twin58
Feb 18 2004, 07:51 AM
Gay Rights Information Taken Off Site QUOTE
New GOP Head of Agency Says He Is Reviewing Material
By Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 18, 2004; Page A17
A newly arrived Republican appointee has pulled references to sexual orientation discrimination off an agency Internet site where government employees can learn about their rights in the workplace.
The Web pages at the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency whose mission is to protect whistleblowers and other federal employees from retribution, has removed references to sexual orientation from a discrimination complaint form, training slides, a brochure titled \"Your Rights as a Federal Employee\" and other documents.
Scott J. Bloch, the agency head, said he ordered the material removed because of uncertainty over whether a provision of civil service law applies to federal workers who claim unfair treatment because they are gay, bisexual or heterosexual.
....
NoLongerHere
Feb 18 2004, 08:03 AM
This is getting crazy.
How did the Post find out, I wonder?
Makes me think Andrew Sullivan was right: there are conservatives and people in the Republican party who really do just want gay people to disappear.
gamecock
Feb 18 2004, 08:30 AM
Scott Bloch, who was just appointed to head the agency last month, clearly is trying to implement his extreme anti-gay agenda in an area where he has no right to do so....providing employees with information on their rights in the workplace is protected and mandated by federal law and, in spite of all the right-wing bigots that he is pandering to, I don't see how Bloch will be able to get away with continuing to keep those references removed from the OSC website.
I'm glad to see the Washington Post publicize such a blantantly discriminatory abuse of power, though, and hopefully we will soon see more national media organizations follow suit along with one or more government employees (with the support of the HRC, ACLU and other influential organizations) who are willing to demonstate the courage to stand up against such a deplorable act.
I was initially wondering how Bloch was able to receive Senate confirmation for his present position but considering the makeup of our elected officials in DC I suppose that shouldn't come as a surprise.
twin58
Feb 18 2004, 08:33 AM
How'd they find out? Probably got a phone call or email.
RazorbackTX
Feb 18 2004, 08:38 AM
QUOTE
The B Man:
Makes me think Andrew Sullivan was right: there are conservatives and people in the Republican party who really do just want gay people to disappear.
But they wont, they'll continue to plug away, "working from within" for more wonderful success stories such as this one.
wade n atlanta
Feb 18 2004, 08:52 AM
Here's a quote from his hearing in November, 2003. It makes him sound like quite the hypocrite that he is.
QUOTE
My father was a lifelong member of a union, the Writers Guild of America, and he taught me the need for protections for those who are trying to earn a living for their families, who stand as a lone voice against a powerful industry.
There's more to where he talks about Plato standing up against his oppressors. I think we all need to e-mail him and remind him of what he recently said.
bobby78751
Feb 18 2004, 08:53 AM
And the Log Cabin Republicans salute their fellow commies for providing equality for all. Brave actions by true 'Merikahn patriots.
wade n atlanta
Feb 18 2004, 09:13 AM
more interesting reading:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
This comes from a seldom read but important piece of literature- The Declaration of Independance.
bobblehead
Feb 18 2004, 09:21 AM
"But they wont, they'll continue to plug away, "working from within" for more wonderful success stories such as this one." (RazorbackTx)You do realize that you're becoming a 'one-trick-pony' - 'working from within' - with that mantra...
and it's starting to irk independents! ME
6iron
Feb 18 2004, 09:38 AM
Lest we forget, we're all on the same team: Log Cabin Repubs, Whiney Liberal Dems, Flaky Independents and Pot-Smokin' Greenies.
This is a human rights struggle; we should work hard to transcend the petty differences between us.
bobby78751
Feb 18 2004, 09:53 AM
QUOTE
6iron:
Lest we forget, we're all on the same team: Log Cabin Repubs, Whiney Liberal Dems, Flaky Independents and Pot-Smokin' Greenies.
This is a human rights struggle; we should work hard to transcend the petty differences between us.
Yes, it does sound like you are trying to unify us with your whiny, flaky, pot-smokin' adjectives. Way to go. BTW, while you were on your roll of creating titles, you forgot to say Closet-case Log Cabin Repubs.
theodoresdaddy
Feb 18 2004, 10:13 AM
QUOTE
The B Man:
This is getting crazy.
How did the Post find out, I wonder?
