Requiring someone to work for no pay - confused about legality of this within US?

[Marc Vaughan]

Can someone explain to me how some workers are being "required" to work for no pay within Government institutions ... how is this not considered illegal? ... I haven't seen anyone here argue that this isn't legal but as an immigrant I don't fully comprehend why everyone seems to be accepting it as so.

I can understand if they ask for volunteers to do so - but compelling people to work for no pay seems well, slavery?

[Butter]

I think they will get back pay, so pay is forthcoming, just deferred.

[molson]

They don't have to work, they can quit. But generally these are good jobs with good benefits so it's not worth walking away from a career over some delayed paychecks. And they'll be paid backpay. And their service time still goes towards their retirement benefits when they're not getting paid.

But, I think some government employees have their way of getting what they lost back. If they're going to used as political pawns, or if they're not funded for the job they're required to do etc, performance is going to suffer long term. People will get their sick days' worth this year.

[Drake]

I'm confused by who isn't getting paid and who is. I talked to my brother last night (he works for the Department of Energy, just below the appointment level) and he said they're still working and getting paid because their funding for the year was already in place. He's a federal employee, not a contractor (as far as I know).

The military folks are apparently getting paid...but not the Coast Guard, which I always thought was part of the military, but apparently not being DoD makes a difference?

ETA: I was watching the news last night and saw all these "heart-warming" stories about various communities and business starting food banks and GoFundMe's to support their Coast Guard neighbors. Yes, it is heart-warming to see people stepping up to fill the gap. But it also fucking pisses me off, just like when I see a GoFundMe to pay somebody's medical expenses. The richest(?), most powerful(?) nation in the world, and we have to volunteer to self-tax to provide basic services to our citizens because the supposed adults in the room can't get their shit worked out. Fuck those guys. Fuck every one of those bastards abusing the power they've been given to play ideological oneupsmanship games. You want to play fair? Then part of a government shutdown should be a complete tax holiday for every day the government is shut down. No other business I work with gets to charge me for work they're not doing, so why should these shitheads be any different?

(And, yes, this is just a rant. I get that it doesn't work this cleanly/easily in real life.)

[QuikSand]

For the last 10-15 years, the federal government has not been budgeted in its prior long standing manner. Rather, a series of appropriations bills (or more commonly continuing resolutions that just extend prior funding levels for a period of time) have been applied, each including various parts/agencies of the federal government.

The current "shutdown" actually affects less than half of the federal government - many/most agencies have received their funding through this patchwork process. It's been hard for the media to continue to say this, and they have mostly given up trying.

Regionally (here near DC) it feels close to a full shutdown (which has happened) but technically it's just select parts of the federal government. I don't know details, but things like the Coast Guard (under Commerce, perhaps) and the other military (under Defense) being treated differently is exactly the sort of weirdness that happens in this situation.

[Drake]

Thanks for the insight, Quik.

[JPhillips]

My understanding is that there is some question as to whether or not some agencies can call people back without pay. I've read that essential employees has a definition and things like Interior calling people to work on oil leases is possibly unlawful.

[PilotMan]

Paid or unpaid, I am happy that the aviation inspectors are getting called back to work. Even though it's one small link in a large safety chain, I'd rather have all the links in place for my particular job.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My understanding is that there is some question as to whether or not some agencies can call people back without pay. I've read that essential employees has a definition and things like Interior calling people to work on oil leases is possibly unlawful.

The thing I'm going to be curious to see here is that the federal court system is going to run out of money here shortly.

At that point, if the Trump Administration is breaking federal law in that way, or others, is the judiciary able to hold them accountable? Does SCOTUS continue to operate with or without appropriations?

Because that seems like a potential danger point to me. If Congress is split and unable/unwilling to assert themselves and the judiciary is shut down because of a lack of appropriations, you run into "John Marshall has made his decision" updated for the 21st century.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing I'm going to be curious to see here is that the federal court system is going to run out of money here shortly.

At that point, if the Trump Administration is breaking federal law in that way, or others, is the judiciary able to hold them accountable? Does SCOTUS continue to operate with or without appropriations?

Because that seems like a potential danger point to me. If Congress is split and unable/unwilling to assert themselves and the judiciary is shut down because of a lack of appropriations, you run into "John Marshall has made his decision" updated for the 21st century.

The courts and their employees will continue to work and just not get paid.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

For the last 10-15 years, the federal government has not been budgeted in its prior long standing manner. Rather, a series of appropriations bills (or more commonly continuing resolutions that just extend prior funding levels for a period of time) have been applied, each including various parts/agencies of the federal government.

