Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Air Reserve Technicians

Air reserve technicians, commonly referred to as ARTs, are a nucleus of managers, planners and trainers who have knowledge and expertise to smooth Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) units' transition from a peacetime to a wartime environment. They provide management continuity, equipment maintenance and training support to help keep their units combat ready.

Air reserve technicians carry dual status, working as full-time civil service employees for the Air Force and as military members in the same AFRC units where they work as civilians and performing the same job. A civil servant or public servant is a civilian career public sector employee working for a government department or agency. In their civilian role, air reserve technicians provide full-time support throughout the month for their units. In the AFRC, air reserve technicians participate with other reservists on weekends and annual active-duty tours.

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
viney  
#1 Posted : Monday, November 21, 2011 6:46:24 PM(UTC)
viney

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/21/2008(UTC)
Posts: 13




S.1867

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)

SEC. 514. REPORT ON TERMINATION OF MILITARY TECHNICIAN AS A DISTINCT PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT CATEGORY.

Milgl  
#2 Posted : Monday, November 21, 2011 7:20:19 PM(UTC)
Milgl

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 450

and what does it mean? 512 pages is alot to read, the finer points really don't elaborate on ART's
lucabrasi  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:28:37 AM(UTC)
lucabrasi

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/17/2007(UTC)
Posts: 414


viney wrote:



S.1867

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)

SEC. 514. REPORT ON TERMINATION OF MILITARY TECHNICIAN AS A DISTINCT PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT CATEGORY.



I attended a symposium back in 2003 and this was addressed.

At the time, we were briefed that eventually the AF wanted to do away with the whole dual status concept and head in the direction of AGR's. The problem was that congress liked the program and wants to keep it in place. Eight years later.......meh....who knows.

I'm not sure if you can search thomas.gov in a way that will allow you to portions of legislation that were stricken, but if you can, you'll see where this turd has been floated in the past and received no traction, just like the provision in 2008 mandating ART's wear uniforms that was cut.

Here is SEC. 514 in its entirety:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112VJwv7k:e161590:


Quote:

SEC. 514. REPORT ON TERMINATION OF MILITARY TECHNICIAN AS A DISTINCT PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT CATEGORY.

    (a) Independent Study Required- The Secretary of Defense
    shall conduct an independent study of the feasibility and advisability
    of terminating the military technician as a distinct personnel management category of the Department of Defense.
    (b) Elements- In conducting the study required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
      (1) identify various options for deploying units of the
      Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve that otherwise use military
      technicians through use of a combination of active duty personnel,
      reserve component personnel, State civilian employees, and Federal
      civilian employees in a manner that meets mission requirements without harming unit readiness;
      (2) identify various means for the management by the
      Department of the transition of military technicians to a system that
      relies on traditional personnel categories of active duty personnel,
      reserve component personnel, and civilian personnel, and for the
      management of any effects of that transition on the pay and benefits of
      current military technicians (including means for mitigating or avoiding such effects in the course of such transition);
      (3) determine whether military technicians who are
      employed at the commencement of the transition described in paragraph
      (2) should remain as technicians, whether with or without a military
      status, until separation or retirement, rather than transitioned to such a traditional personnel category;
      (4) identify and take into account the unique needs of the National Guard in the management and use of military technicians;
      (5) determine potential cost savings, if any, to be
      achieved as a result of the transition described in paragraph (2),
      including savings in long-term mandatory entitlement costs associated with military and civil service retirement obligations;
      (6) develop a recommendation on the feasibility and
      advisability of terminating the military technician as a distinct
      personnel management category, and, if the termination is determined to
      be feasible and advisable, develop recommendations for appropriate legislative and administrative action to implement the termination; and
      (7) address any other matter relating to the management
      and long-term viability of the military technician as a distinct
      personnel management category that the Secretary shall specify for purposes of the study.
    (c) Report- Not later than one year after the date of the
    enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional
    defense committees a report on the study required by subsection (a). The
    report shall set forth the results of the study, including the matters
    specified in subsection (b), and include such comments and
    recommendations on the results of the study as the Secretary considers appropriate.


lucabrasi2011-11-22 13:36:35
Duckncover  
#4 Posted : Friday, December 02, 2011 1:30:38 AM(UTC)
Duckncover

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 38

If Secretary Penetta is getting his advice from the new National Guard appointee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then this appears to be the demise of the ART program!  DOD will not complete this study without bias either with a view toward saving, or dissolving, the ART program, and the results will reflect such.  One of the most intriguing questions is Element (b) 3 above pertaining to the "transition" of ARTs; but I'm not sure what the best method would be to make the change.
Civil10  
#5 Posted : Friday, December 02, 2011 3:32:52 AM(UTC)
Civil10

