[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]

They often can't get jobs directly in the same career field without approval due to conflict of interest concerns. Approval which they presently can't get. For laborers this isn't necessarily a problem, but for knowledge workers this precludes a lot of opportunities to make up the lost income.

(Technically, all outside employment by a federal employee has to be approved by their office to ensure there's no conflict and that it won't impact the quality of the work.)

And deferred pay, after 2 missed paychecks, doesn't help much. This paycheck is February's rent for many of them. Good luck in a week if they can't negotiate with their bank or landlord.

[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.