Every time something like this happens in the Trump administration, I wonder what George Orwell would have thought about it. There would be no shortage of writing material, that's for sure.
11
If government employees must not show partisanship nor be subjected to it, then Fox "News" should not be played on government TV monitors for government employees.
25
Fine. Then turn off the "Trump TV" that's playing everywhere all day in federal offices. SO 1984.
17
How does this warning square with employees rights to engage in protected concerted activity under the NLRA? What about their First Amendment rights?
8
I know that Trump prizes the second amendment but what about the first amendment I.e. free speech?
3
Every functional adult should be openly calling for the removal of the president every day and everyone who disagrees should hold their tongue or be shunned, ridiculed, and/or physically assaulted depending on level of commitment to the Trump cult.
8
I have been delivering mail for the U.S. Postal Service for twenty-six years. During the war in Iraq, I delivered mail in a car with a bumper sticker that said, "REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME." No postmaster ever complained about my bumper stickers, but I was told that I wasn't allowed to have any bumper stickers endorsing any particular political candidate on a car that I was using to deliver mail. Recently, I would have like to wear a Bernie t-shirt to work, but I knew that I would not be allowed to. I did wear a shirt with a photo of one of the prisoners at Abu Graib which said "Got Democracy." I have tried to follow the rules, but individual postmasters subject workers to their own individual interpretations. I offered to lend some peace posters to a postal supervisor who wanted to attend a protest in Washington D.C. A different postal supervisor told me to get my posters out of the building. Right now I have a "RESIST' car magnet, but my car isn't being used for mail delivery.
8
Yep - Fox is also on in federal training facilities and cafeterias.
9
THIS is what the first amendment forbids. It is also a violation of their rights for "concerted activity" under the federal labor laws.
5
Thank you to the Office of Special Counsel for providing this guidance. I hope they will clarify things by providing an approved list of way to praise and pay tribute to the Commander in Chief so that we can properly celebrate life under totalitarian rule.
17
When liberals find certain words offensive, it's labeled "political correctness." When conservatives take offense at those who disagree with them, they call it illegal and imply actual sanctions against the speaker.
Who is the more delicate snowflake here?
16
So much fear; so little reason.
6
The President can engage in hyper partisan sppech, but other federal employees can’t?
19
Okay: I found out the date of when trump filed papers for re-election.
It was January 20, 2017, the DAY OF HIS INAUGURATION.
(Sorry, I thought it was the day after. Go ahead and google it.)
That means that we taxpayers have been footing the bill for his re-election for the last 2 years.
It also means that that "independent agency" is a wee bit late on telling you to shut up.
2 years?
Why wasn't this smacked on the fed workers almost 2 years ago? Why wasn't it smacked on his cabinet?
Two years.
January 20, 2017.
That means all of his cabinet must be canned: for their lavish praise of him, for exclaiming that he makes the sun rise in the morn, for allowing themselves to be filmed as they all sat around singing his praises.
I want an explanation as to why the agency that is supposed to keep track of Hatch Act Violations has allowed that Cabinet to violate the Act every day, all day.
No more RALLIES!
I'm sick of footing this man's bills.
IMPEACH!
17
Dear leader will not tolerate dissent.
11
Ugh. Trump's not a Russian quisling. He's an American quisling. Otherwise, a very nice lede.
1
I’m not sure I get it—it’s not OK to oppose Trump with a sticker that says, “Resist” but it is OK to have a coffee cup or a hat that says, “MAGA”? If you’re going to ban one form of expression, then the other has to be banned as well.
16
"A government of laws and not of men." - per John Adams.
Only nowadays excepting the principal.
6
The edict is a classic case of overkill (Hatchet Act?) that violates the first amendment. I hope the ACLU or someone challenges it in court.
12
If the Federal government is going to mandate that no negative comments about Trump or his policies should be discussed in Federal workplaces, then they should also mandate that no positive comments about Trump or his policies should be discussed in Federal workplaces. In other words, no discussion about Trump, good or bad.
After all, if the point is that one might inadvertently "influence the election" no one should be able to influence it positively in Trump's favor either.
