FAM Fired for Revealing Info Deemed “Sensitive” After He Revealed It
Aug 6, 2011, 11:38 am
#91
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,642
Only in your mind, pal.
MacLean violated government policy when he went to the news media. He signed a form and swore an oath to not disclose information without the proper authorization, and he broke his end of the deal. There's a price to pay for that, and he's paying it.
Were there other avenues MacLean could have used to blow the whistle and still keep his job? Yes. The issue is not the substance of what he disclosed but the manner he chose to disclose it. He had the ability to still bring that information to the attention of the proper authorities and receive whistle-blower protection. All of that goes out the window when a person goes to an unauthorized agent.
I support his actions. I think he did what he had to do, and I wish him the best of luck.
MacLean violated government policy when he went to the news media. He signed a form and swore an oath to not disclose information without the proper authorization, and he broke his end of the deal. There's a price to pay for that, and he's paying it.
Were there other avenues MacLean could have used to blow the whistle and still keep his job? Yes. The issue is not the substance of what he disclosed but the manner he chose to disclose it. He had the ability to still bring that information to the attention of the proper authorities and receive whistle-blower protection. All of that goes out the window when a person goes to an unauthorized agent.
I support his actions. I think he did what he had to do, and I wish him the best of luck.
I feel for the guy. I think his motives were good. I don't understand why he didn't follow proper channels - he had to have known the risks he was taking by going the route he did.
I'm assuming (dangerous) that you support his commitment and his sincere attempt to call attention to a problem, not the 'illegal' actions he took. I don't understand 'did what he had to do'.
Do you think if he had followed proper channels that the outcome would have been the same (not his personal outcome, I mean keeping FAMs on longhauls)?
Aug 6, 2011, 11:56 am
#92
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,524
Were there other avenues MacLean could have used to blow the whistle and still keep his job? Yes. The issue is not the substance of what he disclosed but the manner he chose to disclose it. He had the ability to still bring that information to the attention of the proper authorities and receive whistle-blower protection. All of that goes out the window when a person goes to an unauthorized agent.
Aug 6, 2011, 12:03 pm
#93
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
I agree with you completely, up until the two last lines. I don't disagree with them, I'm just not clear on what you're saying.
I feel for the guy. I think his motives were good. I don't understand why he didn't follow proper channels - he had to have known the risks he was taking by going the route he did.
I'm assuming (dangerous) that you support his commitment and his sincere attempt to call attention to a problem, not the 'illegal' actions he took. I don't understand 'did what he had to do'.
Do you think if he had followed proper channels that the outcome would have been the same (not his personal outcome, I mean keeping FAMs on longhauls)?
I feel for the guy. I think his motives were good. I don't understand why he didn't follow proper channels - he had to have known the risks he was taking by going the route he did.
I'm assuming (dangerous) that you support his commitment and his sincere attempt to call attention to a problem, not the 'illegal' actions he took. I don't understand 'did what he had to do'.
Do you think if he had followed proper channels that the outcome would have been the same (not his personal outcome, I mean keeping FAMs on longhauls)?
I personally would not go to the news media.
However, I support MacLean's motivation to call attention to the issue. He knew the consequences and went ahead with his actions. I hope it was worth it, and I somehow feel that it was, for him. I'd take a different route.
I would have a different view if he was to cry and bellyache "poor me, poor, poor, pitiful me." Instead, he's facing it head on. I respect that.
Aug 6, 2011, 12:52 pm
#95
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
Only in your mind, pal.
MacLean violated government policy when he went to the news media. He signed a form and swore an oath to not disclose information without the proper authorization, and he broke his end of the deal. There's a price to pay for that, and he's paying it.
Were there other avenues MacLean could have used to blow the whistle and still keep his job? Yes. The issue is not the substance of what he disclosed but the manner he chose to disclose it. He had the ability to still bring that information to the attention of the proper authorities and receive whistle-blower protection. All of that goes out the window when a person goes to an unauthorized agent.
I support his actions. I think he did what he had to do, and I wish him the best of luck.
MacLean violated government policy when he went to the news media. He signed a form and swore an oath to not disclose information without the proper authorization, and he broke his end of the deal. There's a price to pay for that, and he's paying it.
Were there other avenues MacLean could have used to blow the whistle and still keep his job? Yes. The issue is not the substance of what he disclosed but the manner he chose to disclose it. He had the ability to still bring that information to the attention of the proper authorities and receive whistle-blower protection. All of that goes out the window when a person goes to an unauthorized agent.
I support his actions. I think he did what he had to do, and I wish him the best of luck.
The board notes that MacLean raised his concerns with his supervisor and with the agency's inspector general's office and was not satisfied with the response he received. But MacLean did not take his complaint to an authorized committee of Congress, nor to the Office of Special Counsel, and thereby was not entitled to whistle-blower protection, the board ruled.
So he went to his supervisor, and the IG, and was shot down. Did he know he was supposed to go to Congress? Could he really have, and expected protection, when TSA/DHS has defied Congress and refused to release information to Congress, as SSI? Is there a hierarchy of reporting laid out in your employee manual, or posted on your official work bulletin board?
I as well as several Congressman think he was in the right.
And when are you going to figure out I'm not your pal?
