By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a recent government shutdown, some Army civilian employees were instructed to work despite being slated for furlough, then later directed to falsify their timecards to reflect furlough. This directive has raised concerns among these employees that they were compelled to violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal spending without appropriations. Officials reportedly issued conflicting guidance, initially directing normal operations before furloughing some staff and then instructing them to inaccurately record their hours.
Read the original article here
It appears that some Army civilian employees found themselves in a rather unusual situation during a recent government shutdown. The core of the issue is that these individuals, who were technically supposed to be furloughed, were actually working, and then, rather surprisingly, were instructed to report that they had *not* been working on their time cards. This raises a number of significant questions, not least of which is the legality and ethical implications of such an order.
Directly lying on time cards is the kind of action that could lead to serious repercussions for an employee, potentially even termination. When an authority figure then instructs someone to do this, it shifts the situation from a personal decision to a directive, which could have criminal implications for those giving the order. This situation has been described as something that a supposedly transparent administration might engage in, suggesting a potential disconnect between stated values and actual practices.
The sentiment expressed by many is that this practice is far from acceptable. It touches upon a broader philosophical idea that those in positions of power have a social contract with the public they serve. When those in power disregard this contract, especially in ways that negatively impact the lives of ordinary citizens, it can erode trust and lead to a feeling of being disregarded. The current dynamic, where it seems some are prioritizing their own interests or those of their superiors over the well-being of others, is seen by some as unsustainable for a functioning and ethical society.
Some individuals have shared personal experiences that, while perhaps not directly comparable, echo the theme of being asked to misrepresent their work. In one instance, a former retail worker recounted being asked to work overtime and then falsely claim they had not. This experience contributes to a broader perception that a lack of mutual support, even within workplaces, is a concerning trend.
When faced with such a request from a supervisor, the immediate reaction for many would be to involve higher authorities like Human Resources and to document the request. The idea of being asked to falsify records in such a straightforward manner is met with disbelief and a strong inclination to protect oneself through official channels.
There’s a moment of clarification around the term “Army civilian.” It’s understood that individuals working on military bases or for military departments who are not in uniform are indeed civilians. These are the base workers, support staff, and administrative personnel who are essential to the functioning of the military infrastructure.
While it’s acknowledged that technically, non-essential personnel should not have been working during a shutdown, the brevity of this particular shutdown has led some to view the situation with a degree of leniency. The argument is that with the shutdown being so short and the expectation that it wouldn’t last long, the consequences might be minimal. Some also point to the legislative process, suggesting that if political leaders had acted more proactively, the shutdown might have been avoided altogether, thus preventing these kinds of ethical dilemmas for civilian employees.
Regardless of whether these civilians actually worked during the shutdown, it’s noted that all Army civilian employees are typically paid regardless of shutdown events. They receive back pay for any missed work or are paid on their regular schedules if the shutdown concludes before payroll is impacted. This financial aspect, while important, doesn’t negate the core ethical and legal concerns.
The idea of asking for such instructions in writing, perhaps via email, is a tactic that some might employ to create a paper trail. While perhaps sarcastic, it highlights the underlying unease with an order that feels questionable or even illegal. The expectation that there will be swift repercussions for such actions is, for some, met with a healthy dose of skepticism, given past experiences with how accountability often plays out.
The core of the situation, as summarized from the initial reports, is that some Army civilians, designated as non-essential and therefore supposed to be furloughed, were in fact working. Crucially, they were then instructed to misrepresent their work hours by claiming they did not work. This immediately brings into question the legality of such directives, as falsifying documents, especially official time cards, is a serious offense.
While these civilians may not fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), they are still subject to laws regarding the integrity of government documents. For those working in civilian roles within government departments, like the Department of the Navy, where employees might be referred to as “Navy Civilians,” similar rules and regulations apply regarding ethical conduct and accurate record-keeping.
The act of instructing someone to lie on their time card is unequivocally illegal, and the notion of “no harm, no foul” is rejected by many who believe that breaking the law should not be normalized, regardless of the perceived severity or duration of the event. The question is raised whether laws are truly optional, suggesting that such incidents highlight a concerning trend where violations by those in authority go unaddressed.
This situation is seen by some as entirely consistent with the current administration’s approach, implying a pattern of behavior that is being criticized. The hope is that in the future, governmental bodies like the Department of Justice will be strengthened, and laws governing government conduct will have real teeth, leading to accountability. The concern is that without consequences, even illegal actions can become routine.
There’s an observation that individuals in these roles might not be new to government shutdowns. The reasoning is that since they would eventually be paid regardless, whether through back pay or on their regular paydays, the immediate financial impact of the shutdown itself was not the primary concern. However, the legality of the order to falsify time cards remains a significant issue, even if it doesn’t lead to immediate financial consequences for the employee. The concern is whether any action will be taken at all.
A significant portion of the discussion diverges into potential reforms for the judicial system and the appointment of judges, suggesting that the current system might be part of a larger problem that allows for such ethical lapses to occur without significant consequence. Ideas range from more frequent judicial appointments to direct public voting on nominees, all stemming from a desire to ensure a more independent and accountable judiciary.
However, these reform discussions, while interesting, ultimately circle back to the initial problem: a potentially illegal directive being issued to government employees, with the underlying concern being whether there will be any meaningful accountability. The core issue remains the instruction to falsify records, a practice that many believe should not be tolerated or normalized within any organization, especially not within the government.