HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » woo me with science » Journal
Page: 1

woo me with science

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jan 13, 2004, 10:24 PM
Number of posts: 32,139

Journal Archives

The Obama administration's legal battle against whistleblowers, federal unions.

Obama administration divides over whistleblowers

This is an assault on unions, and on the employee civil protections of hundreds of thousands of federal workers. And the implications of this particular assault are *especially* chilling, because we're talking about stripping worker protections from those who are closest to what is going on in the halls of our government.

So much for being able to speak out when malfeasance is observed.

This is likely headed to the Supreme Court.

Obama administration divides over whistleblowers
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 4/13/13 4:34 PM EDT Updated: 4/13/13 5:19 PM EDT

It’s a battle that pits President Barack Obama against whistleblower advocates, against some of the largest federal employee unions, and against a bipartisan contingent in Congress.
The Justice Department and Defense Department are arguing that federal employees like commissary managers and accountants, who don’t have access to classified information, can be demoted or effectively fired without recourse to the usual avenues of appeal if their jobs are designated as “sensitive.” The ripple effect of that — critics say it would effectively strip huge numbers of federal workers of civil service protections by treating them like those who have access to the nation’s most vital secrets — could hollow out legal protections that have allowed whistleblowers to speak out with less fear of being fired.
Whistleblower advocates, including some in Congress, contend that allowing agencies greater latitude to reassign or even dismiss workers in “sensitive” positions will open another way for employees to retaliate against those who report fraud, waste or abuse of power.
....Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, agreed: “Providing agencies with complete discretion to strip federal workers of whistleblower and other civil service protections would undermine Congressional intent and would be patently unjust,” Cummings said.

It’s unclear how many workers are potentially affected by the dispute, but some lawyers involved believe the number is in the hundreds of thousands....Critics say that if typical accounting and stockroom jobs are deemed “sensitive” because of their potential impact on national security, almost any job at any agency could be designated as such and any supervisor or agency could elude normal civil service protections by ginning up a concern about a worker’s background.

“The Obama Administration is seeking a blank check to expand this throughout the executive branch,” Devine said. If the administration’s approach prevails, he said, “any job that matters in the civil service will be outside the rule of law.”

Posted by woo me with science | Sun Apr 14, 2013, 03:24 PM (37 replies)

We are like mere dogs trying to understand the internet.

The implementation of a corporate authoritarian state is clearly a necessary incremental step in the long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long. long, long journey toward a liberal, compassionate future.

They can't tell us people with limited smartness why, though. It's a secret.

Posted by woo me with science | Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:54 AM (4 replies)

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Drone murders are Ethical, Legal, and Wise.
Chained CPI is Superlative
Assault is Protection.

Corporate Propaganda will repeat the Mantras with Great Seriousness, despite having been corrected and corrected and corrected and corrected and corrected.

Why? Because that is the nature of Propaganda.

The chocolate ration will, always and forever, only have been increased.

Myths About Chained CPI, Debunked
Posted by woo me with science | Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:10 PM (0 replies)

Fuck "PROTECTIONS" from the President's policies.

How about a Democratic President who doesn't propose legislation that people need to be "PROTECTED" from?

How about a Democratic President who refrains from assaulting us in the first place?
In fact, here's a thought:

Maybe we deserve a Democratic President who actually works ON BEHALF of the people who elected him.
Posted by woo me with science | Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:09 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1