The current "shutdown" actually affects less than half of the federal government - many/most agencies have received their funding through this patchwork process. It's been hard for the media to continue to say this, and they have mostly given up trying.

Regionally (here near DC) it feels close to a full shutdown (which has happened) but technically it's just select parts of the federal government. I don't know details, but things like the Coast Guard (under Commerce, perhaps) and the other military (under Defense) being treated differently is exactly the sort of weirdness that happens in this situation.

coast guard is homeland security! which is what all the huballoo is about.

in 1980 the attorney general determined that when there was no funding the government had to close...except for protection of life and safety, and constitutional mandated activities. IE coast guard must work since they are protection of life and safety (or whatever the term is)

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing I'm going to be curious to see here is that the federal court system is going to run out of money here shortly.

At that point, if the Trump Administration is breaking federal law in that way, or others, is the judiciary able to hold them accountable? Does SCOTUS continue to operate with or without appropriations?

Because that seems like a potential danger point to me. If Congress is split and unable/unwilling to assert themselves and the judiciary is shut down because of a lack of appropriations, you run into "John Marshall has made his decision" updated for the 21st century.

the court has constitutionally mandated duties, so they will get one last paycheck in a week (they have been running on fees), then start working for free

[Edward64]

Not on topic but somewhat related.

Overheard in a breakroom between 2 employees of a client that one employee was trying to help out a relative by cooking meals (chicken soup). Living paycheck-to-paycheck.

On the other hand, have sister-in-law where she and her husband work for different areas of the government. Not sure if they have been furloughed, but if they are, they are living the high life with a paid vacation and probably hoping it doesn't end anytime soon. They are not living paycheck-to-paycheck

[Atocep]

About 25% of the government is currently shut down. The most obvious being the Department of Homeland Security.

For once I'm not affected by a shutdown so that's a nice change. I work at one of the largest military hospitals in country and the last shutdown was a lawsuit waiting to happen. The hospital commander determined 1 day prior to the shutdown's start that, since we're a hospital, all personnel are essential so everyone will be at work. I'm sure he was banking on it being a very short shutdown and everyone just forgetting about it and it worked for him. Trying to do that in a shutdown like this would be a disaster. There are federal guidelines and an agreement signed by the employee acknowledging yourself as essential so calling everyone essential was against Federal regulations.

The government gets around the legality of it by passing bills promising backpay so you're essentially receiving deferred payment. I'm interested to see where some of the lawsuits against he administration go though.

Originally Posted by molson

They don't have to work, they can quit. But generally these are good jobs with good benefits so it's not worth walking away from a career over some delayed paychecks. And they'll be paid backpay. And their service time still goes towards their retirement benefits when they're not getting paid.

But, I think some government employees have their way of getting what they lost back. If they're going to used as political pawns, or if they're not funded for the job they're required to do etc, performance is going to suffer long term. People will get their sick days' worth this year.

What makes government jobs attractive is the job security and benefits. The benefits are great as far as vacation, sick days, health and dental options, and pension. It's also very easy for most veterans to get into these positions as they have multiple layers of advantages for any openings.

The pay is generally below average to poor depending on the job series. The average pay across all government jobs is about 30% below the private sector in the local areas and my job series is similar or maybe a bit more than 30% below.

Speaking for myself, what keeps me is I spent 9 years in the Army so those 9 years can count toward my pension. That means at 21 years I have the option to retire with a full pension.

I'm also guaranteed a 7am-4pm schedule that isn't going to change and I live about 30 minutes from the Hospital. This gives me a relatively easy commute and my son goes to one of the top public schools in the state. With those hours and my vacation days I'm able to see most of his baseball games throughout the spring and summer. I could get higher paying jobs, but that would likely require commutes to either Seattle or Olympia. Both of those would, at a minimum, double my commute. Not something I'm willing to deal with honestly.

I think what's lost in these shutdowns is the Federal Government is the largest employer of veterans in the country. The Trump administration and republicans have long used the military and veterans as a shield in their fights with Dems over just about everything. This administration and its supporters, however, has attacked Federal Employees from day one by complaining about waste, pay, and using the shutdown and a threats of prolonged shutdowns as a bargaining chip. My wife's ultra conservative parents have complained about Federal Employees since Trump was elected as they now live under the belief that we all make 6 figures and never do any work. My wife trying to explain to them that we can't do something because of finances or I can't take vacation at that time leads to the same arguments and discussions every single time.

