Should You Be Fired for Flipping Someone Off?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Six one seven two six six eight six eight is
the number here the text number seven zero four seven zero.
We're talking about censorship, and particularly the form of censorship
that comes when somebody not at their job did something
pretty unpleasant.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
You know.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
She flipped off National Guard guarding, you know, on the
front lines trying to stop crime in DC. Flipped them
off and insulted them. It turns out she was a
paralegal for the DOJ, and not a very smart one
at that. Because she bragged about this to the security
guards at the DOJ, they informed the Attorney General, who,
upon investigation, discovered it was true she had done that

(00:37):
and did it more than once, and she was fired.
My position is, I think that's a little bit much.
I think you tell her, don't do that anymore, and
you know that's that's not reflecting well upon your job.
But you don't fire her, do you when you first
find out. I mean, they didn't warn her. They just
fired her because it is an expression of her First

(00:59):
Amendment right. I don't agree with it. I find it loathsome,
to be honest with you, but she has the right
to do it. She'd you know, and that to me
is the issue. Do you protect the rights of people
that you don't like. Do you protect the rights of
people you don't agree with? I think you do, because
that's how you protect your own rights. But not everybody

(01:19):
agrees with me. Kenneth in Wakefield, Welcome to WRKO. How
are you, Kenneth, You're good too.

Speaker 3 (01:28):
I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Okay,
I think everybody. I think everybody should be protected from
being harassed at their place of work. That National guardsman
was at his place of work. She was using her
First Amendment rights when she went and she was saying
bad things to him and flipping him off and everything.
But she was a federal employee. Also, just like the

(01:51):
National guardsman. If I go if I'm a federal employee
and I go to another place where there are other
federal employees and ask them every day, that's harassment. That's
not my First Amendment right. She was harassing other federal
employees simply because of who they worked for, the same
company she worked for. You do not allow that in
any company. The federal government is the largest employee in

(02:14):
the United States and asked that they have the right
to protect their employees from other employees, and she should
have been fired immediately. She would have not known who
They would have not known who she was if she
was not bragging about it. Seeking what she has done
with something fantastic. If you are harassing people, that would
be like if she was a Okay, let's do it

(02:37):
so this way people in Massachusetts can understand it. Okay,
let's say she was a white man and she was
going into a federal building and she was an employee,
and she was calling people the N word, and then
she was leaving, but nobody knew who she was. Oh,
that would be terrible, And as soon as she was
caught she would be fired for harassing people. They would

(02:58):
call her a racist. Well, well what she was. What
she is is the elitist who thinks she's better than
somebody who's so dumb the only thing they can do
is be in the military. I have no doubt in
my mind that is her opinion.

Speaker 4 (03:10):
I agree with you.

Speaker 3 (03:12):
In the higher level schools, in these liberals colleges now,
where they are teaching socialism, not working knowledge, that's just
my opinion.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
Well, I don't disagree with you, Kenneth. I think she's
a bleephole of the first order, without a doubt, And
I think that's probably is exactly what her what her
attitude is. And this is why I don't like her,
don't want her to work for me, don't want to
socialize with her, and want nothing to do with her.
But doesn't she have a right to say what she
wants to say? I mean, she didn't do it in
her workplace, And I understand you're saying, you know the

(03:46):
I really like your argument that the that the National
guardsman was in his workplace and she was harassing them.
That kind of raises it, in my opinion, to almost
a criminal action. When you have a somebody in the
military who's on duty in their job and they can't
walk away, and as as a prior Texter pointed out,

(04:09):
they can't respond in any way because they would be
hauled up and reprimanded for responding. You know, that's I think.
I think that's an interesting argument as to her actions.
And maybe if you raise them to a higher level,
like the guy who threw the sandwich at the guard
that was assault, that was this actually that if it
hit him, that was assault and battery and he's being

(04:30):
brought up on those charges. Maybe that's something that that
you could look into for her too. But if it's
not the level of a criminal assault or or some
kind of criminal conduct, then doesn't she have the right
to do it?

Speaker 3 (04:47):
Has the right to do it until she became known
to be a federal employee, a co worker, a person
who's employeed.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
That's the ployt they. I mean, she she outed herself
without a doubt. She is not the brightest bulb on
the tree, but they didn't know when she did it.
Nobody know who she was. So you're retroactively applying that
nobody knew who she was when she did that. They
didn't know, so, I mean, the reason why they find
out is because she's an idiot. But at the same
point in time, you're retroactively saying, well, she was an

(05:17):
employee at the time, but they didn't know that then,
they had no idea that she was an employee of
the federal government when she did that. Doesn't that change
things for you a little bit?

