The boss may not always be right, but the boss is always the boss. I’ve met few bosses, or people in any position of power that doesn’t live by this mantra, and anyone who has to answer to someone else and forgets this does so at their peril. Under the circumstances, anyone in a hierarchical system- whether it be government or the corporate workplace- who has a problem with their superior is going to be made to pay for bringing that problem up to anyone above that, much less the public at large. Anyone who hasn’t figured this out by about 2nd grade can look forward to a life of misery and heartache. No-one likes a rat, particularly those who are ratted on- and that includes those above the ones ratted on because it makes them look bad too.

What makes it worse in the case of government is the fact that anything short of a presidential decree will not get a non-performer fired. Rather than getting fired, non performers- whether they be merely lazy or corrupt- get kicked upstairs and, the thinking goes, out of the way of the people who move them along. The end result of this process are agencies top heavy with non-performers whose paramount goal is self-preservation. These people naturally view everyone below them- particularly the hard working and conscientious- as potential threats, rather than as fellow workers trying to achieve a common goal, because their only purpose at work is to maintain and consolidate their position. Knowing they are immune to the consequences of their actions- or lack there-of as is usually the case- only encourages them to do so. Throw in the current administration’s view that toeing the ideological line is a prerequisite for even non-political jobs, and you wind up with a civil service worthy of any other 3rd world dictatorship.

It should come as no surprise that Bush would be opposed to any whistle-blower protection. Obviously any revelation about his junta and the minions that serve it could only be bad. But in addition, the reason is personal. Bush himself is the ultimate beneficiary of this system- a raging incompetent born with a silver spoon in his drooling little mouth whose reward for failure has always been a promotion- all the way to the top.

I am a long-serving Navy attorney and have done significant work in the area of complaints on both the civilian and uniformed side of the house. This is a good story in that it points out issues in our system of resolving these types of complaints, but it is not the full story.

One can read this and walk away with the impression that anybody that complains is subjected to retaliation and of those retaliated against, only a small number ultimately receive protection and/or justice. What it does not do is give you the numbers of people who report issues and are never retaliated against or the numbers of people who report issues, are retaliated against and receive some form of protection and/or justice before it goes to the MSPB obviating the need for a MSPB hearing.

What are those numbers? I can't say, but I will tell you that of the cases I have worked on, there were many who received relief prior to having to go to the MSPB. There have been many who were never retaliated against so there was no need to ask for relief.

Of those who claimed retaliation and were not afforded some type of relief, it was determined that there was no basis for the underlying complaint they had lodged. Additionally, in 97% of those cases, it was clear that we were dealing with a civilian employee or service member whose performance had been mediocre at best or cause for disciplinary action, and a complaint was the best way to "protect" the individual from receiving a deserved and justified poor performance evaluation or other disciplinary action. I

In many parts of the federal government, there is an opposite mindset from that portrayed in this article. That is, once someone complains about something, the government cannot touch them. They cannot document poor performance or address behavior worthy of disciplinary action because to do so would be considered retaliation. Now, this is not what the law says, but this is the mindset of managers and leaders afraid to be tied up by a slow moving complaint process. They feel it is simply easier to move the individual along instead of addressing the underlying performance or behavioral issue.

That said, I have no doubt that there are those who make valid complaints and then are the subject of retaliation who never receive the protection the law requires, but I think their numbers are small if they can be compared to the ones who are either never retaliated against, the ones who receive justice prior to going to the MSPB, or those who never really had a valid complaint to begin with and are using the system to protect them from their own poor performance or bad conduct.

Before I get any rants for this post, please no I am a liberal (can be dangerous to be so in uniform) who has spent my career protecting those screwed over by the system. I just wanted to point out that this article does not really tell the full story.

If your intention is to turn the government into a political and ideological extension of your party; then you need to suppress any leaks of your actions until they are completed. Therefore you need to slap down any attempts to free those who object to your perfidy.

Many of you may have heard the name Sibel Edmonds before. She is desparately trying to become a whistleblower and has been repeatedly gagged by court orders. Her information relates to corruption and mishandled pre 9/11 intelligence, and she is now willing to accept the consequences of telling everything she knows to any major media outlet who will listen. Does Salon have the guts?

Start here:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5197