I would love to see the veteran organizations start pushing back on this, but for whatever reason it's not happening. There are growing whispers of a Federal Worker strike and I do feel if TSA went on strike right now this would end in a couple of days I'm not sure any of the Federal unions have the guts to call for a strike.

[albionmoonlight]

Federal workers can't strike under (I think) Taft-Hartley.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Federal workers can't strike under (I think) Taft-Hartley.

Yes, but I also don't think we ever envisioned a time where withholding Federal Worker's pay would be used a political weapon. If the unions, with employee backing, decided to strike I don't think Taft-Hartley would hold up. There's no way the Government would follow through with labeling hundreds of thousands of works or more AWOL and follow up with disciplinary action.

[NobodyHere]

Federal judge: Government employees can't refuse to work unpaid during partial shutdown

[QuikSand]

How can anyone feel firm ground saying things like "decades of precedent make this clear" or "the courts have already interpreted" when talking about what this executive may or may not do? Haven't we learned better?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

How can anyone feel firm ground saying things like "decades of precedent make this clear" or "the courts have already interpreted" when talking about what this executive may or may not do? Haven't we learned better?

This.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

There's no way the Government would follow through with labeling hundreds of thousands of works or more AWOL and follow up with disciplinary action.

Why not? They knew the terms when they accepted the job after all.

edit to add: And if they didn't, it's not because the information wasn't out there.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why not? They knew the terms when they accepted the job after all.

edit to add: And if they didn't, it's not because the information wasn't out there.

The logistics of disciplining that many people plus the optics of it. I don't see a strike happening, but I also don't see any way the government would ever pursue the possibility of putting hundreds of thousands of vets out of a job.

[Young Drachma]

The shutdown as a political tool could be removed as a possibility if we had a functioning legislative branch, but alas.

[RainMaker]

If this goes on for weeks or even months, I wonder if this will hurt the ability to recruit workers. I sure as shit wouldn't take a job where I'd be forced to work without pay.

[Maple Leafs]

In related news: In Canada, there's been an ongoing problem with the government's payroll software that's resulted in federal workers going without pay, or with less pay than they should receive, for years. Some people get paid some weeks and not others. Some change jobs or get promoted but still get their old pay. Some get paid double, or otherwise get too much (that they have to repay later, but that can result in a higher tax bracket for the earnings).

It's a huge mess. Just a massive debacle.

(I look forward to Trump buying the software for you guys to use in at some point.)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It's also very easy for most veterans to get into these positions as they have multiple layers of advantages for any openings.

Cannot overstate this. I looked into converting from a contractor to a Fed at the FCC for the security and any open position would have been next-to-impossible for me to get if any vet applied.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If this goes on for weeks or even months, I wonder if this will hurt the ability to recruit workers. I sure as shit wouldn't take a job where I'd be forced to work without pay.

Yes.

The Cybersecurity 202: How the shutdown could make it harder for the government to retain cybersecurity talent

[Groundhog]

If I were being forced to come to work without pay I guarantee you the only thing I'd be doing while at work would be looking for another job.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The logistics of disciplining that many people plus the optics of it. I don't see a strike happening, but I also don't see any way the government would ever pursue the possibility of putting hundreds of thousands of vets out of a job.

The same people you'd think would be most upset by that notion are also the same people I've seen with a growing sentiment of "got too damned many government employees as it is, maybe leave a lot of this shut down for good".

It's somewhat paradoxical (and I'm not arguing that it isn't) but that's becoming more of a thing this time than I recall previously.

[Edward64]

Specific to Atlanta TSA, after what I experienced Mon morning, I have little sympathy for them.

Yeah, go find another job in the commercial world and see how they like it.

[albionmoonlight]

The standard for whether something is excepted is whether it is necessary to protect human life or property. That standard has never been defined, and it is clearly being abused.

To use air travel as an example--commercial aviation should be grounded. There should be exceptions for things like transporting doctors and organs and equipment needed to keep things from breaking. Those should be made on a case by case basis on a showing of actual need.

But if you really want to go to your brother's wedding in Hawaii? Call your Senator and ask her to reopen the government.

Want your tax refund? You know who to call.

The model of "we'll just make government workers work without pay and then pretend that we don't need the government" is as stupid as it is unsustainable.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Drake

I talked to my brother last night (he works for the Department of Energy, just below the appointment level)

There are apparently a lot of Hawkins working at DOE...

[Drake]

But only one of them is related to me.