Permission to work side jobs during gov't shutdown

[Anonymous]

Here's an excellent government link of what you can and can't do with outside employment, giving your boss a gift, etc.

http://www.oge.gov/Education/Education-Resources-for-Ethics-Officials/Resources/Assets-Non-Searchable/A-Brief-Wrap-on-Ethics-(TXT)/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an excellent government link of what you can and can't do with outside employment, giving your boss a gift, etc.

http://www.oge.gov/Education/Education-Resources-for-Ethics-Officials/Resources/Assets-Non-Searchable/A-Brief-Wrap-on-Ethics-(TXT)/

Sorry. This is the correct link.

http://www.oge.gov/Topics/Topics/

[Anonymous]

Employees in my cabinet department are all approved to take work that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Some people don't like or can't handle dogs, don't like kids, and can't even keep their own house clean. All about what you are capable of doing whether professionally or not. No one should ever try and dictate how you should earn your money during this shutdown but preferably legal.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. You took an oath as a federal employee to abide by ethics regulations including conflict of interest, so in some cases there is an interest of your agency/dept. in what you do even during a furlough. It may suck but it also is the law.

IYep, it sucks. What happens if this 'ethical manager' decides that your choice of work doesn't meet, in his opinion, the social status of the department or his personal expectations? This so-called ethical manager may not find working at Starbucks acceptable for a government lawyer. Or you'd like to wait tables at a gentlemen's club to pick up big tips? All perfectly legal. Yes, it happened to a co-worker who wanted to pickup super big tips by waiting tables for tuition but was advised Ihop would be a better choice. Good thing The Playboy Clubs are closed. She would have been fired for working as a Playboy Bunny.

There is a lot of personal bias with ethics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Walking on much water these days 22:04? Your point is well taken but very condescending. You worked in ethics? I would have never sought you out for information.

No, he/she is right. I work in ethics too so I am comfortable doing the analysis myself -- but I would still need to seek permission per my agency's regs because I am not the official decider, the DAEO. Only the DAEO or her designee can make that call where I work. It's not worth being fired for. And we have disciplined people in the past. I've worked on those issues too. It's not pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walking on much water these days 22:04? Your point is well taken but very condescending. You worked in ethics? I would have never sought you out for information.

No, he/she is right. I work in ethics too so I am comfortable doing the analysis myself -- but I would still need to seek permission per my agency's regs because I am not the official decider, the DAEO. Only the DAEO or her designee can make that call where I work. It's not worth being fired for. And we have disciplined people in the past. I've worked on those issues too. It's not pretty.

Yes, it can be tricky but I would never allow any DAEO or designee to tell me I can't work somewhere because it offends their personal senses though within the boundaries of policy regarding non-conflict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

No, he/she is right. I work in ethics too so I am comfortable doing the analysis myself -- but I would still need to seek permission per my agency's regs because I am not the official decider, the DAEO. Only the DAEO or her designee can make that call where I work. It's not worth being fired for. And we have disciplined people in the past. I've worked on those issues too. It's not pretty.

Yes, it can be tricky but I would never allow any DAEO or designee to tell me I can't work somewhere because it offends their personal senses though within the boundaries of policy regarding non-conflict.

This means you would be okay with being fired for it, or, proactively, you would quit first. Gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

No, he/she is right. I work in ethics too so I am comfortable doing the analysis myself -- but I would still need to seek permission per my agency's regs because I am not the official decider, the DAEO. Only the DAEO or her designee can make that call where I work. It's not worth being fired for. And we have disciplined people in the past. I've worked on those issues too. It's not pretty.

Yes, it can be tricky but I would never allow any DAEO or designee to tell me I can't work somewhere because it offends their personal senses though within the boundaries of policy regarding non-conflict.

This means you would be okay with being fired for it, or, proactively, you would quit first. Gotcha.

Oh, quit the bullshit. I got you too. We have to follow policies of non-conflict but you are NOT allowed to impose your personal feelings over the law whether you like the work choice or not. That applies to any faction of the government whether in shutdown or not. You may not like certain ethnic dress but if it falls within policy, you abide by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

No, he/she is right. I work in ethics too so I am comfortable doing the analysis myself -- but I would still need to seek permission per my agency's regs because I am not the official decider, the DAEO. Only the DAEO or her designee can make that call where I work. It's not worth being fired for. And we have disciplined people in the past. I've worked on those issues too. It's not pretty.

Yes, it can be tricky but I would never allow any DAEO or designee to tell me I can't work somewhere because it offends their personal senses though within the boundaries of policy regarding non-conflict.

