I know that it is probable that many of you are excited by the possible firing of McCabe by Sessions just three days before his retirement. By doing this, Sessions could ensure that McCabe loses his retirement pension. The firing has been recommended by the Office for the Inspector General. But, that would be a terrible precedent for a couple of reasons.
I am a former federal employee. Already, the bureaucracy within the federal government has any of several ways to mess with you for any reason. McCabe’s possible treatment is actually an exception because he is a senior wrongdoer. Usually, senior wrongdoers are protected, by being transferred, etc. All of us have seen how rare it is for a senior federal worker to be fired. But, what McCabe did was so egregious that the OIG recommendation was given to fire him. But, even if a wrongdoer is not a senior wrongdoer, it is difficult to fire them. I admit that. But, let’s look at another case.
Let’s look at a federal worker who does the right thing and tries to report a wrongdoing. A worker who is doing the right thing and tries to whistleblow is often subjected to practices that encourage them to resign. Their working conditions are changed. Their job descriptions are changed. They are reassigned. There are multiple not-quite-legal-ways in which federal officials can make life difficult for a whistleblower while maintaining a supposed aura of keeping hands off. But, among the favorite tactics of federal senior managers is to place a whistleblower’s office or their work under increased scrutiny. Suddenly, all their evaluations become negative evaluations. Every possible thing that can be found to be wrong, either with their work or with their office, is documented and found to be wrong. If enough things are supposedly found wrong, the employee can be placed on a PIP, a Personal Improvement Plan, usually, this involves increased scrutiny of their work and increased supervision by an assigned person. After a while of this, either enough “evidence” is found to fire a person, or–again–the whistleblower is driven out.
Now, let’s look at the repercussions of McCabe’s firing. Please re-read the previous paragraph. Despite whistleblower protection laws, the reason that whistleblowers quit is that if senior management is able to fire them, then they lose all their pension benefits. If you are older, imagine a lifetime of work being wiped out because you were able to be fired for doing the right thing. If you are wondering how federal workers are kept in line, that is how it is done. You do what is right at the peril of losing your life’s work and being impoverished. Meantime, Congress would praise you for your honesty and tell you to be warmed and be filled while you now have no hope of retirement and may be consigned to Wal-Mart.
So, let’s circle back to McCabe now. Should he be fired? Apparently, yes! However, I would say that the law over the loss of pension should be changed. Chances are that McCabe faithfully worked for the FBI most of his career without engaging in wrongful behavior. I can see taking a couple of years off of his pension. But, taking his entire pension is a punishment that does not fit the crime. And if one were to read on https://www.maplefinancial.co.uk/mis-sold-sipp/, you’d know that there also are those risks that inherently come with pension funds. I would take him to trial since it appears that he violated a couple of laws. Let him serve the penalty of law for his violation. Take maybe a year or two from his pension, at most. But, leave the bulk of his pension alone, otherwise, you will most certainly discourage any whistleblowers from stepping forward.
One final thing. The federal bureaucracy has one final way to stop whistleblowers. When you leave for retirement, you are required to sign a statement that you are taking no federal information with you, upon pain of a felony. So, let’s say you retire and decide to now whistleblow, and present the evidence. The federal department involved will promptly charge you with felony taking of federal information. This is the reason why whistleblowing laws were passed. However, the problem is that in order to whistleblow after retirement you have to be ready to go to court to prove that you were whistleblowing and not merely engaging in a prohibited release of federal information. Are you seeing the catch-22 situation here? This is also why whistleblowers usually go public to the news media very early. The publicity is often what prevents the federal bureaucracy from taking steps against the retired whistleblower by keeping a light shining on any investigation. However, this means the whistleblower will endure maybe weeks of increased scrutiny of their lives and the unceasing harassment of internet trolls.
And, you wonder why there are few whistleblowers? Fire McCabe, but let him keep his pension, with maybe a year or two taken for penalty reasons. Take him to court and let him be tried and (maybe) found guilty there. But, do not touch the pension for the sake of the whistleblowers that we need to encourage in order to keep government bureaucracies under control.
it is not accurate to say that he will lose his pension if fired before his retirement date. if fired, he retains 100 percent of the funds in his thrift savings retirement plan, his contributions and the agency matching. he will have to role all of it to an IRA account but will not be eligible to draw on it without penalty until 59 1/2 years old. AS a LE employee, he will not draw on it now at age 50. AS an attorney that represents federal employees and mostly 1811’s, i believe that he should retire and not be fired within days of his retirement. if he has any criminal liability (i don’t know) then that is a separate matter. firing him now is purely punitive and not “promoting the efficiency of the service:
Well, the pension (FERS) and the TSP are two separate funds. You are correct that they cannot take the TSP away from him since that is his personally contributed money. For the same reason they would not take away the government part of the TSP contribution.
But, they are talking about taking away his FERS, which amounts to about 1% of the highest three years of pay for each year of service. So, if he has 20 years of service, then he will lost 20% of the average of his highest three years. So, I am correct about the pension (FERS).
The point being that a removal would certainly be a hardship but won’t prevent him from ultimately receiving his retirement, down the line
Counselor, you are playing legal word games now. He lost his pension (to be exact). He did not lose his TSP, which is an IRA equivalent. However, given his years of service, he has lost at least 20% of his pay, plus the more important health benefits he could have taken with him. He was ready to early retire, now he must return to the workforce. He will be federally a pariah, who will not be hired by the federal government.
From a comfortable post-employment life, he now has to return to work. He may very well deserve it. But, it is not a light punishment by any means, and does strongly impact his future retirement, which will now not be for many years.
But what did he REALLY do? According to everything I have read, the only thing actually being said is he wasn’t “forthcoming” about his speaking with reporters. The whole thing sounds like he is being railroaded. Apparently, this IG report isn’t even ready but the WH is pushing to release the McCabe aspect in order to hurt him personally. That does not sit well with me at all! More deflection and distraction and settling scores.