US government Shutdown

[Starglider]

The most disgusting thing about this is not the politics, it's all the federal employees affected got three weeks additional paid holiday on top of their already extremely generous (relative to private sector) paid holiday allowance, yet still have the gall to pretend they're being screwed.

[Broomstick]

My understanding is that only the workers who actually worked during the shutdown get back pay. Those sent home get unpaid furlough. Do you have a cite to the contrary?

And frankly, I think getting yanked around, having your pay cut off for uncertain lengths of time, getting behind in your bills, not knowing if you should attempt to seek other employment in a tight job market or sit tight hoping your employer gets its shit together is NOT a "vacation". It's a fuckton of stress and uncertainty.

[TimothyC]

My understanding is that only the workers who actually worked during the shutdown get back pay. Those sent home get unpaid furlough. Do you have a cite to the contrary?

Starglider is correct. The house voted on it during the shutdown, and the senate passed it as a part of the deal.

[Eleas]

Starglider is correct. The house voted on it during the shutdown, and the senate passed it as a part of the deal.

Starglider may be correct in on a technical point, but as Broomstick points out one cannot really call it a "vacation" or "holiday" when in a situation like the one described. Tell me, if I imprison you for two weeks after which I'm forced by the court to pay you a million dollar restitution, does that suddenly make the past weeks the best vacation ever?

[energiewende]

If I could spend that time at home watching TV, sure.


Now suppose you went on strike - would you owe your employer the balance of lost profits?

[Eleas]

If I could spend that time at home watching TV, sure.

...knowing you might already be out of a job and should really be out looking for new ones in a climate where your specific skillset just became overrepresented on the job market? Absolutely, there's no question about it, you'd just kick back and have a bowl of fucking chips.

Thanks for missing the point so impressively.

[energiewende]

You would expect the US federal government to be wound up and abolished?

[TimothyC]

If I could spend that time at home watching TV, sure.

...knowing you might already be out of a job and should really be out looking for new ones in a climate where your specific skillset just became overrepresented on the job market? Absolutely, there's no question about it, you'd just kick back and have a bowl of fucking chips.

Thanks for missing the point so impressively.

It is exceptionally hard to fire civil servants, and because they were furloughed isn't a valid reason. Everyone knew they were coming back to work when the shutdown was over. A fair chunk of my classmates have jobs on the local air force base, and every single one of them treated it as some time off of work (to get caught up on sleep, homework, housework, ect.).

[Gaidin]

No they didn't just merely treat it as time off work. The only ones the government was absolutely required to pay were the ones required to work during the shutdown. The ones furloughed were left essentially biting their nails wondering if they were going to be screwed out of 2-3 weeks worth of pay or if congress was going to be nice. They, for all they knew, were either going to be pinching pennies for longer than those two weeks to get caught up on bills, or were going to be begging money off banks or family. While they weren't put out of business like some of these places near the national parks, it's not the quintessential beautiful vacation to get caught up on things you'd like to think it is.

[Eleas]

It is exceptionally hard to fire civil servants, and because they were furloughed isn't a valid reason. Everyone knew they were coming back to work when the shutdown was over. A fair chunk of my classmates have jobs on the local air force base, and every single one of them treated it as some time off of work (to get caught up on sleep, homework, housework, ect.).

Even so, since they had to vote on it, workers under furlough couldn't know if they were even going to get paid. Frankly, in a sane country, that would give anyone the right to complain. "Hey, some asshole might decide to shut down some day for no good reason, for an unspecified time where you will not be at work, and if that happens, the people responsible will hold a referendum on whether or not your paycheck will be in the mail." Yes, monetary reparations should lessen the blow. Unlike Starglider, I just don't think it should automatically buy the silence of those affected.

[TimothyC]

Even so, since they had to vote on it, workers under furlough couldn't know if they were even going to get paid.

Everyone got backpay for the 1995/1995-96 shutdowns, combined with the fact that the house voted to give backpay when the shutdown was over on the 5th of October, there was a very strong assumption that everyone was going to get paid for the time furloughed. Yes, there was some concern about how long people would be pinching pennies, but for many, the situation was not as dire as you want to make it out to be.

[Gaidin]

People were walking into work and getting asked how they liked their vacation. No laughs. Just a grim look, a shake of their head, and get past idiot that said the stupid joke. Say whatever the hell you want about what you think they thought of it. Point is, that's not what they thought.

[Eleas]

Everyone got backpay for the 1995/1995-96 shutdowns, combined with the fact that the house voted to give backpay when the shutdown was over on the 5th of October, there was a very strong assumption that everyone was going to get paid for the time furloughed. Yes, there was some concern about how long people would be pinching pennies, but for many, the situation was not as dire as you want to make it out to be.

They could not know because during those shutdowns the senate was still unquestionably working to keep the Government together. This was not the case during this shutdown; therefore, one could not reasonably expect the Senate to behave according to precedent in other matters.

[energiewende]

I also agree that being unpaid for 2 and a bit weeks and then getting paid everything back and considerably more afterwards is the worst thing that ever happened to anyone anywhere.

On a more sensible note, is it common in the US to not have 2.5 weeks of living expenses in savings? My parents always taught that 3 months was about the minimum one should aim for. One can exhaust that if unemployed for a long time, but for a full time employee in a sinecure position?

[Eleas]

I also agree that being unpaid for 2 and a bit weeks and then getting paid everything back and considerably more afterwards is the worst thing that ever happened to anyone anywhere.

