• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should federal workers be protected?

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

There's too much reasonableness and heart to that. But maybe self-interest on the part of GOP congress critters will win the day...
 
Their should be a way to help those in need but not a blanket law covering all federal employees.
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

I would say no, for two reasons. The first is that I am against the idea special privileges and immunities arrogated to the state. I do not believe it is at all proper that Federal employees should receive special treatment over non-Federal employees and be given immunities not enjoyed by other citizens.

Second, what about the people to whom the Federal employees owe money? I think if that is done, I do not think many landlords are going to be falling over themselves to rent to Federal Employees. Let us pretend, for the sake of argument, that I am a landlord and I own a rental home that I still owe a mortgage on. Let us further pretend that I am renting to a Federal Employee who cannot pay me my rent, and under normal circumstances I would need to evict the person and get in a new renter ASAP. Why should my credit be ruined because I cannot afford to pay that mortgage because I am not receiving the rent, and am still responsible for maintaining this property of a tenant at sufferance?
 
Last edited:
It’s a great idea on the surface and would only be fair, but I think unfortunately it would get super messy for everyone involved.

There’s just so many caveats to it all, which is not to say those can’t be addressed, just would be complex to sort out.
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

That's a reasonable idea but there are downstream effects that you have to account for. Utilities and Mortgage holders can live if people are late on those bills. Some landlords probably can't - though eviction proceedings in many places would likely take months.
And then there's still the issue of putting food on the table.
 
I would say no, for two reasons. The first is that I am against the idea special privileges and immunities arrogated to the state. I do not believe it is at all proper that Federal employees should receive special treatment over non-Federal employees and be given immunities not enjoyed by other citizens.

Second, what about the people to whom the Federal employees who are owed money? I think if that is done, I do not think many landlords are going to be falling over themselves to rent to Federal Employees. Let us pretend, for the sake of argument, that I am a landlord and I own a rental home that I still owe a mortgage on. Let us further pretend that I am renting to a Federal Employee who cannot pay me my rent, and under normal circumstances I would need to evict the person and get in a new renter ASAP. Why should my credit be ruined because I cannot afford to pay that mortgage because I am not receiving the rent, and am still responsible for maintaining this property of a tenant at sufferance?

I'm actually on the fence. My initial reaction was the same as yours but to Federal government not funding itself somehow smells different than a employee being laid off or a private company going out of business. That said I agree with your concerns about small landlords and other regular people who are downstream of the federal employee and don't get paid.
 
I think a better idea is that Federal workers be placed on a "furlough" and remain eligible for back payment of wages in the event of a shutdown.

Failing that, then a special Federal Unemployment Insurance program which pays Federal workers a portion of their wages during any shutdown pending reactivation to full-time employment. I am not referring to basic unemployment subject to State of residence law...but a special Federal program designed for just such "shutdowns."

Either would create pressure on Congress and the President to reach a compromise, because an increasing need to re-allocate funds from other goals to pay for such benefits would deter both from long-term shutdowns.
 
Last edited:
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

Pay them, change the law.
 
Good thread. I like Captain Adverse's idea of "shutdown insurance."
 
I think a better idea is that Federal workers be placed on a "furlough" and remain eligible for back payment of wages in the event of a shutdown.

Failing that, then a special Federal Unemployment Insurance program which pays Federal workers a portion of their wages during any shutdown pending reactivation to full-time employment.

Either would create pressure on Congress and the President to reach a compromise, because an increasing need to re-allocate funds from other goals to pay for such benefits would deter both from long-term shutdowns.

I could support the Federal Unemployment idea.
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

No....
 
I would say no, for two reasons. The first is that I am against the idea special privileges and immunities arrogated to the state. I do not believe it is at all proper that Federal employees should receive special treatment over non-Federal employees and be given immunities not enjoyed by other citizens.

The Privileges and Immunities clause has to do with one state legally discriminating against out-of-state US citizens. It's pretty much the most basic implementation of the supremacy clause, though it is indeed its own constitutional provision. (It was also made just about irrelevant well over 100 years ago). But it has nothing about saying you can't evict federal workers furloughed in a shut down. Granted, there is much debate about it given the paucity of primary source info and precedent that would have recounted said info in prior decisions.

What might have something to do with a shutdown is whether a blue state could for example say that people who have lived in that state for X years cannot be evicted if federal workers in a shutdown, but people who moved there recently and therefore have lived in the state for less that X years could be evicted despite being federal workers in a shut down. Just an example. The clause is not about a federally imposed restriction on states about what they can do with federal workers as opposed to non-fed workers. It's basically about state-state petty legal warfare.

Or, for example, a state law saying citizens of X state cannot travel through their state. Or cannot live in it at all.
Now maybe you want to try to base it in a lack of authority to pass a federal law telling states they cannot allow eviction of federal workers in principles of federalism or perhaps Intertate Commerce (which is now basically as wide as one wants it to be), but it's not privileges and immunities.



Second, what about the people to whom the Federal employees owe money? I think if that is done, I do not think many landlords are going to be falling over themselves to rent to Federal Employees. Let us pretend, for the sake of argument, that I am a landlord and I own a rental home that I still owe a mortgage on. Let us further pretend that I am renting to a Federal Employee who cannot pay me my rent, and under normal circumstances I would need to evict the person and get in a new renter ASAP. Why should my credit be ruined because I cannot afford to pay that mortgage because I am not receiving the rent, and am still responsible for maintaining this property of a tenant at sufferance?

Well, if we ignore Bob's idea and instead pay them, that won't be an issue.

Or, Bob's idea could be supplemented not by saying pay the federal workers during a shutdown but rather with a provision that says you can't demand the portion of a mortgage payment assignable to a renter of a person who rents to a federal employee, and now you piss off the banks. (Though, they probably could absorb that a lot better than federal workers and their landlords could absorb the alternative).

Again, the problems you might run into with stuff like the latter would have to do with a different clause than P&I.





Really, they should be paid during a shutdown. They didn't do a damn thing wrong. Usually, they're caught up with a stupid take-hostages-issue-demands situation. They're now caught up in the dumbest version yet.

All they'd have to do is tweak law/reg about what counts as an "essential service" such that this becomes a thing.
 
Last edited:
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

Why????

That has abuse written all over it. If I know I can't be evicted, I have less incentive to pay rent.
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.
No. You cannot create another protected class of citizen.

Layoff's are a part of business in the private sector. Why eliminate civil service from the realities of economics? I never saw a public employee get all teary eyed over stories of Americans losing their jobs during recessions. This is just a different kind of recession - a political one, ginned up by the democrats. The only reason anyone cares is the public employee unions supply millions of dollars in dues to democrats. America's borders don't give money to the democrats, but federal workers do.

The bottom line is the democrats feel those poor workers with gold plated medical, dental, and retirement are a worthy sacrifice to prevent giving Trump a "win".
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

No.

I want government shut downs to be as painful as they possibly can be to encourage Congressmen and Presidents to think twice when they decide to hold government funding hostage in their political squabbles.

I think, if funding for an agency or agencies is not passed, that agency or those agencies should completely shut down. Nobody works. Nobody gets paid. Everyone stays home until the funding is authorized by Congress and the President. That includes funding for the military and for Congress, itself.
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

I alter my view to: pass a law tweaking the definition of essential and non-essential services such that even if a service is deemed "non-essential", the workers have to get paid despite being ordered home.

They don't deserve this ****. It's not their fight. And if the 'waste' of money involved in paying people to not work discourages shutdowns, good. This is no way to govern, especially in a constitutional scheme in which checking the executive is supposed to be a good thing...
 
No.

I want government shut downs to be as painful as they possibly can be to encourage Congressmen and Presidents to think twice when they decide to hold government funding hostage in their political squabbles.

I think, if funding for an agency or agencies is not passed, that agency or those agencies should completely shut down. Nobody works. Nobody gets paid. Everyone stays home until the funding is authorized by Congress and the President. That includes funding for the military and for Congress, itself
.

It's easy to say someone else should bear the pain so that you can get what you want in policy terms.

It's also contemptible.




PAR!
 
It's easy to say someone else should bear the pain so that you can get what you want in policy terms.

It's also contemptible.




PAR!

Why did you minimize part of my post? It expands upon my point, which makes your response irrelevant.
 
No. You cannot create another protected class of citizen.

Layoff's are a part of business in the private sector. Why eliminate civil service from the realities of economics? I never saw a public employee get all teary eyed over stories of Americans losing their jobs during recessions. This is just a different kind of recession - a political one, ginned up by the democrats. The only reason anyone cares is the public employee unions supply millions of dollars in dues to democrats. America's borders don't give money to the democrats, but federal workers do.

The bottom line is the democrats feel those poor workers with gold plated medical, dental, and retirement are a worthy sacrifice to prevent giving Trump a "win".

Layoffs and government shutdowns are not the same thing.
 
I alter my view to: pass a law tweaking the definition of essential and non-essential services such that even if a service is deemed "non-essential", the workers have to get paid despite being ordered home.

They don't deserve this ****. It's not their fight. And if the 'waste' of money involved in paying people to not work discourages shutdowns, good. This is no way to govern, especially in a constitutional scheme in which checking the executive is supposed to be a good thing...


Would it be 100% of their pay?
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

Great “feel good” policy, but comes with all sorts of complications. You are basically taking a select group of people because they are government employees and applying a special privilege to them that goes into the private sector and tells those businesses to treat them differently.

You are trying to create a protected class in economic terms that is subject to immediate challenge as the Constitution grants no authority to the government to force businesses to give products and services to their employees for free anytime those in charge shut the government down for political reasons.

It is a problematic and messy idea that in some regards takes some of the onus off politicians themselves when deciding to shut government down, by applying the weight of the decision right onto the private sector. This happens anyway but the idea makes matters worse.

At the same time you are also, knowingly or not, applying another privilege to public sector employees that the private sector does not have. Some degree of protection from idiots in charge.
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

No, I don’t think so. I’ve worked in manufacturing before and if we didn’t have any orders we’d have to close the plant. It’s really no different than any other job that temporarily shuts down for whatever reason, so why should they get special protections the millions of other workers in the country don’t have?
 
Would it be 100% of their pay?

Why not? They want to work. Someone else is holding them hostage.

That's kind of the point: it's got nothing to do with them, and it would probably discourage shutdowns (well, ok, not for a current GOP that has kicked deficits to a trillion/year in a good economy). And if not, it would at least be the decent thing to do.



And don't worry, I pay plenty in taxes. It would cost me too.
 
Given that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation, should Congress pass legislation that federal workers can’t be evicted or have their utilities cut off and other basic protections during a shutdown?

I think it would be a good thing to do and a necessary thing if the shutdown goes into February.

No, of course not. They already have it better than 90% of employees in this country who have no protection whatsoever if laid off.

It would make more sense to legislate that federal employees can have no more protections, salary or benefits than the private sector does.
 
Back
Top Bottom