Government Shutdown - Sep 2025 Thread

[Anonymous]

Look, it’s not my fault if the GOP can’t get its act together. I’m not the one refusing to come in to work. MAGAs are being dumb and disingenuous as usual, blaming Feds instead of the clowns they keep electing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay for government employees who work during a shutdown; no pay for employees who don't work.

I am a liberal democrat, and can someone please explain why this shouldn't be the policy?

Because feds want to work and are unable to continue working?

Another point is that I have to do the same amount of work whether there's a shutdown or not. I just have to work harder and longer hours when work reopens. My cases don't go away magically when there's a shutdown.

"But I want to work" is not a justification for getting paid when not working. When private sector employees are furloughed, they still want to work, but can't.

Also, federal employees, particularly lawyers, aren't paid on a piece rate system. They're paid for the time they are working. That's why when things are slow you get paid the same as when things are busy.

It troubles me that federal attorneys don't understand both of those points.

I mean there’s literally a law that says we get paid, and before that, Congress would put retroactive pay into the budget. So this federal attorney feels quite solid about the interpretation!

Sigh. Yes - again, that's why I asked what the policy should be.

You're really doubling down on the "federal attorneys aren't the brightest bulbs," aren't you?

But from a policy perspective it’s still incredibly stupid, so the pp was sort of helping you by declining to engage.

Many “non-essential” feds are still privy to highly confidential, sensitive and classified information and leaving them sitting around at home without pay is a recipe for disaster. They aren’t allowed to work other places for a very good reason.

Further, and other people pointed this out, the federal government shouldn’t lower its standards in keeping with your crabs-in-a-bucket mentality. The government should be a model employer for the private sector to follow, not the other way around. THAT would be the policy choice that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay for government employees who work during a shutdown; no pay for employees who don't work.

I am a liberal democrat, and can someone please explain why this shouldn't be the policy?

Because I'm not allowed to go out and get other work while we're furloughed. I can't substitute teach or doordash or work at 7/11. I can't have outside employment.
So yes, I'd like my paycheck when I come back.

Well, that’s just wrong. If you want a second job at 7-11 or door dash you can do that. What’s restricted are jobs in conflict with your federal duties. There’s lots to discuss on this issue without introducing silliness

I don’t know about everyone else, but at my agency we have to get specific ethics approval for any job outside of federal employment (even Door Dash). So we would have to go through the process to get approval before the shutdown happens.

+1, not every agency has the same rules. Just because yours allows Door Dash doesn't mean they all do. Mine has only specifically approved dog walking.

Also, the kind of jobs that don't conflict (like dog walking) are not realistic alternatives in terms of pay. So you're back to just being fine with a significant portion of the government quitting every autumn to do something where the pay is comparable, and then managers needing to hire and train from scratch. Every year. That's not efficient and it's not good policy.

If you want to make a policy argument, why don't you look at where the problem lies - Congress? As a matter of policy, should the lack of a budget shut down the government? Other countries don't work that way, they continue to run on last year's budget automatically.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have actual Hill gossip to share?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay for government employees who work during a shutdown; no pay for employees who don't work.

I am a liberal democrat, and can someone please explain why this shouldn't be the policy?

Because feds want to work and are unable to continue working?

Another point is that I have to do the same amount of work whether there's a shutdown or not. I just have to work harder and longer hours when work reopens. My cases don't go away magically when there's a shutdown.

"But I want to work" is not a justification for getting paid when not working. When private sector employees are furloughed, they still want to work, but can't.

Also, federal employees, particularly lawyers, aren't paid on a piece rate system. They're paid for the time they are working. That's why when things are slow you get paid the same as when things are busy.

It troubles me that federal attorneys don't understand both of those points.

I mean there’s literally a law that says we get paid, and before that, Congress would put retroactive pay into the budget. So this federal attorney feels quite solid about the interpretation!

Sigh. Yes - again, that's why I asked what the policy should be.

You're really doubling down on the "federal attorneys aren't the brightest bulbs," aren't you?

I’m an attorney so as far as my professional bona fides go, the question begins and ends with what the law is. The law says I get paid. Not sure why you think this is some kind of great argument. I interpret the law, not engage with trolls on ill informed policy debates.

I am a lawyer too, and a prerequisite is reading comprehension. The question posed was, "can someone please explain why this shouldn't be the policy?" You know, a policy question. You interjected yourself into the discussion with an irrelevancy, and now claim you don't engage in policy debates?

You sir or madam, are an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have actual Hill gossip to share?

Yes, 60/40 no shutdown at this point. No clear path but nobody wants it. My prediction as someone who pays close attention to it is we will have an 11th hour resolution, as usual. What a waste to prep for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all live in the Matrix. In case you haven’t noticed, the whole thing is a bunch of fake BS, with both sides colluding to create fake drama. And the media of course loves it bc it boosts ratings.

It’s about as real as WWE wrestling. Fake “sides” and fake “fights.”

Best post. Thread/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all live in the Matrix. In case you haven’t noticed, the whole thing is a bunch of fake BS, with both sides colluding to create fake drama. And the media of course loves it bc it boosts ratings.

It’s about as real as WWE wrestling. Fake “sides” and fake “fights.”

Best post. Thread/

true for the old washington, but politics isn't the same anymore i feel.

[Anonymous]

bump. What's the word?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:bump. What's the word?

You’ll find out on Sept 30 at midnight.

[Anonymous]

I guess I'm the only fed hoping for this.

[Anonymous]

Government ethics is a complete farce now. I will be working while on furlough and will not be asking permission. I am at the point that I do not care. There is no one around to do anything about it and honestly, they are going to point fingers at me about ethics?

Also, I will be job-hunting extensively.

[Anonymous]

So one of the second Trump administration legacies is going to be paying lots of people to not work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So one of the second Trump administration legacies is going to be paying lots of people to not work?

contractors won't get paid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So one of the second Trump administration legacies is going to be paying lots of people to not work?

that's the DRP legacy whether or not there's a shutdown.