In the news, it says “essential” government employees would be required to work withouth pay. How?
In the news, the reporters have been talking about "essential" (real quotes, not scare quotes) government employees being required to work without pay by two statements.
All employees will have to forgo pay during the shutdown.
Essential employees will be working during the shutdown while non-essential employees will be sent home.
I remember the thirteenth amendment banning "slavery and involuntary servitude" and this is in fact so powerful that the federal government cannot force private practitioners to take Medicare at all.
I again remember the ability to draft for reasons of national security, but I know of no case where that drafting was not with full pay according to the normal government pay scales.
But even if the government is really out of money (which it isn't; during a shutdown it should be running a tax surplus*), I can't imagine how this leads to requiring people to work without pay. My normal assumption would be you print unbacked money if you have to (and deal with the inflation later) to pay the troops.
But they say the employees will be required to work without pay. How?
*They say the shutdowns cost the government money. The net loss is due to the almost universal practice of paying all the government workers after the fact.
united-states government-shutdown
add a comment |
In the news, the reporters have been talking about "essential" (real quotes, not scare quotes) government employees being required to work without pay by two statements.
All employees will have to forgo pay during the shutdown.
Essential employees will be working during the shutdown while non-essential employees will be sent home.
I remember the thirteenth amendment banning "slavery and involuntary servitude" and this is in fact so powerful that the federal government cannot force private practitioners to take Medicare at all.
I again remember the ability to draft for reasons of national security, but I know of no case where that drafting was not with full pay according to the normal government pay scales.
But even if the government is really out of money (which it isn't; during a shutdown it should be running a tax surplus*), I can't imagine how this leads to requiring people to work without pay. My normal assumption would be you print unbacked money if you have to (and deal with the inflation later) to pay the troops.
But they say the employees will be required to work without pay. How?
*They say the shutdowns cost the government money. The net loss is due to the almost universal practice of paying all the government workers after the fact.
united-states government-shutdown
It would be helpful if you would provide citations for those reporters who are saying that "government employees being required to work without pay". If that is an accurate quote, it is probably a good example is bad reporting (or lazy reporting).
– BobE
1 hour ago
@BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
– cpast
1 hour ago
@BobE: kcra.com/article/…
– Joshua
1 hour ago
add a comment |
In the news, the reporters have been talking about "essential" (real quotes, not scare quotes) government employees being required to work without pay by two statements.
All employees will have to forgo pay during the shutdown.
Essential employees will be working during the shutdown while non-essential employees will be sent home.
I remember the thirteenth amendment banning "slavery and involuntary servitude" and this is in fact so powerful that the federal government cannot force private practitioners to take Medicare at all.
I again remember the ability to draft for reasons of national security, but I know of no case where that drafting was not with full pay according to the normal government pay scales.
But even if the government is really out of money (which it isn't; during a shutdown it should be running a tax surplus*), I can't imagine how this leads to requiring people to work without pay. My normal assumption would be you print unbacked money if you have to (and deal with the inflation later) to pay the troops.
But they say the employees will be required to work without pay. How?
*They say the shutdowns cost the government money. The net loss is due to the almost universal practice of paying all the government workers after the fact.
united-states government-shutdown
In the news, the reporters have been talking about "essential" (real quotes, not scare quotes) government employees being required to work without pay by two statements.
All employees will have to forgo pay during the shutdown.
Essential employees will be working during the shutdown while non-essential employees will be sent home.
I remember the thirteenth amendment banning "slavery and involuntary servitude" and this is in fact so powerful that the federal government cannot force private practitioners to take Medicare at all.
I again remember the ability to draft for reasons of national security, but I know of no case where that drafting was not with full pay according to the normal government pay scales.
But even if the government is really out of money (which it isn't; during a shutdown it should be running a tax surplus*), I can't imagine how this leads to requiring people to work without pay. My normal assumption would be you print unbacked money if you have to (and deal with the inflation later) to pay the troops.
But they say the employees will be required to work without pay. How?
*They say the shutdowns cost the government money. The net loss is due to the almost universal practice of paying all the government workers after the fact.
united-states government-shutdown
united-states government-shutdown
edited 4 hours ago
asked 5 hours ago
Joshua
363110
363110
It would be helpful if you would provide citations for those reporters who are saying that "government employees being required to work without pay". If that is an accurate quote, it is probably a good example is bad reporting (or lazy reporting).
– BobE
1 hour ago
@BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
– cpast
1 hour ago
@BobE: kcra.com/article/…
– Joshua
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It would be helpful if you would provide citations for those reporters who are saying that "government employees being required to work without pay". If that is an accurate quote, it is probably a good example is bad reporting (or lazy reporting).
– BobE
1 hour ago
@BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
– cpast
1 hour ago
@BobE: kcra.com/article/…
– Joshua
1 hour ago
It would be helpful if you would provide citations for those reporters who are saying that "government employees being required to work without pay". If that is an accurate quote, it is probably a good example is bad reporting (or lazy reporting).
– BobE
1 hour ago
It would be helpful if you would provide citations for those reporters who are saying that "government employees being required to work without pay". If that is an accurate quote, it is probably a good example is bad reporting (or lazy reporting).
– BobE
1 hour ago
@BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
– cpast
1 hour ago
@BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
– cpast
1 hour ago
@BobE: kcra.com/article/…
– Joshua
1 hour ago
@BobE: kcra.com/article/…
– Joshua
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
First, slavery has literally nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is paid, nor with how much they're paid. Slavery and involuntary servitude are forced labor, not unpaid labor. If you are paying someone millions of dollars but threaten to kill them if they quit, that's involuntary servitude. If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away, that's quite possibly legal (volunteering is often legal), often non-criminal, and if it is criminal might be just a misdemeanor.
Second, people who are required to work to a shutdown are in a pay status. They can't actually get paychecks until the government reopens, but they're legally entitled to their full pay for every hour worked. This is also why furloughed people aren't allowed to work: because federal employees are entitled to pay for hours worked, any work they do results in the government owing them money that hasn't been appropriated. Federal agencies can mostly only do that for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work.
Lastly, people are only "required to work" in a shutdown in the same way civilian federal employees are always required to work: refusing means you can be fired, but you're certainly free to quit. Refusing also means you pretty much won't be paid back wages when the government reopens (if you refuse an order to work you're placed in AWOL status instead of furlough status, and back pay isn't given to people in AWOL status).
Military personnel are truly required to work (refusal can result in criminal punishment), but the 13th Amendment doesn't mean the military can't punish desertion or refusal to obey orders.
1
Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
– Joshua
3 hours ago
"Federal agencies can mostly only [incur debts] for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work." - No such exception appears in 31 USC 1341. 1342 does mention emergency operations, but does not specifically authorize incurring debts, so it is unclear to me that this is actually correct.
– Kevin
48 mins ago
@Kevin 1341 and 1342 are a pair; they used to both be section 665 until a statutory reorganization that was specifically not meant to change the substance. The OLC has analyzed 1342 (when it was 665(b)) and concluded it's really about accepting services for future compensation (since it's always been part of an antideficiency statute), so its exception authorizes those employees to work in a shutdown. See 5 Op. O.L.C. 1.
– cpast
24 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37447%2fin-the-news-it-says-essential-government-employees-would-be-required-to-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
First, slavery has literally nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is paid, nor with how much they're paid. Slavery and involuntary servitude are forced labor, not unpaid labor. If you are paying someone millions of dollars but threaten to kill them if they quit, that's involuntary servitude. If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away, that's quite possibly legal (volunteering is often legal), often non-criminal, and if it is criminal might be just a misdemeanor.
Second, people who are required to work to a shutdown are in a pay status. They can't actually get paychecks until the government reopens, but they're legally entitled to their full pay for every hour worked. This is also why furloughed people aren't allowed to work: because federal employees are entitled to pay for hours worked, any work they do results in the government owing them money that hasn't been appropriated. Federal agencies can mostly only do that for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work.
Lastly, people are only "required to work" in a shutdown in the same way civilian federal employees are always required to work: refusing means you can be fired, but you're certainly free to quit. Refusing also means you pretty much won't be paid back wages when the government reopens (if you refuse an order to work you're placed in AWOL status instead of furlough status, and back pay isn't given to people in AWOL status).
