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.
I don't know what his daughter does, but why do you assume a federal job isn't a respectable career? You think being in the military isn't respectable (including Coast Guard who are the ones not being paid in that group), you think astronaut isn't respectable? You think sweeping the floors in a national museum isn't respectable? You think protecting the President isn't respectable? You think directing airplanes isn't respectable? You think answering the phone and directing incoming phone calls isn't respectable? What is inherently not respectable about doing a job that is offered and that you qualify to do?
I get it, you don't like the employer. But why take that out on regular Americans who are just doing a job that is offered? They aren't the "ruling class" they vote, pay taxes, and have just as much influence on things as you do. Do you really think some poor Border Control agent working without pay is making the rules here? Your beef is with lawmakers and maybe large political lobbies. It's a pity you are so blind with hatred that you can't see that.
When these ppl envision federal employees, i’m betting the first image that comes to mind is the black middle aged woman working behind the window at the post office, or the youngish TSA Airport guy, or some 50-year-old paper pusher in some 3-letter government agency in D.C. These are the types of workers they harbor so much disdain for, and consequently, have no sympathy for during this fiasco.
They appear blissfully unaware that federal employees span all education levels and degrees, careers and income levels—accountants, auditors, statsticians, doctors/nurses, corrections officers, IT professionals, mechanics, forest rangers, museum curators, air traffic controllers, and yes, the janitor mopping floors at the Pentagon or mailroom attendant at the Treasury Dept.
Simply put, these posters just aren’t the thinking types, yet they whine the loudest. Their uninformed hate is what sustains them.
please explain why is it illegal for private sectors to "hey, I want you to work for me, but we will pay you in the future at an uncertain/unknown time"
but it's totally legal for federal government to do that to their employees?
How is that illegal? The workers can agree to work or find a different job.
When these ppl envision federal employees, i’m betting the first image that comes to mind is the black middle aged woman working behind the window at the post office, or the youngish TSA Airport guy, or some 50-year-old paper pusher in some 3-letter government agency in D.C. These are the types of workers they harbor so much disdain for, and consequently, have no sympathy for during this fiasco.
They appear blissfully unaware that federal employees span all education levels and degrees, careers and income levels—accountants, auditors, statsticians, doctors/nurses, corrections officers, IT professionals, mechanics, forest rangers, museum curators, air traffic controllers, and yes, the janitor mopping floors at the Pentagon or mailroom attendant at the Treasury Dept.
Simply put, these posters just aren’t the thinking types, yet they whine the loudest. Their uninformed hate is what sustains them.
How is that illegal? The workers can agree to work or find a different job.
Don't ask me.
You should try it yourself by hiring a bunch of employees to work for you, and at pay day you tell them that you will pay them in the future at unknown time, then tell them to get a new job if they don't like the rules.
You should try it yourself by hiring a bunch of employees to work for you, and at pay day you tell them that you will pay them in the future at unknown time, then tell them to get a new job if they don't like the rules.
Report back here to tell us how that goes
Cite the law that says it is illegal.
I have hired plenty of people.
Actually the situation with the federal employees is completely different. The true equivalency is “I will pay you with other people I take at gunpoint but you don’t have to work.”
Not going to comment on the situation as it sounds so hokey.
Hokey? As in sentimental? Maybe where ever you are from the word has a different meaning. Care to elaborate?
Quote:
1. She will receive her pay for nothing doing work. Name a better deal in the world please.
She isn't doing nothing. She has to work, including travel on her own dime (for which she will not be reimbursed) part time every week.
She is prevented from taking other work. Do you instead suggest that people with security clearances be allowed to take side work with whomever?
Quote:
2. Why can’t you loan her some money?
Who says I haven't? But that isn't the point. She has not lost her job, she is being prevented from working from anyone else, she is prevented from collecting her pay (even when she is working part time) and she is incurring expenses related to a job she is not getting paid for. That should be illegal.
Quote:
3. Why is her personal situation a concern for anybody but you and her?
Because she is in service to a government we all benefit from, and as such the immorality of making her, and all of the other furloughed workers, play hostage in a political standoff falls on all of us.
She is one cog in a team who are responsible for making the charts for the Navy of the seafloor, commercial charts of harbors, ports, etc. even if you live in the middle of country and have never been to sea, those maps add to the security of our military and allow commercial vessels to safely import and export food, goods, so on, contributing to safety of human life and the national GDP. But maybe that is "hokey" to you.
Actually the situation with the federal employees is completely different. The true equivalency is “I will pay you with other people I take at gunpoint but you don’t have to work.”
it's time for you to find a new line of work if you think you can "hey, I promise I will pay you in the future but I don't know when"
Federal law does not require employers to distribute pay in specific intervals (weekly, bimonthly, etc.), though state laws might. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which outlines employee compensation regulations, says that employers must pay their workers "promptly." While the wording is vague, it is generally accepted that pay -- which must come in the form of either cash or a "negotiable instrument" such as a check -- should be received as soon after the most recent pay period as possible. The employer may not withhold any payment, and employees can't be forced to kick back any portion of their wages. In most cases, employers are expected to pay employees for any overtime due to them on the same day that they receive their regular paycheck.
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 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.
