Susan Collins, a Senator introduced S261-The Federal Employee Compensation Reform Act of 2011. Three thousand were targeted to BE REMOVED from OWCP rolls when they reached 65. They were then to apply for retirement at the rate of pay at the time of their injury. I am one of them.

I started this blog  to augment the arguments made on other sites why this proposed law is intrinsically flawed and to counter the postings that are in favor of it.

Below are points made on my  comment posted on Pop.Voc  with the user name heythere

I Oppose S261 because it will have an adverse affect on the 3000 + injured federal workers over 70 years old.

I lost 17 years where I could have worked for 100% of pay. I lost the pay increases of those years.

My retirement would have been based on 40 years of employment, not on the 23 years I worked before I was informed that because of my limitations I was no longer employable by the Post Office.  After taking into account the pay raises that I missed by not being able to work and deducting for income taxes I calculate that I lost $100,000 plus accruing sick and vacation hour in the intervening 17 years.

If  S261 passed my income would drop by 35% which would put me in a position where I would have to drop my health insurance and avail myself of lunches and suppers at the local food kitchen at least part of the time.

I suspect that the majority of the older injured federal employees would drop into the poverty class with no tax savings as the citizens against government waste claim.

First the postal service reimburses OWCP + an administration fee on a yearly basis with their own revenue so removing this small group of older postal employees would have no effect on reducing tax expenditures.

Second, given the ages of the 3000 +their string is pretty short as is mine.

If you want to voice your objections to S261 F.C.A. Reform of 2011  a link to the website I posted on is provided below.  An user name can be used publicly while your comment can be sent to  your Senate Representatives with your name

Of 16  opinions tallied on this blog, one supports and 15 oppose the passage of S261, F.E.C.A. Reform of 2011 .

Senator Collins has no Sponsor for this bill.





This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Post 2 – WHY THIS BLOG? WHY NOW?

  1. Disabled loyal Fed says:

    I have pretty much the same story except I worked for IRS. I not only lost step raises, COLA’s and lots of earnings I could have received, but I lost the quality of my life. In a nutshell, I sold them my life in exchange for worker’s comp. Instead of enjoying friends and family, I sit here and look out the window or watch TV. There will be no travel after retirement, which had been my dream. I will be RIGHT HERE. And now they want to take my income from me. I have already been to a food bank on my current earnings. What will become of me if I get a reduced check? These are real lives of people who have done nothing but serve their country in a loyal and dedicated way.

    I am so sick of one set of rules for lawmakers and another for the sick, elderly and those without a voice. For example, Gabby Gifford, I’ll bet she is getting 100% OF HER PAY WHILE SHE RECOUPERATES. I also bet no one ever reduces it by one penny. She did nothing more than I did. She was serving her country just like I was. I have been denied the quality of life I deserve. Please don’t make it worse.

  2. truth in government says:

    Even if this bill is not approved, OWCP has already made changes to Title 20, Part 10.501, What medical evidence is necessary to support continuing receipt of compensation benefits? Although this law should help claimants who have been on workers’ compensation for long periods (through no fault of their own), OWCP is wrongly interpreting paragraph (2) of the law “For those employees with more serious conditions not likely to improve and for employees over the age of 65, OWCP may require less frequent documentation but ordinarily not less than once every three years.” OWCP claims that this applies to claimants who have lost a major body part. OWCP also ignores the part of the law that states “The physician’s opinion must be based on the facts of the case…”. In my case, OWCP has refused to allow me to send additonal information that I have just learned regarding my work injury. This violates my rights under Title 20, Ch 1, Subchapter B, Part 10.210. My case file has volumes of medical evidence that I will never be able to work; and that this is directly related to my work injury. I just turned 64. OWCP has deliberately misinterpreted the law and will remove me from their roles in February; and my respresentative happens to be one of the Senators who supports Senator Collins bill, so I don’t have a chance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *