To the Editor:
I read with interest the April 12 page 1 article "Gilleran Explains OTS Cutbacks."
My husband, David S. Goodson Jr., has been a loyal and hardworking employee of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and its predecessor, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, for approximately 30 years.
During those years, I often suggested that he get into the private sector to improve his financial situation and to better meet our family needs. He would reply that he enjoyed what he was doing, thought he was making a difference in this world, and that the benefits he would receive when he retired all made good sense to him.
Imagine our shock when Dave was summoned to his supervisor's office on March 14 to be told that the OTS was conducting a RIF (reduction in force) action and that his services were no longer needed. In addition, he was told that his position was being abolished. His job title was manager of compliance and consumer affairs.
Needless to say, it was a very cold and uncaring way to treat a long-term employee like him. Not only did he get "slapped in the face and shown the door," but he was also told that no severance package would be coming his way.
My husband is 61 years old. He and quite a few of his co-workers who were impacted by the RIF action are in a similar situation in terms of years of service and age.
Because of this totally unexpected RIF action, all of our financial planning has been for naught. Dave had planned to work until at least age 65. With our Social Security and his pension, he would have been retiring with at least 80% of his present income.
As it stands now, he will receive a pension which will approximate 43% of his income. That means that he will not be able to retire at this time.
Mr. Gilleran may be pleased with his "slash and burn" policy, but he has also managed to ruin peoples' lives, and he has disrupted their retirement plans that had been in place for so many years.
What is worse, OTS has offered virtually no assistance to the displaced employees who were impacted by the RIF action. Aside from bringing in a person for a day to help these people learn how to prepare a resume and distributing copies of various Internet sites that they might want to visit to explore employment opportunities, OTS apparently felt that it more than adequately assisted its "ex employees." It did not even offer to provide any kind of financial advisory service to these people.
We have raised two wonderful sons who have never been in trouble, graduated from college in four years, and are still paying back their student loans. Both boys have very responsible jobs. What good has it done for us to have taught them over the years that loyalty and respect are some of the more important values in life? What lesson have they learned from my husband's situation? I would like Mr. Gilleran to answer that.
According to an article dated April 5, 2002, that appeared in a publication called the Banking Daily, an OTS representative said that "OTS is finalizing a plan to combine safety and soundness exams with compliance exams with the goal of making both types of exams and our professionals more effective. … We have our best people, including our best and most senior compliance managers, working on this project."
Apparently, my husband, at age 61, and having consistently received "outstanding" job performance ratings in recent years, was not considered by OTS to be one of its "best and most senior compliance managers." Further, we have federal laws which prohibit age discrimination. Yet it appears that such disregard for this law is going on in our own federal government.
Good, moral, hardworking people have been ruined, and no one seems to care. I hope Mr. Gilleran - who apparently answers to no one - can sleep at night. We cannot.
