4 ms·

>If you self-identify as a government employee, then it is reasonable to assume that someone might take what you say as government policy I disagree. Especial

by lsc 13y ago

>If you self-identify as a government employee, then it is reasonable to assume that someone might take what you say as government policy I disagree. Especially when you are at the bottom of the chain of command. Would you expect a Starbucks barista, when speaking in an off-hours context, to speak for Starbucks? "I work at starbucks, but I don't think their coffee is particularly good, and my boss is an asshole." No. That's clearly the private opinion and gripes of a grunt. Now, if said barista said that on national TV, sure, they'd get fired. But nobody would be mislead into thinking that the Starbucks official message was "our coffee is bad and our supervisors are assholes" The expectation that a grunt will stay 'on message' on personal time is... pretty goddamn silly, if you ask me. I mean, sure, if a grunt goes counter-message at a company that demands slavish obedience, you are going to get fired. Hell, if you go off-message in a public enough way, and embarrass your bosses enough, especially if you reveal real weaknesses in the system you are a part of, as this person did, you are going to get fired about anywhere. I'm not making moral judgments about that; it's just the way it is. But, going "off message" on your personal time and embarrassing your bosses, while it might get you fired, is not in any way misleading to the public. Especially when you are just a grunt.

mbreese 13y ago
But the main point is that the government didn't force him into silence. There was no First Amendment issue here. It was an employee/employer issue, not a citizen vs gov't issue.
- lsc 13y ago
  I don't disagree, as written... though the guy did seem to fear being put on lists and harassed. To the extent that you think that fear is justified, this would be a first amendment issue. But as written, it doesn't sound like there has been retaliation. I was just taking issue with this idea that a reasonable person would think that a grunt speaking off-hours was speaking for the corporation or government that employs them. (I also have pretty strong feelings that complaining about your boss to people who aren't your boss is a reasonable sort of thing to do... and maybe even a fundamental human need. But that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.)
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    That fear is the problem with agencies like the TSA which exist to "do something", and serve little real purpose. The speech issue is a real ethical issue. A government employee has to be careful with what and how they say things in public, as people can and will decide to interpret your statement as policy statements. In NY, a DOT engineer was fired because he said something about snow plowing (that wasn't negative) which conflicted with the administrations narrative.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Would you expect a Starbucks barista, when speaking in an off-hours context, to speak for Starbucks? "I work at starbucks, but I don't think their coffee is particularly good Don't you agree that a Starbucks barista saying "Our coffee is not good" is a different matter from John Doe saying "Starbucks coffee is not good"?
- lsc 13y ago
  >Don't you agree that a Starbucks barista saying "Our coffee is not good" is a different matter from John Doe saying "Starbucks coffee is not good"? Well, let's put it this way. I interviewed at Yahoo search, back when Yahoo Search was a thing. I was passing on a question, playing it off as a detail that i would look up. I said something to the effect of "I'd just google it" Laughter. "we try not to say that here." I got the job. As a SysAdmin, really? my knowledge of search-engines was probably not any more nuanced than any other technical person. That's probably true of the Starbucks barista, too; I believe that Starbucks uses so-called super-automatic espresso machines, meaning that the machine grinds, tamps and pulls the shot, so a starbucks barista might very well know no more about espresso than a random enthusiast. I do believe that it is completely reasonable for an employee to have a low opinion of the company they work for. In fact, I think that only having "yes men" type employees who always parrot the company line can be dangerous; I think this is a big part of why facebook doesn't understand just how creepy the rest of us think they are. I think that this expectation that employees "work for the mission, not the money" and the other exercises in groupthink that are becoming more popular in "Startup culture" are... kind of dangerous. You are training your employees to conceal their honest feelings, which is certainly bad for your employee, and I believe also bad for the company.
rdl 13y ago
It's also totally different when it's government, especially law enforcement or military. "I think you should vote for Nixon" is entirely different if it's a random person saying that, vs. a police officer who could choose to search you.
phaus 13y ago
>I disagree. Especially when you are at the bottom of the chain of command. Its too much to expect the average person to understand rank structure. Everyone is capable of understanding it, but almost nobody cares because civilian life doesn't often give you a good reason to care about military/government rank structure. Many people see an intimidating looking guy in a uniform and assume he's in charge of a lot of really important stuff. I was in the military for over a decade, yet to my wife, there were three ranks. Privates, Her Husband (Actually a Sergeant), and the mythical Officer/First Sergeant (Everyone higher ranking than myself would alternately be referred to as First Sergeant or my Commanding Officer, as in, the same person would be referred to as either one, depending on the conversation. I explained the differences to her a thousand times, but she, like many military wives, just didn't seem to care. Civilians care even less. Most people recognize that a general is the highest authority in the military, but that's about where it ends. You also have to consider the way that the media often likes to twist a person's words around. You might be speaking as a matter of opinion, but if a news station uses clever editing to make it sound like you are an important person who is declaring an official military position on a subject, it doesn't really matter that its not true, the damage is still done.
- lsc 13y ago
  >Its too much to expect the average person to understand rank structure. Many people see an intimidating looking guy in a uniform and assume he's in charge of a lot of really important stuff. While I agree that military rank is complex, I'm pretty sure that most people are very clear that the folks doing the grope and grab at the airport are at the very bottom of the hierarchy. Of course, I could be wrong, but my impression is that the objection many people have to the grope and grab is at least partially a class thing. Most people see TSA employees as "beneath them" I believe this is exacerbated by our (fading) sense that air travel is a luxury thing, and that the employees who facilitate said travel ought to kowtow to me, not the other way around.
  - bermanoid 13y ago
    Umm, no, it's not a class thing. It's an "I need to get to Seattle and you're an asshole getting in my way without any useful reason" thing. You'll feel a lot less giving towards TSA the first time you show up two hours in advance of a domestic flight and end up having to sleep the night in an airport because they detained you for additional screening (for no apparent reason other than perhaps not liking your look) long enough to miss the last flight out to your destination.

