Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Jobs and Careers
Reply to "OMB trying to change guidance to no back pay "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[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] If that were true then the whole paragraph would be meaningless, but the courts presume that Congress didn't dribble words on the page with no intent or effect. If there's no backpay, employees will sue and win. The only question is whether it's a class action or a bunch of small suits. What this is actually about is the WH giving Dems more things to demand in the eventual legislation, so that it can look like the WH conceded something for a deal. [/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