FAA Shutdown Means Workers Must Pay To Work

WASHINGTON -- The failure of Congress to authorize a budget for the Federal Aviation Administration has put some 4,000 agency employees and tens of thousands of contractors temporarily out of work. But even some FAA workers who haven't been furloughed find themselves in a peculiar financial jam.

Roughly 40 FAA inspectors have been asked to continue working despite the stoppage because their jobs are important for air safety. Yet since Congress hasn't allocated money to the agency, these employees have to cover their own travel expenses until the shutdown is resolved. Although their wages and expenses will eventually be recouped, these workers will end up covering work-related credit charges -- and possibly interest -- until funding is freed up.

The inspectors are among the thousands who will suffer the real consequences of congressional deadlock.

Read more @: FAA Shutdown Means Workers Must Pay To Work

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

It's disgusting. The GOP is once again holding something hostage and demanding a ransom. Either we destroy union rights for workers or the FAA stays shut down.

Some of the airlines are thrilled. They get to bleed people for tickets, force people to work for free (or pay to work), etc. And things won't be that much better if the GOP gets their way. Either way, the result is the same.

The idea that it won't compromise safety is BS. The FAA has already missed a deadline for releasing safety protocols. It will only get worse from here. At this point, I wouldn't get on a plane, period. But again, the guys at the top are happy because it's that much more money they can pocket instead of putting back into their company.

I don't really know what should be done. As disastrous as this is, I'm not sure it would be any better in the long run if the Dems had caved. So in a way, it's good they did this. They keep crumbling every time the GOP takes something hostage which just makes them more and more inclined to continue doing so. How many government-made crisis have we had in the past year? At least a handful. I've never seen or even heard of anything like it.

But what are the outcomes of this? The GOP doesn't have much motivation to compromise. Their masters are happy. And they don't care about the people. Even when Congress comes back into session, what possible reason do they have to compromise if they're still getting their all-important corporate money?

And that's the thing about all these GOP-created disasters. It doesn't matter if they get their way or if the disaster comes to fruition. No matter what happens, the people footing their campaign bills are happy, and the people who vote for them are either convinced the second coming is nigh or grasping their guns in excitement for the collapse without understanding what that will do to them, so they don't care either.

In short, I don't see any positive outcome for this.

They will be compensated, they have to be. That includes any interest. Otherwise there are going to be big lawsuits from thousands of people.

I understand why people are annoyed with government about this, but at the same time, they're going to get their money. We just have to hope that in the mean time they can do some stop-gap solutions in their lives to hold on a bit longer.

The debt ceiling discussions were unnecessarily complicated, and in the end the bill ended up being watered down anyway. It was the ultimate instance of time wasted and the end product not having much to show for it. At the same time though, everyone who is on congress, we voted in... so this deal is representative of our own political choices to some degree.

I just hope people get paid who need it, and soon.

Temporal said:

They will be compensated, they have to be.

Click to expand...

Have to?

When most of the red team and a decent chunk of the blue team is owned, they don't "have" to do anything. I think corporations have been making that abundantly clear for the last few years.

They should. And they most likely will, this time around. But have to? Nope.

MistressNomad said:

It's disgusting. The GOP is once again holding something hostage and demanding a ransom. Either we destroy union rights for workers or the FAA stays shut down.

Some of the airlines are thrilled. They get to bleed people for tickets, force people to work for free (or pay to work), etc. And things won't be that much better if the GOP gets their way. Either way, the result is the same.

The idea that it won't compromise safety is BS. The FAA has already missed a deadline for releasing safety protocols. It will only get worse from here. At this point, I wouldn't get on a plane, period. But again, the guys at the top are happy because it's that much more money they can pocket instead of putting back into their company.

I don't really know what should be done. As disastrous as this is, I'm not sure it would be any better in the long run if the Dems had caved. So in a way, it's good they did this. They keep crumbling every time the GOP takes something hostage which just makes them more and more inclined to continue doing so. How many government-made crisis have we had in the past year? At least a handful. I've never seen or even heard of anything like it.

But what are the outcomes of this? The GOP doesn't have much motivation to compromise. Their masters are happy. And they don't care about the people. Even when Congress comes back into session, what possible reason do they have to compromise if they're still getting their all-important corporate money?

And that's the thing about all these GOP-created disasters. It doesn't matter if they get their way or if the disaster comes to fruition. No matter what happens, the people footing their campaign bills are happy, and the people who vote for them are either convinced the second coming is nigh or grasping their guns in excitement for the collapse without understanding what that will do to them, so they don't care either.

In short, I don't see any positive outcome for this.

Click to expand...

You could have saved yourself the longwinded diatribe, and simply said "I hate the GOP."

So - since an agreement was reached and passed they don't actually have to cover the cost of anything?

It was like that earlier this year when things 'almost' stopped - my husband's pay was pre-emptively postponed and he had to go out of town on a pre-planned trip to receive and injured soldier. We dipped into savings to cover the expense - they did reimburse us later.

TheDemSocialist said:

WASHINGTON -- The failure of Congress to authorize a budget for the Federal Aviation Administration has put some 4,000 agency employees and tens of thousands of contractors temporarily out of work. But even some FAA workers who haven't been furloughed find themselves in a peculiar financial jam.

Roughly 40 FAA inspectors have been asked to continue working despite the stoppage because their jobs are important for air safety. Yet since Congress hasn't allocated money to the agency, these employees have to cover their own travel expenses until the shutdown is resolved. Although their wages and expenses will eventually be recouped, these workers will end up covering work-related credit charges -- and possibly interest -- until funding is freed up.

The inspectors are among the thousands who will suffer the real consequences of congressional deadlock.

Read more @: FAA Shutdown Means Workers Must Pay To Work

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

Click to expand...

Boo Hoo........ employees all over the country in private business must pay for their own expenses. They file an expense report and get a check a month later.

You know, thoug h- it does make me wonder what everyone else is even employed for.

their none-essentials outnumber the essentials . . . just what isn't getting done, then? and how soon can they be fired to save the admin money?

Gill said:

Boo Hoo........ employees all over the country in private business must pay for their own expenses. They file an expense report and get a check a month later.

Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit that some of these expenses such as travel can get quite high on their govt credit card, which they are responsible for until reimbursed. We don't know all the details, and I would be surprised if it weren't against regulations to require govt travel without a funding source in place. So things aren't always what they seem either. These employees who are "forced" to work due to national security or safety (like the military does) are probably covered under some emergency funding for immediate expenses related to their work.

Aunt Spiker said:

You know, thoug h- it does make me wonder what everyone else is even employed for.

their none-essentials outnumber the essentials . . . just what isn't getting done, then? and how soon can they be fired to save the admin money?

Click to expand...

I understand how people like to play politics with the terms "essential" and nonessential", but within the govt there are categories of employees under these classes. Uniformed military are usually essential, plus civilian security, civilians required to maintain minimal operations (IT, facilities, certain supervisory personnel). These are usually consider mission essential personnel. It's a silly game that people like to play. The problem is that you don't understand what those terms really mean.

American said:

I understand how people like to play politics with the terms "essential" and nonessential", but within the govt there are categories of employees under these classes. Uniformed military are usually essential, plus civilian security, civilians required to maintain minimal operations (IT, facilities, certain supervisory personnel). These are usually consider mission essential personnel. It's a silly game that people like to play. The problem is that you don't understand what those terms really mean.

Click to expand...

If they can function without everyone else - then why not go that route?

American said:

You could have saved yourself the longwinded diatribe, and simply said "I hate the GOP."

Click to expand...

And you could have saved yourself a response by admitting to yourself you'll defend them no matter what they do.

This is insanity.

American said:

Well, I have to admit that some of these expenses such as travel can get quite high on their govt credit card, which they are responsible for until reimbursed. We don't know all the details, and I would be surprised if it weren't against regulations to require govt travel without a funding source in place. So things aren't always what they seem either. These employees who are "forced" to work due to national security or safety (like the military does) are probably covered under some emergency funding for immediate expenses related to their work.

Click to expand...

You're right, it can but it's no different for people that work for private companies. My company is pretty good about reimbursing expenses, but earlier this year an expense report got fowled up by someone in accounting and it took three months to get reimbursed for $800 in airline tickets.

Aunt Spiker said:

If they can function without everyone else - then why not go that route?

Click to expand...

Nonessential in the aviation world means nobody will be placed in immediate danger without these employees and the air traffic system will continue to function. (air traffic control still works and gets paid, pilots still can do examinations and renewals)

However, it's the airport improvement projects and NextGen development being put on hold that could be an issue. The ATC system is being stretched awfully thin, both in technology (radar systems from the 70s) and staffing. Traffic loads are increasing and the system needs major updates to continue to service that much traffic. Airports need to be expanded to handle additional traffic also. These are employees you can go without... for a while. Eventually these things need to get done.

It's like cleaning the toilet. Yeah, you don't have to clean it every week... but you probably are better off doing so and you are going to have a bad time if you stop cleaning it for 3 months.

Jetboogieman said:

And you could have saved yourself a response by admitting to yourself you'll defend them no matter what they do.

This is insanity.

Click to expand...

With that being said, let's look at the real reason that the shutdown occurred.

