The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) opposes the proposed rule, arguing it illegally removes administrative leave from the bargaining table, lacks a valid statutory basis, and unfairly locks employees into resignation decisions. While they oppose most aspects of the rule, they specifically support including physical fitness activities as an acceptable use of administrative leave.

The commenter supports the proposed action, specifically advocating for flexibility in holiday leave durations and the use of administrative leave for fitness programs. They argue that these measures will ensure a more capable and physically ready federal workforce for emergency response and other demands.

The commenter supports the proposed rule allowing federal employees to take administrative leave for physical fitness. They argue that this will improve work-life balance, mental well-being, and employee motivation while reducing burnout.

The commenter, identifying as a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule because it expands executive discretion and risks undermining the merit-based, nonpartisan principles of the career civil service. They argue that the rule could be used to sideline career employees during reorganizations and urge the OPM to withdraw or substantially revise the proposal to protect civil service independence.

The commenter argues in favor of allowing civilian employees to use duty hours for physical fitness, citing benefits such as increased readiness, improved productivity, better work-life balance, and reduced sick leave. They advocate for keeping this as a permanent option for OPM Administrative Leave, noting that it fosters long-term wellness and provides a significant return on investment.

A private citizen opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it weakens due process protections for federal employees and could hinder the recruitment and retention of skilled public servants. The commenter emphasizes the importance of a merit-based civil service that remains independent of political pressure.

The commenter advocates for a policy allowing employees to use a limited portion of duty time for physical fitness and wellness activities. They argue that this practice is common across other federal agencies and would improve employee health, morale, and organizational readiness.

The commenter, identifying as a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule because they believe it retroactively legitimizes a costly and ineffective deferred resignation program that lacks proper oversight. They argue that existing statutory tools like VERA and VSIP are superior for workforce reduction and criticize the rule for unfairly restricting employees' ability to withdraw resignations and prohibiting administrative leave for poll work.