GOP rejects bill to give back pay to federal contractors, wants to repeal estate tax instead

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

12 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't give out personal details of my work history on forums like this, but suffice it to say, I'm not over my head in this discussion.

I didn't ask for personal info just a general question if you or your company dealt with gov't contracts.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

I didn't ask for personal info just a general question if you or your company dealt with gov't contracts.

I have.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/162

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/162/text

 

You keep talking about a bill or bills. You still don't seem to understand why most people working on federal contracts aren't going to get back pay. Hint....go talk to someone in your procurement area.

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Well smartass you explain it.

Again? 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Again? 

Yeah, guess I missed the first time you did. I think you're lost.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Yeah, guess I missed the first time you did. I think you're lost.

This is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt of possibly just acting like a jackass. I fear the alternative might actually be the case.

I haven't explained anything. Others have, repeatedly, not that they should have had to.

Everyone else gets it. There is no "us". There is only "you", you silly goose!

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You are hopelessly lost. Titan and I are having an intelligent and civil discussion. Your ignorance or name calling isn't contributing anything. You should stick to the sports forums where you do better.

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

You are hopelessly lost. Titan and I are having an intelligent and civil discussion. Your ignorance or name calling isn't contributing anything. You should stick to the sports forums where you do better.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Sorry but you don't turn me on.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

24 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

True.  But thus far, they can't even get one Republican to back it.

But the bill was just introduced and referred, along with nearly 40 other bills that same day, many of which the names attached were all "republican" or all "democrat." However, this is earliest step of the legislative process, standard procedure. In my view, the accompanying names on a bill's introduction are not indicative of sufficient cross-part support or a lack thereof. I think that's an unduly skeptical view of the process. We do not not know if any Republicans will back it or not, in the same way that we do not know if they will support any of the other bills that were introduced - for that matter, we also do not know if Democrats will back any of the exclusively Republican signed bills. Hundreds upon hundreds of bills are introduced without getting in front of the eyes of each and every legislator.  

I respond the same way to the silly assertion - that has been circulating for a while now - that Democrats just want to want to cause havoc whenever Republicans introduce a bill that, at the outset, have no Democrat names attached. I have probably even used the assertion myself at one point or another. But there's a reason for the complexities associated with signing a bill into law, and understanding those complexities is essential. The process serves the point of attaining support across party lines, or at least trying to. It feeds into one of the greatest facets in our democratic fabric - compromise. How often do we see, over a bill's lifetime in the process, the language within in it change? Very often. And I am not referencing amendments. I mean specifically from the moment a bill is introduced and the moment it is signed into law. That's because a bill is so much more than the ends it seeks to achieve, and the means it uses to get there - For example, look at the legislative history associated with seemingly simple bills. 

In summary, I think it premature to fire the canons so early in the process. In today's climate, the media feeds off of inciting division without giving the full story, and I find that to be most unfortunate.

Undoubtedly, the idea behind the bill at issue resonates with many. But the names attached at its inception, or not attached, and to its introduction to Congress should not be read into too deeply. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 2/1/2019 at 10:11 AM, TitanTiger said:

True.  But thus far, they can't even get one Republican to back it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/162/cosponsors

Collins [R-ME] is on board as of 2/4/19. So there's one. Will post updates as they happen. Just thought you'd like to see this first one. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/162/cosponsors

Collins [R-ME] is on board as of 2/4/19. So there's one. Will post updates as they happen. Just thought you'd like to see this first one. 

I hope it is noticed this bill is only for lower wage employees. It gets a little complicated but it would take major changes in contract law, procurement regulations, etc., for most other federal contractor employees to get paid. In a lot of cases the company pays them out of profits when there is a gov't shutdown. This bill is not a smart thing to do and shouldn't be passed.. It opens a big can of worms as anyone in procurement dealing with federal contracts will probably tell you.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

13 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I hope it is noticed this bill is only for lower wage employees. It gets a little complicated but it would take major changes in contract law, procurement regulations, etc., for most other federal contractor employees to get paid. In a lot of cases the company pays them out of profits when there is a gov't shutdown. This bill is not a smart thing to do and shouldn't be passed.. It opens a big can of worms as anyone in procurement dealing with federal contracts will probably tell you.

