question: Why are essential furloughed workers not protected under the 13th Amendment?
comment: Well I believe they are protected, which is why there are (at least) 5 people who were ordered back to work without pay that are sueing the government as of Wednesday. They're using the 13th amendent because they're being forced to do slave labour Edit: a word
passages: In past shutdowns, retroactive pay and leave has always been provided for furloughed employees through legislation, even though it was not guaranteed. Typically, the legislative package ending the shutdown included this language; for example, in the January 2018 shutdown, retroactive pay and leave was part of the continuing resolution which funded the government again.
  
  Section::::Legislative history.
   In the United States, involuntary furloughs concerning federal government employees may be of a sudden and immediate nature. Such was the case in February 2010, when a single United States Senate objection prevented emergency funding measures from being implemented. As a result, 2,000 federal workers for the Department of Transportation were immediately furloughed as of March 1, 2010. The 2nd-longest such shutdown was December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996, which affected all non-essential employees, shutting down many services including National Institutes of Health, visa and passport processing, parks, and many others. This happened again on October 1, 2013, and on January 19, 2018.
   However, the Court did uphold some economic regulation, such as state Prohibition laws ("Mugler v. Kansas", 1887), laws declaring maximum hours for mine workers ("Holden v. Hardy", 1898), laws declaring maximum hours for female workers ("Muller v. Oregon", 1908), and President Woodrow Wilson's intervention in a railroad strike ("Wilson v. New", 1917), as well as federal laws regulating narcotics ("United States v. Doremus", 1919). The Court repudiated, but did not explicitly overrule, the "freedom of contract" line of cases in "West Coast Hotel v. Parrish" (1937).
   The Act requires that furloughed employees receive retroactive wages for the length of a shutdown at the standard rate of pay. It also requires that excepted employees working without pay receive retroactive pay for work performed. In addition, the Act grants excepted employees permission to use their paid leave, and to receive standard compensation for leave taken.
  
  It is further specified that this back pay is to be received at the earliest possible date after the end of a shutdown, so that employees would not need to wait until a scheduled pay day.
   In many instances, employers do not pay overtime properly for non-exempt jobs, such as not paying an employee for travel time between job sites, activities before or after their shifts, and preparation central to work activities. If an employee is entitled to overtime, the employer must pay them one and a half times their "regular rate of pay" for all hours they work over 40 in the same work week.
  
  Employees employed in a ministerial role by a religiously affiliated employer are not entitled to overtime under the act.
   In Section II of the opinion, J. Thomas addresses the Petitioners' statutory interpretation argument, that employers are statutorily prohibited under 207(o)(5) from requiring employees to utilize accrued compensatory time. While acknowledging that "nothing in the FLSA expressly prohibits a State or subdivision thereof from compelling employees to utilize accrued compensatory time," both the Petitioners, and the United States as amicus curiae, argued that the FLSA implicitly prohibits such practice. J Thomas states that Petitioner's argument of implicit prohibition relies on the canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. J. Thomas further states that under such canon, the Petitioners contend that the "express grant of control to employees to use compensatory time…implies that all other methods of spending compensatory time are precluded." 
   Furlough
  
  In the United States, a furlough (; from , "leave of absence") is a temporary leave of employees due to special needs of a company or employer, which may be due to economic conditions at the specific employer or in the economy as a whole. These involuntary furloughs may be short or long term, and many of those affected may seek other temporary employment during that time.
  
  Section::::Federal government.
   The court said, however, waiting time in a queue for protective gear was “two steps removed from principal activities”, is not compensable under FLSA regulations. However, time spent waiting to put on protective gear before leaving at the end of the workday should be paid. Compensable work hours begin at the time the employer asks employees to arrive. If employees are forced to wait at the beginning of their shift because the employer does not yet have protective gear available, employees will be compensated for their waiting time.
  
  Section::::Significance.
   In regards to the substantive issue, the Court holds: Section 207(o)(5) of the FLSA does not prohibit employers from requiring employees to utilize their accrued compensatory time. 
   Under §2612(2)(A) an employer can make an employee substitute the right to 12 unpaid weeks of leave for "accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave or family leave" in an employer's personnel policy. Originally the Department of Labor had a penalty to make employers notify employees that this might happen. However, five judges in the US Supreme Court in "Ragsdale v Wolverine World Wide, Inc" held that the statute precluded the right of the Department of Labor to do so. Four dissenting judges would have held that nothing prevented the rule, and it was the Department of Labor's job to enforce the law.
   Those rights have come with restrictions private workers are not subject to. In the late 1930s Congress passed the Hatch Act, limiting political activity by federal employees, and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court on several occasions. Federal employees, though in some cases unionized, are also not allowed to strike, a restriction upheld by a district court. The 1978 Ethics in Government Act imposed other restrictions on federal employees that sometimes go beyond the term of their employment. Lastly, the federal government's sovereign immunity means it can only be sued where such actions are permitted by statute.
   The amendment exempted state and local governments from paying overtime for special detail work performed by fire-protection, law-enforcement, and prison-security employees. The amendment exempted state and local governments from paying overtime to employees working in a substantially different capacity from the employee's regular full-time employment on a sporadic basis.
  
  The amendment stated that individuals who volunteer to perform services for a state or local government agency are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act if the individual receives no compensation or nominal compensation.
   In California, the State Employee Trades Council (SETC) voted to implement a mandatory two-day-per-month furlough policy for the staff and faculty of the CSU system. The furloughs, intended to prevent layoffs, began in August 2009, and ended in June 2010. The 10% cut saved about $270 million of the CSU's $564 million budget deficit.
  
