Government Retirees

[Vacation4us]

Why is it a scam to take leave without pay?

FYI...I told my manager exactly what I wanted to do and received full approval. She knew that I would not be returning to the office...once I turned 55 I went back on strength (I had saved 1 vacation day) and immediately retired. I also had to send an email to my manager officially requesting the time off and also complete a form that outlined the guidelines and expectations. At the appropriate time I met my supervisor one day for lunch to sign retirement papers.

Obviously it’s not a scam in Canada but as the prior poster stated it’s not allowed in the US and a person would have to “lie” to accomplish a leave prior to retirement in the US.

 

[donheff]

Why is it a scam to take leave without pay?

FYI...I told my manager exactly what I wanted to do and received full approval. She knew that I would not be returning to the office...once I turned 55 I went back on strength (I had saved 1 vacation day) and immediately retired. I also had to send an email to my manager officially requesting the time off and also complete a form that outlined the guidelines and expectations. At the appropriate time I met my supervisor one day for lunch to sign retirement papers.

If you are in Canada I assume it's fine. If you were a US Federal employee, terminal LWOP of the sort you are describing is not permitted under Federal regulations. Or wasn't in my day. People (and sometimes their supervisors) made up fake scenarios to make it appear that they were were NOT intending to retire at the end of the leave - that's a scam. I don't see any serious moral issue, it just isn't (or wasn't) permitted.

Are you saying that the request for LWOP you submitted specified that you were taking the leave with the intention of achieving retirement eligibility and retiring when the leave was completed? If it so, why did you file your retirement papers after the leave? Why not send them into personnel a couple of months early so they could get you properly setup for a quick and accurate annuity? My assumption is that nothing has changed and your request was made with the "expectation" that you would return to work. You "changed your mind" when you came back to duty. It happens all the time but is risky. Unless the regs have changed, it would be entirely possible for a retirement based on such a plan to be invalidated - not likely, but possible. Your manager also could have gotten in trouble for agreeing to that.

 

[zinger1457]

Can someone please explain why the U.S. Government does not allow an employee with 30+ years of Federal service to defer retirement and resume FEHB? Being unable to do so fosters a situation where FI employees "retire in place" and "do time" to reach their MRA rather than RE and free up resources that agencies can use to recruit and retain fresh talent... truly a lose - lose from where I sit.

FEHB may not be of value to everyone, depends on your situation. I left 4 years before my MRA, my healthcare costs have been less with ACA then it would have been if I had FEHB.

 

[rhrihm]

I retired at 57 because it is mandatory for federal law enforcement officers. I am also retired military. I had 14 years with the federal government and volunteered to go back on active duty. I spent 6 years on active duty (Afghanistan x2 and Iraq x1) which allowed me to take an active duty retirement because I also had 14 years of active military prior to getting out. So, I retired from the military and returned to my LEO job, and completed the 6 years needed to retire from the federal government. Has worked out well so far.

 

[Music Lover]

If you are in Canada I assume it's fine. If you were a US Federal employee, terminal LWOP of the sort you are describing is not permitted under Federal regulations. Or wasn't in my day. People (and sometimes their supervisors) made up fake scenarios to make it appear that they were were NOT intending to retire at the end of the leave - that's a scam. I don't see any serious moral issue, it just isn't (or wasn't) permitted.

Are you saying that the request for LWOP you submitted specified that you were taking the leave with the intention of achieving retirement eligibility and retiring when the leave was completed? If it so, why did you file your retirement papers after the leave? Why not send them into personnel a couple of months early so they could get you properly setup for a quick and accurate annuity? My assumption is that nothing has changed and your request was made with the "expectation" that you would return to work. You "changed your mind" when you came back to duty. It happens all the time but is risky. Unless the regs have changed, it would be entirely possible for a retirement based on such a plan to be invalidated - not likely, but possible. Your manager also could have gotten in trouble for agreeing to that.

Different country, different rules.

I specifically told my manager that I intended to take LWOP until my eligible retirement date. They agreed and we all knew that there was no expectation of me returning to work. I couldn't file retirement papers until my leave ended and I was officially back on strength, so my first couple pension payments were delayed. No big deal as I didn't need it right away and I eventually did get everything I was entitled to.

 

[donheff]

Different country, different rules.

I specifically told my manager that I intended to take LWOP until my eligible retirement date. They agreed and we all knew that there was no expectation of me returning to work. I couldn't file retirement papers until my leave ended and I was officially back on strength, so my first couple pension payments were delayed. No big deal as I didn't need it right away and I eventually did get everything I was entitled to.

