Possible Federal Furlough

[pbmom]

Has anyone heard about the possible federal employee furlough that might take place this year or next? What are your thoughts on this? Will you be effected and how are you preparing?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

By your post, it sounds like you are broke, and have nothing at all to fall back on, even if it is for two weeks.
If you post your numbers, we can provide some suggestions.

[illinicheme]

Haven't heard about federal furloughs, but DH was subjected to state furloughs last year. It wasn't fun (as faculty, his "days off" didn't mean anything, because he still needed to research, write grants, and do course prep). Fortunately, losing 10% of his pay didn't severely impact our budget.

[sapphire12]

As a fed, not working in Defense, Coast Guard and the other assorted essential personnel, I would be furloughed. I've been prudent with my money over the years, so I have a month's worth of expenses in the very liquid savings acct and then I have a year's worth of expenses in the bank. When the furlough was over, I'd just replenish those funds.

[ugga81]

I was wondering when this was going to make it on the boards. I just started hearing rumors of a furlough yesterday and heard its directly tied on what happens next week regarding the Continuing Resolution/FY11 budget. My husband and I are both fed so it wouldn't be great to be furloughed. Fortunately, he is considered "Mission Essential" so he'd be fine. I'm technically Defense but a civilian employee and I don't think I'm "mission essential" so from the looks of it I'd be the only one of us to be furloughed. While I know the loss of my income would be painful it'd only be because I hate to lose the income. We have enough in savings to be fine for awhile. However, we just moved halfway across the country and between losing money on selling our house and putting down a downpayment on the new place our savings is no where near where I'd like it to be. A furlough lasting longer than 3 or 4 paychecks (or about 2 months) would make me worry. We can live on DHs salary alone but that doesn't mean I want to do it! In a flash of optimism. I know I could get some serious work done for a class I'm taking, get some extra stuff done around the house, and maybe do some volunteer work.

I know this has happened before for fed employees and employees in the private sector deal with these things a lot more often but it doesn't make me feel better. I think what irks me the most is that this type of thing is completely preventable yet our "leaders" are too busy bickering and looking out for their own interests that the ship has been adrift for far too long!

[Urban Chicago]

DH was furloughed last year as a city employee. They just gave everyone one unpaid day off per month for six months, and staggered those days so the town was not "shut down". While that was good for us, it was rather ineffective in that people did not think it was a big deal.

If the city had actually closed down for a week, or even on day a week for a month or so, residents would have seen the impact better and perhaps would have voted differently when elections came up last year.

[8 Bit WWBG]

This is all more bandwagon showboating against Feds, out of sheer jealousy.

Back in good times, these same idiots told Feds they were stupid -- that private sector salaries and bonuses were far better. We Feds chose security over short term gain. Now that those private salaries and bonuses are dead, these same idiots don't think anyone else should make decent money until they can again.

Its the private sector that is choking the government thanks to this stupid misconception that contractors provide better value (which has been proven false on several occasions). There are several contractors who cost the government double what a fed would cost, that provide ZERO value.

But the corporate lobbies are stronger/louder than the fed lobbies, so these companies continue to bill Uncle Sam for nada.

I have heard if there was a furlough, it would be staggered so that nobody had to go a full pay period without pay. I would feel bad for many of our college graduate hires who probably though no fault of their own, could simply not go 2 weeks without pay.

[dcmetrocrab]

Feb 24, 2011 13:56:47 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

I have heard if there was a furlough, it would be staggered so that nobody had to go a full pay period without pay. I would feel bad for many of our college graduate hires who probably though no fault of their own, could simply not go 2 weeks without pay.

Just curious, but when I hear about furlongs, I tend to expect several things:

1) It'd be staggered a day here, a day there versus weeks or months at a time.
2) If continugous days, at most 5 days in a row?

How have Feds handled this in the past? I've seen states cut a day or two off a month, but never a full month. Private sector, a week during the Christmas week when things are slow to begin with.

[wvugurl26]

Supposedly in late 1995/early 1996 it was 26 straight days I think. One of my agency's managers thinks we will just be under continuing resolution for the rest of year. She was around for the 1995/1996 one. Her reasoning was too many federal employees, especially those in lower grades are paycheck to paycheck and that the government knows it.
I'll admit I haven't the slightest idea what I'd do. I'd be pretty much screwed. I could cut out any and all extra spending tomorrow and eat nothing but ramen and it'd still be a long time before I had an extra paycheck or two in the bank. This is one of the highest COL areas in the country and I'm taking home a little less than I was in a lower COL area. When rent in a safe area seems to start at what I take home every two weeks, its not real easy to save up a big EF.
Yeah I could get lower rent in an area with the most homicides so far this year. I think my life's more important.
Everything I've read said it'd be a complete hard shutdown, that you would be blocked from entering the building if you were nonessential personnel. Not just a everyone has to take a day or two off work each pay cycle.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I'm a contractor for a DoD agency, we're still not sure how or if it would affect us.

[wvugurl26]

I was reading an article today addressing contractors Dark. Basically it seemed to depend on whether you had a multiyear contract among other things.

[Sum Dum Gai]

That's the part that's a little unclear. We're on a five year contract, but it's structured as a one year with four additional option years.

[robbase]

By your post, it sounds like you are broke, and have nothing at all to fall back on, even if it is for two weeks.

SF what exactly in the OP leads you to believe that?

[wvugurl26]

That is a tough one. I'll read the article again tomorrow and see if anything pops out at me. Why an article advising federal contractors how to prepare for a possible shutdown was in our newsclips I don't know. I think it was mostly referring to contracts that were up in 30, 45, 60, 90 days you know pretty soon. Ones that should already be in renegotiation or have new contracts ready to be signed.

[TheOtherMe]

My SO and I were both around for the government shut down in 1995/96 and some earlier ones. Neither one of us was off 21 days. We worked for the same agency.

I know I was off maybe 4 days back then and they ended up paying us, as they had during every other shut down, because it would cost more to figure out how much to pay us than to just pay us.

I'm now a retiree and hoping beyond hope that this doesn't affect my pension. I've had some rough years and just getting in to a good savings plan, etc., but SO said he'd cover me and I can pay him back when we do receive the checks.

One article I read said they would keep enough workers on at Social Security to get the checks out. I'm hoping the same would happen at OPM as I'm not the only one in this position.

In the meantime, living more frugally than normal.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

If I had to take a pay cut of some form, seems like a furlough (days off) would be preferable to just a plain, old pay cut ~ but I'm not working right now, so this doesn't impact me. My wonderful DH is active duty military and just told me that he'd be more than willing for some extra time off in exchange for a small pay cut ... but that's not really an option for him.

[TheOtherMe]

Furlough is not the correct word. The federal government's budget runs out on March 4. If Congress doesn't pass a budget or a continuing resolution, there is no money to pay anybody who isn't essential. People would be told not to come to work until they are called to come back.

[wvugurl26]

Our OPM people were in last week. They thought it'd be ok that something would get passed whether its a budget or another CR. Our HR director was in our office today and he uses the office behind me. The man doesn't know what the door's for so I hear all of his conversations. Based on those little tidbits I'm not sure. We can speculate from now till next Friday and still guess wrong.
SS will keep enough people to send the checks out. They do not require Congress to give them a budget, its a separate deal for them. The article I read today said they didn't keep enough people last time to process applications for new enrollments and had to bring more people back in to work.

[wvugurl26]

Well to be totally correct we haven't had a budget in awhile. We've been under a continuing resolution all fiscal year. Money is there, they just can't decide how to divide it up. I really don't understand the absurdness of running half a year before you get your actual budget. And we may not get one either. Might end up all year under CR.

[TheOtherMe]

There have been other years when federal employees worked under a continuing resolution for the fiscal year.

I'm wondering if SO will be heading to Mexico City on Sunday for a month. He keeps telling me it's funded under some other program, but is it funded if there is no continuing resolution and are they going to send him off just a few days before March 4?

[wvugurl26]

If you already get a SS check you should be fine. SS is independent of what is being fought over in Congress right now. The article I read today said the only thing delayed last time was those signing up for new SS benefits.

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

The whole situation is ridiculous. Congress' job is to pass a budget. It has to be done by the same time every year (Oct 1). Every year, they are late. Can you imagine keeping a job when the ONE large task you had to do was always done late? If this was the private sector or if you were a govt peon, you would get canned for this. Unfortunately, most of the voters have no clue how the govt works and don't realize or care that this what is going on. I think that if a budget isn't passed by Oct 1, Congress shouldn't get paid until one is. No salary, no benefits, no per diem, no travel, nothing. I don't care if it is an election year and you are galavanting around the country trying to get elected in Oct and Nov. If you wanted to spend your Oct and Nov doing that, you should have completed your work before you left.

Also, doing this is especially stupid when they have the use it or lose it type of budgeting. What will happen is they will pass a budget in Apr, it will take a month to get through the layers of bureaucracy to get to the people who can actually put it on contract/spend it. Then they will be yelled at in June because they don't have 75% of the money obligated and the Fiscal year is 75% over. It doesn't matter that to them, the fiscal year began in May because that was when they got the money (They weren't able to put stuff on contract prior to that because they would be violating the Anti-Deficiency Act and could get a nice trip to Club Fed). The whole system is really ridiculous. Just watch the amount of wasteful spending you will have in Sept this year as every dept tries to the money before 1 Oct.

