4 ms·

There needs to be some risk to being a public service employee. They practically cannot get fired. They should not get back-pay for government shutdown time t

There needs to be some risk to being a public service employee. They practically cannot get fired. They should not get back-pay for government shutdown time they did not work. So, TSA agents, for example, absolutely should get back-pay (because they worked), but employees who got furloughed should not. And we should make it easier to fire public service employees for cause, and easier to downsize agencies (i.e., lay-off workers). Civil service protections need to be about politics, not so overarching that civil service employment carries zero risk.

Pulcinella 8y ago
Why do you think there should just inherently be some risk?
- vibrato 8y ago
  Because in life there is always risk. In this case offloaded to the taxpayer completely.
- jerf 8y ago
  Life always has risk in it. If they have risk-free jobs, that means someone else is shouldering the burden of the resources expended to make that job risk-free. Said someone else is probably doing it without a risk-free job of their own. Is that fair? There'll be the temptation to muddy the waters with all sorts of things, like "how important" the government worker's work is. (The taxpayer's job can be perfectly well important too. You want to live without garbage collectors?) But that's all distractions. What right do they have to have such low-risk ("risk-free" is really not true, but there is certainly a qualitatively different degree of risk) jobs at the expense of people without such low-risk jobs?
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Life isn't fair. If your job isn't risk free, you should be petitioning for unions and other labor protections, not dragging down those who do have those benefits. This is no different then when the minimum wage rises, and people who were making what is now the new minimum wage complain that they're underpaid now. They were underpaid before, it's just more obvious to them after the policy change. Don't be the crab pulling other crabs back into the pot. Help the other crabs get out, and consequently, helping you get out.
  - yongjik 8y ago
    > What right do they have to have such low-risk jobs at the expense of people ... Wow, if this isn't straight-up communism, I don't know what is.
bastawhiz 8y ago
The ability for a person to earn a fair living, especially one that's not an extravagant salary, should never have unnecessary risk. It's one thing to be laid off. It's another to be told you're working without pay or are not allowed to seek other employment while furloughed.
- leesalminen 8y ago
  Surely they knew of this risk when they accepted the job offer?
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Given that this shutdown has already set an all-time duration record, that's probably not fair to say.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    They did not. IRS jobs are not "essential" within the meaning of the rules requiring certain governmental personnel to work during shutdowns. In a nutshell and highly simplified, but "essential" in the shutdown context means national security and transportation. It doesn't include functions that are nice to have, like quick processing of refunds.
  - bastawhiz 8y ago
    What would indicate to, say, a scientist taking a job earning a modest salary that they would be unable to earn a paycheck for over a month?
    - cryptonector 8y ago
      The fact that shutdowns happen.
      - dragontamer 8y ago
        This is literally a historic shutdown. Two missed paychecks in a single shutdown has never happened before in the history of the USA. This is the longest running shutdown in US History, and it isn't anywhere close to over yet.
benj111 8y ago
Is it not the case in the US, that public sector employees tend to be paid less, in exchange for other things like job security, pensions etc?
- gamblor956 8y ago
  That depends very highly on the particular job. Professional employees (lawyers, accountants, scientists) make less in government (usually much less), but non-professional employees usually make more in government.
  - oasisbob 8y ago
    How are you defining "professional" in this context? There's a classical sense of professional it seems you're reaching for, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a non-professional white-collar worker which would do better in federal government than the private sector. Eg, surveyors are clearly professionals. Software developers? IT?
    - jki275 8y ago
      Software engineers, IT, EE, ME, tend to be paid significantly less than they would make outside of gov service. This of course varies a bit by level, but it's generally true.
- garmaine 8y ago
  No, they tend to be just paid less, period. They pay and benefits is WAY better in the private sector, and job security is only partially true.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    This comment has been downvoted but I wanted to highlight that it is quite correct, people actually working in the public sector tend to be paid poorly compared to similar private sector jobs, this is a bit of a new trend where the previous generation in the US was more familiar with public sector jobs being good paying reliable jobs that could help secure a family into the middle income bracket but that time has passed. I am excluding, by the way, private contractors working in the public sector which tend to be grossly over paid but lack any sort of pension benefits.
dragontamer 8y ago
Government employees are paid much MUCH less than their counterparts. The tacit agreement is that they get paid less but have more stability. Any NASA Aerospace engineer will make more at Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman. Its just the facts. Missiles and Weapons make more money than generic US Space research, even if one is more fundamentally important to the advancement of our civilization. Any IRS Tax-expert will make more money as an Corporate Accountant (who are paid to avoid taxes, instead of applying them fairly across the country).
munk-a 8y ago
Most HN people work in a field where getting a new job is pretty trivial if you lose your current one - I've had job searches that have lasted as little as a few days (when I moved internationally), but most people are not in this situation. These workers are being denied an expected income - some of them are indeed not working for this income but they've been denied the ability to work for it. Everyone, even people who were allowed to seek separate work, should be paid their expected wage - this would even inject a bit of consumer power into our economy and might help reduce the long term effects this is having.

