The House of Representatives passed a bill granting back pay to federal employees who have been furloughed during the shutdown. ... Senate Democratic leaders have not commented publicly on the proposal, but the White House has signaled its strong support.It'd be like working for a company that was slow on getting its paychecks out. You're going to get your money, just not soon.
If they're not working and they're getting paid, then shouldn't they get charged vacation or sick days?
Look, I don't think it's particularly fair that the Federal workers take the hit because the GOP has decided to indulge in legislative terrorism, but I also don't think it's fair to the national treasury that people get paid for sitting at home and surfing the `net, either.
5 comments:
The problem here is that most people will have already used a majority of their leave this summer. Also, to demand they use their leave or take LWOP (Leave WithOut Pay) for a period when they are forced off isn't fair either.
The really annoyed employees are those who are "essential" and thus, have to work, will be paid, and if they take a day off will (likely) be eventually charged leave for that day. They got the short end of the stick.
Also, let's say a GS-5 Administrative Assistant in the Washington area (~$34,000 a year), has saved leave all year so he/she can use it between Christmas and New Years to have the holidays off with their child. Now you want them to give up all that leave, and have to incur later childcare costs, because the Republican's threw a fit?
Let's recognize that the House has passed a lot of one-off, popular spending authorizations that the Senate and President have announced are dead on arrival. Just because the House passes something doesn't mean anything (see, thirty-something symbolic votes to revoke ACA)
DOD is back as of today.
CP88, it's not fair that Federal workers take it on the chin for this, but it's also not fair that they end up getting a few weeks paid time off.
Is there a solution?
Comrade, if you want capable people in those government jobs, no. If there is a loss of pay because of this, a certain percentage of potential workers will cross the U.S. government off the list of places to work. That group is likely to be disproportionately comprised of those at the high end of the education/skill/dedication scale.
The government has appealed as an employer for years on the promise of a good retirement and nice benefits in exchange for below market pay. If you throw random furloughs and shutdowns in, the appeal is almost all gone.
There is no fair way to do this without paying those furloughed for the shutdown. The sequester furloughs are a slightly different matter, with similar results. But in that case, you can convincingly argue for not offering backpay when the sequester is resolved...and as far as I know, no one has suggested that.
Post a Comment