• 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
Zyphlin said:
On principle I really want to see them not be paid unless a full reimbursement occurs. But realistically, they have to be essential, or else it'd be illegal for them to meet together to actually pass a budget that will let everyone come back to work
Click to expand...

They have to keep working, but why'd they have to keep earning? It is their refusal to work properly (i.e. pas a budget) that is causing all this. That others suffer while the perpetrators sit pretty is pretty sick.
 
Zyphlin said:
On principle I really want to see them not be paid unless a full reimbursement occurs. But realistically, they have to be essential, or else it'd be illegal for them to meet together to actually pass a budget that will let everyone come back to work
Click to expand...

I know, I just get tired of everyone else being screwed while the fat cats get over on the people for nothing.
 
If their services are non essential, why do we keep them on? Let's spend what money we have on the essential services, then balance the budget.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Only the Employees that are still working during the shutdown like the Military should get back pay for work rendered.
Click to expand...

Unlike the civilian government employee, we are contracted, which means that we will get our back pay in the end. Civilians can just quit and move into private sector. We are bound by contract and will be invited to a Court Martial if we dare "quit."

Of course, I have my own thought. Since both Democrats and Republicans are using the military as that hapless victim, yet again, to push their agendas and blames on each other... I believe that the Joint Chiefs of Staff should shut our military down along with all the civilians that are so easily dismissed by our elected pieces of **** in Washington. All those deployed are to hunker down on the bases and those about to deploy should just stay at home until called. I guarantee the traitors in Washington would sign any damn thing that is presented to them within days to avoid the stigma of embarrassment while we become the nation's heroes. What would they do? Court Martial a million of us?

Turkey's military seems to coup every 15 years or so and hits the reset button on their democracy. Now, being a good Marine of sound discipline I would never suggest such a thing, but at what point does the American military's responsibility go towards the American people against those in Washington who seem hell bent on betraying them?
 
MSgt said:
Unlike the civilian government employee, we are contracted, which means that we will get our back pay in the end. Civilians can just quit and move into private sector. We are bound by contract and will be invited to a Court Martial if we dare "quit."

Of course, I have my own thought. Since both Democrats and Republicans are using the military as that hapless victim, yet again, to push their agendas and blames on each other... I believe that the Joint Chiefs of Staff should shut our military down along with all the civilians that are so easily dismissed by our elected pieces of **** in Washington. All those deployed are to hunker down on the bases and those about to deploy should just stay at home until called. I guarantee the traitors in Washington would sign any damn thing that is presented to them within days to avoid the stigma of embarrassment while we become the nation's heroes. What would they do? Court Martial a million of us?

Turkey's military seems to coup every 15 years or so and hits the reset button on their democracy. Now, being a good Marine of sound discipline I would never suggest such a thing, but at what point does the American military's responsibility go towards the American people against those in Washington who seem hell bent on betraying them?
Click to expand...

That's some Dangerous talk right there.
 
MSgt said:
Unlike the civilian government employee, we are contracted, which means that we will get our back pay in the end. Civilians can just quit and move into private sector. We are bound by contract and will be invited to a Court Martial if we dare "quit."

Of course, I have my own thought. Since both Democrats and Republicans are using the military as that hapless victim, yet again, to push their agendas and blames on each other... I believe that the Joint Chiefs of Staff should shut our military down along with all the civilians that are so easily dismissed by our elected pieces of **** in Washington. All those deployed are to hunker down on the bases and those about to deploy should just stay at home until called. I guarantee the traitors in Washington would sign any damn thing that is presented to them within days to avoid the stigma of embarrassment while we become the nation's heroes. What would they do? Court Martial a million of us?

Turkey's military seems to coup every 15 years or so and hits the reset button on their democracy. Now, being a good Marine of sound discipline I would never suggest such a thing, but at what point does the American military's responsibility go towards the American people against those in Washington who seem hell bent on betraying them?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you on much, but being a veteran I have to agree 100%.

Those are as Cpgrad08 said, very dangerous words in this day and age.

PS: To be honest I am actually nervous agreeing with it on a public forum.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I hate our government sometimes. XD
Click to expand...

