• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should non-essential employees get back pay?

Should they recieve back pay

  • Total voters
    19
jamesrage said:
So you want people to be paid for work that they didn't do?Why not give employees the opportunity to make up for lost days?
Click to expand...

Your congressman makes these decisions, that's who you should write and complain to. If you don't think fed employees should be paid, that's where you go. On the same note, people who lose their jobs should not be getting unemployment benefits either, since they are not working.
 
What should happen, but never will, is a law that Congress must pass a balanced budget by the set deadline, and that failure to do so will trigger a general election in which every seat is up for grabs, and no incumbent can run. That will get them to do what we've elected them to do.
 
Zyphlin said:
It looks as if a government shutdown is extremely likely to occur at midnight tonight. When that happens essential employees will continue to work, but will not be paid until the shutdown ends. Non-essential employees will be furloughed without their salaries. In 1996, when passing the new budget, the congresses authorized backpay for the employees that were furloughed. Whether or not that will occur for this shutdown is unknown. My question to you is should it be?

Going against the notion of back pay is a couple of things that I can think of. First and foremost, these individuals will not have worked adn thus shouldn't be entitled to pay. Additionally, as we know we're in a financially troubled time in this country and not paying them would mean more money to be used elsewhere.

On the flip side, these individuals are not striking. They are not choosing to not work. They are being forced out of their job because the Congress is not successfully doing theirs. They are already being punished by essentially having their salaries at the very least delayed, potentially causing issues for various bills and expenses, and by causing their workload to significantly pile up. Should they have extra punishment placed on top for Congresses ineptitude by not just delaying, but cutting, their salaries?

So what do you all say? Should there be back pay, should they be paid nothing, or some other alternative?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't be paid, they're part of the government and while it isn't a rare event, government shut downs do happen every so often. It's the governments inability to govern, and this is a side effect of it. Government employees don't get paid when the government isn't working.
 
American said:
Your congressman makes these decisions, that's who you should write and complain to. If you don't think fed employees should be paid, that's where you go. On the same note, people who lose their jobs should not be getting unemployment benefits either, since they are not working.
Click to expand...

I never said federal employees should not be paid for the work they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom