GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: High court: On-the-job whistleblowing not free speech

• 17124
  

  This is all part of the plan to ensure that government employees do not work for the taxpayer but rather for the political appointees and the president. The new NSPS pay system is designed to punish employees who do not conform with political policies just as this Supreme Court decision is designed to allow punishment of civil servants who are watching out for the taxpayers' interest. A State Department employee was just transferred for questioning U.S. payments to Somali Warlords though State's "dissent channels." I guess you could call the Supreme Court decision Blackhawk Down the Tubes. There are no safe dissent channels in the U.S. government.

  Steve Brennan Posted June 2, 2006 2:56 PM
• 17108
  

  "Every case of whistleblowing that I have observed that was proven factual has been upheld..."

  Nonsense. The title of the legislation should be changed to read, "The Whistleblower Is Unprotected Act." A whistleblower has virtually no chance of overcoming the agency's personnel action.

  The system that exists, i.e., Office of Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, does not protect whistleblowers.

  The only way that whistleblowers will ever receive a fair hearing is in front of a jury of their peers -- the point being that the various government agencies charged with protecting whistleblowers have not fulfilled their responsibilities in accordance with the law and are unlikely to do so in the future.

  Here is the typical profile of a whistleblower: Unblemished record of superior performance, promoted ahead of peers, position of significant responsibility, honest, hard working, idealistic, believes that the government should serve the people ... the argument that whistleblowers are poor performers and resort to using the legislation to protect themselves is false.

  An individual who claims to know something about the system would realize that it provides no protection for anyone.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 2, 2006 8:46 AM
• 17107
  

  Dear ER/LR,

  I certainly don't work in a vacuum and I've seen this whistleblower issue from all sides, including having been a whistleblower myself.

  This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the one from Toyota which could have been easily resolved with a $15 stepping stool instead of a Supreme Court decision making the Americans with Disability Act a joke.

  Now we have a decision making the Whistleblower Protection Action irrelevant. My advice to that Navy Welder who reported deficient welds and saved the Navy a ship- don't bother, your job isn't protected because your blowing the whistle was done as a Navy welder and is not protected by the Constitution. Who would risk their job and livelihood now!!!!

  ER/LR Specialist-- let's hope you never have to use the WPA yourself or bring an IRA to MSPB.

  Happy trails or should I say trials,

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 2, 2006 8:35 AM
• 17069
  

  Yet another great reason to be retired and have a computer with rapid e-mails to elected representatives! All federal employees know that whistleblowing is dangerous to your health. But many don't know that it's just as bad in the private sector. Talk out of school about the incompetent supervisor who just happens to be the big boss's nephew and guess where you'll be? Out the door. Sometimes in federal government things get really bad, like 9/11 or the Katrina fiasco. Agencies are reshuffled, directors replaced, some front line supervisors are reassigned. At least it's done publicly. In private industry nobody talks about scandals to the press, because they want to keep their job. So looking for heroes in either venue is fruitless.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 1, 2006 8:44 AM
• 17064
  

  "Anyone who blows the whistle and is not eligible for immediate retirement is a fool!" This absolutely is true unless you have a feeling that moral issues are more important than your continued employment in the government.

  This statement totally reflects my statement that the political appointees now have total control over the government and employees cannot speak out for fear of being fired! Now political appointees have total control over the pay of existing employees and the ability to fire those who speak out against what the appointees do.

  Isn't this how the Nazis took over German government? They didn't use violent overthrow but subtle changes in employee pay and the illegal nature of government employees speaking out. Eventually they started violence against those that spoke out anyway -- such as giving out the names of spies or black listing others who did not do their bidding. And didn't they have government agents spying on the civilians through wire taps and other means also?

  Taxpayer Posted June 1, 2006 7:43 AM
• 17055
  

  Why is everyone surprised at the ruling by the Supreme Court? They are just protecting the crooks and dishonesty in the government the same as they have always done. They are hoping this ruling will prevent the public from knowing what is going on within the government, and it is nothing but a threat to those who sincerely want to see the government cleaned up, by legalizing control over the people's voices. Doesn't communism work this way? Just think, we have troops in Iraq supposedly fighting for a free democracy and dying every day but yet our government has silenced their voices right along with others.

  Charlie Posted May 31, 2006 10:50 PM
• 17049
  

  It is obvious that all but one of the people responding to date have not had any dealings with "whistleblowers." Most are frivolous and/or false, made to protect their rear ends from a pending conduct or performance/competence issue. Every case of "whistleblowing" that I have observed that was proven factual has been upheld, and no negative action taken against the whistleblower; as it should be. The only people who complain or take issue with the current system seem to be those who are less than satisfactory employees, or those who do not know the truth about the situation. I can't believe the "HR Specialist;" he or she must work in a vacuum, and one of your responders can't even write comprehensively. Of course that's why many of these people are "federal" employees, as they couldn't make it in the civilian world, where they might actually have to work and perform at a high level just to keep their jobs. We need the "whistleblowers," but we must protect management and government from these malingerers and incompetents.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 31, 2006 5:53 PM
• 17042
  

  As Rummy might say, "One gets the impression that the whole notion of whistleblowing is distasteful and that we ought not allow any more of it."

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 31, 2006 2:38 PM
• 17035
  

  For those of you that thought the Supreme Court was independent, this story should clear up that wrong-headed thinking.

  From now on, if the government, lies, cheats, steals or otherwise commits a crime, you had better think twice about turning in the criminal.

  Crime is legal in the government. What is next?

  rds Posted May 31, 2006 2:15 PM
• 17027
  

  I believe that most people generally regard whistleblowers as heroes who are performing a public service. The reality however, based on my 25-plus years of government service in multiple agencies, is that, for every legitimate whistleblower, there are far more meritless whistleblowers. Problem employees, who in most cases are even sincere in the belief they are whistleblowing on a legitimate issue, may make whistleblower complaints that are either motivated by partisan political views or are frivolous, incorrect, inaccurate or delusional. In the more egregious instances, agencies need to be able to effectively deal with such individuals who are disruptive and detract from the agency's legitimate mission.

  This ruling seems to permit agencies to effectively deal with such individuals for making, or what's more likely, persisting with, meritless whistleblower complaints. Thus, the decision gives agencies the ability to deal with those misguided or mis-motivated individuals who, based on what I have observed over the years, represent the majority of whistleblowers. Unfortunately, it may also have a chilling effect on whether legitimate and valid whistleblower complaints will be made. Hopefully, the overall tradeoff will be for the best since most agencies in my view, at least at the top, are usually willing to appropriately address legitimate complaints of abuse concerning mid-level managers and sub-organizations with their agency.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 31, 2006 8:35 AM
• 17026
  

  The pendulum has not yet reached its maximum arch to the right. First there is the impossible hurdle put in front of handicapped employees to prove disability discrimination, and now we have the shut down of the whistleblower reprisal act and a chill throughout the government.

  When that pendulum starts to swing back, some of us in federal HR will be very pleased.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 31, 2006 7:44 AM
• 17021
  

  If employees cannot speak out under the First Amendment then Congress needs to pass a protective provision specifically for federal government employees (including military) that protects the ability of the employees to speak out. This particularly is necessary with the new pay structure at DoD and elsewhere that will lead to the development of total "yes men." With this Supreme Court ruling, the government now has the hammer to stop all decency and do as it pleases!

  Remember how they fired the chief of the park police because she spoke out! Now we get mauled on the mall and everyone is outraged. Also remember that the chief that was fired told everyone what was coming because of manpower shortages and budget shortfalls! She was right and no one would listen -- she had every right to inform the public of the situation without getting fired. She should be reinstated with back pay and given the increases in manpower and budget that are now going to the people who were given her position for keeping their mouths shut and allowing us to get mugged on the mall!

  Taxpayer Posted May 31, 2006 6:41 AM
• 17019
  

  Anyone who "blows the whistle" and is not eligible for immediate retirement is a fool!

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 30, 2006 8:04 PM
• 17018
  

  From this point forward, anything concerns I may express publicly may subject me to scrutiny and possible retribution by any manager who purposes in his mind that he doesn't dig what I have to say.

  I have many concerns about the decision, but I will only present a few here:

  1. When Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority that "when a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom," that sends a clear message to the many young people we seek to recruit into public service.

  2) Mr. Ceballos, under oath and in court, recounted his observations about an affidavit that was the subject of his communications with his supervisors. Again, this was in a courtroom. Does a supervisor or manager now have free rein to determine what is considered "public statements"?

  3) Justice Kennedy further wrote that "formal job descriptions often bear little resemblance to the duties an employee actually is expected to perform...," in my mind, taking a stab at the importance of clear performance standards, which serve as an agreement between the employee and the supervisor/manager.

  I'm now concerned that this decision (which I have been waiting on more than seven months) is yet one more step in the erasure of more than 120 years of civil service reform.

  F. K. Hall Posted May 30, 2006 5:49 PM