Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 16
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

Supreme Court Makes It Easier to Discipline "Whistleblowers"

Supreme Court Makes It Easier to Discipline "Whistleblowers"

PROGRAM SUPPORT ASSISTANT
VAMC
Wed May 31, 2006 9:06 AM

Post Reply

I'm confused by this ruling since it contrasts the Whistleblwer's Act." This appears to be yet another blatant act of inconsistency by this present administration. Can someone please explain this ruling and its effect on the aforementioned act. I included the law that I am referring to. Thanks for any reasonable explanation.

"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT REMAIN SILENT
The law known as the “Whistle-blower Act” prohibits retaliation against public employees who report official wrongdoing. The Act states that “a state or local governmental entity may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other adverse personnel action against, a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmental entity or another public employee to an appropriate law enforcement authority.” (Tex. Government Code Ann, §554.002(a) (Vernon 1999)."

Re: Supreme Court Makes It Easier to Discipline

HR Specialist
DHS
Wed May 31, 2006 9:29 AM
Well, I'll try.

Obviously, if in the performance of your official duties you falsify a Federal document, you may be disciplined. If you are inaccurate, you may be put on a PIP or disciplined.

The court decision SEEMS to me to be saying: if you go home and write your elected representative or the press, that is one thing, but if you write an official document as part of your official duties, that document is subject to supervisory review and critique.

In this case, an attorney made a very serious allegation about a law enforcement officer concerning a criminal case. That allegation was brought to the attention of the court, which apparently rejected it--found it inaccurate. The court seems to be saying that employees may be expected to refrain from making untrue inflamatory allegations while performing their official duties.

Re: Supreme Court Makes It Easier to Discipline

Management Analyst
USMC
Wed May 31, 2006 9:51 AM
Please - Let's leave our personal politics out of this. The Supreme Court is not bound - nor was wholly installed by "this administration" and therefore to lump it in with decisions (which you obviously disagree with) made by this administration is not accurate.
That being said, I also would like to see how this ruling will affect Whistleblowers - who will decide if they are bona-fide "whistleblowers" or just trying to CYA?

Re: Supreme Court Makes It Easier to Discipline

PROGRAM SUPPORT ASSISTANT
VAMC
Wed May 31, 2006 10:29 AM
Well thank you for your explanation of this act. I did put my personal political opinion in my question so to allow someone to explain to me the reasoning of this law based upon my understanding. (That was my only intention of using my personal opinion due to the current news of wire tapping; iraq allegations; and also the recent development of Senator Jefferson's argument. (Of course my explanation could go further however I want to thank the HR personnel who did clarify the difference of what I did not understand. So the court was just ensuring that a whistle blower's information is accurate and not just a made up allegation in order for a person to bring attention to themselves. Thanks again for the explanation.

Mgt Analyst - USMC

Manager
DFAS
Wed May 31, 2006 10:14 AM

Post Reply

Crediting this decision to this Administration certainly is fair when you consider that it was decided before while Sandra Day O'Conner was on the court. It was reheard and Bush's new conservative choice, Mr Alioto, made the deciding majority vote to change the decision in favor of the government instead of for truth.

Re: Mgt Analyst - USMC

Program Analyst
GSA
Wed May 31, 2006 11:58 AM
Seems you missed the point. read the HR Specialists' explanation above. It will not affect a TRUE whistleblower...only those who utter accusations or untruths on official documents related to the performance of their duties or make accustaions in an attempt to CYA when they are themselves facing scrutiny. This whole "Woe is me...the world is out to get me attitude" of many feds is getting old.

Re: Mgt Analyst - USMC

HR Asst.
USDA
Thu Jun 1, 2006 9:16 AM
The problem with this whole thing, is when they determine that the whistle blower is wrong, WHO determines that. You do know that it's more Fed. people, and who is to say that they didn't cover up something, just to say the whistle blower was unjustified. If you file a grievance, you have Fed. Judges (who thinks their S doesn't stink) ruling on your grievance, and just who do you think wins most of the time, ask you Senator, my Senator told me who wins most of the time and that they were not happy about it, but there was also nothing that they could do about it. !

Re: Mgt Analyst - USMC

Mustang
Retired
Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:47 PM
I fail to understand why this case had to be re-heard. It does appear that this is a ruling for this administration. I would say that this court/administration has overturned the Whistleblower Act. There is no limit to what may happen next.

supreme court decision

arbitrator
retired
Thu Jun 1, 2006 5:07 AM

Post Reply

Am I missing something? The Supreme Court decision discusses the relationship between the Constitution and whistleblowing, not the Whistleblowers Protection Act, a separate cause of action against Federal agency employers.

Supreme Court Decision

General Counsel
AFGE
Thu Jun 1, 2006 8:14 AM

Post Reply

I have to agree with "retired arbitrator": The Court's decision should have little or no effect on federal whistleblowers who have STATUTORY protections far greater than those the Constitution would provide. It is still a prohibited personnel action to take a reprisal action against a whistleblower (2302 b 8) or someone who has filed a grievance or appeal (2302 b 9). The test for whether someone has made a protected communication is only whether the employee had a reasonable belief that they were disclosing fraud, waste or abuse.

Supreme Court Decision

PATIENT BUSINESS ASSISTANT
VA
Thu Jun 1, 2006 9:56 AM

Post Reply

This still sounds like a way to deter employee's from reporting abuse and fraud. What ever happened to this administrations vow to clean up corruption in government? Sounds like they are just paving the way for more corruption, and retaliation. After all, who's going to say anything if they think the government doesn't have their back, and they could be fired for trying to do the right thing. Therefore no one does the right thing, money and time are wasted and we lose honest employees along the way.

Truth and Whistleblowers

Budget Analyst
Fed Agency
Thu Jun 1, 2006 3:27 PM

Post Reply

The Supreme Court opinion said that there were adequate safeguards for whistleblowers. There are not.

Whistleblowers have been placed in a perverse environment. Report a problem and suffer reprisals. Do not report an issue that turns out to be a problem and be disciplined. Is that condition requiring a prescription for CYA actions or not?

Are other venues than the Court effective? No. The AFGE General Counsel and the retired Arbitrator are out of touch with the real workplace. An AJ in this case would have ruled that there was no harm. More important no one will risk whistleblowing if the only venue for redress is arbitration. The Supreme Court in taking itself out the struggle to get the truth out has effectly said that the truth has no merit within the government bureaucracy.

Remember: I was only following orders

DOD
Electronics Technician
Fri Jun 2, 2006 10:06 AM

Post Reply

It appears this gentleman was expressing his true concerns over the legality of an affadavit.

If he is employed in a place which does something that he rationally concludes is questionable and contrary to the cause of justice then what else is he supposed to do but question it?

If we as public employees are not permitted to question any policy for fear of retaliation then it is not only we who will suffer, but the public as well.

With this kind of decision the court is telling public employees to do what your employer says blindly without thought or reflection - at least none that could be heard or read by anyone else.

If that is the case then as an employee if I am instructed to do something I know is wrong or illegal then my defense is that the court says I can't challenge it because it would adversely affect whatever action or policy my agency is seeking to accomplish.

I was only following orders...

I think I have heard that defence before - now I understand it better.

Total Comments: 16
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.