Only sometimes? Our elected civilian leaders are the ultimate failures in our society. They fail at peace and ram us into war. Then, due to their complete celebration of ignorance, they can't explain the wars or the cultures within them. Then they force themselves into the war screwing things up just to salvage a sense of accompllishment at troop expense. Then, after taking turns screwing up our budget situation for years, while preaching about creating jobs and economy, they throw boogers at each other in the Halls of Washington while ramming people into furloughs and bad personal economic situations.

Only sometimes?
 
MSgt said:
Only sometimes? Our elected civilian leaders are the ultimate failures in our society. They fail at peace and ram us into war. Then, due to their complete celebration of ignorance, they can't explain the wars or the cultures within them. Then they force themselves into the war screwing things up just to salvage a sense of accompllishment at troop expense. Then, after taking turns screwing up our budget situation for years, while preaching about creating jobs and economy, they throw boogers at each other in the Halls of Washington while ramming people into furloughs and bad personal economic situations.

Only sometimes?
Click to expand...

OK. All the time. :p

Well since 1995 anyway.
 
Andalublue said:
They have to keep working, but why'd they have to keep earning? It is their refusal to work properly (i.e. pas a budget) that is causing all this. That others suffer while the perpetrators sit pretty is pretty sick.
Click to expand...

Because essentially under the law as it stands there's just two designations, exempted and non-exempted. Exempted are essentially garaunteed their back pay because they're continuing to work and the government has to pay them for work. Non-Exempted are actually legally not allowed to work. IE, its a federal offense to work when you're not being paid for it as a non-exempted. To the point where they actually take peoples blackberries away apparently in some places because the use of it for any word business at all is illegal.

So under the law as it stands they either work, and get paid in the end, or they don't work, and they don't get paid.

They could concievably do three things about this...

They could pass a new law creating a third status specifically for them that allows them to work but not be paid.

They could pass a new law creating a third status specifically for them that pays them but at a severely reduced salary (such as Goodell taking a $1 sallary as commissioner during the lock out).

They could simply give their money away in some form after they get paid.

But as the law stands now, if they didn't get paid they couldn't work on getting a new budget. Its annoying and dumb, and I hope they do something about it, but that's the reason for it at the time being.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If their services are non essential, why do we keep them on? Let's spend what money we have on the essential services, then balance the budget.
Click to expand...

Please read post #15 and then respond if you want to make this comment.
 
cpgrad08 said:
That's some Dangerous talk right there.
Click to expand...

I'm a dangerous guy. We are icing on their **** cupcake. You may as well embrace it now....

We are used for sympathy by both parties to fool the average citizen into votes. We are portrayed as hapless victims of corporate greed by protestors and critics to fool the average citizen for their votes. We are "Troops to Support" when convenient and especially in front of microphones to fool the average citizen into votes. We are constantly dropped into situations we aren't trained for as politicians preach their ideologies and humanitarianisms to fool the average citizen into votes. And this isn't just about their decrepit behaviors towards the military.

Does any minority still think a Democrat is a friend? Does any middle class worker think a Republican is a friend?

Like I always state, "past the voters booth, you simply don't matter." And if you are military, you matter less. But we Americans like our illusions don't we?

I paraphrase Lentulus Batiatus from the Capua ludus, "Words fall from their mouths like **** from ass."
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Please read post #15 and then respond if you want to make this comment.
Click to expand...

Oh, so non essential doesn't actually mean that their work is not essential.

My bad. I should know by now that terms used by the government don't mean what Daniel Webster had in mind.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, so non essential doesn't actually mean that their work is not essential.

My bad. I should know by now that terms used by the government don't mean what Daniel Webster had in mind.
Click to expand...

As I've told my bosses and coworkers often...

Silly [person], you were thinking logic and common sense applied to the government.

;)
 
MaggieD said:
They should be paid nothing. Unless they choose to use personal, sick or vacation days. They get plenty; let 'em use 'em. A government shutdown should not be extra vacation time.
Click to expand...

All leave is officially cancelled during a furlough by statute. Therefore they can't use it. I wonder if people on welfare lose their money. :ssst:
 
MSgt said:
I'm a dangerous guy. We are icing on their **** cupcake. You may as well embrace it now....

