Federal workers who check their e-mail during shutdown will be breaking the law

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/federal-workers-who-check-their-e-mail-during-a-shutdown-will-be-breaking-the-law/

by tareqak • 13 years ago

70 71 13 years ago

washingtonpost.com

VLM2• 13 years ago

An acquaintance of mine who works for the feds as a very small cog in our central govt controlled economy, told me that its a strange novelty as an isolated topic, but the real story is how it interacts with other policies. It mostly affects people who violate the rules which theoretically separate work email from personal email (which is enforced to WIDELY varying levels based on dept, locale, and individual supervisor) and people who use work email as a backup authentication aka if you get locked out of google/facebook/whatever and have your work .gov/.mil email address as a backup authentication method, well, you don't have a backup authentication method right now.

ababab• 13 years ago

Not for the government, but I know some coworkers who do the same thing. Terrible idea to not completely decouple work and personal technology. There's no recovery process you couldn't achieve with a google, live, and yahoo account.

VLM2• 13 years ago

Well, sure there's a recovery process you couldn't achieve with those three examples, there's having a fourth backup of using your work email. Its like a math proof trying to prove there exists a largest integer N, theres always N+1.

I do agree that far too many people rely on precisely one backup, if they even have that many.

There are peculiar catch 22 issues like I used to buy books from amazon and once they arrive decide if they're worth staying my property in which case I don't submit a reimbursement voucher or if they're not so good in which case I submit a reimbursement voucher. So technically I don't know if I'm doing personal or business purchasing until long after the transaction.

Another weird corner case is related to health insurance which is tied to employer (if any) in the USA. So emailing an insurance company about health related topics using the work email seems appropriate until you can't use that email anymore even though you're still employed and insured there. Ditto retirement accounts. There are probably people out there with health insurance and retirement accounts who have no non-work related internet access... maybe if they're a forrester stationed in the middle of nowhere or an undercover cop who doesn't want to be caught talking about benefits with the FBI HR person on his personal iphone.

qwerta2• 13 years ago

What employment law in US says in case of forced unpaid holidays? In Europe worker must be given part of salary and an offer for termination (with bonus) within two months.

tokenadult• 13 years ago

Is that true of all employees in Europe? Is that true in every country in Europe?

qwerta2• 13 years ago

Should be in EU. European Commission dictates some minimum in most laws. I guess there are exceptions such as contractors.

kome• 13 years ago

I lived in 3 different countries (Italy, France, Germany) and yes, this rule is everywhere. The details may change, but the core is the same.

But I'm not not sure about those yankies up north in Britain :)

kjjw3• 13 years ago

Pretty sure there's an EU directive covering this but whether or not it is implemented into law in all member states, I don't know.

That said I have a lot of friends across Europe and I can say that they all live in a country where effectively being made redundant invokes some minimum number of weeks of pay that must be given as a lump sum.

golergka• 13 years ago

Russia here. Not only this, but if you're terminated by the boss, you have to be paid triple your monthly salary as a compensation — remnant of the soviet social-oriented legislation. Of course, a lot of people (and almost everyone in IT) gets most of the salary off the books to save on taxes, and if the company wants to fire someone, it would offer him to resign and then find some violation that he committed if he won't (to fire him on this grounds), but the laws are still in place

DanBC• 13 years ago

I'd be interested to see what the English law is. I couldn't find anything immediately here, but I only looked for a short while.

(https://www.gov.uk/browse/working)

But the Citizen's Advice Bureau has some information here (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/work_e/work_rights_at_...)

furyg3• 13 years ago

I am not sure what the EU-wide regulations are.

In NL, employees are hired per term. Meaning you have a 6-12 month contract, and if the employer wants to lay you off or fire you, he has to pay out the rest of your contract. There are some exceptions of course (1 month period at the beginning where either party can terminate, gross negligence, stealing, absence, etc). After 3 years the employee and the employer have an 'indefinite' contract.