Pulcinella 8y ago

Why do you think there should just inherently be some risk?

vibrato 8y ago
Because in life there is always risk. In this case offloaded to the taxpayer completely.
jerf 8y ago
Life always has risk in it. If they have risk-free jobs, that means someone else is shouldering the burden of the resources expended to make that job risk-free. Said someone else is probably doing it without a risk-free job of their own. Is that fair? There'll be the temptation to muddy the waters with all sorts of things, like "how important" the government worker's work is. (The taxpayer's job can be perfectly well important too. You want to live without garbage collectors?) But that's all distractions. What right do they have to have such low-risk ("risk-free" is really not true, but there is certainly a qualitatively different degree of risk) jobs at the expense of people without such low-risk jobs?
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Life isn't fair. If your job isn't risk free, you should be petitioning for unions and other labor protections, not dragging down those who do have those benefits. This is no different then when the minimum wage rises, and people who were making what is now the new minimum wage complain that they're underpaid now. They were underpaid before, it's just more obvious to them after the policy change. Don't be the crab pulling other crabs back into the pot. Help the other crabs get out, and consequently, helping you get out.
- yongjik 8y ago
  > What right do they have to have such low-risk jobs at the expense of people ... Wow, if this isn't straight-up communism, I don't know what is.

bastawhiz 8y ago

The ability for a person to earn a fair living, especially one that's not an extravagant salary, should never have unnecessary risk. It's one thing to be laid off. It's another to be told you're working without pay or are not allowed to seek other employment while furloughed.

leesalminen 8y ago
Surely they knew of this risk when they accepted the job offer?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Given that this shutdown has already set an all-time duration record, that's probably not fair to say.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  They did not. IRS jobs are not "essential" within the meaning of the rules requiring certain governmental personnel to work during shutdowns. In a nutshell and highly simplified, but "essential" in the shutdown context means national security and transportation. It doesn't include functions that are nice to have, like quick processing of refunds.
- bastawhiz 8y ago
  What would indicate to, say, a scientist taking a job earning a modest salary that they would be unable to earn a paycheck for over a month?
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    The fact that shutdowns happen.
    - dragontamer 8y ago
      This is literally a historic shutdown. Two missed paychecks in a single shutdown has never happened before in the history of the USA. This is the longest running shutdown in US History, and it isn't anywhere close to over yet.

benj111 8y ago

Is it not the case in the US, that public sector employees tend to be paid less, in exchange for other things like job security, pensions etc?

gamblor956 8y ago
That depends very highly on the particular job. Professional employees (lawyers, accountants, scientists) make less in government (usually much less), but non-professional employees usually make more in government.
- oasisbob 8y ago
  How are you defining "professional" in this context? There's a classical sense of professional it seems you're reaching for, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a non-professional white-collar worker which would do better in federal government than the private sector. Eg, surveyors are clearly professionals. Software developers? IT?
  - jki275 8y ago
    Software engineers, IT, EE, ME, tend to be paid significantly less than they would make outside of gov service. This of course varies a bit by level, but it's generally true.
garmaine 8y ago
No, they tend to be just paid less, period. They pay and benefits is WAY better in the private sector, and job security is only partially true.
- munk-a 8y ago
  This comment has been downvoted but I wanted to highlight that it is quite correct, people actually working in the public sector tend to be paid poorly compared to similar private sector jobs, this is a bit of a new trend where the previous generation in the US was more familiar with public sector jobs being good paying reliable jobs that could help secure a family into the middle income bracket but that time has passed. I am excluding, by the way, private contractors working in the public sector which tend to be grossly over paid but lack any sort of pension benefits.

dragontamer 8y ago

Government employees are paid much MUCH less than their counterparts. The tacit agreement is that they get paid less but have more stability. Any NASA Aerospace engineer will make more at Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman. Its just the facts. Missiles and Weapons make more money than generic US Space research, even if one is more fundamentally important to the advancement of our civilization. Any IRS Tax-expert will make more money as an Corporate Accountant (who are paid to avoid taxes, instead of applying them fairly across the country).

munk-a 8y ago

Most HN people work in a field where getting a new job is pretty trivial if you lose your current one - I've had job searches that have lasted as little as a few days (when I moved internationally), but most people are not in this situation. These workers are being denied an expected income - some of them are indeed not working for this income but they've been denied the ability to work for it. Everyone, even people who were allowed to seek separate work, should be paid their expected wage - this would even inject a bit of consumer power into our economy and might help reduce the long term effects this is having.