Does anyone understand federal Leave Without Pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may not directly respond to your question about LWOP...if instead of reducing hours worked each PP using LWOP, could you instead request to change schedule to 35 hours per week, i.e., 70 hours in a PP? I believe per OPM you would still be considered a full-time federal employee, i.e., your benefits would not be pro-rated as they are for part-time federal employees.

OP here. Trust me, I've tried; that was my preference for sure. My agency won't allow that- while OPM still considers 70 hours full-time, HR here only considers FT as 80 hours. I can't do anything less than 80 but more than 64, unfortunately. I guess an agency has discretion to be more stringent than OPM? So to get around this, my AD was actually the one who suggested the LWOP scheme b/c others here also do it (but quietly, without involving HR).

You work at my agency.

Let me just add, they suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Err, that should be "succint"...

Thanks again. HR actually hasn't approved it yet. My associate director was the one who brought it to their attention, not me! Looks like there will be a showdown btwn HR and him, as they say it's unallowable and he's saying they don't get the final say.

Wow...great boss. Squeezing 3.5 hours out of my boss was like pulling teeth. He's a MAJOR micromanager (and general shithead).

with that attitude you should either be fired or denied a raise

Oh please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may not directly respond to your question about LWOP...if instead of reducing hours worked each PP using LWOP, could you instead request to change schedule to 35 hours per week, i.e., 70 hours in a PP? I believe per OPM you would still be considered a full-time federal employee, i.e., your benefits would not be pro-rated as they are for part-time federal employees.

OP here. Trust me, I've tried; that was my preference for sure. My agency won't allow that- while OPM still considers 70 hours full-time, HR here only considers FT as 80 hours. I can't do anything less than 80 but more than 64, unfortunately. I guess an agency has discretion to be more stringent than OPM? So to get around this, my AD was actually the one who suggested the LWOP scheme b/c others here also do it (but quietly, without involving HR).

You work at my agency.

Let me just add, they suck.

Do we know each other?? Is that you, M?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the poster who described the process well. I also had health insurance through the Federal Government while using some LWOP for maternity leave purposes and it did not impact anything; I just paid the same rates I always paid for the insurance that covered myself and my family. Ditto for the two years I was working part time. I know this isn't an issue for the OP, but in case others are wondering about this, I wanted to put it out there.

I'm not sure this is correct. I work 80% and pay quite a bit more for my health insurance due to being part-time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the poster who described the process well. I also had health insurance through the Federal Government while using some LWOP for maternity leave purposes and it did not impact anything; I just paid the same rates I always paid for the insurance that covered myself and my family. Ditto for the two years I was working part time. I know this isn't an issue for the OP, but in case others are wondering about this, I wanted to put it out there.

I'm not sure this is correct. I work 80% and pay quite a bit more for my health insurance due to being part-time.

I took quite a bit of LWOP during my 6 month maternity leave and my health insurance premium did not change (though I had to pay my share directly, as opposed to it coming out of my paycheck).

At my agency, part time workers pay a higher share of the health benefits premium because the agency's contribution is prorated based on the number of hours worked each pay period.

[Anonymous]

And in my case, my health insurance cost stayed the same, I assume because I was taking LWOP under FMLA.

[Anonymous]

The two major benefits to LWOP over part time is that you don't lose your full time slot which could be an issue if you wish to go back and that it does not affect your insurance. The flaw is that you are sort of at the whim of management who can change your schedule back whenever they want. My office was much happier about my LWOP because insurance was not involved since there are other people who are part time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the poster who described the process well. I also had health insurance through the Federal Government while using some LWOP for maternity leave purposes and it did not impact anything; I just paid the same rates I always paid for the insurance that covered myself and my family. Ditto for the two years I was working part time. I know this isn't an issue for the OP, but in case others are wondering about this, I wanted to put it out there.

I'm not sure this is correct. I work 80% and pay quite a bit more for my health insurance due to being part-time.

I'm the poster you're questioning and, yes, where I work this is exactly how it went with my health benefits. I paid the exact same amount for the same plan both before I went part time and after and again once I returned to full time. Does anyone know if the number of hours you work per pay period impacts how much you pay? I was at 32 hours per week, or 64 hours per pay period when I was part time and, again, no impact to the amount I paid for family health insurance.

[Anonymous]

16:02 again. I neglected to note that you worked 80%, which is exactly what I worked when I was part time. I have no idea why you would have paid more for your health insurance when my rates remained the same. This is odd...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may not directly respond to your question about LWOP...if instead of reducing hours worked each PP using LWOP, could you instead request to change schedule to 35 hours per week, i.e., 70 hours in a PP? I believe per OPM you would still be considered a full-time federal employee, i.e., your benefits would not be pro-rated as they are for part-time federal employees.

OP here. Trust me, I've tried; that was my preference for sure. My agency won't allow that- while OPM still considers 70 hours full-time, HR here only considers FT as 80 hours. I can't do anything less than 80 but more than 64, unfortunately. I guess an agency has discretion to be more stringent than OPM? So to get around this, my AD was actually the one who suggested the LWOP scheme b/c others here also do it (but quietly, without involving HR).

You work at my agency.

Let me just add, they suck.

Do we know each other?? Is that you, M?

Sure is K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the poster who described the process well. I also had health insurance through the Federal Government while using some LWOP for maternity leave purposes and it did not impact anything; I just paid the same rates I always paid for the insurance that covered myself and my family. Ditto for the two years I was working part time. I know this isn't an issue for the OP, but in case others are wondering about this, I wanted to put it out there.