by lsc 13y ago

mbreese 13y ago

But the main point is that the government didn't force him into silence. There was no First Amendment issue here. It was an employee/employer issue, not a citizen vs gov't issue.

lsc 13y ago
I don't disagree, as written... though the guy did seem to fear being put on lists and harassed. To the extent that you think that fear is justified, this would be a first amendment issue. But as written, it doesn't sound like there has been retaliation. I was just taking issue with this idea that a reasonable person would think that a grunt speaking off-hours was speaking for the corporation or government that employs them. (I also have pretty strong feelings that complaining about your boss to people who aren't your boss is a reasonable sort of thing to do... and maybe even a fundamental human need. But that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.)
- Spooky23 13y ago
  That fear is the problem with agencies like the TSA which exist to "do something", and serve little real purpose. The speech issue is a real ethical issue. A government employee has to be careful with what and how they say things in public, as people can and will decide to interpret your statement as policy statements. In NY, a DOT engineer was fired because he said something about snow plowing (that wasn't negative) which conflicted with the administrations narrative.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Would you expect a Starbucks barista, when speaking in an off-hours context, to speak for Starbucks? "I work at starbucks, but I don't think their coffee is particularly good Don't you agree that a Starbucks barista saying "Our coffee is not good" is a different matter from John Doe saying "Starbucks coffee is not good"?

lsc 13y ago
>Don't you agree that a Starbucks barista saying "Our coffee is not good" is a different matter from John Doe saying "Starbucks coffee is not good"? Well, let's put it this way. I interviewed at Yahoo search, back when Yahoo Search was a thing. I was passing on a question, playing it off as a detail that i would look up. I said something to the effect of "I'd just google it" Laughter. "we try not to say that here." I got the job. As a SysAdmin, really? my knowledge of search-engines was probably not any more nuanced than any other technical person. That's probably true of the Starbucks barista, too; I believe that Starbucks uses so-called super-automatic espresso machines, meaning that the machine grinds, tamps and pulls the shot, so a starbucks barista might very well know no more about espresso than a random enthusiast. I do believe that it is completely reasonable for an employee to have a low opinion of the company they work for. In fact, I think that only having "yes men" type employees who always parrot the company line can be dangerous; I think this is a big part of why facebook doesn't understand just how creepy the rest of us think they are. I think that this expectation that employees "work for the mission, not the money" and the other exercises in groupthink that are becoming more popular in "Startup culture" are... kind of dangerous. You are training your employees to conceal their honest feelings, which is certainly bad for your employee, and I believe also bad for the company.

rdl 13y ago

It's also totally different when it's government, especially law enforcement or military. "I think you should vote for Nixon" is entirely different if it's a random person saying that, vs. a police officer who could choose to search you.

phaus 13y ago

>I disagree. Especially when you are at the bottom of the chain of command. Its too much to expect the average person to understand rank structure. Everyone is capable of understanding it, but almost nobody cares because civilian life doesn't often give you a good reason to care about military/government rank structure. Many people see an intimidating looking guy in a uniform and assume he's in charge of a lot of really important stuff. I was in the military for over a decade, yet to my wife, there were three ranks. Privates, Her Husband (Actually a Sergeant), and the mythical Officer/First Sergeant (Everyone higher ranking than myself would alternately be referred to as First Sergeant or my Commanding Officer, as in, the same person would be referred to as either one, depending on the conversation. I explained the differences to her a thousand times, but she, like many military wives, just didn't seem to care. Civilians care even less. Most people recognize that a general is the highest authority in the military, but that's about where it ends. You also have to consider the way that the media often likes to twist a person's words around. You might be speaking as a matter of opinion, but if a news station uses clever editing to make it sound like you are an important person who is declaring an official military position on a subject, it doesn't really matter that its not true, the damage is still done.

lsc 13y ago
>Its too much to expect the average person to understand rank structure. Many people see an intimidating looking guy in a uniform and assume he's in charge of a lot of really important stuff. While I agree that military rank is complex, I'm pretty sure that most people are very clear that the folks doing the grope and grab at the airport are at the very bottom of the hierarchy. Of course, I could be wrong, but my impression is that the objection many people have to the grope and grab is at least partially a class thing. Most people see TSA employees as "beneath them" I believe this is exacerbated by our (fading) sense that air travel is a luxury thing, and that the employees who facilitate said travel ought to kowtow to me, not the other way around.
- bermanoid 13y ago
  Umm, no, it's not a class thing. It's an "I need to get to Seattle and you're an asshole getting in my way without any useful reason" thing. You'll feel a lot less giving towards TSA the first time you show up two hours in advance of a domestic flight and end up having to sleep the night in an airport because they detained you for additional screening (for no apparent reason other than perhaps not liking your look) long enough to miss the last flight out to your destination.