Misplaced Pages

#640359

27-575: The Act further states that "the right of employees ... to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied." 5 U.S.C.   § 7211 Under the leadership of Republican Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr. , the United States Congress passed the Act with the intention of conferring job protection rights on federal employees they had not previously had. Prior to this, there

54-465: A right to petition Congress direct. A different rule should prevail with regard to their presentation of grievances connected with their relation to the Government as employees. In that respect good discipline and the efficiency of the service requires that they present their grievances through the proper administrative channels." S.Rep. No. 955, 62d Cong.2d Sess. 21 (1912). As Sen. Bourne explained, "it

81-499: A different position, urging in its report that the relevant language, see id., at 10732 (House version) be omitted entirely: As to the last clause in section 6, it is the view of the committee that all citizens have a constitutional right as such to present their grievances to Congress or Members thereof. But governmental employees occupy a position relative to the Government different from that of ordinary citizens. Upon questions of interest to them as citizens, governmental employees have

108-580: A right to provide classified information to members of Congress without official authorization." In 1997, Congress adopted an anti-gag rule. The government-wide prohibition on the use of appropriated funds to pay the salary of any federal official who prohibits or prevents or threatens to prohibit or prevent a federal employee from contacting Congress first appeared in the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act , 1998, Pub. L.   105–61 (text) (PDF) , 111  Stat.   1318 , (1997). In 1997,

135-515: Is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Right to petition The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government , without fear of punishment or reprisals. The right can be traced back to the Bill of Rights 1689 , the Petition of Right (1628) , and Magna Carta (1215) . In Europe, Article 44 of

162-1037: Is for the purpose of wiping out the existence of this despicable 'gag rule' that this provision is inserted. The rule is unjust, unfair, and against the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which provides for the right of appeal and the right of free speech to all its citizens.") A number of the bill's proponents asserted that the gag rule violated the First Amendment rights of civil servants. See, e.g., id., at 4653 (remarks of Rep. Calder) (1912); id., at 4738 (remarks of Rep. Blackmon); id., at 5201 (remarks of Rep. Prouty); id., at 5223 (remarks of Rep. O'Shaunessy); id., at 5634 (remarks of Rep. Lloyd); id., at 5637-5638 (remarks of Rep. Wilson); id., at 10671 (remarks of Sen. Ashurst); id., at 10673 (remarks of Sen. Reed); id., at 10793 (remarks of Sen. Smith); id., at 10799 (remarks of Sen. La Follette). Footnote 22. This provision

189-764: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ensures the right to petition to the European Parliament . Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany guarantees the right of petition to "competent authorities and to the legislature". The right to petition in the United States is granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791). The prohibition of abridgment of

216-810: The Treasury Department Appropriation Act of 1972 , the Lloyd–La Follette Act of 1912, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 . In 2006, Rep. John Conyers included the Lloyd–La Follette Act in a list of 26 laws that he contends President George W. Bush violated. Title 5 of the United States Code Title 5 of the United States Code is a positive law title of the United States Code with

243-478: The "right to petition " originally referred only to the Congress and the U.S. federal courts . The incorporation doctrine later expanded the protection of the right to its current scope, over all state and federal courts and legislatures, and the executive branches of the state and federal governments. Ancient and Imperial Chinese dynasties recognised the right to petition for all subjects. Commoners could petition

270-463: The Emperor to remove local officials. The Huabiao , a ceremonial column common in traditional Chinese architecture, is believed to have originated from signboards set up by ancient rulers to offer an avenue for the public to write petitions. In modern China the use of local petitioning bureaus remains common, however, those who remain dissatisfied still travel to the capital as a last resort to appeal to

297-552: The House Report explained, this legislation was intended "to protect employees against oppression and in the right of free speech and the right to consult their representatives." FN23 In enacting the Lloyd–La Follette Act, Congress weighed the competing policy considerations and concluded that efficient management of government operations did not preclude the extension of free speech rights to government employees.FN24 Footnote 20. See 48 Cong.Rec. 4513 (1912) (remarks of Rep. Gregg) ("[I]t

SECTION 10

#1733084559641

324-476: The House, which originated § 6, suggested that it would improve the efficiency and morale of the civil service. "It will do away with the discontent and suspicion which now exists among the employees and will restore that confidence which is necessary to get the best results from the employees." 48 Cong.Rec. 4654 (1912) (remarks of Rep. Calder); see id., at 5635 (remarks of Rep. Lloyd). The Senate Committee initially took

351-507: The Senate passed a prohibition that applied only to the Postal Service, while the House of Representatives passed a government-wide prohibition. The conference report adopted the House version, and a government-wide prohibition has been included in every Treasury-Postal appropriations act since fiscal year 1998. This provision has its antecedents in several older pieces of legislation, including

378-455: The Supreme Court addressed questions about the Act. It held that the Act's standard of employment protection, which describes as explicitly as is feasible in view of the wide variety of factual situations where employees' statements might justify dismissal for "cause" the conduct that is ground for removal, is not impermissibly vague or overbroad in regulating federal employees' speech. One of

