4 ms·
I don't know about striking per se. But I have been somewhat confused about why all these workers are reporting to work when they're not being paid. If it's pur
by mbostleman 8y ago
I don't know about striking per se. But I have been somewhat confused about why all these workers are reporting to work when they're not being paid. If it's purely out of good will and dedication for their jobs, I appreciate that, but I wonder if it doesn't just serve to mask the problem. Employment at will means that every day is a new agreement - I work then you pay. If one side of that declines, then so should the other. I'm sure that one thing at play is that those that continue to show up will probably have better rep with managers when this is over. That's unfortunate and, I assume, technically illegal. But it's all the more reason that if the pay stops, so should the work - across the board.
- yardie 8y agoThe government has effectively outlawed it. They could strike but then the strike would be illegal. It's never been tested in court but with the rush of federal appointments (all happening while we've been watching the circus) of conservative judges it doesn't bode well for worker rights.
- mbostleman 8y agoI think you mean the government has outlawed striking. But I'm not sure the government has outlawed the ability of an individual to not work without pay.
- billylindeman 8y agoThis really needs to be tested in court. Isn't the government technically in breach of contract by not paying employees?
- bdcravens 8y agoProbably it's a risk calculation. For some, they may make more than if they took another job, and even if they quit, there's no guarantee they'd find work before the shutdown ends. (Plus add in the typical 2-3 week period before they'd receive their first check at new job) If they refuse to work without explicitly quitting, then they could probably be terminated with cause, which means they'd likely be ineligible for unemployment benefits.