Aug 6, 2011, 1:49 pm
#96
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,642
.....
Last edited by chollie; Aug 6, 2011 at 1:50 pm Reason: never mind
Aug 6, 2011, 2:00 pm
#97
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,311
Why? He had it right to bring it back his old job again. He didn't do it anything wrong. He absolutely no reason why he termination from his job. He will find something else. He won't be accept work for air Marshals for the life. He could be violated from TSA and he doesn't have a choice. That mean TSA will have a final decision.
Aug 6, 2011, 2:24 pm
#98
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
From the CNN account:
So he went to his supervisor, and the IG, and was shot down. Did he know he was supposed to go to Congress? Could he really have, and expected protection, when TSA/DHS has defied Congress and refused to release information to Congress, as SSI? Is there a hierarchy of reporting laid out in your employee manual, or posted on your official work bulletin board?
I as well as several Congressman think he was in the right.
From CNN article:
The board notes that MacLean raised his concerns with his supervisor and with the agency's inspector general's office and was not satisfied with the response he received. But MacLean did not take his complaint to an authorized committee of Congress, nor to the Office of Special Counsel, and thereby was not entitled to whistle-blower protection, the board ruled.
The board notes that MacLean raised his concerns with his supervisor and with the agency's inspector general's office and was not satisfied with the response he received. But MacLean did not take his complaint to an authorized committee of Congress, nor to the Office of Special Counsel, and thereby was not entitled to whistle-blower protection, the board ruled.
I as well as several Congressman think he was in the right.
From the New York Times:
"This is a shocking statement that acknowledges that [President Barack Obama] would be willing to give an order preventing employee whistle-blowers from making disclosures to Congress," [U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (IA)] wrote. "I do not see how this statement can be reconciled with your campaign promise to protect whistle-blowers. In fact, it is even more egregious than simply breaking a promise, because it actually restricts current and previously existing whistle-blower protections."
"This is a shocking statement that acknowledges that [President Barack Obama] would be willing to give an order preventing employee whistle-blowers from making disclosures to Congress," [U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (IA)] wrote. "I do not see how this statement can be reconciled with your campaign promise to protect whistle-blowers. In fact, it is even more egregious than simply breaking a promise, because it actually restricts current and previously existing whistle-blower protections."
Aug 6, 2011, 4:25 pm
#99
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,524
Well, you said "He had the ability to still bring that information to the attention of the proper authorities and receive whistle-blower protection." If you're going to suggest that was a real option, you must believe federal employees have real protection.
Aug 6, 2011, 4:35 pm
#100
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
I don't know what I would do in a situation like that. I know what policy is, and I clearly understand the consequences of violating policy.
I guess I'll decide when the moment occurs, if it occurs. The one thing I do know is that he faced a REAL situation that required a REAL decision. In that regard, I respect him.
Aug 7, 2011, 11:29 am
#101
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
Interesting comment posted under the CNN article:
Begs the question: Could we trust the gate agents, flight attendants, pilots, TSA screeners, and air marshals' significant others to keep this operation under wraps for two whole months??? Did MacLean prevent the inevitable?
If you read the Wikipedia (tag: "Robert_MacLean") entry on this, MacLean made his disclosure almost A WEEK BEFORE the plan would go into effect -- it never did because of his actions. The plan would have air marshals missing for TWO MONTHS from long flights. Given the dress code and boarding procedures in effect at the time, wouldn't we expect an airline employee to notice air marshals missing and leak the fact -- already in operation -- to the media, and then the danger would be imminent? Imagine the cluster of rescheduling air marshals back onto major flights and bumping passengers out of their seats.
Aug 7, 2011, 3:03 pm
#102
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 150
IDK, I've known 2 or 3 who tried congressmen... none of whom cared what a TSO had to say.... All I know about that is the issues were never resolved, and they found proving retaliation to be harder than proving what they reported on. Not sure what they're doing now.
Aug 8, 2011, 12:06 am
#103
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 342
Fact of the matter is, is that the TSA is here to protect us, against people who wish to do the US Population harm. Sometimes, those bad apples surface such as in this case. Its a good thing DHS expelled this person. Last thing we need is some wack job thinking he knows whats best four our country.
Aug 8, 2011, 9:07 pm
#104
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HNL
Programs: UA/Hawaiian/Marriott
Posts: 840
Couldn't have had happened to a better person.
Bob is a true nut case. He's been booted from several LEO/Military Special Operations for going crazy with his ranting posts......and has checked my linkedin page several times as he continues to stalk me for some unknown reason......
Bob is a true nut case. He's been booted from several LEO/Military Special Operations for going crazy with his ranting posts......and has checked my linkedin page several times as he continues to stalk me for some unknown reason......
Aug 8, 2011, 11:32 pm
#105
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: twitter:TSAABUSEWATCH
Posts: 100
Take a look at the most vile, abusive regimes in history and they make the same exact claims as an excuse against their abuses of innocent people. Furthermore, they employ the same type of people. People who follow orders at all cost despite the harm they are doing. Either because they enjoy the harm, or they assuage their weak minds by falling back on "orders" and "standard procedures".
TSA may be here to protect us, but they are doing far more harm and have in fact, become an effect tool of the terrorist.