Speaker 3 (05:27):
Well, because the bottom line is is she's a federal employee,
and she knew she was a federal employee. She knew
she was arrassing another federal employee. She was aware of
what she was doing. That was against civil service law.
You are not allowed to arrassed other people you work with, Okay,
outside your work space. If you're in your work space,
then it will be taken care of immediately because there's

(05:47):
somebody there to take care of it.

Speaker 2 (05:49):
She was going.

Speaker 3 (05:49):
Anonymously sneaking and doing something that she knew was wrong.
And she didn't do it just once, she did it
many times. Yeah, and for that reason, she does not
deserve to be suspended because she was a serial harasser
and she wasn't harassing. She was harassing the uniform, which
is the federal government, and she cannot harass her federal
workers fellow employees. That makes you a bad employee under

(06:13):
any circumstances, and you should be.

Speaker 1 (06:15):
Fired, Okay.

Speaker 3 (06:16):
Poble service is very hard to fire people. That's one
of the things you can fire them for.

Speaker 5 (06:21):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (06:21):
They can come to work and sit on their butt
and say this is to the best of my ability,
that's all I can do. They can't fire them, but
if they go when they harass the guy next to them,
they can let them go.

Speaker 1 (06:31):
Well, you are very adept at pushing the envelope and
finding a good excuse to get to get down what
you need to get done. Kenneth's much make you very
effective in both your personal life and in your workplace.
Thank you for the call. You gave me a lot
to think about there. I appreciate it. Let's talk to
Peter in Florida. Peter, welcome to WRKO. How are you, sir?

Speaker 6 (06:53):
Living lodge? How about yourself be.

Speaker 1 (06:55):
Too, Peter? So, did Pam Bombay do the right thing
here in firing Ms Bax?

Speaker 6 (07:01):
Yes, but for the wrong reason.

Speaker 2 (07:03):
Okay, when you show someone your.

Speaker 6 (07:05):
Middle finger, that's assault because you're saying I can still
draw one hundred and thirty pound bowstring and kill you
from two hundred paces, which is the origin of the
gesture the French and the English.

Speaker 1 (07:20):
I did not know that, Peter. That's new information for me.
I had no idea where that gesture came from. That's
pretty Hang on for a second, Peter. We're up against
her break. I want to hold you there and we
will come back to you on the other side. Six
sixty eight sixty eight is the number here. This is
Sandy Shack sitting in for Jeff Cooner, who will be
back on Monday. We're talking about censorship and its application

(07:41):
to a case in Washington, DC, where Pambondy fired a
paralegal who has really bad judgment and does not appear
to be a particularly nice person, and who might even
be an agent for the deep state. We don't know,
but they she flipped off some National guardsmen and insulted
them verbally and was fired for her troubles. And I

(08:05):
was speaking with before the break, I was speaking with
a Peter in Florida, and he said that that particular
a gesture that she used was actually a threatening gesture
and it was assault because it harkens back the days
when you would use your middle finger to bring back
a bowstring, and so it was a it was originally

(08:25):
meant to be a threat. I think it's a threat
of another sort now. But okay, you know that's one
way to look at it, is she was threatening them,
and isn't that a firing offense. Another way to look
at it is the fact that she was exercising her
freedom of speech. And you may find it revolting what
she did, but isn't it still protected speech? And should
she have been fired for it? Let's go to Lisa

(08:47):
in Maine. Lisa, welcome to WRKL. How are you, thanks?

Speaker 7 (08:53):
I'm well, how are you.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
I am fine, Thank you, Lisa, did Pam BONDI do
the right thing?

Speaker 7 (08:58):
Absolutely, this woman is not mentally together. And if this
was an unprovoked act that she performed three times in
publict against the National Guards, what does she do when
she's provoked?

Speaker 1 (09:17):
And that's a really good point. That's a very good point.

Speaker 7 (09:22):
You say that she is having her First Amendment rights
diminished by being fired, but I don't believe that's the case.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
I think had she been arrested.

Speaker 7 (09:33):
Yes, then her rights had been diminished. But she is
working for the United States government, and I am willing
to bet there's a clause in her contract when she
was hired that addresses behavior outside of the workplace. All
of these corporations, these massive corporations that hire these celebrities

(09:56):
and these athletes, they do something wrong on the outside,
they are let go because they do not properly represent
the company. And I don't think this is any different.

