[cryptonector]

There needs to be some risk to being a public service employee. They practically cannot get fired. They should not get back-pay for government shutdown time they did not work. So, TSA agents, for example, absolutely should get back-pay (because they worked), but employees who got furloughed should not. And we should make it easier to fire public service employees for cause, and easier to downsize agencies (i.e., lay-off workers). Civil service protections need to be about politics, not so overarching that civil service employment carries zero risk.

[bastawhiz]

The ability for a person to earn a fair living, especially one that's not an extravagant salary, should never have unnecessary risk. It's one thing to be laid off. It's another to be told you're working without pay or are not allowed to seek other employment while furloughed.

[leesalminen]

Surely they knew of this risk when they accepted the job offer?

[Jtsummers]

US government shutdowns (especially extended ones) are rare events. This is not something most of them would have considered when signing on.

Even in the 90s and 00s with the DoD closing bases (BRAC), a lot of people were unimpacted or given job offers at other locations which mitigated the risk for most.

Government employees are, on the whole, underpaid for the sort of work they do compared to private sector equivalents (or where their expertise could be used if not the same job). The primary benefit has been the stability and pension system, both of which are being challenged in recent years.

[freedomben]

> US government shutdowns (especially extended ones) are rare events

Sorry but no. I worked for the government for 9 years and went through four shutdowns. I'd hardly call that rare. On NPR this morning they were interviewing people who said the same thing (so it's not just me). I was also not one of the lucky ones that got furloughed. When I was there a lot of people loved shutdowns because it was free vacation time. They knew they'd get backpay. The only thing they couldn't do was go out of town since any day they could be called back.

> This is not something most of them would have considered when signing on.

True.

> Government employees are, on the whole, underpaid for the sort of work they do compared to private sector equivalents (or where their expertise could be used if not the same job). The primary benefit has been the stability and pension system, both of which are being challenged in recent years.

Debatable. The government is a huge industry, and over-generalizing like that is impossible to do while maintaining any level of accuracy. Remember to include benefits as well as paycheck in your analysis.

[mikeash]

This one is extremely long, though. It’s the longest on record and still getting longer, so it’s not something people would have anticipated. I can see how someone would enjoy a few days off of work, maybe even a week or two. But going a month or more without pay is quite a different matter.

[freedomben]

Yes, I agree. It's really crappy. I'd be in deep trouble if I went this long without getting paid, so I can relate very well. But do note that I was responding to this:

> US government shutdowns ... are rare events

not making an argument that people should have expected this (because I don't believe that. In fact I specifically agreed with that portion of the OP)

There are also resources available for people that can't go this long without a paycheck, that should help somewhat alleviate the pain [1].

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/here-are-the-banks-and-credi...

[cryptonector]

Yes, indeed, missing even one pay cycle can be very hard for many people. For furloughed workers the shutdown is paid vacation with deferred pay (they always get paid for that time off); they can actually get second jobs during that time. It's the essential employees that this whole thing is most unfair to.

[Jtsummers]

Historically rare. There have been 10 shutdowns in the history of the US government (there have been other funding gaps, but none of those had furloughed employees). 3 of those shutdowns in this decade. 4 in the 80s and 3 in the 90s. The shutdowns in the 80s were one day each. The 90s were 3, 5, and 21 days each.

[seem_2211]

Have some empathy for goodness sakes.

A lot of us (myself included), might work in startups and take big risks in our careers, but we're also exposed to a lot more upside. Not every other job should be like this, and lots of people don't want to work in such uncertain situations. These people thought they had a job that was largely safe, and that implicit promise has been broken.

[hanklazard]

The risk of not getting paid due to the longest government shutdown ever? No, I don’t think many people would have considered that risk.

[bastawhiz]

What would indicate to, say, a scientist taking a job earning a modest salary that they would be unable to earn a paycheck for over a month?

[cryptonector]

The fact that shutdowns happen.

[dragontamer]

This is literally a historic shutdown. Two missed paychecks in a single shutdown has never happened before in the history of the USA.

This is the longest running shutdown in US History, and it isn't anywhere close to over yet.

[bastawhiz]

Yet there is no precedent for this. Nor should there be.

I would be entirely unsurprised if this caused many professionals to leave public service, since the risk of not being able to make rent is now known. Why would anyone knowingly take a job that could suddenly and unexpectedly stop paying them a salary for unreasonable periods of time?

[gamblor956]

They did not. IRS jobs are not "essential" within the meaning of the rules requiring certain governmental personnel to work during shutdowns.

In a nutshell and highly simplified, but "essential" in the shutdown context means national security and transportation. It doesn't include functions that are nice to have, like quick processing of refunds.

[ceejayoz]

Given that this shutdown has already set an all-time duration record, that's probably not fair to say.

[cryptonector]

Private sector employees carry the risk of being fired or laid off. I don't see why public sector employees should not. They should have some protections from political firings, but that's it.

Salary levels have nothing to do with it. Perhaps they might have to be higher if public sector employees had to have this risk, or perhaps there would be fewer people willing to work in the public sector (a win, that).

