Reply to OMB trying to change guidance to no back pay

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "OMB trying to change guidance to no back pay "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]work = pay
[/quote]

That's not what the law says. The law says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations"[/quote]

Actually, I believe it says "each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of
a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations [b]regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse."[/b]. The phrase "subject to the enactment...ending the lapse" would leave room for a bill that said no pay for feds.[/quote]

There has always been room to change the law, including through the CR or appropriations. But barring such a change, it the government is obligated to provide back pay.[/quote]

Not according to the text the PP provided.  Any requirement to provide back pay is subject to back pay being provided for in the relevant appropriations bill.  If there isn't a provision re back pay in the bill, there is no requirement.  [/quote]

Read the language again. Yes, it is subject to the appropriations. Once the appropriations are enacted, the government is obligated to provide back pay.

There's no legitimate controversy here. The language is clear. The legislative intent is clear. And there's been a consistent and common understanding of the language through the initial Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the first part of the second Trump administration.

Even Vought knows this isn't going to work. But it is a way to play to Trump's poorly educated base.[/quote]

The language is 100% clear and the legislative history is 100% clear. Even this ridiculous Supreme Court would uphold federal workers right to back pay.[/quote]

One of the guiding principles of legal interpretation is to assume all language has some purpose (i.e., not to read any legislative text as meaningless). Before this legislation, Congress could (and did) give workers backpay merely by incorporating language granting backpay into the appropriation bill ending a shutdown. If we adopt OMB's read of the legislation, we would have to believe it does NOTHING. Not just one sentence or word, but the ENTIRE piece of legislation signed with much fanfare does NOTHING. Under OMB's reading, it simply permits exactly what always happened in the past before the legislation existed: Congress could choose to specifically appropriate backpay. That is clearly not what the legislation says and even more clearly not what was intended. Look at the language on Speaker Johnson's webpage or on many agency webpages saying that backpay is guaranteed. This is a made up negotiating tactic and a dumb one at that, because it renders everything Speaker Johnson said about the House already having done its job untrue. Remember he is keeping the House out of session because they've already passed the clean CR and so are done. Except that the clean CR isn't enough now, because it doesn't grant backpay. There are over 20 Republican Congressman/Senators on record specifically saying Feds will and should get backpay, so presumably they agree they haven't done their job yet since they haven't passed a bill including backpay? It's almost like the Administration is intentionally backstabbing the Speaker. I'm unclear why though.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics