
At least 14,000 unpaid IRS workers did not show up for work - ddebernardy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/25/least-unpaid-irs-workers-did-not-show-up-work-broad-shutdown-disruption-hits-tax-agency-according-house-aides/
======
esotericn
Good for them!

Working without pay is completely nonsensical. The relationship between the
employee and employer has been broken.

If I were in some of these guys shoes I'd be working odd jobs to make ends
meet.

~~~
thecolorblue
Is it better to find short term solutions, like odd jobs, or to find new
employment?

~~~
dragonwriter
One possible motivation for the administration holding out on the shutdown is
it encourages people to leave the civil service; they've been fairly open
previously about wanting to purge he federal civil service of those not loyal
to Trump, either leaving holes or backfilling with loyalists. Civil service
rules make this difficult, but driving people off with no pay (and publicly
characterizing staying in that situation as a noble gesture of loyalty to the
President, as some admin figures have done) is one way to do some.of that in a
way which avoids civil service protections.

~~~
burfog
It doesn't have to be "leaving holes or backfilling with loyalists". The
"holes" go away if the positions are permanently discarded.

Civil service rules are quite troubling. I can see the idea that it shouldn't
be easy to make everything political, but the problem is that this goes only
one way. If the president's predecessor hired a few million hostile partisans,
what is he supposed to do? Is he just supposed to continue down that path,
hiring tens of millions of his own partisans in order to win back control?
Maybe the next president can hire a hundred million people, and then we're one
president away from the entire population working for the federal government.
There needs to be a reasonable way to toss out the partisan troublemakers who
are undermining the will of the voters.

Another troubling rule is that layoffs must be done according to seniority and
veteran status, not performance. Performance is considered last! This is an
absurdity; you couldn't run a normal non-monopoly software firm that way. The
only reliable way to eliminate low-performing employees is to eliminate
everybody in a given agency.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Civil service rules are quite troubling. I can see the idea that it
> shouldn't be easy to make everything political, but the problem is that this
> goes only one way.

No, it doesn't, there are rules protecting against patronage hires to civil
service positions; they aren't perfect, but the protections aren't one sided.

> If the president's predecessor hired a few million hostile partisans

Not gonna happen, since it would take not only an unprecedented politicization
of hiring but also a President getting to fill half the current federal
workforce.

> Is he just supposed to continue down that path, hiring tens of millions of
> his own partisans in order to win back control?

Uh, no, the President is not supposed to have partisan control of the federal
civil service workforce.

> There needs to be a reasonable way to toss out the partisan troublemakers
> who are undermining the will of the voters.

If they aren't doing their legal duty competently, federal civil service
workers can be fired for cause. Not being a partisan of the President, isn't
cause, and that's a feature not a bug.

> Another troubling rule is that layoffs must be done according to seniority
> and veteran status, not performance.

I don't see that as troubling at all.

> The only reliable way to eliminate low-performing employees is to eliminate
> everybody in a given agency.

No, the reliable way is to set performance standards at the appropriate floor
and then fire people who don't meet them for cause; civil service rules do
allow for performance standards and do allow firing people who don't meet
them. You know the practice of PIPs in private employment? That's directly
modelled on what is required for performance-based termination in civil
service employment.

Layoffs fill a different purpose.

------
tshannon
I can't help but wonder what impact this is going to have years or decades in
to the future.

The government has had a hard time as it is to keep positions filled as they
are competing with better pay in the private sector. Who would ever want to
work for the government if whether or not you're getting paid is constantly up
in the air.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
This could easily circumvented by passing the Stop STUPIDITY Act, which
basically says if the government can’t pass a budget or continuing resolution
in time, the government automatically adopts the previous year’s budget and
suspends all pay for the legislative and executive branches until a new budget
is passed.

Instead of using government workers keeping intact our very thin veneer
between civilization and barbarity as bargaining chips at best and hostages at
worst, the pain would fall squarely on the President and Congress.

~~~
scarface74
Looking at the net worth of people in Congress, they may be inconvenienced,
but they wouldn’t starve if they didn’t receive their pay.

[https://bigthink.com/news/heres-how-much-senators-and-
congre...](https://bigthink.com/news/heres-how-much-senators-and-congress-
members-are-worth-compared-with-us-common-people-surprised)

~~~
asteli
It'd be better, in my estimation, to adopt the system used by Commonwealth
countries (iirc) wherein failing to pass a budget triggers elections for
representatives. I'm dead sure if that were the case here we wouldn't have
this problem.

~~~
manicdee
Just be aware that the trigger for double dissolution can be exploited to
bolster the government if they feel public sentiment is in their favour for
the duration of the shutdown and election.

------
microtherion
I called the IRS this week to try to resolve a long pending matter. Hold time
was pretty bad, and I was told that at the time being, no progress could be
made on the issue due to lack of staffing.

But I was utterly impressed at the courtesy and positive attitude of the
employee who handled my call. I don't know if I could bring that much
professionalism to my work if I hadn't been paid in a month.

------
aerophilic
Honest question: If someone who isn’t paid for a job “quits”, are they
forgoing pay for when pay gets re-authorized? I ask because I feel as a
country we are getting close to just accepting the shutdown can last forever.
If that is the case, and since a large percentage of folks don’t even have
$400 to ride out an emergency, what happens if they choose to say “enough is
enough” and try to get a different job? Are they permanently out the pay they
earned by working without pay?

~~~
imgabe
I don't think they can forfeit the pay for the hours they worked. Employers
are required by law to pay for all hours worked at the agreed upon rate. I
assume if they quit they'd still be owed that pay and they'd get a check when
the government re-opened.

