USPS and Union Did Nothing Wrong

[Speaker to Animals]

You never had the right to wear a uniform and shill for a politician. People used to get away with it, but it wasn't a "right". You are perfectly fine in dressing as a civilian, introducing yourself as Captain so-and-so, and advocating for some politician. Just don't do it in uniform and certainly don't do it while on duty.

I will admit that you do lose some rights when you enlist or take a commission, but that's a completely different ballgame, and they don't really include your right to support a politician.

[Okeefenokee]

You never had the right to wear a uniform and shill for a politician. People used to get away with it, but it wasn't a "right". You are perfectly fine in dressing as a civilian, introducing yourself as Captain so-and-so, and advocating for some politician. Just don't do it in uniform and certainly don't do it while on duty.

I will admit that you do lose some rights when you enlist or take a commission, but that's a completely different ballgame, and they don't really include your right to support a politician.

And the restrictions placed by the DOD are above and beyond what the Hash Act has. USPS has fewer restrictions.

[The Conservative]

You never had the right to wear a uniform and shill for a politician. People used to get away with it, but it wasn't a "right". You are perfectly fine in dressing as a civilian, introducing yourself as Captain so-and-so, and advocating for some politician. Just don't do it in uniform and certainly don't do it while on duty.

I will admit that you do lose some rights when you enlist or take a commission, but that's a completely different ballgame, and they don't really include your right to support a politician.

And the restrictions placed by the DOD are above and beyond what the Hash Act has. USPS has fewer restrictions.

Yet they have restrictions all the same.

[Okeefenokee]

You never had the right to wear a uniform and shill for a politician. People used to get away with it, but it wasn't a "right". You are perfectly fine in dressing as a civilian, introducing yourself as Captain so-and-so, and advocating for some politician. Just don't do it in uniform and certainly don't do it while on duty.

I will admit that you do lose some rights when you enlist or take a commission, but that's a completely different ballgame, and they don't really include your right to support a politician.

And the restrictions placed by the DOD are above and beyond what the Hash Act has. USPS has fewer restrictions.

Yet they have restrictions all the same.

Participating in politics while on unpaid leave is not one of them.

[The Conservative]

And the restrictions placed by the DOD are above and beyond what the Hash Act has. USPS has fewer restrictions.

Yet they have restrictions all the same.

Participating in politics while on unpaid leave is not one of them.

If you are one of the more restrictive employees, actually, yes it is. Especially if it's for a specific party, instread of a general participation in the process.

[Speaker to Animals]

People have explained the law to you in detail. At this point you are just being an ass.

[The Conservative]

People have explained the law to you in detail. At this point you are just being an ass.

So then do we know if postal workers are more restrictive or least restrictive. For by the sounds of it, it's more.

[Okeefenokee]

People have explained the law to you in detail. At this point you are just being an ass.

So then do we know if postal workers are more restrictive or least restrictive. For by the sounds of it, it's more.

You're the one making the claim, and the only one who hasn't shown any work other than what everyone else already showed you.

[The Conservative]

People have explained the law to you in detail. At this point you are just being an ass.

So then do we know if postal workers are more restrictive or least restrictive. For by the sounds of it, it's more.

You're the one making the claim, and the only one who hasn't shown any work other than what everyone else already showed you.

Actually I have, the article shows that the post office was at fault, it also shows someone saying they were as well.

People here are saying with no proof that the post office is a less restrictive give group saying they are not at fault.

The document shown is from 2014, so I used the document and went to the website for an updated version. The document had changed. As proof of the website.

So please tell me, after me asking a simple question, is the post office on the more or less restrictive list? So far no one has come up with an answer.

So please, tell me. How is my question out of line, and everyone being a self righteous asshole not?

[Kazmyr]

FFS.

More specifically, Further Restricted employees include employees from the following agencies (or components) or in the following positions:

Federal Election Commission;
Election Assistance Commission;
Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Secret Service;
Central Intelligence Agency;
National Security Council;
National Security Agency;
Defense Intelligence Agency;
Merit Systems Protection Board;
Office of Special Counsel;
Office of Criminal Investigation of the Internal Revenue Service;
Office of Investigative Programs of the United States Customs Service;
Office of Law Enforcement of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms;
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency;
Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice;
National Security Division of the Department of Justice; as well as
Persons employed in positions described under Sections 3132(a)(4), 5372, 5372 (a), or 5372(b) of Title 5, United States Code, including:
Senior Executive Service [career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132 (a)(4)]
Administrative Law Judges [positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372]
Contract Appeals Board Members [positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372 (a)]
Administrative Appeals Judges [positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372(b)]

From YOUR website. Do you see USPS on there?

Since you're so hung up on the pamphlet being from 2014, here's one from 2016. https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Poster%2 ... 202016.pdf

*Further-restricted agencies and employees include:
o Election Assistance Commission
o Federal Election Commission
o Office of the Director of National Intelligence
o Central Intelligence Agency
o Defense Intelligence Agency
o National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
o National Security Agency
o National Security Council
o National Security Division (Department of Justice)
o Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
o Federal Bureau of Investigation
o Secret Service
o Office of Criminal Investigation (IRS)
o Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
o Office of Law Enforcement (ATF)
o Merit Systems Protection Board
o U.S. Office of Special Counsel
o Career members of the Senior Executive Service
o Administrative law judges, administrative appeals judges, and
contract appeals board members

The SAME.

And since they are not further restricted (again, from your website):

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.

It's not about you asking a simple question. It's about asking the same goddamn simple question over and over again when you've already been given the answer.

I'm done with this thread.