Why are they going in to work at all if they aren't being paid? Are they covered by some kind of special security law that means they need to keep working in the shutdown?
I don't often do this, but it's literally the first line of the article:
"Hundreds of Transportation Security Administration officers, who are required to work without paychecks through the partial government shutdown..."
Edit to add info, answer the followup question and less snark...
Yes, they're considered to be essential but they aren't getting paid because the 2019 TSA budget wasn't approved yet. Some other dept's were approved already and do have budget, etc. As usual with a big org like that, it depends. But the original article sure doesn't explain why.
"Excepted employees include employees who are performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property or performing certain other types of excepted work."
Yeah I read the same article as you but what requires them? People asking them? Or some sort of actual law? Or just they'll be fired if they don't? Can they quit or not?
Please define "required". Are FBI agents actually going to drag them out of their homes and have them arraigned on criminal charges if they don't show up for work, or will they just be fired/reprimanded/put on a PIP?
But the short answer seems to be (from a cursory skim) that they are considered AWOL and that this is a reprimand/PIP/firing kind of situation. Same thing as just not showing up for work. They're not allowed to use previously accrued sick days or leave during a special situation like this. Obviously if it happens at a large enough scale, they probably won't just fire everyone, but there's a certain amount of game theory going on here to be sure. If SOME people don't show up, maybe management will let it slide, if LOTS of people don't show up, who gets in trouble?
They get back-paid eventually, whenever the shutdown ends. But many are probably living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to wait. The article posits that at least some are calling out to work other jobs that can actually give them a timely paycheck.
well I guess that would also be fraud wouldn't it. because the government will give them back pay because I guess they still get paid when sick. So then they have gotten paid on their second job and their sick days.
Words have power. If we are going to speak of fraud, let's focus on those who are playing games in Washington. Let’s not use criminalizing language to describe the behavior of people who are getting the short end of the stick and attempting to make ends meet by whatever means necessary.
Living paycheck to paycheck is difficult and anxiety-inducing. It's awful how the livelihoods of people all over the country are subject to the whims of elected officials.
Being a pickpocket is also difficult and anxiety-inducing, and I have a lot of sympathy for everyone for whom that is the only way to make ends meet. That doesn't mean I think theft should be legal.
In particular, if a TSA worker successfully finds another job to replace the income they can't get from the TSA, they should quit, rather than misrepresent their situation to later cash in on paid sick leave.
The problem as I understand it though is that they aren't allowed to quit in the current situation. So if they take a second job to make ends meet they would be forced into fraud (a crime) or admit they didn't work when legally required to (a crime)[1]. Of course maybe the work they are taking is under the table, which I didn't think of till now.
1: Note not a lawyer, and just assuming these would be criminal actions.
on edit: made text italic on accident, removed formatting.
really!? I didn't realize I was the person in charge of criminalizing things in the U.S, a country where I don't even live anymore and of which I was never a citizen!
At any rate I did not say they were bad people, despite working for the TSA, I pointed out that the particular action would be technically fraud (I believe) and if caught would probably be punished as such. Thus, although I did not say this flat out, I am wondering if it is actually happening all that much.
So the reason I phrased my comment about fraud in the form of a question, is because I believe it would rather easily be caught out. I am as a matter of principle reluctant to classify groups of people as being just stupider than I in such an obvious fashion.
Finally I've certainly been poorer in my life than any employee of the TSA currently is, and probably poorer than almost all of them have ever been, and even if I am not poor now I do not need any lessons on the matter.
NOTE: The parent comment was changed, without noting change in comment, which of course makes most of this comment seem somewhat off-kilter. I have edited and put in this note.
I didn't downvote you, but interestingly when I first read your comment I had that negative reaction, then after seeing this response and rereading the comment I could see it as just neutral/analytical. For me at least, it's like a Laurel/Yanni in text sentiment.
I guess I could have expanded more in the original text but obviously didn't see the need for it, not putting in anything I considered a value judgement made me blind to others perhaps reading it as one.
however the reaction I got to what I considered a relatively simple observation has put me out of sorts.
You could have the decency to put an on edit note in your edited comment, especially when you make such major changes to the comment.
on edit: parent comment now has noted its edit, although I still believe the edit changed significantly the nature of the comment, and not just clarified it.
Many hourly jobs actually don't get paid for sick time off, or sick hours are accrued as a benefit that you use-or-lose. The former scenario is obviously not fraud, but even in the latter scenario they've earned the pay they're getting while sick from prior work.
Ok, I didn't know that about the American system (most of the years I lived there I did not work so I probably never had occasion to encounter this situation). So if one of the those two scenarios apply here it probably wouldn't be prosecutable as fraud.
on edit: just woke up when I wrote this, changed worked to lived because otherwise did not make sense.
Most of the government employees I know feel it's an honor to serve their country and do so with loyalty and pride. In past shutdowns, they've all gotten paid retroactivly. It's not always about money.
I used to think that until I went on a multi week trip where I had lost my ID. I went through TSA without any ID about 7 times and developed a strong respect for the agents I encountered along the way. I was a difficult case and they treated me with respect and worked hard to get me through the process. I've never been a big fan of the government, and the TSA has flaws no doubt (I hate security theatre) but I think the vast majority of the agents are good apples. They chose to serve in an "essential" service, so that was a choice. Government shutdown's aren't a new thing anymore and they still choose to serve with honor and dignity to their role. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
I believe they technically have to let you fly domestically, even without an ID. I’m not saying they weren’t nice people, but it’s not like they bent the rules. My brother has flown this way several times and you just need additional screening.
> Most of the government employees I know feel it's an honor to serve their country and do so with loyalty and pride.
It's not really up to them, though.
Folks deemed "essential" like security screeners, the Coast Guard, etc. are expected to still come to work. Non-essential employees are furloughed, and it's actually illegal for them to volunteer their time.
> Natter noted that the Anti-Deficiency Act, the 129-year-old law that forces the government to shut down without an appropriation from Congress, also makes it illegal for furloughed workers to volunteer — even though many end up getting paid whether they work for not. "It really ought to be rewritten to be more relevant for the 21st century," he said.
Maybe. This shutdown though seems extraordinarily petty. I can definitely see how agents could be especially upset that their livelihoods are being jeopardized based on Trump's temper tantrums.
Because they will be paid, eventually, for this work, once the government is funded. But since Trump said today that he's willing to keep the shutdown going for years, maybe it's time for these people to search for a paying job.
Any, if they feel the political cost of following Trump isn't worth the benefit.
They'll make a stubborn show of defiance but in due course some deal will be struck and some defections will occur because holding the government hostage to fund a wall to keep the Mexicans out is insane. Trump may be willing to fight to the bitter end for that but I guarantee no career Republican politician is.
