Congress votes for backpay for federal workers??

[TooTall]

Companies close for all kinds of reasons.

Why should government employees be treated any differently than anyone else when they are laid off?

Let them apply for and collect unemployment like anyone else.

Because none of them are laid off derp.

Exactly, they are on paid leave.

 

[Spiderman]

Companies close for all kinds of reasons.

Why should government employees be treated any differently than anyone else when they are laid off?

Let them apply for and collect unemployment like anyone else.

Because none of them are laid off derp.

A furlough without pay is a temporary lay off.

If your boss told you to take a month off without pay you could collect unemployment.

idiot.

 

[TooTall]

Companies close for all kinds of reasons.

Why should government employees be treated any differently than anyone else when they are laid off?

Let them apply for and collect unemployment like anyone else.

Because none of them are laid off derp.

A furlough without pay is a temporary lay off.

If your boss told you to take a moth off without pay you could collect unemployment.

idiot.

All true, but a furlough with pay is what the federal workers are all getting. Try and keep up.

 

[TooTall]

Companies close for all kinds of reasons.

Why should government employees be treated any differently than anyone else when they are laid off?

Let them apply for and collect unemployment like anyone else.

I do not believe the government employees can collect unemployment. I think you can only collect unemployment if you don't have a job. If they had been fired they would have been eligible. However, they have NOT been fired, only furloughed. I am basing this on the fact that teachers do not work during the summer months and they cannot collect unemployment during this period. The reasoning is that they are still under contract during the summer and they still have a job although schools are not in session.

Not ever having been a member of a union, I can't say for sure, but if I remember correctly when my dad worked for the phone company and was a member once they went out on a prolonged strike and they were eligible for unemployment. I can't swear to it and am not interested enough to go look it up.

Immie

Normally, strikers are not eligible for unemployment in most states. There are certain circumstances where they can collect it. One example that comes to mind is if the employer locks them out.

 

[pinqy]

1. Yes, Federal workers CAN apply for and collect UI benefits during a furlough. However, if we receive back pay, the UI payments will have to be paid back.

2. A furlough is a temporary layoff.

3. We are not allowed to work nor to volunteer to work without pay. Eventual back pay is irrelevant.

 

[Nova78]

I'm not understanding why the Federal workers have to take a hit. Why do they have to use their vacation pay or take a pay cut or anything else. They didn't ask for this or cause this. And they aren't really unemployed so they don't really qualify for unemployment. And nonessential does not mean they are worthless and not needed either.

The crapping on Federal employees makes no sense.

Then send there ass back to work, in the real world you work for pay, 95 % of government workers are leeches , they produce nothing just take .

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree with Toro. It is not the fault of the employees that The Oval Office and Capital Hill are filled with assholes that only care about making a political statement. Screw the politicians.

Yes, it is a shame that if a private business shuts its doors for a given length of time, its employees are SOL, but businesses are there to make money. They don't just close the door because the CEO (President in this case) needs a bottle and his diaper changed.

Immie

Companies close for all kinds of reasons.

Why should government employees be treated any differently than anyone else when they are laid off?

Let them apply for and collect unemployment like anyone else.

I'm fine with letting them collect unemployment, but don't blame them because their CEO and the board of directors are a bunch of jackasses.

Immie

It’s not a matter of blame. That is a backwards way of looking at that situation. They are not working and therefore not paid. Simple as that. I don’t have any inclination to actually back pay federal workers for days of work that they have not completed. It is not the fault of the worker when a company goes out of business or needs to downsize and is then laid off. Congress doing this is nothing more than a political bullshit stunt.

Those that are not needed at work and let go should not be paid at all. That is one of the dangers for working for the government – every few decades you might get a week or two off during debt debates. Really, the impact is minute compared to the private sector where there are a million other things that cause the same thing to happen and there is no Uncle Sam to go paying you for nothing in those cases.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not understanding why the Federal workers have to take a hit. Why do they have to use their vacation pay or take a pay cut or anything else. They didn't ask for this or cause this. And they aren't really unemployed so they don't really qualify for unemployment. And nonessential does not mean they are worthless and not needed either.

The crapping on Federal employees makes no sense.

That is incorrect. They qualify for unemployment – as they should.

 

[FA_Q2]

and if you had your way we wouldn't have any
1. advancements in research
2. Choices within the market place
3. Wouldn't make much


Or are you expecting a bunch of tiny businesses to take up the weight???


I'd rather have what we're having.

Actually, my preference would be for a system where Government provides the kind of support to business that we've always had. I just think it is counterproductive for the Rightwing to deny how much money and resources business extracts from the state.

Check out the book "Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford". It shows in great detail how the government infused massive amounts of cash into places like Stanford and MIT in order to develop the technological advances that created the modern industrial infrastructure and technological sophistication that business needs to thrive. It shows how the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budgets funded the research that eventually found its way into the 80's consumer electronics boom. [I'm sure you can imagine the technology required to put a man on the moon, and how that technology could be very useful to profit makers. Research the satellite technology the fueled the telecom revolution. Big Government's deep pockets are all over it. Republican voters have no idea how sophisticated our war technology and space-program-technology is. Guess who funds it? Guess who administers the research? These aren't faceless bureaucrats. These are good Americans who work for Washington and created great things. Maybe you're not proud of our Space Program, but the technology behind it was/is amazing. Problem is: Rush Limbaugh won't let Republican voters see any of this. This is not to say that government creates all good things (which is the Republican caricature of the Left's beliefs); rather, this is to say that your party has hurt us terribly by suppressing the productive relationship between business and government. Look at our postwar infrastructure expansion when great presidents like Eisenhower put our veterans to work building highways, bridges, energy grids and water facilities. Today's Republican party has raised a generation of voters who are ignorant of these great things. Why do you think Asia is starting to clean our clock with technology jobs? Because Republicans have waged war on public education because they want lower taxes. But I got news for you. Many of the soldiers who died protecting our freedom in WWII were educated at great public schools, and they had a right to be proud of their education]

Anyway, the book mentioned above shows the deep partnership between government and business. And it explains why business flocks to Washington for Big Government aid.

