In the news, it says “essential” government employees would be required to work without pay. How?












32














In the news, the reporters have been talking about "essential" (real quotes, not scare quotes) government employees being required to work without pay by these two statements (paraphrased).



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.



One example of such claims: https://www.kcra.com/article/what-a-partial-government-shutdown-could-mean-for-you/25648684



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.










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    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
    Dec 24 at 1:46






  • 1




    @BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
    – cpast
    Dec 24 at 2:02






  • 1




    Note that funding has lapsed for only about 1/4 of the US federal government, so most government employees (including I believe all defense/military staff) will continue to work and be paid as usual.
    – Todd Wilcox
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Of course the military will continue to be paid.
    – Ian Kemp
    2 days ago










  • If they're not quotes, they shouldn't be in quoteblocks, no. The formatting exists for reasons and there are a number of additional moving parts that assume facts about the content based on it. If it was the only change, a rollback would be appropriate. @Joshua
    – Nij
    2 days ago
















32














In the news, the reporters have been talking about "essential" (real quotes, not scare quotes) government employees being required to work without pay by these two statements (paraphrased).



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.



One example of such claims: https://www.kcra.com/article/what-a-partial-government-shutdown-could-mean-for-you/25648684



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.










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    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
    Dec 24 at 1:46






  • 1




    @BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
    – cpast
    Dec 24 at 2:02






  • 1




    Note that funding has lapsed for only about 1/4 of the US federal government, so most government employees (including I believe all defense/military staff) will continue to work and be paid as usual.
    – Todd Wilcox
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Of course the military will continue to be paid.
    – Ian Kemp
    2 days ago










  • If they're not quotes, they shouldn't be in quoteblocks, no. The formatting exists for reasons and there are a number of additional moving parts that assume facts about the content based on it. If it was the only change, a rollback would be appropriate. @Joshua
    – Nij
    2 days ago














32












32








32


1





In the news, the reporters have been talking about "essential" (real quotes, not scare quotes) government employees being required to work without pay by these two statements (paraphrased).



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.



One example of such claims: https://www.kcra.com/article/what-a-partial-government-shutdown-could-mean-for-you/25648684



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.










share|improve this question















In the news, the reporters have been talking about "essential" (real quotes, not scare quotes) government employees being required to work without pay by these two statements (paraphrased).



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.



One example of such claims: https://www.kcra.com/article/what-a-partial-government-shutdown-could-mean-for-you/25648684



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 slavery






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago

























asked Dec 23 at 22:40









Joshua

521412




521412








  • 1




    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
    Dec 24 at 1:46






  • 1




    @BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
    – cpast
    Dec 24 at 2:02






  • 1




    Note that funding has lapsed for only about 1/4 of the US federal government, so most government employees (including I believe all defense/military staff) will continue to work and be paid as usual.
    – Todd Wilcox
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Of course the military will continue to be paid.
    – Ian Kemp
    2 days ago










  • If they're not quotes, they shouldn't be in quoteblocks, no. The formatting exists for reasons and there are a number of additional moving parts that assume facts about the content based on it. If it was the only change, a rollback would be appropriate. @Joshua
    – Nij
    2 days ago














  • 1




    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
    Dec 24 at 1:46






  • 1




    @BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
    – cpast
    Dec 24 at 2:02






  • 1




    Note that funding has lapsed for only about 1/4 of the US federal government, so most government employees (including I believe all defense/military staff) will continue to work and be paid as usual.
    – Todd Wilcox
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Of course the military will continue to be paid.
    – Ian Kemp
    2 days ago










  • If they're not quotes, they shouldn't be in quoteblocks, no. The formatting exists for reasons and there are a number of additional moving parts that assume facts about the content based on it. If it was the only change, a rollback would be appropriate. @Joshua
    – Nij
    2 days ago








1




1




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
Dec 24 at 1:46




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
Dec 24 at 1:46




1




1




@BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
– cpast
Dec 24 at 2:02




@BobE I've heard similar things in past shutdowns, and was confused at first just like OP was.
– cpast
Dec 24 at 2:02




1




1




Note that funding has lapsed for only about 1/4 of the US federal government, so most government employees (including I believe all defense/military staff) will continue to work and be paid as usual.
– Todd Wilcox
2 days ago




Note that funding has lapsed for only about 1/4 of the US federal government, so most government employees (including I believe all defense/military staff) will continue to work and be paid as usual.
– Todd Wilcox
2 days ago




2




2




Of course the military will continue to be paid.
– Ian Kemp
2 days ago




Of course the military will continue to be paid.
– Ian Kemp
2 days ago












If they're not quotes, they shouldn't be in quoteblocks, no. The formatting exists for reasons and there are a number of additional moving parts that assume facts about the content based on it. If it was the only change, a rollback would be appropriate. @Joshua
– Nij
2 days ago




If they're not quotes, they shouldn't be in quoteblocks, no. The formatting exists for reasons and there are a number of additional moving parts that assume facts about the content based on it. If it was the only change, a rollback would be appropriate. @Joshua
– Nij
2 days ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















48














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 9




    Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
    – Joshua
    Dec 24 at 0:39






  • 3




    @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
    2 days ago








  • 4




    "If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away..." this example is facetious because the government employees did not expect to be paid nothing. In fact, I find this a poor answer because it fails to address that there has essentially been a breach of contract on the part of the government, yet it's the so-called "essential" employees who are carrying the can by effectively being coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal.
    – Ian Kemp
    2 days ago








  • 9




    @IanKemp Being "coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal" is called a job. That's how all jobs work. If the government is fully funded, employees are still required to work or else they won't be paid and will be fired. Also, breach of contract is not generally a crime and certainly isn't involuntary servitude, and as I addressed in my answer, employees who work during the shutdown are still in a pay status (paychecks are just delayed).
    – cpast
    2 days ago






  • 4




    @IanKemp, the volunteering example is not presented as representative of any government employees. It is presented as a counterexample to the OP's false premise that work without pay is a characterization of slavery. Moreover, to the extent that there is a breach of contract, it does not occur until the government actually fails to pay salary or wages as required by whatever explicit or implied contract exists, which might, in fact, not place strict requirements on exactly when such pay is remitted. Every government worker called upon to work during a shutdown will, eventually, be paid.
    – John Bollinger
    2 days ago













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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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









48














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 9




    Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
    – Joshua
    Dec 24 at 0:39






  • 3




    @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
    2 days ago








  • 4




    "If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away..." this example is facetious because the government employees did not expect to be paid nothing. In fact, I find this a poor answer because it fails to address that there has essentially been a breach of contract on the part of the government, yet it's the so-called "essential" employees who are carrying the can by effectively being coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal.
    – Ian Kemp
    2 days ago








  • 9




    @IanKemp Being "coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal" is called a job. That's how all jobs work. If the government is fully funded, employees are still required to work or else they won't be paid and will be fired. Also, breach of contract is not generally a crime and certainly isn't involuntary servitude, and as I addressed in my answer, employees who work during the shutdown are still in a pay status (paychecks are just delayed).
    – cpast
    2 days ago






  • 4




    @IanKemp, the volunteering example is not presented as representative of any government employees. It is presented as a counterexample to the OP's false premise that work without pay is a characterization of slavery. Moreover, to the extent that there is a breach of contract, it does not occur until the government actually fails to pay salary or wages as required by whatever explicit or implied contract exists, which might, in fact, not place strict requirements on exactly when such pay is remitted. Every government worker called upon to work during a shutdown will, eventually, be paid.
    – John Bollinger
    2 days ago


















48














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 9




    Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
    – Joshua
    Dec 24 at 0:39






  • 3




    @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
    2 days ago








  • 4




    "If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away..." this example is facetious because the government employees did not expect to be paid nothing. In fact, I find this a poor answer because it fails to address that there has essentially been a breach of contract on the part of the government, yet it's the so-called "essential" employees who are carrying the can by effectively being coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal.
    – Ian Kemp
    2 days ago








  • 9




    @IanKemp Being "coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal" is called a job. That's how all jobs work. If the government is fully funded, employees are still required to work or else they won't be paid and will be fired. Also, breach of contract is not generally a crime and certainly isn't involuntary servitude, and as I addressed in my answer, employees who work during the shutdown are still in a pay status (paychecks are just delayed).
    – cpast
    2 days ago






  • 4




    @IanKemp, the volunteering example is not presented as representative of any government employees. It is presented as a counterexample to the OP's false premise that work without pay is a characterization of slavery. Moreover, to the extent that there is a breach of contract, it does not occur until the government actually fails to pay salary or wages as required by whatever explicit or implied contract exists, which might, in fact, not place strict requirements on exactly when such pay is remitted. Every government worker called upon to work during a shutdown will, eventually, be paid.
    – John Bollinger
    2 days ago
















48












48








48






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.






share|improve this answer














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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 24 at 0:07

























answered Dec 24 at 0:00









cpast

7,82412847




7,82412847








  • 9




    Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
    – Joshua
    Dec 24 at 0:39






  • 3




    @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
    2 days ago








  • 4




    "If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away..." this example is facetious because the government employees did not expect to be paid nothing. In fact, I find this a poor answer because it fails to address that there has essentially been a breach of contract on the part of the government, yet it's the so-called "essential" employees who are carrying the can by effectively being coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal.
    – Ian Kemp
    2 days ago








