government workers will still have jobs, and will get back pay (possibly double) when this things ends.

No such assurances for anyone in the private sector.

for a month.

I don't think the Women's March was limited to government employees - a whole lot of people with jobs in the private sector were out there and they didn't seem to be concerned about losing their jobs or any pay. Why can't they also go out and protest on behalf of government workers to pressure the White House and Republicans to end the shutdown?

If they're not going to put themselves on the line in any way, they need to stop telling government workers what they should do.

Obviously, private sector employees can do whatever they like on their own time.

I just don't think that I would put my livelihood on the line for people who know they will get paid eventually.

why should THEY put THEIR livelihoods (and likely their pay) on the line if they're going to be paid eventually?

The problem with this argument is that this has gone on long enough now to pretty much be considered a "layoff" regardless of any promise of future back pay, because there will be many who have landlords or banks or utility companies who will NOT give a damn and will evict or fine/assess fees or will initiate shut offs if this isn't resolved post haste. The other issue going on is that twice as many who "work for the government" are actually not civil service but contractors who will NOT be paid or receive back pay (unless they possibly work under a large prime contractor who is willing to front them money or reassign them to other projects during an affected agency's "stop work" period).

I.e., some may end up irrevocably damaged regardless of some hypothetical later outcome.

And then when it's suggested that THEY do something themselves, they wimp out with "Hummuna hummuna ... That would INCONVENIENCE me!'

and former co-workers who are impacted. Some of them have started dipping into their Thrift Savings (from FERS) to make up the difference. Others have attempted to apply for unemployment weeks ago and STILL haven't gotten it because the people in the agency who would be verifying info on the form for the state, ARE themselves furloughed, so the applications are getting bounced around to the wrong offices.

They have a lot of national resources and they aren't the government.

to take to the streets

I'm always puzzled why people post "why don't OTHER people do what I think they should do" threads...

See the difference?

I'm simply asking those who are insisting that government workers should be striking and protesting why THEY'RE not willing to do what they're calling on others to do.

If the OP is so adamant about this perhaps they should go first and lead the way.

Not all of course, but the right pushes that working for the private sector is always superior to working for the government.

In the general population it is. In my area, however, a government job is more solid than private sector. And most are seasonal employees around here because of national parks and forests.

Government employment was traditionally seen as a noble endeavor - and was open almost exclusively to whites, with very few opportunities for people of color. However, after World War II, the federal government began to open up more employment opportunities to African Americans and government jobs became an important leg-up for minorities to build economic security that helped them move into the middle class. In our communities, having a "good government job" was a big deal. In my own family, folks were encouraged to take a government job right out of high school rather than go to college since a career in government was seen as much more lucrative and secure than a career as a black lawyer, doctor or teacher.

The increase in black government workers engendered considerable hostility in some quarters of the white community, where people felt that their previously exclusive entitlement to these jobs was usurped by African-Americans.

This resentment was stoked in the late 70s and early 80s by Ronald Reagan and his ilk, who began to denigrate government workers (i.e., black people) as lazy bureaucrats, just one step above "welfare queens." That notion has spread in the ensuing decades among a larger swath of the private sector, particularly among white Americans.

This is one of the reasons that Trump and the GOP think they can get away with this shutdown since they believe that most Americans feel no sympathy for government employees because they see them as "other."

The union for a large number of Federal employees is the AFGE which is a part of the AFL-CIO.

I would think there would be enough resources to provide "lockout" pay and zero interest loans to their members while they are locked out. Once the back pay is received, it would all be paid back. If that is already being done, I haven't heard anything mentioned about it

requiring payment of dues and thus having large sums of money. They barely have enough to engage in lobbying and they use quite a bit for litigation. They are in no way comparable to private sector union locals.

There ARE some federal-related credit unions (like one here in the Philly area, which I am a member of) who are offering some assistance, which they say includes -

Couldn't other AFL-CIO unions help provide zero interest loans that would be repaid once the back pay is given?