Dark, if you are on a base year contract with option years, you may have some issues. If you are funded with O&M funds (which you probably are if you are on a yearly contract), you are probably considered support services with a "need" that was already identified. Under CRA, you would be able to renew the contract because it wouldn't be a "new start" but without a budget, there is no funding. I would check with your program manager to see a copy of the contract and see when the option year runs (they usually aren't the same as the fiscal year) and if it was already exercised. if it was already exercised, you need to determine how long it was exercised for. Ex. If the contract runs Dec-Dec and they exercised the option in Dec, they may have exercised the entire year under the CRA that they had at that time. If they did that, you will be good to go because the money would have been obligated in Dec for Dec 10-Dec 11. If they didn't exercise for the whole year (exercised a partial year or something like that) or if your option year renewal is coming up (say in April) and they haven't exercised it yet, you could be in a world of hurt. You need to speak to the program manager and have him talk to the contracting officer on the govt side...

[philly1]

+1 billion

Feb 24, 2011 13:56:47 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

This is all more bandwagon showboating against Feds, out of sheer jealousy.

Back in good times, these same idiots told Feds they were stupid -- that private sector salaries and bonuses were far better. We Feds chose security over short term gain. Now that those private salaries and bonuses are dead, these same idiots don't think anyone else should make decent money until they can again.

Its the private sector that is choking the government thanks to this stupid misconception that contractors provide better value (which has been proven false on several occasions). There are several contractors who cost the government double what a fed would cost, that provide ZERO value.

But the corporate lobbies are stronger/louder than the fed lobbies, so these companies continue to bill Uncle Sam for nada.

I have heard if there was a furlough, it would be staggered so that nobody had to go a full pay period without pay. I would feel bad for many of our college graduate hires who probably though no fault of their own, could simply not go 2 weeks without pay.

[whiskmav]

audreyalyce-What do you expect? The people voted in a president that couldn't finish a full term of anything.

[973beachbum]

I remember the last furlough in 95 or 96. I had a bunch of friends who were in the Coast Guard. I do remember them being considered essential people and they didn't have any days off they worked just like normal. But they still didn't get paid until the standoff ended just like everyone else who worked for the government but was furloughed and didn't have to report to work.

A few thought it was stupid. They had to work without getting paid until after the budget got passed why didn't everyone else? Some had problems with working and not getting paid but still having to pay their bills. They really didn't have the savings to carry themselves through. Others had enough cushion that it really didn't hurt them financially. None of them was worried that they wouldn't get paid eventually it just stunk in the mean time.

[TheOtherMe]

This isn't anything new under this President. It's happened numerous times in the past.

When I first became a federal employee, the budgets were equally ridiculous. We would spend our time in September trying to spend all the money in the department's budget because if you didn't spend it, you wouldn't get that much in the next FY. What kind of budgeting is that?

Even as an 18 year old, I could see how silly that was.

Congress is the one who has to pass the budget, not the President.

[souldoubt]

Feb 25, 2011 12:31:13 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

When I first became a federal employee, the budgets were equally ridiculous. We would spend our time in September trying to spend all the money in the department's budget because if you didn't spend it, you wouldn't get that much in the next FY. What kind of budgeting is that?

This type of mindset isn't just something that applies to government agencies or departments. Department heads at public and privately owned companies sometimes think the same way. With limited resources the thinking is that it's harder to get that money back once it's allocated to another department. From what I've heard from friends that are teachers this is real common at schools.

[Sum Dum Gai]

We're already on option year one which runs through the end of Sep. I think the bigger issue is how we'd actually work. Our offices and equipment are in government buildings, which might be completely shut down, so while the money is I believe already obligated and available to pay us, we might not have a way to work during that time or would be less productive, which makes billing the time a whole issue. We're supposed to get guidance on it by COB Monday. Just have to wait and see I guess. I might get some unexpected vacation time, and if I am working I'll be doing it from home. Either way, not the worst thing ever.

[wvugurl26]

The stuff I saw said you might not be able to get into the buildings if you were a contractor. Who knows they've got next week to pull it together. Apparently Congress has been on break

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"The whole situation is ridiculous. Congress' job is to pass a budget. It has to be done by the same time every year (Oct 1). Every year, they are late. Can you imagine keeping a job when the ONE large task you had to do was always done late? If this was the private sector or if you were a govt peon, you would get canned for this.":::...

This is a great way to put it. Our representatives JOB is to represent. Their money is safe, so they have no incentive to pass anything through. But most of them have campaign promises to fulfill, and have to figure out how to look good for the people that elected them.

This will be an interesting week...