This system means that if the employer needs to reorganize, it needs to do so with some government involvement (a sort of civil court which looks at the case). Usually the employee is compensated in some way... usually based on how long the employee has worked there and how bad the financial situation is at the company. "We have lots of cash on hand but our board of directors didn't approve the budget" wouldn't go over very well with the courts, I presume.

The system has it's downsides (employers are cautious to hire), but it also means that you can't just fuck around with your finances and lay-off / furlough your employees because you don't feel like making important decisions. An employer can't just shift the financial burden of bad planning to the unemployment system.

hvs3• 13 years ago

This is different because it isn't a forced unpaid holiday, this is the federal government unable to pay its employees until they have a budget.

That said, employees will be paid retroactively once the gov't gets back to work.

eli6• 13 years ago

There's no guarantee that employees will be paid retroactively, it's just what happened last time. It takes an act of congress.

aestra• 13 years ago

Any retroactive pay will have to be specifically specified for furloughed employees in further budgets. There is no requirement for retroactive pay. Any retroactive pay is a "goodwill" gesture for saying "Sorry we messed up so bad." The very definition of furlough is a temporary unpaid leave.

Even if this is done, there are plenty of people furloughed today who will never ever get paid (contractors).

workhere-io• 13 years ago

In Europe worker must be given part of salary

As other people mentioned, employment laws vary a lot in Europe - and even within the EU there aren't uniform laws.

ProblemFactory• 13 years ago

Could someone more familiar with U.S. laws explain why is it mandatory for federal employees not to work, even if they are unpaid?

I'd imagine there are people who would rather continue with their side projects, research or other fun parts of the job rather than sit at home.

josephmosby• 13 years ago

If a federal employee is asked to do any work whatsoever by a supervisor when on furlough (i.e., not getting paid), the U.S. government could be sued for a violation of the 13th amendment. Making it illegal for federal employees to do any work whatsoever means that the government can place the charge back on an individual if they choose to work.

eli6• 13 years ago

IANAL, but it's generally illegal for employers to permit employees to work without pay. The same way you can't legally "volunteer" to be paid less than minimum wage.

vonmoltke• 13 years ago

It comes down to an opinion by Jimmy Carter's second Attorney General, Benjamin Civiletti[1]. The gist of his opinion, which I need to find a better link for, is that since Congress has sole authority over the budget it is illegal for the government to spend money that was not preauthorized because it undermines Congress' authority. Furthermore, he cited some obscure statute as the reason volunteering to perform normally paid functions would be illegal.

[1] http://www.npr.org/2011/04/08/135247483/who-raised-the-stake...

Edit: His opinion was based on a strict interpretation of the Antideficiency Act[2], the key provisions of which are:

The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal employees from

* making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A).

* involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose, unless otherwise allowed by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(B).

* accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. 31 U.S.C. § 1342.

* making obligations or expenditures in excess of an apportionment or reapportionment, or in excess of the amount permitted by agency regulations. 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a).

[2] http://www.gao.gov/legal/lawresources/antideficiencybackgrou...

caseysoftware• 13 years ago

A few reasons:

First, they're unionized. Understandably, the union is against unpaid labor of any kind. It sets a precedent that is more problematic than anything.

Second, we have a Federal minimum wage. You're not allowed to make less than that in a job. Therefore they would have to be paid something to still be in compliance with the law.

Finally, while one person can go into an office without incurring massive costs, if you have an entire office come in, then you need to make sure receptionists, janitors, kitchen staff, parking attendants, etc are on the job.

eli6• 13 years ago

Unions have nothing to do with it. Neither do costs. It's the law.

Willwhatley• 13 years ago

How do interns work? (In the general sense of compliance with the minimum wage statute.)

pmorici• 13 years ago

"First, they're unionized"

Only about a quarter[0] of federal workers are unionized. It isn't even legal for many to do so.

[0] http://www.federalnewsradio.com/204/3203888/Amid-widespread-...

yardie• 13 years ago

You can't volunteer your labor for a for-profit or government agency[1]. It violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. And you're thinking under the assumption these employees are on a mandatory vacation. That isn't the case. They are all furloughed. Doing side projects and fun jobs doesn't guarantee them any compensation. In fact, to get the money from the missded days is going to require another act of Congress to authorize backpay.

