4 ms·
This is different because it isn't a forced unpaid holiday, this is the federal government unable to pay its employees until they have a budget. That said, emp
by hvs 13y ago
This is different because it isn't a forced unpaid holiday, this is the federal government unable to pay its employees until they have a budget.
That said, employees will be paid retroactively once the gov't gets back to work.
- eli 13y agoThere's no guarantee that employees will be paid retroactively, it's just what happened last time. It takes an act of congress.
- danielweber 13y agoAnd there is a big difference between people who showed up to work during the shutdown and people who were told to stay home during the shutdown.
- hvs 13y agoTrue, I should've made that clear. But I wouldn't want to be the representative who voted against paying federal employees at the next election.
- eli 13y agoYou would think that, but who knows. I'm surprised by the number of DC-area Congressman who voted to shut down the government even though it puts their own constituents out of work.
- officemonkey 13y agoThe only reason they're trying these shenanigans is they think no one will remember come mid-terms next November. Civilian federal government employees haven't had a cost-of-living salary adjustment since 2010. I put nothing past this Congress.
- pdonis 13y agoCivilian federal government employees haven't had a cost-of-living salary adjustment since 2010. Just to be fair to Congress (not that I'm any fan of Congress), the administration did not request a cost of living increase in its budget for FY 2011, or 2012, so it wasn't just Congress. (It did for FY 2013, but it got shot down in Congress.)
- officemonkey 13y agoNothing prevents the Congress from adding a COLA to the Presidential proposal. The GOP-led Congress under the Bush Administration did it all the time.
- pdonis 13y agoThat's true, but there's a difference between then and now: AFAIK Bush did not make not giving pay increases to Federal employees an explicit policy. Obama has.
- roc 13y agoActually the ones behind these shenanigans are doing it because they hope people will remember come the mid-terms. At least, they hope the people they represent will remember (and literally do not care about the rest). Most of the people behind this are only in Congress because their safe districts value these sorts of extreme stunts over actual governance. Not being sufficiently extreme can result in losing a primary challenge. Which is also why there's a fracture in the Republican Party over this move. The congresspeople behind this mess need only please their safe district. But the congresspeople not in safe districts, and Republicans who run for statewide or federal offices, are terrified that voters will remember these sorts of stunts in subsequent elections. Their chances to win will (continue to) crater.
- aestra 13y agoAny retroactive pay will have to be specifically specified for furloughed employees in further budgets. There is no requirement for retroactive pay. Any retroactive pay is a "goodwill" gesture for saying "Sorry we messed up so bad." The very definition of furlough is a temporary unpaid leave. Even if this is done, there are plenty of people furloughed today who will never ever get paid (contractors).
- hvs 13y agoOh, I know. I was a civilian contractor for the Army Corp of Engineers during the last government shutdown.