USPS and Union Did Nothing Wrong

[Speaker to Animals]

You've been disagreeing with facts this entire thread. No surprise there.

[The Conservative]

You've been disagreeing with facts this entire thread. No surprise there.

You mean opinions, yes I have.

[Kazmyr]

It is written vague enough that it can be construed exactly as I stated... the fact is that they themselves said it was inadvertently breached means I am on more solid footing than the rest of you.

No, it can't be construed as draconian as you want it to.

OSC construes it much more leniently than you: https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Pamphlet ... 202014.pdf

May not engage in political activity — i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group — while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle.

When you read the articles behind this, OSC's 'basis' for a violation is weak as shit:

The counsel concluded that the U.S. Postal Service was in violation of the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity of federal employees while on the job. The investigation found that the Postal Service did not take political sides but sought to maintain good relations with the union.

Wisconsin letter carrier to testify Wednesday on political campaigning by postal workers

Point to me the section in that pamphlet that was violated here.

[Speaker to Animals]

You've been disagreeing with facts this entire thread. No surprise there.

You mean opinions, yes I have.

No.. like facts. Such as the fact that these people were on UNPAID leave. Or the fact that the framers of the Bill of Rights believed human rights pre-exist government.

[The Conservative]

It is written vague enough that it can be construed exactly as I stated... the fact is that they themselves said it was inadvertently breached means I am on more solid footing than the rest of you.

No, it can't be construed as draconian as you want it to.

OSC construes it much more leniently than you: https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Pamphlet ... 202014.pdf

May not engage in political activity — i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group — while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle.

When you read the articles behind this, OSC's 'basis' for a violation is weak as shit:

The counsel concluded that the U.S. Postal Service was in violation of the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity of federal employees while on the job. The investigation found that the Postal Service did not take political sides but sought to maintain good relations with the union.

Wisconsin letter carrier to testify Wednesday on political campaigning by postal workers

Point to me the section in that pamphlet that was violated here.

How about from the horse's mouth itself instead of a few year old document... cripes bring your A game or leave.

https://osc.gov/pages/hatchact-affectsme.aspx

It depends, how are they classified, restricted or less restricted.

[Kazmyr]

How about from the horse's mouth itself instead of a few year old document... cripes bring your A game or leave.

https://osc.gov/pages/hatchact-affectsme.aspx

It depends, how are they classified, restricted or less restricted.

Ok.

May not engage in political activity – i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group – while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle. For example:

Gee, that sounds familiar.

Where have I heard that before? Oh, right!

OSC construes it much more leniently than you: https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Pamphlet ... 202014.pdf

May not engage in political activity — i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group — while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle.

The content is the same.

I brought my A game. Try packing some reading comprehension in your lunchbox, next time.

[The Conservative]

How about from the horse's mouth itself instead of a few year old document... cripes bring your A game or leave.

https://osc.gov/pages/hatchact-affectsme.aspx

It depends, how are they classified, restricted or less restricted.

Ok.

May not engage in political activity – i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group – while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle. For example:

Gee, that sounds familiar.

Where have I heard that before? Oh, right!

OSC construes it much more leniently than you: https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Pamphlet ... 202014.pdf

May not engage in political activity — i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group — while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle.

The content is the same.

I brought my A game. Try packing some reading comprehension in your lunchbox, next time.

No, you are cherry picking. Try again, because in the same article I posted and you "quoted"

Further restricted federal employees are prohibited from taking an active part in partisan political management or partisan political campaigns. Specifically, these employees may not campaign for or against candidates or otherwise engage in political activity in concert with a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The issue here is that the union apparently funded the protest activity. Maybe it was giving rides, maybe it was printing out signs, who knows. Since membership in the postal union is probably not optional, that makes it a direct action of the USPS.

[Kazmyr]

The restrictions are the same. The pamphlet calls out restricted agencies (of which the USPS isn't one) and lists the "May" and "May Nots," which are identical. So what was the point of posting this?

No one of this supports your assertion that the Hatch Act is some draconion framework to ensure that all federal employees are 100% apolitical drones, at all hours of the day, without the right to assemble as they wish.

So I see you added something after I started my reply - see above. USPS isn't listed as a federal agency in the 'Further Restricted' category.

[Okeefenokee]

It was leave without pay, TC. Read the article first.

Not that it's the government's business what political campaigns their employees support when those employees are not working.. Fuck, man. Think about what you are trying to argue here.

You work for the government you give away some rights, the same with the military, the same with government employment. All your emails are stored, even the ones you are supposedly deleted, your life is exposed to them, especially if you have to go through a clearance check. Your background is combed through in some cases very uncomfortably.

You give up rights of freedom of political expression working for the government.

You give up SOME rights, or more accurately, the area in which you can exercise CERTAIN rights are restricted.

What Active Duty Members Can and Cannot Do
Can - Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

Can - Promote and encourage other military members to exercise their voting franchise, if such promotion does not constitute an attempt to influence or interfere with the outcome of an election.

Can - Join a political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform.

Can - Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, does not interfere with the performance of military duties, is performed when not in uniform, and the Secretary concerned has given prior approval. The Secretary concerned may NOT delegate the authority to grant or deny such permission.

Can - Sign a petition for specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate's name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

https://www.thebalance.com/military-fol ... cs-3332818

It's a long list.