4 ms·

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 o

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.
    - bastawhiz 8y ago
      Yet there is no precedent for this. Nor should there be. I would be entirely unsurprised if this caused many professionals to leave public service, since the risk of not being able to make rent is now known. Why would anyone knowingly take a job that could suddenly and unexpectedly stop paying them a salary for unreasonable periods of time?
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  US government shutdowns (especially extended ones) are rare events. This is not something most of them would have considered when signing on. Even in the 90s and 00s with the DoD closing bases (BRAC), a lot of people were unimpacted or given job offers at other locations which mitigated the risk for most. Government employees are, on the whole, underpaid for the sort of work they do compared to private sector equivalents (or where their expertise could be used if not the same job). The primary benefit has been the stability and pension system, both of which are being challenged in recent years.
  - freedomben 8y ago
    > US government shutdowns (especially extended ones) are rare events Sorry but no. I worked for the government for 9 years and went through four shutdowns. I'd hardly call that rare. On NPR this morning they were interviewing people who said the same thing (so it's not just me). I was also not one of the lucky ones that got furloughed. When I was there a lot of people loved shutdowns because it was free vacation time. They knew they'd get backpay. The only thing they couldn't do was go out of town since any day they could be called back. > This is not something most of them would have considered when signing on. True. > Government employees are, on the whole, underpaid for the sort of work they do compared to private sector equivalents (or where their expertise could be used if not the same job). The primary benefit has been the stability and pension system, both of which are being challenged in recent years. Debatable. The government is a huge industry, and over-generalizing like that is impossible to do while maintaining any level of accuracy. Remember to include benefits as well as paycheck in your analysis.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      This one is extremely long, though. It’s the longest on record and still getting longer, so it’s not something people would have anticipated. I can see how someone would enjoy a few days off of work, maybe even a week or two. But going a month or more without pay is quite a different matter.
      - cryptonector 8y ago
- hanklazard 8y ago
  The risk of not getting paid due to the longest government shutdown ever? No, I don’t think many people would have considered that risk.
- seem_2211 8y ago
  Have some empathy for goodness sakes. A lot of us (myself included), might work in startups and take big risks in our careers, but we're also exposed to a lot more upside. Not every other job should be like this, and lots of people don't want to work in such uncertain situations. These people thought they had a job that was largely safe, and that implicit promise has been broken.
cryptonector 8y ago
Private sector employees carry the risk of being fired or laid off. I don't see why public sector employees should not. They should have some protections from political firings, but that's it. Salary levels have nothing to do with it. Perhaps they might have to be higher if public sector employees had to have this risk, or perhaps there would be fewer people willing to work in the public sector (a win, that). And again, if you hard to work w/o pay, you should get back-pay. This is only about furloughed employees.
- richardwhiuk 8y ago
  Public sector employees take the risk of being fired by an administration who decides that unit isn't a priority. Salary levels do determine risk - if you want someone to do a riskier job, you generally have to pay more - obviously there are a large number of other factors.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    > Public sector employees take the risk of being fired by an administration who decides that unit isn't a priority. Never happens.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Public sector employees take the risk of being fired by an administration who decides that unit isn't a priority. They mostly don't, both because the Administration has limited legal and even more limited practical political ability to do that, and because civil service rules further mitigate that risk with noncompetitive reinstatement eligibility. They do take the risk that the political branches together decide a function is unnecessary, mitigated somewhat by civil service reinstatement rules.
- munk-a 8y ago
  This comment and the one above have bits that are clearly just snipes at public employees and the federal government. > They practically cannot get fired. > or perhaps there would be fewer people willing to work in the public sector (a win, that). If you disagree with the size of our federal government on a political level that's no excuse to disrespect the people who work in it. Everybody is working for a pay check the virtues of the federal government have nothing to do with whether some people deserve to get what they negotiated for when they accepted a position.

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.
  - bastawhiz 8y ago
    Yet there is no precedent for this. Nor should there be. I would be entirely unsurprised if this caused many professionals to leave public service, since the risk of not being able to make rent is now known. Why would anyone knowingly take a job that could suddenly and unexpectedly stop paying them a salary for unreasonable periods of time?
Jtsummers 8y ago
US government shutdowns (especially extended ones) are rare events. This is not something most of them would have considered when signing on. Even in the 90s and 00s with the DoD closing bases (BRAC), a lot of people were unimpacted or given job offers at other locations which mitigated the risk for most. Government employees are, on the whole, underpaid for the sort of work they do compared to private sector equivalents (or where their expertise could be used if not the same job). The primary benefit has been the stability and pension system, both of which are being challenged in recent years.
- freedomben 8y ago
  > US government shutdowns (especially extended ones) are rare events Sorry but no. I worked for the government for 9 years and went through four shutdowns. I'd hardly call that rare. On NPR this morning they were interviewing people who said the same thing (so it's not just me). I was also not one of the lucky ones that got furloughed. When I was there a lot of people loved shutdowns because it was free vacation time. They knew they'd get backpay. The only thing they couldn't do was go out of town since any day they could be called back. > This is not something most of them would have considered when signing on. True. > Government employees are, on the whole, underpaid for the sort of work they do compared to private sector equivalents (or where their expertise could be used if not the same job). The primary benefit has been the stability and pension system, both of which are being challenged in recent years. Debatable. The government is a huge industry, and over-generalizing like that is impossible to do while maintaining any level of accuracy. Remember to include benefits as well as paycheck in your analysis.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    This one is extremely long, though. It’s the longest on record and still getting longer, so it’s not something people would have anticipated. I can see how someone would enjoy a few days off of work, maybe even a week or two. But going a month or more without pay is quite a different matter.
    - cryptonector 8y ago
hanklazard 8y ago
The risk of not getting paid due to the longest government shutdown ever? No, I don’t think many people would have considered that risk.
seem_2211 8y ago
Have some empathy for goodness sakes. A lot of us (myself included), might work in startups and take big risks in our careers, but we're also exposed to a lot more upside. Not every other job should be like this, and lots of people don't want to work in such uncertain situations. These people thought they had a job that was largely safe, and that implicit promise has been broken.

cryptonector 8y ago

Private sector employees carry the risk of being fired or laid off. I don't see why public sector employees should not. They should have some protections from political firings, but that's it. Salary levels have nothing to do with it. Perhaps they might have to be higher if public sector employees had to have this risk, or perhaps there would be fewer people willing to work in the public sector (a win, that). And again, if you hard to work w/o pay, you should get back-pay. This is only about furloughed employees.

richardwhiuk 8y ago
Public sector employees take the risk of being fired by an administration who decides that unit isn't a priority. Salary levels do determine risk - if you want someone to do a riskier job, you generally have to pay more - obviously there are a large number of other factors.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  > Public sector employees take the risk of being fired by an administration who decides that unit isn't a priority. Never happens.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Public sector employees take the risk of being fired by an administration who decides that unit isn't a priority. They mostly don't, both because the Administration has limited legal and even more limited practical political ability to do that, and because civil service rules further mitigate that risk with noncompetitive reinstatement eligibility. They do take the risk that the political branches together decide a function is unnecessary, mitigated somewhat by civil service reinstatement rules.
munk-a 8y ago
This comment and the one above have bits that are clearly just snipes at public employees and the federal government. > They practically cannot get fired. > or perhaps there would be fewer people willing to work in the public sector (a win, that). If you disagree with the size of our federal government on a political level that's no excuse to disrespect the people who work in it. Everybody is working for a pay check the virtues of the federal government have nothing to do with whether some people deserve to get what they negotiated for when they accepted a position.