  • 9




    @IanKemp Being "coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal" is called a job. That's how all jobs work. If the government is fully funded, employees are still required to work or else they won't be paid and will be fired. Also, breach of contract is not generally a crime and certainly isn't involuntary servitude, and as I addressed in my answer, employees who work during the shutdown are still in a pay status (paychecks are just delayed).
    – cpast
    2 days ago






  • 4




    @IanKemp, the volunteering example is not presented as representative of any government employees. It is presented as a counterexample to the OP's false premise that work without pay is a characterization of slavery. Moreover, to the extent that there is a breach of contract, it does not occur until the government actually fails to pay salary or wages as required by whatever explicit or implied contract exists, which might, in fact, not place strict requirements on exactly when such pay is remitted. Every government worker called upon to work during a shutdown will, eventually, be paid.
    – John Bollinger
    2 days ago
















  • 9




    Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
    – Joshua
    Dec 24 at 0:39






  • 3




    @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
    2 days ago








  • 4




    "If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away..." this example is facetious because the government employees did not expect to be paid nothing. In fact, I find this a poor answer because it fails to address that there has essentially been a breach of contract on the part of the government, yet it's the so-called "essential" employees who are carrying the can by effectively being coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal.
    – Ian Kemp
    2 days ago








  • 9




    @IanKemp Being "coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal" is called a job. That's how all jobs work. If the government is fully funded, employees are still required to work or else they won't be paid and will be fired. Also, breach of contract is not generally a crime and certainly isn't involuntary servitude, and as I addressed in my answer, employees who work during the shutdown are still in a pay status (paychecks are just delayed).
    – cpast
    2 days ago






  • 4




    @IanKemp, the volunteering example is not presented as representative of any government employees. It is presented as a counterexample to the OP's false premise that work without pay is a characterization of slavery. Moreover, to the extent that there is a breach of contract, it does not occur until the government actually fails to pay salary or wages as required by whatever explicit or implied contract exists, which might, in fact, not place strict requirements on exactly when such pay is remitted. Every government worker called upon to work during a shutdown will, eventually, be paid.
    – John Bollinger
    2 days ago










9




9




Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
– Joshua
Dec 24 at 0:39




Ugh. Something else I can put down to bad reporting.
– Joshua
Dec 24 at 0:39




3




3




@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
2 days 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
2 days ago






4




4




"If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away..." this example is facetious because the government employees did not expect to be paid nothing. In fact, I find this a poor answer because it fails to address that there has essentially been a breach of contract on the part of the government, yet it's the so-called "essential" employees who are carrying the can by effectively being coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal.
– Ian Kemp
2 days ago






"If you pay them nothing but they're free to walk away..." this example is facetious because the government employees did not expect to be paid nothing. In fact, I find this a poor answer because it fails to address that there has essentially been a breach of contract on the part of the government, yet it's the so-called "essential" employees who are carrying the can by effectively being coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal.
– Ian Kemp
2 days ago






9




9




@IanKemp Being "coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal" is called a job. That's how all jobs work. If the government is fully funded, employees are still required to work or else they won't be paid and will be fired. Also, breach of contract is not generally a crime and certainly isn't involuntary servitude, and as I addressed in my answer, employees who work during the shutdown are still in a pay status (paychecks are just delayed).
– cpast
2 days ago




@IanKemp Being "coerced into continuing to work via the threat of non-pay and/or dismissal" is called a job. That's how all jobs work. If the government is fully funded, employees are still required to work or else they won't be paid and will be fired. Also, breach of contract is not generally a crime and certainly isn't involuntary servitude, and as I addressed in my answer, employees who work during the shutdown are still in a pay status (paychecks are just delayed).
– cpast
2 days ago




4




4




@IanKemp, the volunteering example is not presented as representative of any government employees. It is presented as a counterexample to the OP's false premise that work without pay is a characterization of slavery. Moreover, to the extent that there is a breach of contract, it does not occur until the government actually fails to pay salary or wages as required by whatever explicit or implied contract exists, which might, in fact, not place strict requirements on exactly when such pay is remitted. Every government worker called upon to work during a shutdown will, eventually, be paid.
– John Bollinger
2 days ago






@IanKemp, the volunteering example is not presented as representative of any government employees. It is presented as a counterexample to the OP's false premise that work without pay is a characterization of slavery. Moreover, to the extent that there is a breach of contract, it does not occur until the government actually fails to pay salary or wages as required by whatever explicit or implied contract exists, which might, in fact, not place strict requirements on exactly when such pay is remitted. Every government worker called upon to work during a shutdown will, eventually, be paid.
– John Bollinger
2 days ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

Alcedinidae

Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]