Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NASA Employee Suspended For Blogging At Work

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed May 28, 2008 11:00 AM
from the but-i-wanna-blog-now dept.
BobJacobsen writes "FCW has an article about a NASA employee that was suspended for blogging on government time. Seems the unnamed employee's 'politically partisan' blog entries were a violation of the Hatch Act. The article ends with a chilling quote from the government's Special Counsel in the case: 'Today, modern office technology multiplies the opportunities for employees to abuse their positions and — as in this serious case — to be penalized, even removed from their job, with just a few clicks of a mouse.'" Thing is, he was soliciting campaign donations and writing partisan stuff.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • fair enough (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:02AM (#23570805) Journal
    Sounds fair to me. Anyone who wastes time at work posting on internet sites should really expe... shit the boss is coming.
    • by Joe the Lesser (533425) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:08AM (#23570909) Homepage Journal
      Don't worry, it's not like they'd put in a filt###*($&(*((___NO CARRIER
    • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

      by teslar (706653) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:23AM (#23571089)
      As seen on bash.org [bash.org]:
      <Ben174> : If they only realized 90% of the overtime they pay me is only cause i like staying here playing with Kazaa when the bandwidth picks up after hours.
      <ChrisLMB> : If any of my employees did that they'd be fired instantly.
      <Ben174> : Where u work?
      <ChrisLMB> : I'm the CTO at LowerMyBills.com
      *** Ben174 (BenWright@TeraPro33-41.LowerMyBills.com) Quit (Leaving)
      • Re:fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @01:28PM (#23573057) Journal
        Why not use ssh -D? It's stupid easy. Just 'ssh -D 31415 me@home', set firefox to use a SOCKS proxy on port 31415, and set "network.proxy.socks_remote_dns = true" in about:config. Now all your web traffic (including DNS, that's what the last bit is for), goes through your own custom encrypted proxy. All your work will ever see is an SSH connection to your home IP.
  • Eh.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AmonEzhno (1276076) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:02AM (#23570817)
    Honestly, the employee knew he was breaking the rules and if he was writing partisan stuff, I don't want to say he deserved it, but he knew what he was doing.
  • Well gosh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:02AM (#23570821)

    Thing is, he was soliciting campaign donations and writing partisan stuff.

    Then he should have had a little discipline and waited till he was home.

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by imyy4u3 (1290108) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:04AM (#23570843)
    how do you blog with "just a few clicks of a mouse?"

    Perhaps the Special Counsel should be fired for "being a total idiot."
    • by raehl (609729) <raehl311.yahoo@com> on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:10AM (#23570931) Homepage
      There are programs that write sports articles. There's only so many ways to write a short article relating the results of an athletic contest, so newspapers have programs that do it.

      Can't imagine it would be too difficult for a NASA engineer to write a program that automates political blogging to the point that you can get a new post out with a few clicks. Especially considering the 'quality' of some of the blogs out there....
      • by DriedClexler (814907) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:33AM (#23571221)
        Well, folks, it's happening again! The

        ( ) New York Times
        ( ) LA Times
        ( ) Washington Post

        is reporting that the government

        ( ) is censoring scientists with unpleasant news.
        ( ) is going to cut back program _________.
        ( ) has been engaging in warrantless wiretapping.
        ( ) wants to raise taxes.
        ( ) plans to institute new product regulations

        This is just another case of

        ( ) Big Government ramming itself down our throats!
        ( ) the War on Science!
        ( ) how conservatives are killing the safety net!
        ( ) government punishing anyone productive!
        ( ) how the country's becoming a totalitarian dictatorship!

        HT:

        ( ) Digg
        ( ) Slashdot
        ( ) Technorati
        ( ) The other blogger who's a carbon copy of me
  • by oodaloop (1229816) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:06AM (#23570879) Homepage
    ...as long as he was campaigning for the other guy.
  • Hatch Act (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lxy (80823) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:08AM (#23570903) Journal
    Since I didn't know about this Act, I searched and found:

    This [osc.gov] nice writeup. Bottom line is, this guy's a federal employee soliciting funds and pushing a political agenda on work time.