Ah, the good old "some others have had it worse than you so you should quit complaining" saw, as useful today as it ever was against those uppity negroes and shrill suffragettes back in the day. Good to see the caliber of your arguments on stark display.

People have expenses. People should have savings. They should not need to have savings on the reasonable expectation of suddenly losing them. Savings should ensure a safe future, not day-to-day survival. That's why they're savings.

[energiewende]

And every little girl should have a pony. Back in the real world...

[Eleas]

And every little girl should have a pony. Back in the real world...

Back in the real world, there's apparently you contending that people who live under economically unstable conditions should quietly suck it up because your parents were inspirational. So it seems the real world is a pretty dismal place.

[energiewende]

That the inconvenience they have suffered is trivial and easily avoided does not mean they have suffered no inconvenience.

[Eleas]

That the inconvenience they have suffered is trivial and easily avoided does not mean they have suffered no inconvenience.

It would perhaps be trivial and easily avoided to someone with the aforementioned parents at their back, yes, but that doesn't really apply to every person out there. Also, you did defend Starglider on the notion that such inconvenience should be kept out of the sight of washed folk, so I'm going to continue pointing out the basic vileness of that proposition.

[TimothyC]

They could not know because during those shutdowns the senate was still unquestionably working to keep the Government together. This was not the case during this shutdown; therefore, one could not reasonably expect the Senate to behave according to precedent in other matters.

There are enough Democrats in the Senate that loves them that public union money to ensure getting it pushed through. This is on top of the fact that they don't want to be seen as screwing over the little guys.

[Eleas]

There are enough Democrats in the Senate that loves them that public union money to getting it pushed through. This is on top of the fact that they don't want to be seen as screwing over the little guys.

Perhaps, but again, this is not something that was guaranteed during the shutdown, so I would still expect them to worry.

[energiewende]

That the inconvenience they have suffered is trivial and easily avoided does not mean they have suffered no inconvenience.

It would perhaps be trivial and easily avoided to someone with the aforementioned parents at their back, yes, but that doesn't really apply to every person out there. Also, you did defend Starglider on the notion that such inconvenience should be kept out of the sight of washed folk, so I'm going to continue pointing out the basic vileness of that proposition.

I don't basically disagree that what the government did was bad: it promised certain pay contractually and reneged on that promise. It's right that back pay is made and probably right that additional pay is made, as compensation. Similarly, I think employers should be able to sue striking contract workers for lost profits. But that is very different to saying that being paid 2.5 weeks late and not having to work in that time is "vile". It's a mild inconvenience that anyone with the slightest amount of sense could nonetheless have easily avoided entirely by not living hand-to-mouth. I suspect most people did just that, but I have little sympathy for those who rather spent their money on going to bars or an iphone subscription (neither of which I spend money on).

[Knife]

Starglider always sees Government Employees as those top end, high paid people. Most of my family, and wife's, works government jobs (or did) and they weren't high on the hog, they were solid middle class jobs. But that's the rub, after two weeks of no pay, even if you think you're getting back pay after it's all done, you are starting to get behind on your bills. Sure, back pay is a for sure thing, but when isn't. Two weeks, three, four? How long do you wait on a sure thing while you're life crumbles around you?

This insane idea that all government workers are high paid leeches is just asinine. Your standard IRS paper pusher makes the same as some corporate paper pusher. US military civil service welder makes about the same as a welder in private sector. Not everyone who works for the government gets 6 figures and a non job. They are just people slinging work like the rest of us and the contempt for them is ridiculous.

[Knife]

I don't basically disagree that what the government did was bad: it promised certain pay contractually and reneged on that promise. It's right that back pay is made and probably right that additional pay is made, as compensation. Similarly, I think employers should be able to sue striking contract workers for lost profits. But that is very different to saying that being paid 2.5 weeks late and not having to work in that time is "vile". It's a mild inconvenience that anyone with the slightest amount of sense could nonetheless have easily avoided entirely by not living hand-to-mouth. I suspect most people did just that, but I have little sympathy for those who rather spent their money on going to bars or an iphone subscription (neither of which I spend money on).

Ah, so now I get it. If they'd just been like you it could all be avoided. Sounds a lot like "I got mine, screw you." to me.

[Eleas]

It would perhaps be trivial and easily avoided to someone with the aforementioned parents at their back, yes, but that doesn't really apply to every person out there. Also, you did defend Starglider on the notion that such inconvenience should be kept out of the sight of washed folk, so I'm going to continue pointing out the basic vileness of that proposition.

I don't basically disagree that what the government did was bad: it promised certain pay contractually and reneged on that promise. It's right that back pay is made and probably right that additional pay is made, as compensation. Similarly, I think employers should be able to sue striking contract workers for lost profits. But that is very different to saying that being paid 2.5 weeks late and not having to work in that time is "vile".

Good thing that was not what I claimed. My claim was that a desire to silence the wailing of peasants was vile.

It's a mild inconvenience that anyone with the slightest amount of sense could nonetheless have easily avoided entirely by not living hand-to-mouth. I suspect most people did just that, but I have little sympathy for those who rather spent their money on going to bars or an iphone subscription (neither of which I spend money on).

And that's my basic contention with such childishness. The idea that not living hand-to-mouth would be a personal decision for most people is a fable plausible only to someone who never needed to work for his own living.