Maine is facing a possible government shutdown, and there has been a lot of talk about how it worked in 1991, last time this happened. One piece that was mentioned was that state workers got back pay once the 1991 shutdown ended. Federal workers also got paid after the federal shutdown ended.
Why are workers getting paid for work that they didn’t do? I’ve worked on various IT projects (Not for the government) and when they got put on hold, nobody on the team got paid.
What was the nature of your employment contract in those IT projects? I know employment law isn’t the same the world over, but if you’re a permanent employee, you’re employed, and being paid, or laid off and potentially looking for another job.
If the expectation was that the government employees would return to their permanent duties after the end of the shutdown, then they’re still on the payroll. Assuming they don’t have zero hour contracts or some such, which seems unlikely.
Why shouldn’t they be paid? They’re employees. The fact that their bosses aren’t giving them any work to do isn’t their problem.
My understanding back in the 80s, was that for short shutdowns, the cost of changing everybody’s pay was close to if not more than the savings of docking everyone’s pay. Don’t recall the rationale for the one longer shutdown, but I remember it was a PITA because I applied for and received unemployment, which I then had to repay (a cumbersome administrative process).
Best is when you are designated an “essential” employee, and are required to show up for work, with no support staff, and no guarantee that you will get paid.
In short, like so many political actions, I think it is so the party can take an unreasonable stand, impose a bunch of costs, yet deny that they disadvantaged anyone. My position - as a longtime fed employee - is that legislatures ought to be free to shutdown the government, but the costs of doing so ought to be apparent and associated with the folk responsible for the shutdown. Shut the damn thing down - if you refuse to do one of the most basic aspects of your job. But be responsible for the full inconvenience and any dead bodies that result.
Not sure about the USA because you have very weird employment laws called “at will” which essentially are heavily skewed toward employer power over employee power.
IANAL - Canada uses British common law which is “common” practice and general fairness (plus local laws). Basically, employment is a contract, even when not explicitly written down. Because the employer has so much more leverage than the employee, they owe a “duty of care” to be fair and honest with the employee. So for example, demoting an employee or cutting their wages is considered the equivalent of letting them go, termination. Unlike some European countries, employers can let a person go in Canada; but they then must either give adequate notice or pay reasonable separation pay. There are legal minimums (typically a few weeks) but depending on the job, employees can sue for a lot more.
After all, the idea is that work and income is a vital part of your life. Your employer cannot arbitrarily decide “today you don’t get paid, stay home”. How chaotic would the economy be if employers could just decide to call you in and pay you as they needed, nobody could rely on a steady income; unless that was part of the terms when you hired on? (I guess we’ll find out in a few years, given that that’s the way the economy is headed).
If there’s a union involved, even more interesting. Most union contracts have provisions for permanent and temporary layoffs - separation pay, how long the worker can be off “temporarily” before they could ask for permanent separation pay, etc.
So short answer, the shutdown probably did not have official notice in the right amount of time (not sure what happens if you give a notice of layoff then change your mind, but it’s another mindf–k that employers should avoid), plus the risk that if it’s too long, employees will ask for payout and leave…
Laws vary on this type of situation, but has been covered in part by others, there’s some combination of several factors at play here, including a sense that it isn’t fair to cut the pay of workers because of political disagreements; the knowledge by the politicians involved that they are surrounded by staffers who may easily become disgruntled; the knowledge by the politicians that government employees in general are voters, and unlike businesses, leaders in the public sector are very easily replaced in the next election; there’s probably some political benefit to minimizing the impacts of shutdowns; and probably several other reasons as well.
YCANAL. Under common law, the freedom to contract i.e “at will”, was paramount. Most Employment protections have come through statutory changes or through Unions and their CBA’s.
What?
My guess is that “YC” stands for “you clearly.”
During many government shut downs employees are required to work with the promise the they will get paid after the shut down. Many government agencies will tell their employees that they must show up for work. If they don’t it will be considered abandonment of the job and if they want their job back they will have to reapply and there will be no guarantee of being rehired.
Ah. I tried a bunch of alternatives in my mind, but that one didn’t occur to me.
In 2013, the US Federal government shut down. I recall being out having a beer with friends, one of whom is a criminal investigator (Special Agent) who was complaining about not getting paid for several weeks. I (being a consultant), may have gotten a bit abrasive about this; this federal employees were entitled to back pay. Contractors were just out on their asses.
Without government, there are no government contracts. Without government contracts, there are no government contractors. Without government contractors, there is no government.
The shutdown of any governmental system is a nuclear option. in the last 25 years or so, the threat has been used far too often. Contractors take the brunt of it.
Which of course is one reason why the government prefers to contract out for work rather than doing it with their own employees: They value the ability to put people out on their asses.
I would generally agree with all of that, except that one piece is missing. The government does not set the compensation for the employees of a contractor. The government contracts for a service to be performed, and under most circumstances, the business decides the most efficient way to perform that service.
So for folks who are unfamiliar with this subject, let’s say the National Park Service contracts with a company to feed the wild grommets that are loose on the National Mall. Company A wins, and has the responsibility to make sure the grommets are cared for within certain parameters. Whether the feeding is carried out by one guy making a huge salary, or fifty guys making minimum wage, is greatly under the control of the business, not the government.
So if the business isn’t paying its employees during a shutdown, that really is more of a matter between the business and its employees, rather than the employees and the government.
Some industries are, in fact, like that. I worked as a telephone surveyor for a while. Sometimes we would be told “We’re done early. Go home.” Other times I would have the day off, and then get a call, “We need bodies. Can you be here in 30 minutes?”
The way I see it, it is most like a lockout. But generally, a lockout requires notice and is the result of a dispute between the employer and employee. Here the dispute is between Republicans and Democrats (or between a crazy governor and a sane legislature in Maine) and why should the workers pay the price. Now if the governor and legislature forwent their salaries, I might take a different view. But I am sure they don’t.
At will employment does not apply to federal employees.
In many jobs, I’d expect that the work not done during the shutdown just piles up, so that after the shutdown/lockout ends, the worker comes back to a big backlg, and will have to work extra hard to clear that up. So the worker does end up doing all the work – just bunched together instead of spread out in the normal time period.
At-will employment shouldn’t apply at all. After all, *employment *may be at will, but *payment *isn’t, and so long as employees haven’t been fired or suspended, the employer-employee relationship still stands and they still need to be paid.
Employees aren’t paid for their work, they’re paid for being employees.
But there is a wrinkle at the US Federal level, which probably applies to a lot of states, and which surely does not apply to private businesses. The issue is that most people assume that a shutdown is caused by the inability of the government to expend funds. What people miss is that the main issue is that a shutdown results from the lapse of the authority of the government to incur obligations that lead to expenditures at a future date (with some exceptions, like those that relate to security and so on).
So in the case of Federal workers, repayment is generally not guaranteed because during the period of the shutdown, the Government has no legal ability to guarantee or assure workers that they will be paid for as long as the shutdown lasts, regardless of the Government’s ability to expend funds during the shutdown. The lapse in the Government’s ability to make any assurances that it will carry out its obligations on most contracts totally overrides the general idea that employers have a duty to their employees.