
Federal workers who check their e-mail during shutdown will be breaking the law - tareqak
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/federal-workers-who-check-their-e-mail-during-a-shutdown-will-be-breaking-the-law/
======
VLM
An acquaintance of mine who works for the feds as a very small cog in our
central govt controlled economy, told me that its a strange novelty as an
isolated topic, but the real story is how it interacts with other policies. It
mostly affects people who violate the rules which theoretically separate work
email from personal email (which is enforced to WIDELY varying levels based on
dept, locale, and individual supervisor) and people who use work email as a
backup authentication aka if you get locked out of google/facebook/whatever
and have your work .gov/.mil email address as a backup authentication method,
well, you don't have a backup authentication method right now.

~~~
ababab
Not for the government, but I know some coworkers who do the same thing.
Terrible idea to not completely decouple work and personal technology. There's
no recovery process you couldn't achieve with a google, live, and yahoo
account.

~~~
VLM
Well, sure there's a recovery process you couldn't achieve with those three
examples, there's having a fourth backup of using your work email. Its like a
math proof trying to prove there exists a largest integer N, theres always
N+1.

I do agree that far too many people rely on precisely one backup, if they even
have that many.

There are peculiar catch 22 issues like I used to buy books from amazon and
once they arrive decide if they're worth staying my property in which case I
don't submit a reimbursement voucher or if they're not so good in which case I
submit a reimbursement voucher. So technically I don't know if I'm doing
personal or business purchasing until long after the transaction.

Another weird corner case is related to health insurance which is tied to
employer (if any) in the USA. So emailing an insurance company about health
related topics using the work email seems appropriate until you can't use that
email anymore even though you're still employed and insured there. Ditto
retirement accounts. There are probably people out there with health insurance
and retirement accounts who have no non-work related internet access... maybe
if they're a forrester stationed in the middle of nowhere or an undercover cop
who doesn't want to be caught talking about benefits with the FBI HR person on
his personal iphone.

~~~
btown
The concept of undercover agents in this mess is interesting - they can't just
quit, but their entire support teams could conceivably be on furlough.

------
ProblemFactory
Could someone more familiar with U.S. laws explain why is it mandatory for
federal employees not to work, even if they are unpaid?

I'd imagine there are people who would rather continue with their side
projects, research or other fun parts of the job rather than sit at home.

~~~
caseysoftware
A few reasons:

First, they're unionized. Understandably, the union is against unpaid labor of
any kind. It sets a precedent that is more problematic than anything.

Second, we have a Federal minimum wage. You're not allowed to make less than
that in a job. Therefore they would have to be paid _something_ to still be in
compliance with the law.

Finally, while one person can go into an office without incurring massive
costs, if you have an entire office come in, then you need to make sure
receptionists, janitors, kitchen staff, parking attendants, etc are on the
job.

~~~
Willwhatley
How do interns work? (In the general sense of compliance with the minimum wage
statute.)

~~~
abtinf
Unpaid internships are illegal[1]. Unless you are the government, in which
case you exempt yourself from the law.

[1]
[http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm](http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm)

~~~
dragonwriter
Your link says: _There are some circumstances under which individuals who
participate in “for-profit” private sector internships or training programs
may do so without compensation._

Which is directly contrary to the point you cite it to support.

------
qwerta
What employment law in US says in case of forced unpaid holidays? In Europe
worker must be given part of salary and an offer for termination (with bonus)
within two months.

~~~
tokenadult
Is that true of all employees in Europe? Is that true in every country in
Europe?

~~~
furyg3
I am not sure what the EU-wide regulations are.

In NL, employees are hired per term. Meaning you have a 6-12 month contract,
and if the employer wants to lay you off or fire you, he has to pay out the
rest of your contract. There are some exceptions of course (1 month period at
the beginning where either party can terminate, gross negligence, stealing,
absence, etc). After 3 years the employee and the employer have an
'indefinite' contract.

This system means that if the employer needs to reorganize, it needs to do so
with some government involvement (a sort of civil court which looks at the
case). Usually the employee is compensated in some way... usually based on how
long the employee has worked there and how bad the financial situation is at
the company. "We have lots of cash on hand but our board of directors didn't
approve the budget" wouldn't go over very well with the courts, I presume.

The system has it's downsides (employers are cautious to hire), but it also
means that you can't just fuck around with your finances and lay-off /
furlough your employees because you don't feel like making important
decisions. An employer can't just shift the financial burden of bad planning
to the unemployment system.

~~~
dreamdu5t
That is... insane.

~~~
yxhuvud
Exactly how is enforcing agreements between employer and employee insane?

Sure, there are some minimum numbers enforced by the governemnts, but the
agreements tend to increase them.

~~~
dreamdu5t
What's insane to me is that people aren't free to negotiate their own
agreements...

~~~
judk
One side of the agreemenr isn't even a person; it is an organization.

~~~
yxhuvud
Actually, usually it is organizations on both sides of the agreement. At least
here in .se.

Originally the rules originated in long term agreement between employer
organizations and unions, and was later codified into law. And even if union
memberships are way down from what they used to be, their agreements are seen
as guiding lines for how other working agreements are made.

------
mmagin
If you work for the government and you care about checking your work email
when you're home, you're doing it wrong. :)

~~~
rsync
I would be amazed if they even have email.

Have you ever been on the phone with the IRS, or a state bureau or the
treasury (or whatever) and in the normal course of conversation and workflow
you suggest emailing them a document ... or using _any_ reasonable workflow
whatsoever ?

The answer is not only "no", but "no, because I don't have email here".
Absolutely stupefying.

~~~
raganwald
Let me rephrase your story using HN-centric terms:

You: "Hello IRS, I want to send you a sensitive document over an insecure
channel that another department of government is hoovering up."

IRS: "No."

:-)

------
ChikkaChiChi
My wife is an economist and she almost threw her monitor through the window
after seeing government websites showing "This website is closed for the
shutdown" instead of the normal, static data she needed.

------
tripzilch
Ha, this scenario could be straight from Snow Crash!

------
danielweber
"Hundred Year Old Law Doesn't Make Sense In Internet Age, Columnist Says"

~~~
eli
I'm not sure it's the law's fault. The Federal government is not designed to
work without a budget. In fact it's specifically designed to _not_ work
without a budget.

~~~
IanCal
I think it sounds like a good idea. If you're not paying people, you shouldn't
be allowed to ask them to work.

~~~
eli
Agree, it makes sense. But it's a real bummer that you're not allowed to work
even if you really, really want to. Say, for example, you're an NIH researcher
being forced to pull the plug on a long-running experiment that you'll have to
start over again from scratch.

~~~
IanCal
Yes, it is really messed up, but it's the only way of stopping employers
saying "You don't have to work, but if you _really love_ your work you can
continue".

I think when it's the government, there _should_ be major consequences if they
can't pay their bills. It's absolutely insane that this is happening at all,
and ludicrous when you consider _why_ this is happening.

