3 ms·

Historically (it might have even been codified in law after the last shutdown?), furloughed and non-furloughed workers receive back pay after the shutdown ends.

Historically (it might have even been codified in law after the last shutdown?), furloughed and non-furloughed workers receive back pay after the shutdown ends. It's really the worst of both worlds

Jtsummers 1y ago
Guaranteed backpay was codified in 2019. It makes the shutdown pointless. We're paying everyone regardless of whether they work through the shutdown or not, but not getting the benefit of their work.
- spike021 1y ago
  Except many people's livelihoods rely on being paid on time, which is not happening in this case.
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    USAA and other banks offer 0% loans up to the salary, which helps. But yes, a lack of pay is incredibly disruptive for the furloughed individuals and those like law enforcement officers (who Republicans claim to support...) who are required to work without pay for the duration.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      The solution of "Just take out a loan to cover for governmental incompetence" is about as American can you can get. But yes, USAA has been nothing but great for me overall. Very fortunate I have it.
- quadragenarian 1y ago
  What about if the administration lays off staff during the shutdown instead of furloughing them? I would think that would not require any compensation.
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    They've been threatening RIFs, those require 60 days notice so the earliest RIF separation would be 1 November or so if they notified people today. And then you get a severance when you're RIF'd based on years of service (1 week/year for first 10, 2 weeks/year above that, with a multiplier if you're over age 40). Max of 52 weeks severance. So they'd still be paid for the time up until they are actually separated under a RIF, and potentially more for any severance they are due under a RIF. Severance only counts whole years, 10 months doesn't get you 10/12ths of a weeks pay, it gets you $0. EDIT: BTW, this is one reason DRP was such a mixed deal. The most admin leave someone got under the first DRP was about 5 months, around 21-23 weeks. If you had 15 years of service or more, the DRP was worse than waiting for a RIF. You were getting at least 20 weeks of severance + 60 days for the notice period. If you had 10 years of service, it was a wash. RIF notice + 10 weeks severance was about as good as DRP offered. And that's comparing to the best possible DRP admin leave period. DRP also bars you from UEI in most (every?) state since it's technically a voluntary resignation. Any delays in being put on admin leave (which was never actually guaranteed under DRP) made it an even worse deal than just waiting for a RIF. The only people it made sense for were those intending to leave with a job lined up, seniors who were going to retire soon anyways (so DRP became "terminal leave"), and those with less than 10 years of service. The vast majority were better off waiting for a RIF.

Historically (it might have even been codified in law after the last shutdown?), furloughed and non-furloughed workers receive back pay after the shutdown ends. It's really the worst of both worlds

Jtsummers 1y ago

Guaranteed backpay was codified in 2019. It makes the shutdown pointless. We're paying everyone regardless of whether they work through the shutdown or not, but not getting the benefit of their work.

spike021 1y ago
Except many people's livelihoods rely on being paid on time, which is not happening in this case.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  USAA and other banks offer 0% loans up to the salary, which helps. But yes, a lack of pay is incredibly disruptive for the furloughed individuals and those like law enforcement officers (who Republicans claim to support...) who are required to work without pay for the duration.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    The solution of "Just take out a loan to cover for governmental incompetence" is about as American can you can get. But yes, USAA has been nothing but great for me overall. Very fortunate I have it.
quadragenarian 1y ago
What about if the administration lays off staff during the shutdown instead of furloughing them? I would think that would not require any compensation.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  They've been threatening RIFs, those require 60 days notice so the earliest RIF separation would be 1 November or so if they notified people today. And then you get a severance when you're RIF'd based on years of service (1 week/year for first 10, 2 weeks/year above that, with a multiplier if you're over age 40). Max of 52 weeks severance. So they'd still be paid for the time up until they are actually separated under a RIF, and potentially more for any severance they are due under a RIF. Severance only counts whole years, 10 months doesn't get you 10/12ths of a weeks pay, it gets you $0. EDIT: BTW, this is one reason DRP was such a mixed deal. The most admin leave someone got under the first DRP was about 5 months, around 21-23 weeks. If you had 15 years of service or more, the DRP was worse than waiting for a RIF. You were getting at least 20 weeks of severance + 60 days for the notice period. If you had 10 years of service, it was a wash. RIF notice + 10 weeks severance was about as good as DRP offered. And that's comparing to the best possible DRP admin leave period. DRP also bars you from UEI in most (every?) state since it's technically a voluntary resignation. Any delays in being put on admin leave (which was never actually guaranteed under DRP) made it an even worse deal than just waiting for a RIF. The only people it made sense for were those intending to leave with a job lined up, seniors who were going to retire soon anyways (so DRP became "terminal leave"), and those with less than 10 years of service. The vast majority were better off waiting for a RIF.