PDA

View Full Version : "privatization"



Novaheart
12-31-2012, 02:13 PM
The Facebook thing got me to wondering. Right now, government employees have more of their free speech rights intact than private employees.

In Florida, we have a group of people in office who have never hidden their desire to "privatize" as much of the government as they can (and funnel that money into damned few pockets instead). We recently had it discovered that the "private" company overseeing many juvenile justice operations is making over a $1M a year. Last month the scandal was how much the CEO of the state run insurance company was making and spending on himself and executives. These are not examples of government waste; these are examples of blatant theft.

But the question which comes to mind pertains to our own NJCARDFAN. He is a state employee. As such, he enjoys a much broader set of protections than he would working for a government contractor, not the least of which would be that his status as a LEO would change for the lesser. If Prisontron Inc. were to decide they didn't like his posts on conservativeunderground, what would keep them from firing a nonstate employee who has no First Amendment protections? Or do employees who have been shaffted out of their state jobs retain the status of state employee even though they answer to Prisontron Inc.

FlaGator
12-31-2012, 03:06 PM
The Facebook thing got me to wondering. Right now, government employees have more of their free speech rights intact than private employees.

In Florida, we have a group of people in office who have never hidden their desire to "privatize" as much of the government as they can (and funnel that money into damned few pockets instead). We recently had it discovered that the "private" company overseeing many juvenile justice operations is making over a $1M a year. Last month the scandal was how much the CEO of the state run insurance company was making and spending on himself and executives. These are not examples of government waste; these are examples of blatant theft.

But the question which comes to mind pertains to our own NJCARDFAN. He is a state employee. As such, he enjoys a much broader set of protections than he would working for a government contractor, not the least of which would be that his status as a LEO would change for the lesser. If Prisontron Inc. were to decide they didn't like his posts on conservativeunderground, what would keep them from firing a nonstate employee who has no First Amendment protections? Or do employees who have been shaffted out of their state jobs retain the status of state employee even though they answer to Prisontron Inc.

Why do you assume that the first amendment protects anyone from being fired? Freedom of speech doesn't project one from the consequences of said speech? If government employees can say pretty much what they feel without consequences (which they can't ask anyone in the military) then it is not the first amendment that protects their job but the government union that they belong to.

Both a private company and the government will release someone from employment if they say or do something that embarassess the employer or put the employer in a difficult situation.

Novaheart
12-31-2012, 03:39 PM
Why do you assume that the first amendment protects anyone from being fired?

Because it does.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm


Introduction
Does the First Amendment allow the government to use a public employee's speech as the ground for discharge or denying a promotion? The Supreme Court's answer to this question was at one time a simple "Yes." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1892, "There may be a constitutional right to talk politics, but there is no constitutional right to be a policeman." The so-called right/privilege distinction was maintained even as late as 1952 when, in Adler v Board of Education, the Court said, "You have a constitutional right to say and think as you will, but you have no constitutional right to work for the government."
By 1967, however, the Court would note that "the major premise of Adler has been rejected." In its place was a new premise: that the government ought not to be able to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. The Court took the position that public employment cannot be conditioned on a surrender of constitutional rights. The problem for the Court then became how to balance the government's interest in maintaining an efficient public workplace against the individual employee's interest in free expression.

Pickering v Board of Education considered the case of a public school teacher fired for writing a letter to a newspaper critical of the local school board. In ordering the teacher reinstated, the Court found that a public employee's statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for discharge unless the statement contained knowing or reckless falsehoods, or the statements were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job.


http://www.taterenner.com/1stam.php



What has the U.S. Supreme Court said about the First Amendment rights of public employees?

Public employee speech involving matters of public concern constitutes protected speech

under the First Amendment. See Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 384 (1987). ("The threshold question . . . is whether [an employee's] speech may be 'fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern.'").

The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized that public employees could sue for retaliation in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). "[I]t is apparent that the threat of dismissal from public employment is nonetheless a potent means of inhibiting speech." Pickering, 391 U.S. at 574. In Pickering, the Court recognized the special vulnerability of the public employee and the societal benefits of protecting employment-related speech. The Court set out the balancing test that remains controlling law today: "the interests of the [employee] as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern" must be balanced against "the interest of the State as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

In 1983, the Court stated, "Our responsibility is to ensure that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983).

"Government employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work; public debate may gain much from their informed opinions. And a government employee, like any citizen, may have a strong, legitimate interest in speaking out on public matters." Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 674 (1994)

Rockntractor
12-31-2012, 04:07 PM
What is it you want to say Tink?http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/metiers/uniformes/flictape.gif

JB
12-31-2012, 05:28 PM
If Prisontron Inc. were to decide they didn't like his posts on conservativeunderground, what would keep them from firing a nonstate employee who has no First Amendment protections? Or do employees who have been shaffted out of their state jobs retain the status of state employee even though they answer to Prisontron Inc.Have you ever had to sign a Code of Conduct form after reading the Code of Conduct handbook when starting with a new company? I've never worked for the government but I've signed off on a Code of Conduct for every private employer I've ever worked for. Break the code, lose the job, so I guess it would depend on the policies of Prisontron.

Novaheart
12-31-2012, 07:47 PM
Have you ever had to sign a Code of Conduct form after reading the Code of Conduct handbook when starting with a new company? I've never worked for the government but I've signed off on a Code of Conduct for every private employer I've ever worked for. Break the code, lose the job, so I guess it would depend on the policies of Prisontron.

Promising to protect the secrets of Apple computer (like that the Ipad is a piece of shit for example) or refraining from defamatory language about Apple Computer (like that the iPad is a piece of shit for example) is hugely different from agreeing to be silent about the conduct or condition of the state prisons as an employer or another branch of law enforcement.

People like Rick Scott look at the expense for a government function and see an opportunity to buy favor by giving that money to a friend.

NJCardFan
12-31-2012, 11:50 PM
All I have to say is that Nova hasn't got a clue on how the NJDOC works in such matters.

Rockntractor
12-31-2012, 11:57 PM
All I have to say is that Nova hasn't got a clue on how the NJDOC works in such matters.

Nova doesn't have a clue as to how the basic functions of life work.

Novaheart
01-01-2013, 01:24 AM
All I have to say is that Nova hasn't got a clue on how the NJDOC works in such matters.

I was just using you as a backdrop; you've never given me a reason to expect something noble out of you. I don't suppose the issue would ever actually apply to you.

Novaheart
01-01-2013, 01:25 AM
Nova doesn't have a clue as to how the basic functions of life work.

Whereas your genius has clearly paid off.

Rockntractor
01-01-2013, 01:30 AM
Whereas your genius has clearly paid off.

Happy New Years Tink.:biggrin-new:

djones520
01-01-2013, 10:37 AM
Why do you assume that the first amendment protects anyone from being fired? Freedom of speech doesn't project one from the consequences of said speech? If government employees can say pretty much what they feel without consequences (which they can't ask anyone in the military) then it is not the first amendment that protects their job but the government union that they belong to.

Both a private company and the government will release someone from employment if they say or do something that embarassess the employer or put the employer in a difficult situation.

Apon entering the military, we sign documentation acknowledging that we are willingly giving up a number of our rights secured by the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment is one of those.

The government cannot punish people protected by the 1st Amendment. We in the military are not protected by it, hence why they can.

It's another one of those sacrifices we make to wear this uniform that many people aren't that aware of.

NJCardFan
01-02-2013, 12:11 AM
I was just using you as a backdrop; you've never given me a reason to expect something noble out of you. I don't suppose the issue would ever actually apply to you.

You don't think, huh. Like I said, you don't have a clue on how my department handles such matters nor will I inform you how they handle such matters because it's none of your business but I will say that if you think I can go on social media and do what I want, you'd be sorely mistaken. As for my doing anything noble, you know nothing about me but I guarantee that I do more for others than you do.