- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Actually I think she has a case against them if she wished to pursue it and I'm sure there are some attorneys wanting to make a name for themselves waiting in the wings to do just that.
After all if the government contractor failed to train the operators in how to conduct calls from the media and failed to recognize the potential of such calls occurring due to all the interest being shown in the media over Obamacare. We shall see.......
That's assuming she *did*
She didn't
Sarcastically assuming you work for the government in your hypothetical scenario is assuming that some "she" does work for the government?
*Cranial Meltdown*
The woman we're talking about didn't work for the govt
Wrong
An employee working for a company that has a contract with the govt is a private employee, not a civil servant.
I didn't call her a civil servant. But the money backing her paycheck comes from the Taxpayers. Economists sometimes call these part private and part public, hybrids. hybrids are not designed to manage chunks of the economy, nor your classic private-sector firms that sink or swim according to their own strength. Instead they are confusing entities that seem to fit between one world and another to suit their own purposes.
Nope not at all....if you recall I said for the left the line between the two had become blurred. Hybrids like this government contractor do just that! The more the government is allowed to infringe into the private sector such as health care, the more hybrids are created. Cheers!So now the poster who accused liberals of not knowing the difference between a public worker and a private one is arguing that there's no difference. :lamo
I doubt that any legal case would be successful. The only issue is whether the employee should have received disciplinary action short of termination, but courts typically grant broad latitude to employers.
Nope not at all....if you recall I said for the left the line between the two had become blurred. Hybrids like this government contractor do just that! The more the government is allowed to infringe into the private sector such as health care, the more hybrids are created. Cheers!
Yeah, I know, and David Duke is your friend. We get it apdst. You're a white Anglo Saxon Protestant. No need to rub it in everyone's face all the time.
I'm not stupid enough to believe the revisionist history about Joe McCarthy.
Private companies that do contract work for the govt are private companies. There is nothing blurry about it aside from the thinking of the right wingers
Truth in this case is subjective.
We do not know for 100% sure that this lady did in fact work there. I'm not saying that she is not telling the truth. But on the other side, she could have been an actress in another room at Hannity's studio.
Her job was to answer questions and that is what she did.
Can the snarky remarks when you obviously have never been in the answeirng service business. Yes, lots of comanies would work just as you claim. Except that 1: This is not the kind of businesses you have obviously ever worked in. 2: She didn't tell Hannity anything about her companies workings until after she was fired. Before then she did her job by answering the questions that Hannity put to her about Obamacare. Like she was suppose to. In the answering service business you answer questions and take messages. In this case since it was apparently dedicated answering questions about Obamacare. So no messages more than likely. Just answering from a script. For an answering service, be it a hotline or not you do what you are suppose to regardless of who calls. In this case answer questions about Obamacare. If I attempted pass Hannity along to my HR department or my boss I would have been fired for not doing my job. How do I know this? I 1: Work in an answering service business and 2: I actually do answer questions regarding the health care exchange.
The revisionist version is the Coulter version.
Well those holding degrees in economics and marketing would beg to differ with you. They find the lines very blurry. But I'm sure you know more than they do.
It's been going on for decades and is getting increasingly worse. Here's a very recent example...... On April 5, 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama signed the Jump-start Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act into law. Among its many provisions, the JOBS Act "blurs the line" by allowing public companies to act like private companies for many financial-reporting purposes.
Bottom line by blurring the lines between the private and public sector is by design an attack on capitalism.
Having worked for companies that did contract work for the govt for more than a decade, I know that the only thing blurry about it is the way right wingers think about it
Was her job to spread her opinion in a negative light about her company?
Sangha, there are times when the government needs the assistance of the private sector. But that is not what is happening. Due to the increase in the size of the federal government, it creates this huge gap in the economy where companies are contracted out to carry the load. Look at what has happened to the NSA programs? Education? Energy? Non-Profits? And now Obamacare....it's not healthy.
Your answering service is not the same as her answering service. I assure you I also answer questions about healthcare, including the exchange, and if anyone in the frontlines didn't transfer someone from the media, give out a special number, or read a script, then they would have been fired.
This woman deserved to be fired and I'm glad she was.
Was her job to spread her opinion in a negative light about her company?
It still doesn't change the fact that the people who work for contracters are not public servants and do not work for you
I'm not stupid enough to believe the revisionist history about Joe McCarthy.
Lol, calling him a hero is revisionism. Guess what that makes you? :shrug:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?