Absolute Disclosure, page 4

Originally posted by ytsejames
FYI Ken Johnston was just fired by NASA on October 23 for his story being published in Dark Mission. A little odd, since Johnston began telling his story years ago. It even appears in Hoagland's last book, Monuments of Mars. Why not fire him when he first made his accusations?

For this post I am not taking a position on the efficacy of his statements, but having worked in civil service/government positions for a very long time, I'd like to address the issue of firing an employee.

It can be difficult. It is strewn with rules that are hazardous, and in the end, it is usually a folly. The civil service system does not always produce the best managers or the best HR systems, so attempts at firing someone can often result in a fiasco. Employees are not without protection, but it can be extremely peculiar at times. I've had a stint in HR, having written a couple of staff manuals myself, and I've also made my share of mistakes that would leave a professional shaking his or her head in amazement.

The bottom line appears to be that they have to "get you" breaking a written rule you had to have known about. Preferrably, you should have signed a statement saying you read the foregoing and agree that if you violate any of the provisions set forth herein you will be terminated. I was involved as a manager trying to SAVE one of my employees because she violated a very minor 'rule' that had been 'officially published' in a staff newsletter, buried in the midst of a long-winded several-page document that no one ever read. The HR Director was dead set on firing her. I resisted saying it was ridiculous to hold her to a single sentence that had been printed in an obscure place a year prior. But the HR Director was a 'piece of work' and considered his honor was at stake. The ONLY thing that saved her, frankly and unfortunately, was that she was African American, so they were afraid she would bring suit as a protected class. I wrote her defense for her, which the administration accused me of and which I denied. I'm sorry I used the 'race card.' It was all I had to save her, a good employee, from a totally unfair termination that was slipping out of my control. the whole thing pitted me against a narcissistic personnel manager that should never have been hired in the first place. The entire affair hurt me as a senior manager. Things were never quite the same after that. (I quit as soon as I could. My boss got fired for screwing up my replacement. Revenge is best tasted cold.)

Now, I've seen cases where they DID manage to GET someone. A police chief was fired because the city could prove beyond a doubt that he made three two-minute phone calls on the statewide "SCAN" telephone system provided for city and state business for something private. (A call to his wife? A dentist appointment?) It didn't matter. He 'violated a rule' and that was a firing 'for cause.' They didn't like him. They just waited for an excuse. Then they pounced. They couldn't get him on the substance of their complaints, so they got him on some minor details.

This is what I suspect happened in this case. Johnston had been a thorn in NASA's side for years. He obviously was disloyal to NASA in their eyes. Somehow he managed to skirt the letter of the employment law to stay employed. I would just bet that they quietly 'changed a rule' when he wasn't paying attention, something that was once 'OK' but suddenly was a violation of policy, and when he 'screwed up,' they pounced. It was a trap set years prior.

It's the same thing here at ATS. There are Terms & Conditions. If you 'violate' them you can be banned. There was a change recently where it is now a violation to make public a U2U sent to you privately. You may not have seen it because the only place it was 'published' was in the admin forum (Q&A I think). Of course, it IS in T&C now, but if you haven't read it lately, you wouldn't know. So you could very easily find yourself in a situation because you didn't know. Now, if anyone were banned and had the wherewithall to take this to court, there is a pretty good chance that ATS would lose. Case law is well-established on the ownership of received letters: They are owned by the recipient. But ATS would use the argument that this is a private organization, therefore they can make up any rules they want. Of course, you would have to expensively litigate the point with the chance of losing, and that's how lots of people and organizations get away with a lot of abuse. FOR THE RECORD: I have no problem with this ATS rule and happen to agree with it.

But, I just wanted to set forth some of the issues. I'm just speculating. I have no inside information. But this situation is typical. I would think Johnston could appeal this decision and make a lot of publicity with it. It looks like it has already started.

[edit on 10/25/2007 by schuyler]