OMB trying to change guidance to no back pay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This obviously sucks. But what sucks even more is that some people who are excepted and working have been told to mark their timecards as furloughed. So if this comes to pass, they won't get paid even though they've been working as usual.

I’d refuse to do one ounce of work and I wouldn’t go in to office.

And that is what sets civil servants apart. Many of us believe in what we do. I for one believe our military service members have earned the health care I provide and to withhold that care because my paycheck may be delayed, or even absent, is disrespectful of their sacrifice.

Did you read that WP article about all of the disability fraud veterans are collecting?

Not a veteran, but this PALES in comparison the SSDI fraud. I’m shocked at what I see first hand with some relatives I have.

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory. It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military. The VA doesn’t encourage veterans to file as many claims as possible to “milk the system.” Many claims are rated at zero but it’s important to get it all on record if it is service connected so you can get it treated later if needed. These would be listed as “claims” but it doesn’t mean service members get paid anything for it. There is also a law of diminishing returns with claims (i.e. 10 ailments rated at 10% does not add up to a 100% rating) so looking at them in isolation is misleading, and that’s assuming good intent. I would also say sleep apnea is, in fact, a service related injury, particularly at the higher severity levels. If the authors did any kind of research into it, they would know that sleep apnea rates among service members deployed to the Middle East are far greater than the general US population. The rating for that has also changed downward recently, but even before that, very few loss of limb ratings were lower for any kind of significant loss of functionality (the author cites only one). Every parent who has had an infant knows the torture it is to go day in and day out with few hours of really solid sleep, which is what sleep apnea is like but instead of your child eventually sleeping, it’s like that for the rest of your life. Not to mention the risk of heart attacks and not breathing. I could go on but why? It’s hard to believe at least one is a Pulitzer Prize winning author.

Lastly, many veterans have PTSD they don’t admit to due to stigma and a fear of the loss of rights. There has been a better focus on this in recent years, but there is still an issue with getting those veterans the actual help they really need.

I would agree with the PP that fraud in VA benefits, as demonstrated by the few examples in the article compared to the millions of veterans who have served, is far less than in other government programs.

This is way off topic, but re the bolded, correlation does not equal causation. Also, on what basis are you asserting that sleep apnea is service related? No one is disputing that it can be a severe condition, but that is, frankly irrelevant to the military disability determination.

Finally, this sentence is just silly:

"I would agree with the PP that fraud in VA benefits, as demonstrated by the few examples in the article compared to the millions of veterans who have served, is far less than in other government programs."

The logic, if you can call it that, appears to be that since the Post article didn't catalog every instance of suspected disability fraud in the military, the inescable conclusion is that there are "far less" (sic) instances of fraud in the military ? OK.

I have no idea if the post article is well-researched or not. But knee-jerk reflexive defense of all things military is not particularly compelling.

Ok, then you go do it. You serve in the ME for years and tell me how you feel when you get back after all that breathing in of toxic pollutants. Seriously, go do it.

Not defending all things military, don’t hear what I am lot saying. And correlation isn’t necessarily causation, agreed, but it is nearly impossible to prove causation since these issues evidence so far into the future, not right after exposure. The same can be said for any exposure to environmental chemicals that cause diseases that take time to develop in severity. This is the whole reason for the PACT Act.

When taken in sum total, the misrepresentations and inaccuracies can only lead to one conclusion. That the authors are trying to convince you of a particular view. This is what happens when you don’t report objectively. This appears to have worked for you.

DP, if you were talking about, say, lung cancer, then I might understand. But sleep apnea- particularly obstructive sleep apnea- 10+ years later really isn't likely to be related.

But certainly we should get CPAPs/BiPAPs for those who need them.

Come talk to me after you have served. Otherwise your opinions aren’t really relevant.

That's an odd claim. How does military service make someone an expert at sleep apnea?

You're basically playing into the criticism here. Taking a position that military service warrants greater long-term compensation and benefits would be perfectly reasonable. Not everyone would agree, or agree to the same extent, but almost no one would fault you for such a position. But saying we should effectively do that by providing payments for unrelated and treatable medical conditions is not reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a democrat but this is just one more confirmation that the Democrats are playing checkers while the Republicans are playing chess (or perhaps something more serious like nuclear chicken). This shutdown was always going to cause more pain than than the dems will gain - if they gain anything at all in the end.

Agree.

Democrats will always play checkers (and lose) because they have a moral conscience and are in government to help people.

Republicans play chess and will always win - because they are here to amass power and consolidate control.

They can be ruthless while democrats meekly play by old rules.