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/13/2007(UTC)
Posts: 280




See Milgl, I told you, with a swipe of a pen.  These are the important issues. 
Civil102011-12-02 11:38:31
tigman46  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:25:04 AM(UTC)
tigman46

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 77

step one.
seems like the new F2F program taken right from Acitve Duty is geared to get us old guys out first and go from there.....
Milgl  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:37:23 AM(UTC)
Milgl

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 450

Funny thing is, its the young guys that are failing and the old guys passing
Duckncover  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:04:58 AM(UTC)
Duckncover

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 38

Young guys don't have the huge investment in the ART program that the older guys have made, and the younger guys aren't sure the ART program is going to be around in the next three years let alone 30 years.
Milgl  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:50:06 AM(UTC)
Milgl

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 450


Duckncover wrote:
Young guys don't have the huge investment in the ART program that the older guys have made, and the younger guys aren't sure the ART program is going to be around in the next three years let alone 30 years.
 
They have invested no less than anyone here. Well, you have had a few years to get into shape now, so no excuses can be used except laziness
MC5Wes  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:19:23 AM(UTC)
MC5Wes

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/29/2010(UTC)
Posts: 496

Was on the computer today. And I saw the Air Force now has a direct Hire program for GS-1910 9/13 QA openings on USAJobs.
 
I went to our HR office. And like I thought before I walked in. They were no help.
 
Anyone else looking into transfering?
MC5Wes2012-01-18 15:25:51
Duckncover  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:39:30 AM(UTC)
Duckncover

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 38

You're confusing me; you said that more of the older guys are passing the F2F.  I'm suggesting that the reason for that is because the older ARTs have made a lifetime commitment to an ART career, and therefore are more motivated to reach the finish line of their career.  On the other hand, someone young who has made a nominal investment in an ART career is less likely to commit to F2F, throw in the towel, and forfeit their ART job/potential career at any given moment.  BTW, if the older group is passing more than the younger group, than I think we've identified who the "lazy group" is.
saylahbrat  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:36:46 AM(UTC)
saylahbrat

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 32

I can say that I am a young ART (3 1/2 yrs), but I feel like I have invested way more than that because of all the BS involved... This argument can go either way - I come from a younger generation ART base where there is more motivation/positives that come from them than the older ARTs.  However, the unit I was at prior, has an older ART population that are much better than the younger ones.  Guess it depends on where you're at 
Duckncover  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 11:22:42 AM(UTC)
Duckncover

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 38

Well, somebody's is going to need to explain to me how: (A) a 25 yr old with 3 1/2 yrs in the military is fired for failing their PFT; and (B) a 55 yr old with 27 yrs in the military is fired for failing their PFT; and (A) and (B) are effected equally, and their investments in the military are equal?

Lifetime opportunity (as used in finance) for the fired 25 yr old is much, much greater than the fired 55 yr old.  Either longevity means something, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, start promoting 25 yr olds to E-9/Col if qualified; if it does, I've made my point.
Milgl  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:54:23 PM(UTC)
Milgl

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 450

Duckncover wrote:
You're confusing me; you said that more of the older guys are passing the F2F.  I'm suggesting that the reason for that is because the older ARTs have made a lifetime commitment to an ART career, and therefore are more motivated to reach the finish line of their career.  On the other hand, someone young who has made a nominal investment in an ART career is less likely to commit to F2F, throw in the towel, and forfeit their ART job/potential career at any given moment.  BTW, if the older group is passing more than the younger group, than I think we've identified who the "lazy group" is.
 
Why are you confused...It was just a simply statement. My point was not to label a group (young/old ART's) as lazy but to point out a cause as to why the older/seasoned ART's are *****ing about F2F. How many gripes on here do you see from those who have passed F2F or have adapted a life style of working out at the gym? It's not like this program was started yesterday. Many, including myself had to change our lifestyle to retain employment, some chose not to and are being forced to retire! If you wish to label a group, i say it is the later of the last statement.
Civil10  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:58:36 PM(UTC)
Civil10

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/13/2007(UTC)
Posts: 280



I'm confused, what future are we talking about?????  I think the ART program done.  Take a good look around.
Duckncover  
#16 Posted : Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:01:51 AM(UTC)
Duckncover

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 38

Given S.1867, the future of the ART program (as it exists today) is definitely under the microscope, and will be changing, but I'm not convinced it's toast.  It might go away, but I believe that S.1867 will expose the many problems that will occur if the ART program is dissolved.  That said, we can agree that today's ART program doesn't look like the ART program of 1985, and probably will look significantly different in 2040 than it does today.
 
martyb  
#17 Posted : Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:03:14 AM(UTC)
martyb

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/3/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,507

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I have to agree with that statement!
Forum trolls to 0%
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 1.589 seconds.