I thought it was the person buying the service that should save up for what they buy .  They have the right to not buy it if they think planes flying are not worth it.  They do not have the right to just take it.

Edited January 26, 20197 yr by harrry

50 minutes ago, harrry said:

I thought it was the person buying the service that should save up for what they buy .  They have the right to not buy it if they think planes flying are not worth it.  They do not have the right to just take it.

Really? I'm not going to get into an argument about your theory....however, if there weren't any airplanes, we wouldn't need controllers. They provide a service to airplanes....not to themselves. My wife is a controller and quite frankly, I think it's absurd rhst we are the only one not freaking out about this. It pays to save....

7 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I'm sorry if I missed the memo....but....shouldn't these controllers save up for times like this???? My wife and I did....

 

I am sorry if this is too political a question, I really don't want to start any argument here. However, being not from the US, I never understood how the government is even allowed to force anyone to work without pay. Sure they may not pay you, but then I would expect that the employee is free not to work, but still would be entitled to go back to the job after the shutdown ended. Is there really a US law that states the government may not pay you, but you still have to work for them? 

Peter

11 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Really? I'm not going to get into an argument about your theory....however, if there weren't any airplanes, we wouldn't need controllers. They provide a service to airplanes....not to themselves. My wife is a controller and quite frankly, I think it's absurd rhst we are the only one not freaking out about this. It pays to save....

Well, bully for you.  Would you like me to pass along your message to the woman who cleans our apartment twice a month?  Her husband does delivery and construction work on government contracts and lost out on all of them during the month of January, with no chance of back pay.  Oh, and of course there were the future contracts that were cancelled.  Can I tell them on your behalf that they ought to be more prudent?  Maybe decide which of the three kids they're going to feed next month?  Go ahead and tell us all what a good boy you are.

5 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

I am sorry if this is too political a question, I really don't want to start any argument here. However, being not from the US, I never understood how the government is even allowed to force anyone to work without pay.

Couple of reasons - none of them necessarily all that compelling, but valid as of the moment.

1) Certain jobs can be and have been declared essential.  People in those jobs are required to show up no matter what.  Problems come in when those definitions get politicized. This time round, there was a special effort made to reduce the pain (and therefore the political damage) by keeping certain government functions going.  So Medicare checks got processed - but food stamps were under threat.  Had the shutdown continued, there would have been pressure to resume processing IPOs so Wall Street wouldn't suffer.  You get the drift.

2) Federal workers are formally prohibited from striking.  In the past, there were strikes in spite of that - until 1981, when the Reagan administration decided to enforce the restriction and fire the striking PATCO controllers.  Currently the labor toolbox includes sickouts and work-to-rules actions, but not strikes as such.

The better long-term solution - now under discussion - is to provide for continuing funding at current levels during budget impasses, so that neither the federal workforce nor the people they serve become hostages to policy disputes.

2 hours ago, Alan_A said:

Well, bully for you.  Would you like me to pass along your message to the woman who cleans our apartment twice a month?  Her husband does delivery and construction work on government contracts and lost out on all of them during the month of January, with no chance of back pay.  Oh, and of course there were the future contracts that were cancelled.  Can I tell them on your behalf that they ought to be more prudent?  Maybe decide which of the three kids they're going to feed next month?  Go ahead and tell us all what a good boy you are.

Your story doesn't change my opinion whatsoever. 

Edited January 26, 20197 yr by ahsmatt7

7 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

I am sorry if this is too political a question, I really don't want to start any argument here. However, being not from the US, I never understood how the government is even allowed to force anyone to work without pay. Sure they may not pay you, but then I would expect that the employee is free not to work, but still would be entitled to go back to the job after the shutdown ended. Is there really a US law that states the government may not pay you, but you still have to work for them? 

Peter

It's not political at all. I agree with everything you said. 

Quite frankly, it's criminal to force someone to work without pay. However, govt. Can do whatever they want....which is why I don't trust them and never rely on them...

14 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I'm sorry if I missed the memo....but....shouldn't these controllers save up for times like this???? My wife and I did....

Wilbur?  Wilbur Ross?  Is that you???

Come on guys. This started out as a post concerning an incredible act of kindness by our Canadian neighbors and is quickly devolving into a political discussion.

Please lets get back on topic else this one is in danger of being locked.  No arguments about who is right or wrong either, please.

 

1 hour ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Your story doesn't change my opinion whatsoever. 

Of course it doesn't.

 

29 minutes ago, 188AHC said:

Please lets get back on topic else this one is in danger of being locked. 

Happy to oblige.  The "ignore user" feature was made for times like this.

Edited January 26, 20197 yr by Alan_A

3 hours ago, Alan_A said:

The better long-term solution - now under discussion - is to provide for continuing funding at current levels during budget impasses, so that neither the federal workforce nor the people they serve become hostages to policy disputes.

Hi Alan,

thanks for your explanations, that was exactly what I was looking for. I hope that a long-term solution will be found to make sure ATC remains well-fed, even without Canadian interference 🙂

Cheers,

Peter