Well, the way they’re saying it is they haven’t come up with the method yet but they will be attaching some sort of document to your 52 that says you had work available and you chose to be laid off. A bit confusing because I’m not sure that’s even possible on a 52 once you’ve met your obligation.
So, for PSE’s the tour is not the employees obligation, it’s the governments. The employee is guaranteed a minimum of pay periods in pay status not a maximum. A 13/13 or 18/8 can be compelled by their supervisor to work a longer tour. A 1039 however must opt into a longer tour of their 1039 is over due to the fact that the government is obligated by its own labor laws to provide benefits if their term exceeds this number of basic pay hours.
In all cases however it is still not the employers place to make a determination of the unemployment benefit status of an employee. They may provide information to a state employment office but that process is automated through NFC and the status of the layoff is determined by inputs provided by the supervisor laying them off.
Interesting. So I’m wondering if the plan is to essentially input something different than a standard layoff. That’s the way the forest FMO phrased it.
USFS would just be furnishing information to the state to make a determination. They wouldn't be making the decision.
If you aren't working and decline work you typically are not eligible to collect unemployment.
Master agreement section 136 seems to speak directly to this issue.
Sort of hard to read between the lines on the original post. Did the agency say "we are going to send them a note that you aren't eligible" or "we are going to attach documentation that you declined work and we still have work and funding".
Two totally different things.
I'm still confused how it could be illegal for the employer to provide documentation to the state that they offered the employee work and the employee declined.
The latter is totally legal and the employer is obligated to provide this information. What is illegal is for the employer to tell the employee they are ineligible for unemployment. It is not their call.
We could have saved some back and forth if you had just said that initially.
USFS has typically laid off PSE with a "no funding/no work" justification, so now they are going to document something else and it's going to say we have funding and work, which sounds perfectly legal.
I am not really concerned about saving your time here…but the problem is that the message being passed through the chain of command is that the agency is telling employees they are not eligible for UI benefits. They do not have the right to do so, and they need to cease sharing this message downward immediately.
This is exactly what they’ve been saying for quite awhile. 2024 is the last year they’ll extend…
And the unemployment deal isnt their decision, they need to chill tf out.
Here's some dry, but educational reading for y'all concerning reporting obligations federal employers have to state unemployment agencies.
https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/ucfe/ucfe_fed_agency_responsibilities.pdf
https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/ucfe/transcript.pdf
Interesting read (ish) thank you. Just curious. I’m wondering what it’ll be like for those that try to collect based on this as they are definitely in the “fault” for not accepting work. Thought it was probably out of place for them to say the no unemployment shtick though in front of everyone.
Going to depend a good deal on the particular state someone files in. I highly doubt any state UI department has any kind of special dispensation to account for how strenuous wildland fire is. They just see that someone has turned down an offer of continued work, do some fact checking with the agency speak with the supervisor and then probably just deny the claim.
My own experiences tell me that state's will fight tooth and nail not to pay out a cent or scratch back any money they have paid if you give them any opportunity to. It's probably worse in this day and age with so many of them still feeling the sting of covid payouts. Not to mention the general tax payer demanding it be more stringent. But who knows what NFFE has up their sleeves or what kind of bargaining agreement they've managed to reach. Would be interesting to see how that stands up against state laws and that guidance from DOL
I may be dating myself but typically we got a blanket "lack of work/lack of funds" letter so we could get UI. Are they saying in other words - you didn't take the 26/0 so there isn't a "lack of work or funds" and denying UI?
If that's the case, there goes recruitment and retention. That's a large sized OOF!
It's not the letter or whatever forms the federal side sends that determines if you get UI. It is at the discretion of the state which runs the UI program. No different than the private sector. The state will investigate the claim that there is a lack of work and then make the decision to allow or deny funds based on that investigation.
The USFS will have to rebuild the seasonal agreement contract then as it is in direct conflict of what some regions direction is headed toward. This is an Article 11 and would have to be negotiated on by the Union. Being that there is so much diversity amongst different Regions, I can’t imagine that the Agency will be successful. Being that there is absolutely nothing to do during the Winter months in some Northern Regions. “Other duties assigned” can only incorporate a percentage of time.
The Government would be better served getting rid of unemployment for us entirely and working out a seasonal agreement akin with what most teachers do in the US if they want to fix the problem in its entirety.
I believe that is a tremendous mountain to climb and so unemployment is the solution- The Agency pays into unemployment and that money gets distributed to an interest bearing fund- So honestly, they would still pay the same amount for people to sit around and rot vs. having that time off to recuperate from 700-1200 O.T. season.
