SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Hundreds of Transportation Security Administration officers, who are required to work without paychecks through the partial government shutdown, have called out from work this week from at least four major airports, according to two senior agency officials and three TSA employee union officials.
The mass call outs could inevitably mean air travel is less secure, especially as the shutdown enters its second week with no clear end to the political stalemate in sight. "This will definitely affect the flying public who we (are) sworn to protect," Hydrick Thomas, president of the national TSA employee union, told CNN.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Hundreds of TSA Screeners, Working Without Pay, Calling Out Sick at Airports
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 102 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Virtue is its own punishment.
-- Denniston
Righteous people terrify me ... virtue is its own punishment.
-- Aneurin Bevan
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday January 07 2019, @02:41PM (14 children)
The GOP has been running on wanting to eliminate the entire federal bureaucracy for decades. Shutting down the government completely is the fastest way to do this. They thought about shutting down the government for a long period during the Obama administration as well.
Trump, on the other hand, has been trying since the start of his presidency to replace civil servants with people who he believes are loyal to him personally. So he hopes that the civil service employees will quit, and when the government re-opens he can hire a skeleton crew of people who profess loyalty to himself. This is exactly what presidents of third world countries do all the time, and what US presidents did before the establishment of the civil service system.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @04:03PM (5 children)
This is exactly what our constitution prescribes. The president is the single leader of the executive branch, and with limited exceptions, has full authority to hire and fire as he wishes.
Where do bosses tolerate subordinates undermining their strategies?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @05:25PM (3 children)
No, he doesn't, dumbass! I work for DoD. As a civilian employee, I am sworn to defend the Constitution, not the yutz who sits in the Oval Office, regardless of whatever party they belong to. On the other hand, the President does more or less have authority to fire at will any of his political appointees. Next time, know what you are talking about before spouting off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @05:40PM (2 children)
I'll refer you to US const art II sect 1 for proof.
You swore to uphold the constitution, did you? Well, if the president has no more need for your, I'm sure indispensable, services, you can continue to uphold it in your mom's basement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @05:59PM
We also swore to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @07:49PM
I just looked. Nowhere in Article II, Section 1 does it mention hiring and firing of civil servants. I didn't find anything in Section 2 through 4 either. Perhaps I am a bit thick. Could you please show me where in the Constitution you think the President has been given authority to hire/fire civil servants, outwith Congressional approval? Please be specific. You do realize that the President can't do anything regarding funding of the government without Congressional approval, right? I eagerly await your response.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday January 07 2019, @07:23PM
No, the president doesn't have the power to hire and fire as he wishes. He never has:
- The president cannot on his own hire the vice-president. Early on in the country's history, prior to the 12th Amendment, the vice-president was whoever got the second-highest number of votes in the Electoral College, which meant that the early vice-presidents were often political opponents of the president. Now, the Electoral College does 2 rounds of votes, and they choose the vice-president on a second ballot. The president cannot fire the vice-president, either: The only way to remove a VP is for Congress to impeach and remove him, or for the VP to die, or for the VP to resign his office.
- The president doesn't have the power to hire Cabinet officers either: He needs Senate confirmation of his choices, per the "Advice & Consent" clause. Without that, his cabinet consists of "acting" members, who have most but not all of the powers of confirmed members.
- In 1883, the president lost his power to hire and fire low-level employees with the creation of the US civil service system. As far as any claims that the civil servants are working against the president, they've been barred from on-the-job political activity since 1939, so if there was evidence that they were trying to, say, help the Democrats win as part of their official duties, the people involved could be fired and otherwise punished for their activities. They haven't been, which means that the grand conspiratorial claims about them are basically pure fiction and should not be taken seriously. There are similar rules about what military members are and are not allowed to do while on duty, which Stanley McChrystal learned all about the hard way. As the rules currently stand, the president cannot legally fire or punish any civil servant or military member for refusing to break the law or current regulations. This shutdown is basically the Milton Waddams Maneuver writ large: They aren't being fired, they just won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it will all "work itself out naturally" without any confrontations (so management thinks).
All of this has one big message built into it: The order of whose rules count is supposed to be The Constitution, the laws duly passed under the Constitution, the regulations currently in place, and then the president and his political appointees. That way, if the president is a crook, there are still people not involved in the president's crimes around to do boring but useful stuff like ensuring that the latest airplane repair requirements get published promptly and enforced, managing fishing catch limits to prevent over-fishing, and adjusting drawbridge schedules to compromise well between the needs of road and shipping traffic. It also means that a president can't simply declare the laws null and void by directing the executive branch to ignore them. In short, if you don't believe in the concept of civil and military service independent of the president's whims, then you don't believe in a democratic republic but instead believe in some form of authoritarian government.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheFool on Monday January 07 2019, @04:10PM (2 children)
I am not a Republican, but yes, this seems to be the closest to what I want.
The federal budget should be as close to $0 as possible. If we set it exactly to $0 and negotiate up, especially with congress being as dysfunctional as it is right now, we might find out what we really need in a federal government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @06:31PM
If you think Congress is dysfuntional now you should try working for them.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday January 07 2019, @10:21PM
The lowest possible federal government budget is $0. It means there isn't a federal government, at all. No courts, no presidency, no White House, no Congress, no FBI, nothing. Presumably, no such thing as US dollars too in fairly short order, since the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury both go away in this scenario.
The US tried something like that for the first few years after independence. It was called the Articles of Confederation, where the state governments were extremely independent and each sent a representative to the national government to coordinate the few things they were actually coordinating. We replaced it with the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation turned out to be pretty dysfunctional: The state governments didn't feel like contributing funds to the national government, so they didn't, which meant that the national government couldn't do things like establish a military sufficient to protect the nation from foreign invasion (from Native American nations, Brits, French, and Spanish) or internal rebellion (most notably that of Daniel Shays).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @05:10PM (3 children)
Except that it's not since back pay still happens. Costs are still incurred.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Thexalon on Monday January 07 2019, @07:26PM (1 child)
Assuming that back pay ever happens. Given Donald Trump's history of not paying people, I think it's fair to question whether the people currently working without pay will ever actually be paid for their time, even if doing that is completely illegal.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @08:14PM
While I agree that Trump has a terrible history of (illegally) not paying people for services rendered, I have a hard time believing that people will not eventually get paid. Even those on furlough. Remember that any deal to reopen the government must go through Congress as well. Congresscritters must eventually face angry constituents. Yes, even those who are federal employees who are on furlough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @08:19PM
That's right! In fact, it's even worse than this because...wait for it...it actually costs money to shut down and reopen the government. Consider it a tax on political partisanship!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @07:55PM
If the GOP didn't want the TSA, then why did they make it in the first place?