Federal employees sue Trump, accusing him of violating the 13th Amendment - Polidicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/14/compelled-work-without-pay-federal-employees-sue-trump-violating-th-amendment/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ec6de29713c0 A group of federal employees working without pay during the partial government shutdown are likening the predicament to involuntary servitude in a lawsuit filed last week, accusing President Trump and their bosses of violating the 13th Amendment. The lawsuit is one of several pursued by federal workers against the Trump administration as the government shutdown enters its 24th day, the longest in history, leaving hundreds of thousands of employees without a paycheck and, in many cases, struggling to pay bills. But this case, filed Wednesday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, diverges from the others by invoking the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the aftermath of the Civil War. The 13th Amendment argument may face an uphill battle, though. Michael LeRoy, a law professor specializing in labor and employment law at the University of Illinois, said that the standard for meeting the definition of involuntary servitude is extremely high. “The courts have a very narrow perception of it,” he said. “Courts don’t tend to view pressure as coercion.” But if the shutdown lasts “months or years,” as Trump has said is possible, then “what this begins to look like is a form of indentured servitude,” LeRoy said, referring to the 18th century mechanism by which servants worked for masters for a period of time without pay, but were paid much later at the end of their service. “That’s really what it will look like,” he said. “I think the longer it goes on, the fact that you have legislation in place is less significant to the government’s defense. The more this goes on, the more this swings in the direction of employees.”

I think this is kind of a stretch, they aren't forced to stick to their federal job and they aren't prevented from work elsewhere, even though most probably can't find it or don't want it.

I know this is off topic but those ATC hoodies are bitchin

Yeah, since a bill was signed saying that back pay would be issued, technically they are getting paid, just not in a timely fashion.

The government is using the expectation of their inability to upheave their lives and families to find new jobs at the stop of a dime to abuse these workers. The purposeful and preventable economic abuses suffered here have drastic consequences for the employees involved, and the government officials responsible should not be immune to consequence. It's no accident.

The expectation that they won't change jobs is not the same as involuntary servitude, though. Yeah it's awful and abusive, especially for such an incredibly stupid political stunt, but it's not slavery.

If these personnel are so essential then why not fucking pay them instead of giving Congress and the President, the people not doing thier jobs six figure salaries?

I think it's a stretch to act like "they aren't forced to keep their job" isn't a massively fallacious argument. Job opportunities are not always there, and it's still a massive roadblock to someone's livelihood if they have to suddenly drop everything and find employment. Most people aren't going to do that unless they feel like they absolutely have to. This shit should be illegal. If you create a situation where people dependent on their jobs can be forced to go without pay, then that's just ripe for exploitation. Which is exactly what we're seeing here.

Looks like polos

um no they will be terminated if they don't report to work. they just won't get paid.

What you are saying is true but it isn't slavery. If your employer said to you, "Hey im reducing your salary to zero," it isn't slavery because you can quit. That being said, the article mentions that "According to the lawsuit, if the employees don’t report to work, they could face discipline or removal." Depending on what the disciplinary action is, maybe a case could be made but i'd need to see it.

"[EMPLOYER] isn't breaking the law; after all, the employees don't have to work for them!" Except that just because you can quit doesn't mean not paying employees is legal. Being able to quit in response to illegal behavior does not excuse the illegal behavior.

The article shows multiple says the courts have allowed individuals or governments to force people to labor without violating the 13th Amendment, unfortunately that argument would be the winning one in court.

The government is requireing them to work without pay to keep their job and have no definite date of getting paid. Nobody else in the country is legally allowed to do that. Imagine if me working for a firm was told "sorry we cant pay you until we work out our q1 budget for payroll so we need you to keep coming to work if you want to get paid for the work youve done already and keep your job. No, we dont know when you will get paid. No you cant sue us its not illegal when we do it. Also you are not legally allowed to strike either." If it isnt slavery its still completely disgusting if youll agree with me on that.

Its totally disgusting! It makes me sick and its fucking bullshit that our government can treat our own citizens like this. The citizens that MAKE the government function, no less But i just dont think its a violation of the 13th ammendment. If any of the punishments raised beyond losing your job, then I think the case could be made. For example, if they were told, 'We cant pay you, and if you strike/quit we will fine you,' then its getting closer imho.

That's fucking stupid.

"If you don't like the country you live in just move lol"

What a pointless argument. It's okay now, in your eyes, for payment to be withheld to those who are working because they can find other labor. When you fail to realize that jobs are not easy to get, this might be the only job they can work, this is a job they use to provide and now SUDDENLY they can no longer provide for a petty reason. This lawsuit is not just a lawsuit, but people standing up against the bullshit that is ongoing. More than just these people are being affected, and Trump is more than accountable for his crybaby measures to win and get his way, and using his people as his meat shields so he can build the wall that he can't even be assed to live up to his promises for.

slaves were often told if they work enough they'll be able to earn their freedom but this isn't that ha ha ha ha. "yes just find another job" do you have any idea how the job market works? your bills don't furlough with you. you can default on your mortgage because an orange turkey wants billions of dollars for something that own't benefit anyone

I don't think this violates the 13th. They can quit anytime they want, so technically it's not involuntary servitude

They aren't being forced to work, so it isn't "involuntary servitude," Maybe their wages are being stolen from them, and they can/ought to sue for the money they are owed + emotional/other damages, but they are entitled to quit without explicit penalty from their employer (e.g. jail or something) so it can't be slavery

Source?

As requested Technically, outside of contract, slave-owners simply exercised Manumission after telling the slave they'd 'paid off their debts' and freed them. If their owner lied about it then they wouldn't find justice in the courts as slaves could not testify in court. So, technically speaking, a slave owner could say just about whatever the hell they wanted to their slaves and backstab them with more or less impunity, so long as they were the only ones who witnessed whatever it was they lied about.

Aside from a proper source, why WOULDN'T slave owners say that? That's basically free encouragement to get slaves to work harder.

And as I pointed out in my big post they were legally protected from the slaves being able to say 'that guy lied to me' as they literally weren't allowed to testify for themselves in court. Only the most generous or Christian of slave owners would pass by such a deal to be able to manipulate their work force with impunity for maximized profits -- and so they did.

I don't understand this story. The goverement is shutdown that means your not roster on to work. How is it slavery if your not working? That would be volunteering and that's a different thing all together.

Employees marked essential have to work without pay until the shutdown ends.

I feel like this thread is hanging on to the slavery bit a bit too much, the article states that the 13th amendment also covers indentured servitude in the sense of working for a long period of time and then getting payed at the end of it, which is where their case makes the most sense (compared to slavery, which is more of a symbolic connection if anything and that doesn't win lawsuits). The shutdown would probably have to last more than a month at the very least though, but this is the kind of pressure that would incentivise the government shutdown ending, as the longer it lasts the higher the chance of the lawsuit succeeding.

The 13th amendment simply states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. It doesn't go into detail to explain what slavery is, so when the judges say: Pushing mentally disabled men to work on a farm for no wages by threat of institutionalization did not amount to involuntary servitude, because “psychological coercion” isn’t covered under the amendment. They're not trying to stick to some precise, specific definition of slavery by the 13th that would exclude "psychological coercion" like this claim implies, because there's no such thing in the amendment. They're willfully pretending to be retarded and not understand that forcing people to work through coercion of any kind is slavery. It's not much use having an amendment against slavery if the judicial are wiping their ass with it.