It is more complex to do so, hence the need for congressional action even for the lower wage employees.  But it's not impossible.  And it doesn't have to 'open a can of worms' if proper parameters are given.

The bottomline is this:  When the President and/or Congress do things that don't directly affect them but take money out of working families pockets by forcing them into furloughs during gov't shutdowns, we should do whatever we can to make them whole financially.  It's not their fault our elected leadership digs its heels in on dumb s*** and can't work together.

[alexava 6,973]

45 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It is more complex to do so, hence the need for congressional action even for the lower wage employees.  But it's not impossible.  And it doesn't have to 'open a can of worms' if proper parameters are given.

The bottomline is this:  When the President and/or Congress do things that don't directly affect them but take money out of working families pockets by forcing them into furloughs during gov't shutdowns, we should do whatever we can to make them whole financially.  It's not their fault our elected leadership digs its heels in on dumb s*** and can't work together.

Your last sentence!👍

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It is more complex to do so, hence the need for congressional action even for the lower wage employees.  But it's not impossible.  And it doesn't have to 'open a can of worms' if proper parameters are given.

The bottomline is this:  When the President and/or Congress do things that don't directly affect them but take money out of working families pockets by forcing them into furloughs during gov't shutdowns, we should do whatever we can to make them whole financially.  It's not their fault our elected leadership digs its heels in on dumb s*** and can't work together.

I share your concern but you still don't seem to understand current federal contracting and why a far reaching change would be needed it (the can of worms I refer to). But think whatever cranks your tractor. I know what I'm talking about from years of experience on both the gov't side and  the contractor side.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

22 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I share your concern but you still don't seem to understand current federal contracting and why a far reaching change would be needed it (the can of worms I refer to). But think whatever cranks your tractor. I know what I'm talking about from years of experience on both the gov't side and  the contractor side.

Why don't you try us?  Give me a few examples of the "far reaching changes" that would be needed that couldn't be given limits in whatever bill is proffered.  I have more understanding of federal contracts than you think.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Why don't you try us?  Give me a few examples of the "far reaching changes" that would be needed that couldn't be given limits in whatever bill is proffered.  I have more understanding of federal contracts than you think.

I will try. In short:

1. Civil servants have always been paid after shutdowns.

2. Lower wage (janitors, etc) people often work under GSA contracts, and are assigned to gov't agencies, i.e., they are not civil service employees but contractors under a broad service contract. 

3. In most cases people working under federal contracts don't get paid after shutdowns because of the nature of procurement regulations and gov't contracting methods. Employees must only charge the amount of time they work on a contract, subject to audits. The time they aren't working on a contract has to be covered by overhead. During gov't shutdowns work is stopped on a lot of contracts and hence the employees lose pay that can't be provided by the gov't due to terms of the contract. Often in short shutdowns the company will elect to pay them out of profits. But that is a company decision.

That's it in a nutshell but one of your procurement people could do a better job.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I will try. In short:

1. Civil servants have always been paid after shutdowns.

2. Lower wage (janitors, etc) people often work under GSA contracts, and are assigned to gov't agencies, i.e., they are not civil service employees but contractors under a broad service contract. 

3. In most cases people working under federal contracts don't get paid after shutdowns because of the nature of procurement regulations and gov't contracting methods. Employees must only charge the amount of time they work on a contract, subject to audits. The time they aren't working on a contract has to be covered by overhead. During gov't shutdowns work is stopped on a lot of contracts and hence the employees lose pay that can't be provided by the gov't due to terms of the contract. Often in short shutdowns the company will elect to pay them out of profits. But that is a company decision.

That's it in a nutshell but one of your procurement people could do a better job.

Those regulations are legislative in nature.  There's nothing that would prevent Congress from crafting a bill that temporarily offers back pay to some of the contractors in your third example.  The changes made don't have to be permanent.  It may take some work and some detailed writing, but you're acting as if it goes against some immutable law of God or something.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Those regulations are legislative in nature.  There's nothing that would prevent Congress from crafting a bill that temporarily offers back pay to some of the contractors in your third example.  The changes made don't have to be permanent.  It may take some work and some detailed writing, but you're acting as if it goes against some immutable law of God or something.

