The partial government shutdown’s impact and the teachable moment – Part 4
Continuing with today’s story based on the Q&A entry from Ignacio today...I’ll address the specific concerns advanced by Ignacio...
2. These workers in their contracts or hiring papers DO NOT SIGN or is there anything in writing that these circumstances occur and are required to work without pay. As a WAR VETERAN it’s not even stated in that contract. What you will find is the Department of Defense is only required to give you one hour of sleep.
Thank you for your service. I want to emphasis again that I truly do feel for and am troubled by any of the essential service employees caught in the middle of this partial government shutdown. They/we deserve better from our elected leaders. As I broke out last week in a separate story, about 6% of federal employees who are essential service are caught up in the middle of this standoff. The individuals should always be paid first consideration but often they’re held up by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the federal government isn’t essential. Only 18%, approximately, of the federal government is essential. With 82% being non-essential, bloated non-essential agencies have taken precedence. It shouldn’t be this way. But about the notion that essential service employees may not have specific language in employment papers regarding shutdowns. That’s a moot point. There’s a catch all that covers this. Here’s current language used in employment agreements for federal employees deemed to be essential via DHS guidelines: “must be maintained under all circumstances to ensure the safety and security of the nation and its citizens,”.
It’s fair to say that a partial shutdown and uncertainty about when one will be compensated would be covered under the “all circumstances” mandate. What’s also covered is the guarantee that all federal workers who work during the shutdown will be compensated in full. That’s federal law. The question of course is the timing of when they’ll be paid in full. Additionally, the idea of discretion in essential service employees working during times of adversity is a slippery slope independent of the shutdown circumstances. What if those in the armed services decided to serve but opted not to engage on the battle field when war breaks out? Right here in Broward we’ve seen what can happen when a Sheriff, Scott Israel, decides that law enforcement “may” choose to engage an active threat. Former BSO Deputy Scot Peterson is the poster-child for someone opting not to engage an emergency. How safe would our country be if it were filled with leaders like Scott Israel and essential employees like Scot Peterson?
To continue with the series here's a link to the fifth entry as part of this six part series: