You're viewing part of a thread.
They all get paid, they just might not be paid on time which is not in fact slavery.
That would be the point in guessing or better yet finding out on your own that they in fact did get paid because not paying people is fraud. Some agencies used their budget surplus to keep paying employees others like the TSA who are poorly managed so far as I'm aware have not.
If that's your decision, it's not one I would make though.
Everything you could really want to know about how shutdown pay works is in this PDF by the OPM.
No, I'm trying to get you to accept calling inconvenience slavery is a bit too far.
Not getting paid on time when you live paycheck-to-paycheck is not "inconvenience." You must live quite the privileged life to think so.
No, I’m trying to get you to accept calling inconvenience slavery is a bit too far.
By needling me for not mentioning it in the last two comments? Try in a different and better way.
I hate to tell you, that's an inconvenience not literal slavery.
You must live a privileged life to compare forced servitude and plays at genetic inferiority to not getting paid.
Yes.
Try in a different and better way.
I don't need to, you're still defending your point which is that not getting paid is literally slavery.
Check yourself, no one is selling their children nor themselves down river. Like how is the fact it is objectively offensive to compare the two not altogether glaring to you?
Again, living paycheck-to-paycheck and then not getting paid is not an inconvenience. How do you not know that?
It's a way to get your house foreclosed on and a way to have to decide between electricity and food.
Have you really never been in that sort of financial situation?
Is it literally slavery?
That's all that matters to you, I guess. As long as it isn't literally the exact same thing as people in chains picking cotton in the fields, it's just fine and it doesn't matter who suffers. So fine. It isn't literal slavery. It's just incredibly cruel, especially to children who did nothing to deserve it.
Happy?
It's not at all the same thing since it's not forcible.
it's just fine and it doesn't matter who suffers.
Point to where I said or implied anything of the sort.
It's just incredibly cruel, especially to children who did nothing to deserve it.
Agreed, but things don't need to be slavery to be shitty and the offensive hyperbole is both unnecessary and misleading.
Happy?
Yeah, though the indignation is curious.
Well considering all of this turned out to be you being nitpicky when the point was to illustrate how cruel something you decided was merely an inconvenience was, yeah, I'm pretty indignant. Especially since now it's suddenly not just inconvenient but cruel.
Make up your mind.
Inconveniences can be cruel boss, they're not however slavery no matter how dramatic and indignate you choose to be.
You're implying being owned and not being paid are analogous, they're not.
No one owns your children, no one is going to whip you, you need not but your freedom if that's even a possibility, you're not in fact less than anyone else in a legal sense of personhood.
It's not productive to be so hyperbolic especially when what you're saying is incredibly offensive let alone to be indignate when someone tries to explain to you how downright cruel and insensitive you're being.
For fuck's sake, having your house foreclosed on isn't an inconvenience.
And that's what happens if you're behind on house payments and you aren't getting paid.
Seriously, how rich are you?
It's an inconvenience, the fact you can't find another word but literal slavery implies it's validity.
It could, but the fact you have equity in property is pretty good nigh definitive evidence that you are not in fact a slave.
It's my argument any more or less valid based on what I make or what I'm worth? Tell me, how does it in fact change anything I've spoken about.