Dept. Of Public Works Finds Watching 20 Hours A Week Of Full-Screen Porn On Work Computers To Be A Bit Too Much

from the 'I-find-working-in-public-service-to-be-[self]-gratifying' dept

I'll never understand the mentality of an employee -- government or otherwise -- who watches porn while on the clock and on company computers. I get that the mind wanders when not otherwise occupied, but rather than surf the web for innocuous time-killers, certain people decide to just head off the deep end and view something that's forbidden in every work environment not actively engaged in the production or distribution of porn.

While I may have skirted policies meant to keep time-wasting to a minimum (some days were filled with only wasted time), I have never opted to go the porn route. I have nothing against porn or those who watch it. I would just rather not give my employers (a) the equivalent of the middle finger re: computer use policies and (b) any insight into my personal sexual preferences. (LET YOUR IMAGINATIONS RUN WILD.) Both of these seem like BAD THINGS to do.

(Also, there's that whole thing about it that insinuates some sort of self-pleasure is involved, and in a work environment, that's just… amazingly gross. Even the employees at the porn shop don't relish cleaning up the spank rooms. Imagine being told after a few weeks at work that your predecessor [and previous cubicle occupant] was fired for watching tons of porn during work hours. You'd want to shower in decontaminant and return in a hazmat suit.)

And yet, we have written multiple stories about employees (most of them in the public sector) who not only watch porn at work, but do so with unimaginable gusto for hours at a time. Here's yet another, involving a Baltimore Department of Public Works employee:

Inspector General Rob Pearre Jr. released a report last week revealing the employee, a maintenance supervisor at the facilities division of the Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant, was suspended in September 2014 and fired Jan. 20 at the conclusion of an investigation.

The report said officials received an anonymous complaint about the worker in August of last year and monitoring software installed on the man's work computer found he spent 39 of the 82 hours he spent working in a two-week period watching a pornographic DVD on the computer.
Nothing handles the ridiculousness of a porn-related firing more aptly than an official report so dry it could apply for disaster relief funds.

"HOW MUCH PORN DID HE WATCH?" the studio audience in my mind demands. Here's a per-shift breakdown, listed in this report as "Table 1."


It appears the employee's workload tended to diminish over the course of week, with Mondays and Tuesdays (with one exception -- a seven-of-eight work hours marathon) being relatively light and the ration of porn-to-work increasing as the week wore on. Fridays were half-days and, accordingly, roughly half of that time was given over to porn-watching.

Now, the employee obviously felt accessing porn via the internet might result in a swift dismissal. His workaround -- bringing a DVD from home -- allowed him to bypass web filters. However, the length of time it was watched, combined with how it was watched, gives the impression that no one really checked on this employee's productivity, much less ever stopped by his desk.
The City-owned computer operated by the MSI was connected to a single monitor. OIG personnel noted that when pornographic material was visible, the video was maximized to cover the entire screen.
Full-screen porn during work hours is a strong indicator that the employee was neither valued nor popular. Viewing porn in full screen can only be done by those confident their porn sessions will not be interrupted.

The Inspector's report then goes on to state the (inadvertently hilarious) obvious.
OIG personnel noted that minimal computer activity was performed while pornographic material was visible. Based on these findings, the OIG believes that little to no work was being performed during the time that pornographic material was visible on the screen of the MSI’s City-owned computer.
Doh! If only this employee would have reduced it to the upper-corner of the monitor and run a few work-related applications in the background. He might have been able to hold onto this job until retirement -- at which point his porn-watching could have resumed uninterrupted, barring the occasional trip to the bank to deposit his pension check. (Or not, what with direct deposit…) But he didn't. Instead, he did this.
OIG personnel noted that the MSI would occasionally maximize his email inbox in the Microsoft Outlook program and then minimize it moments later leaving only the pornographic material visible on the screen.
Fortunately for Baltimore taxpayers, there's no pension in the future nor the continued annual funding of Dept. of Public Works porn-watching. $30,000/year for twiddling your thumbs self is damn good money, but there aren't many entities willing to fork that out. (Barring, of course, those involved in the production/distribution of porn…)
At an hourly rate of $29.90, the MSI was paid $1,166 for 39 hours for which no work was performed. By annualizing the data gathered during the two-week monitoring based on a 2000 hour work-year, pornographic material would be visible on the screen of the MSI’s City-owned computer for 951 hours which would cost the City approximately $28,400.
Also noted in the report: the employee appealed his pending termination briefly before being persuaded to take a 10-day payout in exchange for dropping the appeal he had very little chance of winning.