12
When I was on jury duty a number of years back, we were led through the back hallways on the way to the courtroom. Along the way, we walked past what I presume were the lockers for court employees. I remember seeing a few pro-gun, pro-NRA stickers on some of the lockers. They struck me as political statements. I mean, even if your hobby is hunting, a pro-NRA sticker feels political in a way that an "I'd rather be fishing" sticker does not. I thought it was inappropriate in a government setting but figured it was a matter of free speech. Apparently I was wrong.
6
Silencing dissent is something that all authoritarians do.
Sharing political opinions at the office water cooler isn't a violation of The Hatch Act. It's a First Amendment right.
20
Donald Trump is the employee of the American people which includes me. As an American tax paying citizen and one of Donald Trump’s employers, I am warning him to stop dismantling the country and obey the laws of the land.
19
So, Mr. Trump’s right-wing police state begins its thought control work in the public sector. Such acts are sure to reap blessings from the Republican Party leadership and the Fox propaganda machine. Hail to the stable genius who would be king over all.
8
The Memo makes it very clear that any comments about anyone with a political affiliation are in violation of the Hatch Act. Bridge players discussing a no trump hand would be reprimanded. Clothing with two thirds of the primary colors (red and blue) would be banned as well as the secondary color, green, for green is clearly a no-no as it criticizes the Republican position on climate change. Brown shirts would be encouraged, of course. No federal employee ought to discuss taxes, the economy, or FEMA. Most importantly, no talk of the weather, for that is, like the color green, banned. Discussions at lunch, about food should be submitted to the Hatch Act Censor for prior approval. French fries, are clearly inflammatory, as is diet Coke (the President's choice), and bottle water should not have labels, like Poland (from Maine, and the President has issues with that state).
Big Brother is watching, although any mention of it would be construed to be a criticism of the Hatch Act, wouldn't it?
7
This ban apparently doesn't include partisan, brazenly pro-Trump pronouncements issued from government agencies.
Outright propaganda and lies is apparently okay, as long as it's not two government employees having a private conversation.
11
So, does this policy mean that any federal employee who verbally supports the Trump administration while on the job will now be disciplined and possibly fired because they violated this administration's interpretation of the Hatch act?
14
Hmm...
Citizens United allows buisnesses to contribute $$$ under the protections of the first amendment, yet individual citizens should not be afforded protection of their first amendment rights while discussing the actions and policies of their own elected representatives?
Where there is corruption, the voices of those behind the scenes witnesses are those we most need to hear from.
I understand that we certainly don't want our public employees over representing personal political decision-making while simultaneously purporting to represent "all" constituents, but we the taxpayers demand transparency.
I guess political demagoguery and vitriol is strictly within the perview of our executive and legislative branches.
3
Missing from this is a statement of exactly WHEN trump started his run for "re-election".
It is my understanding that he filled for "re-election" the day after he took his oath for the present office.
Now, if I'm wrong, kindly tell me when he filed that new statement of intent to run.
But, if I am correct and he has been "running" for the last two years, then those "re-election rallies" have been exactly that: RE-ELECTION RALLIES, and, what I want to know is - who has been paying for those "re-election rallies"?
Is it the tax-payer?
Isn't that illegal?
Where's the paperwork?
Where's the cancelled check?
I want PROOF of when trump filed that paperwork.
I want the registered date.
Because, if I am right, then mike pence has to go.
He has smiled adoringly and nodded his head and spoken all levels of outrageous praise, all of it caught on film.
In fact, I remember one clip where the entire Cabinet was sitting in a circle around trump, praising him for being the whole meaning of their existence.
If trump started the run for his election the day after he first took oath, then every one of them were breaking the Hatch Act.
Everyone of them needs to go.
Start there.
Prove when he filed papers and chuck out his cult members.
THEN we will get around to those who use the words "resist" and "resistance".
18
Early in the article there is this sentence: "But in a guidance document distributed on Wednesday, the independent agency that enforces the Hatch Act, a law that bars federal employees from taking part in partisan political campaigns at work or in an official capacity, warned that making or displaying statements at work about impeaching or resisting Mr. Trump is likely to amount to illegal political activity."
Is there a comparable prohibition against supporting Trump?
10
@JoeJohn
The document states that it is a "guidance document . . .[that] warned . . . [that talking about impeachment or resistance] "is likely to amount to illegal political activity.
Pretty vague language that would not pass constitutional scrutiny. It allows the government to pick and choose who to harass, i.e., a person's speech can be declared a violation at the whim of the listener.
Criticism of Trump is not a political act, it is a moral act.
3
Your right to free speech stops at your employer's property line. The employer can regulate why employees on their property. Ignore it and be fired.
3
Not true. There are gray areas, but federal employees have first amendment rights AND they have a right to engage in "concerted activities."
AND if they permit political speech supporting trump, they have opened the door to negative speech.
Like, an employer can ban handbills promoting the union, but not if they permit handbills promoting the sale of Girl Scout cookies. Either both, or neither.
5
Unfortunately for Trump, many of those same federal employees also swore "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The Special Counsel is working hard right now to uncover Trump and his campaign staff as domestic enemies--unlawful business and political collaboration with foreign powers. At that point, I hope we see a whole bunch federal employees actively participate in house cleaning, of the White House variety.
7
I'm a federal employee and I'm going to order a batch of "resist" stickers to apply at my workplace. Had this "guidance" not been made by the Office of Special Counsel I would not be doing this.
23
@drw I'm not a federal employee but I might have to stick a few in the post office!
6
The transparency group American Oversight on Thursday sent a letter to OSC asking that it withdraw the document—which is not signed by Special Counsel Henry Kerner or any other official by name—warning that the guidance “opens a dangerous door for the Trump administration to crack down on dissent.”
https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2018/11/guidance-warning-feds-not-discuss-resistance-or-impeachment-work-sparks-uproar
MAGA is ok, but not resist?
Making Russia great again.
13
"...the Hatch Act, a law that bars federal employees from taking part in partisan political campaigns at work or in an official capacity..."
Question: Is Trump a Federal employee? Are all his Trump Rallies breaking this rule? I wouldn't ask this except that they go so far overboard with destructive negativity and misleading divisive rants. A bit over the top?
Quick Google: "Presidents are federal employees, since they receive federal paychecks, but they are not civil service employees. They don't have to pass civil service examinations in order to get hired. Perhaps it would be a good thing if they did". -Doug Rees
"No. Laws that are written to apply to federal employees do not apply to the president or vice president. However, most presidents behave as if the ethics laws, etc. do apply to them". -Christopher Perkins, Office Administration Assistant at The United States of America
I suppose this is the question Trump most wants to challenge. His behavior puts constant tests to laws, ethics laws and norms.
Trump wants to do those rallies more than actual POTUS work.
It's most like his life as a Reality TV star, "You can do anything...", or beauty pageant, and hotel host, etc. Now he is a Rally TV star.
Perhaps Trump should be warned about his talk rather than two million federal workers that care about their communities.
7
Federal employees aren't allowed to talk about the illegitimacy of the President? This is creeping (and just plain creepy) paranoia.
12
Totally legit.
He won the electoral college, which is the the only bar he needs to cross.
Check it out.
1
Trump is a federal employee. Under this interpretation, then, he should not be able to say anything in support of himself (or against his opposition), because that would be partisan campaigning, if he as at work or appearing in an official capacity. So, self-congratulatory morning tweets from his bedroom are still, unhappily, fair game, and probably his rallies, but not when he's giving a speech from the White House lawn or the pulpit at the G-20 summit, right? Holding my breath.
14
The Hatch Act is supposed to stop the machinery of government from being used to promote (our impede) political campaigns. It restricts employees from using their paid time in political activities. Passive opposition to policies or politicians is not within its purpose and is, frankly, too much intrusion into free speech rights.
I wish I was in AFGE right now to participate in the law suit. Bad supreme court to support civil rights, though.
6
For the health of all federal employees, and the health of the entire nation, I think we should spend less time discussing Trump. We should all be reading the daily news, and then take a break from even thinking about this evil man. Stay vigilant, contribute to candidates that oppose the republican agenda, get involved with non-partisan groups that protect the laws and regulations the republicans are trying to change or remove. But don’t do it at work. I think this guidance is meant to intimidate, but it’s probably good for federal employees mental health to continue doing your jobs to the best of your abilities during this difficult period.