Yes decade after decade after decade Rep take us 2 steps back and Dems have to push in their few years in to be 3 steps forward. But the reality is Dems have pushed 6 steps forward in past years hence the swing of the pendulum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory. It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military.

My husband is a 100% disabled veteran and I am APPALLED by the Post article. It is biased and profoundly anti-veteran.

DH is a brain tumor survivor and has memory and serious physical issues; symptoms (including severe headaches) first appeared after he returned from deployment, which included almost 24/7 exposure to burn pits. He has been too sick to work since 2008. We first applied for VA disability in the 2010s, after the VA started the burn pit registry, but he was denied because--even though multiple doctors wrote letters stating that his type of brain tumor was consistent with chemical exposure, and burn pit veterans get brain tumors at a far, far higher rate than the general population--we could not definitively prove it was service connected. We appealed and he was denied. It wasn't until the PACT Act, which includes a presumption of service connection for certain conditions, that he received benefits.

And now the Post publishes this hit job painting all disabled veterans as fraudsters getting paid for acne and ED, without noting the repeated visits with VA-retained doctors and extensive medical review claims are subject to? And without noting the many, many combat veterans with Stage 4 cancers and other serious health issues who languished with no coverage at all for almost two decades--the literal reason the PACT Act was passed? Where was the coverage of that, and what the hell agenda does the Post have here?

Just because your husband’s VA claim is legit doesn’t change the fact that many VA disability claims are fraudulent. That article is not profoundly anti-veteran because it is profoundly true.

So many “disabled” veterans. It’s the easiest path to a lifetime pension after working for three years from 18-21.

What they need is a windfall elimination clause where if the disabled veteran is able to work and earn a livable wage their disability payments are reduced or rescinded.

There’s a 100% disabled veteran in my neighborhood who works as a commercial airline pilot. In addition to his disability payments, pension and airline pilot salary the property taxes on his $2 million house are waived due to his disability. I have 50 similar stories.

That can't be legal under the current laws, is it?

It 100% is. You’d be hard pressed to find a veteran who doesn’t have some form of disability rating (and lifetime monthly payment).

+1 Not to mention the myriad of non-compensation benefits (e.g., hiring preferences, preferential tax treatment) that are given to “disabled” veterans.

You might be surprised on this. When RIFs were starting, pretty much all of the vets in my office were surprised to discover that none of them had veterans preference.

There's likely some strong selection factors going both ways here. If you work somewhere that uses the veterans preference or disabled
vet hiring authorities, then you're going to have a very different set of coworkers than at a place that mostly does named direct hires.

I don't know what the surprise is - veterans get hiring preferences. Do they really expect that they will also get preferences in the event of a RIF? That's absurd.

Huh? They do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:work = pay

That's not what the law says. The law says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations"

Actually, I believe it says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.". The phrase "subject to the enactment...ending the lapse" would leave room for a bill that said no pay for feds.

There has always been room to change the law, including through the CR or appropriations. But barring such a change, it the government is obligated to provide back pay.

Not according to the text the PP provided. Any requirement to provide back pay is subject to back pay being provided for in the relevant appropriations bill. If there isn't a provision re back pay in the bill, there is no requirement.

Read the language again. Yes, it is subject to the appropriations. Once the appropriations are enacted, the government is obligated to provide back pay.

There's no legitimate controversy here. The language is clear. The legislative intent is clear. And there's been a consistent and common understanding of the language through the initial Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the first part of the second Trump administration.

Even Vought knows this isn't going to work. But it is a way to play to Trump's poorly educated base.

The language is 100% clear and the legislative history is 100% clear. Even this ridiculous Supreme Court would uphold federal workers right to back pay.

One of the guiding principles of legal interpretation is to assume all language has some purpose (i.e., not to read any legislative text as meaningless). Before this legislation, Congress could (and did) give workers backpay merely by incorporating language granting backpay into the appropriation bill ending a shutdown. If we adopt OMB's read of the legislation, we would have to believe it does NOTHING. Not just one sentence or word, but the ENTIRE piece of legislation signed with much fanfare does NOTHING. Under OMB's reading, it simply permits exactly what always happened in the past before the legislation existed: Congress could choose to specifically appropriate backpay. That is clearly not what the legislation says and even more clearly not what was intended. Look at the language on Speaker Johnson's webpage or on many agency webpages saying that backpay is guaranteed. This is a made up negotiating tactic and a dumb one at that, because it renders everything Speaker Johnson said about the House already having done its job untrue. Remember he is keeping the House out of session because they've already passed the clean CR and so are done. Except that the clean CR isn't enough now, because it doesn't grant backpay. There are over 20 Republican Congressman/Senators on record specifically saying Feds will and should get backpay, so presumably they agree they haven't done their job yet since they haven't passed a bill including backpay? It's almost like the Administration is intentionally backstabbing the Speaker. I'm unclear why though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they don't back pay us, what happens with our back health insurance premiums that would normally be deducted once pay starts again? What if they RIF as threatened and there is no next paycheck? Are they going to give us debt letters? I can go without a couple paychecks, but going into debt while they make me stay home and possibly fire me is going to keep me up at night.

Relax, the sky isn’t falling.

This is really unhelpful. I work in an agency that was in the news for planning RIFs before the shutdown, in a central office rumored to be targeted. Financial planning for job loss is important.

+1 It's easy to say that when it doesn't affect you. No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck. Federal workers aren't making huge salaries--a lot of people don't have savings to withstand the loss of a paycheck for several weeks (like the TSA workers mentioned upthread who are required to work and now going to soup kitchens).

Let's not exaggerate. Some people in the private sector have jobs that are subject to whatever hours their manager is willing to give them. Similarly, some companies will furlough employees, either following regular, seasonal patterns or in response to exceptional financial situations. But the latter is truly exceptional and almost always limited to a week or two (sometimes with an option to use paid leave).

But, of course, this has an impact on hiring and retention, particularly when they happen frequently or for extended periods. The argument for the lower compensation in professional government positions has typically been tied to stability. That justification doesn't work anymore.

Let's not misunderstand what the situation is, which you what you are doing. In the private sector, employees can furlough but they can not require people to come in and work without pay which is what the federal government can do. And essential employees can't even apply for unemployment insurance. If a furloughed federal employee opts to take a job during this furlough period, they need prior approval from their agency's ethics office, unlike a private sector employee, and good luck getting a timely response when everyone is furloughed.

The post I was responding to said:

"No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck."

The fact is, yes, a lot of people do have jobs like that. No one likes it, but it isn't unique to furloughed feds. That doesn't make it OK, but some people come across out-of-touch when they make these comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:work = pay

That's not what the law says. The law says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations"

Actually, I believe it says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.". The phrase "subject to the enactment...ending the lapse" would leave room for a bill that said no pay for feds.

There has always been room to change the law, including through the CR or appropriations. But barring such a change, it the government is obligated to provide back pay.

Not according to the text the PP provided. Any requirement to provide back pay is subject to back pay being provided for in the relevant appropriations bill. If there isn't a provision re back pay in the bill, there is no requirement.

Read the language again. Yes, it is subject to the appropriations. Once the appropriations are enacted, the government is obligated to provide back pay.

There's no legitimate controversy here. The language is clear. The legislative intent is clear. And there's been a consistent and common understanding of the language through the initial Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the first part of the second Trump administration.

Even Vought knows this isn't going to work. But it is a way to play to Trump's poorly educated base.

The language is 100% clear and the legislative history is 100% clear. Even this ridiculous Supreme Court would uphold federal workers right to back pay.

One of the guiding principles of legal interpretation is to assume all language has some purpose (i.e., not to read any legislative text as meaningless). Before this legislation, Congress could (and did) give workers backpay merely by incorporating language granting backpay into the appropriation bill ending a shutdown. If we adopt OMB's read of the legislation, we would have to believe it does NOTHING. Not just one sentence or word, but the ENTIRE piece of legislation signed with much fanfare does NOTHING. Under OMB's reading, it simply permits exactly what always happened in the past before the legislation existed: Congress could choose to specifically appropriate backpay. That is clearly not what the legislation says and even more clearly not what was intended. Look at the language on Speaker Johnson's webpage or on many agency webpages saying that backpay is guaranteed. This is a made up negotiating tactic and a dumb one at that, because it renders everything Speaker Johnson said about the House already having done its job untrue. Remember he is keeping the House out of session because they've already passed the clean CR and so are done. Except that the clean CR isn't enough now, because it doesn't grant backpay. There are over 20 Republican Congressman/Senators on record specifically saying Feds will and should get backpay, so presumably they agree they haven't done their job yet since they haven't passed a bill including backpay? It's almost like the Administration is intentionally backstabbing the Speaker. I'm unclear why though.

The obvious answer is that it is all for show. They're playing to their base and hoping some gullible people will put pressure on Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they don't back pay us, what happens with our back health insurance premiums that would normally be deducted once pay starts again? What if they RIF as threatened and there is no next paycheck? Are they going to give us debt letters? I can go without a couple paychecks, but going into debt while they make me stay home and possibly fire me is going to keep me up at night.

Relax, the sky isn’t falling.

This is really unhelpful. I work in an agency that was in the news for planning RIFs before the shutdown, in a central office rumored to be targeted. Financial planning for job loss is important.

+1 It's easy to say that when it doesn't affect you. No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck. Federal workers aren't making huge salaries--a lot of people don't have savings to withstand the loss of a paycheck for several weeks (like the TSA workers mentioned upthread who are required to work and now going to soup kitchens).

Let's not exaggerate. Some people in the private sector have jobs that are subject to whatever hours their manager is willing to give them. Similarly, some companies will furlough employees, either following regular, seasonal patterns or in response to exceptional financial situations. But the latter is truly exceptional and almost always limited to a week or two (sometimes with an option to use paid leave).

But, of course, this has an impact on hiring and retention, particularly when they happen frequently or for extended periods. The argument for the lower compensation in professional government positions has typically been tied to stability. That justification doesn't work anymore.

Let's not misunderstand what the situation is, which you what you are doing. In the private sector, employees can furlough but they can not require people to come in and work without pay which is what the federal government can do. And essential employees can't even apply for unemployment insurance. If a furloughed federal employee opts to take a job during this furlough period, they need prior approval from their agency's ethics office, unlike a private sector employee, and good luck getting a timely response when everyone is furloughed.

The post I was responding to said:

"No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck."

The fact is, yes, a lot of people do have jobs like that. No one likes it, but it isn't unique to furloughed feds. That doesn't make it OK, but some people come across out-of-touch when they make these comments.

Really? name one.

When I was in the private sector I had my pay temporarily reduced during the financial crisis. Of course I accepted that because I understood the firm was in a tough place. A federal employee furlough is a totally different scenario. And not that you asked but I also would accept a rational RIF done legally and compassionately as just something unfortunate that happened to me … but of course that what never what DOGE was about.

So yeah until you point to a private sector boss literally stating his intent was to “torture” his staff, you may kindly take a seat. The only thing that comes close is Elon’s sadism at Twitter!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:work = pay

That's not what the law says. The law says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations"

Actually, I believe it says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.". The phrase "subject to the enactment...ending the lapse" would leave room for a bill that said no pay for feds.

There has always been room to change the law, including through the CR or appropriations. But barring such a change, it the government is obligated to provide back pay.

Not according to the text the PP provided. Any requirement to provide back pay is subject to back pay being provided for in the relevant appropriations bill. If there isn't a provision re back pay in the bill, there is no requirement.

Read the language again. Yes, it is subject to the appropriations. Once the appropriations are enacted, the government is obligated to provide back pay.

There's no legitimate controversy here. The language is clear. The legislative intent is clear. And there's been a consistent and common understanding of the language through the initial Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the first part of the second Trump administration.

Even Vought knows this isn't going to work. But it is a way to play to Trump's poorly educated base.

The language is 100% clear and the legislative history is 100% clear. Even this ridiculous Supreme Court would uphold federal workers right to back pay.

One of the guiding principles of legal interpretation is to assume all language has some purpose (i.e., not to read any legislative text as meaningless). Before this legislation, Congress could (and did) give workers backpay merely by incorporating language granting backpay into the appropriation bill ending a shutdown. If we adopt OMB's read of the legislation, we would have to believe it does NOTHING. Not just one sentence or word, but the ENTIRE piece of legislation signed with much fanfare does NOTHING. Under OMB's reading, it simply permits exactly what always happened in the past before the legislation existed: Congress could choose to specifically appropriate backpay. That is clearly not what the legislation says and even more clearly not what was intended. Look at the language on Speaker Johnson's webpage or on many agency webpages saying that backpay is guaranteed. This is a made up negotiating tactic and a dumb one at that, because it renders everything Speaker Johnson said about the House already having done its job untrue. Remember he is keeping the House out of session because they've already passed the clean CR and so are done. Except that the clean CR isn't enough now, because it doesn't grant backpay. There are over 20 Republican Congressman/Senators on record specifically saying Feds will and should get backpay, so presumably they agree they haven't done their job yet since they haven't passed a bill including backpay? It's almost like the Administration is intentionally backstabbing the Speaker. I'm unclear why though.

Because Trump has zero discipline and Vought has the single goal of terrorizing the federal workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they don't back pay us, what happens with our back health insurance premiums that would normally be deducted once pay starts again? What if they RIF as threatened and there is no next paycheck? Are they going to give us debt letters? I can go without a couple paychecks, but going into debt while they make me stay home and possibly fire me is going to keep me up at night.

Relax, the sky isn’t falling.

This is really unhelpful. I work in an agency that was in the news for planning RIFs before the shutdown, in a central office rumored to be targeted. Financial planning for job loss is important.

+1 It's easy to say that when it doesn't affect you. No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck. Federal workers aren't making huge salaries--a lot of people don't have savings to withstand the loss of a paycheck for several weeks (like the TSA workers mentioned upthread who are required to work and now going to soup kitchens).

Let's not exaggerate. Some people in the private sector have jobs that are subject to whatever hours their manager is willing to give them. Similarly, some companies will furlough employees, either following regular, seasonal patterns or in response to exceptional financial situations. But the latter is truly exceptional and almost always limited to a week or two (sometimes with an option to use paid leave).

But, of course, this has an impact on hiring and retention, particularly when they happen frequently or for extended periods. The argument for the lower compensation in professional government positions has typically been tied to stability. That justification doesn't work anymore.

Let's not misunderstand what the situation is, which you what you are doing. In the private sector, employees can furlough but they can not require people to come in and work without pay which is what the federal government can do. And essential employees can't even apply for unemployment insurance. If a furloughed federal employee opts to take a job during this furlough period, they need prior approval from their agency's ethics office, unlike a private sector employee, and good luck getting a timely response when everyone is furloughed.

The post I was responding to said:

"No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck."

The fact is, yes, a lot of people do have jobs like that. No one likes it, but it isn't unique to furloughed feds. That doesn't make it OK, but some people come across out-of-touch when they make these comments.

Really? name one.

When I was in the private sector I had my pay temporarily reduced during the financial crisis. Of course I accepted that because I understood the firm was in a tough place. A federal employee furlough is a totally different scenario. And not that you asked but I also would accept a rational RIF done legally and compassionately as just something unfortunate that happened to me … but of course that what never what DOGE was about.

So yeah until you point to a private sector boss literally stating his intent was to “torture” his staff, you may kindly take a seat. The only thing that comes close is Elon’s sadism at Twitter!

Really? Almost any hourly service industry job, for one.

This is what I meant by some people sounding out-of-touch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they don't back pay us, what happens with our back health insurance premiums that would normally be deducted once pay starts again? What if they RIF as threatened and there is no next paycheck? Are they going to give us debt letters? I can go without a couple paychecks, but going into debt while they make me stay home and possibly fire me is going to keep me up at night.

Relax, the sky isn’t falling.

This is really unhelpful. I work in an agency that was in the news for planning RIFs before the shutdown, in a central office rumored to be targeted. Financial planning for job loss is important.

+1 It's easy to say that when it doesn't affect you. No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck. Federal workers aren't making huge salaries--a lot of people don't have savings to withstand the loss of a paycheck for several weeks (like the TSA workers mentioned upthread who are required to work and now going to soup kitchens).

Let's not exaggerate. Some people in the private sector have jobs that are subject to whatever hours their manager is willing to give them. Similarly, some companies will furlough employees, either following regular, seasonal patterns or in response to exceptional financial situations. But the latter is truly exceptional and almost always limited to a week or two (sometimes with an option to use paid leave).

But, of course, this has an impact on hiring and retention, particularly when they happen frequently or for extended periods. The argument for the lower compensation in professional government positions has typically been tied to stability. That justification doesn't work anymore.

Let's not misunderstand what the situation is, which you what you are doing. In the private sector, employees can furlough but they can not require people to come in and work without pay which is what the federal government can do. And essential employees can't even apply for unemployment insurance. If a furloughed federal employee opts to take a job during this furlough period, they need prior approval from their agency's ethics office, unlike a private sector employee, and good luck getting a timely response when everyone is furloughed.

The post I was responding to said:

"No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck."

The fact is, yes, a lot of people do have jobs like that. No one likes it, but it isn't unique to furloughed feds. That doesn't make it OK, but some people come across out-of-touch when they make these comments.

Really? name one.

When I was in the private sector I had my pay temporarily reduced during the financial crisis. Of course I accepted that because I understood the firm was in a tough place. A federal employee furlough is a totally different scenario. And not that you asked but I also would accept a rational RIF done legally and compassionately as just something unfortunate that happened to me … but of course that what never what DOGE was about.

So yeah until you point to a private sector boss literally stating his intent was to “torture” his staff, you may kindly take a seat. The only thing that comes close is Elon’s sadism at Twitter!

Really? Almost any hourly service industry job, for one.

This is what I meant by some people sounding out-of-touch.

Well I’m not an hourly service worker. I doubt you would argue that eg a BigLaw lawyer is out of touch if he thinks BigLaw should operate differently from McDonalds.

And for that matter, please show me the hourly worker employer taking actions purely based on spite or political dysfunction, and not due to business considerations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they don't back pay us, what happens with our back health insurance premiums that would normally be deducted once pay starts again? What if they RIF as threatened and there is no next paycheck? Are they going to give us debt letters? I can go without a couple paychecks, but going into debt while they make me stay home and possibly fire me is going to keep me up at night.

Relax, the sky isn’t falling.

This is really unhelpful. I work in an agency that was in the news for planning RIFs before the shutdown, in a central office rumored to be targeted. Financial planning for job loss is important.

+1 It's easy to say that when it doesn't affect you. No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck. Federal workers aren't making huge salaries--a lot of people don't have savings to withstand the loss of a paycheck for several weeks (like the TSA workers mentioned upthread who are required to work and now going to soup kitchens).

Let's not exaggerate. Some people in the private sector have jobs that are subject to whatever hours their manager is willing to give them. Similarly, some companies will furlough employees, either following regular, seasonal patterns or in response to exceptional financial situations. But the latter is truly exceptional and almost always limited to a week or two (sometimes with an option to use paid leave).

But, of course, this has an impact on hiring and retention, particularly when they happen frequently or for extended periods. The argument for the lower compensation in professional government positions has typically been tied to stability. That justification doesn't work anymore.

Let's not misunderstand what the situation is, which you what you are doing. In the private sector, employees can furlough but they can not require people to come in and work without pay which is what the federal government can do. And essential employees can't even apply for unemployment insurance. If a furloughed federal employee opts to take a job during this furlough period, they need prior approval from their agency's ethics office, unlike a private sector employee, and good luck getting a timely response when everyone is furloughed.

The post I was responding to said:

"No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck."

The fact is, yes, a lot of people do have jobs like that. No one likes it, but it isn't unique to furloughed feds. That doesn't make it OK, but some people come across out-of-touch when they make these comments.

Really? name one.

When I was in the private sector I had my pay temporarily reduced during the financial crisis. Of course I accepted that because I understood the firm was in a tough place. A federal employee furlough is a totally different scenario. And not that you asked but I also would accept a rational RIF done legally and compassionately as just something unfortunate that happened to me … but of course that what never what DOGE was about.

So yeah until you point to a private sector boss literally stating his intent was to “torture” his staff, you may kindly take a seat. The only thing that comes close is Elon’s sadism at Twitter!

Really? Almost any hourly service industry job, for one.

This is what I meant by some people sounding out-of-touch.

You’re comparing hourly service workers, of which I was one, to full time salaried positions? Fed jobs That in the majority of cases require at minimum a Bachelors degree and likely even a masters (mine does).
Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they don't back pay us, what happens with our back health insurance premiums that would normally be deducted once pay starts again? What if they RIF as threatened and there is no next paycheck? Are they going to give us debt letters? I can go without a couple paychecks, but going into debt while they make me stay home and possibly fire me is going to keep me up at night.

Relax, the sky isn’t falling.

This is really unhelpful. I work in an agency that was in the news for planning RIFs before the shutdown, in a central office rumored to be targeted. Financial planning for job loss is important.

+1 It's easy to say that when it doesn't affect you. No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck. Federal workers aren't making huge salaries--a lot of people don't have savings to withstand the loss of a paycheck for several weeks (like the TSA workers mentioned upthread who are required to work and now going to soup kitchens).

Let's not exaggerate. Some people in the private sector have jobs that are subject to whatever hours their manager is willing to give them. Similarly, some companies will furlough employees, either following regular, seasonal patterns or in response to exceptional financial situations. But the latter is truly exceptional and almost always limited to a week or two (sometimes with an option to use paid leave).

But, of course, this has an impact on hiring and retention, particularly when they happen frequently or for extended periods. The argument for the lower compensation in professional government positions has typically been tied to stability. That justification doesn't work anymore.

Let's not misunderstand what the situation is, which you what you are doing. In the private sector, employees can furlough but they can not require people to come in and work without pay which is what the federal government can do. And essential employees can't even apply for unemployment insurance. If a furloughed federal employee opts to take a job during this furlough period, they need prior approval from their agency's ethics office, unlike a private sector employee, and good luck getting a timely response when everyone is furloughed.

The post I was responding to said:

"No one would take it well if their job suddenly disappeared one day and they were told to wait indefinitely until management got their act together to decide to reinstate the job and paycheck."

The fact is, yes, a lot of people do have jobs like that. No one likes it, but it isn't unique to furloughed feds. That doesn't make it OK, but some people come across out-of-touch when they make these comments.

Really? name one.

When I was in the private sector I had my pay temporarily reduced during the financial crisis. Of course I accepted that because I understood the firm was in a tough place. A federal employee furlough is a totally different scenario. And not that you asked but I also would accept a rational RIF done legally and compassionately as just something unfortunate that happened to me … but of course that what never what DOGE was about.

So yeah until you point to a private sector boss literally stating his intent was to “torture” his staff, you may kindly take a seat. The only thing that comes close is Elon’s sadism at Twitter!

Really? Almost any hourly service industry job, for one.

This is what I meant by some people sounding out-of-touch.

Well I’m not an hourly service worker. I doubt you would argue that eg a BigLaw lawyer is out of touch if he thinks BigLaw should operate differently from McDonalds.

And for that matter, please show me the hourly worker employer taking actions purely based on spite or political dysfunction, and not due to business considerations.

+1 and I worked at McDonalds. I was never treated like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a democrat but this is just one more confirmation that the Democrats are playing checkers while the Republicans are playing chess (or perhaps something more serious like nuclear chicken). This shutdown was always going to cause more pain than than the dems will gain - if they gain anything at all in the end.

Agree.

Democrats will always play checkers (and lose) because they have a moral conscience and are in government to help people.

Republicans play chess and will always win - because they are here to amass power and consolidate control.

They can be ruthless while democrats meekly play by old rules.

Both sides are playing hopscotch - there is no chess-like strategy here.
One side likes to throw the skipping stones directly at people (both players and observers) and then laugh. The other side has more stones but can't agree on how to use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This obviously sucks. But what sucks even more is that some people who are excepted and working have been told to mark their timecards as furloughed. So if this comes to pass, they won't get paid even though they've been working as usual.

I’d refuse to do one ounce of work and I wouldn’t go in to office.

And that is what sets civil servants apart. Many of us believe in what we do. I for one believe our military service members have earned the health care I provide and to withhold that care because my paycheck may be delayed, or even absent, is disrespectful of their sacrifice.

Did you read that WP article about all of the disability fraud veterans are collecting?

Not a veteran, but this PALES in comparison the SSDI fraud. I’m shocked at what I see first hand with some relatives I have.

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory. It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military. The VA doesn’t encourage veterans to file as many claims as possible to “milk the system.” Many claims are rated at zero but it’s important to get it all on record if it is service connected so you can get it treated later if needed. These would be listed as “claims” but it doesn’t mean service members get paid anything for it. There is also a law of diminishing returns with claims (i.e. 10 ailments rated at 10% does not add up to a 100% rating) so looking at them in isolation is misleading, and that’s assuming good intent. I would also say sleep apnea is, in fact, a service related injury, particularly at the higher severity levels. If the authors did any kind of research into it, they would know that sleep apnea rates among service members deployed to the Middle East are far greater than the general US population. The rating for that has also changed downward recently, but even before that, very few loss of limb ratings were lower for any kind of significant loss of functionality (the author cites only one). Every parent who has had an infant knows the torture it is to go day in and day out with few hours of really solid sleep, which is what sleep apnea is like but instead of your child eventually sleeping, it’s like that for the rest of your life. Not to mention the risk of heart attacks and not breathing. I could go on but why? It’s hard to believe at least one is a Pulitzer Prize winning author.

Lastly, many veterans have PTSD they don’t admit to due to stigma and a fear of the loss of rights. There has been a better focus on this in recent years, but there is still an issue with getting those veterans the actual help they really need.

I would agree with the PP that fraud in VA benefits, as demonstrated by the few examples in the article compared to the millions of veterans who have served, is far less than in other government programs.

This is way off topic, but re the bolded, correlation does not equal causation. Also, on what basis are you asserting that sleep apnea is service related? No one is disputing that it can be a severe condition, but that is, frankly irrelevant to the military disability determination.

Finally, this sentence is just silly:

"I would agree with the PP that fraud in VA benefits, as demonstrated by the few examples in the article compared to the millions of veterans who have served, is far less than in other government programs."

The logic, if you can call it that, appears to be that since the Post article didn't catalog every instance of suspected disability fraud in the military, the inescable conclusion is that there are "far less" (sic) instances of fraud in the military ? OK.

I have no idea if the post article is well-researched or not. But knee-jerk reflexive defense of all things military is not particularly compelling.

Ok, then you go do it. You serve in the ME for years and tell me how you feel when you get back after all that breathing in of toxic pollutants. Seriously, go do it.

Not defending all things military, don’t hear what I am lot saying. And correlation isn’t necessarily causation, agreed, but it is nearly impossible to prove causation since these issues evidence so far into the future, not right after exposure. The same can be said for any exposure to environmental chemicals that cause diseases that take time to develop in severity. This is the whole reason for the PACT Act.

When taken in sum total, the misrepresentations and inaccuracies can only lead to one conclusion. That the authors are trying to convince you of a particular view. This is what happens when you don’t report objectively. This appears to have worked for you.

DP, if you were talking about, say, lung cancer, then I might understand. But sleep apnea- particularly obstructive sleep apnea- 10+ years later really isn't likely to be related.

But certainly we should get CPAPs/BiPAPs for those who need them.

Come talk to me after you have served. Otherwise your opinions aren’t really relevant.

Oh, but you're not reflexively defending the military? Gotcha.

That aside, this is the stupidest "argument" I've seen on this thread, and that's a pretty high (low?) bar. Whether a condition qualifies as a service related disability is a medical and legal question. But sure, your four years in the service, culminating as an E-4, gives yo uspecial qualifications to make these determinations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This obviously sucks. But what sucks even more is that some people who are excepted and working have been told to mark their timecards as furloughed. So if this comes to pass, they won't get paid even though they've been working as usual.

I’d refuse to do one ounce of work and I wouldn’t go in to office.

And that is what sets civil servants apart. Many of us believe in what we do. I for one believe our military service members have earned the health care I provide and to withhold that care because my paycheck may be delayed, or even absent, is disrespectful of their sacrifice.

Did you read that WP article about all of the disability fraud veterans are collecting?

Not a veteran, but this PALES in comparison the SSDI fraud. I’m shocked at what I see first hand with some relatives I have.

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory. It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military. The VA doesn’t encourage veterans to file as many claims as possible to “milk the system.” Many claims are rated at zero but it’s important to get it all on record if it is service connected so you can get it treated later if needed. These would be listed as “claims” but it doesn’t mean service members get paid anything for it. There is also a law of diminishing returns with claims (i.e. 10 ailments rated at 10% does not add up to a 100% rating) so looking at them in isolation is misleading, and that’s assuming good intent. I would also say sleep apnea is, in fact, a service related injury, particularly at the higher severity levels. If the authors did any kind of research into it, they would know that sleep apnea rates among service members deployed to the Middle East are far greater than the general US population. The rating for that has also changed downward recently, but even before that, very few loss of limb ratings were lower for any kind of significant loss of functionality (the author cites only one). Every parent who has had an infant knows the torture it is to go day in and day out with few hours of really solid sleep, which is what sleep apnea is like but instead of your child eventually sleeping, it’s like that for the rest of your life. Not to mention the risk of heart attacks and not breathing. I could go on but why? It’s hard to believe at least one is a Pulitzer Prize winning author.

Lastly, many veterans have PTSD they don’t admit to due to stigma and a fear of the loss of rights. There has been a better focus on this in recent years, but there is still an issue with getting those veterans the actual help they really need.

I would agree with the PP that fraud in VA benefits, as demonstrated by the few examples in the article compared to the millions of veterans who have served, is far less than in other government programs.

This is way off topic, but re the bolded, correlation does not equal causation. Also, on what basis are you asserting that sleep apnea is service related? No one is disputing that it can be a severe condition, but that is, frankly irrelevant to the military disability determination.

Finally, this sentence is just silly:

"I would agree with the PP that fraud in VA benefits, as demonstrated by the few examples in the article compared to the millions of veterans who have served, is far less than in other government programs."

The logic, if you can call it that, appears to be that since the Post article didn't catalog every instance of suspected disability fraud in the military, the inescable conclusion is that there are "far less" (sic) instances of fraud in the military ? OK.

I have no idea if the post article is well-researched or not. But knee-jerk reflexive defense of all things military is not particularly compelling.

Ok, then you go do it. You serve in the ME for years and tell me how you feel when you get back after all that breathing in of toxic pollutants. Seriously, go do it.

Not defending all things military, don’t hear what I am lot saying. And correlation isn’t necessarily causation, agreed, but it is nearly impossible to prove causation since these issues evidence so far into the future, not right after exposure. The same can be said for any exposure to environmental chemicals that cause diseases that take time to develop in severity. This is the whole reason for the PACT Act.

When taken in sum total, the misrepresentations and inaccuracies can only lead to one conclusion. That the authors are trying to convince you of a particular view. This is what happens when you don’t report objectively. This appears to have worked for you.

DP, if you were talking about, say, lung cancer, then I might understand. But sleep apnea- particularly obstructive sleep apnea- 10+ years later really isn't likely to be related.

But certainly we should get CPAPs/BiPAPs for those who need them.

Come talk to me after you have served. Otherwise your opinions aren’t really relevant.

So people who have never been pregnant can't make decisions about reproductive rights?