Pilots association urges Trump to end government shutdown, citing safety and security concerns

[iluvatar5150]

Would it help you to know that I'm a government contractor? I have nothing against anyone who works for the government.
The fact of the matter is that the Democrat party and a lot of Republicans do not want to see Donald Trump succeed (and yet he is succeeding, against their will), and this shutdown is on them. They had passed a very similar bill which funded the wall before Trump became president. The only difference now is who sits in the Oval Office.
Regarding how people fund their lifestyles, I don't really have much sympathy. Before I spend a dime on myself, I ensure I have a rainy day fund which includes 6 months of expenses for the essentials. Why? Because I never know when I might be fired, and I do care about having lights, water and shelter, food and transportation for me and my family. After I have those secured, then I think about charity, at least 10% gross, and then maybe I'll think about luxuries. The point is that the reason most of America lives paycheck to paycheck (and I'm not talking about low-wage folks-they have no choice) is because they live above their means. Of course, there are those who have had large medical expenses or disasters to recover from, I'm speaking generally.
I have not been a government employee for a long time, and that employment could end tomorrow. I don't have a guaranteed job. When I took this job, from the time I applied to the time I got hired was more than 3 months. I had been unemployed for two months before that came up. Even so, I never missed a house, insurance, utility or credit card payment (and I pay those off in full every month, faithfully) and I didn't hesitate to give to charity.

You said in another thread that you make over $100k/yr. That might have a little bit to do with your ability to save.

ETA: Wait, are you a government contractor or an employee? Your post claims that you're both. If you're an employee making $100k+, then you're likely at least a GS-13, which would be surprising since you also said that you never went to college.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Regarding how people fund their lifestyles, I don't really have much sympathy. Before I spend a dime on myself, I ensure I have a rainy day fund which includes 6 months of expenses for the essentials. Why? Because I never know when I might be fired, and I do care about having lights, water and shelter, food and transportation for me and my family. After I have those secured, then I think about charity, at least 10% gross, and then maybe I'll think about luxuries.

That's a luxury for people who make good money.

I'm a Technical Lead (for those not in IT-related fields, that basically equates to the Top Dog in terms of software engineers in the company, I'm one of 3 with that position in an IT department of over 200), so needless to say I have a good income and could go quite some time without a paycheck and still be fine

I'm able to put away a nice rainy day fund, as you called it, my vehicles are paid off, and whether or not a tax return comes soon isn't going to have an impact on my day-to-day.

But I'm also realistic enough to understand the fact that not everyone has a six-figure income by age 35 and can afford to do that. If one is a head of a 4 person household on a $50k/year income, they're probably counting on that tax return to pay down some debt, put away for their savings, etc...

And some people are trying to scrape by on much less than that...

The point is that the reason most of America lives paycheck to paycheck (and I'm not talking about low-wage folks-they have no choice) is because they live above their means. Of course, there are those who have had large medical expenses or disasters to recover from, I'm speaking generally.

Some people don't have a choice due to their means being very low, as a result of worker protections being gutted in favor of cushy perks and lack of oversight for those at the top of the ladder.

"Climbing the corporate ladder" used to be a realistic concept decades back, because there were protections that made sure that ladder stayed in place after the previous guy got done climbing it. Now we have the "climb the corporate ladder, then kick it out so nobody else can use it" environment in the corporate world today.

Upward mobility as been severely staggered from the 1980's till now...

 

[RDKirk]

So the Air Traffic Control system has been understaffed for 30 years, and the the government shutdown has adversely affected the safety, security and efficiency of our national airspace system?

That should be obvious. If you're already understaffed, then reducing staff even more will mean the work actually doesn't get done.

Are you seriously unable to understand that?

Far as I know, the President doesn't get a paycheck.

The president is a billionaire. You know that, right?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The president is a billionaire. You know that, right?

...actually we don't...because he never released his financials

Zing!!

 

[grasping the after wind]

Google "TSA Blue Flu"...or here, allow me: TSA 'blue flu' causes travel misery at LaGuardia and JFK Airports | Daily Mail Online

For a person living paycheck to paycheck, deferred compensation has the same short term effects as not being payed, IE: can't pay rent, car payment, gas, utilities, etc...

TSA agents are among the 420,000 federal employees who are contractually required to work amid the shutdown without pay, so they have chosen to use their sick days instead.

TSA union leaders have provided the simple explanation of why the call-offs are increased by 300% (and are expected to really skyrocket once this Friday becomes a non-existent pay day for them), most people don't have the money in their saving to go a month or two without getting paid, they've got bills, so many are calling off so that they can go take part time shifts elsewhere to make ends meet.

Yes, they could all have technically call off even in a non-shutdown situation...however, the odds that there would be a prolonged 300% increase in the call-off rate (like what's happening right now) are slim & none. I think it's pretty much common knowledge (and common sense) that these folks are calling off so they can go work shifts elsewhere to make some money since there's a good chance they're not getting paid this Friday...and that's precisely because of the government shutdown.