Republicans and Democrats acknowledge that causes of the stalemate are twofold. Of immediate concern is language in Mica's proposal that would reduce or kill subsidies to rural airports, specifically targeting airports in Nevada, Montana and New Mexico -- three states with Democratic senators.

Washington remains torn on FAA shutdown - Aug. 3, 2011

Click to expand...

The Republicans don't want to renew airline subsidies, which has the Democrats pissed off and that's the reason the Democrats are sitting on the bill.

Airline subsidies? The airlines aren't making enough money? The Democrats are putting people out of work over airline subsidies? :lamo

How many of the Libbos are going to step up and defend the Democrats, now?

apdst said:

With that being said, let's look at the real reason that the shutdown occurred.



The Republicans don't want to renew airline subsidies, which has the Democrats pissed off and that's the reason the Democrats are sitting on the bill.

Airline subsidies? The airlines aren't making enough money? The Democrats are putting people out of work over airline subsidies? :lamo

How many of the Libbos are going to step up and defend the Democrats, now?

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the subsidies. That republican move was specifically targeted at Democratic jurisdictions while the subsidies were left in place everywhere else. In other words, it was another republican dirty trick.

The dispute is 100% about republican efforts to tie continued FAA funding to an effort to roll back union rules.

If this was really about $16.5 million in subsidies then the republicans should be horsewhipped. The shutdown has already cost the government over a billion dollars in loss revenue. They could pay those subsides for a 100 years and it wouldn't equal the revenue they've already lost.

American said:

I understand how people like to play politics with the terms "essential" and nonessential", but within the govt there are categories of employees under these classes. Uniformed military are usually essential, plus civilian security, civilians required to maintain minimal operations (IT, facilities, certain supervisory personnel). These are usually consider mission essential personnel. It's a silly game that people like to play. The problem is that you don't understand what those terms really mean.

Click to expand...

[emphasis added by bubba]

what i recognize is that you don't either
at least not to the point to be able to describe what aspects of each position determine whether an employee is essential or non-essential

AdamT said:

It has nothing to do with the subsidies. That republican move was specifically targeted at Democratic jurisdictions while the subsidies were left in place everywhere else. In other words, it was another republican dirty trick.

The dispute is 100% about republican efforts to tie continued FAA funding to an effort to roll back union rules.

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with airline subsidies. The Democrats want the subsidies, while the Republicans are trying to cut all this spending. I

Wait, I thought the Leftists were opposed to subsidies!

If this was really about $16.5 million in subsidies then the republicans should be horsewhipped. The shutdown has already cost the government over a billion dollars in loss revenue. They could pay those subsides for a 100 years and it wouldn't equal the revenue they've already lost.

Click to expand...

Well, then maybe the friggin Democrats should have given way on the airline subsidies. The Dems are ****ing themselves on this one.

AdamT said:

It has nothing to do with the subsidies. That republican move was specifically targeted at Democratic jurisdictions while the subsidies were left in place everywhere else. In other words, it was another republican dirty trick.

The dispute is 100% about republican efforts to tie continued FAA funding to an effort to roll back union rules.

If this was really about $16.5 million in subsidies then the republicans should be horsewhipped. The shutdown has already cost the government over a billion dollars in loss revenue. They could pay those subsides for a 100 years and it wouldn't equal the revenue they've already lost.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is primarily about subsidies. Republicans want to stop subsidies for airports within easy driving distance of another major airport and those that have few passengers. Under the program, airlines must fly at least two round trips to these small airports each day. It's often the case that NO passengers are on the flights. The airlines don't care because the federal government is paying them.

I think its hilarious that Dems are shutting down the FAA and costing the U.S. billions of dollars so they can preserve subsidies to major corporations.

Hypocrisy anyone ???

Gill said:

Yes, it is primarily about subsidies. Republicans want to stop subsidies for airports within easy driving distance of another major airport and those that have few passengers. Under the program, airlines must fly at least two round trips to these small airports each day. It's often the case that NO passengers are on the flights. The airlines don't care because the federal government is paying them.

Click to expand...

it can't be about the subsidies
there was an attempt to pass a clean bill, to allow the FAA to receive its funding. that 'clean' bill eliminated any providions for elimination of union representation. it also contained no provision for the elimination of transit subsidies

... Later, Rockefeller sought a vote on a "clean" bill to end the shutdown that didn't include any subsidy cuts or other policy provisions. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, blocked the vote, saying he was concerned about the labor issue, although the bill didn't contain a labor provision. ...

Click to expand...

