randoturbo33
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 175
Normally that would be true, but the back pay bill passed today changed that.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s24/text said:
Government Shutdown
- Thread starter Flashy Vectors
- Start date
Normally that would be true, but the back pay bill passed today changed that.
- Messages
- 2,100
- Facility
- N90 New York Tracon
Tell that to the workers at the 5 plants GM is closing.
@DankVectorz that is in response to a market not a production shift, that blame is solely on the US consumer. Different reasons for making a plant go idle.
GM killing CT6, Cruze, Impala, Volt and more as it plans to idle 5 plants
GM killing CT6, Cruze, Impala, Volt and more as it plans to idle 5 plants
CaptainObvious
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,140
So are people that were taking furlough being charged leave?
Well, you can't really blame the US consumer for not buying a bad product; you blame the company for designing, marketing, and failing to sell a bad product. No updated NAFTA is going to fix that.
Those who are essential and have to work that take any type of leave during this shutdown are being charged for leave. Those who are non-essential that were furloughed are not getting charged leave, but will probably just get admin. ??♂️
getting real...ouch
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,358
To me it just means we can take leave. What guidance says it will actually be charged?
- Messages
- 491
- Facility
- Command Center
Natca pushed a email a few minutes ago about leave during the furlough basically saying once they hear something from OPM they'll let us know what's going on...
It's safe to say we all knew this administration was going to shit on us. Everyone just needs to find a nice stick to bite down on for the next two years.
It's safe to say we all knew this administration was going to shit on us. Everyone just needs to find a nice stick to bite down on for the next two years.
- Messages
- 491
- Facility
- Command Center
Why would congress authorize us to take leave? There is a backpay thread (I believe you've posted in there) and the language used in prior shutdowns was different.
- Messages
- 2,100
- Facility
- N90 New York Tracon
Depending on how it’s interpreted, it’s a save for the TSA employees who have been calling in sick or a smack. Either way its in their because of TSA
- Messages
- 491
- Facility
- Command Center
I understand that, what I was saying was congress has never included language in a backpay authorization "allowing" us to take leave. If we wanted leave we'd make the request and once it was approved we'd be placed in furlough status, we never needed permission before why did they add the language this time?
Mike Kilo
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,849
It specified that employees affected by a covered lapse of appropriations from DEC 22nd forward (they back dated it for this shutdown) shall be allowed to use leave under article blah blah blah. Which means to me that since you can use your leave, you will be using your leave. I think they will let us elect to do LWOP instead as well to have this hollow over a little faster. Most of the people I know would go that route.
I believe this version of the bill was already through the system before the TSA sick hits were a focus, but I could be wrong. It’s happened before.
I believe this version of the bill was already through the system before the TSA sick hits were a focus, but I could be wrong. It’s happened before.
Why would you use Lwop instead of regular leave if we are being charged leave..?
- Messages
- 49
- Facility
- ZOA Oakland Center
To save your leave. It's better to bank the leave than money.
So the previous opm Guidance was you are either furloughed or working (no such thing as paid leave) AND therefore that should have been followed until a new interpretation comes out. (on tomorrow jan 18th) It seems unless you were ordered to work and refused the old rule should apply
To then say it's either lwop or charged unless you are on admin duties (in the future) is fair.
I would find it hard to believe they would backdate their own guidance? I haven't really paid attention the past 8 years but maybe someone else can chime in.
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf
page 8
You weren't on leave, you were furloughed when it happened, tomorrow you'll be on leave. GUESS
"No. When an excepted employee is not working or not performing excepted activities in compliance with the Antideficiency Act, he or she cannot be in a pay status. Excepted employees must be either performing excepted activities or furloughed during any absence from work. The furlough must be documented by a furlough notice. If an excepted employee refuses to report for work after being ordered to do so, he or she will be considered to be absent without leave (AWOL) and will be subject to any consequences that may follow from being AWOL. "
To then say it's either lwop or charged unless you are on admin duties (in the future) is fair.
I would find it hard to believe they would backdate their own guidance? I haven't really paid attention the past 8 years but maybe someone else can chime in.
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf
page 8
You weren't on leave, you were furloughed when it happened, tomorrow you'll be on leave. GUESS
"No. When an excepted employee is not working or not performing excepted activities in compliance with the Antideficiency Act, he or she cannot be in a pay status. Excepted employees must be either performing excepted activities or furloughed during any absence from work. The furlough must be documented by a furlough notice. If an excepted employee refuses to report for work after being ordered to do so, he or she will be considered to be absent without leave (AWOL) and will be subject to any consequences that may follow from being AWOL. "
As I recall, there was some speculation around the fact that since we couldn't take sick leave before, the agency was recording furlough absences (for disciplinary action, maybe?) because the projections in the sick leave article could not apply, as it wasn't sick leave. This should at least alleviate that: If we can take leave, we can take sick leave, and the sick leave protections apply.