...why not "if Trump simply signed the original spending bill that had bipartisan support"??

Quit giving Donald a pass...this is his fault. He's the one who's insisting on this frivolous expenditure (that are experts agree is inefficient) so that he doesn't lose face in front of his loyal fan base. There was a bipartisan approved stopgap spending bill from the senate (that would've funded operations into Feb.), ready to go, that he declined to sign off on back in late December.

Trump is asking for so little in this fight and Congress asking for so much I cannot simply blame Trump. Additionally, Trump is also not to blame for people living paycheck to paycheck nor for the union , after more than one past government shutdown, not having a plan in place to see that their members can make ends meet during a shutdown. Real unions take measures to ensure their members can survive a strike so why have not the civil service unions taken measures in regard to shutdown planning? That the civil service unions have done nothing in regard to financial stability of their members during a shutdown is ridiculous. One might suspect the union leaders of wanting their members to be seen being harmed for propaganda purposes. I can think of no other way to explain why they have nothing in place to handle a situation that has occurred in the past and ought to have been planned for due to those experiences.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It’s outlined in the letter. I’m guessing you didn’t follow the link and read it?

Not interested in reading assignments.

Many Americans do, lots of people I know have special plans for that money and will be furious if they have to wait.

Will being furious make the money magically appear for them? A better plan would have been to make sure to not overpay the government in the first place. That way one would have already had that money in one's pocket, shutdown or no shutdown. If the government paid interest on the money people allow the government to use free of charge over the course of the year, as the government requires us to do if we underpay, I would not think that overpaying was such an unwise thing to do. Who is responsible for the government having an amount of one's money over and above what the government considers the correct amount? Not Trump, not Congress but the person that decided it was a good idea to give the government more than was necessary out of each paycheck. If one is then furious about the timing of one's refund, after not being concerned in the slightest with the money over the course of the year preceding, one ought to rage at the one looking back in the mirror that took the decision to put oneself in that situation.

 

[RDKirk]

Real unions take measures to ensure their members can survive a strike so why have not the civil service unions taken measures in regard to shutdown planning?

Because the end result of a strike is that their members would get more.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Trump is asking for so little in this fight and Congress asking for so much I cannot simply blame Trump. Additionally, Trump is also not to blame for people living paycheck to paycheck nor for the union

What is the "so much" congress is asking for? There was a bipartisan approved bill on his desk in late December that he refused to sign. If this were a case where he were trying to get the government re-opened, but congress as gridlocked, that would be one thing. However, when R'd & D's in congress are in agreement on a bill, but the president decides to pout and refuses to sign it due to it lacking his monument to southern/conservative pandering, then sorry...the blame is squarely on him. He, and he alone, is the reason the government is closed right now. A 2-second swipe of of the pen, by him, on December 21st, would've prevented all of his.

 

[Goonie]

What is the "so much" congress is asking for? There was a bipartisan approved bill on his desk in late September that he refused to sign. If this were a case where he were trying to get the government re-opened, but congress as gridlocked, that would be one thing. However, when R'd & D's in congress are in agreement on a bill, but the president decides to pout and refuses to sign it due to it lacking his monument to southern/conservative pandering, then sorry...the blame is squarely on him. He, and he alone, is the reason the government is closed right now. A 2-second swipe of of the pen, by him, on December 21st, would've prevented all of his.

And let us not forget he could have got 4 times what he’s asking if he’d signed the bill at the start of last year. As a deal maker he really sucks!

 

[grasping the after wind]

Because the end result of a strike is that their members would get more.

That is irrelevant to my point. The money the union puts away for a strike is there so the workers can manage to withstand the loss of income while on strike . There is simply no justification for the civil servant unions not doing something similar for their members in order for them to withstand the loss of income from a shutdown. Ha d this been the first shutdown I could understand it not being prepared. this is not close to being the first shutdown. If I was a member of a civil servant union, I would be wanting answers from the union officials as to why I was left in this precarious position by their lack of foresight.

 

[Ringo84]

Trump is asking for so little in this fight and Congress asking for so much I cannot simply blame Trump. Additionally, Trump is also not to blame for people living paycheck to paycheck nor for the union , after more than one past government shutdown, not having a plan in place to see that their members can make ends meet during a shutdown. Real unions take measures to ensure their members can survive a strike so why have not the civil service unions taken measures in regard to shutdown planning? That the civil service unions have done nothing in regard to financial stability of their members during a shutdown is ridiculous. One might suspect the union leaders of wanting their members to be seen being harmed for propaganda purposes. I can think of no other way to explain why they have nothing in place to handle a situation that has occurred in the past and ought to have been planned for due to those experiences.

