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
BamaHamma  
#1 Posted : Thursday, May 19, 2016 8:50:35 AM(UTC)
BamaHamma

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/18/2016(UTC)
Posts: 4
United States

I know a lot of ARTs who hate being required to wear the uniform and there has been a lot of conversation about it over the years. The problem is-we have all been looking at it the wrong way. We should embrace it. Why? Because they are making us just like Active Duty. And according to the Equal Pay & Compensation Act of 1963 and the EEOC's own handbook we should be receiving equal pay/benefits because we are in the same workspace doing the exact same job. There has been a discrimination lawsuit by an ART against the Air Force recently on this very thing...and he won. It's an EEOC case, there is no appeal. He is now waiting (as we all are) to see how they will address the compensation. They just extended the compensation meeting another week(May 26, 2016). We don't think they even realize the lawsuit wasn't about the uniform but equal compensation. (Actually we're all wondering if they even realize what all this could change.) This in theory should affect all the ARTs and quite frankly it doesn't matter if we wear uniforms or not. We are hoping to see things like the health insurance(aka free Tricare)/benefits to be addressed. This could however affect your TSP. The ARTs at this particular base once had a meeting with a certain general about wearing of the uniforms. He told us civilians to "deal with it." Thank you for your hubris sir, it's been dealt with. And by the way, if they want to kick everyone out of the ART program over this it would be retaliation.

Just going to throw this out there about the PT program. If an older male ART gets fired because he failed his PT test(s) (and gets kicked out) or didn't get a promotion - he should probably try to file an EEOC case. How would the Civil Service explain how a 50 year old male would be fired or not get a promotion vs an 18 year old(or whatever her age) female ART. It's about the same requirements, it's ridiculous, and it's discrimination.

By the way, these are fights the union should be making, not individuals.
CivSer67  
#2 Posted : Thursday, May 19, 2016 9:52:59 PM(UTC)
CivSer67

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/20/2015(UTC)
Posts: 254
Man
Germany

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 15 post(s)
Great points except the unions as not all unions are the same. Some are strong and some are non existent. I wonder if this works, will it be applied to all ARTs and those former ARTs who had to suffer wearing the uniform? Wait until you get a transgender ART who wants to not only use the bathroom, but now wants to test with female standards... can't wait for that one.... laugh now, but it's coming

Edited by user Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:00:49 PM(UTC)  | Reason: because

frankgonzalez  
#3 Posted : Friday, May 20, 2016 2:52:04 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,271

Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 691 time(s) in 527 post(s)
Originally Posted by: BamaHamma Go to Quoted Post
I know a lot of ARTs who hate being required to wear the uniform and there has been a lot of conversation about it over the years. The problem is-we have all been looking at it the wrong way. We should embrace it. Why? Because they are making us just like Active Duty. And according to the Equal Pay & Compensation Act of 1963 and the EEOC's own handbook we should be receiving equal pay/benefits because we are in the same workspace doing the exact same job. There has been a discrimination lawsuit by an ART against the Air Force recently on this very thing...and he won. It's an EEOC case, there is no appeal. He is now waiting (as we all are) to see how they will address the compensation. They just extended the compensation meeting another week(May 26, 2016). We don't think they even realize the lawsuit wasn't about the uniform but equal compensation. (Actually we're all wondering if they even realize what all this could change.) This in theory should affect all the ARTs and quite frankly it doesn't matter if we wear uniforms or not. We are hoping to see things like the health insurance(aka free Tricare)/benefits to be addressed. This could however affect your TSP. The ARTs at this particular base once had a meeting with a certain general about wearing of the uniforms. He told us civilians to "deal with it." Thank you for your hubris sir, it's been dealt with. And by the way, if they want to kick everyone out of the ART program over this it would be retaliation.

Just going to throw this out there about the PT program. If an older male ART gets fired because he failed his PT test(s) (and gets kicked out) or didn't get a promotion - he should probably try to file an EEOC case. How would the Civil Service explain how a 50 year old male would be fired or not get a promotion vs an 18 year old(or whatever her age) female ART. It's about the same requirements, it's ridiculous, and it's discrimination.

By the way, these are fights the union should be making, not individuals.
Not certain why you say that because it was an EEOC case there is no appeal. Agencies can appeal EEOC decisions (and do so frequently).

But without the details of the case, "equal compensation between active duty and civilian employees" wouldn't be an EEOC case as the two groups are no similarly situated.

As for the PT failure example you give...the 50 year old who fails the PT test would be let go because they failed to maintain a condition of employment (in this case, a qualified member of the Reserves), and NOT the PT failure itself. And odds are, the 50 year old male (from your example) is not likely to be competing with an 18 year old anything. Odds are it may be they are competing with a 30 year old. And as each age group has different standards for the PT test, the agency can easily defend this as a military requirement.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
BamaHamma  
#4 Posted : Friday, May 20, 2016 5:20:37 AM(UTC)
BamaHamma

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/18/2016(UTC)
Posts: 4
United States

Frankgonzalez my apologies for saying that because it was an EEOC case there is no appeal. There were two appeals and the Air Force lost both. Now there is no appeal. My understanding is that is was an EEOC case because he filed it on the civilian side using the Equal Pay Act of 1963. I'm guessing the judge didn't see the two groups being dissimilar (for the civilian side) as they are in the same workplace doing the same job. This shouldn't have an effect on the Active Duty folks, just the civilian ART side. The Air Force lawyer was supposed to have some settlement ready yesterday but filed an extension because he was going to be on "vacation." The judge gave him a week.

As far as the young female vs older male PT requirements, it doesn't even have to be some young female. That's just the extreme case. The requirements for older females vs males in the PT program is much worse. In any case if some older male ART gets fired for being kicked out for the PT program he could at least file the case and stay on the job till it was settled. Maybe, maybe not. No one here thought that filing an EEOC case would win either.