Speaker 1 (10:05):
Well, I agree with you. If there is an agreement
that she signed that said that she will represent the
Department of Justice in a certain manner at all times,
the absolutely, I think you're correct. We have no evidence
that there was any such agreement. In this particular case,
she is a paralegal. She is not a high level
prosecutor with a personal services contract. She is a civil servant,

(10:29):
covered probably by the government employees union, which means there
will be some kind of recourse for this. I'm sure
somebody's going to bring an action for wrongful termination or
something along those lines. But I agree with you, if
there is an agreement like that, then without a doubt,
Pambondi was in her rights. But if there's not an

(10:49):
agreement and she was exercising her freedom of speech, you
have more things to lose than just your freedom. I mean,
when you're arrested, you lose your freedom, but loss of
livelihood is also right up there in one of those
things that is protected unless you do something egregiously wrong.
And did she do something egregiously wrong or did you

(11:09):
just do something that was revolting. I think it's just revolting,
and I think it's intolerant not to give her a
warning unless, as you said, she signed an agreement. That's different.
I think you absolutely correct. If she has signed a
contract saying that she will not do something that's embarrassing
to the administration, then Pam BONDI didn't even need to

(11:31):
blink an eye, you know that it was done. But
what if she didn't, Lisa.

Speaker 7 (11:37):
Well, I still believe ninety percent of what's throwing with
our world today is there are no consequences for anything.
And yes, she had every right to do what she did,
but there aren't consequences, and social media these days, they'll
shame you for doing the least little thing ever, and
she needs to know. Yes, okay, she has the right

(11:58):
to do this, but a consequences and your job, that's
one of them.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
Yeah, so you're saying she has a right to say
what she did, she doesn't have a right.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
To the job at the DOJ exactly.

Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, Okay, that's a very reasonable response, I think, Lisa,
thank you so much for the call. I appreciate it.
I think that's very well thought out. I tend to
hold the First Amendment almost sacricynct. I think there are
very few exceptions to it, and it is one of
those things that I think has to be jealously and

(12:29):
zealously guarded, to the point where even when people do
something that revolts you that you find abhorrent, you still
have to protect them. And this is one of those
cases for me, but I understand it's not for many
other people. David and Quincy, welcome to w RKO. How
are you David.

Speaker 8 (12:48):
You're doing a good job for Jeff.

Speaker 1 (12:50):
Thank you.

Speaker 5 (12:51):
Yeah, Sandy regarding the censorship and someone. But you know
when the when the lot of Mayor Zukovski, the Ukrainian
truck driver that was the immigrant and driving illegally killed
out UH seven US marines up in Randolph, New Hampshire

(13:13):
on route to the Jarheads Motorcycle Club. Yeah, well when
when they were when the lot of Mayor of Zukoski
was vindicated of all charges, he was exenerated, He wasn't.

Speaker 8 (13:26):
Found guilty of anything. Well, I was calling in and
and you were screening the calls, and Uh, I wanted
to tell Kuna Country why the lot of man Zukoski
was found not guilty uh of all charges, not guilty
of a thing, and how the fix was put in

(13:46):
uh by the Biden the Biden State Department.

Speaker 9 (13:50):
Okay UH ordered the the Biden Justice Department and ordered
the legal authorities in New Hampshire that a lot of
Mayors Hukofsky was in no wise to be found guilty
of anything.

Speaker 10 (14:04):
The fix was put in, and the reason the fix
was put in was that was when they were putting
the first big aid package together for Vladimir Zelinsky.

Speaker 1 (14:17):
Okay, David, I appreciate that, but you're getting kind of
far afield here for me. So you're saying that we
censored you when you called in that is that what
you're saying, you censored me? Yeah, Well, there are multiple reasons.
I admit that I have censored people. I did it
in the beginning of the show. There's multiple reasons why
you could be censored. One you may not have been
directly on topic, and that is you have the right

(14:39):
to say whatever you want to say, but you don't.
Just like what our last clo is saying that Ms
Baxter had a right to say what she says, she
didn't have a right to the job at the DOJ.
You have a right to say what you say, but
you don't have a right necessarssarily to say it on
the show and we're talking about something else. That's you know,
it's a radio program, and so you can say what

(15:00):
you want about the topic, but you have to stay
on topic because that's how the radio program works. And
that's not the government censoring. That's trying. That's us trying
to keep you on topic, just like right now, I said,
you're talking about all this underlying stuff. Okay, I get it.
You have a right to say that, but we're talking
about something else. You don't have You don't have a

(15:21):
carte blanche to hijack the program in regard to topics,
but you certainly have the right to say what you
want to say. It's just you know, you've got to
be on topics. That's the difference. So, yes, that is
censorship of a sort, absolutely, positively, without a doubt, and
we do that sometimes, which is one of the things
that I opened the show with that. Yes, as a
matter of fact, censorship does occur for various reasons, one