Military personnel are truly required to work (refusal can result in criminal punishment), but the 13th Amendment doesn't mean the military can't punish desertion or refusal to obey orders.
1
Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
– Joshua
3 hours ago
"Federal agencies can mostly only [incur debts] for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work." - No such exception appears in 31 USC 1341. 1342 does mention emergency operations, but does not specifically authorize incurring debts, so it is unclear to me that this is actually correct.
– Kevin
48 mins ago
@Kevin 1341 and 1342 are a pair; they used to both be section 665 until a statutory reorganization that was specifically not meant to change the substance. The OLC has analyzed 1342 (when it was 665(b)) and concluded it's really about accepting services for future compensation (since it's always been part of an antideficiency statute), so its exception authorizes those employees to work in a shutdown. See 5 Op. O.L.C. 1.
– cpast
24 mins ago
add a comment |
First, slavery has literally nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is paid, nor with how much they're paid. Slavery and involuntary servitude are forced labor, not unpaid labor. If you are paying someone millions of dollars but threaten to kill them if they quit, that's involuntary servitude. If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away, that's quite possibly legal (volunteering is often legal), often non-criminal, and if it is criminal might be just a misdemeanor.
Second, people who are required to work to a shutdown are in a pay status. They can't actually get paychecks until the government reopens, but they're legally entitled to their full pay for every hour worked. This is also why furloughed people aren't allowed to work: because federal employees are entitled to pay for hours worked, any work they do results in the government owing them money that hasn't been appropriated. Federal agencies can mostly only do that for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work.
Lastly, people are only "required to work" in a shutdown in the same way civilian federal employees are always required to work: refusing means you can be fired, but you're certainly free to quit. Refusing also means you pretty much won't be paid back wages when the government reopens (if you refuse an order to work you're placed in AWOL status instead of furlough status, and back pay isn't given to people in AWOL status).
Military personnel are truly required to work (refusal can result in criminal punishment), but the 13th Amendment doesn't mean the military can't punish desertion or refusal to obey orders.
1
Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
– Joshua
3 hours ago
"Federal agencies can mostly only [incur debts] for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work." - No such exception appears in 31 USC 1341. 1342 does mention emergency operations, but does not specifically authorize incurring debts, so it is unclear to me that this is actually correct.
– Kevin
48 mins ago
@Kevin 1341 and 1342 are a pair; they used to both be section 665 until a statutory reorganization that was specifically not meant to change the substance. The OLC has analyzed 1342 (when it was 665(b)) and concluded it's really about accepting services for future compensation (since it's always been part of an antideficiency statute), so its exception authorizes those employees to work in a shutdown. See 5 Op. O.L.C. 1.
– cpast
24 mins ago
add a comment |
First, slavery has literally nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is paid, nor with how much they're paid. Slavery and involuntary servitude are forced labor, not unpaid labor. If you are paying someone millions of dollars but threaten to kill them if they quit, that's involuntary servitude. If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away, that's quite possibly legal (volunteering is often legal), often non-criminal, and if it is criminal might be just a misdemeanor.
Second, people who are required to work to a shutdown are in a pay status. They can't actually get paychecks until the government reopens, but they're legally entitled to their full pay for every hour worked. This is also why furloughed people aren't allowed to work: because federal employees are entitled to pay for hours worked, any work they do results in the government owing them money that hasn't been appropriated. Federal agencies can mostly only do that for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work.
Lastly, people are only "required to work" in a shutdown in the same way civilian federal employees are always required to work: refusing means you can be fired, but you're certainly free to quit. Refusing also means you pretty much won't be paid back wages when the government reopens (if you refuse an order to work you're placed in AWOL status instead of furlough status, and back pay isn't given to people in AWOL status).
Military personnel are truly required to work (refusal can result in criminal punishment), but the 13th Amendment doesn't mean the military can't punish desertion or refusal to obey orders.
First, slavery has literally nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is paid, nor with how much they're paid. Slavery and involuntary servitude are forced labor, not unpaid labor. If you are paying someone millions of dollars but threaten to kill them if they quit, that's involuntary servitude. If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away, that's quite possibly legal (volunteering is often legal), often non-criminal, and if it is criminal might be just a misdemeanor.
