Signatures 226 total
-
1
Name: James Coker on Jan 28, 2008Comments: This test is nothing short of a back door way of getting rid of our DA police and security guards in order to replace them with contractors. This must stop!Flag
- 2
- 3
-
4
Name: Don Eiermann on Jan 29, 2008Comments: AFGE Local 1858 joins the list of those opposed to the new PAT requirements as outlined in the revised AR 190-56.Flag
-
5
Name: Audrey Harris on Jan 29, 2008Comments: We here at Loca738 have stopped AR190-56. We would be happy to share that we have given management so many questions that they were tried of all of the work that we made them do. Right now it has been at a stand still for over 6 months!!!Flag
-
6
Name: Lois Ames on Jan 30, 2008Comments: Please help us stop the physical agility test required by AR 190-56. We have tried reasoning with the Army. They refuse to hear us. The physical agility test requirements are more stringent that those for regular army and they have only one level with no accommodation for age, gender, or disability. We believe that up to 75 % of the current affected workforce will not be able to qualify and will lose their jobs.Flag
-
7
Name: Frank Johnson on Jan 30, 2008Comments: This was not a condition of employment when i was hired 24 years ago. After 24 yrs. of sevice I may now be let go because i got old.Flag
-
8
Name: Randi Owen on Jan 30, 2008Comments: this was not a condition of my employment when i joined the force, i to feel it is a way to get rid of the older officers.Flag
-
9
Name: Dan Frolo on Jan 30, 2008Comments: No, No, No! The Physical Agility Test as proposed is wrong! Let's (Management and Labor) negortiate this reasonably. I am over 40 (actually over 50) and can still do my job well even though I may not be as fit as a 25 year old. Do not throw away experience in this ridiculous manner.Flag
-
10
Name: Dorothy James on Jan 30, 2008Comments: This test discriminates against security guards who may have physical impaiments and were hired with these existing conditions. To threaten their jobs by physical agility is just wrong headed.Flag
-
11
Name: Randy Shaw on Jan 31, 2008Comments: 27 year ago when I was hired on the departartment, there was some talk of PT testing, it stop because the local stop it before it was start. Now that I'am this close to retirement it has come back. If this is passed I will be force out of the federal service because unable to keep up with younger patrolman. This is not fair to the ones that have put so many years on the job. This was not a condition of employment when i was hired 27 years ago. The old time have had heath problems with knees, shoulders, back problem some have had heart problem.Flag
-
12
Name: Bo Hoffa on Feb 1, 2008Comments: This was not a condition of employment when I hired on.Flag
- 13
-
14
Name: Jerijo L. Bowman on Feb 4, 2008Comments: I sustained several on the job injuries that wil make it impossible for me to pass this test.Flag
-
15
Name: James George on Feb 6, 2008Comments: I think itÂ’s not right to hold a 40 or 50 year old person to the same standards as a person in their 20-30's the army has pt standards and brackets for age groups how come the police do not have these brackets. And if a 50 year old person can not perform as if they were 20 years old then they looses their job that is not a good standard and the regulation needs to be adjusted for brackets for age groups. local 54Flag
-
16
Name: Leonard, Lovett on Feb 17, 2008Comments: If the Army develop an agility test that specify age and gender I would agree. How in the heck anyone in there right mine would expect a 48 year old man to take an agility test on the same standards as 21 year old. After being honorably, discharge from the Department of the Army with a 40% disability. Furthermore, this agility test violates the Americans disability act.Flag
- 17
-
18
Name: Mack C. Mitchell on Feb 27, 2008Comments: This test eliminates all the experience Police Officers and Guards from the Department of the Army work force. Chief of Police, Captains and senior officers all come with years of experience these guys may not be able to pass an agility test but their experience in working in law enforcement is invaluable. I don't thing that this test had anything to do with agility, but with some contractor or former high ranking military officer saw a way of padding their own pockets by elimating these civilian employees and puting the military installations at risk of not having experience officers but young kids enforcing law and order on the installation. Not even the active duty military requires such standards. Follow the paper trail on who has these contracts and I'm sure it will lead back to some retired brass.Flag
-
19
Name: Kim Clark on Mar 5, 2008Comments: Stop the BS and quit the discrimination agaist our veterans and disabled veteransFlag
-
20
Name: Charles Mcdaniel on Mar 7, 2008Comments: I work security for a private health care organization and they are just now starting the same thing. We have a lot of peoplpe in thier 50's that have been here for 20 and 30 years that wont make the cut and wont be able to retire. let me know the out come of your situationFlag
-
21
Name: Gregorio A West on Mar 13, 2008Comments: I am also a lead security guard on Ft.Benning GA., it is wrong on un ethical I am also a union steward and we are not giving up we will figth this. if any one out get an hold of the new revised ar 190-56 please e-mail me.Flag
-
22