Last edited Mon Jan 21, 2019, 08:41 PM - Edit history (1)

but most employees are not actually members, although they benefit from any contracts that are in place.

I used to be VP and later President of the AFGE chapter at my local agency years ago and it's a whole different ballgame from other unions. The main thing they do is negotiate contracts at local offices (and/or at the agency/department level) and represent employees during any disciplinary issues or when there are issues with workplace changes/infractions, etc.. I posted links to the 2 main unions and what they are offering. For example for AFGE, those who have one of the designated union credit cards, they can get a one-time "grant" of $300.

But because the representation does not allow one of the biggest tools in the toolbox - the "strike", the national really can't do much else outside of organizing protests, lobbying, filing lawsuits (which they have done quite a bit of) and act as a resource aggregator.

will still have their jobs when the shutdown ends. Why aren't government workers protesting? Do they expect their allies to put their asses in a sling for them and go on strike while they sit back because of some legal issues ?

So, those were all government workers out last weekend for the Women's March?

If you're not willing to go into the streets to protest the shutdown (which affects you, too), then you are in no position to criticize government workers - who are struggling in ways you don't have to - for not doing what you aren't willing to do yourself.

protesting for the Women's March or have marches been set up for or by the victims of the shutdown to protest the shut down? I haven't seen any. I'm not criticizing the government workers for not being out there protesting or striking. I haven't seen anyone else criticizing them either until your OP wanting to know why private sector employees weren't striking for them. I gave you a big reason why the private sector employees aren't on strike for them.

Protest "set up for or by the victims"? We are ALL victims of the shutdown.

And I don't know how you missed the numerous posts demanding to know why government workers aren't striking or taking to the streets, calling them slaves, suggesting they're lazy or cowards. But there have been plenty of them. I'm simply asking why those who are asking government workers to protest or strike aren't willing to do it themselves.

And if someone's calling on government employees to strike - an act that would likely lead to them losing their jobs and their back pay for work already done - claiming they can't do the same because "I could lose my JOB!" is a wimpy dodge.

remove the word "strike" from your OP. Because, as of now, you're coming across disingenuous.

I imagine most of us on here would PROTEST for our fellow Americans employed by the government. But what good would it do for us to go on strike and lose our jobs?

Also, instead of finger-wagging on here, why don't YOU start a protest, put it on Evite, and post a link on here? YOU can be the change, Effie.

Why aren't you?

But since I'm not sitting at my computer typing big-talking shit on DU about how government workers should be striking and protesting while whining that *I* can't do it myself because it might inconvenience me, perhaps you should direct your lectures elsewhere ...

you don't like being told what you should be doing.

And yet, you're typing big-talking shit on DU about how DU members should be striking and protesting while ignoring my suggestion that you should be organizing a strike or protest yourself because it might inconvenience you.

Perhaps you should direct your lectures elsewhere.

Obviously you missed the numerous OPs by other members that prompted this thread.

And I was making one that he could organize a strike or protest - lead by example.

It's really not as if only one point per thread can be made.

if they are at will. There are exceptions, such as that you can’t be fired for reasons protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but generally almost 90% of private employees in the US are considered at will.

negative consequences, that's hardly a thing.

And claiming they can't protest on behalf of government employees because they risk getting fired is a pathetic dodge. If anyone is demanding that government employees should take to the streets to protest but aren't willing to do it themselves because they claim they could lose their jobs, they're pretty much full of sh!t since, not only are they likely to lose their jobs for protesting, protests aren't supposed to be easy or convenient - that's kind of the point.

Sadly, people are let go for arbitrary or worse reasons pretty frequently. I don’t know how big of a factor the fear of job loss is when it comes to making a decision about protesting, but we need to be accurate about what protections they have or do not have.

Dems were all over this board just last weekend raving about the Women's Marches they participated in. Not one of them expressed any concern that they would lose their job nor see anyone say they avoided the march because they didn't want to get fired.

So I call bullshit - major bullshit - on anyone here insisting that government employees take to the streets but claiming fear of retaliation from their employer as an excuse for not protesting the shutdown, too. And if they really do worry that protesting would result in them getting fired, they need to stop demanding that government employees risk THEIR livelihoods by doing what they themselves lack the backbone to do.

