of the economic sacrifice being demanded of them, they do not want to let criminal gangs and smugglers go just because their shift has ended. The moratorium on overtime combined with 14 furlough days must be reconsidered.”

 

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 670,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.