405-579: The United States, including authorization for the Office of Personnel Management and the General Salary Schedule and Executive Schedule classification systems. It also is the Title that specifies Federal holidays ( 5 U.S.C.   § 6103 ). In addition, there is an appendix to Title 5 but it is not itself considered positive law. It contains reorganization plans. On September 6, 1966, Title 5

432-401: The central government. The National Public Complaints and Proposals Administration ( Chinese : 国家信访局 ) and local bureaus of letters and calls receive suggestions and grievances. The officers then channel the issues to respective departments and monitor the progress of settlement, which they feedback to the filing parties. If unsatisfied, they can move up the hierarchy to bring complaints to

459-534: The heading " Government Organization And Employees ". Title 5 contains organizational and administrative provisions directing the federal government, including the Freedom of Information Act , Privacy Act of 1974 , the Congressional Review Act as well as authorization for government reorganizations such as Reorganization Plan No. 3 . The title also contains various federal employee and civil service laws of

486-429: The permission of their supervisors. ... These "gag orders," enforced by dismissal, were cited by several legislators as the reason for enacting the Lloyd–La Follette Act in 1912, 37  Stat.   555 , § 6.FN20 That statute ... explicitly guaranteed that the right of civil servants "to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to any committee or member thereof, shall not be denied or interfered with." FN22 As

513-485: The press of Chicago, and the publication was made of the conditions. They were simply horrible. ... The public health officers of Chicago, as soon as their attention was called to the conditions, condemned the situation as they found it; and yet this young man, one of the brightest fellows I have met, was removed from the service because, he had given publicity to these outrageous conditions. 48  Congressional Record , Vol. -1806, Page  10731 (1912). The Act

540-495: The primary purposes of the Act was to protect those who criticize superiors from official retribution. Senator La Follette gave the following example of an abuse sought to be cured by the bill: The cause for [the employee's] dismissal was that he gave publicity to the insanitary conditions existing in some part of the post-office building in Chicago where the clerks were required to perform their services. ... [H]e furnished some facts to

567-702: The right to organize and the right to present grievances to Congress, id., at 10671-10677, 10728-10733, 10792-10804, the committee offered and the Senate approved a compromise amendment to the House version, guaranteeing both rights at least in part, which was subsequently enacted into law. Id., at 10804; 37 Stat. 555. In 1997, the Justice Department argued that Congress does not have a constitutional right to obtain information from civil servants through unauthorized disclosures. Based on its analysis of disclosure laws and its stance on separation of powers, Justice argued that Congress cannot vest "in executive branch employees

SECTION 20

#1733084559641

594-451: Was accompanied by a more specific guarantee that membership in any independent association of postal employees seeking improvements in wages, hours, and working conditions, or the presentation to Congress of any grievance, "shall not constitute or be cause for reduction in rank or compensation or removal of such person or groups of persons from said service." Footnote 23. H.R.Rep. No. 388, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1912). Footnote 24. Members of

621-472: Was believed by the committee that to recognize the right of the individual employee to go over the head of his superior and go to Members of Congress on matters appertaining to his own particular grievances, or for his own selfish interest, would be detrimental to the service itself; that it would absolutely destroy the discipline necessary for good service." 48 Cong.Rec. 10676 (1912). This view did not prevail. After extended discussion in floor debate concerning

648-722: Was enacted as positive law by Pub. L. 89–554 (80  Stat.   378 ). Prior to the 1966 positive law recodification, Title 5 had the heading, "Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees." In 2022, Congress moved the Federal Advisory Committee Act , Inspector General Act of 1978 , and the Ethics in Government Act from the Title 5 Appendix to Title 5 itself. Part I Part II Part III Part IV {Wikisource|United States Code/Title 5|USC Title 5}} This United States federal legislation article

675-431: Was later placed in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and codified in 5 U.S.C.   § 7211 . The purpose of this Act was to allow Congress to obtain uncensored, essential information from federal employees. Congress intended to allow the federal workers direct access to Congress in order to register complaints about conduct by their supervisors and to report corruption or incompetence. In Arnett v. Kennedy

702-630: Was no such statutory inhibition on the authority of the government to discharge a federal employee, and an employee could be discharged with or without cause for conduct which was not protected under the First Amendment . James Tilghman Lloyd a Democratic congressman from Missouri, led the effort to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. The act was passed after the Theodore Roosevelt (in 1902) and Taft (in 1909) administrations prohibited federal employees from communicating with Congress without authorization from their superiors. This language

729-580: Was thus the first federal law enacted specifically to protect whistleblowers . The history and scope of the Act was further described by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bush v. Lucas , 462 U.S. 367, 103 S.Ct. 2404 (1983). Congressional attention to the problem of politically-motivated removals was again prompted by the issuance of Executive Orders by Presidents Roosevelt and Taft that forbade federal employees to communicate directly with Congress without

#640359