And again, if you hard to work w/o pay, you should get back-pay. This is only about furloughed employees.

[munk-a]

This comment and the one above have bits that are clearly just snipes at public employees and the federal government.

> They practically cannot get fired.

> or perhaps there would be fewer people willing to work in the public sector (a win, that).

If you disagree with the size of our federal government on a political level that's no excuse to disrespect the people who work in it. Everybody is working for a pay check the virtues of the federal government have nothing to do with whether some people deserve to get what they negotiated for when they accepted a position.

[cryptonector]

Where is the disrespect?

[bastawhiz]

Getting back pay isn't sufficient (and not guaranteed). If you have a job, you should get paid. Full stop. Being a government job shouldn't mean you can't pay your bills. Back pay doesn't stop you from becoming homeless.

[richardwhiuk]

Public sector employees take the risk of being fired by an administration who decides that unit isn't a priority.

Salary levels do determine risk - if you want someone to do a riskier job, you generally have to pay more - obviously there are a large number of other factors.

[dragonwriter]

> Public sector employees take the risk of being fired by an administration who decides that unit isn't a priority.

They mostly don't, both because the Administration has limited legal and even more limited practical political ability to do that, and because civil service rules further mitigate that risk with noncompetitive reinstatement eligibility.

They do take the risk that the political branches together decide a function is unnecessary, mitigated somewhat by civil service reinstatement rules.

[cryptonector]

> Public sector employees take the risk of being fired by an administration who decides that unit isn't a priority.

Never happens.

[astrodust]

They can be fired and laid off just like everyone else.

The difference is they work for the oldest, singularly largest organization in the country and should, as part of that, expect some job stability.

The pay is usually marginal compared to private sector. The advantage you usually get is the government won't go bankrupt or get bought up and downsized.

[dragontamer]

Government employees are paid much MUCH less than their counterparts. The tacit agreement is that they get paid less but have more stability.

Any NASA Aerospace engineer will make more at Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman. Its just the facts. Missiles and Weapons make more money than generic US Space research, even if one is more fundamentally important to the advancement of our civilization. Any IRS Tax-expert will make more money as an Corporate Accountant (who are paid to avoid taxes, instead of applying them fairly across the country).

[munk-a]

Most HN people work in a field where getting a new job is pretty trivial if you lose your current one - I've had job searches that have lasted as little as a few days (when I moved internationally), but most people are not in this situation. These workers are being denied an expected income - some of them are indeed not working for this income but they've been denied the ability to work for it.

Everyone, even people who were allowed to seek separate work, should be paid their expected wage - this would even inject a bit of consumer power into our economy and might help reduce the long term effects this is having.

[benj111]

Is it not the case in the US, that public sector employees tend to be paid less, in exchange for other things like job security, pensions etc?

[gamblor956]

That depends very highly on the particular job.

Professional employees (lawyers, accountants, scientists) make less in government (usually much less), but non-professional employees usually make more in government.

[oasisbob]

How are you defining "professional" in this context?

There's a classical sense of professional it seems you're reaching for, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a non-professional white-collar worker which would do better in federal government than the private sector.

Eg, surveyors are clearly professionals. Software developers? IT?

[jki275]

Software engineers, IT, EE, ME, tend to be paid significantly less than they would make outside of gov service. This of course varies a bit by level, but it's generally true.

[garmaine]

No, they tend to be just paid less, period. They pay and benefits is WAY better in the private sector, and job security is only partially true.

[munk-a]

This comment has been downvoted but I wanted to highlight that it is quite correct, people actually working in the public sector tend to be paid poorly compared to similar private sector jobs, this is a bit of a new trend where the previous generation in the US was more familiar with public sector jobs being good paying reliable jobs that could help secure a family into the middle income bracket but that time has passed.

I am excluding, by the way, private contractors working in the public sector which tend to be grossly over paid but lack any sort of pension benefits.

[Pulcinella]

Why do you think there should just inherently be some risk?

[vibrato]

Because in life there is always risk. In this case offloaded to the taxpayer completely.

[jerf]

Life always has risk in it. If they have risk-free jobs, that means someone else is shouldering the burden of the resources expended to make that job risk-free. Said someone else is probably doing it without a risk-free job of their own. Is that fair?

There'll be the temptation to muddy the waters with all sorts of things, like "how important" the government worker's work is. (The taxpayer's job can be perfectly well important too. You want to live without garbage collectors?) But that's all distractions. What right do they have to have such low-risk ("risk-free" is really not true, but there is certainly a qualitatively different degree of risk) jobs at the expense of people without such low-risk jobs?

[toomuchtodo]

Life isn't fair. If your job isn't risk free, you should be petitioning for unions and other labor protections, not dragging down those who do have those benefits.

This is no different then when the minimum wage rises, and people who were making what is now the new minimum wage complain that they're underpaid now. They were underpaid before, it's just more obvious to them after the policy change.

Don't be the crab pulling other crabs back into the pot. Help the other crabs get out, and consequently, helping you get out.

[yongjik]

> What right do they have to have such low-risk jobs at the expense of people ...

Wow, if this isn't straight-up communism, I don't know what is.