NASA Employee Suspended For Blogging At Work 211
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.
Eh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well gosh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then he should have had a little discipline and waited till he was home.
Gotta follow the rules (Score:2, Insightful)
why a lower standard for government workers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, sounds about right (Score:3, Insightful)
He did work at NASA.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
Ideally... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not Surprising (Score:1, Insightful)
The last thing that you'd want is a governmental official padding out governmental positions with a wink and a nod to employees who divert government resources (including their time) to promoting their party. Most politicians probably don't even want to be anywhere near that sort of thing because of the fallout.
Re:why a lower standard for government workers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This happens more then you think... (Score:2, Insightful)
I would have no issue with this, if the rules were applied evenly across everyone. The reality is that it isn't. Just like many other Acts and Rules it is simply applied as a tool by higher ups to get what they want.
Should the guy have gotten busted, YES! He broke the rules. I don't disagree with that. Is the rules being applied evenly across the line... Left and Right... Upper Management and Lower Peons? Nope.
I would love to know what side this guy was on. If he was working Elephant or Donkey. Maybe someone knows? *Not that matters either way. Both Republicans and Democrats can be dickheads when they want to*
Re:Hatch Act (Score:3, Insightful)
I was a Bush supporter, but I certainly didn't begrudge Clinton for campaigning for Gore. Now, maybe if he'd accumulated a large pile of accidental pocket-vetos, I'd be a little more upset. (Bush doesn't veto nearly enough, though, so it'd kind of be a relief for a change)
Re:He should have been fired (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:why a lower standard for government workers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fair enough (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess it makes sense in a twisted kind of way. When people are paid for their hours, the part of you that wants to get what you pay for would insist on those people working those hours, not "slacking off." Then again, it generally makes more sense to pay people for the task that they're doing. If they can get the task done quickly, more power to them.
Re:fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why a lower standard for government workers? (Score:3, Insightful)
When you aren't at work, then you can be involved all you want.
Ok, here's the law. Let me guess: Still not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh, a global warming flunky. Have any evidence to back your claims? It appears that, as usual, you are lobbing insults to make up for the fact that you are empty handed.
Here's a link for you. [cornell.edu] It's not an opinion column. It's the law in question. I'm no lawyer, but reading that seems to indicate that federal employees soliciting campaign contributions for a specific partisan candidate is illegal. Period. Location and/or mode of solicitation aren't even mentioned. Section 7323 (a)(2)(C).
So it really doesn't matter where this government employee did it, he broke the law. He did it at work, on a government server/network. Other than indicating that's how they nailed him, it's beside the point. It's mandatory to fire him or give him a minimum 30 day probation. He got 90 days. Apparently, he should have known better.