U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 02-23-2011, 12:59 PM
Location: Some T-1 Line
520 posts, read 743,209 times
Reputation: 446


Looks like the possibility of Federal government workers being furloughed is becoming more likely than not. An article link is attached below for your review.

Pay is no guarantee for furloughed employees (2/22/11) -- GovExec.com

If so, do you think government workers should be reimbursed - or should I say paid - for the time they miss off of work while the politicians straighten out the budget?

Here are things - both for and against - to consider before you answer:
1) These are hard-economic times for the country
2) Federal government workers do not make the budget
3) The President, politicians, defense, health care, homeland security and other "essential" employees will not be affected; thus, they will get paid
4) Federal government, for the most part, is not profit-driven
5) The last shutdown occured in 1995 to 1996 for at least 2 weeks, there were some impacts, but none have had long-term effects on the country's infrastructure
Quick reply to this message

Old 02-23-2011, 02:49 PM
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
24,460 posts, read 41,395,283 times
Reputation: 21429
It sometimes seems like we'd all be better off if the government shuts down for a while. I would feel badly for the employees, though, it's the politicians that should go without pay.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-24-2011, 07:51 AM
Location: Tennessee
31,679 posts, read 28,337,027 times
Reputation: 44127
I'm thinking it would probably be more expensive not to pay them. Think about the large scale pay recalculations that would have to be made.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-24-2011, 04:24 PM
3 posts, read 8,856 times
Reputation: 17
As a government employee it seems wrong that we have to carry the brunt of the failure of the politicans to come to an agreement. It is sad that our politicans who have had many months to come to agreement can not do it. I am very willing to carry out a furlough if it were spread over the year - I woudl be willing to give a day a month. However to miss a paycheck in these economic times would only create more isssues. I live in a two government worker family and we would have no pay.....government employees are responsible to be 'fiscally responsible' how can we be if stripped of our pay at no fault of our own.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-24-2011, 08:58 PM
6,474 posts, read 8,960,651 times
Reputation: 6292
I don't know. I'm kinda torn on this.

Civil servants have always had the attitude that they could NEVER be fired, because the unions are always there for them. They also know that they could do the barest minimums in work and STILL get a raise no matter what.

I believe this is why trying to get a civil service job is so difficult nowadays. They don't want people who will be a drain on the system.

Many furloughed employees WILL be fired. I know they believe it will save their jobs, but it might not. This will be the government's way of cleaning out "dead weight", close out that position, then reopen another one basically doing the same thing, but adding a couple of extra job duties to it to cover themselves.

Furlough means NO PAY. This can severely impact one's income depending on what they have going on.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-25-2011, 03:45 PM
2 posts, read 11,480 times
Reputation: 17
Not all civil servants are unionized; in fact, more federal employees aren't unionized than are. Should a furlough occur, it basically becomes an unpaid vacation for government workers. I work for a federal regulatory agency, and right now we aren't optimistic that Congress can avoid a furlough.

I disagree that furloughs are a means of conveniently disposing of employees. Budget cuts will do that, not a shutdown while they fight over appropriations.

I do agree however that it seems unfair that our federal workers pay the price for the inability of politicians to reach a sensible agreement. But that's the risk you take when you become a civil servant. When I took this job, it wasn't because I knew I couldn't be fired. I took it because I wanted to serve our country in any way I could. If serving this country means I have to spend a week with no pay (though a week seems like a long time--the aforementioned 2 weeks in the mid 90s was the exception rather than the rule), then okay.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-25-2011, 03:46 PM
2 posts, read 11,480 times
Reputation: 17
However, it should also be noted that I am single with no kids. An extended furlough could devestate a family, especially if both incomes were from government jobs!
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-25-2011, 03:51 PM
26,584 posts, read 48,441,195 times
Reputation: 12871
No pay, but eligible for unemployment benefits, the same as anyone else who was laid off through no fault of their own.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-25-2011, 04:48 PM
8,894 posts, read 10,033,985 times
Reputation: 11210
Originally Posted by bisjoe View Post
It sometimes seems like we'd all be better off if the government shuts down for a while. I would feel badly for the employees, though, it's the politicians that should go without pay.
You need to remember federal government employees are superior to you and it will do you well to remember to always respect your betters.

The first of the two government shutdowns in 1995-1996 lasted only six days, from November 14 to November 20. Following the six-day shutdown, the Clinton administration released an estimate of what the six days of an idled federal government had cost.

Lost Dollars: The six-day shutdown cost taxpayers about $800 million, including $400 million to furloughed federal employees who were paid, but did not report to work and another $400 million in lost revenue in the four days that the IRS enforcement divisions were closed.

In other words federal employees suffered greatly by having to endure yet another paid vacation. Due to angst and mental suffering maybe the federal government will do the right thing the next time by paying double time for time not worked. Could we all not agree this would only be fair?

On Animal Farm you should always remember all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

Do I sound bitter? Yeah, I am.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-25-2011, 05:11 PM
Location: SoCal
50 posts, read 83,394 times
Reputation: 45
Hell no, govt workers should not get paid during a furlough!

I don't get paid if I don't work, regardless of the reason why (no holidays, no sick pay, no health insurance, nothing!). Federal employees have tons of benefits already.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top