? is that correct ? does the liberty loving leader of the free world force its citizens to go to work even though they dont get paid ? hospital, police, TSA, border security etc etc... is this correct ? slaves ?
ok, so they are not forced to go to work with no pay ... ? i would have thought the government would have a duty to adhere to a contractual agreement to pay wages when due ? it seems contradictory to a free society and the mixed market economy to not be paying them & demanding they go to work like some type of dictatorship. if the constitution were set up to establish a rule of laws and rights it does seem to oppose that by not following the model of process for payment for work which underpins the entire countrys model of economics. i would have thought... that the government would have the laws & abilities to keep paying those they deemed a requirement to keep the country running...(?)
Most of them aren't required to go to work, but a few jobs deemed necessary have different requirements. This is contractual. Doesn't mean that these workers don't suffer hardship, and that shutdowns can and should be avoided.
Supposedly. However, the hardships in the meantime are quite real, and no compensation is offered. The humiliation of having to resort to foodbanks and charities, of having to borrow money from friends or take temporary scut-jobs, can never be compensated. In some cases, the loss of a car or even a house for missed payments, or taking out short-term, high-interest loans, is never compensated. The loss of confidence in a contract, in government itself cannot be compensated. I wouldn't be surprised is some of the most qualified people didn't come back. In any case, it's perfectly ridiculous to fund the civil service through yearly legislation, instead of giving government agencies politically-neutral budgets. It's ridiculous to tie vital services to presidential whim.
