Proposed Legislation for CBP Officers - My Opposition to 6-C Retirement.

Texas representatve, Sheila Jackson, recently proposed legislation before Congress that would drastically alter the current employment status of Customs and Border Protection Officers. In essense...if passed...the following changes would take effect.

1. CBP officers would again fall under FLSA overtime statutes.
2. CBP officers would be granted law enforcement retirement under (6-C) mandates.
3. CBP officers would retain full union bargaining rights
4. Immigration, Customs and Agriculture functions would be split apart again.

These are the main points. Of the proposed points....I am really only opposed to one...and that is the one that generates the most debate. The inclusion of CBP officers under the federal law enforcement retirement system...also called (6-C)...for the section of law which it would attach.

For decades immigration inspectors, customs inspectors and agriculture inspectors have fallen under the regular federal retirement system called FERS and the prior system before that.
Under the those systems there were no age restrictions so long as you could pass the tests, pass the screening requirements and could perform the duties of the job. But, under the (6-C) law enforcement retirement scheme, no one over the 37 would be eligible to apply for these positions unless they previously served in a civilian FEDERAL law enforcement position.

This means that no matter what shape the person was in, how competent he/she was, or how much experience they might have...they would be forever barred from these positions based only on the how old they were. 37 years old is really not that old. A person hired at 38 would be only 58 after 20 years in service. You can't even collect social security until you are 67.

Typically immigration and customs inspection duties are broken down in 3 major duty locations. 1. Airport inspection. 2. Seaport inspection and 3. Land border inspections. Of the 3 duty positions...airport inspections has the least to do with full time law enforcement and investigative duties. This was exactly the work I did at Los Angeles International Airport in the early 90s. The duties were not difficult and required little physical effort. Most of the time employees checked travel documents and visas of arriving passengers from overseas. Unless you were an advanced journeyman level...most of your shift was on the primary line. It was only after a person was referred to secondary inspection that any real investigative or law enforcement duties would arise. In my opinion, CBP officers assigned to airports should NOT be granted law enforcement retirement because so little of their everyday duties are actually law enforcement. Mandatory age restrictions based on non-merit factors will cut out a huge swath of people who whould otherwise be excellent employees in these positions. If passed, even preference eligible military veterans over 37 would be barred from getting this job...even if they were military police!

Land border inspections are a different matter. They actually do law enforcement duties on a more regular basis. Tons of drugs, guns and people are smuggled across the border points each year...especially the southwest border. I can see (6-C) coverage for these employees. It is far more dangerous work than in the primary lane at LAX. Further, land border insectors have always carried firearms on duty. This has not been true for airport inspectors. Prior to 9/11 only supervisors have been allowed to carry weapons on duty. It was only after 9/11 that all employees were allowed to carry weapons.

The US government currently has plenty of law enforcement type jobs with 6-C coverage for people who want them. DEA, Secret Service, FBI, ICE, Border Patrol and many other agencies have numerous 6-C covered positions for anyone under 37 to apply to. But only former immigration and customs inspectors...now CBP officers...allowed older americans, veterans and civilian police officers...the opportunity to work in quasi-law enforcement positions with the US government. Now...if the legislation is fully passed...this door will be closed forever. I know many potential applicants over 37 would be willing to remain under the regular FERS retirement and waive all rights for 6-C retirement if they could still be allowed to work as a CBP officer...just as they have been allowed to do for decades. I would be willing to waive the 6-C coverage for that opportunity again. I think it is an option that should be incorporated into the law if it is passed so people over 37 have an opportunity. The government currently employees thousands of people who have inspection or investigation related duties...such as District Adjudication Officers...who are under regular FERS with no age bar. These positions are every bit as investigative as a CBPO would be...probably more. In fact, ther grade progression for non-comepetitive promotion rises above a CPB officer...to GS-12, versus GS-11 for a CBP officer. The government has many positions like this...and they are not 6-C covered. In fact...many CBP officers transfer over to District Adjudication Officer (DAO) positions as soon as they can after being hired as a CBP officer. Unfortunately...CBP officer positions far outnumber the available DAO positions and as such...openings for these positions are very competitive.

I urge anyone who reads this to contact their representative or senator and voice their opposition to this unfair and discriminatory proposal. At the very least...military veterans...especially ones who were former military police...should not have to be denied the opportunity for these jobs because they are over 37. In my opinion...no one over 37 should be denied the right to apply for these jobs if they can otherwise qualify for them...especially at the airports across the country!