We are used for sympathy by both parties to fool the average citizen into votes. We are portrayed as hapless victims of corporate greed by protestors and critics to fool the average citizen for their votes. We are "Troops to Support" when convenient and especially in front of microphones to fool the average citizen into votes. We are constantly dropped into situations we aren't trained for as politicians preach their ideologies and humanitarianisms to fool the average citizen into votes. And this isn't just about their decrepit behaviors towards the military.

Does any minority still think a Democrat is a friend? Does any middle class worker think a Republican is a friend?

Like I always state, "past the voters booth, you simply don't matter." And if you are military, you matter less. But we Americans like our illusions don't we?

I paraphrase Lentulus Batiatus from the Capua ludus, "Words fall from their mouths like **** from ass."
Click to expand...

That was young Vetius' line, not Batiatus.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I had to laugh when I read this. I immediately thought, "Star, your Very Liberal slip is showing!" Then, I looked at what I wrote and said, "Maggie, your Conservative undies are in a wedgie."

:rofl
Click to expand...


lol honesty at its best...good job maggie :)
 
Zyphlin said:
This is correct if the furlough is being done to "save money". For example, some months ago there was talk about furlouging federal employees 2 weeks out of the year. The plan was to do one day a pay period over a period of 14 pay periods so as not to create a hardship on the employees of an entire 2 week period without pay. This was going to be done to "save money".

This is not the case of the current furlough. This is not the congress choosing to furlough federal employees to save money, but rather that there is simply no money available to PAY employees so you can't have them come to work. So you can either fire them, or furlough them. Since there will be money at some point eventually its better to furlough them, keep them employed, and bring them back at the point that you DO have money to pay them.

So in general I agree with you there when a furlough is done to save money. That however is not how this furlough is coming to be. Its not being voted on by congress to save money, its occuring because Congress isn't authorizing any money to pay at the moment. So you're dealing with two different scenarios there.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

Yes - they should get backpay. It is not their fault NOR do they have any control AT ALL. They most certainly can't quickly go and find a new job to work in order to tide them over. . . some might but most don't have that as an option.

We are all SALARY employees of the government - very few individuals are hourly pay.

"non-essential" doesn't mean their jobs don't matter or aren't important. It means that their jobs aren't 100% hardcore essential to the functioning of the government itself - but they still need ot get their work done at some point.

My husband, I suppose, is 'essential' and will work through this bullcrap - he will be receiving 1/2 pay this coming paycheck. Beyond that? Who knows - half, none? Some of his coworkers and assistants are "non essential" however - but that doesn't mean that they still don't have to catch up on their work when they get back - which will be backed up beyond belief. Even one employee at the WTU being gone for ONE day creates a massive backload of crap to be sorted through.

So - don't consider it "pay for hours not worked" consider it "the many hours of double-duty they have ot pull when they come back" and "asshole tax for the government causing problems beyond belief"

I don't know how long this will last - how many paychecks will be sliced? How many will be $0.00 altogether? But I hope it doesn't last long - our savings will tap out quickly and then what? Without backpay we'll be back to where we started savings-wise two years ago.
 
Last edited:
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...

I voted "Other."

Everything you say is true. On one hand these federal employees aren't working. On the other hand, it's not for their lack of wanting to.

So here's what I think should happen.

Constitutionally speaking, all Congressmen and Senators cannot reduce their pay. This is so that their salary can't be used as coercion for a bill.

So what I think should happen is that each and every Congressman and Senator should donate the pay they get while the government is shut down to a fund to pay for those federal employees who are furloughed.

After all, these federal employees still have rent and bills to pay, so it's not fair that everybody in Congress is being a total asshat. Therefore those asshats should voluntarily donate their pay to the employees not getting paid.

That's the only thing that seems truly fair to me.
 
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...

I did not say that. I said that a furlough in this case would not be enacted to save money but rather enacted due to lack of allocated money. I was not advocating either way with regards to reimbursement, just pointing out the error in your description of why the furlough would be happening
 
The work doesn't magically go away, it sits around until the workers come back and they work through it to catch up. If they are prevented from working for a month, they will still do a years work, but just have eleven months in which to do it. They want to do it but have no choice if they are prevented, why should they lose pay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom