Many people, every day in the United States, are fired. I am an example of someone who has been fired before, and has not in each case sought to get the job back. I’ve also quit past jobs. This is part of life, and maturely learning to find new avenues for one self is the only option one has. As we get older, it is perhaps more difficult to adjust to changing workplace. Sometimes, when fired, some people turn hostile (arguably even rightfully) as they don’t know how to face their families… while struggling to put food on their table and bear the cost of finding a new job. “Most people” (you might say), would be able to “move on” from the past job, “dust themself off”, and not seek vengaence against the former boss. But that is not always so, even for non-violent people.
Still, many terrorism experts would agree that terror and crime increase, when people become desperate and lost, without any way to pay for anything that they need. Socially repressiove societies (such as some the United States has gone to war with) of the most extreme kind (perhaps religiously rooted), hyper-militaristic endeavors of individuals, and false notions of heroism, are certainly factors that most terrorist experts must know about when they study militant terrorism. But, for this post, I’m referring to basic crime statistics known by police forces, justice agencies, and other groups and analysts. So often the violent offender has a reason for lashing out (not necessarily a justified one).
But this post, is less about an analysis of poverty. This post examines what we think of usually, as the highest echelon of US power; the federal government and agencies it comprise. Those in it should exemplify the highest of morale.
We need to remember that every person has a right to emotional reaction to whatever they face. Yet, firing is always a reality. Many former officials, retired officials, and leaders, have shown tremendous grace and exemplified self sacrifice as they leave their workplace. So too, many are able to retain secrets of national matter, for many… many years – long after being replaced in the workplace. The best of them, even take secrets to their graves. When we think of what makes someone like Abraham Lincoln, remembered by so many… it is often his known character.
I recall hearing about certain past US presidents, who after their move in to the White House, refused to keep on certain qualified and distinguished personnel. In a sense, “heads spun”… according to a public documentary. Now, it could be with good reason, that certain personnel had to be let go – as they may have inhibited the efforts of maintaining a new course and direction; thus had to be fired. Or, perhaps the cause for termination was a basic distrust of the person’s motives and ability to contribute properly; a perception of that superior which is/was either justified or is/was not depending on who you asked. The point I am making, is that every presidential victor and his or her administration, throughout US history I would contend, has “cleaned house”. That means, he has had to fire certain persons. He may not even have considered the person part of “the swamp”, yet had to fire for very important secret reason. And each president must bring in a whole host of new employees.
This should be no different in 2017, or beyond.
Does a former government employee have a right to retaliate against his or her former superior, for being fired? Here is my understanding, to those of you who wonder this question. First, in government, there are concealed matters which must remain confidential. At the highest levels of administration… across arguably every industry (public or private), there must be preservation of state secrets from those who cannot handle the secrets. In government, personnel must gaurd what they must guard and should be commended for doing so.
So when is firing fair? In some US states, an employer does not have to give any reason at all for firing his or her employee.
An employee is also not required to stay any longer at the job than he or she wishes to, in order to perform labor with full knowledge that he or she is about to be fired. Nor, is he or she required to give any notice to the employer that he or she is quitting, whether the employer deems that action justified or not. He or she need not say. An employee (including appointee) fired “with reason” (that could be secret)… can be fired verbally and/or in writing, does not have rightful grounds to retaliate using his or her own efforts, nor to rally coleagues. Nor, does he or she have right to discredit the employer, retaliate by taking the work with him/her from the past workplace, or conspire/garner support among other disgruntled parties. Using tax payer revenue to do so, is moreso problematic.
If “defamation of character” is claimed to be at play, a disgruntled former employee might have the luxury and opportunity to state his or her case, and clear his or her name; however, such rights are limited under protection of the law. And, it is often best walked away from, when doing this is in the context of government officialdom, which does not have time to air every personal dispute or dislike. At the highest level of government, such spats must be quickly overcome, in order for the country’s official business not to be disregarded. It is in fact an issue of national security, that scandals are not made of commonplace and usual hiring and firing, which occurs when administrations are replaced after every national election (ie. United States’ Executive Branch).