3
What I would like to know is if they are warning people who are pro Trump as well as anti Trump, if my suspicions are correct it is likely that that this is being applied only to people who have anti trump things up, or support impeachment and the like, while those with maga buttons and the like are ignored (the article says that it is for pro and anti trump discussions, but the problem is it didn't even mention MAGA and the like). Seems to me this is so Donnie can say "Federal Employees love me, you won't see any mention of #resist or talk of impeachment among them".......
5
As practical as telling the band on the fantail of the Titanic not to comment on the water temperature.
8
To the twits attempting to silence disapproval: This topic has already been well-litigated. Any attempt to stifle dissent will subject YOU to legal action. Government employment does NOT stifle the political voice of any American.
13
Can the pilots and crew of Air Force One refuse to fly Trump and Company to his MAGA rallies — considering they're partisan events? Only seems fitting, in light of this regime's new edict.
9
This would make the MAGA hats illegal, as well as anything written or spoken that expresses support for Trump. Does the guidance mention this also or are they just trying to suppress the Resistance?
6
Federal employees are serving at the pleasure of the people of the USA.
If they ‘resist’ and make life harder for you and me, they should be fired.
1
That's rich. If they served at our pleasure, hundreds of them would have been fired over the last two years.
1
Impeach.
Remove.
Indict.
Convict.
Imprison.
Now.
5
We made it an unstated agreement not to discuss the campaign, actions of any president or politician, and the foul expressions and thuggery of the current White House resident. We seldom even talked about any of this during after-work get-togethers - too painful, actually.
But one has to wonder if this applies both ways. The filthy statements and extreme criticisms of our head thug in-charge must also fall under the Hatch Act.
6
Ohm’s Law - v = iR - can be recast if “resistance” is not to be used. It’s simply R = v/i, or “Resistance equals victory over injustice.”
8
And Fox news will be pumped into Fed buildings 24 - 7.
3
@RNS
As I understand it, it already is.
1
Chilling
7
If you keep your mouth shut you should be just fine. Thanks GOP.
3
Trump -- making George III great again!
6
JKberg,
More like Henry VIII.
No one shall speak ill of the King lest he wants to lose his head.
2
So to be clear, Trump, a federal employee, can fly around the country to his fascist rallies and scream about locking Hillary up. All of this on the taxpayer dime. The GS -9 analyst gets terminated for saying Trump should be locked up , while at the water cooler on a lunch break ? I guess it’s the same rules they use for paying taxes.
21
This is more pathetic and insecure than anything else (including effective). It almost seems as if this administration works hardest at coming up with things to be mocked and ridiculed.
6
Ok public servants, look to your left, now to your right, which one works for the MAGAt Stasi?!
Such irony.
Self called patriots in lock-step with their despotic authoritarian bully boy, decrying PC liberals, as they limit free speech.
Trumps America.
5
I find the Hatch Act to be un-Constitutional.
And, though it isn't mentioned here, trump filed papers to run for re-election the DAY AFTER HE TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE!
He has been running for the last 2 years.
Why was discussing him legal for all that time, and yet NOW the rubber hoses get brought out?
The truth is, I suspect that he will be "retiring" very soon.
He's just not having any fun any more and knows he can't win.
Aww. Bye-bye, Trickie trumpie.....
5
I smell a 1st Amendment lawsuit.
5
The Resistance is not the problem in the federal workplace. I am a federal employee, and Fox is on the wall-mounted televisions in the halls, in the operations center, in the gym. I hear supporters of Trump all the time; they have a tendency to be both loud and clueless about how to behave in a cubicle setting, and often their assumption is that you are with them.
97
@Mjxs I'm sorry. Blatantly biased programming like Fox should be banned in all federal workplaces. That's a great cause for us to drive in the ramp up to elections. Noodling on a lawsuit to clean this up. The fact that you wrote what you did reveals that there is a problem. Pentagon, are you listening?
17
@Mjxs I can just imagine what those clueless cubists would say were the Hatch act used to criticize their behavior . . .
6
@Mjxs -- yes, unsaid in this directive is the showy extolling of Dear Leader at every turn.
2
The guidance issued by the Office of Special Counsel is ridiculous and scary. A casual conversation about politics or public figures does not amount to partisan political campaigning. The guidance appears more like an edict issued by the Kremlin.
