Agreed, though, I'd say they act like that because they answer to the higher ups in the organisations they're apart of, and aren't properly independent. Thus th

Agreed, though, I'd say they act like that because they answer to the higher ups in the organisations they're apart of, and aren't properly independent. Thus there is no self-interested incentive to take the rank-and-file's side. I'm not sure why HR or IGs are ever assigned the task of 'representing' agents in the first place; it just seems like a conflict of interest. Also, the plural of inspector general is inspectors general, not inspector generals.