Second, people who are required to work to a shutdown are in a pay status. They can't actually get paychecks until the government reopens, but they're legally entitled to their full pay for every hour worked. This is also why furloughed people aren't allowed to work: because federal employees are entitled to pay for hours worked, any work they do results in the government owing them money that hasn't been appropriated. Federal agencies can mostly only do that for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work.
Lastly, people are only "required to work" in a shutdown in the same way civilian federal employees are always required to work: refusing means you can be fired, but you're certainly free to quit. Refusing also means you pretty much won't be paid back wages when the government reopens (if you refuse an order to work you're placed in AWOL status instead of furlough status, and back pay isn't given to people in AWOL status).
Military personnel are truly required to work (refusal can result in criminal punishment), but the 13th Amendment doesn't mean the military can't punish desertion or refusal to obey orders.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
cpast
7,47912545
7,47912545
1
Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
– Joshua
3 hours ago
"Federal agencies can mostly only [incur debts] for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work." - No such exception appears in 31 USC 1341. 1342 does mention emergency operations, but does not specifically authorize incurring debts, so it is unclear to me that this is actually correct.
– Kevin
48 mins ago
@Kevin 1341 and 1342 are a pair; they used to both be section 665 until a statutory reorganization that was specifically not meant to change the substance. The OLC has analyzed 1342 (when it was 665(b)) and concluded it's really about accepting services for future compensation (since it's always been part of an antideficiency statute), so its exception authorizes those employees to work in a shutdown. See 5 Op. O.L.C. 1.
– cpast
24 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
– Joshua
3 hours ago
"Federal agencies can mostly only [incur debts] for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work." - No such exception appears in 31 USC 1341. 1342 does mention emergency operations, but does not specifically authorize incurring debts, so it is unclear to me that this is actually correct.
– Kevin
48 mins ago
@Kevin 1341 and 1342 are a pair; they used to both be section 665 until a statutory reorganization that was specifically not meant to change the substance. The OLC has analyzed 1342 (when it was 665(b)) and concluded it's really about accepting services for future compensation (since it's always been part of an antideficiency statute), so its exception authorizes those employees to work in a shutdown. See 5 Op. O.L.C. 1.
– cpast
24 mins ago
1
1
Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
– Joshua
3 hours ago
Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
– Joshua
3 hours ago
"Federal agencies can mostly only [incur debts] for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work." - No such exception appears in 31 USC 1341. 1342 does mention emergency operations, but does not specifically authorize incurring debts, so it is unclear to me that this is actually correct.
– Kevin
48 mins ago
"Federal agencies can mostly only [incur debts] for essential tasks, so anyone not doing an essential task can't be allowed to work." - No such exception appears in 31 USC 1341. 1342 does mention emergency operations, but does not specifically authorize incurring debts, so it is unclear to me that this is actually correct.
– Kevin
48 mins ago
@Kevin 1341 and 1342 are a pair; they used to both be section 665 until a statutory reorganization that was specifically not meant to change the substance. The OLC has analyzed 1342 (when it was 665(b)) and concluded it's really about accepting services for future compensation (since it's always been part of an antideficiency statute), so its exception authorizes those employees to work in a shutdown. See 5 Op. O.L.C. 1.
– cpast
24 mins ago
@Kevin 1341 and 1342 are a pair; they used to both be section 665 until a statutory reorganization that was specifically not meant to change the substance. The OLC has analyzed 1342 (when it was 665(b)) and concluded it's really about accepting services for future compensation (since it's always been part of an antideficiency statute), so its exception authorizes those employees to work in a shutdown. See 5 Op. O.L.C. 1.
– cpast
24 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37447%2fin-the-news-it-says-essential-government-employees-would-be-required-to-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It would be helpful if you would provide citations for those reporters who are saying that "government employees being required to work without pay". If that is an accurate quote, it is probably a good example is bad reporting (or lazy reporting).
– BobE
1 hour ago
@BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
– cpast
1 hour ago
@BobE: kcra.com/article/…
– Joshua
1 hour ago