The report wraps up with the DPW and OIG giving each other big, warm hugs for being so competent/cooperative (respectively). And for the moment, all is slightly more right in Baltimore's Dept. of Public Works.

Filed Under: department of public works, government, government employees, porn


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 20 May 2015 @ 3:41am

    Now it seems said ex-employee is now in a sticky situation. I assume, as it is done here, that these things are published to the public since it regards Government activities. So unless Brazzers are hiring he is going to have a hard time to find a new job since he blew the last one so spectacularly.

    Any puns that may arise from any statement here and in the following comments will probably be totally intended.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 20 May 2015 @ 4:24am

    Chances are

    that his successor will be similarly inactive in a more decent manner and will consequently retain his source of income. This employee was idling in a rather imprudent manner, sure. But the main problem I see here is not the manner in which he was idling but rather that he was looking for a way to escape boredom in the first place.

    How many decent loafers does the department entertain?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 4:54am

      Exactly

      The real scandal is not that he was watching porn but that he was wasting taxpayer's money. The porn-watching is just the cherry on top of the moneywasting-cake.

      So, why are most People (the oig as well as Tim) focusing on the porn-aspect?

      Because sex sells...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 9:41am

        Re: Exactly

        The problem is that "wasting money" doesn't really say anything. It is like politicians selling:
        "we want more jobs"
        "we want economic responsibility"
        "we want to fight crime"

        Who the *beep* doesn't? The problem needs to be defined more narrowly to make sense and thus in a way that stimulates solutions. In this case the porn on its own is a selling point, but "wasting taxpayer money" is as bad or worse since it is too common.
        The 20 hours each week and how it was discovered are the relevant information if you want the issue solved.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 20 May 2015 @ 4:26am

    So much porn.....

    How can someone watch porn for over an hour? I get bored by it after about 10-15 seconds. After that I'd put on predator, alien, maybe the thing?

    But no this guy keeps going, hour after hour.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      pegr, 20 May 2015 @ 8:20am

      Re: So much porn.....

      I would find such activity to be rather draining...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 8:44am

      Re: So much porn.....

      Maybe he's watching it for the story?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 20 May 2015 @ 9:06am

      Re: So much porn.....

      10-15 seconds? Sorry man. I think there is a pill available for that.

      I'm wondering when this guy is going to file his medical claim for his "porn addiction". It has clearly had an impact on his work. He should be on disability now.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2015 @ 10:43am

        Re: Re: So much porn.....

        The only good porn is porn that is hard not to be over with in 30 seconds-1 minute max. It's just a way to get rid of sudden annoying urges.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 May 2015 @ 4:37am

    So when is he applying for a Federal position?
    He has the pron watching chops to rise to supervisor in no time.

    Huh... perhaps all of this porn watching is to help them get into the mindset of screwing the public over...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 20 May 2015 @ 7:56am

      Re:

      Watching naked people is not the job of a supervisor except maybe on casual Friday.

      He is more cut out for a rank-and-file job at the NSA where watching secret camera porn is part of the job.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 20 May 2015 @ 4:49am

    Wow, I was going to comment from the table that when it was "on screen", that might have indicated that he was doing other things with it on in the background, but that was covered later in the article. Not even subtle.

    But, I'm almost tempted to say that the real problem here was extreme boredom, since he apparently had nothing more to do than intermittently check his Outlook screen all day. Perhaps he could have been given actual work to do for his $30/hour that would have left less time for slacking?

    "It would have been the same if he were watching sports on his computer for four out of eight hours a day,""

    Erm, define "sports"... maybe he was?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 5:03am

      Re:

      If he had been watching sports all day no one would have ever complained.

      But someone likely walked by and noticed BOOBIES which burnt out their eyes and caused them to take the day off to run, not walk, to the confessional.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 9:52am

      Re:

      The Outlook usage sounds like a "boss key" kind of scenario. From time to time it would be maximized for a few seconds, and then he'd switch back to porn.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 1:29pm

        Re: Re:

        Could be. Or else he was just checking to see if there were any new messages. Either (or both) would be plausible.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 4:52am

    Can he be charged with leaking private ahhcuments

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jigsy, 20 May 2015 @ 5:00am

    It isn't easy masturbating from nine to five.

    But I'm a trooper, and I pull through.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 20 May 2015 @ 5:04am

    WYOD

    "Wring your own device".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 20 May 2015 @ 5:37am

    The department finds 20 hours to be a bit too much?

