Claims And Issues

THEY'RE STILL IN POWER, YOU KNOW. COMMENT ON THEIR PROPOSALS ....

... at least until January 20, 2021.

Another Comment period closes on another proposal.  Their proposal deserves your Comments, as their proposals mostly have deserved your Comments for four years.  The situation has not changed yet, you know.  They are still in power, still making proposals, and Comments are still necessary.

    What follows is information for you to use regarding the Comment period that ends today on their proposal to circumvent federal labor laws that govern the federal workforce.  Feel free to copy all or any part of the following in order to leave your own Comments.

(LexisNexis)

Temporary and Term Employment

A Proposed Rule by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

TO:  regulations.gov

Docket No.:  2020-20038.

RIN:             3206-AN92.

Comment Period Deadline:   November 10, 2020.

Summary:  Currently, "permanent" federal employees are in positions that are expected to continue indefinitely.  "Temporary" or "term" employees are in positions with a fixed end date.  The current proposed change would increase the present maximum limit of four years for most "nonpermanent" workers from 4 to 10 years.

Relevance and Justification:  The American Federation of Government Employees has pointed out that federal agencies could use their authority to fill more positions with employees who will be out of their jobs when their term ends, as they do now under even more limiting rules.  The AFGE notes that this sets the stage for a "disposable workforce," as distinct from a career federal workforce.   The practice of hiring term and temporary federal workers is apparently widespread at the present time as it is, "with some individuals serving for years and years rotating from one temporary position to another without job security and without proper access to benefit programs," the National Treasury Employees Union has observed.

     Term employees in federal employment may not qualify for an annuity benefit and may not be eligible for the same percentage of federal contribution to premiums to continue their federal health insurance coverage when they retire.  Further, term employees do not have a right to appeal.  As the public policy director of the AFGE has said, "It's a streamlined way to fire people--when your term has ended, they can fire you because your term has ended."

CONCLUSION

Your proposed rule circumvents federal labor laws that apply to federal workers.  It is contrary to law.  It must be withdrawn or, if it is not withdrawn, then it must be struck down as soon as it is issued, if ever.

   Thank you for your consideration of these Comments.

Please read the disclaimer.  This article ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved except that as stated, permission is freely given to quote all or part of the above Comments in any Comment on the proposed rule that may be left on regulations.gov, by any reader, with or without attribution.

 

"If you do not help in this effort, who will?"

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a new rule that would contradict what Congress wrote in the Dodd-Frank Act.  They don't have the votes in Congress.  So, they are trying to make law in proposed rules like this one.

Injustices like this must be opposed.  The success is in the opposition, not always in the result.  Feel free to use, paraphrase, or rephrase my own Comments below.  I was inspired by a National Consumer Law Statement on this proposed new rule, myself.  The important point is that proposed new rules like this one must be opposed.  If using my language is inspiration, too, for you to leave your own Comments in opposition, that is all to the good.

To rephrase the writer and philosopher Albert Camus who wrote about actions during a Plague among other things, this may be a country now in which people suffer.  We may not be able to do anything about that at the moment.  But we can lessen the number of suffering people.  If you do not help in this effort, who will?

The CFPB's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is on www.regulations.gov where you can leave your Comments.  The docket number is CFPB-2020-0028.  The RIN is 3170-AA98.

Thank you.

This rule proposed by the CFPB would immunize lenders from legal liability for making mortgage loans without regard to borrowers’ ability to repay if the borrower remains current for the first three years of the loan and the loan meets other requirements. This proposed new rule and new immunity for lenders is contrary to the Dodd-Frank Act.

In the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress required that before booking a loan so to speak, that lenders must make a good faith determination of a borrower’s ability to repay it. Further, Congress expressly allowed borrowers to defend foreclosure by asserting a defense that the lender ignored the borrower’s lack of ability to repay in making the loan.

There are many reasons a homeowner can make payments even for years and even when their mortgage is unaffordable. Examples drawn from real-world experience have been reported including "payments from roommates who are not on the mortgage, borrowing money, or even going without essentials such utilities or medical care." The Congressional choice to enact protections to homeowners to save their homes in the Ability-to-Repay rule already contemplated this situation and allowed for it. That is a policy choice. It is the policy choice made by Congress in the statutes that make up Dodd-Frank. No mere administrative agency including the CFPB has authority to repeal statutes, and no mere agency including the CFPB has the power to enact this proposed rule.

Congress wrote the Ability-to-Repay rule to prevent market excesses that contributed to the Great Recession. Many communities, especially low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, still have not recovered from the Great Recession. It is never a good idea to induce a Second Great Recession, but it is particularly not a good idea during a Pandemic.

Thank you.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.