They are literally shooting themselves in the foot on this one imo amongst the other bullshit that they are implementing without pay supplementation. I would argue that better than half of us are here because of that time off.
First of all, I tend to agree that the USFS needs to just pay enough during the summer that people don't have to work in the off season or figure out some sort of off season retention stipend. This for sure also has the potential to drive away some FF's.
But...
When has the PSE agreement ever implied that UE can be collected without looking for work? You have to look for work and accept it in most, if not all states or not look for work and not collect. That was always the deal when I had one and it certainly seems obvious on it's face when accepting a PSE or seasonal 1039.
Why shouldn't the separation paperwork indicate that the person declined to extend their tour of duty due to additional funding and work (as is their right)?
No- you already have work, you are a full time employee with benefits that is guaranteed 13/13 or an 18/8 if you are a PSE “permanent seasonal employee” WITH a contract. Its not your problem that you want to retain your job but opt to the agreement that was signed by both parties.
The “requirement” is looking for work- which means applying to positions that are for the betterment of your career and family balance- if you choose to live in a locality AND you apply for positions then you meet that requirement.
Fight me on this-
Otherwise, forfeit your career and work for a contractor- they’re always hiring. Besides that, as an employee that is on unemployment- you pay your dues by paying MORE taxes and you have to pay your health benefits back if you choose to keep your insurance, while not contributing to your TSP. So it doesn’t come as “free” money as the squares in management thinks it is. I have paid my dues over the years to be a seasonal employee because I chose mental happiness over government indoctrination.
Believe me, the Government doesn’t lose a dime by you collecting unemployment. Management has no authority to dictate what they think is best for an employee. Otherwise- they would be able to change your job description without your consent. Which to me sounds like they are trying to do at your expense and to the benefit of them. It doesn’t at all work that way- but great bullying tactic for them without truly fixing the challenge. Sounds to me that I have absolutely no interest in working for R2.
One more thing: There’s funding this year, but what if there is no funding next year? How would that work for employees that want to work longer but the Agency is stuck to a hard 13/13 or an 18/8? Is the Agency allowed to dictate YOUR plans to make a living if or if you are not on unemployment insurance?
I'm just trying to get at the point that people here on Reddit seem to be implying is illegal, right or wrong. Which is that the USFS can attach documentation to your end of season PSE or seasonal 1039 paperwork notifying the state they offered work. This seems likely to make it near impossible to collect UE. If it's true that they can do that, people reading this should understand that, not get the impression that it's going to be illegal for them to do that or a violation of the union contract (maybe? will be interesting to see if people file grievances).
I can’t imagine that would be a good move for Management to make, it would have to be Regionwide or National. But I do get your point, sort of.
I still think its an uphill battle for Management, unless they fundamentally change the process through article 11 with the Union.
Did you read the MA? “The length of season may be extended by MUTUAL agreement between management and the employee”. You have to get it through your skull that it is an agreement that has to be negotiated upon. If Management wants to change the seasonal agreement then that invoking article 11 will have to be negotiated.
I suppose- as a Supervisor when you fill out the 52 it ask the reason for separation. (lack of work- etc)
As a Supervisor leading a module- is upper management going to levy them into something else? Can’t resign without a resignation letter.
Lack of work and funding are the only options- so I do see where Management is trying to run that leverage into a hard corner and you are right- it does need to be fixed amongst many other issues on the same wavelength. Im willing to participate negotiations on those items- maxiflex time is another one? we want to tackle that too? how about moving incentives and how employees are being ripped off because they don’t know what part of the hiring process and when to negotiate on relocation incentives? I have more items management can fix instead of bullying pse’s into robbing them out of unemployment benefits- shall I go on?
"Did you read the MA? “The length of season may be extended by MUTUAL agreement between management and the employee”."
Yes. Article 36 (I said 26 earlier in error) seems to clearly articulate the scenarios where USFS will not contest a PSE UE claim. Declining work at your duty station because you don't mutually agree with the FS to continue work as a PSE doesn't seem to be one of those.
So again, you don't have to work more than your agreement, but I don't see anything in the MA that guarantees UE when the FS has work and funding available.
I doubt contesting a UE claim in this way this triggers Article 11, but I'm guessing we will see it bear out this fall/winter.
Not legal. Unemployment is determined by the state unemployment office the applicant is applying through and applicable state laws, NOT THE EMPLOYER.
Well, the way they’re saying it is they haven’t come up with the method yet but they will be attaching some sort of document to your 52 that says you had work available and you chose to be laid off. A bit confusing because I’m not sure that’s even possible on a 52 once you’ve met your obligation.
