Federal furloughs...do you think they'll happen?

[Anonymous]

New question:

For those of you who've bene through it, how does a furlough really work? My external deadlines and work wont' go away; say I make widgets, the customer still depends on recieving 100 widgets a month, whether or not we're furloughed.

Do some folks really end up working without pay on the furlough days? Do some just have to work that much harder on the non-furloughed days?

The widgets still have to go out - the country depends on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New question:

For those of you who've bene through it, how does a furlough really work? My external deadlines and work wont' go away; say I make widgets, the customer still depends on recieving 100 widgets a month, whether or not we're furloughed.

Do some folks really end up working without pay on the furlough days? Do some just have to work that much harder on the non-furloughed days?

The widgets still have to go out - the country depends on them.

Ask yourself: if your salary were cut by 10% for reasons entirely unrelated to your performance, and you were given a guarantee that you wouldn't lose any clients if things went out late, would you come in to do an extra 8 hours of work just to keep on schedule? Or would you just try to catch up later?

[Anonymous]

In many cases you are not allowed to enter the building or work, by law. In previous events, we were told that we could not come in, because according to labor laws, you cannot work for free.

[Anonymous]

Lol, but as DOJ attorneys which includes FBI attorney, we are already prohibited by law from working overtime, most of already do this because the job is the job and it needs to get done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dumb question but can you take leave on furloughed days to reduce the impact on pay?

Not a dumb question. A very good one, actually. The answer is, "nobody knows," to all of this. It's too early, we don't have FY13 Appropriations and no one, least of all Congress, has any idea how this is going to play out. Everyone go back to work.

This is not true. OPM has policy out about furloughs that states you can not use leave on days you are furloughed. That would defeat the purpose of the furlough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So because the DoD has already put in a furlough request that there *will* be furloughs, regardless of what happens with Congress?

No, they are just putting in the request to be prepared. Most likely SQ will happen, but if not we would not be furloughed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the furlough will impact people regardless of productivity.

The most productive thing for the government would be if every manager with lets say 50 employees or more would be told that they have to fire one person, and the decision on who to fire would be completely and totally exempt from civil service rules or procedures.

I promise you that they would jump at the chance to get rid of the one turkey in every office, and even with one less employee productivity would go up and cost would go down. But that will never happen.

This is ignorant, specifically because there are lazy ass managers who would protect their lazy friends and "trim" the people they don't like personally.

+1
Or dumb managers who are just to dumb to make this decision.

Would that be too dumb to make this decision?

[Anonymous]

For reference, regarding DoD, the Navy put out a memo last week that stated up to 22 days furlough. So I suspect the other services will be similiar.

Not related to furloughs, they will stop all deployments to Caribbean and S. America. European deployments will only be for support of ballistic missile defense. Stop stateside training for deployments unless funding by other offsets. Base operating support reduced by 10% and base sustainment by 50%.

Also 3rd and 4th quarter contracts for surface ship maintenance will be canceled as well as aircraft depot maintenance.

Expect other services, OSD, etc. to be similar, unless it is direct support of the warfighter.

Not in the last memo, but in one to come out shortly - 25% across the board cut on IT budget.

I include the above without comment, just to give people an idea of the cuts. All is a matter of public record. Federal Times and Fed News Radio have had some good information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New question:

For those of you who've bene through it, how does a furlough really work? My external deadlines and work wont' go away; say I make widgets, the customer still depends on recieving 100 widgets a month, whether or not we're furloughed.

Do some folks really end up working without pay on the furlough days? Do some just have to work that much harder on the non-furloughed days?

The widgets still have to go out - the country depends on them.

Herein lies the problem we are lawfully NOT allowed to work. To do so would break the law...but the country could fail....fitting?
Thanks Teabaggers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the furlough will impact people regardless of productivity.

The most productive thing for the government would be if every manager with lets say 50 employees or more would be told that they have to fire one person, and the decision on who to fire would be completely and totally exempt from civil service rules or procedures.

I promise you that they would jump at the chance to get rid of the one turkey in every office, and even with one less employee productivity would go up and cost would go down. But that will never happen.

This is ignorant, specifically because there are lazy ass managers who would protect their lazy friends and "trim" the people they don't like personally.

+1
Or dumb managers who are just to dumb too make this decision.

Would that be too dumb to make this decision?

Your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the furlough will impact people regardless of productivity.

The most productive thing for the government would be if every manager with lets say 50 employees or more would be told that they have to fire one person, and the decision on who to fire would be completely and totally exempt from civil service rules or procedures.

I promise you that they would jump at the chance to get rid of the one turkey in every office, and even with one less employee productivity would go up and cost would go down. But that will never happen.

This is ignorant, specifically because there are lazy ass managers who would protect their lazy friends and "trim" the people they don't like personally.

+1
Or dumb managers who are just to dumb too make this decision.

Would that be too dumb to make this decision?

Your point?

I smell an SES!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol, but as DOJ attorneys which includes FBI attorney, we are already prohibited by law from working overtime, most of already do this because the job is the job and it needs to get done.

Not true we are salaried. Its not overtime. Get over your GS 15 self.

[Anonymous]

In addition to not being allowed to work on the furloughed days, in dh's office, they will not be allowed to work long days to make up for the lost time. Which means most will work ~ 2 hours less/day to turn 10 hour into 8 hour days, plus the day off. A lot of lost labor!

[Anonymous]

Has anyone at DOJ (other than FBI) heard anything definitive about furloughs??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New question:

For those of you who've bene through it, how does a furlough really work? My external deadlines and work wont' go away; say I make widgets, the customer still depends on recieving 100 widgets a month, whether or not we're furloughed.

Do some folks really end up working without pay on the furlough days? Do some just have to work that much harder on the non-furloughed days?

The widgets still have to go out - the country depends on them.

Herein lies the problem we are lawfully NOT allowed to work. To do so would break the law...but the country could fail....fitting?
Thanks Teabaggers

The whole stupid idea of sequestration originated in the WH. You might want to point your fingers another direction.