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:

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.

You're completely missing my point. I'm a fed too, with a graduate degree in a STEM field in a highly in-demand field. I'm also a manager now, even before the current mess it has been very challenging to recruit and retain staff. You don't need to convince me what's going on isn't OK on multiple levels. I completely agree.

I also grew up relatively poor in a blue collar environment. Perhaps the messages from you and the other pp would come across differently in person, but I found the tone pretty off-putting and I think a lot of other people would, too.

I read, perhaps incorrectly, a tone suggesting that feds aren't just being treated unfairly, but that they're being treated uniquely unfairly. And while I think there's arguably some truth to that, I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate to dismiss the unfair treatment that other people face that have similar impacts. Bad things happening to others doesn't make it OK, nor does it diminish the significance of your own experiences. But suggesting it doesn't happen to others is going to be very off-putting to them.

You showed up on a thread about feds on a message board geared at people in the DMV and you are now lecturing them for how they're talking about their very current, very bad problems. Talk about off-putting.

You don't think other people are reading this thread? Or that people make similar statements other places?

People who read this to be offended by feds are going to be offended regardless. And I don't know what other places you're talking about, but you're not lecturing them there, you're lecturing them here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

We have had these shutdowns and near shutdowns since the 90s.

The promise to pay furloughed employees is simply a cheap recruitment tool. Many fed employees are from a LMC or working glass background — the attraction of Fed work was stability, and huge gaps in your salary is pretty antithetical to that. Now that stability has been tossed out the window with DOGE, not paying furlough will be the final nail in coffin for future employees, but maybe it’s fine because they will privatize almost everything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

OK, if it is a layoff, do you want to pay my severance instead? At my age and years of employment, it's about $120k.

Also, the government didn't run out of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You're completely missing my point. I'm a fed too, with a graduate degree in a STEM field in a highly in-demand field. I'm also a manager now, even before the current mess it has been very challenging to recruit and retain staff. You don't need to convince me what's going on isn't OK on multiple levels. I completely agree.

I also grew up relatively poor in a blue collar environment. Perhaps the messages from you and the other pp would come across differently in person, but I found the tone pretty off-putting and I think a lot of other people would, too.

I read, perhaps incorrectly, a tone suggesting that feds aren't just being treated unfairly, but that they're being treated uniquely unfairly. And while I think there's arguably some truth to that, I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate to dismiss the unfair treatment that other people face that have similar impacts. Bad things happening to others doesn't make it OK, nor does it diminish the significance of your own experiences. But suggesting it doesn't happen to others is going to be very off-putting to them.

Feds are being treated uniquely unfairly. I think most blue collar workers are smart enough to perceive the special h*ll that was DOGE. And just because it is unique doesn’t negate any other labor related difficulties private sector blue collar workers may have. And of course there are plenty of blue collar feds. This is a uniquely f’d up situation for the nation - doesn’t mean that I think it’s better to be a lettuce picker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You're completely missing my point. I'm a fed too, with a graduate degree in a STEM field in a highly in-demand field. I'm also a manager now, even before the current mess it has been very challenging to recruit and retain staff. You don't need to convince me what's going on isn't OK on multiple levels. I completely agree.

I also grew up relatively poor in a blue collar environment. Perhaps the messages from you and the other pp would come across differently in person, but I found the tone pretty off-putting and I think a lot of other people would, too.

I read, perhaps incorrectly, a tone suggesting that feds aren't just being treated unfairly, but that they're being treated uniquely unfairly. And while I think there's arguably some truth to that, I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate to dismiss the unfair treatment that other people face that have similar impacts. Bad things happening to others doesn't make it OK, nor does it diminish the significance of your own experiences. But suggesting it doesn't happen to others is going to be very off-putting to them.

You showed up on a thread about feds on a message board geared at people in the DMV and you are now lecturing them for how they're talking about their very current, very bad problems. Talk about off-putting.

You don't think other people are reading this thread? Or that people make similar statements other places?

No, I don’t actually think Joe Mechanic is reading this thread and thinking Feds are complaining without merit. I think that some people who derive some kind of comfort from trying to control how other people express themselves are reading this thread, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i own a landscaping, construction company. If it rains, snows, etc and the jobs get cancelled, we don't get paid. The pay can then be made up by working longer hours, during weekends, etc. I want to pay them but if there is snow on the ground for two weeks, I cannot be solvent. Is inclement weather their fault? The guys work hard, have families to feed, etc and earn a fraction of what these lazy a$$ Feds earn so no I don't feel sorry. No work = no pay!

Emphasis added. The difference is that many furloughed feds (depends on agency) are not allowed to pick up another job while on furlough, because they can't get the ethics clearance. So no way to earn $ right now to cover the income loss.

And...once we return, I'm sure that there are many feds who would be happy to work overtime for extra pay once back at work (I don't count myself as one because I'm an attorney and thus regularly am "allowed" to work extra hours and on weekends without compensation). However, those federal employees will not be able to work overtime without approval, which can be very hard to get.

Can they work as delivery driver for Uber/door dash? I didn't know this. That's crazy. Not only FED have much lower salaries and now they can't pick up a second job? What's the incentive for working for the government then? I'm glad I never looked at the FED when I was looking for my first job. Sure I don't have job security but my salary at 35 $298k is higher than probably 80% of FED workers..and I also have great 401k match, health insurance and a good rotation program.

Outside of furlough, you can get a second job as long as it doesn’t ethically conflict with your fed job. But you have to get ethics clearance before you get the second job. During furlough, the ethics offices are closed so there’s no one to approve your second job.

Ubereats isn’t a second job. And obviously there is no ethics conflict of interest with ubereats, so f**k getting permission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

OK, if it is a layoff, do you want to pay my severance instead? At my age and years of employment, it's about $120k.

Also, the government didn't run out of money.

Against private industry doesn’t have to give severance. Most factory workers get squat when the company folds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

You’re using the word “should” a lot. Let’s just boil this down to expecting that the administration follows the law. The law says that furloughed feds do get back pay. If you disapprove of this, take it up with Congress, which passed this law with overwhelming bipartisan support. Whether feds feel entitled to it or not is irrelevant. Under the law they are entitled to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i own a landscaping, construction company. If it rains, snows, etc and the jobs get cancelled, we don't get paid. The pay can then be made up by working longer hours, during weekends, etc. I want to pay them but if there is snow on the ground for two weeks, I cannot be solvent. Is inclement weather their fault? The guys work hard, have families to feed, etc and earn a fraction of what these lazy a$$ Feds earn so no I don't feel sorry. No work = no pay!

Emphasis added. The difference is that many furloughed feds (depends on agency) are not allowed to pick up another job while on furlough, because they can't get the ethics clearance. So no way to earn $ right now to cover the income loss.

And...once we return, I'm sure that there are many feds who would be happy to work overtime for extra pay once back at work (I don't count myself as one because I'm an attorney and thus regularly am "allowed" to work extra hours and on weekends without compensation). However, those federal employees will not be able to work overtime without approval, which can be very hard to get.

Can they work as delivery driver for Uber/door dash? I didn't know this. That's crazy. Not only FED have much lower salaries and now they can't pick up a second job? What's the incentive for working for the government then? I'm glad I never looked at the FED when I was looking for my first job. Sure I don't have job security but my salary at 35 $298k is higher than probably 80% of FED workers..and I also have great 401k match, health insurance and a good rotation program.

Outside of furlough, you can get a second job as long as it doesn’t ethically conflict with your fed job. But you have to get ethics clearance before you get the second job. During furlough, the ethics offices are closed so there’s no one to approve your second job.

Ubereats isn’t a second job. And obviously there is no ethics conflict of interest with ubereats, so f**k getting permission.

No one should get themselves fired because they didn't get ethics clearance to drive for ubereats. If you're going to get yourself fired, make it for something better than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

OK, if it is a layoff, do you want to pay my severance instead? At my age and years of employment, it's about $120k.

Also, the government didn't run out of money.

Against private industry doesn’t have to give severance. Most factory workers get squat when the company folds.

The US government hasn't folded yet, although Trump is doing his best to run it into the ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

OK, if it is a layoff, do you want to pay my severance instead? At my age and years of employment, it's about $120k.

Also, the government didn't run out of money.

Against private industry doesn’t have to give severance. Most factory workers get squat when the company folds.

The “company” didn’t “fold,” you idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

OK, if it is a layoff, do you want to pay my severance instead? At my age and years of employment, it's about $120k.

Also, the government didn't run out of money.

Against private industry doesn’t have to give severance. Most factory workers get squat when the company folds.

Actually there are notice rights and many have union contracts. This is like if a private employer just ripped up a union contract and flouted WARN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

OK, if it is a layoff, do you want to pay my severance instead? At my age and years of employment, it's about $120k.

Also, the government didn't run out of money.

Against private industry doesn’t have to give severance. Most factory workers get squat when the company folds.

Sure they do, when there are laws and contracts requiring it. Like here. Not to mention the law was established under your guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

If you'd laid me off, I'd be due severance and I could work somewhere else. Right now I'm just locked out of my office, at my employer's choice, but they've told me to stick around in case they need something.

It's inaccurate to equate a federal furlough with a layoff. A federal furlough is better analogized to being on call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Essential” who are working should 100% get paid - there should be a rainy day fund for this. Examples include active military and others deemed “dangerous essential”. Not right to pay for work performed in any book. However, those furloughed should not receive back pay. Yes..not their fault govt ran out of money but how is this different from a private employee who lays off employees for the same reason? We assume the loss of employment -why do Feds feel entitled to pay if their employee has no $$ to make payroll.

If you'd laid me off, I'd be due severance and I could work somewhere else. Right now I'm just locked out of my office, at my employer's choice, but they've told me to stick around in case they need something.

It's inaccurate to equate a federal furlough with a layoff. A federal furlough is better analogized to being on call.

That's closer, although I think the closest analogy is a salaried employee being sent home because the power went out at the office.

My mom worked at a hospital and was often on call. In the pre-cell phone age, she couldn't really go out: had to stay home and available. She got paid to be on call, and paid time and a half to go in.