Yes it would take a lot of detail and crafting a bill that doesn't set a precedent and complicate individual contract terms/agreements in place. where would the temporary funding for back pay come from? IMHO this wouldn't be as simple as it sounds. Anyhow you asked  and I gave a simple explanation. I'm not "acting" like anything and never implied anything to justify your sarcastic comment about God's law. So I will leave it there and move on.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

Yes it would take a lot of detail and crafting a bill that doesn't set a precedent and complicate individual contract terms/agreements in place.

Which is what sunset provisions and specifics on the dates that it covers are for.

 

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

where would the temporary funding for back pay come from?

The funding is already there.  The contracts were agreed to and the money allocated.  Instead of just absorbing it all back into the federal coffers, you distribute the money as you expected to in the first place.  It's not new money that has to be come up with.

 

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

IMHO this wouldn't be as simple as it sounds. Anyhow you asked  and I gave a simple explanation. I'm not "acting" like anything and never implied anything to justify your sarcastic comment about God's law. So I will leave it there and move on.

You really need to work on your literalness detector.  It's on the fritz.

It was just an expression to point out that you're making this sound impossible and it's simply not.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The funding is already there.  The contracts were agreed to and the money allocated.  Instead of just absorbing it all back into the federal coffers, you distribute the money as you expected to in the first place.  It's not new money that has to be come up with.---and then the product contracted for gets behind schedule and over cost unless new money IS infused into the contract, especially in the case of fixed price contracts.

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

24 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

and then the product contracted for gets behind schedule and over cost unless new money IS infused into the contract.

For some contracts, not all.  Not every contract has deliverables like that.  Some of them are simply providing services and expertise.  For instance, the network and cybersecurity people that manage various branches of the military's networks.  They aren't producing a product such as creating a new software application or some kind of weapons system.  

And for those that are, some kind of limits or stipulations could be put into try and address those problems.

What's not acceptable is to just throw our hands up and say "that's too hard" and screw these families and workers over.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

For some contracts, not all.  Not every contract has deliverables like that.  Some of them are simply providing services and expertise.  For instance, the network and cybersecurity people that manage various branches of the military's networks.  They aren't producing a product such as creating a new software application or some kind of weapons system. --I think that is what I tried to say 

And for those that are, some kind of limits or stipulations could be put into try and address those problems.---but I think most contracts are for deliverables. In those cases work stoppage results in schedules getting behind and if people are paid for time not working on that product costs go up and the contract is over cost. If they are paid somebody has to come up wit money that likely isn't budgeted by the contracting gov't agency. So theoretically Congress would then have to appropriate more money. You think all that is simple?

What's not acceptable is to just throw our hands up and say "that's too hard" and screw these families and workers over.----I agree but don't agree it is as simple a fix as you do. And the bill mentioned in the OP sure doesn't fix it as I said.

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

47 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

but I think most contracts are for deliverables. In those cases work stoppage results in schedules getting behind and if people are paid for time not working on that product costs go up and the contract is over cost. If they are paid somebody has to come up wit money that likely isn't budgeted by the contracting gov't agency. So theoretically Congress would then have to appropriate more money. You think all that is simple?

While that's true, who's fault is that?

You figure out a way to address the mess you created.  Or in layman's terms, "You break it, you buy it."  Maybe if they knew they were going to cost the government and taxpayers a lot more money they'd be a whole lot less willing to shut down government over every dumb idea someone can't let go of.

And no, I don't think the process is simple.  But it is possible.  What is simple is to know it's the right thing to do.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

While that's true, who's fault is that?

You figure out a way to address the mess you created.  Or in layman's terms, "You break it, you buy it."  Maybe if they knew they were going to cost the government and taxpayers a lot more money they'd be a whole lot less willing to shut down government over every dumb idea someone can't let go of.

And no, I don't think the process is simple.  But it is possible.  What is simple is to know it's the right thing to do.

That's what I said a long time ago.