Federal Workers Told to Inform on Colleagues

"Tens of thousands of workers were put on notice that officials would not tolerate any efforts to “disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language.” Emails sent out, which were based on a template from the Office of Personnel Management, gave employees 10 days to report their observations to a special email account without risking disciplinary action.
 
Federal employees in the United States are generally expected to adhere to a set of ethical standards and procedures that govern their conduct in the workplace. Here's how this typically applies to the scenario you've described:

  • Duty to Report: Federal agencies have policies that require employees to report misconduct, including the failure to follow established procedures, to their supervisors or to an appropriate office like the Office of Inspector General (OIG). For example, under the Whistleblower Protection Act, employees are protected when they disclose information about violations of law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, or a substantial and specific refusal to follow lawful instructions.
  • Procedures and Regulations: Federal employees are bound by various regulations:
    • 5 CFR Part 2635 (Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch) which includes responsibilities like avoiding conflicts of interest and ensuring proper use of government property.
    • Specific agency policies might also dictate how non-compliance should be handled, including reporting mechanisms.
  • Context and Specificity: The obligation to report might vary based on:
    • The nature of the procedure in question. Procedures might carry heavier reporting obligations.
    • The position of the employee; higher-level employees might have more stringent reporting requirements or be expected to handle such situations differently.
  • Protection for Whistleblowers: There are mechanisms in place to protect federal employees from retaliation when they report wrongdoing in good faith through official channels.
  • Ethical and Legal Considerations: Employees must consider both the legal framework and the ethical implications. Reporting can sometimes lead to uncomfortable situations or workplace tension, but it's considered part of maintaining integrity in public service.

In Summary: While there isn't a universal, one-size-fits-all answer, federal employees generally have an obligation to report colleagues who refuse to follow procedures. The exact duty can depend on the specific context within each agency or department.


@Grok
 
We have been sold snitch culture hard for a very long time.....I am opposed.....but let us not pretend otherwise.
 
Hume said:
We will never see right wingers call this Soviet style spying.
Click to expand...
You couldn't be more wrong. The President is the head of the executive branch. If he legally orders all DEI programs to end, they end. If an agency, or persons at an agency try to hide and continue such programs, they are in fact in violation of federal labor law and civil service standards. They should be reported and if found to be doing that, disciplined for ignoring management's orders.

That isn't any sort of "spying." It is the duty of an employee of the federal government to report those that are openly defying their leadership and management. That goes for anything, not just DEI.
 
Tbird19482 said:
Or that these people could make up a bunch of lies like Trump always does and get somebody they don't like fired just because they don't like them.
this is a really bad idea.
Click to expand...


No, federal employees in the United States cannot be fired simply because someone doesn't like them. Here's a breakdown of the protections and processes involved:

  1. Civil Service Protections: Most federal employees are part of the civil service system, which offers protections against arbitrary dismissal. They have rights under laws like the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which includes:
    • Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB): Federal employees can appeal adverse actions like removal to the MSPB, where they must demonstrate that the action was taken for cause and not for arbitrary or personal reasons.
    • Due Process: Employees are entitled to due process, which includes notice of the charges against them, an opportunity to respond, and, if removed, a right to appeal.
  2. Just Cause: Removal must be for "just cause" or "good cause," which typically involves performance issues, misconduct, or a violation of agency rules. Examples include:
    • Neglect of duty
    • Insubordination
    • Misconduct (e.g., theft, fraud)
  3. Political Appointees vs. Career Employees:
    • Political Appointees: These positions, which include many high-level roles, serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority (like the President) and can be removed more easily without the same level of job security as career civil servants.
    • Career Employees: Have more protections. Firing them requires following specific procedures.
  4. Whistleblower Protections: Federal employees are also protected under various whistleblower laws if they report wrongdoing. Firing someone in retaliation for whistleblowing is illegal and can lead to reinstatement or other remedies.
  5. Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs): Many federal employees are also covered by union contracts that might provide additional protections or steps in the disciplinary process.
  6. Performance-Based Actions: Even here, the process must follow specific guidelines where poor performance must be documented, and the employee given opportunities to improve before being removed.

In summary, while federal employees enjoy significant job security, they can be fired, but it must be done through legally sound processes with just cause, not merely because someone dislikes them.


@Grok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top