19
Trump has plunged the country into new territory. The national opposition to him has been unprecedented---starting with the mass public protests on the streets across the nation as he took office and continuing with increased outrage at his actions and statements that fill the news daily.
Since Nixon's crimes, and Bill Clinton's problems with personal behavior, there's been no push to impeach any other president, even though many people opposed their various policies. We had normal political arguement.
This president is unique, lacking ethics and respect for democracy.
So now we have to change our rules on speech for govt employees? Will they continue or be canceled with the next president whoever it is? How far can Trump's negative ripple effects extend? What effects will continue after he's out of office, whether impeached or voted out?
10
Just watching TV version of Margeret Atwood's "The Handmaiden".
We need to be vigilant about totalitarianism, which can start with small, seemingly insignificant acts like this. This is a very slippery slope - many of our freedoms are already under attack by Trump and the Republicans.
20
@Sam Kanter You do not have a right to free speech on my property.
“Advocating for a candidate to be impeached, and thus potentially disqualified from holding federal office, is clearly directed at the failure of that candidate’s campaign for federal office.” CLEARLY? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone who has taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution should be talking of impeachment of the President. That oath supercedes any wishy-washy Hatch Act enforcer's opinion of what campaigning is.
30
So, freedom of speech does not apply in a Federal building? How about at lunch in the cafeteria? At the gym?
I can't imagine that Federal employees are using the amount of time implied to discuss trump's many failings. They are too busy saving the political appointees from themselves and protecting whatever congressionally-mandated mission their agency has.
Next they won't be allowed to wear anything blue.
7
@Norma If you are on the clock. It applies anywhere. One wife (federal employee) was fired for sitting beside her husband at a rally.
How about this: is it OK to read written material about resistance, impeachment or related topics? If so, can the written material be left on one's desk?
Let's confine the Hatch Act to its intended purpose: political action.
7
This rule will meet resistance. By both sides.
7
How about if they talk in code?
I'm peach mint. How's that?
9
So he can criticize anyone, but employees can't? I don't think so.
26
An agency that is supposed to keep thing "neutral" issues a political edict designed to protect one man from criticism - Donald Trump. What could be more "neutral" than that?
11
I guess that edict applies to everyon except the Trump family, inner circle and lawyers....
22
No amount of censorship by this administration can cover up the stench of treason and corruption that is emanating from the White House. With that vile smell in the air who can blame federal employees who speak about removing the source of their discomfort? They are not violating the Hatch Act. Just defending themselves in a hostile workplace environment.
21
As Rachel Maddow might say, "what bullpucky!" So, federal employees are to be stripped of their First Amendment rights? Expressing a political opinion in the office can be construed as working on a political campaign?
As Rachel Maddow might say, "what bullpucky!"
21
A brief writeup in the NYTimes, barely a mention of this development anywhere else...
Imagine the exploding heads all over cable news and the internet if something like this had happened under the Obama administration...
47
So Trump can give stump speeches about what a great job he is doing (running for reelection) to captive audiences of Federal employees in branches of government like the CIA and active duty military as he as done and that is okay??
55
@Tom Stump speeches? I call them hate rallies.
8
Trump believes in a secret cabal out to get him. The reality is there is no secret cabal it’s just that anyone who cares about our country openly opposes him and wants to do their best to thwart his destructive actions.
34
More nonsense. “Resistance” and “Resist” are commonly used words in the English language. These words have many meanings. The same can be said for “impeach”. All may be spoken by anyone whether they happen to work for the federal government or not. Reminds me of our former Governor, now Senator-elect, Rick Scott banning the term “climate change” from the government’s lexicon. Orwellian.
12
One step closer to a heel clicking, stiff, one armed salute.
25
Connecting supporting impeachment to automatically meaning supporting a ban on any other elected office is a Thomistic twist of logic. Appropriate of Scholastic scholars ordered to find a logical reason to punish anyone who disagrees with those in power.
Refraining from discussing in the workplace the Trump crime family might be best for avoiding the acrimony that might arise. Personal even in a private workplace I don’t want to know who voted for the criminal. That would diminish my respect for anyone who voted for him.
This proposed ruling sounds more like a Trumpeter putting pressure on what is supposed to be a non-partisan agency. We know Trump doesn’t care about boundaries and will tru to intimidate anyone.
Federal employees are employees, not slaves. Constitutional protections come first.
Agencies and departments can make their own decisions. A threat of firing coming from on high is just trying to intimidate people into silence.
Consider that workplace relationships often extend into personal lives with and without Facebook. Would these rules be applied to co-workers speaking off work time? After all they are still gov’t employees and could gang up on the people who don’t agree with them.
Maybe it’s time to revert to slavery where mangers can just “remove” anyone who doesn’t goose step along with the Trumpian expectation?
3
No matter where you live or work in America we have the 1st Amendment!
FYI No President or even a FAKE President has the power to take away FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Especially, some unkind,destructive, big mouth who plays ball with a foreign leader to win the Presidency!
4
I’ve been a federal employee since George W. Bush’s first term. Presidential politics has been a routine topic of conversation at work, because that’s what intelligent, informed people chat about sometimes. As long as everyone is respectful of co-workers’ views, what is the problem?
101
@Rls The "problem" is Mr. Trump's insecurity and desire to control.
18
@Rls
No politics or religion at work- unless you are an inconsiderate person.
1
Most, if not all private, workplaces have strong prohibitions on anything that smacks of political activity regarding officeholders and potential officeholders. Those places have actual customers that can get upset and leave. Consequently you do not say, write or wear anything that might not respect anyone’s beliefs. While civil service’s customers cannot leave, it is not unreasonable to expect the same consideration. Leave your politics, t shirts, banners, cups and comments at home like the rest of us.
10
@Michael Blazin - Funny aside: It is routine to ask a hospitalized patient "Who is the president?" in order to establish that the patient is oriented to the present time. Let's just say the last couple of presidents have tested the limits of being able to stay neutral with the patients's replies.
4
Or they could reply “Of the hospital? How would I know?”
3
Nonsense. If an employer tells someone to keep quiet about politics, the appropriate response is to politely ignore it and go on. This remains a free country, for now. The price of remaining free to think and say what one believes is go be willing to engage in the dispute, as opposed to surrendering to bullying, political or otherwise.
5
Is the president, a paid federal employee, subject to the Hatch Act? If the president's declared intention to run for reelection changes the parameters of discourse in federal government environments, should his photo be removed from lobbies, offices and conference rooms? Are implicit or explicit criticisms of presidential actions which affect federal employee job responsibilities now out of bounds in communications contributing to the performance of these responsibilities? This Special Counsel determination has run far afield from rules against bosses enquiring/instructing subordinates on support of candidates in elections, or the solicitation of candidate campaign contributions in the office. Who has exerted influence on the Special Counsel office?
3
He is. That’s why when presidents make fund raising calls on behalf of their election campaigns or for for their parties or other campaigns, those calls are made from the residence, not the Oval Office.
3
@merajax The President is not an "employee". He is an elected official.
By the same reasoning, wouldn't official portraits of Mr. Trump within federal buildings also cause concern under the Hatch Act?
21
@M. My relative is a federal employeer who works from home ... how would any statements by him -- in his own home -- be handled?
4
@Nurse Kathy If he is on the clock it is a Hatch Act violation.
1
Any phone conversations or text messages on government equipment or while identified as employee, including with other employees during working hours, are covered. If he wants to rant and rave to his cat, he is ok. Send texts and calls from personal phone. Never ever send personal items on government hardware or software.
If that FBI agent and his clueless girlfriend had followed that rule, they both still would be happily at the FBI.
1
Seeing as the conversation focuses primarily on impeachment, we can guess where the complaints originated.
Having worked in public office though, this entire conversation is really strange. Co-workers had a general sense of each other's political leanings but no one would ever broach the subject openly. A reaction to any news story was always met with non-committal responses. Political material was only ever presented as an office wide joke.
For instance, one elected official had us make customized bobble heads in his likeness for a conference day on the hill. Where this idea came from or why it got handed down to us, no one knows. The entire effort was a huge waste of time. But hey, the entire office was gifted their own personal bobble head. Your politics no longer mattered. The bobble head was a permanent joke from there on out.