I'm not sure this is correct. I work 80% and pay quite a bit more for my health insurance due to being part-time.

to the 80% poster, are your tour hours per pay period set at 64?

My tours hours are set at 40 hours/pay period. I pay 50% of the premium for health insurance. If your tour hours are set as more than 64, then you are considered full-time so the govt's portion of the premium is not prorated as it is for "officially" part-time (I.e. 64 hours or less scheduled tour hours). So if you are scheduled for 80 tour hours but always use LWOP to effectively work less/part-time, your health insurance premiums won't get prorated.

After OP's original question last(?) week, I was digging around on opm.gov and in the CFR, and I recall reading that part-time is defined as 32 hours or less....and then there is full-time (80 hours). That seems to go along with what OP's HR dept us telling her. But it sounds like sone agencies ARE allowing staff to have tour hours set between 64-80??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the poster who described the process well. I also had health insurance through the Federal Government while using some LWOP for maternity leave purposes and it did not impact anything; I just paid the same rates I always paid for the insurance that covered myself and my family. Ditto for the two years I was working part time. I know this isn't an issue for the OP, but in case others are wondering about this, I wanted to put it out there.

I'm not sure this is correct. I work 80% and pay quite a bit more for my health insurance due to being part-time.

to the 80% poster, are your tour hours per pay period set at 64?

My tours hours are set at 40 hours/pay period. I pay 50% of the premium for health insurance. If your tour hours are set as more than 64, then you are considered full-time so the govt's portion of the premium is not prorated as it is for "officially" part-time (I.e. 64 hours or less scheduled tour hours). So if you are scheduled for 80 tour hours but always use LWOP to effectively work less/part-time, your health insurance premiums won't get prorated.

After OP's original question last(?) week, I was digging around on opm.gov and in the CFR, and I recall reading that part-time is defined as 32 hours or less....and then there is full-time (80 hours). That seems to go along with what OP's HR dept us telling her. But it sounds like sone agencies ARE allowing staff to have tour hours set between 64-80??

Yes, I'm part-time, so my tour hours are set at 64. We're not allowed to use LWOP (except in extreme circumstances).

[Anonymous]

I don't work at the same agency as M and K but my Agency would not allow an employee to shorten her schedule by 10 hours of LWOP every week. First, under OPM regs, an employee cannot effectively work a parttime schedule and get full time benefits. Second, an employee cannot use leave provisions to fashion a new, permanent schedule when they have been hired on a set full time schedule. This is considered leave abuse. Third, LWOP is reserved for emergencies and situations of hardship. It is not for fashioning a new schedule of convenience.

Of course, if there were a situation such as disability accommodation, medical hardship of OP or family member, or some other compelling situation that would be considered. But simply asking to work 10 less hours would not be viable unless a request to go part-time with official part-time benefits were made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't work at the same agency as M and K but my Agency would not allow an employee to shorten her schedule by 10 hours of LWOP every week. First, under OPM regs, an employee cannot effectively work a parttime schedule and get full time benefits. Second, an employee cannot use leave provisions to fashion a new, permanent schedule when they have been hired on a set full time schedule. This is considered leave abuse. Third, LWOP is reserved for emergencies and situations of hardship. It is not for fashioning a new schedule of convenience.

Of course, if there were a situation such as disability accommodation, medical hardship of OP or family member, or some other compelling situation that would be considered. But simply asking to work 10 less hours would not be viable unless a request to go part-time with official part-time benefits were made.

OP here. I can appreciate this perspective, so thanks for posting. I don't want to do anything that would be considered leave abuse. I will say that my office will not reduce my caseload so I will still be responsible for the same amt of work as if I were working 80 hours.

Do you know what rationale there is for not allowing someone to have a non-LWOP set schedule of 70 hours? What is the benefit to the agency and to me to force me into choosing btwn 64 or 80 hours, if I'm willing to work more than 64 hours AND get the same amount of work done had I been 80 hours? I'm not trying to be argumentative- just trying to understand...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't work at the same agency as M and K but my Agency would not allow an employee to shorten her schedule by 10 hours of LWOP every week. First, under OPM regs, an employee cannot effectively work a parttime schedule and get full time benefits. Second, an employee cannot use leave provisions to fashion a new, permanent schedule when they have been hired on a set full time schedule. This is considered leave abuse. Third, LWOP is reserved for emergencies and situations of hardship. It is not for fashioning a new schedule of convenience.

Of course, if there were a situation such as disability accommodation, medical hardship of OP or family member, or some other compelling situation that would be considered. But simply asking to work 10 less hours would not be viable unless a request to go part-time with official part-time benefits were made.

There is something disturbing about the idea that adjusting your schedule to a level that works for the employee and employer (meaning direct management) is "leave abuse." And I have been a manager at a federal agency for 11 years. I understand the impact on benefits, health benefits in particular, but someone working 35 hours a week (70 hours a pay period), which is full time per OPM regs as noted above, is not abusing benefits. The issue is adequately addressed by the adjustment to leave when the employee hits 80 hours of LWOP.

Some agencies are really family UNfriendly when it comes to their leave policies. I have never understood whether it was rigid application of the narrowest interpretation of the rules possible due to an inability to think reasonably or just a power thing.