PDA

View Full Version : Federal judge REFUSES to make Trump pay federal employees who say they're SLAVES work



Peter1469
01-16-2019, 10:43 AM
Federal judge REFUSES to make Trump pay federal employees who say they're SLAVES working for free during shutdown – and won't intervene in 'squabble' that he calls a 'political problem'
(https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6594953/Judge-order-Trump-pay-employees-say-theyre-SLAVES-shutdown.html)
Well that is disappointing. Violating fiscal law is not a political problem....


A federal judge decided Tuesday that he won't intervene in the 25-day-old government shutdown, refusing to force the Trump administration to release 780,000 unpaid federal workers from employment limbo.

Judge Richard Leon denied petitions from two government employees' unions and their members for a temporary restraining order that would have ended the practice of making some workers perform their duties without salaries and requiring others to stay home without earning money at other jobs.


Leon said after hearing oral arguments that he sympathized with out-of-work federal employees. But the shutdown 'squabble,' he ruled, shouldn't be solved by using federal courts as a source of leverage by one side of a dispute against another.


Some workers claim Trump is violating their Fifth Amendment rights by taking their property – their salaries – without due process. Others say he's unconstitutionally treating them like slaves, forcing them to work for free without sufficient reason.


The National Treasury Employees Union and National Air Traffic Controllers Association say forcing government employees to work without pay violates the U.S. Constitution and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Captdon
01-16-2019, 11:17 AM
They should pursue it. If not right, lay them off. That will close the border and the airports. Then it becomes a game of chicken. Hell of a way to run a railroad.

Tahuyaman
01-16-2019, 11:44 AM
Some workers claim Trump is violating their Fifth Amendment rights by taking their property – their salaries – without due process. Others say he's unconstitutionally treating them like slaves, forcing them to work for free without sufficient reason.

Tecnically Trump isn't is not in violation of anything. The congress has yet to pass a bill and send it up for his signature or veto. They should force his hand. What's stopping them?

MisterVeritis
01-16-2019, 11:45 AM
Federal judge REFUSES to make Trump pay federal employees who say they're SLAVES working for free during shutdown – and won't intervene in 'squabble' that he calls a 'political problem'
(https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6594953/Judge-order-Trump-pay-employees-say-theyre-SLAVES-shutdown.html)
Well that is disappointing. Violating fiscal law is not a political problem...
Lay them off. Thank them for their time. Wish them luck in their job hunt.

It is wholly a political problem. The Democratic Party is so close to having a generational lock on national offices. They just need a few more illegal aliens and legal third worlders.

The American people need a defended border with a wall as its foundation.

Green Arrow
01-16-2019, 01:44 PM
The judge got it wrong. Yes, the shutdown is a political problem, but that has nothing to do with the workers. Either don’t have them working until the shutdown is lifted, or pay them for the work they do.

MisterVeritis
01-16-2019, 01:59 PM
The judge got it wrong. Yes, the shutdown is a political problem, but that has nothing to do with the workers. Either don’t have them working until the shutdown is lifted, or pay them for the work they do.
The judge cannot budget money. Nor can the judge tell the legislators they must budget money.

So fire all of the nonessential people. I heard this morning that 95% of the IRS was furloughed as nonessential. Give them their layoff notices.

pjohns
01-16-2019, 02:20 PM
I am, admittedly, in a quandary about this: These workers are classified as being essential; so they cannot be let off.

But I do not see how they may be paid during a government shutdown.

I really do not see a good solution here.

But perhaps I am mistaken...

HawkTheSlayer
01-16-2019, 03:12 PM
It's simple. If they are going to recieve back pay, they should keep working.
Those who ​voluntarily choose to cease work, should not get back pay for doing nothing.

Captdon
01-16-2019, 03:29 PM
I am, admittedly, in a quandary about this: These workers are classified as being essential; so they cannot be let off.

But I do not see how they may be paid during a government shutdown.

I really do not see a good solution here.

But perhaps I am mistaken...

Congress can pass a spending bill that Trump will sign.

Tahuyaman
01-16-2019, 03:41 PM
The judge got it wrong. Yes, the shutdown is a political problem, but that has nothing to do with the workers. Either don’t have them working until the shutdown is lifted, or pay them for the work they do.

They will be paid.

Peter1469
01-16-2019, 06:09 PM
It's simple. If they are going to recieve back pay, they should keep working.
Those who ​voluntarily choose to cease work, should not get back pay for doing nothing.

The president signed the bill into law today. All Feds will get paid when the partial shutdown is over.

pjohns
01-17-2019, 02:17 PM
It's simple. If they are going to recieve back pay, they should keep working.

For those of us who have rather substantial savings, that would not be a major problem.

But many of these people are living paycheck-to-paycheck--with (regrettably) no Rainy Day Fund (or "Emergency Fund," as it is sometimes called).

Perhaps the mortgage-holder--and other creditors--may be lenient, and decline to demand immediate payment, under the circumstances.

But that puts someone else in charge--actually, it puts several others in charge--and one can only hope for the best.

Captdon
01-18-2019, 07:21 PM
For those of us who have rather substantial savings, that would not be a major problem.

But many of these people are living paycheck-to-paycheck--with (regrettably) no Rainy Day Fund (or "Emergency Fund," as it is sometimes called).

Perhaps the mortgage-holder--and other creditors--may be lenient, and decline to demand immediate payment, under the circumstances.

But that puts someone else in charge--actually, it puts several others in charge--and one can only hope for the best.

They don't have to work for the federal government. They can quit and get other jobs.Working without pay was a condition of their employment. They either knew that or should have known that. If they are having trouble with it, there must be others people who can use them. If not, why do we?

pjohns
01-19-2019, 04:44 PM
They don't have to work for the federal government.
You are entirely correct.

Still, there are some rather substantial perks for working for the federal government.

My late wife (not to be confused with my current wife) had Federal Blue Cross/Blue shield, for instance; and it is simply superb healthcare insurance--for just $225 per month. (Actually, that is what it is now; it was less when my late wife was alive and working.)

And it covers not only medical (it is a PPO that currently pays 85 percent of the negotiated price--down a bit from the 90 percent it once paid), but also dental and prescription drugs.

This is just one example of how it pays to work for the federal government.