Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 612 posts

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#451

Post by jki275 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #447
shhehebehdh wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that they literally must work. It’s that they can be fired for not showing up despite going without pay. Any private employer could also try this, although it’s questionable whether or how long people would put up with it. When the government is the employer, there’s some level of confidence that at least you’ll get paid in the future, whereas with a private employer once they stop paying on time they usuall…

Military personnel have to work.

Just to amplify, military personnel can be court martialed and sent to prison if they refuse to show up -- paid or unpaid.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#452

Post by zentiggr »

tomschlick wrote: post #413
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we get this please? I can think of a really great way to stop this shutdown by removal of one person in particular.

Honestly the last thing I want when we reach a budget impasse is for a full roster of rookie congressmen managing it. Thats ripe for abuse and you'd be getting rid of a lot of well seasoned people who know how to work around red tape to get things done and make deals.

For a well meant opposing viewpoint, flushing longer term congresspeople could mean the breaking of many lobbyist ties, shadow coalitions, and other impediments to reasonable progress. I've proposed before that campaign contribution amounts be publicized, and let people vote out the ones who have been too heavily 'bought'.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#453

Post by billylindeman »

yardie wrote: post #228
mbostleman wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about striking per se. But I have been somewhat confused about why all these workers are reporting to work when they're not being paid. If it's purely out of good will and dedication for their jobs, I appreciate that, but I wonder if it doesn't just serve to mask the problem. Employment at will means that every day is a new agreement - I work then you pay. If one side of that declines, then so should the…

The government has effectively outlawed it. They could strike but then the strike would be illegal. It's never been tested in court but with the rush of federal appointments (all happening while we've been watching the circus) of conservative judges it doesn't bode well for worker rights.

This really needs to be tested in court. Isn't the government technically in breach of contract by not paying employees?

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#454

Post by rootusrootus »

sabujp wrote: post #326
mitchell_h wrote: post #13

I'm currently sitting in LGA waiting on a flight that was scheduled for 1:30pm. This sucks.

not getting paid sucks more

The people not getting paid mostly don't have enough political power to matter. If the airports start going offline politicians are going to very quickly hear from the constituents they actually care about.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#455

Post by morpheuskafka »

tengbretson wrote: post #32
thedaemon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is caused slavery, government mandated slavery. I don't see how so many people can be okay with this happening. Why are we not outraged?

Can we just call it bad without lying about what it actually is?

It's not lying. People are being called to perform highly valuable full time work without any pay. This work is involuntary, because regular employees would be terminated and lose competitive status (adverse government action), and Coast Guard employees (who are paid by DHS not DoD) would face UCMJ charges for not working involuntarily without pay.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#456

Post by onetimemanytime »

wonderwonder wrote: post #24

Bearing in mind that ~40% of american's could not come up with $400 to cover emergencies, this is going to become more prevalent in the next few days / weeks as people will simply not be able to afford gas to get to their unpaid work. I read an article today discussing how TSA workers in HI are living in their cars in the airport parking lot as they cannot afford to commute. The FBI just cancelled its internship prog…

This is unrelated, but you cannot live your life (in a happy way) being broke virtually all the time. If you are having major problem because a paycheck is missing, you are broke. Very few escape the trap, even if your salary increases, your expenses do too. Not a way to live.

If another person had suggested to get a loan it would have seem more reasonable. You lose a couple of hundred or maybe tens of dollars but at least you get the rest. However, having a billionaire, labeled as out of touch, and presumably teams of lawyers that do his loan paperwork say that...

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#457

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

tibbon wrote: post #56
wonderwonder wrote: post #24

Bearing in mind that ~40% of american's could not come up with $400 to cover emergencies, this is going to become more prevalent in the next few days / weeks as people will simply not be able to afford gas to get to their unpaid work. I read an article today discussing how TSA workers in HI are living in their cars in the airport parking lot as they cannot afford to commute. The FBI just cancelled its internship prog…

I've seen too many people say, "Oh, government workers should all know this stuff happens all the time, and if they don't have months or years of savings in the bank then it's just their fault". It's really sad that instead of being compassionate, too many are focusing on what "should" be instead of what is the reality for many people. Like you point out, the reality is that most people don't have savings. They shoul…

> “I too feel terrible for people being hurt by these comparatively wealthy politicians playing games with their livelihood.”

It’s important to be clear that in this specific case it is literally just one singular wealthy politician inflicting this suffering.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#458

Post by learc83 »

zanny wrote: post #375
Consultant32452 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specific power being used here is the presidential veto, which is an important power of the president which is checked by the legislature being able to overrule a veto if they get enough votes. In more calm times they could just pass legislation that would end the concept of government shut downs by funding at the previous rate in the event of a failure to agree to new funding levels. Neither side wants that beca…

Its not nearly an equal cudgel. Generally the democrats want federal institutions to be in operation while Republicans want to disrupt and defund them. This correlates to 9 of 10 shutdowns (one in Bill Clintons term I'd consider him causing it) being propagated by Republicans on either side of negotiations, often with intent to defund some part of the government with the appropriations bills. Of course, I wouldn't he…

>they had the house and senate in 2008-2010 and chose not to go about abolishing the electoral college

They had absolutely no way to do that. That would require a constitutional amendment.

(There's another way around it where enough states agree to award electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, but that also requires action by the states).

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#459

Post by Mithorium »

dspillett wrote: post #374
flyingpenguin wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that really bothers me about that "They should have savings" logic, is the expectation that they should have to use them. Yes. They should have savings. EVERYONE should have min 3 months of income in savings. No one should be expected to use it.

> EVERYONE should have min 3 months of income in savings. It surprises me how few do though. I do. Six months or more in fact. I'm in a relatively well-paid job (senior-developer-come-local-database-export) as of course are many of the people around me, in fact some should be much better off, but there are those among them who get edgy if a mistake makes our pay late by a day because they have bills payments going ou…

I have coworkers like that too, guys who've been working for much longer than me (and getting paid more), without savings. We're not working at a minimum wage job, how do they even manage to spend all of that? Do they not plan on retiring one day? You can't possibly work till the day you die

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#460

Post by a-priori »

lazyant wrote: post #137
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #87

I hope not too off topic, but I'm puzzled by shutdowns. Every other country I can think of has a system where if the finance is not agreed, the previous budget just continues. The budget sets the yearly amount for each department and it runs on until another budget changes how much everyone gets. Sometimes a new department gets created, sometimes something is abolished. Everyone gets their salary and services run on.…

In Canada it triggers a new election

Specifically in Westminster systems (like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK) the budget is a supply bill, a bill where the government asks for money.

Supply bills are automatically confidence motions, which means that if they fail to be passed then the government (i.e, the Prime Minister and their Cabinet) is said to have lost the confidence of the House.

If this happens, the Prime Minister loses the right to govern and a new government must be formed. Usually this means an election, but in rare cases the opposition parties can form a coalition that has the confidence of the House. This process is mediated by the Governor General or (in the UK) the Queen.

But in all cases, until a new government is formed and they manage to pass a budget, the old budget remains in effect. There's no scenario in a parliamentary democracy where failing to pass a budget will cause the bureaucracy to shut down.

Post reply on HN