Scientist protest song....its a hit!

[BubberMiley]

Funded by the government. Don't say things about the boss that you wouldn't say to their face.

You really don't see the difference between "talking about the boss" and engaging in your right to free political expression as a private citizen on your own time?

[Smallc]

You really don't see the difference between "talking about the boss" and engaging in your right to free political expression as a private citizen on your own time?

When you work for an organization, you can't bad mouth it, even on your own time. I thought that people would know that by now. I do agree with your above point about freedom of political expression, but I do know where the government is coming from, as it's a common practice.

[Evening Star]

Funded by the government. Don't say things about the boss that you wouldn't say to their face.

He's a public servant, i.e. a servant of the public, not a servant of the PM or governing party. This is an essential distinction in a liberal democracy. If you want to argue that his action hampers a need for a public servant to be politically impartial, that's a reasonable point that is worth discussing. It is very dangerous, however, if people are going to start arguing that public servants need to maintain some kind of political loyalty to the government of the day because the PM is their boss.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Evening Star

[cybercoma]

Funded by the government. Don't say things about the boss that you wouldn't say to their face.

Funded doesn't mean he's their boss. Grad students and researchers in universities across the country are funded by the tri-council (NSERC, CIHR, SSHRC) and Harper isn't their boss. But like I said in the rest of my post that you ignored, that's irrelevant. What's relevant is how this looks and likely how it would play out in court. In his own personal time, this person has a constitutionally protected right to free political expression.

[cybercoma]

When you work for an organization

He didn't badmouth the organization he works for.

[Smallc]

He's a public servant, i.e. a servant of the public, not a servant of the PM or governing party. This is an essential distinction in a liberal democracy. If you want to argue that his action hampers a need for a public servant to be politically impartial, that's a reasonable point that is worth discussing. It is very dangerous, however, if people are going to start arguing that public servants need to maintain some kind of political loyalty to the government of the day because the PM is their boss.

I don't think that they need to maintain politically loyalty. They simply need to keep their opinions to themselves, as anyone working for any organization should (the matter of free political expression probably means the government was wrong, but I'm talking overall).

[Smallc]

Funded doesn't mean he's their boss. Grad students and researchers in universities across the country are funded by the tri-council (NSERC, CIHR, SSHRC) and Harper isn't their boss.

If the government funds something, they can pull funding. They usually don't even need a reason.

[Evening Star]

Basically, from Reefer's link, these seem like the relevant points:

The Act states, “an employee may engage in any political activity so long as it does not impair, or is not perceived as impairing, the employee's ability to perform his or her duties in a politically impartial manner.” Therefore, engaging in a political activity must be examined on a case by case basis and must be balanced with maintaining the principle of a politically impartial federal public service.

... they are responsible for ensuring that engaging in such activities does not impair, or is not perceived as impairing, their ability to perform their duties in a politically impartial manner. Deputy heads cannot engage in any political activities other than voting in an election.

The following groups are subject to the political activities provisions:

1. Employees working in organizations to which the PSC has the authority to make appointments. The political activities provisions of the PSEA apply to all employees, including students, whether appointed indeterminately, for a specified period or on a part-time basis, but do not apply to casual and part-time workers (working less than one-third of the normal scheduled hours of work), contractors and external consultants. However, casual and part-time workers remain subject to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and to the code of conduct of their organization; and
2. Employees of the following organizations whose enabling legislation stipulates that they are subject to the political activities provisions of the PSEA: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, the Parks Canada Agency, and the National Film Board. It includes students working in these organizations only if the organization considers that they are employees...

If this scientist does not work for one of the organizations described in 1. or 2., then it is just a matter of whether this action impairs his ability to do his job in a politically impartial manner; I'm sceptical that it does.

about 4xposts

[cybercoma]

If the government funds something, they can pull funding. They usually don't even need a reason.

And?

[Evening Star]

If the government funds something, they can pull funding. They usually don't even need a reason.

Um, yes, I do think governments need to give reasons for funding or not funding things. They are not private businesses that can just spend their own money as they see fit.

[cybercoma]

If this scientist does not work for one of the organizations described in 1. or 2., then it is just a matter of whether this action impairs his ability to do his job in a politically impartial manner; I'm sceptical that it does.

about 4xposts

How will he ever objectively talk about the migratory patterns of birds if he doesn't bow at the altar of Harper?

[cybercoma]

Um, yes, I do think governments need to give reasons for funding or not funding things. They are not private businesses that can just spend their own money as they see fit.

Smallc is also ignoring the fact that the cabinet doesn't have control of funding. Parliament does.

[BubberMiley]

He didn't identify himself in the video as a federal employee and he made the video on his own time. As a result, he is certain to keep his job. Harper, however, is looking like he's losing his.

[Smallc]

Um, yes, I do think governments need to give reasons for funding or not funding things. They are not private businesses that can just spend their own money as they see fit.

It seems to be what they do though, and quite often.

[Smallc]

How will he ever objectively talk about the migratory patterns of birds if he doesn't bow at the altar of Harper?

It's not really about that. In the private sector, if you talk bad about your boss or your organization, you're probably not going to work there long, especially if you do it in a very public way. It doesn't matter if it impairs your ability to do your job. This is really no different, save for the complication of politics. The scientist is in the wrong. In this case, so is the government.

[Evening Star]

It seems to be what they do though, and quite often.

Yes, and it has been happening quite a lot over the last few years. And citizens reserve the right to criticize, protest, file complaints, or vote for someone else. Either way, this does not mean that public servants can lose their jobs for displeasing the sitting government without getting a reason, nor that Harper is the boss of any academic who gets public funding. I'm not sure what else you are implying by saying "If the government funds something, it can pull funding. They usually don't even need a reason" in the context of this discussion?

[Evening Star]

It's not really about that. In the private sector, if you talk bad about your boss or your organization, you're probably not going to work there long, especially if you do it in a very public way. It doesn't matter if it impairs your ability to do your job. This is really no different, save for the complication of politics. The scientist is in the wrong. In this case, so is the government.

Yes, it is very different: he works for the public, not for the sitting government or governing party. His salary is paid from tax dollars, not from private profits that Harper has earned. He was not badmouthing Environment Canada; he was badmouthing the sitting PM. This is not comparable to e.g. an Apple employee who tells people to buy PCs instead.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Evening Star

[Smallc]

Yes, it is very different: he works for the public, not for the sitting government or governing party.

He works for both actually (not the governing party). I think this is a fine line and he may have crossed too far. I would say the same no matter which party happened to be in power (it's looking less likely that I will vote Conservative). I don't like the way that this government has used such a heavy handed approach on scientists, but I don't like when people badmouth the leader of their organization either. The fact that Harper is a politician is the only difference.

[Smallc]

Yes, and it has been happening quite a lot over the last few years.

I agree, and I'm not a fan of that, but, it's clear they can do it. That was my only point.

[Evening Star]

I agree, and I'm not a fan of that, but, it's clear they can do it. That was my only point.

OK, well, we agree there.

[cybercoma]

It's not really about that. In the private sector, if you talk bad about your boss or your organization, you're probably not going to work there long, especially if you do it in a very public way. It doesn't matter if it impairs your ability to do your job. This is really no different, save for the complication of politics. The scientist is in the wrong. In this case, so is the government.

He didn't talk bad about his boss or his organization. As a free citizen with constitutionally protected free political expression, ee expressed a political opinion about the leadership of the government in this country without any reference to his job or organization.

[Big Guy]

There is an expectation that when you work for a government or government agency that you do not go public with your criticisms of your employer. There are "plenty of avenues" within the organization to express your views. That does not guarantee or even promise that your concern will be addressed.

At one time I worked for a large school board in Ontario. The provincial government was my "boss". When I was young, I had some ideas which (I thought) were not being addressed through the usual chain of command and decided to write a letter to a Superintendent of the board. I was prepared to follow that up with a letter to the editor of the local and National newspapers if I was not satisfied with what the Superintendent did with my concerns. I was called to a meeting with the Superintendent and "off the record" told of the possible repercussions of my going public.

I decided to take back my letter from the Superintendent and try to work through the system. I had no doubt that my going public would guarantee no promotions within the system and possible problems with my employment. I worked within the system for the next 30 years.

[Evening Star]

There is an expectation that when you work for a government or government agency that you do not go public with your criticisms of your employer. There are "plenty of avenues" within the organization to express your views. That does not guarantee or even promise that your concern will be addressed.

At one time I worked for a large school board in Ontario. The provincial government was my "boss". When I was young, I had some ideas which (I thought) were not being addressed through the usual chain of command and decided to write a letter to a Superintendent of the board. I was prepared to follow that up with a letter to the editor of the local and National newspapers if I was not satisfied with what the Superintendent did with my concerns. I was called to a meeting with the Superintendent and "off the record" told of the possible repercussions of my going public.

I decided to take back my letter from the Superintendent and try to work through the system. I had no doubt that my going public would guarantee no promotions within the system and possible problems with my employment. I worked within the system for the next 30 years.

This seems different to me. You worked for the school board and were considering writing a public letter about the superintendent of that board (i.e. someone who was directly involved in supervising you), presumably about something related to your job? What would have happened if you had written a letter about the policies and governing style of the sitting Premier at the time? Don't tell me school board employees have never done this.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Evening Star

[BubberMiley]

There is an expectation that when you work for a government or government agency that you do not go public with your criticisms of your employer.

He wasn't criticizing his employer; he was criticizing his government---that's the difference. He was speaking as a citizen, not as an employee.

[Big Guy]

This seems different to me. You worked for the school board and were considering writing a public letter about the superintendent of that board, presumably about something related to your job? What would have happened if you had written a letter about the policies and governing style of the sitting Premier at the time? Don't tell me school board employees have never done this.

I wrote a letter to then Superintendent about something that she had the power to address - or not. I personally do not know anybody in teaching on the Secondary school level, who went public with some kind of work related concern and was eventually promoted to either assistant department head, department head, vice principal or principal. There may be a variety of different reasons for this "anomaly" or it may be a policy.