The media (notably "national" ) chooses what or who to show... or not. I expect almost all "local" media DO show what is going on in their localities in terms of "protests" as the shutdown subject is a significant news story for them - particularly in the large cities where there is a federal presence and they often like to pursue "human interest stories".

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/federal-workers-protest-the-government-shutdown.html

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2019/01/rally-round-up-images-and-video-from-nationwide-fed-protests-this-week/slide/1/

"human interest stories".

the "shutdown" was nothing more than a "nuisance" of piled up trash at the National Parks!

I think the OP is in response to this NYT editorial by a known regular NYT columnist - https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211702753

visitors cutting down protected Joshua trees during the "partial" government shutdown.

I can't seem to access the link. It seems anything from https://www.msn.com/ will not work for me. I guess I should call my provider

This page is not available right now
This can sometimes happen if you have internet connectivity problems or are running software/plugins that affect your internet traffic.

and the pictures of the damage (which is sad). The narrative was "well only 25% of the government is impacted" except that in terms of raw "numbers", this is because 2 of the 3 largest departments (DOD & HHS) got appropriations in addition to Veteran's Affairs. Everyone else has no appropriation and no pay - and that includes the 9 other departments and multiple standalone agencies like EPA as well as the federal court system.

ETA - another link about the Joshua trees - https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/us/california-joshua-trees-cut-down-during-shutdown-trnd/index.html

A general strike also requires organization of some sort. I can’t just stand on the street corner by myself and expect that to help anyone.

Last edited Mon Jan 21, 2019, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Or is that up to someone else to do?

And, FYI, maybe the government employees don't want to lose their jobs, either...

Surely, you're not saying, in Martin Luther King Day of all says, that you shouldn't take an action because no one ever did it before?

Perhaps they are so busy posting about other things that they haven't seen your question.

I'm sure that's it.

But their responses have been limited to "I could lose my JOB!" and "Oh, yeah? Why don't YOU protest?!"

Crickets from that corner.

I don't ever recall a bunch of government employees out there protesting or supporting others picketing.

Most stay in their private sector jobs for the health insurance, not the pay.

So why are people demanding that federal employees take risks they themselves won't take?

And it's very unlikely that a private sector employed will be fired for protesting. So why don't private sector employees, at least those insisting that federal employees "take to the streets," stage protests in support of federal employees who may be too busy just trying to survive to launch a major protest on their own behalf?

I manage in a Union Company. Strikes can only occur within a narrow part of the contract. Doing so any other time will result in dismissal.

Not even bringing up the point that a large part of the members support trump.

Will you get fired for that?

Let's be clear. I'm not saying that all private sector employees should strike or protest. But I am, frankly, sick of seeing certain folk demand to know why federal employees aren't "fighting back," "taking to the streets," "striking," etc. because they're not risking their livelihoods and economic security - but when asked why THEY don't do it, the computer warriors claim they would lose their jobs if they did.

I’ll bet you’ll get nothing but crickets from those who scream the loudest about how the federal workers should be striking.

This shutdown is a "total waste of taxpayers money. But I am enjoying the extra time off." He's going to yoga class, instead of to the Hart building demonstration on Wednesday.

Not everyone who is furloughed feels the need to protest or strike. (For the record, I have three siblings or siblings-in-law who are federal government workers - they all feel pretty much the same way, except for the one who is both working and getting paid, who is jealous of the other two.)

That's not to minimize the real hardship this shutdown is causing many federal employees - just a reminder some government workers are not in pain, so we shouldn't expect their pain to personally motivate them to strike or protest to save the rest of us.

not long before this post, you said employees could quit if they didn't want to work unpaid, yes but why is it appropriate to expect people to work for free to keep their jobs as a condition of employment?

you constantly side against the less powerful person in debates on DU.

it's your theme.

and i call BS and your brother and his quote, i would advise readers here to take it with a grain of salt lacking any proof.