Report: At Least 180 Federal Workers Planning to Disobey Trump Administration

[Running Gator]

48 minutes ago, other one said:

I have seen new managers change things and tell people it's their way or the highway.

I believe the Air Traffic Control People thought they could tell Ronald Reagan no also.    I think Donald would be good at saying, "Your Fired."

 

This is what draining the swamp is all about.

I have never seen the new CEO of Chevy or Ford fire all the factory workers, which is the equivalent of what people are talking about. 

The ATC folks were in direct violation of a federal regulation and a judge's order, so again apples and oranges. 

Another thing people forget is that every civil servant takes this oath of office...

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

Notice the only loyalty is to the constitution of the United States, not to the person sitting in the White House.  This is by design and it is how everyone should want it to be.  But when you have a cult of personality like Trump, there is going to be a conflict. 

[Running Gator]

37 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Good point.  I'd forgotten about the Air Traffic Control people.  So maybe they are 'dismissable' after all.

Blessings,

-Ed

The ATC folks were in direct violation of a federal law.  They were not fired because they didn't like Reagan.

[other one]

Just now, Out of the Shadows said:

I have never seen the new CEO of Chevy or Ford fire all the factory workers, which is the equivalent of what people are talking about. 

The ATC folks were in direct violation of a federal regulation and a judge's order, so again apples and oranges. 

Another thing people forget is that every civil servant takes this oath of office...

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

Notice the only loyalty is to the constitution of the United States, not to the person sitting in the White House.  This is by design and it is how everyone should want it to be.  But when you have a cult of personality like Trump, there is going to be a conflict. 

I think you need to actually reread the oaths people take.

[SavedByGrace1980]

2 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

I have never seen the new CEO of Chevy or Ford fire all the factory workers, which is the equivalent of what people are talking about. 

The ATC folks were in direct violation of a federal regulation and a judge's order, so again apples and oranges. 

Another thing people forget is that every civil servant takes this oath of office...

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

Notice the only loyalty is to the constitution of the United States, not to the person sitting in the White House.  This is by design and it is how everyone should want it to be.  But when you have a cult of personality like Trump, there is going to be a conflict. 

The person 'sitting in the WH' is there as a result of a Constitutional process.  He is there legally.  It has nothing to do with a cult of personality - neither with Trump, Obama before him, or anyone before that.

If they cannot work for (due to politics, conscience or whatever) a duly elected POTUS then they should do the honorable thing and resign.

Blessings,

-Ed

[SavedByGrace1980]

5 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

The ATC folks were in direct violation of a federal law.  They were not fired because they didn't like Reagan.

Does federal law require one to show up to work and do his/her job?

Blessings,

-Ed

[Running Gator]

4 minutes ago, other one said:

I think you need to actually reread the oaths people take.

I posted the actual oath people take right off of the OPM website. 

[Running Gator]

Just now, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Does federal law require one to show up to work and do his/her job?

Blessings,

-Ed

If they have vacation time, sick time, comp time, or what have you and they get their leave approved, then they are breaking no law.

Federal law does not require you to follow unlawful/unconstitutional orders and directives.  

[Running Gator]

4 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

The person 'sitting in the WH' is there as a result of a Constitutional process.  He is there legally.  It has nothing to do with a cult of personality - neither with Trump, Obama before him, or anyone before that.

If they cannot work for (due to politics, conscience or whatever) a duly elected POTUS then they should do the honorable thing and resign.

Blessings,

-Ed

Depends on if the duly elected POTUS is giving them unlawful orders.

[SavedByGrace1980]

1 minute ago, Out of the Shadows said:

If they have vacation time, sick time, comp time, or what have you and they get their leave approved, then they are breaking no law.

Federal law does not require you to follow unlawful/unconstitutional orders and directives.  

They're the ones drawing the line in the sand.  Vacation time is generally specified - I doubt anyone is saying they cannot take vacation time.  Comp time and/or sick time is more prone to be potentially abused - but supervisors have the final say on that.

If unlawful or unconstitutional orders are issued, then workers have a right or even duty to challenge those.  I would imagine a process is in place to do just that. Have any unconstitutional or unlawful orders been issued yet? 

I suppose the un-asked question here (so I'll ask it) is why you seem to be so 'okay' with this?  

Blessings,

-Ed

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

They're the ones drawing the line in the sand.  Vacation time is generally specified - I doubt anyone is saying they cannot take vacation time.  Comp time and/or sick time is more prone to be potentially abused - but supervisors have the final say on that.

If unlawful or unconstitutional orders are issued, then workers have a right or even duty to challenge those.  I would imagine a process is in place to do just that. Have any unconstitutional or unlawful orders been issued yet? 

I suppose the un-asked question here (so I'll ask it) is why you seem to be so 'okay' with this?  

Blessings,

-Ed

I do not know if any unlawful orders have been issued, that is not for me to decide as I am not the one tasked with carrying them out.  

I am ok with this because I want the civil servants to be servants of the people, not of the man in the White House.  

I am ok with this because I was taught in my first month of basic training about refusing unlawful orders and it has stuck with me ever since.