If Fed Gov't gets, furloughed/sequestered- what are chances they won't get back pay for days off?

[Anonymous]

On the contrary, I have direct experience of government "workers" in the military and intelligence offices. I know how little they do and how much they expect to take for it. The same with the bloated companies that feed off the government's tit.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my understanding, the only time this has happened in history, the workers were paid back for the days they were forced to take off.

At this writing, does this look like history may repeat itself?

[Anonymous]

100%

This is the most unprincipled, nearly traitorous (putting partisan interest ahead of national interest) gang controlling the House that we've ever seen, at least in the last 2 centuries.

They will think nothing of making federal employees their pawns and then fucking them over. In fact, they enjoy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my understanding, the only time this has happened in history, the workers were paid back for the days they were forced to take off.

At this writing, does this look like history may repeat itself?

This has never happened in history. This is the first time there have been mandatory spending cuts that resulted in many agency's CHOOSING to furlough employees. In the past, the government has shut down temporarily, butt hat is an entirely different thing than this.

(I do not mean to imply that many agency's had much of a choice. Butt here was some choice to be made. The agency's had to slash their expenditures in a way that almost certainly could only be met by reducing salaries. Nevertheless, there was no legal requirement specifically to furlough.)

[Anonymous]

The purpose of the furloughs is to trim spending. Of course you won't be paid for the days you're not working. On the bright side, you will still have your job and benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my understanding, the only time this has happened in history, the workers were paid back for the days they were forced to take off.

I believe you're mistaking furlough for government shutdown. I don't believe workers have ever gotten backpay for furloughs.

In either scenario, this time I doubt there will be backpay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Furlough starts either in March or April, I can't remember.

NPR's Hill correspondent thought that the sequester would go into effect on March 1, but that they'd come to an agreement before April 1 in order to prevent any furloughs (which would start April 1).

So the sequester will technically go into effect and everyone will freak the fuck out and we'll be subjected to endless bullshit on the 24-hour news stations, but that it won't actually go into effect.

Even if they come to an agreement on the budget before April 1, there could still be furloughs. There's been a lot of talk that the proposal will be to keep the govt. running on current levels until the end of the fiscal year. Current levels mean sequester levels, which means that in certain agencies, there will still be furloughs.

The continuing resolution that is funding the govt. runs out on March 27. At that point, we're not talking sequester; we're talking shutdown, which is a different animal.

[Anonymous]

And the shutdown (after march 27 if not agreement) is what the Feds get paid back for then (or did historically)? I'm not sure why it was called furlough in the previous years when it was actually a shutdown. Looks like this time Feds are facing both- one which they would be paid back for missed days, the other not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the shutdown (after march 27 if not agreement) is what the Feds get paid back for then (or did historically)? I'm not sure why it was called furlough in the previous years when it was actually a shutdown. Looks like this time Feds are facing both- one which they would be paid back for missed days, the other not.

Correct. "Furlough" is just a word for temporary unpaid leave. The specific reason for the leave isn't relevant to the word.

In a government shutdown, all but the most essential government functions cease. Employees not needed for those functions are not allowed to work. In the past, Federal employees have been paid retroactively for days when they could not work due to government was shut down. In each case Congress had to vote to make this happen: backpay is not automatic and there is no guarantee it would happen after the March 27 shutdown (if in fact that shutdown occurs, which both parties say is unlikely). Government shutdowns usually are due to the government running out of money because Congress can't agree on a budget, and the reasoning has been that employees who were prepared to work should not suffer because Congress couldn't vote in time. But, the fact employees have received backpay in the past does not mean they would receive it this time.

By contrast, the sequester furloughs are one possible method by which the agency may choose to deal with the budget shortfall caused by the sequester. There is no requirement to furlough and the agency is not shut down: instead, the agency chooses to save money by having fewer people work on a given day. Different agencies have different places they can save money -- say, by not handing out grant money or not patrolling an area -- which is why you are seeing more furloughs at some agencies than at others. Some agencies will have no furloughs because they can take the savings out of other areas. As many have pointed out here, backpay for sequester furloughs is extremely unlikely, because the whole point of the sequester is to save money. Congress effectively has already voted on a "budget" (to use the term loosely) and furloughs are just a consequence of that vote.