~~~
barkingcat
Remember, this is the federal government and thus the government can change
the laws through legislation or via presidential order.

~~~
imgabe
Through legislation, yes. Presidential order, no. It is very, very unlikely
that Congress would pass a law saying the government doesn't have to pay its
employees like every other employer.

Even if they did, such a law would be unconstitutional because slavery is
explicitly illegal under the 13th Amendment. They would have to amend the
constitution to make that law work and something that wildly unpopular is not
going to happen.

In fact Congress passed a law stating the opposite, that even Federal
employees who are _not_ required to work will receive back pay for the time
the government was shutdown.

------
jarjoura
It’s interesting to note that some credit card companies are allowing
government employees carry extra balances and not pay them off during this
shutdown. However, I do wonder if they will be charging interest on that
balance. If not, then all is fine. If they are, well then this just adds to
the total cost of the shutdown :/.

------
kevindqc
It's a feature, not a bug!

~~~
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.

~~~
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.

------
eric_khun
1/ What will be the impact for US economy? Are we already see any economic
impact?

2/ Are people who showed up at work will get paid for those past weeks?

~~~
manicdee
The economic impact started when the shutdown began and furloughed employees
stopped their discretionary spending because they had no idea how long they
would have to stretch out that last pay check and life savings.

By the time the effects of the economic downturn are visible (such as airports
cancelling flights because they have insufficient traffic control), you can
expect that the damage done will take years to unwind.

Just because you get back pay in a month or two doesn't mean you return to the
previous level of discretionary spending immediately. You are now a consumer
with lack of confidence in the economy. You don't know when the next
Presidential tantrum is going to shut down the government.

This will affect all the services that government employees used on a daily
basis: cafes, restaurants, laundromats, house cleaning, gardeners, etc.

Consumer confidence may not return till long after this president is ejected,
assuming the USA actually has any more presidential elections and the Tumpists
don't just take over the country.

------
snarfy
This is how systemic failure happens. If things keep going like this
restarting the government won't fix it.

~~~
thecolorblue
I felt that there was this un-mentioned argument for the shutdown that it
would only affect the first quarter of this year and then everything will be
back to normal. To me, it is getting harder to believe that.

~~~
ganeshkrishnan
I don't think it will affect just the first quarter. Our whole team is flying
for business to NYC next week and flights have been delayed and some
cancelled.

We are now thinking of carpooling and driving down or cancelling the event and
this is just our startup. It will be impossible to quantify the damage done by
this shutdown.

------
zaroth
I read about a half dozen news articles including from CNN, NBC, and
Washington Post on this.

None of them make clear the fact that these workers will receive back pay
after the shutdown _whether they work or not_.

The IRS.gov has a FAQ site [1] which says that they will get back pay, and
they will have to repay any unemployment benefits taken when that happens,
even if they claim a hardship exemption.

This to me changes the story. Claim the exemption and you can work in the gig
economy and get paid twice. Or go back to work and wait to get paid when the
shutdown is over. I can see why so many are choosing to claim the exemption.

[1] - [https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/employee-frequently-asked-
quest...](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/employee-frequently-asked-questions-
furlough-procedures)

~~~
Jtsummers
That they will receive backpay has been settled (signed law) for about 10 days
now and made headlines on all those sites.

~~~
zaroth
The top comment here is “Good for them! Working without pay is completely
nonsensical.”

But that’s literally not what’s happened. The choice was get paid vacation or
come into work. Either way they will be paid.

Any article that states the work is unpaid, without clarifying the work will
be paid but late, is factually incorrect and misleading. And that’s most of
them.

------
megaman8
Seeing what republicans and democrats are doing to this country, i wonder if
voters will start to consider alternative parties now.

~~~
gameswithgo
You could mostly just get rid of Mitch Mconnel and Trump and most of the
really bad stuff of late would be resolved.

~~~
tartuffe78
You could mostly just get rid of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and most of
the really bad stuff of late would be resolved. /s

~~~
munk-a
Hrm, if only the republicans could control all three branches of the
government, surely they'd be able to allocate funds if that were the case?

I suspect that a lot of republican higher ups specifically avoided funding the
border wall until they lost control of the house so they could manufacture
this crisis (especially as the potential to fund the border wall was offered
by democrats earlier and declined by republicans, and the senate passed a
"just keep it open" bill before going on winter recess).

~~~
burfog
There is control, and then there is control. In the previous senate, less than
half of the senators would reliably vote as republicans.

~~~
munk-a
Yea I know, those ones tended to vote with Trump sometimes!

In all serious I don't know if this was meant as sarcasm but party cohesion in
the republican party is quite high, it's one of the reasons the republican
minority was effective against Obama - senators would freely discard logic to
toe the party line.

~~~
burfog
When the majority is only 51 to 49, "quite high" doesn't cut it. Even with the
VP to break ties, it only takes two defectors to lose. Commonly there were
three defectors.

------
beart
I wonder if the historical unpopularity of the IRS will change after this
shutdown.

------
crb002
After 10 days without pay they can walk as per loss of their liberty and
property interests under
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goss_v._Lopez](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goss_v._Lopez)
and the 13th Amendment.

------
anticensor
Workaround: Use conscripts.

~~~
munk-a
Actually my family (rather liberal) were discussing over the winter break that
it wouldn't be terrible to see a WPA sort of resolution to this wall business,
using hired unskilled labour under the direction of the army corps of
engineers would likely give our economy a nice booster shot.

