Anonymous wrote:I believe they intend to use the senate bill to fund the government thru January, not a couple weeks as above poster said. Democrats have been crowing all week about averting a shutdown, so they’ll probably vote for it in the house, I’m sure they can pick off a few republicans to vote for this
Do you have a link on this? Sounds much more hopeful than anything I'm seeing
Anonymous wrote:I believe they intend to use the senate bill to fund the government thru January, not a couple weeks as above poster said. Democrats have been crowing all week about averting a shutdown, so they’ll probably vote for it in the house, I’m sure they can pick off a few republicans to vote for this
The speaker would have to agree to let the bill come to the House floor for a vote, which seems very unlikely unless he wants to lose his speakership. I think we’re heading for a shutdown.
"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, however, took a procedural step on Thursday that would allow the Senate to vote on a short term government funding bill next week.
“As I have said for months, we must work in a bipartisan fashion to keep our government open, avoid a shutdown and avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on the American people. This action will give the Senate the option to do just that,” he said."
Anonymous wrote:I believe they intend to use the senate bill to fund the government thru January, not a couple weeks as above poster said. Democrats have been crowing all week about averting a shutdown, so they’ll probably vote for it in the house, I’m sure they can pick off a few republicans to vote for this
The article I read in The Hill said a few weeks. But it all remains to be seen
Anonymous wrote:I believe they intend to use the senate bill to fund the government thru January, not a couple weeks as above poster said. Democrats have been crowing all week about averting a shutdown, so they’ll probably vote for it in the house, I’m sure they can pick off a few republicans to vote for this
The article I read in The Hill said a few weeks. But it all remains to be seen
Anonymous wrote:I believe they intend to use the senate bill to fund the government thru January, not a couple weeks as above poster said. Democrats have been crowing all week about averting a shutdown, so they’ll probably vote for it in the house, I’m sure they can pick off a few republicans to vote for this
The speaker would have to agree to let the bill come to the House floor for a vote, which seems very unlikely unless he wants to lose his speakership. I think we’re heading for a shutdown.
I think he’ll cave in the end, he’s pretty weak. Who wants to be speaker for that band of misfits anyway.
Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)
They will force TSA to work unpaid.
That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?
As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?
Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.
That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.
So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .
It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.
It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.
Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.
What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?
If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.
In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.
I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.
No, PPs path is that we don’t do this in the first place. We simply do not have government shutdowns.
But if they do happen, how do you know your version of a shutdown impacts less people? How do you know it minimizes suffering?
Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.
Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.
A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.
So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.
And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.
1. You don’t get to decide what chances are taken
2. Your way has failed. Repeatedly. If it doesn’t work, then it won’t happen again. But after two prolonged shutdown in the last 10 years and multiple near misses or short ones, your way clearly does not work. We have now entered the “definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result zone.” It’s time for a new plan. If you don’t like the new plan, propose and alternative— besides let’s just do what has repeatedly failed in the past.
NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.
No. A good middle alternative is to set up some form of compensation for the federal contractors to be able to work or get compensation. Overcompensating the civil service when there are twice as many contractors and more them are out of work than civil service, gettng zero back compensation, is terrible. Start making sure that the other 2+M who get nothing, get some compensation, before adding more compensation to the civil service who already get back pay for the time they are not working.
Enough civil service already considered this paid time off or vacation while contractors are going to soup kitchens to feed their family. Start putting priorities on those getting nothing rather than those already getting delayed paid to stay home.
Well A) I’m not opposed to also legislating something for contractors. The point is the pain of this should not be born by the workers who have no control over this. And B) As an excepted fed I have to work. A lot of us do, it’s not a vacation. I cannot tell you how low morale is when employees are forced to work for delayed pay and you can’t even be put in paid leave status. Can you imagine any other industry where you have accrued vacation time off and you’re not allowed to take it and also don’t get your pay check on time? Sorry, but it’s total garbage.
Contractors are, for the most part, time and materials contracts. If you aren’t working, there is no time to bill. I say that as a former contractor who went through a shutdown. Contractors cannot be compensated for time not worked.
Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)
They will force TSA to work unpaid.
That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?
As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?
Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.
That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.
So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .
It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.
It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.
Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.
What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?
If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.
In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.
I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.
No, PPs path is that we don’t do this in the first place. We simply do not have government shutdowns.
But if they do happen, how do you know your version of a shutdown impacts less people? How do you know it minimizes suffering?
Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.
Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.
A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.
So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.
And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.