The Rightwing media complex suppresses this relationship because they don't want to give government any credit for it's massive role in developing insanely profitable technologies. In the back of the house, business accepts MASSIVE benefits from government. In the front of the house, business wages war against government so that it doesn't have to pay the taxes associated with those benefits. Business craves Patent protection from the nanny state. It wants Big Government to protect its products from other market competitors. The Financial Sector craves Big Government FDIC Insurance so that it has more consumer dollars to invest with.

The rightwing voter has been lied to. He doesn't understand the partnership between Government and Business. He has been lead to believe that government always obstructs business. He has no idea that government is, in many instances, a tool of business - and they've collected massive profits using that tool. I just hate the fact that such a large collection of voters has been so thoroughly lied to. We can't afford their ignorance.

This is a complete mischaracterization of the other side of the argument. You seem to completely ignore the fact that the right actually ACKNOWLEDGES the MASSIVE help business gets form government. The fight is not simply against taxing those companies. The fight is actually getting the government out of helping them entirely. The problem with the process that you are describing is that it is corporatism. The government does not help all business, just that business that happens to be donating or some other method of helping their political allies. That creates what we have now – a government run by business. Those of you on the left are quick to point out that the right is somehow for business (and that is seen as bad) but completely glaze over the simple fact that the left is even more in bed with the only real difference that the left wants the government involved in that process. That only ensures that corporations will forever exercise massive influence over government – a concept that I can only see as completely evil for lack of a better term.

The technological aspect is another red herring that you bring to the table. I find it rather ironic that you bring NASA into the picture when it is the left that wants to end projects like that. Another constant thorn in the side of the left is defense spending. What do you thing the VAST majority of technological research comes out of? That’s right, defense spending. Essentially, everything you just posted might have been correct if you replaces right with left and Rush with Shultz.

There is a place for government in research, there are very few that would challenge that. I am pretty hare right and a libertarian yet even I would state that the government should be invested in technological research and discovery. That is a cornerstone to not only keeping us competitive on the world stage but advancing the entire human race as a whole. The problem is that the government is NOT invested heavily in research anymore. Instead, they are invested in COMPANIES. They shuffle billions to their favored cronies not because it is the best place to find new discoveries but because they want to prop up failing business, garner more ‘donations’ or public support or they want to engage federal money for local jobs and investment. All of those practices are outright wrong and blatantly so. The left continually defends such crap and I will not stand for it. Then you post things like the above post that are blatant lies about the ‘right’ through completely mischaracterizing their actual positions.

That paragraph you wrote might sound good but it is built on a mountain of false premises.


No sir – the ignorance that we can’t afford belongs to you…

 

[Desperado]

**** Them.... Worse move Congress could have made.
They don't go to work, they should not get paid.
Now they are on paid vacation...Simple as that.
This is why our government overspends.
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and checks for free

 

[Spiderman]

Because none of them are laid off derp.

A furlough without pay is a temporary lay off.

If your boss told you to take a moth off without pay you could collect unemployment.

idiot.

All true, but a furlough with pay is what the federal workers are all getting. Try and keep up.

No shit Sherlock.

I asked the question why can't they be made to apply for unemployment benefits like everyone else would in similar circumstances rather than be given special treatment.

Try to keep up.

 

[Spiderman]

I agree with Toro. It is not the fault of the employees that The Oval Office and Capital Hill are filled with assholes that only care about making a political statement. Screw the politicians.

Yes, it is a shame that if a private business shuts its doors for a given length of time, its employees are SOL, but businesses are there to make money. They don't just close the door because the CEO (President in this case) needs a bottle and his diaper changed.

Immie

Companies close for all kinds of reasons.

Why should government employees be treated any differently than anyone else when they are laid off?

Let them apply for and collect unemployment like anyone else.

I'm fine with letting them collect unemployment, but don't blame them because their CEO and the board of directors are a bunch of jackasses.

Immie

Show me where I "blamed" anyone.

 

[Politico]

A furlough without pay is a temporary lay off.

If your boss told you to take a moth off without pay you could collect unemployment.

idiot.

All true, but a furlough with pay is what the federal workers are all getting. Try and keep up.

No shit Sherlock.

I asked the question why can't they be made to apply for unemployment benefits like everyone else would in similar circumstances rather than be given special treatment.

Try to keep up.

Because the same people would be paying them either way.

 

[Spiderman]

All true, but a furlough with pay is what the federal workers are all getting. Try and keep up.

No shit Sherlock.

I asked the question why can't they be made to apply for unemployment benefits like everyone else would in similar circumstances rather than be given special treatment.

Try to keep up.

Because the same people would be paying them either way.

They would be getting less than their salary just like anyone else who collects.

Do you know if the government pays unemployment taxes for its employees the way that every other employer does?

 

[dcraelin]

Do you know if the government pays unemployment taxes for its employees the way that every other employer does?

If they are going to keep doing this they should start. And furloughed employees should not get full backpay

 

[dcraelin]

and how come cutting federal workers excessive pay doesn't ever seem to be a part of budget negotiations???? These people should have their pay cut drastically