Makes me think Andrew Sullivan was right: there are conservatives and people in the Republican party who really do just want gay people to disappear.
they want us to do more than just disappear
if the marriage amendment does goes through, I predict dire times for all gays and lesbians in this country. I just hope Canada will give us asylum
twin58
Feb 18 2004, 11:04 AM
The Commissar VanishesStalin used an airbrush. This administration uses html. Other than that, what's the difference?
Here's the website for the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Here's the website that deals with
Prohibited Personnel Practices. This page was last updated on January 5, 2004.
The
\"About This Site\" page says: "For any technical problems or issues regarding this web site and/or any suggestions as to how to improve the site, including recommendations for information that you feel should be included, please contact: <webadmin@osc.gov>. Please note that only computer-related, technical comments or questions should be sent to this address. For all other matters, including filing a complaint or disclosure, or for program/policy comments or questions, please contact the appropriate program office listed under the
OSC Contacts link." Well, no, they're not listed. At least, there are no email addresses provided to register a complaint about the purloined information. Only snail mail addresses are given. A trip to the library may be in order.
Please keep that in mind that the webmaster does not set policy; haranguing him won't win you any points.
Undercenter
Feb 18 2004, 01:04 PM
wade n atlanta wrote:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
This comes from a seldom read but important piece of literature- The Declaration of Independance.
Excellent. I hope this passage from one of our greatest pieces of political scripture is delivered at the Dem's convention later this year.
hockeyTom
Feb 18 2004, 01:32 PM
Interesting. We haven't heard word one here from our friends on the right side of the isle. Hmmmm...
twin58
Feb 18 2004, 02:08 PM
I'm cutting them some slack, assuming that they are just as horrified by this turn of events as anyone else here. Worse, they are dismayed at having been deceived by those in whom they had placed their trust.
Maybe we can chip in some inkjet refill kits or replacement laser toner cartridges for the letters they will be cranking out.
They have their work cut out for them.
bobby78751
Feb 18 2004, 02:14 PM
QUOTE
twin58:
I'm cutting them some slack, assuming that they are just as horrified by this turn of events as anyone else here. Worse, they are dismayed at having been deceived by those in whom they had placed their trust.
How in the world can they be horrified and dismayed when they have truly known from day one the reality of the heart of the beast they have been sleep with? I say cut them off and let them suffer.
RazorbackTX
Feb 18 2004, 02:27 PM
QUOTE
ironjohn8:
\"But they wont, they'll continue to plug away, \"working from within\" for more wonderful success stories such as this one.\" (RazorbackTx)You do realize that you're becoming a 'one-trick-pony' - 'working from within' - with that mantra...
and it's starting to irk independents! ME
Bring it on!
fenwayguy
Feb 23 2004, 05:11 PM
QUOTE
gamecock:
Scott Bloch, who was just appointed to head (the Office of Special Counsel) last month, clearly is trying to implement his extreme anti-gay agenda in an area where he has no right to do so....
"During the confirmation process, you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation. We are concerned that the recent changes to OSC publications might give federal employees the opposite impression..." -
Letter from members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to Scott Bloch
"From all appearances, you seem to have taken it upon yourself to withdraw legal protections for federal employees without any legal authority." - Letter from members of the House Judiciary Committee to Scott Bloch
So the whip is being cracked. Expect that information back online very soon (he said naively).
[ February 24, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
twin58
Mar 17 2004, 06:36 PM
Lksimcoe mentioned this in another thread.
LGBT Federal Workers Lose Job Protections QUOTE
by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: March 17, 2004 2:01 p.m. ET
(Washington, D.C.) Gay and lesbians in the entire federal workforce have had their job protections officially removed by the office of Special Counsel. The new Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, says his interpretation of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions is that gay and lesbian workers are not covered.
Bloch said that the while a gay employee would have no recourse for being fired or demoted for being gay, that same worker could not be fired for attending a gay Pride event.
....
Bloch was appointed by President Bush to a five year term beginning in January.
[ March 17, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
fenwayguy
Mar 17 2004, 07:11 PM
More background from the
Federal Times. At this point it's a matter not of policy but of Scott Bloch's opinion.
"Bloch said he is initiating a review of the issue and plans to meet with OPM and congressional staff to hear their opinions before making a final decision on how his office will handle complaints alleging sexual orientation discrimination. The review will not get completely under way until next month, when Bloch's senior legal adviser begins work, he said.
"There are two or three cases currently under review by the office in which employees argue they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, Bloch said. He would not say whether any decision in those cases would be postponed until his office's legal review is completed."
[ March 18, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
TomFord
Mar 18 2004, 09:52 AM
Why is he doing this? Was there a case that came up that made him reevaluate the policy?
edited now that i've read the federal times piece linked above:
QUOTE
Bloch said a senior OSC staff member first raised the issue shortly after Bloch took office in January by questioning a slide show presentation, used in training sessions with employees at federal agencies, that referred to OSC’s enforcement of sexual orientation discrimination. A couple of weeks later, Bloch said he decided to remove references to sexual orientation from the slide show and all other OSC materials posted online after reviewing the law and discovering that sexual orientation isn’t mentioned.
Doesn't that sound like a bit of BS? Not that it matters all that much, but I suspect this guy had an agenda, and this \"reevaluation\" wasn't based on some query from a staff member responding to a slide show presentation.
I like what Andrew Sullivan has to say on this issue:
QUOTE
The administration is also busily reneging on its promise not to roll back federal protections for gay government employees. No one can spin this attack on gay employees as a response to \"judicial activism.\" It's pure animus, directed and supported by the fundamentalist right. I have to say that I have been culpably naive about this administration on this issue. They led me to believe they weren't hostile to gay people, that they would not use anti-gay sentiment to gain votes, that they would not roll back very basic protections for gay federal employees. I was lied to. We were all lied to. But now we know.
[ March 18, 2004, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
DC_guy
Mar 18 2004, 10:12 AM
This article is so confusing. So I shouldn't worry about being fired for going to the gay group's meeting, but I should worry about being fired because I'm gay and my boss doesn't like gay people? He can actually fire me just because of that? I'm assuming that this guy says that if I'm fired because my boss doesn't like gay people, he thinks that's OK. If he didn't, I'd be a protected class. Am I reading this right?
I wonder who is going to come out and support this, besides all the usual suspects. I'm pretty upset about this today.
TomFord
Mar 18 2004, 11:55 AM
That's exactly it.
The civil service law in question bans discrimination against employees and job applicants "on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant."
Bloch says "conduct" doesn't include simply being gay. So, if you're fired for conduct (such as attending a gay pride march), you'd receive protection from the OSC--assuming your attendance didn't adversely affect your performance.
But, if you get fired for being gay--which is not conduct--you wouldn't. Even if it doesn't adversely affect your performance.
Which is why it's absurd. It's one thing to worry about the letter of the law; it's another to completely ignore the spirit--that is, the OSC's role and mission to protect federal employees.
He's right that "conduct" (going to a gay pride march) is not the same thing as sexual orientation (simply being gay). But, as his predecessor Elaine Kaplan points out, the OSC’s "mission is to protect federal employees from personnel actions unrelated to job performance."
If he's so worried about the conduct/orientation distinction, he should find a way to fix it, keeping the OSC's mission in mind, instead of leaving it hanging.
As in: fine, the rule says conduct. Now, find a way to ensure that federal employees can't get fired for their sexual orientation when it's unrelated to their job performance. After all, the OSC's mission is to protect federal employees from personnel actions unrelated to job performance.
What he's doing seems like a pointless exercise considering that Clinton issued an executive order (which Bush hasn't rescinded) saying it's unlawful to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation.
Agenda, agenda, agenda. Why are we surprised. He's a f**king ass**** with an anti-gay agenda. No other way to explain it.
[ March 18, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
twin58
Mar 22 2004, 06:33 AM
Gay GOP Group Wants Web Site Data Restored QUOTE
washingtonpost.com > Politics > Federal Page
Gay GOP Group Wants Web Site Data Restored
By Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A19
The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay organization that backed the president's election in 2000, is urging a Bush administration appointee to restore information about sexual-orientation discrimination to an Internet site where federal employees can learn about their rights in the workplace.
Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel, pulled references to sexual-orientation discrimination from the agency's Web site in January to review whether a provision in civil service law applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
....
Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said in an interview that Bloch \"is countering the promises of the Bush administration\" to uphold nondiscrimination policies for federal employees.
\"There is a lot of serious business to do today in America and at the White House, and to have Mr. Bloch to take time to delete references to sexual orientation from Web sites and handbooks is a waste of taxpayer money,\" he said.
In the letter to Bloch, Guerriero said that \"rolling back more than 30 years of protections for gay and lesbian employees is unacceptable.\"
....
gamecock
Mar 22 2004, 11:28 AM
I read that column this morning in the Post, twin58....kudos to Patrick Guerrero and the LCR for speaking out against this Bloch-head (and that's one of the kinder descriptions that comes to mind)....I only hope that all the publicity that this homophobe's action has generated (albeit not enough from the major networks and national media) will force him to finally restore the rights that ALL of these employees have wrongfully had taken away from them.
Bloch's comments in last week's column (linked in an earlier post from twin58) in which he "defends" his decision by saying a government worker "could not be fired for attending a Gay Pride event" but acknowledges that "a gay employee would have
no recourse for being fired or demoted for being gay" is absolutely ludicrous and indefensible! :mad: ....and this is a man that W appointed to a 5 YEAR TERM only two months ago.
Do we need any MORE proof that the incompetent bigot currently in the White House wants to deny ALL OF US every basic human right, if given the chance?....I suppose now we'll see more posts from "Uncle Tom's" on this board like HulaBoy, MIB, TomFord and PhillyFan defending W and chastising the rest of us for casting our vote based upon a "one issue campaign".
CPT_Doom
Mar 22 2004, 02:50 PM
If I am not mistaken, having just read "The Lavender Menace," about the anti-gay purges in the federal government in the 40s, 50s and 60s (in which employees were encouraged to report their colleagues who they thought were gay because they dressed or acted a little oddly - kind of like Chandler Bing's "gay quality" on Friends), that the US federal court system ruled sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s that the federal government could not have a blanket policy of not allowing any gay employees. This was a direct result of Frank Kameny's attack on the anti-gay provisions in the Civil Service regulations.
If you can't simply refuse to hire people because they are gay, then you can't fire them once they're hired, just because they're gay - am I missing something?
Justin Cognito
Mar 22 2004, 03:27 PM
We all know Godwin's Law, right? Well, I have a little extension of Godwin's Law: If either side of an argument compares the opposing side to the Party in Orwell's 1984, then all debate is to end and neither side is declared a winner. Be it Tammy Bruce calling liberals "The New Thought Police" or MediaWhoresOnline putting Republicans on posters reading "Slavery is Freedom" and "War is Peace", it's just embarassing.
However, in this case, I'd be willing to make an exception. Bloch would fit in perfectly at the Ministry of Truth. "There are no job protections for gays. There have never been any job protections for gays. We have always been at war with Eurasia."
twin58
Mar 22 2004, 07:01 PM
QUOTE
CPT_Doom
... having just read \"The Lavender Menace\"....
Such a coincidence. I was reminded of a book that appeared in the late 40s or early 50s, \"Washington Confidential,\" by Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer. I bought a copy secondhand years ago at a book sale. Googling for it, I pursued one hit, only to find that it led to a review of \"The Lavender Menace.\"
[url=\"http://cpsite.collegepublisher.com/palm/palm3.cfm?storyid=635723&paper_name=Bay%20Windows\"]Recalling the government's gay witch hunt
[/url]
QUOTE
By Michael Bronski
The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. By David K. Johnson. University of Chicago. $27.95.
Welcome to a United States where people who have done nothing but express their political opinion are denied free speech, branded as traitors and jailed, where a paranoid federal government is so terrified that it reflexively strikes out at anyone or anything that challenges it, where gay people and gay sex is so demonized that Congress feels the need to protect decent heterosexual Americans from them. Now stop thinking about today and go back half a century.
While many Americans - including GLBT people - are aware of the anti-communist \"red scare\" that engendered McCarthyism and the blacklist that cost people their careers in the 1950s, few also realize that at the same time federal government launched an all out attack on gay men and lesbians in many of the branches of the government.
....
Johnson documents the varied night life - in bars, clubs, and restaurants as well as street cruising in places such as Lafayette Park - that Washington offered. And none of this was kept particularly secret - books such as Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer's \"Washington Confidential\" were enormously popular homophobic exposes of the queer scene. While [Lait] and Mortimer's book wildly exaggerated the reality of the city - they called D.C. a \"garden of pansies\" and stated that \"there are at least 6,000 homosexuals on the government payroll, most of them known\" - they did capture a sense of the excitement of queer life. Ironically while they may have publicized this life for other gay people (chapters in \"Washington Confidential\" can almost be read a \"gay guide\" to the city, complete with addresses of gay bars) they also increased the vigilance of the attacks on queer culture.
....
[ March 22, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
bear321
Mar 24 2004, 08:12 AM
QUOTE
puckman1:
Interesting. We haven't heard word one here from our friends on the right side of the isle. Hmmmm...
I pity all the Republican gays and lesbians working in dubya's administration. How can they look themselves in the mirror knowing what they are doing is not helping our cause. What are they thinking?
