Real Impacts of a Furlough: My story

[Safety]

It will be taken out of their paychecks.

No, it will not. I posted the directive from OPM that covers how an employee that wishes to receive unemployment compensation must repay any monies received.

[MisterVeritis]

That "hard as hell" stipulation to fire someone is rooted in the understanding that government workers are not compensated nearly as much as the private sector compensates employees. It's always a catch-22...my former classmates would ask why anyone would want to work for the government in our field, when the private sector was much more profitable, only later to complain about government workers not being laid off when the private sector would downsize.

Most of the people I see complain about government workers, are usually persons that are not eligible to be hired due to not being able to pass background checks. Based upon the number of applications I have seen for open positions, there is not a shortage of people that want to work for the government.

Without regard to pay one ought to be able to fire anyone for any reason or for no reason at all.

[Safety]

Being a government employee is not an indication of being at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to employment. That's the same misconception that is wildly popular with the perceptions of military personnel.

Having a government job is both lucrative and stable. The benefits are some of the best in the market. From retirement to pay to benefits to job security there is not better an employer than the Federal Government. Why do you think the Fed is the biggest employer in the U.S.?

This is what I am referring to when I say it's a catch-22. We have many members here maligning someone that created this OP, for simply being a government employee. Then on the other end of the spectrum we have someone here implying that it is the best job to have.

[Safety]

Without regard to pay one ought to be able to fire anyone for any reason or for no reason at all.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Private Pickle]

It will be taken out of their paychecks.

As it should be. But that isn't the first and foremost process. The process which has been stated is that they need to write a check. If that process isn't followed the idea is that it will eventually be taken out of their paychecks. Whether that actually takes place or not given the cost of doing so may be more than the cost of the money taken from the paychecks is debatable and yet to be seen.

[Private Pickle]

Because for one, there was nothing mentioned about racism in this thread, so that's a nonstarter. Two, for the furloughed employees, there is no "guarantee" they will receive back pay, that is something congress has to vote on.

I asked Trish this but haven't gotten an answer. I'll ask you. When haven't Federal Employees not been paid back pay from a furlough? Do you actually think anyone in Congress will vote against it? It would be political suicide.

That is different than the excepted employees that have been working while the shutdown is in effect. Furloughed employees in the past have been compensated, because it is understood that they were in a stop pay condition do to situations out of their control. So, if a furloughed employee does not receive unemployment monies during the shutdown, then any back pay they receive will be theirs to keep. If a furloughed employee receives unemployment monies, then if/when they receive their back pay, whatever monies they received from unemployment, will have to be repaid. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue, or why this isn't clear.

Look I don't disagree that furloughed employees who receive unemployment monies should not be paid above and beyond their paycheck which includes the revenue they receive from unemployment. The point I'm making is that many won't and the process the Federal Government employees cost more money to recover that money than the actual monies paid. Hence many will not have to pay that money back and if they are smart will make the government remove that money from their paycheck rather than actually writing a check to the government.

[Captdon]

That "hard as hell" stipulation to fire someone is rooted in the understanding that government workers are not compensated nearly as much as the private sector compensates employees. It's always a catch-22...my former classmates would ask why anyone would want to work for the government in our field, when the private sector was much more profitable, only later to complain about government workers not being laid off when the private sector would downsize.

Most of the people I see complain about government workers, are usually persons that are not eligible to be hired due to not being able to pass background checks. Based upon the number of applications I have seen for open positions, there is not a shortage of people that want to work for the government.

A lot of people wanting to eat from the public trough doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Captdon]

Being a government employee is not an indication of being at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to employment. That's the same misconception that is wildly popular with the perceptions of military personnel.

Having a government job is both lucrative and stable. The benefits are some of the best in the market. From retirement to pay to benefits to job security there is not better an employer than the Federal Government. Why do you think the Fed is the biggest employer in the U.S.?

Being a government employee means you can't get a better job or want to play safe.

The Feds being the biggest employer is a disgrace. You seem proud of that.

[DGUtley]

LOL. The USPS has an average record with me. They lost an expensive shipment for a week. Then they found it. They promised to deliver it before 8 PM. I stayed home waiting for it. It didn't come. I checked my mailbox. They left a slip inside that said they tried to deliver it but no one was home. The next morning I left them a message asking them what is wrong with them. That day they delivered my package. It was only nine days late.

The USPS has gotten abysmal. If I mail a to a law firm down the street in downtown Akron, it first goes to Cleveland and then back here. It takes 3 maybe 4 days. When we had our own sorter, it took a day. Letters generally used to get somewhere around her overnight now it's 3-4 days. Incredible. Just incredible. Progress, I guess.

https://www.ohio.com/article/20150221/NEWS/302219428

https://www.ohio.com/article/20150416/NEWS/304169221

[Private Pickle]

This is what I am referring to when I say it's a catch-22. We have many members here maligning someone that created this OP, for simply being a government employee. Then on the other end of the spectrum we have someone here implying that it is the best job to have.

Let me first start off by clearing the air with you. While we have drastically different ideas on just about everything from race relations to Federal furloughs we are both Americans and in my opinion we both have a common interest in debating the issues with the goal of making our country a better place. Despite our differences of opinion and despite our opinions of each other I read your posts, take them in, consider them and respond. I have no malice in my heart against you although I can admit that I'm frustrated by your opinions and approach to certain topics.

With that being said we are a Constitutional Republic based upon a Democratic political process which ultimately is fueled by commercialism and conservatism. The antonym of Socialism. As such being a Federal employee is a smart employment move for those who value stability, benefits and long term employment. While they will never get rich in a Federal job they will enjoy a middle-class lifestyle with very little instability or concern about their future as a middle-class individual. It's not a bad employment choice.

On the flip side you have the idea that government employment should be a public service and not a choice for employment given the benefits. Simply stated Federal or State employment should be a civil service not an individual goal.