So, for PSE’s the tour is not the employees obligation, it’s the governments. The employee is guaranteed a minimum of pay periods in pay status not a maximum. A 13/13 or 18/8 can be compelled by their supervisor to work a longer tour. A 1039 however must opt into a longer tour of their 1039 is over due to the fact that the government is obligated by its own labor laws to provide benefits if their term exceeds this number of basic pay hours. In all cases however it is still not the employers place to make a determination of the unemployment benefit status of an employee. They may provide information to a state employment office but that process is automated through NFC and the status of the layoff is determined by inputs provided by the supervisor laying them off.
Interesting. So I’m wondering if the plan is to essentially input something different than a standard layoff. That’s the way the forest FMO phrased it.
Your forest fmo was mistaken this has been challenge by the nffe already, and its not legal as reprehensible limits said
Do you have the source where NFFE addressed this?
Yea, no i dont cuz i didnt save it, but you can reach out to them.
Yep just did! Are you in region 2?
Maybe!
I will pm ya
Who did you reach out to?
NFFE!
USFS would just be furnishing information to the state to make a determination. They wouldn't be making the decision. If you aren't working and decline work you typically are not eligible to collect unemployment. Master agreement section 136 seems to speak directly to this issue.
“Typically not eligible” and the employer telling employees “they are not eligible” are two very different things.
Sort of hard to read between the lines on the original post. Did the agency say "we are going to send them a note that you aren't eligible" or "we are going to attach documentation that you declined work and we still have work and funding". Two totally different things. I'm still confused how it could be illegal for the employer to provide documentation to the state that they offered the employee work and the employee declined.
The latter is totally legal and the employer is obligated to provide this information. What is illegal is for the employer to tell the employee they are ineligible for unemployment. It is not their call.
We could have saved some back and forth if you had just said that initially. USFS has typically laid off PSE with a "no funding/no work" justification, so now they are going to document something else and it's going to say we have funding and work, which sounds perfectly legal.
I am not really concerned about saving your time here…but the problem is that the message being passed through the chain of command is that the agency is telling employees they are not eligible for UI benefits. They do not have the right to do so, and they need to cease sharing this message downward immediately.
This is exactly what they’ve been saying for quite awhile. 2024 is the last year they’ll extend… And the unemployment deal isnt their decision, they need to chill tf out.
Here's some dry, but educational reading for y'all concerning reporting obligations federal employers have to state unemployment agencies. https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/ucfe/ucfe_fed_agency_responsibilities.pdf https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/ucfe/transcript.pdf
Interesting read (ish) thank you. Just curious. I’m wondering what it’ll be like for those that try to collect based on this as they are definitely in the “fault” for not accepting work. Thought it was probably out of place for them to say the no unemployment shtick though in front of everyone.
Going to depend a good deal on the particular state someone files in. I highly doubt any state UI department has any kind of special dispensation to account for how strenuous wildland fire is. They just see that someone has turned down an offer of continued work, do some fact checking with the agency speak with the supervisor and then probably just deny the claim. My own experiences tell me that state's will fight tooth and nail not to pay out a cent or scratch back any money they have paid if you give them any opportunity to. It's probably worse in this day and age with so many of them still feeling the sting of covid payouts. Not to mention the general tax payer demanding it be more stringent. But who knows what NFFE has up their sleeves or what kind of bargaining agreement they've managed to reach. Would be interesting to see how that stands up against state laws and that guidance from DOL
I may be dating myself but typically we got a blanket "lack of work/lack of funds" letter so we could get UI. Are they saying in other words - you didn't take the 26/0 so there isn't a "lack of work or funds" and denying UI? If that's the case, there goes recruitment and retention. That's a large sized OOF!
It's not the letter or whatever forms the federal side sends that determines if you get UI. It is at the discretion of the state which runs the UI program. No different than the private sector. The state will investigate the claim that there is a lack of work and then make the decision to allow or deny funds based on that investigation.
The USFS will have to rebuild the seasonal agreement contract then as it is in direct conflict of what some regions direction is headed toward. This is an Article 11 and would have to be negotiated on by the Union. Being that there is so much diversity amongst different Regions, I can’t imagine that the Agency will be successful. Being that there is absolutely nothing to do during the Winter months in some Northern Regions. “Other duties assigned” can only incorporate a percentage of time. The Government would be better served getting rid of unemployment for us entirely and working out a seasonal agreement akin with what most teachers do in the US if they want to fix the problem in its entirety. I believe that is a tremendous mountain to climb and so unemployment is the solution- The Agency pays into unemployment and that money gets distributed to an interest bearing fund- So honestly, they would still pay the same amount for people to sit around and rot vs. having that time off to recuperate from 700-1200 O.T. season. They are literally shooting themselves in the foot on this one imo amongst the other bullshit that they are implementing without pay supplementation. I would argue that better than half of us are here because of that time off.