    This of course has nothing to do with blogging, as you could replace "blogging" with "making phone calls" or "mailing letters" or "stalking people at the coffee maker".
    • Re:Hatch Act (Score:5, Informative)

      by richmaine (128733) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:39AM (#23571299)
      I was (before retirement) a NASA employee for 35 years, and I do know the Hatch act well... as I ought to, it being drilled into us every year at mandatory and really boring "ethics" training. I feel it mandatory to quote "ethics" because it was just about laws and nothing about actual ethics, the subjects two having less correlation than one might hope. The article, and most of the posters here, are seriously misrepresenting the Hatch act.

      In particular, the Hatch act has nothing to do with whether you are at work or not. The Hatch act prohibits a government employee from doing pretty much anything political even on your own time and with your own equipment. It is pretty draconian. And, of course, it only applies to peons; those high-level muck-a-mucks who are most likely to be abusing their positions are exempt. The excuse for all this is that it "protects" the employees from political pressure. Pretty lame excuse, though.

      The bit about doing this stuff on government time is completely unrelated to the Hatch act. That's a distinctly separate offense, and one for which there is much less excuse.

      It is unclear from the article whether the suspension was really because of the Hatch act offense or the use of government time.equipment. I suppose it could have been both.
      • Re:Hatch Act (Score:5, Informative)

        by AMuse (121806) <slashdot-amuse.foofus@com> on Wednesday May 28 2008, @12:11PM (#23571839) Homepage
        Rich: These days the Hatch act interpretation, at least at NASA, is a bit more loose. From what I've been told, us peons can do nearly any political activities we want while on our own personal time, but nothing during work hours, or using government equipment. Bumper stickers are still OK on your car. Supervisors are held to a bit more strict of a standard I think, since they could force employees' hands.

        We can also still run for and hold local office as long as we're not violating any conflict of interest rules.
      • Re:Hatch Act (Score:5, Informative)

        by canUbeleiveIT (787307) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:31AM (#23571189)
        Remind me, while Bush is campaigning and fundraising for McCain, who is paying him to do that?

        If you would have read the linked resource in the parent post that you responded to, you would have known why that isn't a violation of the Hatch Act. This is a list of who cannot participate in partisan activities [osc.gov]. You will notice that the president does not fall into that heading. Not to mention that every US President that I can remember has politicked for members of his party, so I don't know why you are singling out ole George.

        • by alexhmit01 (104757) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @12:48PM (#23572429)
          The President is a political person, elected through politics, answerable only to political process, so of course he can engage in partisan process. The purpose of the Hatch Act (and similar legislation) was to depoliticize the Civil Servants.

          While we joke about government employees being "lazy, incompetent, over/under paid, whatever," without a professional Civil Servants class it becomes a cesspool of corruption. As the public employees are normally unionized with a union that can both fight management (as a union) and change management (as a political organization), they are generally well paid and compensated, particularly with pension benefits and other back end benefits that politicians can approve and leave someone else with the bill. As a result, those jobs are potentially very desirable.

          If you don't keep the political bosses away, watch how quickly jobs go to politically connected people that don't show up to work... It seems unlikely that someone powerful would care about a 30k - 90k/year job, but what if they could get it for their daughter-in-law that doesn't work, and just funnel money and benefits to their kids. That's how these positions work in countries without extensive controls, and why we have so many to keep the "friends and family plan" out.

          Look at any community non profit and look at how many incompetent people hold well paying jobs because someone that gives money is friends with their parents/grandparents... corruption happens everywhere, and this attempts to reduce it. It doesn't attempt to remove partisanship from politics.
  • Well, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:08AM (#23570905)
    Well, how I feel depends on what political bias the employee had.
    If the employee's views agree with mine, then they are jackbooted fascist thugs for suspending him.
    If I disagree with those views, then the employee has every right to deal with this inappropriate use of paid time.
  • Government jobs (Score:4, Informative)

    by Joe the Lesser (533425) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:09AM (#23570917) Homepage Journal
    Are very hard to lose, unless you break a few simple rules, like using govt. property for personal reasons, or blogging about politics.
  • Ideally... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bsDaemon (87307) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:10AM (#23570935) Homepage
    Ideally, the State should be above Politics. However, its somewhat impossible to expect that the people who work within the State will not have political leanings and agenda.

    That said, whatever political activism people want to take part in should use their own time and their own equipment -- unless their job IS political activism. TFA doesn't say what this guy's job is, but I seriously doubt it"s "chief nasa suck-up to potential future presidents."