I'm not certain why terminal LWOP id prohibited in the US. One reason may be that there are benefits that accrue to employees in an LWOP status (e.g., the government pays its 70% share of health insurance for 1 year, and credit for retirement calculations build up for 6 months in any year on LWOP). Underlying the approval of LWOP is that expectation that the employee will be returning to duty making the absence of benefit to the government. As I mentioned, it is not unusual for people to make up phony plans to return but that can and has backfired when they document their real intent though email messages and the like. Such dumb confirmations of intent occur because the parties don't see any harm in the practice and don't realize the potential consequences.

 

[Out of Steam]

It's what kept us cops on the job for 25+ years. Why else would we stay.

I've long thought that there should be a system to make it easier for people to serve in policing for a term of a few years and move on, similar to the military, with assistance in transferring to other careers at the end.

I never would have spent a full career as a police officer, but could easily imagine having done it for a term as a young person for college assistance, etc.

 

[Amethyst]

It may just be an outdated reg, or it may be meant to keep people from collecting benefits to which they are not entitled. I never had to deal with it as a manager, so just don't know.

Some personnel regs, that date from the "industrial age," are quite outdated today. In my day we were paid for 8 hours a day, but had to put in 8.5 hours, owing to a Rule that was meant to ensure employees got a lunch break.

As a youngster, I asked if I could work through lunch (as most of us did anyway) and leave at the 8 hour mark; was told No with a pained expression, as though I'd asked for something outrageous.

As a supervisor, I had to admit to youngsters that while I agreed the rule was dumb, it was my job to enforce it. Then, I helped them find workarounds that wouldn't get either of us in trouble.

By the time I retired, so many millennials had challenged the mandatory-lunch rule that it was eliminated. I cheered!

I'm not certain why terminal LWOP id prohibited in the US. One reason may be that there are benefits that accrue to employees in an LWOP status (e.g., the government pays its 70% share of health insurance for 1 year, and credit for retirement calculations build up for 6 months in any year on LWOP). .

 

[Music Lover]

I'm not certain why terminal LWOP id prohibited in the US. One reason may be that there are benefits that accrue to employees in an LWOP status (e.g., the government pays its 70% share of health insurance for 1 year, and credit for retirement calculations build up for 6 months in any year on LWOP).

Our health coverage is different, but I did have the option (which I chose) to earn pension credit for the time I was off. Without that option I would not have taken LWOP.

 

[wrigley]

My wife hits 30 years Federal in Feb of 2022. She also turns 60 in that same month and starts collecting her military pension (retired from the reserves). No talk yet about retiring from Federal.


Mike

 

[Brat]

FEHB is a mixed bag. In my area, Kaiser Medicare Advantage also offers a dental rider, and frankly is a better deal than what FEHB offers. The Kaiser plan on FEHB is expensive for comparable benefits. I suspended my FEHB to use Kaiser Medicare Advantage + dental. Then I went back to FEHB for a couple of years (interesting that I could keep dental) so that I could access specialists I wanted. Kaiser adjusted their FEHB offering for those with Medicare A & B with a "payback Medicare B" option. I am back on Kaiser.

One advantage of FEHB is that it can handle service disputes.

 

[teej1985]

Can someone please explain why the U.S. Government does not allow an employee with 30+ years of Federal service to defer retirement and resume FEHB? Being unable to do so fosters a situation where FI employees "retire in place" and "do time" to reach their MRA rather than RE and free up resources that agencies can use to recruit and retain fresh talent... truly a lose - lose from where I sit.

If deferred retirements allowed FEHB resumption, the golden handcuffs would could be shackled. Would be nice, of course I'll hit MRA well before 30 years, so if it required 30 years, that wouldn't do anything for me.

 

[teej1985]

FEHB is a mixed bag. In my area, Kaiser Medicare Advantage also offers a dental rider, and frankly is a better deal than what FEHB offers. The Kaiser plan on FEHB is expensive for comparable benefits. I suspended my FEHB to use Kaiser Medicare Advantage + dental. Then I went back to FEHB for a couple of years (interesting that I could keep dental) so that I could access specialists I wanted. Kaiser adjusted their FEHB offering for those with Medicare A & B with a "payback Medicare B" option. I am back on Kaiser.

One advantage of FEHB is that it can handle service disputes.

The biggest value for FEHB is going to be the retired years in 50s and 60s before Medicare. A lot of the plans are more comprehensive than both Medigap and Advantage, and not really any more expensive, so for that reason, it's superior, but if you're content with the network limitations of an Advantage plan, obviously that's going to be a better choice for you.

 

[OfficeSpace]

If deferred retirements allowed FEHB resumption, the golden handcuffs would could be shackled. Would be nice, of course I'll hit MRA well before 30 years, so if it required 30 years, that wouldn't do anything for me.

Or 20 years. Or 10 years. What difference does it make to Uncle Sam if an employee who meets the criteria for FEHB eligibility in retirement continues to work until his/her MRA or defers until his/her MRA? How is that any different than postponing until after MRA, which is allowed?