CivSer67 you are right about the transgender issues. Those cases will be coming. PT program, bathroom/showers, sleeping/bunk issues.



frankgonzalez  
#5 Posted : Friday, May 20, 2016 7:28:18 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,271

Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 691 time(s) in 527 post(s)
What was the base and person the case was about? I'm interested in seeing what it was actually about. Mil vs Civ are not comparable groups (at least not under EEO laws like the EPA). I think I found the case (Logan G., Complainant, v. Deborah Lee James, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency April 1, 2016)...however it is NOT over. All the EEOC did was remand it back for investigation. The agency was given 150 days to complete the investigation, after which the member can file for a hearing with the EEOC (or potentially to the District Court depending on when he filed his original complaint).

So..don't count this as a win yet. I will lay odds it will get dismissed (based on what I saw in the EEOC OFO decision...unless more comes out in the next stage) at the hearing stage.

Edited by user Friday, May 20, 2016 7:39:00 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
BamaHamma  
#6 Posted : Friday, May 20, 2016 7:50:51 AM(UTC)
BamaHamma

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/18/2016(UTC)
Posts: 4
United States

Sent you the name and place of the case. The one you mentioned is not it.
frankgonzalez  
#7 Posted : Friday, May 20, 2016 10:12:47 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,271

Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 691 time(s) in 527 post(s)
That case I listed is what the EEOC has named it (the names are changed by the EEOC to allow a level of anonymity, but the moment you go to federal district court, the actual names are used).

From the EEOC OFO Order:
Quote:
The Agency requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120151927 (October 8, 2015). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision where the requesting party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c).

In his underlying complaint, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the basis of sex (male). In its final decision dated April 10, 2015, the Agency determined that Complainant's complaint was comprised of the following claims:

a. Complainant was informed that he was required by Air Force Reserve Command to wear the Air Force Uniform while in "Civilian Status" nor will he receive Active Duty pay/benefits while wearing the uniform under AFI 36-801, AFI 36-2903 and AFI 37703 effective on January 26, 2015.

b. Complainant was allegedly led to believe that the Union had agreed to the wearing of the uniform and later he found out that the Union had not met the timeline set forth and no agreement between the Union and the 908 th Airlift Wing had not been made on the matter.

The Agency dismissed Complainant's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Agency reasoned "[t]he Equal Pay Act requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work. As such, military members are not similarly situated to civilian employees and, therefore, the Equal Pay Act does not regulate the pay or benefit differences between the two. Both men and women Air Reserve Technicians are required to wear the uniform while in civilian status. In Air Reserve Technician positions pay and benefits are different when in military status and civilian status. The instructions requiring mandatory uniform wear by ARTs pertain to both men and women serving in dual ART positions."

In our previous decision, the Commission reversed the Agency's dismissal of Complainant's complaint. The Commission found to the extent Complainant is alleging that he is not receiving equal pay on the basis of sex, he has set forth an actionable claim. The Commission determined to the extent the Agency is alleging that both male and female Air Reserve Technicians are required to wear their uniforms while in civilian status pursuant to Agency directives, the Commission found that this assertion goes to the merits of Complainant's complaint, and is irrelevant to the procedural issue of whether he has stated a justiciable claim.

After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120151927 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. The Agency shall comply with the Order as set forth herein.


Does this sound correct as to the claims, etc? If so, my statement above stands. This is simply a remand to investigate and not a final decision on the merits of the case.
You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
thanks 1 user thanked frankgonzalez for this useful post.
SD Analyst on 5/20/2016(UTC)
BamaHamma  
#8 Posted : Friday, May 20, 2016 3:16:12 PM(UTC)
BamaHamma

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/18/2016(UTC)
Posts: 4
United States

That looks like it. Although, the person involved seems to have more info - a letter dated in April that states that the agency (USAF) is required to keep the director of EEOC informed of action taken to resolve the discrimination issue. Will not be final until a settlement is reached.

If this is so, then what will be done to settle a discrimination case involving equal pay? Maybe it becomes a problem for OPM?
frankgonzalez  
#9 Posted : Friday, May 20, 2016 4:47:31 PM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,271

Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 691 time(s) in 527 post(s)
Originally Posted by: BamaHamma Go to Quoted Post
That looks like it. Although, the person involved seems to have more info - a letter dated in April that states that the agency (USAF) is required to keep the director of EEOC informed of action taken to resolve the discrimination issue. Will not be final until a settlement is reached.

If this is so, then what will be done to settle a discrimination case involving equal pay? Maybe it becomes a problem for OPM?
That doesn't mean anything but is standard form letter. All EEO cases are looked to try and resolve. And the issue in this case is they need to investigate the complaint. Once that is done, the agency has complied with the EEOC order.

However, I doubt the agency will even try much beyond the bare minimum as this could be precedent setting and their argument in their initial dismissal is still sound, but speaks towards merit (whether he has a case or not) vs the statutory requirements for dismissal. Yes, they screwed up not accepting and investigating the claims, but they will investigate, and then request a dismissal at the hearing when they now have the evidence to support the lack of merit for the claims.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
Blooper23  
#10 Posted : Thursday, November 09, 2017 7:34:11 AM(UTC)
Blooper23

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/18/2010(UTC)
Posts: 13

So, I'm guessing nothing more has been done on this subject.
CivSer67  
#11 Posted : Sunday, November 12, 2017 10:55:03 PM(UTC)
CivSer67

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/20/2015(UTC)
Posts: 254
Man
Germany

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 15 post(s)
Why would they?
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 0.793 seconds.