  Section::::Private sector.
  
  During the global recession of 2009 companies such as Intel, Toyota, and Gannett implemented furloughs.
  
  In the federal government shutdown of 2013 federal contractors such as Lockheed Martin and United Technologies considered furloughing their own employees.
  
  Section::::Other uses.
   In particular, Title 29 U.S.C. § 207(o)(5) provides:
  
  An employee … (A) who has accrued compensatory time off …, and (B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time, shall be permitted by the employee’s employer to use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the public agency.
   The law firm acting for Reilly and Wilson, Public Interest Lawyers, reportedly lodged submissions to the supreme court, arguing that 'the actions of the secretary of state … represent a clear violation of article 6 of the European convention on human rights and the rule of law, as an interference in the judicial process by the legislature'.
  
  Section::::Legal challenge to non-disclosure of participating organisations.
   This act is in place and in effect to ensure said employees receive "sufficient periods of rest" to ensure that they can perform their jobs safely. The law also specifies how many hours employees may work, both continuously and with a period of off time (called swing time) which is differentiated as being too short to be considered a period of rest. The affected employees include Dispatchers, Conductors, Engineers and more.
  
  Section::::References.
  
  BULLET::::- FRA Technical Bulletin G-00-02 - The Federal Hours Of Service Laws and Signal Service
   J. Thomas concludes that the proper implied prohibition is: in the absence of an agreement, an employer may not deny an employee's request for a reason other than "undue disruption." Accordingly, the statute does not prohibit an employee from requiring employees to utilize accrued compensatory time. 
   The Supreme Court addressed in the case whether the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., forbids a public employer from requiring its employees to use their accumulated compensatory time, absent a pre-existing agreement authorizing compelled use. Compensatory time provides employees time off work with full pay and is granted to employees in lieu of a cash payment for overtime work. The FLSA provides a statutory cap specifying the maximum number of compensatory hours that an employee may accrue prior to an employer's obligation to provide an employee with a cash payment for overtime hours worked. See § 207(o)(3)(A).
   The "West Coast" decision heralded the end of the "Lochner" era, when the US Supreme Court struck down numerous worker- and consumer-protection laws. During the "Lochner" era, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed a "freedom of contract" that trumped efforts by legislators to protect workers or consumers.
   Nearly 50 years later, the Court again revisited the issue of what constituted "work." In "IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez," the Court again engaged in a fact-specific analysis to conclude that time spent waiting while in protective gear, or time spent walking in protective gear, was compensable working time.
   Section 119 excludes certain meals or lodging provided to the employee for the employer's convenience. The meals must be provided for a substantially non-compensatory reason that clearly benefits the employer rather than the employee. Examples include meals provided to an employee during the employee's working hours for an employee who must remain on site for emergencies that are reasonably expected to occur and that the employee would be required to remedy during the employee's meal period. Providing meals to employees in order to foster collaboration, morale, and overall well-being are not considered to be provided for the employer's convenience.
   In 1993, Congress passed legislation that amended the act as it applies to federal employees. Under the amendment most federal employees are now able to take part in political management and political campaigns. The act also applies to local and state employees who are employed with programs financed by loan or grants from the government or a federal agency. If the employee works for a research or educational institutions supported by a state, the employee is not under the restrictions of the act. The government employees that are covered by the new amendment are in executive agencies or in positions in the U.S. Postal Service and Postal Rate Commission.
   The United States Congress failed to pass a re-authorization of funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and as a result, furloughed about 4,000 workers at midnight on July 22, 2011.
  
  Section::::Federal government.:Potential furlough in 2011.
  
  Congress was on the verge of forcing a government shutdown on April 8, 2011, if their plan to reduce the federal budget deficit was not resolved, which would have caused the furlough of 800,000 out of two million civilian federal employees.
  
  Section::::Federal government.:Furloughs in 2013.
   In the court decision, the court stated the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974 exempted from the minimum wage and maximum hours rules of the FSLA persons "employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals ... unable to care for themselves." 29 U. S. C. §213(a)(15). The court found that the power of the Department of Labor (DOL) to administer a congressionally created program necessarily requires the making of rules to fill any 'gap' left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress, and when that agency fills that gap reasonably, it is binding. In this case, one of the gaps was whether to include workers paid by third parties in the exemption and the DOL had done that. Since the DOL followed public notice procedure, and since there was a gap left in the legislation, the DOLs regulation stood and home health care workers were not covered by either minimum wage or overtime pay requirements (but see below).
   Recognizing both the concept that the access to the computer is governed by the scope of the employment agreement and a concept that the employee is still considered to have an authorization to use a computer, even if he or she used a computer or information on it in a ways contrary to employer's limitations, the Firth Circuit agreed with the former interpretation elaborated on it.
  
presuppositions: essential furloughed workers are not protected under the 13th ammendment. Essential furloughed workers aren't protected under the 13th Amendment.
corrections: essential furloughed workers are actually protected under the 13th ammendment. Essential furloughed workers do have protections under the 13th Amendment.
raw_presuppositions: essential furloughed workers are not protected under the 13th ammendment. Essential furloughed workers aren't protected under the 13th Amendment.
raw_corrections: essential furloughed workers are actually protected under the 13th ammendment. Essential furloughed workers do have protections under the 13th Amendment.