Federal Employees - have you been through a RIF or govt. shut down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poster predicting unpaid furlough: please provide support for your opinion.

Re-read the post at 19:39. No one is predicting a furlough. The prediction was a shutdown period for which there is no retroactive pay.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between a furlough and a shutdown period w/o pay is that a furlough involves more planning, so it's less disruptive to govt services and to govt employees.

The way we get to that point is very different. It's about garnering enough agreement/support in Congress to pass actual legislation implementing a furlough vs. just fighting and disagreeing until the current CR expires. Once a shutdown happens, I assume (I could be wrong, so please correct me if someone knows otherwise) that it would take legislation to get Feds paid for the period when they didn't work. That's the part I can't see happening.

[Anonymous]

It has always happened before, even in similar situations. Both republicans and democrats alike understand the financial impact of not paying hundreds of thousands of feds would be devastating to the economy. Lots of other jobs would be lost - think of the daycare workers, cleaning services, restaurants, etc. that would all lose major revenue if people didn't get their pay for a significant period of time. A few days, maybe, but if this drags on they will have to be paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has always happened before, even in similar situations. Both republicans and democrats alike understand the financial impact of not paying hundreds of thousands of feds would be devastating to the economy. Lots of other jobs would be lost - think of the daycare workers, cleaning services, restaurants, etc. that would all lose major revenue if people didn't get their pay for a significant period of time. A few days, maybe, but if this drags on they will have to be paid.

I agree about the possible economic impact but this argument assumes a degree of rationality that I'm not sure exists. What was the true budgetary savings of the Federal pay freeze? A drop in the bucket. It was all about symbolism. Would this issue truly be any different?

[Anonymous]

FYI -- an interesting article that attempts to answer many of the questions that have been posed here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/02/what_might_a_government_shutdo_1.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has always happened before, even in similar situations. Both republicans and democrats alike understand the financial impact of not paying hundreds of thousands of feds would be devastating to the economy. Lots of other jobs would be lost - think of the daycare workers, cleaning services, restaurants, etc. that would all lose major revenue if people didn't get their pay for a significant period of time. A few days, maybe, but if this drags on they will have to be paid.

Isn't this the trickle down theory? I assume you are saying if feds don't get paid (or really, assuming govt shutdown is not permanent, just get paid less) that those feds will have to fire their maids, not go to restaurants, etc, etc. But isn't that the same argument that conservatives use against tax increases? That when taxes go up, people get rid of non-essential expenses first, i.e. fire their maids, stop eating out, etc. Not saying whether you are right or wrong that that will happen, just curious if you ascribe to the trickle down theory in other scenarios.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't this the trickle down theory? I assume you are saying if feds don't get paid (or really, assuming govt shutdown is not permanent, just get paid less) that those feds will have to fire their maids, not go to restaurants, etc, etc. But isn't that the same argument that conservatives use against tax increases? That when taxes go up, people get rid of non-essential expenses first, i.e. fire their maids, stop eating out, etc. Not saying whether you are right or wrong that that will happen, just curious if you ascribe to the trickle down theory in other scenarios.

Obviously, there is trickle down. If you have ever seen a "one factory town" that lost its factory, you would understand exactly how that works. But, the comparison of pay cuts to tax increases is not exactly accurate. For one, income taxes are levied according to brackets. Unless you have income within a bracket that gets increased, you don't get a tax increase. If you do have income within a bracket that is increased, only the dollars within that bracket are taxed more. If the Feds lose a day of pay, every dollar that would have been earned that day is affected. So, it would only be comparable to a flat tax (and a very regressive one at that).

Moreover, most tax increases have been aimed at the highest tax brackets. Think about the opportunity costs of a tax increase to the wealthy compared to a pay cut to the poor or middle classes. The wealthy might invest or save less, or simply purchase a BMW instead of a Rolls. The poor may have to skip some meals or be late with the rent. The middle classes are the ones who stay home rather than eating out and consider getting rid of their cleaning help. I'd argue that the trickle down of pain is most noticeable in the lower and middle classes and that it is exactly those classes that would be most affected by the government closing down.

[Anonymous]

Can you get unemployment and other social services during the time out of work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you get unemployment and other social services during the time out of work?

I'm not sure, but given the application period for most benefits I'd think it would have to be a pretty long shutdown to make that feasible. I'm pretty sure it takes at least 2 weeks to get an initial unemployment check.

[Anonymous]

During the last shutdown, over 60% of Fed workers were deemed essential since they were national security and hospital workers and were not furloughed. Some others continued work because their salaries were not paid through a current year appropriation, but were paid through a Trust fund. Also at that time some of the appropriations bills had been passed, which is not true now. In the end, only about 284,000 people were actually not working out of the whole workforce of about 2 million civilians. Today the US has just over 2 million civilian Federal employees, 85% of whom do not work in the DC Metro area. The average pay grade of Fed retirees is Grade 7, Step 6. Clinton's approval ratings increased after the shutdown. I just don't see the wisdom in this political move if it actually happens.

[Anonymous]

During the last shutdown, we were advised to apply for unemployement in case it dragged on for an extensive period of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:During the last shutdown, over 60% of Fed workers were deemed essential since they were national security and hospital workers and were not furloughed. Some others continued work because their salaries were not paid through a current year appropriation, but were paid through a Trust fund. Also at that time some of the appropriations bills had been passed, which is not true now. In the end, only about 284,000 people were actually not working out of the whole workforce of about 2 million civilians. Today the US has just over 2 million civilian Federal employees, 85% of whom do not work in the DC Metro area. The average pay grade of Fed retirees is Grade 7, Step 6. Clinton's approval ratings increased after the shutdown. I just don't see the wisdom in this political move if it actually happens.

True, but a full 800,000 were sent home during the first of the last two shutdowns (the 5-day one in November of '95).

DC's white-collar workers would probably be disproportionately impacted. It's the folks like the TSA screeners, Air Traffic Controllers, Federal prison guards, Border Patrol, etc. who would probably be declared essential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is a shutdown, will it affect all non-emergency employees? Or does it depend on the agency and funding?

I think Obama has the power to decide (at a macro level) what agencies provide "emergency services" and need to stay open. The designation could be different this time around than it was in 1995. But if you aren't designated as essential (i.e. emergency) my understanding is that you would not work.

What about agencies that are funded by fees paid directly by the public for service?

I don't think the post office would shut down if that's what you mean, but I'm not 100% sure.

USPS does not take any tax dollars.

[Anonymous]

FYI, some new info about this in today's paper:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206829.html

[Anonymous]

The Third Branch?

[Anonymous]

Question for those who went through this the last time around: are those employees declared "essential" going to be paid on time, vice retroactively like the non-essential employees? ....provided that there is retroactive pay at all?

And what about Congress themselves? If the gov't shuts down, do THEY still get paid? All of this railing against federal employees, they've forgotten that they ARE federal employees (but with better benefits).