It scares me to know there are gays and lesbians that will be helping check us in at the camps. I can almost hear the train engines in the distance. eek!
NoLongerHere
Mar 24 2004, 09:50 AM
Why was the other topic closed (re: You can be fired for being gay?) ???
I sent the link and info. from this thread, also, to a whole bunch of academics and educated folk. Interestingly, the responses that came back were, "Well, that just can't be true."
People in the know, politically aware, smart people, are oblivious - CLUELESS - about this administration's antics.
While it's refreshing and reaffirming to know that straight folks are so committed to equal protection for gays and lesbians they just assume those protections are in place, it's nonetheless alarming to learn that they don't realize the scope of the institutionalized and legally sanctioned discrimination we face.
Joe in Philly
Apr 9 2004, 02:50 PM
QUOTE
The B Man:
Why was the other topic closed (re: You can be fired for being gay?) ???
Duplicate thread? Anyhoo....
they seem to have reversed course on this.
twin58
Apr 10 2004, 03:05 PM
Link to another article on the reversal:
Groups Applaud Discrimination Ban QUOTE
Agency Restored Protection for Gays
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 10, 2004; Page A03
Gay rights groups and labor leaders yesterday hailed as long overdue a federal agency chief's decision to reinstate a ban on discrimination against federal employees on the basis of sexual orientation.
Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel, announced Thursday that his agency would continue a long-standing policy of enforcing employee claims of such discrimination under civil service law.
....
twin58
Jan 28 2005, 03:32 PM
Say, whatever happened to that guy, Scott Bloch?
STAFF “PURGE” AT OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL QUOTE
January 10, 2005
Whistleblower Staff Claiming Retaliation
Forced Moves to New “Midwest Field Office”
For Immediate Release
Contact: Danielle Brian, Project On Government Oversight, (202) 347-1122
Tom Devine, Government Accountability Project, (202) 408-0034
Chas Offutt, PEER, (202) 265-7337
Washington, DC — The U.S. Special Counsel, the principal protector of federal whistleblower and merit system rights, has abruptly ordered more than 20 percent of his headquarters legal and investigative staff to relocate or be fired. According to a letter of protest filed today by three national whistleblower watchdog groups, those targeted for forced moves are all career employees hired before Scott Bloch became Special Counsel, as part of a purge to stifle dissent and re-staff the agency with handpicked loyalists.
Bloch began the second year of his five-year term by ordering 12 headquarters employees, on penalty of removal, to accept involuntary transfers to Dallas, Oakland and a newly created Detroit field office. Bloch did not ask for volunteers or consult with affected employees beforehand. The employees have been given 10 days to agree to the transfer and 60 days to move. As many of the employees have families in the area it is not known how many will leave public service rather than move.
....
And, of course, the obligatory link to the WaPo.
Head of Worker Protection Office Is Accused of Retaliatory Transfers QUOTE
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 11, 2005; Page A13
Three government watchdog groups said yesterday that the official in charge of protecting federal workers from harassment by their bosses has undertaken a politically motivated reorganization of his agency.
Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel, told 12 career employees last week that they would be involuntarily transferred to new assignments in Dallas; Oakland, Calif.; and a soon-to-open field office in Detroit, the nonprofit groups said in a letter to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The groups -- Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Project on Government Oversight and the Government Accountability Project -- asked Congress to investigate the matter.
....
twin58
Mar 8 2005, 04:09 PM
Held over for another year....
Heat On Bloch Intensifies Over Anti-Gay Practices QUOTE
by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: March 7, 2005 7:30 pm ET
(Washington) Five Members of the House of Representatives are accusing Scott Bloch, director of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, of stonewalling in their call for a clear answer on whether LGBT federal workers are protected from discrimination.
....
Last September, with Bloch's approval, several union contracts negotiated with various branches of the government removed the list of categories that are protected replacing them with the more nebulous phrase \"any class protected by law.\" (story)
While the change meant little to African Americans or other minorities, it effectively removed LGBT workers from being protected from being fired or harassed on the job.
....
Thanks to
AMERICAblog for the link.
twin58
Jun 3 2005, 08:18 PM
Aravosis again:
Dear Scott Bloch, QUOTE
You told the Senate yesterday, Scott, that:
QUOTE
If a federal manager fires, reassigns or takes some other action against an employee simply because that employee is gay, there is nothing in federal law that would permit the Office of Special Counsel to protect the worker, Bloch testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee on oversight of government management, the federal workforce and the District of Columbia.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.