[huebnerob]

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.

[bryanrasmussen]

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.

[perfmode]

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.

Edited: for clarity

[yorwba]

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.

EDIT: reworded triple negative

[bryanrasmussen]

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.

[bryanrasmussen]

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.

[Svettie]

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.

[bryanrasmussen]

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.

[bryanrasmussen]

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.

[DanBC]

I see bryanrasmussen describing the terrible situation these workers are in, not criticising them.

[SamReidHughes]

They're federal employees. None of them have to live paycheck to paycheck.

[DanBC]

They get $16 an hour.

What's that like compared to other jobs?

[SamReidHughes]

More than the median personal income. And that comes with health insurance and job security.

[perfmode]

What’s secure about the current situation?

[huebnerob]

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.

[bryanrasmussen]

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.

[perl4ever]

Well, you can call it fraud. Some people would say it makes them smart.