Last Updated on July 23, 2014 by FERS Disability Attorney
Having a sense of shame can reveal a heightened level of moral superiority; but as with all things emanating from the Good, those who lack a sensitivity to propriety will take full advantage of a misguided loyalty to ethical conduct. Work and a duty to one’s vocation is a guiding principle for most Federal and Postal employees. That is precisely why filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, is anathema to the Federal and Postal employee.
The committed Federal and Postal employee often has a warped and misguided sense of his ethical duty to work, and will allow for a medical condition to continue to exacerbate and debilitate, at the expense of one’s deteriorating health, all for the sake of commitment, devotion, and high ethical sense of duty to one’s mission for the agency.
Supervisors and managers recognize this, and take full advantage. But the Federal and Postal employee must by necessity understand that Federal Disability Retirement is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal employees precisely for the underlying reasons offered: When a medical condition impacts one’s health such that one can no longer perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, the benefit of Federal Disability Retirement is meant to be accessed precisely because it has always been part of the benefits package for all Federal and Postal employees, whether under FERS or CSRS.
Commitment to a mission is indeed commendable; blind devotion at the expense of one’s own health is somewhat less so — unless one counts the sneering approval of agencies who see such sacrifices as mere paths to the slaughterhouse.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Tags:
a few useful assumption and realistic expectations before you take the federal disability retirement train,
attorney experienced in dealing with fers disability retirement claims,
clashes between management and disabled employees at the us agencies,
commitment to your federal job at the expense of your well being,
decline of genuine empathy after a disability in the workplace,
disability and the federal sector and basing your hopes in realistic expectations,
don't always count with the support of an agency supervisor,
expecting bilateral loyalty from your federal employer,
expecting ethical behavior from federal agencies,
federal disability law firm,
federal employees shouldn't apologize for medical benefits,
FERS disability retirement,
hoping for uncooperative neutrality from agency as a reasonably positive expectation,
if postal managers will really support the ill injured postal worker,
if your health is more important than your job,
isn't good health one of the most important benefits we are willing to keep even at the expense of a good-paying federal or postal job that hurts your continually?,
law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america,
no apologies for medical and social circumstances you can't control,
not need to feel ashamed for applying for federal disability retirement benefits,
postal and federal employees and their often blind commitment to the causes of their employing agencies,
postal employment and no apologies for an earned medical benefits,
pride or shame to admit a disability in the federal workplace,
providing you with a realistic expectation for your fers disability claim,
the injured federal worker and his high commitment to excellence,
the lack of empathy in the federal workforce with those who suffer from not so obvious medical conditions,
the loyalty of a federal agency toward its own employees,
the main priority a federal agency is its mission not the welfare of an injured or disabled employee,
the rehab federal worker and her commitment to duty,
there is never a reason to feel ashamed for pursuing disability retirement under fers or csrs,
what's more important for the injured postal worker money or good health?,
when a loyal and dedicated postal worker gets hurt,
when federal agencies only care about their ''missions''
1 thought on “Federal Employee Medical Retirement: A Wrong Sense of Shame”