Senate plan to end FAA shutdown falls apart : Kitsap Sun

the cost of the subsidy program is $200 million annually. that is the amount the FCC loses weekly when it is prevented from receiving ticket taxes
it makes no fiscal sense to give up $200 million a week to "save" $200 million per year

I think its hilarious that Dems are shutting down the FAA and costing the U.S. billions of dollars so they can preserve subsidies to major corporations.

Hypocrisy anyone ???

Click to expand...

the dems are refusing to take union rights away from employees who now have them
as was pointed out above, there was an attempt to pass a clean bill to fund the FAA but that attempt was scuttled by the republicans
appears the republicans are willing to give up $200 million in weekly revenues to "save" $200 million per year in transit subsidies
but it gets worse. we are now expecting essential employees to cover their own work costs. the federal employee should NEVER be expected to subsidize the federal government
and the 'family friendly' republicans are willing to allow the 4,000 laid off wage employees to suffer while this goes unresolved; likewise the 70,000 employees laid off by the contractors who have received "stop work" orders
few will understand how expensive a stop work order is for the government to issue. when the work resumes, the government will have to pay for all the costs incurred during the stoppage, plus the additional monies required to re-start the project. that overhead, rental/lease expense, shrinkage of materials ... every cost the contractor would normally incur, except the direct labor wages ... will be passed on to the taxpayer as added expense of the job. like the additional ticket prices delta is now pocketing because the FAA is unable to collect them, this will be gravy to the construction companies

this is another in a long series of the republicans acting in a way opposing the wage earners' interests

MistressNomad said:

It's disgusting. The GOP is once again holding something hostage and demanding a ransom. Either we destroy union rights for workers or the FAA stays shut down.

Some of the airlines are thrilled. They get to bleed people for tickets, force people to work for free (or pay to work), etc. And things won't be that much better if the GOP gets their way. Either way, the result is the same.

The idea that it won't compromise safety is BS. The FAA has already missed a deadline for releasing safety protocols. It will only get worse from here. At this point, I wouldn't get on a plane, period. But again, the guys at the top are happy because it's that much more money they can pocket instead of putting back into their company.

I don't really know what should be done. As disastrous as this is, I'm not sure it would be any better in the long run if the Dems had caved. So in a way, it's good they did this. They keep crumbling every time the GOP takes something hostage which just makes them more and more inclined to continue doing so. How many government-made crisis have we had in the past year? At least a handful. I've never seen or even heard of anything like it.

But what are the outcomes of this? The GOP doesn't have much motivation to compromise. Their masters are happy. And they don't care about the people. Even when Congress comes back into session, what possible reason do they have to compromise if they're still getting their all-important corporate money?

And that's the thing about all these GOP-created disasters. It doesn't matter if they get their way or if the disaster comes to fruition. No matter what happens, the people footing their campaign bills are happy, and the people who vote for them are either convinced the second coming is nigh or grasping their guns in excitement for the collapse without understanding what that will do to them, so they don't care either.

In short, I don't see any positive outcome for this.

Click to expand...

"WASHINGTON -- The failure of Congress to authorize a budget for the Federal Aviation Administration has put some 4,000 agency employees and tens of thousands of contractors temporarily out of work. But even some FAA workers who haven't been furloughed find themselves in a peculiar financial jam."

Are you saying the GOP didn't authorize a budget? Is it the GOP who hasn't written a federal budget in over two years? You don't see any way out because you see what you choose to see.

justabubba said:

it can't be about the subsidies

Click to expand...

Let me help you since you obviously started your rant without reading what I wrote...........

Gill said:

Yes, it is primarily about subsidies.

Click to expand...

If it also lessens the stranglehold unions have on our economy, then that is a much needed side benefit.

Gill said:

Let me help you since you obviously started your rant without reading what I wrote...........



If it also lessens the stranglehold unions have on our economy, then that is a much needed side benefit.

Click to expand...

you seem unable to appreciate that a clean bill - one without any reference to subsidies or union rights - was ****canned by the republicans. despite that such a clean bill would have again funded the FAA so it could perform its important work
given that declination to vote on a clean bill, one can only conclude the republican interests necessarily had to be about subsidies and/or union rights

Patrickt said:

"WASHINGTON -- The failure of Congress to authorize a budget for the Federal Aviation Administration has put some 4,000 agency employees and tens of thousands of contractors temporarily out of work. But even some FAA workers who haven't been furloughed find themselves in a peculiar financial jam."

Are you saying the GOP didn't authorize a budget? Is it the GOP who hasn't written a federal budget in over two years? You don't see any way out because you see what you choose to see.

Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is that the GOP didn't authorize the FAA funding measure. Does that help?

Gill said:

If it also lessens the stranglehold unions have on our economy, then that is a much needed side benefit.

Click to expand...

The unions have a stranglehold on the economy?