All he wants is to salve his ego with an ineffective monument to racism that nobody wants! How could anyone have a problem with such small an ask when he's been so calm and nice about asking for it?
Ringo

 

[RDKirk]

That is irrelevant to my point. The money the union puts away for a strike is there so the workers can manage to withstand the loss of income while on strike . There is simply no justification for the civil servant unions not doing something similar for their members in order for them to withstand the loss of income from a shutdown. Ha d this been the first shutdown I could understand it not being prepared. this is not close to being the first shutdown. If I was a member of a civil servant union, I would be wanting answers from the union officials as to why I was left in this precarious position by their lack of foresight.

Sorry, no, you're trying to blame-shift.

 

[RDKirk]

...actually we don't...because he never released his financials

Zing!!

We can find out the least of what he's worth, because we can find out the property he owns--that's public record.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sorry, no, you're trying to blame-shift.

There is plenty of blame to go around on this particular issue. I have no need to insist that only one party in a dispute is to blame and the other party blameless. A cogent argument would include the reason one finds the party I was criticizing blameless and just who I was shifting the blame from and why that party was the sole one that deserves any blame. An assertion that I was blame shifting is simply a weak argument unless one backs it up with some sort of rebuttal that shows I have shifted the blame for something from the party that deserves blame to one that is blameless. I did not blame the union leaders for the shutdown. I place that responsibility squarely at the feet of the two parties , the President and the Congress, whose disagreement has caused this shutdown. If one wants to see causing the shutdown as blame worthy those are the ones one must blame. Criticizing the union for their lack of action to protect their members can't be blame shifting in that regard. That being the case, who is it that deserves the blame for the union having made no plan to help their members deal with a shutdown after all this time ? Where is it that I have shifted the blame from i.e. to who or what does the sole blame belong, if not the union leaders, for the lack of a reasonable plan to deal with any possible shutdown? I will be interested to see if the civil servant unions continue to ignore the needs of their members in future by not having a plan to deal with the next shutdown.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's a luxury for people who make good money.

I'm a Technical Lead (for those not in IT-related fields, that basically equates to the Top Dog in terms of software engineers in the company, I'm one of 3 with that position in an IT department of over 200), so needless to say I have a good income and could go quite some time without a paycheck and still be fine

I'm able to put away a nice rainy day fund, as you called it, my vehicles are paid off, and whether or not a tax return comes soon isn't going to have an impact on my day-to-day.

But I'm also realistic enough to understand the fact that not everyone has a six-figure income by age 35 and can afford to do that. If one is a head of a 4 person household on a $50k/year income, they're probably counting on that tax return to pay down some debt, put away for their savings, etc...

And some people are trying to scrape by on much less than that...



Some people don't have a choice due to their means being very low, as a result of worker protections being gutted in favor of cushy perks and lack of oversight for those at the top of the ladder.

"Climbing the corporate ladder" used to be a realistic concept decades back, because there were protections that made sure that ladder stayed in place after the previous guy got done climbing it. Now we have the "climb the corporate ladder, then kick it out so nobody else can use it" environment in the corporate world today.

Upward mobility as been severely staggered from the 1980's till now...

Rainy day funds are not just for the well off, bro. Sorry. Even someone fresh out of college should find a way to put money away. You never know when you might be looking for a job, and you will need something to tide you over. It is also wise to not carry debt, if possible. And I don't consider a mortgage and a car payment as 'debt'.
I did this before I became an upper-echelon tech manager. I was paying off credit cards every month religiously when I was making $12/hr, which is poverty wage where I live, even now(meaning it might be ok for someone single, but if there's a family, you will definitely need more than one job).
I didn't climb the corporate ladder. In fact, after I left the military, I couldn't find a job in my field, so I changed fields, became a data-entry person, and remade myself by working temp jobs and contract positions for more than 15 years. At one of these jobs, a door was opened to me, and I was able to learn enough tech stuff to become a professional. As I said, I've been there, and even with a household income of about $40,000, a kid in college, a mortgage, car payments, and so on, we knew how to save. It's more a function of how you spend than how much you earn. I do remember days when my cupboard was bare.
Maybe I'm blessed that I learned how to spend within my means and to be prepared for the unexpected. Government workers, by and large, make very good money, and should be able to put away for those times when a budget fight in Congress might mean they don't get a paycheck. It's been a long time since Congress has had the guts to not make a continuing resolution, but just look where our government, Reps and Dems, has us-more than $20Trillion in debt. This wall-fight is as much on Pelosi and Schumer as it is on the President.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That should be obvious. If you're already understaffed, then reducing staff even more will mean the work actually doesn't get done.

Are you seriously unable to understand that?

It's amazing that this is Trump's fault all of a sudden. Actually, the entire state of our ATC system is a travesty on Congress.

The president is a billionaire. You know that, right?

Purportedly, but so what?