ADVERTISEMENT

Why does the GOP hate whistleblowers?

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
143,258
152,375
113


Don't see much in this Act there is to be against, if you're FOR government accountability.


This bill establishes, modifies, and expands certain whistleblower protections for federal employees, including with respect to petitions to Congress, whistleblower identity, and protected disclosures.

For example, the bill prohibits personnel action against employees who exercise their right to petition or furnish information to Congress and specifically precludes the President, Members of Congress, members of the uniformed services, and other federal employees from interfering with this right. It also generally prohibits employees from disclosing the identity of whistleblowers to individuals outside of the government. Employees may request corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board with respect to such prohibited practices and may file an action in court if the board does not render a final decision within 180 days of a request.

The bill also expands the list of recipients to whom an employee may make a protected disclosure to include a supervisor in the employee's direct chain of command. It also includes personnel actions involving furloughs of more than 14 days but less than 30 days, and furloughs of 13 days or less that are not due to funding lapses, as appealable adverse actions that are subject to certain procedural requirements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg
I don't see any reason why anyone would object to this bill.

It's why I looked the summary up - I was curious if Dems had tied some crazy shit in with it.

I am not seeing that, which doesn't mean it's not there, but looking unlikely.

And that would imply the "party of personal responsibility" does not want irresponsible governance from being held to account. Seems totally weird that the "Party in power" would vote for something that would possibly lessen their ability to abuse that power. Unless they actually want to focus on "governance" rather than simply wield power.

Got another explanation? Because the only one I can come up with is that the present GOP wants to limit/cripple their ability to wield power when it's their turn - something that is the complete opposite of "responsibility" and "responsible governance".

Simply reinforces my opinion that the GOP is unfit to govern and unworthy of my vote (of anyone's vote, who is in favor of limited and responsible government).
 
Then why do they need to "prevent retaliation" against "BS"? If it's BS, there's really nothing of concern when an investigation won't turn anything up.

Pro Tip: If you feel that your job might be in jeopardy for some reason, threaten to file a complaint with some government agency, and then dare them to fire you.

Whistleblower laws are easily abused. The lawyers in Congress know this.
 
Pro Tip: If you feel that your job might be in jeopardy for some reason, threaten to file a complaint with some government agency, and then dare them to fire you.

Whistleblower laws are easily abused. The lawyers in Congress know this.
The law prevents retaliation by the President and Legislative Branch (Congress). What role do any of those play in "employment"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk


Don't see much in this Act there is to be against, if you're FOR government accountability.


This bill establishes, modifies, and expands certain whistleblower protections for federal employees, including with respect to petitions to Congress, whistleblower identity, and protected disclosures.

For example, the bill prohibits personnel action against employees who exercise their right to petition or furnish information to Congress and specifically precludes the President, Members of Congress, members of the uniformed services, and other federal employees from interfering with this right. It also generally prohibits employees from disclosing the identity of whistleblowers to individuals outside of the government. Employees may request corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board with respect to such prohibited practices and may file an action in court if the board does not render a final decision within 180 days of a request.

The bill also expands the list of recipients to whom an employee may make a protected disclosure to include a supervisor in the employee's direct chain of command. It also includes personnel actions involving furloughs of more than 14 days but less than 30 days, and furloughs of 13 days or less that are not due to funding lapses, as appealable adverse actions that are subject to certain procedural requirements.
You do realize who your state's senior senator is, don't you?
 
Federal employees aren't engaged in "employment"?

Try again. Re-read the additional protections, which are explicitly being put into place to prevent members of Congress and high-level Executive Branch officials from intimidating career government officials.

If you WANT responsible governance, you WANT people to report shit w/o fear of reprisal when elected officials abuse their power.
 
Try again. Re-read the additional protections, which are explicitly being put into place to prevent members of Congress and high-level Executive Branch officials from intimidating career government officials.

If you WANT responsible governance, you WANT people to report shit w/o fear of reprisal when elected officials abuse their power.

Okay, I re-read it.

"This bill establishes, modifies, and expands certain whistleblower protections for federal employees"
 
Okay, I re-read it.

"This bill establishes, modifies, and expands certain whistleblower protections for federal employees"

the bill prohibits personnel action against employees who exercise their right to petition or furnish information to Congress and specifically precludes the President, Members of Congress, members of the uniformed services, and other federal employees from interfering with this right.
 
the bill prohibits personnel action against employees who exercise their right to petition or furnish information to Congress and specifically precludes the President, Members of Congress, members of the uniformed services, and other federal employees from interfering with this right.

So, you simply threaten to petition or furnish information to Congress and you're untouchable.

Great idea... NOT.
 
How about no protection for a whistleblower that is bringing forth very important information?

That's rarely the case. It's usually some troublemaker trying to "stick it to the man"...

And here's the thing: it does not matter if the whistleblower is correct that some sort of wrongdoing is happening. The whistleblower only has to "believe" that wrongdoing happened, whether that's actually true or not.

So, the moral of the story is: threaten to report your employer to the regulatory agencies every chance you get. That's job security, baby.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kelsers
That's rarely the case. It's usually some troublemaker trying to "stick it to the man"...

And here's the thing: it does not matter if the whistleblower is correct that some sort of wrongdoing is happening. The whistleblower only has to "believe" that wrongdoing happened, whether that's actually true or not.

So, the moral of the story is: threaten to report your employer to the regulatory agencies every chance you get. That's job security, baby.
We are talking about the government not private industry. You really have to be a troll.
 
Let's make this simple. If someone came out against Trump would he punish them?

Oh, yeah... no one EVER came out against Trump. :rolleyes:

Let me ask you this: If a president's advisor turned against him, should it be illegal for a president to fire him? The concept of serving the president at the will of the president is a long-standing and necessary precedent.

Don't you see how that might be a really bad idea for the nation? The president can't get rid of people in the administration trying to sabotage the administration? Whether the president is engaged in any wrongdoing or not?
 
Oh, yeah... no one EVER came out against Trump. :rolleyes:

Let me ask you this: If a president's advisor turned against him, should it be illegal for a president to fire him? The concept of serving the president at the will of the president is a long-standing and necessary precedent.

Don't you see how that might be a really bad idea for the nation? The president can't get rid of people in the administration trying to sabotage the administration? Whether the president is engaged in any wrongdoing or not?
People in their own administration trying to sabotage the administration? We going conspiracy theory here? Might be more important to have something dangerous to our country brought to attention. You are just an unhappy person if you are real.
 
He's also the kind of guy that 1.) is probably doing something having a whistle blown on him, and 2.) would prob **** over someone so bad that they would want to retaliate.

That's why he doesn't like whistleblower protection.

Y'all enjoy your little fantasy world. Must be nice living in your pretend bubble.
 
There are “whistle blowers” and there are people that just leak shit to the press. Has to be delineated. Don’t want the law to protect folks like the Supreme Court leaker or all the leaks we see out of the DOJ.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT