Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 February 7

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 7

U.S. Government shutdowns and the unpaid employees

When the U.S. Government shuts down due to clashes over the budget, suddenly you have thousands (or tens of thousands) of Federal employees being put on unpaid leave, don't you?

How come we never hear about how this mass of temporarily unpaid employees are, or aren't, coping, now that they're not getting paid?? Even if the Feds can't get their budget sorted, doesn't put the Federal employees' personal budgets on hold. I don't remember seeing a single news report discussing their plight!

Also, how come we don't see or hear of throngs of the (temporarily) unemployed Fed workers descending on charities for assistance? Or does exactly this happen, just that it remains poorly reported by the mainstream news?

Furthermore, once the Fed shutdown ends, do the employees get back-pay? Eliyohub (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"How come we never" questions are not really answerable in this forum. The last question can be answered here. --Jayron32 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Usually there are three types of workers involved. Essential workers (military, e.g.) report for duty and may see a delay in pay if it's not already budgeted and the shutdown is long enough. Non-essential workers who are salaried and unionized like Social Security department employees stay home, but the joke is that it's a (post-)paid holiday, since they will get paid by their contracts, although, again, there may be a delay if the money is unbudgeted and the shutdown runs long.

The only class that really suffers are hourly employees working on construction projects. They won't get paid for hours not worked, but they may even get overtime once work resumes depending on the urgency of the project. On three occasions I received notices that due to budget negotiations there might be a cut or delay in payments by the state or the federal government. In each case there was no such cut or delay, but people got paid to design, print, and mail out those panic--I mean "warning"--letters. μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the difference between government employees and government contractors. The direct employees of the government essentially get a few days/weeks of paid vacation extra; they get their back pay and no one complains. The guy pouring asphalt on a highway project that gets furloughed because the funding for his paycheck isn't arriving, he gets nothing and loses out. --Jayron32 13:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And it’s all the fault of the -(insert name political party you oppose here) - those bastards! Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't quite true. The unionization (or lack thereof) of any government agency doesn't affect shutdowns at all - pay is specifically exempted from federal collective bargaining. Rather, *all* federal employees stop getting paid during any shutdown. For those employees exempted from the shutdown and required to work, they are legally guaranteed back pay once the shutdown is complete. Employees who aren't exempt and are furloughed are *not* legally guaranteed back pay, but historically speaking, Congress has authorized full back pay after every shutdown, in recognition of the fact that their incompetence shouldn't affect our paychecks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes most discussions of this seem to confirm that while government employees have historically been paid for time during the furlough, it's only been because Congress has passed bills requiring it. See e.g. [1] [2] [3]. A number of sources (including that below) also mention that employees of contractors are the ones most affected as they generally simply receive no pay for the time [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In this case, a simple answer to the OP is "because you aren't reading widely enough". It may be true these things aren't well covered but they are definitely covered see e.g. [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• NBSB I specifically said that some unionized employees may not get paid during a shutdown. They always get back pay after a shutdown, as part of their contracts. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat? μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As always .

You've provided zero evidence that any federal government employees are guaranteed pay for involuntary leave/furloughed time as part of their contracts, unionised or not. All evidence provided so far suggests that pay has been awarded in the past for involuntary leave/furloughed time because Congress has provided for it, however there is nothing requiring them to do so. For those who do work, no one appears to dispute they are guaranteed back pay eventually.

Actually as far as I can tell, the important distinction which you poorly explained but others expanded on but you still seem to be poorly covering is not whether an employee is unionised but whether an employee is employed by federal government or employed by a contractor (or I guess as an independent contractor). Federal employees are generally paid even for the time they didn't work when they normally would have during a shutdown. (Even though as said several times now, there's no evidence there's any legal requirement to do so.) Contractors are not paid for contracts not carried out during the shutdown. And it appears at least for the low level jobs, the employees (or independent contractors) of contractors are also not paid. It's possible that high level employees of contracts are guaranteed pay (seems less likely for independent contractors), this is something no one has really touched on. Or if you were trying to touch on it, you didn't do that very well. (As you did mention, it's possible some of those working for contractors may get overtime later if needed.)

Note also you've provided no evidence for why unionisation matters. While it's true NBSB did not provide sources either and nor has anyone else, the track record so far suggests it's far more likely they are right than you on this. And of course, a simple search found Federal Labor Relations Act which supports NBSB's view anyway. (I did try to look for sources specifically commenting on the employment contract issue, unfortunately the extensive discussion of contractors make it difficult.) This doesn't apply to employees of contractors, it's possible unionised employees of those may be more likely to have contracts with guarantee pay. But again, if you wanted to deal with contractors specifically your posts have dealt with the dinstinction very poorly.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As Nil Einne noted, the FLRA forbids negotiation of pay or benefits in federal employment contracts - unions exist in federal government to negotiate working conditions alone. I am a unionized federal employee, and there is nothing in our Master Agreement which discusses lapses in appropriations in any manner - it's ultra vires or beyond the authority of the agency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Follow up Question

It’s academic now... but in a shutdown, are Members of the House and Senate included in any pay freeze (or do they exempt themselves)? What about their staff and aides? What about the President? Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Members of Congress are still paid [6] [7], as is the President [8]. As the sources say, their pay is guaranteed by the constitution. Staffers are AFAIK treated the same as other federal government employees [9] [10]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

