Constructive Discharge of The Federal Workforce

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

~~~~~~
Why should Federal employees have employment protections that employees in the normal work force don't have.
The president should have ultimate rights to hire or fire any Federal employee.

It's one of the benefits of working for the federal government. Some other government agencies also have forms of civil service protections for their jobs but since it's such a good question, again I defer AI:

The core reason federal employees have employment protections that many private-sector employees do not is to ensure a professional, independent, and nonpartisan civil service that operates in the best interest of the public, rather than at the whims of changing political leadership.​

​

Why Do Federal Employees Have More Protections?​

1. Preventing Political Patronage ("Spoils System")
   
   
   • Before the Pendleton Act of 1883, federal jobs were awarded based on political loyalty rather than competence. This “spoils system” led to widespread corruption, where government jobs were handed out as political rewards rather than based on merit.
   • Civil service protections were created to ensure hiring and firing are based on merit rather than personal loyalty or political reasons.
2. Ensuring Government Stability and Continuity
   
   
   • The federal government provides critical public services (e.g., national security, disaster response, social services). If every new President could fire all career employees at will, institutional knowledge and expertise would be lost with every administration change.
   • For example, highly skilled professionals in national security, healthcare, or disaster relief should not be at risk of losing their jobs simply because a new President wants ideological alignment.
3. Protecting Whistleblowers and Preventing Retaliation
   
   
   • Federal protections allow employees to report waste, fraud, and abuse without fear of political retribution.
   • Without these protections, whistleblowers could be fired for exposing corruption, discouraging accountability within the government.
4. Maintaining a Nonpartisan Civil Service
   
   
   • Civil servants are meant to work for the country, not a political party.
   • If federal employees could be fired at will, the government would become highly politicized, with each new administration purging non-loyalists and replacing them with partisan hires.
5. Due Process & Rule of Law
   
   
   • The federal government sets the standard for fair treatment of workers.
   • If the government does not respect due process and fairness in employment decisions, how can it expect private businesses to?
   • Civil service protections ensure employees are treated fairly and cannot be fired arbitrarily.

Does This Mean the President Has No Firing Power?​

No—the President can still fire certain employees, particularly political appointees. However, career civil servants are different—they are protected to prevent abuse of power and ensure government functions effectively, regardless of who is in office.​

​

Final Thought​

The government is not a private company—it serves all Americans, not just the President. Employment protections exist to keep federal employees working for the country, not for politicians.​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What’s the difference between a directive and a coercive directive?

In this case the "threat" is termination for "failure to respond"

Directive vs. Coercive Directive​

1. Directive – A directive is an order or instruction given by someone in authority that is expected to be followed. It does not necessarily include force or threats—compliance is expected based on hierarchy, duty, or policy.
   
   • Example: "Employees must submit their reports by Friday."
   • This is a standard directive—employees are expected to comply, but there’s no explicit force or penalty stated.
2. Coercive Directive – A coercive directive is a directive that includes explicit or implied threats, force, or undue pressure to compel compliance. It typically involves negative consequences for failing to obey.
   
   • Example: "If you don’t submit your report by Friday, you’ll be fired."
   • This adds a coercive element—compliance is not just expected but forced through the threat of punishment.

Key Difference​

A directive is an instruction with an expectation of compliance. A coercive directive adds an element of threat, pressure, or force to ensure obedience.

 

[Lisa558]

Q: Were these workers told their employment is no longer wanted, and told that their employment ended that day? If so, did they get two weeks’ pay?

That’s how it happens to private employees all the time. It comes as a real shock, especially when you’ve always gotten top reviews and didn’t see it coming. It can even come as such as shock that you barely get home before you throw up.

So as long as the employees got two weeks’ severance, I don’t see why government workers feel entitled to better than the taxpayers who pay their salaries, or, for that matter, why leftists on this forum express outrage at the loss of government jobs when there’s no such reaction when it happens to everyone else, and all the time.

 

[Seymour Flops]

In this case the "threat" is termination for "failure to respond"

Directive vs. Coercive Directive​

1. Directive – A directive is an order or instruction given by someone in authority that is expected to be followed. It does not necessarily include force or threats—compliance is expected based on hierarchy, duty, or policy.
   • Example: "Employees must submit their reports by Friday."
   • This is a standard directive—employees are expected to comply, but there’s no explicit force or penalty stated.
2. Coercive Directive – A coercive directive is a directive that includes explicit or implied threats, force, or undue pressure to compel compliance. It typically involves negative consequences for failing to obey.
   • Example: "If you don’t submit your report by Friday, you’ll be fired."
   • This adds a coercive element—compliance is not just expected but forced through the threat of punishment.

Key Difference​

A directive is an instruction with an expectation of compliance. A coercive directive adds an element of threat, pressure, or force to ensure obedience.

Isn't ANY employee anywhere who suddenly stops following directions from management subject to termination?

So, every directive I've ever gotten from management has been "coercive?"