1. You don’t get to decide what chances are taken
2. Your way has failed. Repeatedly. If it doesn’t work, then it won’t happen again. But after two prolonged shutdown in the last 10 years and multiple near misses or short ones, your way clearly does not work. We have now entered the “definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result zone.” It’s time for a new plan. If you don’t like the new plan, propose and alternative— besides let’s just do what has repeatedly failed in the past.
NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.
No. A good middle alternative is to set up some form of compensation for the federal contractors to be able to work or get compensation. Overcompensating the civil service when there are twice as many contractors and more them are out of work than civil service, gettng zero back compensation, is terrible. Start making sure that the other 2+M who get nothing, get some compensation, before adding more compensation to the civil service who already get back pay for the time they are not working.
Enough civil service already considered this paid time off or vacation while contractors are going to soup kitchens to feed their family. Start putting priorities on those getting nothing rather than those already getting delayed paid to stay home.
Well A) I’m not opposed to also legislating something for contractors. The point is the pain of this should not be born by the workers who have no control over this. And B) As an excepted fed I have to work. A lot of us do, it’s not a vacation. I cannot tell you how low morale is when employees are forced to work for delayed pay and you can’t even be put in paid leave status. Can you imagine any other industry where you have accrued vacation time off and you’re not allowed to take it and also don’t get your pay check on time? Sorry, but it’s total garbage.
Contractors are, for the most part, time and materials contracts. If you aren’t working, there is no time to bill. I say that as a former contractor who went through a shutdown. Contractors cannot be compensated for time not worked.
Want to add: This is really a problem with your contract company. They should be taking care of their employees. Businesses should have a line of credit to draw on for salaries in a situation such as a shutdown or in between contract awards.
Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)
They will force TSA to work unpaid.
That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?
As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?
Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.
That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.
So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .
It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.
It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.
Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.
What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?
If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.
In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.
I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.
No, PPs path is that we don’t do this in the first place. We simply do not have government shutdowns.
But if they do happen, how do you know your version of a shutdown impacts less people? How do you know it minimizes suffering?
Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.
Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.
A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.
So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.
And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.
1. You don’t get to decide what chances are taken
2. Your way has failed. Repeatedly. If it doesn’t work, then it won’t happen again. But after two prolonged shutdown in the last 10 years and multiple near misses or short ones, your way clearly does not work. We have now entered the “definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result zone.” It’s time for a new plan. If you don’t like the new plan, propose and alternative— besides let’s just do what has repeatedly failed in the past.
NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.
No. A good middle alternative is to set up some form of compensation for the federal contractors to be able to work or get compensation. Overcompensating the civil service when there are twice as many contractors and more them are out of work than civil service, gettng zero back compensation, is terrible. Start making sure that the other 2+M who get nothing, get some compensation, before adding more compensation to the civil service who already get back pay for the time they are not working.
Enough civil service already considered this paid time off or vacation while contractors are going to soup kitchens to feed their family. Start putting priorities on those getting nothing rather than those already getting delayed paid to stay home.
Well A) I’m not opposed to also legislating something for contractors. The point is the pain of this should not be born by the workers who have no control over this. And B) As an excepted fed I have to work. A lot of us do, it’s not a vacation. I cannot tell you how low morale is when employees are forced to work for delayed pay and you can’t even be put in paid leave status. Can you imagine any other industry where you have accrued vacation time off and you’re not allowed to take it and also don’t get your pay check on time? Sorry, but it’s total garbage.
Contractors are, for the most part, time and materials contracts. If you aren’t working, there is no time to bill. I say that as a former contractor who went through a shutdown. Contractors cannot be compensated for time not worked.
Want to add: This is really a problem with your contract company. They should be taking care of their employees. Businesses should have a line of credit to draw on for salaries in a situation such as a shutdown or in between contract awards.
Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)
They will force TSA to work unpaid.
That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?
As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?
Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.
That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.
So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .
It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.
It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.
Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.
What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?
If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.
In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.
I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.
No, PPs path is that we don’t do this in the first place. We simply do not have government shutdowns.
But if they do happen, how do you know your version of a shutdown impacts less people? How do you know it minimizes suffering?
Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.
Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.
A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.
So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.
And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.
1. You don’t get to decide what chances are taken
2. Your way has failed. Repeatedly. If it doesn’t work, then it won’t happen again. But after two prolonged shutdown in the last 10 years and multiple near misses or short ones, your way clearly does not work. We have now entered the “definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result zone.” It’s time for a new plan. If you don’t like the new plan, propose and alternative— besides let’s just do what has repeatedly failed in the past.
NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.
No. A good middle alternative is to set up some form of compensation for the federal contractors to be able to work or get compensation. Overcompensating the civil service when there are twice as many contractors and more them are out of work than civil service, gettng zero back compensation, is terrible. Start making sure that the other 2+M who get nothing, get some compensation, before adding more compensation to the civil service who already get back pay for the time they are not working.
Enough civil service already considered this paid time off or vacation while contractors are going to soup kitchens to feed their family. Start putting priorities on those getting nothing rather than those already getting delayed paid to stay home.
Well A) I’m not opposed to also legislating something for contractors. The point is the pain of this should not be born by the workers who have no control over this. And B) As an excepted fed I have to work. A lot of us do, it’s not a vacation. I cannot tell you how low morale is when employees are forced to work for delayed pay and you can’t even be put in paid leave status. Can you imagine any other industry where you have accrued vacation time off and you’re not allowed to take it and also don’t get your pay check on time? Sorry, but it’s total garbage.
Contractors are, for the most part, time and materials contracts. If you aren’t working, there is no time to bill. I say that as a former contractor who went through a shutdown. Contractors cannot be compensated for time not worked.
Want to add: This is really a problem with your contract company. They should be taking care of their employees. Businesses should have a line of credit to draw on for salaries in a situation such as a shutdown or in between contract awards.
Our contractors are prepaid somehow. Not sure how they managed that. Maybe it’s because we are public safety related?
Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)
They will force TSA to work unpaid.
That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?
As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?
Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.
That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.
So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .
It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.
It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.
Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.
What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?
If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.
In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.
I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.
No, PPs path is that we don’t do this in the first place. We simply do not have government shutdowns.
But if they do happen, how do you know your version of a shutdown impacts less people? How do you know it minimizes suffering?
Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.
Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.
A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.
So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.
And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.
1. You don’t get to decide what chances are taken
2. Your way has failed. Repeatedly. If it doesn’t work, then it won’t happen again. But after two prolonged shutdown in the last 10 years and multiple near misses or short ones, your way clearly does not work. We have now entered the “definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result zone.” It’s time for a new plan. If you don’t like the new plan, propose and alternative— besides let’s just do what has repeatedly failed in the past.
NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.
No. A good middle alternative is to set up some form of compensation for the federal contractors to be able to work or get compensation. Overcompensating the civil service when there are twice as many contractors and more them are out of work than civil service, gettng zero back compensation, is terrible. Start making sure that the other 2+M who get nothing, get some compensation, before adding more compensation to the civil service who already get back pay for the time they are not working.
Enough civil service already considered this paid time off or vacation while contractors are going to soup kitchens to feed their family. Start putting priorities on those getting nothing rather than those already getting delayed paid to stay home.
Well A) I’m not opposed to also legislating something for contractors. The point is the pain of this should not be born by the workers who have no control over this. And B) As an excepted fed I have to work. A lot of us do, it’s not a vacation. I cannot tell you how low morale is when employees are forced to work for delayed pay and you can’t even be put in paid leave status. Can you imagine any other industry where you have accrued vacation time off and you’re not allowed to take it and also don’t get your pay check on time? Sorry, but it’s total garbage.
Contractors are, for the most part, time and materials contracts. If you aren’t working, there is no time to bill. I say that as a former contractor who went through a shutdown. Contractors cannot be compensated for time not worked.
Want to add: This is really a problem with your contract company. They should be taking care of their employees. Businesses should have a line of credit to draw on for salaries in a situation such as a shutdown or in between contract awards.
Our contractors are prepaid somehow. Not sure how they managed that. Maybe it’s because we are public safety related?
No it has to do with how the funds are allocated. I was a contractor at USAID during a shutdown. We worked and were paid during the shutdown. But I think our company had to float the money until the government reopened to processes payments. The income was guaranteed though.
If companies are not floating their employees, I strongly urge contractors to rethink their employment. A company that doesn’t cover their workers are terrible!
McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.
And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.
Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.
And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.
It's cool that McCarthy is poisoning any chance of democrats supporting him with the impeachment inquiry. Have we ever had a majority so dysfunctional that they can't even pass a party line budget? Usually the hard part is getting members in line when they have to compromise with the president or the senate, but the House can't even get to that point.
Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.
And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.
The senate is sending them a clean CR. Which, you know, the Senate has always said it would pass immediately if the House sent it. The house has no interest in a clean CR. It ain't happening.
Forum Index
»
Jobs and Careers
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}