East Ghouta vs. Revelation of John

How does the famine in East Ghouta compare to the Revelation of John? Revelation 6:6 says "And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine." I don't know how to evaluate sources for comparisons of a "penny" (denarius); this site says one was a day's wages but would buy only 25 loaves of bread in normal times. Sites like this and this give the impression that people are making an average of $15,000 Syrian Pounds per month and spending 700-750 SYP (about $1.35) per loaf of bread. This article, the point of origin for this inquiry, said that an official by the name of Manfoush was charging 2000 SYP ($4) per kilo of flour to be let through the siege. The Reliefweb site also says that fodder is barley and was being substituted for flour by bakers. The prophecy site seems reasonably convincing that a "measure" is a "choenix" is a quart dry weight is enough to make "1.5 to 1.875 one-pound loaves", however accurate that may be. Are there better sources for modern and ancient details? With what accuracy can you establish:

1) whether a measure of wheat costs more or less than an East Ghouta resident's day's wages?

2) whether barley/fodder is actually 3x less expensive than wheat?

3) Also, any idea what the part about the oil and wine means? (Like, don't eat them, or don't damage them in transit, or...?)

Wnt (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy courses in public U.S. universities vis-a-vis church-state separation

I remember reading, when court cases arose in the Federal Courts in the U.S. regarding teaching Intelligent Design, the courts ruled that it could not be taught as science. My understanding is that the ruling did not address (or perhaps the parties did not ask the court to address?) the question of teaching intelligent design in other subjects, e.g. philosophy.

This raised interesting thoughts in my mind: What restraints, if any, do public universities in the U.S. face when teaching subjects like philosophy? You can't really omit teaching how various religions address the questions raised in a philosophy course (about life, the purpose of existence, right and wrong, etc etc). So what restraints do universities face in teaching such subjects? How do they ensure they don't violate the Establishment Clause? Where is the line drawn? Has this issue ever arisen in a court case? Eliyohub (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Public universities have religious studies courses, so there is not anything like a general ban over recognizing the existance of religion or religious concepts, or telling people about them at public universities. --Jayron32 16:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• You've totally misunderstood the subject. The "government shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" means that the US can't have (establish) an official state religion, and can't pass laws regarding how such a religion would be practiced. In other words, there is a Church of England, which is nominally headed by the Queen, and the practice of which can be supported and regulated by the Parliament. The "same" Church exists in various forms in the US as Episcopalianism, but it enjoys no special rights, and is not regulated by or treated any differently from any other religion by law.

Simply teaching the facts about what a religion preaches or its history has nothing to do with supporting or "establishing" such a church or making people adhere to it or giving it a special status. μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you don't know how the Establishment Clause is interpreted by the courts, and it actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...". Teaching creationism in science classes of public schools is considered a violation (Edwards v. Aguillard), and this also applies to intelligent design (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). I don't know the status of mentioning religious beliefs in a philosophy context without claiming the beliefs are right. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that the first case didn't ban 'teaching creationism' but mandating that creationism be taught. Also that article points to the "three-pronged Lemon test":

• The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
• The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
• The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

I think this is often common sense - offering a course studying Christianity or Islam where students have to explain who believes in predestination and what that means is one thing -- saying that students will be failed if they support one philosophy but not the other or requiring them to drink a beer and say a Hail Mary to get course credit is something else. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think the OP is confusing some things. First of all, there's a difference between teaching ID as a scientific concept, and teaching about ID as a religious/philosophical concept. The courts have only ruled on the former. The latter would be fine. The schools are not verboten from teaching it as "Here's this thing some people believe in", they are enjoined from teaching it as "here's how this happened scientifically". Recognizing it exists as a belief and teaching about its place in the context of that, is perfectly fine. --Jayron32 13:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no problem with public schools in the U.S. teaching about religion, as long as it's relevant to the subject and they're not presenting it as The One True Belief. For instance, here's the description for UCLA's B.A. in Study of Religion here in godless liberal California.</tongue_in_cheek> Teaching "intelligent design"/"creation science" in science class falls afoul of the First Amendment because it's not science, but a thinly-disguised attempt to proselytize Christian creationism. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Although teaching about religion is allowed, schools can get into trouble when they don't properly design their curriculum for the reasons you've outline. See e.g. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15][16]. This seems to be much less of a problem in universities I suspect because it's much more common there that the people pushing for and designing the courses are academics with academic experience of the subject matter whereas it isn't uncommon that the people pushing for and designing the things in schools are simply people who's primary interest arises because they do believe it's the 'one true religion' Nil Einne (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, PH, if respecting/regarding is your only complaint about my memory then you win. But Eliyohub has still entirely misconstrued the meaning of the statute as written within the context of the Established Church of England and the limits the Constitution places on the powers of Congress. I'd also point out that the Constitution does not even authorize direct spending on education at the federal level. That being said, even if the federal government does so spend, teaching about religion in general is vastly different from mandating a specific belief or practice in particular, which is what the establishment clause prohibits, and only prohibits. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)