It's a really shitty time to be a government employee.

[1]http://smallbusiness.chron.com/labor-laws-volunteering-workp...

npsimons2• 13 years ago

I work for the Navy (paycheck says DoD); when they furloughed us to 80% time, they told us they didn't want us working unpaid overtime because it would send the wrong message to upper management (that message being "hey, you can cut 20% of our budget and still get the same results!"). With the exception of the obvious mission critical support stuff (where shifts were rearranged), they wanted things like phones going unanswered.

It makes sense to work "unpaid" overtime in a startup, or a business where it will advance your career or help you succeed. Unpaid overtime in the public sector is rarely rewarded; most who do it are really idealistic or just care about getting the job done. And while I love writing software, if they tell me I might be arrested for working on government code, I will just spend my extra time on my personal projects at home. Or hiking, climbing, playing music, etc. Once the furlough is over, I (and many others I know) will go back to putting in the unpaid hours to get the job done.

gcb1• 13 years ago

good insight on why not is not wise to work during the strike, but do not answer the "illegal" aspect mentioned in the "question"

danielweber2• 13 years ago

"Hundred Year Old Law Doesn't Make Sense In Internet Age, Columnist Says"

eli6• 13 years ago

I'm not sure it's the law's fault. The Federal government is not designed to work without a budget. In fact it's specifically designed to not work without a budget.

IanCal2• 13 years ago

I think it sounds like a good idea. If you're not paying people, you shouldn't be allowed to ask them to work.

mseebach• 13 years ago

The law makes as little or much sense in the Internet age as in any other age. Pre-internet, you'd be just as barred from working on files or reports or whatever you might have in your home as you are from checking your work email. Casually breaking the law just leaves more of a trail in the Internet age and is thus a larger risk-surface vs. "No, really, I didn't make notes on the Foo-report during the shutdown".

judk6• 13 years ago

In that sense, the law makes MORE sense now, since it can be effectively enforced.

tripzilch• 13 years ago

Ha, this scenario could be straight from Snow Crash!

mmagin2• 13 years ago

If you work for the government and you care about checking your work email when you're home, you're doing it wrong. :)

rsync• 13 years ago

I would be amazed if they even have email.

Have you ever been on the phone with the IRS, or a state bureau or the treasury (or whatever) and in the normal course of conversation and workflow you suggest emailing them a document ... or using any reasonable workflow whatsoever ?

The answer is not only "no", but "no, because I don't have email here". Absolutely stupefying.

raganwald• 13 years ago

Let me rephrase your story using HN-centric terms:

You: "Hello IRS, I want to send you a sensitive document over an insecure channel that another department of government is hoovering up."

IRS: "No."

:-)

rayiner2• 13 years ago

You can't assume that e-mail is a reasonable work flow. It's reasonable for the IRS to have a policy of taxpayers not sending sensitive accounting documents to random employees' email accounts.

dragonwriter2• 13 years ago

I've never had that experience, and every state and federal office I've worked in, or known people who have worked in, has email.

They may also have procedures that limit what communication channels documents for particular uses can be received through that prohibits using email for certain functions, but they have email.

mmagin2• 13 years ago

Actually, I have family who recently retired from US government employment. They did have email, but the MS Exchange quota was ridiculously small, even though exchanging CAD drawings with contractors was very much part of their job. Also, things like Dropbox were blocked.

I was amazed that this level of IT stupidity was possible until I learned that the IT people there didn't even report to the local management of their (fairly sizable) facility. No wonder they weren't required to actually help people get their jobs done.

ChikkaChiChi• 13 years ago

My wife is an economist and she almost threw her monitor through the window after seeing government websites showing "This website is closed for the shutdown" instead of the normal, static data she needed.

Federal workers who check their e-mail during shutdown will be breaking the law

Related Stories