BATFE Continues Campaign Against Whistleblowers

[ZigZagZeke]

This is a great example of the behavior of the bureaucratic, strong-arm thugs who are in charge at BATFE:

In their latest attempt to protect whistleblowers from BATFE reprisal, on July 18 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) sent a letter to BATFE Acting Director B. Todd Jones, asking him to clarify the comments he made in a video message sent to agency employees. In the video, entitled "Choices and Consequences," Jones states, "Choices and consequences mean, simply, that if you make poor choices, that if you don't abide by the rules, that if you don't respect the chain of command, if you don't find the appropriate way to raise your concerns to your leadership, there will be consequences."

In their letter, the lawmakers tell Jones that his message "could be interpreted as a threat" to whistleblowers, and remind him that BATFE employees have the "right to talk to Congress and provide Congress with information free and clear of agency interference or retaliation"--a right expressly protected by federal law. The congressmen made clear to Jones that they expect a written response to the letter no later than July 25.

Read More

 

[Riot]

Yeah...well it looks like the Whistleblower Act doesn't really protect public servants.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-473, ruled that government employees do not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution when they speak pursuant to their official job duties.

Whistleblower Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties.

...public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job.

Garcetti v. Ceballos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So my understanding is that if you are a civilian and see something unsafe it is your obligation to report it and you can even make it publically known- and you will be protected from any type of retaliation through the whistleblower act. However, if you are a government employee or public servant, this does not apply and you are not protected.

What a load of crap!

 

[dmancornell]

So my understanding is that if you are a civilian and see something unsafe it is your obligation to report it and you can even make it publically known- and you will be protected from any type of retaliation through the whistleblower act. However, if you are a government employee or public servant, this does not apply and you are not protected.

What a load of crap!

The house always wins.

 

[Tangent123123]

So government employees are not protected under the first ammendment, but when called on the carpet to explain themselves in their jobs, they are protected by the fifth?

"public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job. "

Should that statement apply when they are asked to explain themselves regarding Gunrunner? Or is this a selective game we're playing here?

 

[Dunerunner]

The walls are beginning to crumble, my friends.....They are scared and are using all the leverage they have to attempt to prevent complete collapse.

 

[drew]

The walls are beginning to crumble, my friends.....They are scared and are using all the leverage they have to attempt to prevent complete collapse.

The collapse should be very entertaining.

 

[biggie24420]

ATF Boss Threatens Whistleblowers - YouTube

Hey it's uncle Ben ya'll lol...

 

[strick]

I know this is a bit off topic, but OHSA does not protect any public workers either, the states have had to enact state level OHSA standards that mirror the feds to include public workers. I am not sure what states do not have no such protection, I think Texas is one of them that choose not to protect all workers.

 

[Riot]

So government employees are not protected under the first ammendment, but when called on the carpet to explain themselves in their jobs, they are protected by the fifth?

"public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job. "

Should that statement apply when they are asked to explain themselves regarding Gunrunner? Or is this a selective game we're playing here?

You should read that case law I mentioned (Garcetti vs Ceballos)...it is quite interesting the stance that the courts have on it. It pretty much says "government employees are subject to scrutiny, if you don't play ball with the rest of us then you will be punished for it". Garcetti was an assistant DA that brought a warrant into question to his superiors. When they told him to "kick rocks" he actually testified on behalf of the defendant. After that, he was passed over for promotion and constantly reassigned. He felt that he was being punished for raising the flags about the warrant and filed suit. The courts stated that he was a government employee and couldn't say or do what he wanted, therefore he wasn't protected under the constitution while performing his job (seeing the flaw here?). The 9th Court apealed the decision, but the supreme court ruled in favor of the original findings and stated that government employees and public servants aren't protected under the 1st Amendment while performing their jobs.

I get why some of it applies (if I was a cop I couldn't just call you a name without repricussion). However, I don't get how if you see something go wrong (your partner beats someone without cause) how you shouldn't be able to report them. It basically says that if you do, and you are retaliatted against by your employeer for it- then tough luck.