If you are not 100% For the BPAPRA, Let Me Know Why…

Agents,

There is still dissent for the BPAPRA out there amongst our ranks. I presume it is a vocal few, but I would like to know if there is dissent in our local and why? The reason we have worked so hard for this and are behind it 100% is simple: because 100% of us will loose a lot of our salary without pay reform.

If you are unsure of this or have more questions you would like answered, please hit the contact us button and ask. This goes right to my email address. Questions and answers will be private.

Mike Cox
President
Local 2913

Comments

  1. Brandon

    Here’s what comes to mind with the latest pay reform and why I don’t give you permission to lump me into the category that all agents support the current union backed pay reform. I think you presume when you presume it is a vocal few.
    1: The union espouses every chance they get how our agency can, will, and historically has, given us the big chorizo. I’ve tried to keep up with the latest revisions and congressional trends and tweaks concerning “our” bill. An argument I’ve heard the union throw about is how pay reform will remove the uncertainty of AUO being dangled like a carrot only to be taken away, but in the current form, terminology has been inserted allowing the agency to conduct an independent pay reform review and adjust station hours up or down according to an operational need. In regard to the aforementioned big chorizo, this is not pay stability in my book when the agency looking to save money, can state my station has no operational need to be above an 8 hour shift.
    2: Pay reform creating a possible straight time 9 or 10-hour work day while aborting all the FLSA enacted protections since 1920-something appears to be a step backward. See reason #1 above about the big chorizo.
    3: Pay reform that mandates a 5 day work week. Shame on you Union for allowing the agency to specify a 5 day work week. This could have been a saving grace of pay reform by allowing us to work 4 10-hour shifts, etc. Why the union isn’t screaming to have this changed baffles me.
    4: Pay reform with a 9 or 10 hour work day reviewed on an annual basis is a long period to wait out if you want to change your work day length. AUO left it up to the agent on when and where to work these hours. Your percentage changed every two months based on a rolling 12 week average. Why isn’t the union pushing for the ability to designate 8, 9, or 10 hour days on a quarterly basis. I’d like to work 8 hour days in the summer when I can get and 10 hour days in the dark winter months.
    5: Pay Reform that allows me to incur a leave debt to the agency if I decide on the 10-hour work day and have to leave early on a shift is not in my best interest, especially if I’ve been mandated to this 10-hour day by the agency percentages limitation.
    6: Pay Reform that purposefully leaves me with a significantly lower wage seems intrinsically wrong.

    I’ve heard that AUO was a dead duck and no longer a viable option and that this pay reform is the best thing we have going. I have heard that every activity conducted on AUO was appropriate, except the way that AUO was written made these activities technically wrong. Instead of coming up with the current pay reform abortion, why didn’t we lobby for congress to simply amend AUO to include our Border Patrol activities, or simply change the name AUO to Border Patrol Pay. It seems to be a similar case to why ICE changed it’s name to HSI. It’s not out of the immigration game, but being called Homeland Security Investigations sure takes ignorant political heat off it. The current witch hunters against AUO appear to take issue to the term “Overtime” in the AUO name.
    Additionally, from the several congressional hearings that I’ve seen, it is painfully apparent that many congressional leaders sitting on these hearings still have NO idea what I do as a Border Patrol Agent. The union needs get Congressmen out to the line, and I don’t mean with a sector dog and pony show. I am still willing to drive any Congressional staffer to Ross Lake in my 4-cylinder Jeep and back in a shift.

    I’m sure the union means well with the current pay reform, but it sure seems like mediation with my ex wife….at some point it’s better just to lawyer up and let a court decide. And if we all ready have lawyered up, I sure wish my ex had hired our lawyers.

    • Mike Cox

      Love it! Let me work my way from finish to start.

      The Lawyers we use to review every proposal we made, and counter proposal we received, are the VERY BEST in the entire world on the subject of overtime. The court that will decide this is Congress. They are judge and jury, we are the plaintiffs. What we end up with will certainly be constitutional, why, because it has already been challenged in the Supreme Court and lost. Our government can legally give government workers the chorizo, says the high court!

      Yes, everything we do is appropriate and compensable work, but not under AUO. We tried to do EXACTLY what you propose, to just change the existing law to cover what we do. Congress stated that they will not screw with LEAP or AUO. They are two distinct pay systems and they did not want to change either of them. There are other agencies that use AUO, they fluctuate up and down like intended. Ninety seven percent 97% of us were at 25% before we dropped to 20%.

      6) Under pay reform, if you choose 25%, you will be making what you are making now at 20%, GUARENTEED! My position has always been that AUO was a defined pay benefit for us and we are entitled to 25%. Anyone that says different, (Congress, management, or union) is being disingenuous. The powers that be looked the other way because they were getting cheap labor. When the money problem hit, they realized AUO was the ONLY thing they could take from us, thus, the congressional OUTRAGE over the abuse! Under pay reform, they can not touch our pay, PERIOD!

      5) Statistics show that there will be nobody mandated to work 10 hrs. Remember, under AUO, 97% of us chose the 10 hrs on our own and chose to make up the hours they had to leave early so they wouldn’t drop. Pay reform is better in the fact that you have a whole year to make up the time instead of 12 weeks.

      4) We have done just what you said. We will bargain at the local level on when an agent can add or drop. With us being three small sectors and much easier to manage, I foresee a lot of flexibility.

      3) LIES, LIES, LIES! We did no such thing! We agreed to a 10 hour work day. That is a 4 day work week for the o%ers, 5/4 PP for the 12.5%ers, and a 5 day work week for the 25%ers. So, this is pleasing to you?

      2) Statistics show that 97% of us would take a guaranteed 25% of our salary over the possibility of (legal) AUO or 45 ACT with FLSA that makes our overtime STRAIGHT TIME anyway!

      1) NO, NO, NO! EVERY agent will have a statutory right to earn the 25%. The audits will give a station the ability to ALLOW more agents to drop below the 25% if they wish.

      With that, tell me what you support:

      (A) AUO the way we KNOW it will be monitored coming soon

      (B) Targeted overtime (45 Act) where the Agency deems we need to work it?

      (C) Pay Reform in the way I just explained it.

      Welcome to the majority!!

  2. Brandon

    The notional primary goal of the exercise is to rescue the Border Patrol Agent Kobayashi Maru in a simulated battle with Congress. The disabled agent is located in the Congressional neutral zone and any Patrol jeep entering the zone would cause an incident. The approaching union must decide whether to attempt rescue of the Kobayashi Maru crew – endangering their own ship and lives – or leave the Kobayashi Maru to certain destruction. If the union chooses to attempt rescue, the simulation is designed to guarantee that the ship is destroyed with the loss of all crew members.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.