(15:44):
of which is you can't say the seven deadly words
on the air. According to the Supreme Court, you can't
slander somebody. So you've got to have proof if you're
going to make a criminal accusation, and we are going
to keep you on topic because that's how the program programs.
It doesn't mean you can't say it. It just means
you can't say at this moment in time, where we are,

(16:05):
and that's you know that's what we do. So without
a doubt, I have censored people, but I didn't take
away your job. I didn't arrest you. I didn't do
any of these things that we're talking about on a
higher level in regard to censorship. Let's go to Rob
in Maine. Rob, Welcome to w RKO. How are you?

Speaker 3 (16:24):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (16:25):
Hi, Sandy, And I think I'm on topic because you
mentioned earlier that you asked a question if any people.

Speaker 1 (16:32):
Have I've been censored?

Speaker 2 (16:34):
Yeah, and I'm the censored boy. But before I say that,
just one or two funny stories about that. But anyway, yeah,
I agree with you one hundred percent, and I don't
want to go all the reasons. You know, you're a
wonderful listener and writing crowd have touched all of the
well not all, but most of the right reasons, as

(16:55):
have you. Why you're correct, this is a late who's
not in a high functioning job. So and you know,
Pam Bundy, if she knew about that yet, that might
change things a little bit about her agreement and all
the rest of it. But you know, apart from hitting
all the right points, they've helped me very much because
I'm actually doing a study of the derangement syndrome with

(17:19):
my clinical background and my research background in public health.
But anyway, you know what they've also done. They've added
to my list of things that helped to define and
understand why people get Trump derangement syndrome. You know, the
lady that said, this lady can walk up to armed
National Troop soldiers some maybe on, maybe not on, but

(17:44):
certainly in uniform. Think of what she could do to
people just that armed soldiers. You know, that was a
great point. And I think that and many other things
your great listeners have brought up will help us understand
and maybe even help people with Trump arrangement syndrome. So
that's my two cents. But I thought I raised that
with you. Thanks for all you guys do, and you're

(18:07):
doing a great job.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
Oh thank you, Rob. I appreciate that. Yeah, there's no
doubt that this woman is it has has TDS. There's
no doubt in my mind. I mean, who in their
right mind goes up to a uniformed officer and flips
in the bird and yells at them. We're not talking
about like he cut her off in traffic. He's at
his job. He's at his job. Assisting police in DC

(18:28):
and she finds it necessary to do I mean, who
does that unless they have a screw loose? But I
think without a doubt she does and she needs most
likely you know, some therapy, some help along a way here.
Her life is to be pretty dark if she thinks
that that's appropriate behavior. But I don't think he necessarily
lose your job over that unless that translates to something

(18:50):
else at work? Is she doing that at work? Is
when she's in the workplace? Is she abusive to other people?
She is she leaking information to the price? These are
all things that would in my opinion, make her a
danger in the workplace and something and then okay, I
can see why you would fire her in this case.
She did something not in her workplace, nothing to do

(19:11):
with her job, and nobody has made any accusations that
she has done anything in the workplace that would give
you a window into this TDS situation. This is Sandy
shack In for Jeff Coooner here on the Kooner Report.
The text number seven zero four seven zero two oh
seven says giving a national guard the finger in this
case is protecting political speech. No firing, that's kind of

(19:35):
how I that's not kind of That is how I
feel about it. I feel the same way. It is,
in fact a protected speech. I don't think she should
have lost her job over it. I think people have
made very good arguments as to why it's okay to
fire her, and obviously Pam BONDI feels the same the
Attorney general or she would not have fired Elizabeth Baxter,
the paralegal in the Environment Office of the DOJ, who,

(20:00):
you admit it, bragged about flipping the bird to National
Guard and insulting them a couple times more than once.
I think the three. And there's the only reason why
we know she did is because she bragged to security
guards at the DOJ that she did it. That's stupid
to be, not put too fine a point on it,
But you know she's not being fired for being stupid.

(20:21):
She's fired for for what is really protected political speech.
I don't like it. I don't support it. I think
she's a piece of work. But it's protected rights. And
if I protect her rights, and I can protect your
rights too, and my rights as well. And that's what
it all comes down to for me. Let's go to

(20:41):
Nancy and Norwood. Nancy welcome to WRKO. How are you.

Speaker 2 (20:48):
So?

Speaker 4 (20:48):
I was a federal employee and I did literally employee
relations for thirty two years. So first let me say,
I'm blown away that they would fire somebody for this,
only because it's next to impossible to get rid of
a federal employee generally, So believe that on the table.
I mean, I've entertained people with stories of things that

(21:12):
people have done that I've tried to get rid of
and couldn't do it. I actually am what stage in
my career. I wrote a letter to a quality assurance
specialist on an aircraft and told them, by the way,
even though we didn't specifically tell you, you can't come to
work drunk, you can't that I'm paraphrasing now, but literally
I wrote a letter that said that she was in

(21:34):
a union, and you had mentioned, oh, maybe she was
in a union, And so generally she's probably not going
to be in the union because DOJ has very few
unionized physicians, so that would be the first thing. I'm
sure she's not, so she has a little less obviously,
generally speaking, they're very afraid to go against the union.

(21:54):
And then I've heard people say, oh, maybe she was
a lower level as a paralegal specialist in DC, she's
easily she's making over one hundred thousand, so she's not
like a really lower level, you know, at that stage.
So the DOJ priorities. They have two things mainly that
they do. They prosecute federal crimes and then they defend

(22:16):
federal employees who are being sued by another entity. Generally
that would be like a VA doctor gets sued for
the level of care that they gave, so then the
DOJ is responsible for defending that person. And I'm thinking
that that's how they're coming at this. So when you
start as a federal employee, you sign and I don't

(22:38):
work there anymore, so I don't remember what the words
I want to say. It's like the Federal Employee Rules
of Conducts and one of those things it says that
you can be disciplined for off duty conduct. And one
thing that they have to do they have to establish
a connection or nexus between what your job responsibilities are
and what you did. And I'm thinking that that's and

(23:00):
then I think the other word is you have to
promote the efficiency of the service. And I'm thinking that
that's the claim that they're making that in order to
show that she would be impossible and working on cases.
Because so if you picked her a paralegal specialist, she's
getting in like if somebody gets sued, She's getting all
of the documentation and she has to go through that

(23:22):
and decide, you know, how to parse it so that
the attorneys can work on it. If she has this
pred election to not be on the side of a
federal employee, then there could be things that she could
throw in the in the defensive favor. And I'm thinking
that that's where they're going out with it.

Speaker 1 (23:42):
Okay, that makes sense to me. That would make a
great because I have to think that Pam BONDI wouldn't
just be firing somebody for the hell of it, do
you know what I mean? I think she would have
she's she's a very smart woman, and she's she was
an amazing age for Florida. So she has to know
where she's standing before she does something. And I keep

(24:03):
thinking there's something we don't know the fact that I
love what you were talking about in regard to the
nexus between her job and the behavior, and I think
that makes a great deal of sense that they're trying
to tie it the way you suggested they're trying to
tie it together. That would mean to me that they
you know that this is that she gave it a
lot more thought than I don't like you. You're out,

(24:24):
or you could be a member of the deep state.
You're out. Both of those to me are not solid arguments.
But she had in the letter there, Nancy, it says
that she can appeal within thirty within thirty days. In
your experience working for the government for so long, how
many of those appeals are successful?

Speaker 4 (24:46):
Sadly a lot of them are. I had somebody that
did multiple things over the course of you know, eighteen months,
just really bad, like she needed to be gone.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
Everybody agreed with it.

Speaker 4 (25:00):
Fortunately, a lot of them goes to MSPB Merit State
Protection Board. It's not state. I'm forgetting the letters just
because on the radio, but the MSPB generally tends to
go overwhelmingly. They usually side with the employees, so unfortunately
a lot of them are successful. But you're exactly right,

(25:22):
and Bondie's an attorney, and the attorneys don't like to
take on cases that they can't win, So I have
to think the other thing is to I'm guessing that
so you never go You never go from you know,
employee to fired. You go from employee to reprimand to suspension.
So I have to think that maybe she did something

(25:43):
somewhere else.

Speaker 1 (25:45):
So there's something already in the file that we don't
know about that maybe there is a reprimand in her file,
or maybe she was suspended and we don't know about it,
because although I think we would know about it if
it's a suspension. So I'm thinking maybe it was a
reprimand that was already in her file. And so what
are you saying that it's like more than one strike
and you're out, So you have to have more than

(26:05):
just one thing for them just to out and out
fire you like this generally?

Speaker 4 (26:10):
Thanks speaking, Yes, I would say that now then you
get into So if it's a reprimand, it might stay
in the file for you know, then that's usual. It
might be for thirty days, sixty.

Speaker 1 (26:22):
Yeah, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry we had to cut
you off because we're up against the heartbreakout. But that's fascinating.
Thank you so much for calling in, Nancy. I really
appreciate it.