Name: Ernest A. Stump on Mar 17, 2008Comments: I too am a disabled veteran and a security guard at Fort Benning. This PAT is a slap in the face of all disabled veterans and officers who have served and wish to continue. The Department of the Army is showing none of the loyalty that they expect from us. I can only speak to the situation at Benning and I can only say that the regulation is not being followed as it is written and our people with the power pick and chose the parts that benefit their end goals. I hope that with the change in Provost Marshall that is about to take place here will be a reason for hope and better relations.Flag
- 23
-
24
Name: K. C. RICE on Mar 19, 2008Comments: I am 50 years old and possess over 27 years of Police experience, 8 of which are in the civilian sector. A knee injury that occurred at Camp Bullis, TX. while performing duties as the OPFOR during Air Force Combat Skills Training makes it painful to run. But I did it anyway because I wanted this job. In 27 years of police work, I have never ran farther than 20-30 yards after a PERP. I have pushed myself up off of the ground many times but never 21 times in one day. Nor have I had to sit up 29 times during that same time limit. There are other ways to test the fitness of my heart and I guarantee you that I have the heart to back up my partner any time day or night. I am also a Texas Certified Peace Officer. Loose me and you loose more than just a manpower stat.Flag
- 25
-
26
Name: William Komora on Mar 26, 2008Comments: I think it is unfair and we should be grandfather. I have worked here for 18 years. My livelyhood depends on my position with teh government.Flag
-
27
Name: Jack Buckley on Mar 26, 2008Comments: I think it sad that the government would just let our vet's go and not even care if they survive. Like everything else with this government, they are cutting cost and of course they are going after us vet's. Did we stay and defend our country for nothing Seems like huhFlag
- 28
-
29
Name: Sam Wiggins on Apr 10, 2008Comments: I totally disagree with the Annual PAT (AR 190-56). However, if there is no way to get around it, there should be some legitimate alternative events placed into the regulation. Personally, with my disabilities, I would have to take alternative events for all 3 events that are currently given.Flag
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
-
35
Name: Manuel Holstein on Jun 5, 2008Comments: I am 50 years old and possess over 32 years of Police experience, 9 of which are in the civilian sector. A knee injury that occurred at Futema , Okinawa while performing duties as the Suadrons Trainig SNCOIC during Marine Corps Marksmanship Training makes it painful to run. But I did it anyway because I wanted this job. In 32 years of police work, I have never ran farther than 50 yards after a subject. There are other ways to test the fitness of my heart and I guarantee you that I have the heart to back up my partner any time day or night. I am also a Georgia State Certified Peace Officer. Loose me and you loose more than just a manpower state, you loose years of experience. Who is going to train this new recruits.Flag
-
36
Name: JOHN JURASKO on Jun 17, 2008Comments: DIDN'T DO IT WHEN I WAS HIRED, AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE THE ARMY HIRES CAN'T DO THE PT TEST.Flag
- 37
- 38
-
39
Name: Anonymous on Jun 20, 2008Comments: The PT test is geared for 18 year old kids in boot campFlag
-
40
Name: Anonymous on Jun 23, 2008Comments: This is putting good people out of work for no good reason.Flag
- 41
- 42
-
43
Name: Anonymous on Jul 5, 2008Comments: Other agencies are also stuck with this regulation too, like sea going service too, termination for older officers pending. Age discriniation law shot down by one army reguation.Flag
-
44
Name: Anonymous on Jul 6, 2008Comments: I second your comments. Thank you for your considerationFlag
- 45
- 46
-
47
Name: Dennis Keener on Jul 28, 2008Comments: I am a lead security guard ( Field Training Officer ) for the Deseret Chemical Depot in Stockton Utah. I am a disabled Honorable Dischared Vetrin of the United States Army, I served my country for 23 years I was hired as a security officer in 2000 I have prior experiance as a police officer GS-03 for Hill Air Force Base, I am a member proud member of the Americal Federation of Government Employees local 2185 I am the only individual responsible for answering to this petition how ever I shall be informing as meny of the security force here of this petition in order to have them also forward their approval for it. When I was hired to this position I was informed it was only for retired disabled veterains, since I was hired they have also hired personnel whom have never served in the armed forces. This regulation is totaly against those of us whom have proudly served our country and gave our all for our country and now serve in a civilian capacity protecting some of its most dangerous property. This regulation needs to be looked at closley tanking into concideration those of us whom were hired with full knowledge of our limitations due to serving our country.Flag
-
48
Name: T.wardrope on Jul 29, 2008Comments: Employment for law enforcement officers working for the Department of the Army should not depend 25% on how many push ups, situps and how fast you can run for a long distance. It should be judged how you respond to the everyday physical aspects of the job. Older experienced officers bring more to the table than a less experienced officer that can do mega pushups, situps and can run like a deer. When was the last time you heard of an officer on a military installation chase someone for a mile or so. Thought thats why we have radio's and cars. We as older experienced police officers need to know the law and be able to safely enforce it. Police Officers and Security Guards are needed but both have their special job descriptions. A Police Officer knows when his or her time is up. Please consider the elimination of this once a year testing.Flag
- 49
- 50