Remember PATCO? You Should
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-01-25 10:25 by Karl Denninger
in Flash , 185 references Ignore this thread
Remember PATCO? You Should
[Comments enabled]

Ronald Reagan famously fired PATCO employees who attempted to go on strike in 1981 -- 11,000 of them, all at once, after giving them 48 hours to return to work, which they refused to do.  He got sued.  The people suing him lost.

Those who are currently calling in "sick" but are labeled "essential" employees -- TSA and ATC folks in particular -- should remember that Stare Decisis applies here.

Trump should immediately fire and replace any ATC or TSA individual who calls in sick and does not have documentation substantiating that they are actually ill.  That would be basically all of them, by the way.

Ditto for any other "essential" government employee.  Refuse to show up, get fired.

Simply put this issue has been fought in the courts and is settled law.  If you walk off the job in those positions you're subject to being fired for cause immediately and you have no recourse for your self-inflicted injury.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info Remember PATCO? You Should in forum [Market-Ticker]
Posts: 5387
Incept: 2009-06-08

Hampton Roads, VA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
They are not getting paid, right? Doesnt that make a difference?

"Make America Free Again" Me
"The strongest memory is weaker than the palest ink" Chinese proverb
"The enemy of my enemy is my candidate" Random commenter
"We have the government we deserve"
Posts: 6381
Incept: 2007-10-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Every credit union I have an account with is offering some type of special relief to furloughed federal workers including 0% personal loans with no credit checks. Food banks all over my area are offering free food to federal workers and they have also been getting food stamps, mortgage relief, utilities paid for, car and loan payment relief, free child care, etc, etc, etc. There is absolutely no reason they can't make it financially even if they live paycheck to paycheck. This is an absolute propaganda **** show.
Posts: 6089
Incept: 2009-03-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Let me start out by saying that I believe that ~90% of gov't employees are "non-essential" anyway so they shouldn't have a g-job in the first place and that most of the departments and agencies that currently exist are outside the scope of Constitutionally authorized gov't functions and also need to be eliminated. And, quite frankly, most of the so-called "essential" gov't employees really aren't.

While I agree with the general premise that those who fraudulently (i.e., lying about being sick) don't to show up for work should be summarily fired, I'm not so sure that the PATCO precedent would apply. PATCO was about folks just being on a typical strike. This is a different scenario.

IMO, it is unethical (don't know about illegal) to demand that somebody show up for work while telling them that they won't actually be paid for said work until some indefinite time in the future. After all, isn't the normal custom of a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly paycheck for work performed actually part of an implied contract? If so, the gov't is obviously not meeting the terms of that contract. Therefore, I can see some validity to the claim that the gov't employees are completely justified in not showing up for work under those conditions. ETA: Of course, it is idiotic for gov't to promise to pay all employees after the "shutdown" even if they were not required to work. That complicates the issues even further.

However, I also believe that they are committing fraud (or some equivalent) by claiming that their not showing up is due to illness when it's really not.

". . . the Constitution has died, the economy welters in irreversible decline, we have perpetual war, all power lies in the hands of the executive, the police are supreme, and a surveillance beyond Orwells imaginings falls into place." - Fred Reed

Posts: 156031
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
They are not getting paid, right? Doesnt that make a difference?

Nope -- Congress has passed and Trump has signed into law the bill that they WILL be paid. Not right now, but they WILL be paid.

Do you have to go to work while not being paid? If your job description requires it, yes. It's unlawful to not pay someone voluntarily but that's not the case here. Every government employee knows when taking the job that their pay is subject to appropriation and that it can lapse. It's part of the deal. They get paid (salary + benefits) at a rate that is some 25-30% above market rates in the private sector, so they're being compensated for the risk as well.

They have a losing position if they sue.

Winding it down.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