    How much too much?

    Is it 5 hours too much? 10 hours too much?

    It will be a long bureaucratic process to determine the appropriate amount.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 6:07am

    Look on the bright side

    At least he didn't beat a man to death while on the city's payroll.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mark Wing, 20 May 2015 @ 6:17am

    Looks like Thursdays are best to yank your wanker on the public's dime.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 6:20am

    Two things...

    First - I think there is a wrong word in this sentence: "employee". I think it should actually be "employment".
    Full-screen porn during work hours is a strong indicator that the employee was neither valued nor popular.


    Second - they gave him a payout package?!?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JBDragon (profile), 20 May 2015 @ 7:51am

    How could anyone ever watch 20 hours of porn at work? That's 4 hours a day, leaving 4 hours for work!!! How could you possibly get anything done with half your day on porn? Clearly that job wasn't needed. Save some taxpayer money.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Derek (profile), 20 May 2015 @ 7:58am

    39 out of 82 hours? Not even 50%. I think it clearly shows a lack of ambition.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 8:36am

      Re:

      His/her significant other might agree or disagree, depending on how much energy he/she has when they get home after a hard days 'work'.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Blaine (profile), 20 May 2015 @ 8:47am

    Someone has to say it.

    little to no work was being performed during the time that pornographic material was visible on the screen


    That's what she said!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    NoOne, 20 May 2015 @ 8:51am

    Work?

    I guess his definition of a hard day at work is completely different from mine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 9:57am

    Guy has 4x my salary for (literally) jacking off 40% of the time, all the time. Must be nice being a state employee of the USA...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 20 May 2015 @ 1:06pm

    What did he not do all day?

    I have to agree with the other posters: what did this guy not do all day that drove him to watch porn?

    Years ago, I had a job that was basically a "head count" position: a few of us were only there to keep the department's head count up so the manager would retain enough of a budget for the department.
    Our job was to look at the system code to make sure it was running, which it did 99.98% of the time, and then do whatever we wanted. We all make sure to do constructive stuff so we could keep this kind of job.

    But how long has this guy been in a job where he couldn't do anything constructive? Okay, it's bad that he's watching porn all day, but shouldn't some of the blame go to the employer for not giving him enough to do? And if there's not enough work to support his position, why not let him go?
    Oh, right, like I just said- letting him go would cost the department in "head count".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2015 @ 7:49pm

    Nope, not buyin' it. That's too much porn, too poorly hidden, and too well documented. My bet? He was setting himself up as "that pervy guy whose office you stay away from," and then surreptitiously sneaking out of the building via his room's ventilation ducts dressed in black spandex and wearing night-vision goggles.

    How many Baltimore art galleries, museums, casinos and banks have been robbed during his supposed porn viewing (read "alibi") hours?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Joe K, 21 May 2015 @ 12:05am

    guilty until proven innocent?

    Isn't it concievable that some of these instances, where the porn was
    full-screen and running for long periods of time, were just a poor
    choice of screen saver content?

    Not all work is done on a computer. Just because a screen saver is
    running, doesn't mean no work is being done. I imagine that this
    remains true even when the screen saver's content is unwisely chosen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 21 May 2015 @ 7:48am

      Re: guilty until proven innocent?

      Isn't it concievable that some of these instances, where the porn was
      full-screen and running for long periods of time, were just a poor
      choice of screen saver content?


      Not unless it was a screen saver that just plays a DVD.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 21 May 2015 @ 10:36am

        That is feasible.

        Not a literal screen-saver that automatically runs, but knowing he wasn't going to be getting any input from the computer that would push past his DVD/media player, he puts it on while doing tedious hand-sorting of paper files.

        Having been tasked with the hand-sorting of paper files, I would have enjoyed some kind of media distraction (though yeah, not necessarily porn). That's the sort of shit-work that a manager assigns someone to let them know they're under-appreciated -- though in the era of paper files, it had to be done.

        Also, as a clerk buried deep in the bowels of a multi-national general contracting corporation, I was one of the the first computer-savvy clerics they had, for whom they had no tasks and would say Here's a computer. Do computer stuff.

        I gave them a list of computer stuff that might be useful and waited. And waited. And waited. After about the third day of zero tasks, I installed a flight sim.

        So to be fair, I suspect that this guy chose poorly his distracting media, but wasn't tasked with doing actual work. I personally don't think watching porn while on stand-by should be more odious than watching Gilligan's Island (or whatever these guys are watching) while on standby. But our society has some serious hang-ups about sex so Porn = NSFW.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 21 May 2015 @ 11:40pm

          Re: That is feasible.

          "a multi-national general contracting corporation, I was one of the the first computer-savvy clerics"

          A little cheeky to ask, but how long ago was this? I appreciate your experiences, but they sound like they may be a little dated.

          As I said above, it does sound like the guy was very bored but he undoubtedly did the wrong thing to alleviate that boredom. It's only by the virtue of him being a public employee that he got 2 weeks of monitoring before he got canned.

          "After about the third day of zero tasks, I installed a flight sim."

          I've worked for several companies where that would be grounds for heavy disciplinary action if not instant dismissal, and I've always worked in countries with greater employee protection than most US states. Watching porn? Out the door, no question, especially if a female is employed in the same building.

          "But our society has some serious hang-ups about sex so Porn = NSFW."

          Not really. In a working environment, it's important to have some consideration to the people around you. Objecting to porn might not simply be about prudishness, it's just not something that belongs in a business environment. Similarly, as a horror fan I might want to watch an old video nasty at work, but I wouldn't because I'm aware that those around me might not like it, just as I wouldn't necessarily want to sit next to someone watching Broadway musicals all day. NSFW means "the person behind you might not like this" or "this might be against your employer's rules so view at your own risk", not necessarily "watch out for prudes".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 2:15am

            Re: Re: That is feasible.

            My experiences were about 1988. No, the flight sims I installed weren't within company policy, but boss-keys were a standard feature at the time and some departments allowed games to be played during lunch or breaks.

            Also, I had my own closet / office, in which no-one walked in or out except me. I wasn't disturbing anyone, and with the exception of someone in HR printing my paycheck, few knew I even existed. (And yes, it was pretty cushy, if I was wiser enough to just keep my head down, but at the time I was young and desperate to be actually useful. Really.)

            I eventually did get disciplined for installing a game -- sorta. I installed Windows 3.0 and (for which there weren't any games yet, except the included applets like Klondike and Minesweeper) and a mouse. I got access to included graphics software which would allow me to do some work digitally that I had doing analog (with limited precision). My boss' boss mistook the GUI and the mouse as game paraphernalia and I got in trouble for it. (Six months later, Windows 3.0 would be installed on every computer in the building.) To be fair, I was far from the most exemplary employee at the time. But the reasons I was dressed down were a long shot away from the reasons I should have been dressed down.

            I agree with you that I think consideration of colleagues is important in the workplace. But that extends not just to videos you may watch but any media that might invade the space of others. Your coworkers may not like your choice of Gospel radio, let alone Wes Craven classics or Broadway show tunes. On the other hand, if you use headphones and your screen is unlikely to be viewed by wayward eyes, having something on the screen might be useful in keeping one's wits while they stuff envelopes. And then, yes, it's only prudishness, if not of employers themselves, then of a society that would scorn companies that allow employees to watch porn if they really wanted.

            Once upon a time, Elvis was NSFW. The Beatles were NSFW. And in one of the offices in which I worked, popular Gangsta Rap was the radio station of choice for everyone else in earshot. So my objections were voted down.

            In the meantime, Techdirt has reported on terrible policies that have become common (if not normal) in workplaces, such as that period when new employees would have to turn in their Facebook passwords or friend their bosses in case they said something objectionable on a social network. (I think in some states they're still allowed to do that.) In a prior industry of mine, worker abuse (e.g. 90-hour work weeks without overtime compensation) is not merely accepted, but anticipated and regarded by upper management as the price developers mployees pay for being in a creative field. It doesn't matter that it wreaks havoc on both the end product and the employees themselves, they just think it's good business.

            This is an age of seriously crap policies and seriously crap management of seriously crap companies. It's a product of there being a labor surplus and an average of eighteen months of job-hunting to find an underpaying job. So just because there's a policy in place somewhere (or everywhere!) doesn't make it a policy that is either ethical or sensical.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 3:55am

              Re: Re: Re: That is feasible.

              "My experiences were about 1988."

              So, a completely different era, well before modern AUPs and other things were built into standard employment contracts, and well before standardised network security policies (or the concept of a modern network). Most of the policies in place today are there to prevent the compromise of networks and other technical issues, not to control what you can do when you're bored. I somehow doubt the average office job is as paper-based as you seem to remember it, either.

              "Once upon a time, Elvis was NSFW. The Beatles were NSFW."

              ...whereas, most offices at that time still allowed people to chain smoke at their desks and the way women would be routinely treated would be considered sexual harassment if not much worse by today's standards. Yes, times change and what's acceptable changes with it. So?

              "And in one of the offices in which I worked, popular Gangsta Rap was the radio station of choice for everyone else in earshot. So my objections were voted down"

              ...and if you had made an official complaint rather than sat back and sulked, some action to stop or change it would have been made at most companies, just as the complaint about porn was acted upon here. Just because you sat back and took it, that doesn't mean that your colleagues weren't in the wrong.

              "This is an age of seriously crap policies and seriously crap management of seriously crap companies."

              I agree, but that doesn't mean that employees should have the ability to do literally anything on the clock, especially with company provided equipment. I oppose any policy that blurs the divide between a person's private life and their life as an employee - but, it goes both ways. They should not treat your Facebook page as their property, but you shouldn't treat your desk like your living room sofa. I don't think your employer should be able to treat you in any way they wish - but the reverse applies, especially if you're literally spending half your day doing things other than the work you're paid to do.

              All in all, this is not an example of a bad employer action. They have an employee who was either not doing anything for half his working day, or who chose one of the worst possible things to have in a professional environment to pass the time doing something else. Without details of exactly what he was doing, it's hard to say how extreme his actions were (if he wasn't shuffling bits of paper, but his work was on the PC, it's inexcusable), and it's clear that his position was either unnecessary or in need of severe restructuring to make it more bearable. But, this isn't anywhere near the levels complained about here in the other stories you're referring to.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                nasch (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 5:43am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: That is feasible.

                I somehow doubt the average office job is as paper-based as you seem to remember it, either.

                Why would he remember the average office job at all? He was only describing his own.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 6:06am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is feasible.

                  Well, he started with the anecdote comparing it to this guy's situation so it would only be applicable if he thought it was comparable in some way. Else, why bother bringing it up?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    nasch (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 6:26am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is feasible.

                    Not to beat a dead horse (one of my specialties) but bringing up an interesting anecdote doesn't imply that the anecdote is representative of the average scenario.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 11:42am

                I think this doesn't change my points, namely:

                ~ He could have been using the DVD as a poor choice of screen saver, namely, nothing was going on on his computer, might as well have it serve as a radio / tv.

                ~ Porn is more sensitive an issue in the workplace than it need be. Even if we come to the conclusion that it's inappropriate to the workplace for other reasons, our society's sexual hang-ups make it more so.

                ~ Employees who are not being utilized (e.g. are waiting in the pool for actual work) should not be expected to sit there and twiddle their thumbs. And sometimes they are.

                ~ Given the provision that they do not disturb anyone else (without them going out of their way to be disturbed, e.g. checking concealed computer screens for offensive material) whatever media they consume should have minimal restrictions.

                Given this porn-watching Baltimore Public Works employee, it's not made clear how his porn habits were discovered, only that we have a measure of how much porn he watched, and he was in his own office. And I agree in the current clime that it was a bad move on his part.

                I'm not clear if he was watching porn on standby or supposed to be engaging in some other work instead of recreating, or if he was doing menial work like collating or stuffing envelopes.

                Incidently, yes, the big blue-chip corporation I worked for in '88 had an a mostly paper-based filing system and my employment there was part of their efforts to modernize into the digital age. That specific project failed because my manager didn't know how to go about it, but I would be a part of that modernization process elsewhere in the company in the following years. But they employed bunches of people to literally shuffle paper around.

                I even spent an entire week as the guy who operated the industrial shredder. Because the company just moved through that many sensitive pages. Paper, paper, everywhere.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    toyotabedzrock (profile), 21 May 2015 @ 12:35pm

    You write as if this is not rampant in the private sector.

    The only reason we know about this is because it is public sector in the private sector there is no disclosure to the public.

    Really they should not even make this public, but they should monitor the situation to make sure they do not do this.

    This is just BS used to smear an important part of the government for political points, something we have enough of.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 21 May 2015 @ 11:44pm

      Re:

      "You write as if this is not rampant in the private sector."

      Is it? Where's your documentation if it is, as you claim, not available to the public?

      The main reason why this isn't as rampant is because anyone caught doing this in the private sector tends to get sacked instantly, not given several weeks of monitoring with available appeals processes.

      "Really they should not even make this public"

      So, you're all for the government covering up what they do with your tax money, especially in cases of obvious waste?

      "This is just BS used to smear an important part of the government for political points"

      What political points? Which stance do you think this site has politically? Cite your examples.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.