That said, if my office had explicitly told me I couldn't use the word "impeach," I'd take offense. As a work around though, I'd go out to whatever store sells decorative fruit and buy the largest fake peach I could find. I'd plop that sucker down on my desk and wait for someone to try saying something. I dare you to try me. Everyone knows what the peach means. I don't need to say the word.
6
The basic question is : WHY? Unless posting a sign or chatting in the break room interferes with someone's job duties, it's still a free country.
Isn't it?
6
We have so little trust in this administration that a nonpartisan order - don’t talk about partisan things - sounds partisan in itself. Maybe if the President didn’t get up at 2PM after a long night of tweeting, or if he worked more than 3 hours a week, we would take this seriously. This is no way to run a government.
15
This criminal administration can't get anything even close to right. How come it takes a Trump presidency to initiate lunatic gag orders for federal employees regarding a political conversation at work? Is the Mueller investigation off-limits? Are "Office Spies" a new GS category or is the administration relying on the goodwill of volunteers? Can you read Orwell at the office on your lunch break?
9
I worked for the Feds for over 30 years. Talking politics was normal. Partisanship was not. We talked a lot about Bill Clinton and Monica. But never in writing. E mail is writing. Nor was there ever a "resistance" movement. We work for the government regardless of the President. The suggestion by the Obama appointee that "resistance" does not refer to Trump is absurd. This is unfortunate but apparently necessary action.
1
@cleo The "order" wasn't signed by Henry Kerner or anyone else.
1
Speaking of which, didn’t K. Conway violate the Hatch Act by telling a TV audience to buy Ivanka Trump stuff, all while standing in the WH?
What happened to her in terms of discipline/punishment?
38
The employees now can send the message: Do not resist or violate the Hatch Act by advocating the impeachment of the President.
4
Federal workers, as other workers across the US, have First Amendment rights. We have not become pawns in Margaret Atwood's novel yet.
18
Funny how this administration is in favor of government employees voicing their support for Trump but when it comes to someone expressing an opposing view, they are threatened with punishment from the same employer. Such a sad, sad time for our country. When Trump is out of office we will be able to get America back on track and headed in the right directions - away from evil, toward good: for the good of our country, its citizens and guests, and for the world.
12
This is a no-brainer. Employees are paid to do a job and nothing else. Employees are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and all other freedoms after wok, on their own time, off-site, not on the tax payers' dime, and in federal buildings.
In the corp world, a lot of behavour is controlled, e.g., you cannot proselytize to other employees, or try to influence or persuade other employees into your political or religious or social beliefs. This applies during working hours, and also during lunch breaks, and when on company property. The federal government is no different.
If you want to plot a resistance, then do so off site and off hours, not on site and not while you are being paid to do a job.
4
Not completely true. When working in the US for an American firm, my husband was expected to give donations to the PAC that supported politicians who in turn supported the company. It seemed dubious, especially since my husband was not an American citizen, that he would be pressured to donate to a foreign country’s PAC during work hours and at the office.
5
@Philly
I take umbrage with your use of the word 'plot'.
Unless you consider what happened on November 06, 2018, a 'plot'.
6
@Philly So you never discuss sports, the weather or other non-work-related topics at work?
4
What is applicable to the Goose must also be applied to the Gander! ALL AMERICANS, by Constitutional specificity, have the right to speak freely. How they act may be another matter.
Verbally opposing Trump's insanity is the right of everyone, Federal employee or not. Since Trump supporters (Federal employees as well as private citizens) actively back him both in speech and action, equal rules must apply to both parties. Direct, active opposition to the PresidenCY can be considered a crime (unless it is in opposition to illegal governmental action), but not vocal opposition to its actions or principles. As far as I can see, at least as of today, we are still a Constitutional Democracy and, as such, guaranteed this freedom of expression.
Of course, Trump considers all who disagree with HIM traitors. Of course, the truth is quite the opposite. As much as he would love to be a dictator, he is not yet there. As a destroyer of Democratic rights, it is our duty to speak up against Trump's treasonous actions whenever possible. He is a very damaged excuse for a human; incompetent both materially and mentally, and should not hold any position of power within our government.
62
The 'guidance' has not been formally promulgated, but rather appears on the OSC listserv - presumably for comment. Nevertheless, the appointed head of the OSC is mistaking the Hatch Act for the UCMJ. If this advice is in fact issued formally, it will be in court faster than a fly can blink.
19
So much for freedom of speech. Or thought. Orwellian.
62
It seems that only speech from the left is forbidden? Does this mean that MAGA is appropriate language?
55
I just read that a few WH staffers got the lightest tap on the wrist for tweeting MAGA. Watch a fed worker tweet resist and they will be fired, fined, etc.
2
Yet another page from Mr. Trump’s Authoritarian Playbook.
40
Nice to keep the name out of as many federal offices as possible.
4
The problem here is that this "guidance" fits uncomfortably with an emerging pattern of trumpist-style intimidation. Another brick in the wall of the nascent neo-fascist state so dear to Republican hearts? Congressional Democrats, start making noise about this. A lot of noise. Defend the country's core values.
38
This indicates how afraid Trump is. He really has an overblown notion of the power of a GS-13 Program Analyst. He should look within his own staff and family for people who are violating the Hatch Act and conflict of interest. (Remember when Kellyanne hawked Ivanka's clothing line on live TV from the White House lawn?) Forbidding federal employees from saying 'resist' won't stop Mueller or the Democratic House from investigating him and his corrupt administration.
142
On the face of it, this new guideline seems even-handed. But in the real world of big institutions like government, people don’t get in trouble for saying “I think the boss is doing a great job.” Enforcement of the rule starts when you criticize those above you.
In the context of the federal government, you have what is in effect a politicized “yes man” rule. How far does it reach? If you are an EPA climatologist or FEMA crisis manager who expresses disagreement over Trump’s tweet on the causes of the California fires, or you volating the guideline or are you expressing a professional opinion relevant to your job?
Seems innocuous on the surface, but really ripe for abuse. All the more so coming from the administration that gave birth to the phrase “alternative facts.”
186
@citybumpkinit
Dan Rather is the father of "alternative facts". He published a fake document and will go to his grave believing it was the right thing to do because it might have been true.
Trump's statement that the West Coast fires are the result of poor federal policy is his opinion, which is supported by many scientists. Even Moonbeam is finally devoting resources to prevention via cleaning out underbrush.
If you are an EPA employee assigned to figure out how to increase federal assistance in reducing future forest wildfires while minimizing ecological disruption and minimizing air and other pollution, it should not matter whether your opinion is that global warming is the only cause of fire. Your responsibility is to achieve the stated objective, even if you think Trump is an idiot. You are entitled to call Trump a buffoon. You are not entitled to decide you are not going to perform your assignment because you think a better solution would be to impose a carbon tax. And you are not permitted to use company time and company resources to organize federal workers to promote the impeachment of Trump.
While on duty for the Government -
workers should do their work and
leave politics for the after-work hours.
3
...and that includes Trump supporters, right?
6
@ben220
Everyone.
1
I get that Trump is a lost cause on this, but where are the patriots in GOP that love this country enough to risk fighting for it.
17
"the independent agency..., ..., warned that making or displaying statements at work about impeaching or resisting Mr. Trump is likely to amount to illegal political activity"
The flip side applies equally. Government employees including and especially cabinet members should be prohibited from advocating for a potential candidate's campaign for federal office. You might have to leave the red hats at home.
What's next, outlawing free thought?
42
@John
Does this mean we can arrest Sarah?
What a day!
2
Workers have an obligation to report crimes.
It just happens that Trump is the one committing the crimes.
133
Suppression of normal, everyday, routine speech....which is what this Administration is doing....is 1st Amendment suppression.
This Administration abhors the Constitution, many of of its amendments, and many American ideals.
This action is yet another ground for impeachment of a man who is spectacularly unqualified for public office and is incredibly unAmerican.
All decent Americans should be actively resisting the Trump Titanic.
136
@Socrates
Thanks so much for your comment. I recently retired from the federal government. When he was elected, a memo was sent around requesting employees refrain from discussing him at work due to the acrimony flying around and quite frankly disgust at his election. We are on a slippery slope and government over reach has gone way too far!
59
@Socrates: Totally agree that telling any employee what they can and cannot say does not belong in the United States of America. People should be able to figure out on their own what is appropriate to say without someone standing over them like word police. Isn't "pc" what this has been about for so many?!
7