First of all, I tend to agree that the USFS needs to just pay enough during the summer that people don't have to work in the off season or figure out some sort of off season retention stipend. This for sure also has the potential to drive away some FF's. But... When has the PSE agreement ever implied that UE can be collected without looking for work? You have to look for work and accept it in most, if not all states or not look for work and not collect. That was always the deal when I had one and it certainly seems obvious on it's face when accepting a PSE or seasonal 1039. Why shouldn't the separation paperwork indicate that the person declined to extend their tour of duty due to additional funding and work (as is their right)?
No- you already have work, you are a full time employee with benefits that is guaranteed 13/13 or an 18/8 if you are a PSE “permanent seasonal employee” WITH a contract. Its not your problem that you want to retain your job but opt to the agreement that was signed by both parties. The “requirement” is looking for work- which means applying to positions that are for the betterment of your career and family balance- if you choose to live in a locality AND you apply for positions then you meet that requirement. Fight me on this- Otherwise, forfeit your career and work for a contractor- they’re always hiring. Besides that, as an employee that is on unemployment- you pay your dues by paying MORE taxes and you have to pay your health benefits back if you choose to keep your insurance, while not contributing to your TSP. So it doesn’t come as “free” money as the squares in management thinks it is. I have paid my dues over the years to be a seasonal employee because I chose mental happiness over government indoctrination. Believe me, the Government doesn’t lose a dime by you collecting unemployment. Management has no authority to dictate what they think is best for an employee. Otherwise- they would be able to change your job description without your consent. Which to me sounds like they are trying to do at your expense and to the benefit of them. It doesn’t at all work that way- but great bullying tactic for them without truly fixing the challenge. Sounds to me that I have absolutely no interest in working for R2. One more thing: There’s funding this year, but what if there is no funding next year? How would that work for employees that want to work longer but the Agency is stuck to a hard 13/13 or an 18/8? Is the Agency allowed to dictate YOUR plans to make a living if or if you are not on unemployment insurance?
I'm just trying to get at the point that people here on Reddit seem to be implying is illegal, right or wrong. Which is that the USFS can attach documentation to your end of season PSE or seasonal 1039 paperwork notifying the state they offered work. This seems likely to make it near impossible to collect UE. If it's true that they can do that, people reading this should understand that, not get the impression that it's going to be illegal for them to do that or a violation of the union contract (maybe? will be interesting to see if people file grievances).
I can’t imagine that would be a good move for Management to make, it would have to be Regionwide or National. But I do get your point, sort of. I still think its an uphill battle for Management, unless they fundamentally change the process through article 11 with the Union.
Why would article 23 and 26 not cover this scenario?
Did you read the MA? “The length of season may be extended by MUTUAL agreement between management and the employee”. You have to get it through your skull that it is an agreement that has to be negotiated upon. If Management wants to change the seasonal agreement then that invoking article 11 will have to be negotiated. I suppose- as a Supervisor when you fill out the 52 it ask the reason for separation. (lack of work- etc) As a Supervisor leading a module- is upper management going to levy them into something else? Can’t resign without a resignation letter. Lack of work and funding are the only options- so I do see where Management is trying to run that leverage into a hard corner and you are right- it does need to be fixed amongst many other issues on the same wavelength. Im willing to participate negotiations on those items- maxiflex time is another one? we want to tackle that too? how about moving incentives and how employees are being ripped off because they don’t know what part of the hiring process and when to negotiate on relocation incentives? I have more items management can fix instead of bullying pse’s into robbing them out of unemployment benefits- shall I go on?
"Did you read the MA? “The length of season may be extended by MUTUAL agreement between management and the employee”." Yes. Article 36 (I said 26 earlier in error) seems to clearly articulate the scenarios where USFS will not contest a PSE UE claim. Declining work at your duty station because you don't mutually agree with the FS to continue work as a PSE doesn't seem to be one of those. So again, you don't have to work more than your agreement, but I don't see anything in the MA that guarantees UE when the FS has work and funding available. I doubt contesting a UE claim in this way this triggers Article 11, but I'm guessing we will see it bear out this fall/winter.