    If he's using NASA equipment, NASA time, and identifying himself as a NASA employee, then he's basically creating a situation in which causual observers might be forgiven for assuming that NASA is endorsing "candidate x"

    Quite frankly, it doesn't make sense for a department, which is often the subject of political punches, to want to be seen as interested - because if "their guy" lost, then the other guy will take it out on them.

    Sucks for this guy, but if you work at NASA you should be smart enough to know better.
  • by houghi (78078) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:11AM (#23570947) Homepage
    People have been fired for not doing what they were supposed to do. People can get fired by solving crosswords all day and do nothing else.

    There often however is an unfair difference between surfing Playboy and reading the Playboy magazine during the office hours. One is easier to detect and prove then the other. It will be used often as an excuse to fire people, because prove is so much easier to get.

    At least In Belgium you need a valid reason before you fire somebody without having to pay weeks or months salary, so they will need this proof. People drinking coffee and having cigarette breaks all the time are much less likely to get fired on the spot.

    It has to be said that many companies in Belgium will do the firing of people in several steps. Vocal warning, 2 or thre written warnings, firing the person.
  • No Surprise Here (Score:4, Informative)

    by reallocate (142797) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:29AM (#23571163)
    No surprise here. First, taking time out off your job to do personal business -- blogging or anything else -- is a fine way to get in trouble with your employer. Just common sense. You'd get in trouble for taking an hour every day at 3 o'clock to go running.

    Second, the Hatch Act has, for decades, prohibited partisan political activity by federal employees. There's good reason, if only because those employees make decisions every day about how and where to spend taxpayer money.

    Third, the provisions of the Hatch Act are made clear to every federal employee when they accept the job.

  • There was one fellow, well known back then, who deliberately tried to get people he didn't agree with shut up by emailing the sites near the end of their posting path and asking "innocent" questions about whether the company had filed the cost of their Usenet connections as campaign contributions. Given that Usenet at this time was still pretty underground, often run by network admins on spare machines, this had the potential for causing a lot of fuss and of course completely blew the unwritten "Usenet stays on Usenet" rule out of the water. He was completely dumbfounded by the response he got and went on a years-long campaign against the evil Usenet cabal who were allegedly trying to shut HIM up. I don't know if he ever understood what the problem was.
    • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:18AM (#23571025)
      This was an inappropriate thing for him to be doing, and he knew he was breaking the rules. He should be fired, not suspended. If he can be suspended for 180 days without affecting anyone elses workflow, then he clearly isn't doing anything important anyway.

      A more important issue is what this says about the bloat and inefficiency at NASA. If an employee can spend years working on their blog at work, it is because they are not being given enough real work to do.

      • by sm62704 (957197) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:53AM (#23571531) Journal
        You clearly are clueless. You've probably never even held a job, let alone run a business or supervised anyone.

        You don't get fired from any job for anything but the most egregious actions, like embezzlement or not showing up without calling in (or in Disney World if you are a Pluto, lifting your leg at a fire hydrant or cursing in public).

        First, unlike you teenagers, adults go to work to earn a living. Supervisors, unlike the corporations they work for, empathise with this. You don't deprive a person of their livelihood for something trivial.

        Second, it costs the employer money to place a person in any given job. There are hiring costs and training costs, and then it takes time for a new employee to get up to speed. That's not to mention unemployment insurance benefits.

        If the person's getting his job done, you don't fire him, you use lesser punishment.

        Many (actually most I've worked at) jobs have slow periods and times where there is too much work to keep up with. When I worked in the merchandise division at Disney in the early '80s, for example, there would be a half hour of tedius, mind-numbing boredon followed by more "guests" (as Disney called their customers) than one could reasonably keep up with.

        Other jobs have had days with nothing to do but read the paper, followed by overtime. Life doesn't always run on a smooth schedule, kid.
    • by Liquidrage (640463) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @11:27AM (#23571141)
      They aren't. Many companies also allow personal use of the internet (with varying rules regulating that use). Many companies don't. Many government entities do. Many don't.

      Is it OK to spend 5 minutes in the hallway talking to co-workers about the big game last night? Some places/bosses wouldn't care. Others would. Some places give you breaks and lunches. Many professionals don't a whistle that blows telling them it's break time. They manage their own time.

      There is no "one size fits all here". And certainly no "lower standard" you could guess at based on the article.