This means you would be okay with being fired for it, or, proactively, you would quit first. Gotcha.

Oh, quit the bullshit. I got you too. We have to follow policies of non-conflict but you are NOT allowed to impose your personal feelings over the law whether you like the work choice or not. That applies to any faction of the government whether in shutdown or not. You may not like certain ethnic dress but if it falls within policy, you abide by it.

This is exactly why the government has shut down. The Affordable Care Act is the law but personal feelings about it have shut the government down. Way to go!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

No, he/she is right. I work in ethics too so I am comfortable doing the analysis myself -- but I would still need to seek permission per my agency's regs because I am not the official decider, the DAEO. Only the DAEO or her designee can make that call where I work. It's not worth being fired for. And we have disciplined people in the past. I've worked on those issues too. It's not pretty.

Yes, it can be tricky but I would never allow any DAEO or designee to tell me I can't work somewhere because it offends their personal senses though within the boundaries of policy regarding non-conflict.

This means you would be okay with being fired for it, or, proactively, you would quit first. Gotcha.

Oh, quit the bullshit. I got you too. We have to follow policies of non-conflict but you are NOT allowed to impose your personal feelings over the law whether you like the work choice or not. That applies to any faction of the government whether in shutdown or not. You may not like certain ethnic dress but if it falls within policy, you abide by it.

Where the heck do you work that you feel your ethics officials are approving or disapproving your outside activities based on whether they agree with them? I assure you that is not the case at my agency. I have approved outside activities that I personally vehemently disapprove of because there was objectively no conflict and it is none of my business what someone does outside of work, so long as it does not conflict with the agency's mission or the employee's ability to do their job. If you feel your ethics officials are doing otherwise, you should complain to management. That would be outrageous and, depending on the activity and reason in question, potentially discriminatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Employees in my cabinet department are all approved to take work that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest.

Not to be snarky, but nearly every federal employee is in the same position. The point is that you have to be able to determine what positions may present a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, so that you get approval in advance, as needed.

Many outside activities and positions (paid and uncompensated) don't require approval at all, so "approval" in advance for them is an illusory thing. The more important thing is to have your ethics official confirm for you that there is no conflict or appearance of conflict of interest in situations that do or may require approval....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Some people don't like or can't handle dogs, don't like kids, and can't even keep their own house clean. All about what you are capable of doing whether professionally or not. No one should ever try and dictate how you should earn your money during this shutdown but preferably legal.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. You took an oath as a federal employee to abide by ethics regulations including conflict of interest, so in some cases there is an interest of your agency/dept. in what you do even during a furlough. It may suck but it also is the law.

IYep, it sucks. What happens if this 'ethical manager' decides that your choice of work doesn't meet, in his opinion, the social status of the department or his personal expectations? This so-called ethical manager may not find working at Starbucks acceptable for a government lawyer. Or you'd like to wait tables at a gentlemen's club to pick up big tips? All perfectly legal. Yes, it happened to a co-worker who wanted to pickup super big tips by waiting tables for tuition but was advised Ihop would be a better choice. Good thing The Playboy Clubs are closed. She would have been fired for working as a Playboy Bunny.

There is a lot of personal bias with ethics.

PP here ... your statement is actually pretty ignorant and unconnected to the reality of what I saw in 15+ years as a DEO. Ethics officials (not "ethical manager[s]") interpret OGE's regulations and agency supplemental regulations, and applicable statutes. They don't do personal taste tests. If you find one who does, contact the Ofc. of Govt. Ethics and you can get a second opinion and if the agency ADEO or DEO is wrong, they'll tell them so (I have seen it happen).

An ethics official who says a govt. lawyer can't work at Starbucks is wrong (based on the OGE regs. and all the supplemental agency regs I've seen). Can't say about the other example without knowing what agency, what her job was, etc., but there are avenues of appeal.

But, bottom line, you're not even in the ballpark as far as understanding the ethics regs or the process for interpreting and enforcing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

No, he/she is right. I work in ethics too so I am comfortable doing the analysis myself -- but I would still need to seek permission per my agency's regs because I am not the official decider, the DAEO. Only the DAEO or her designee can make that call where I work. It's not worth being fired for. And we have disciplined people in the past. I've worked on those issues too. It's not pretty.

Yes, it can be tricky but I would never allow any DAEO or designee to tell me I can't work somewhere because it offends their personal senses though within the boundaries of policy regarding non-conflict.

This means you would be okay with being fired for it, or, proactively, you would quit first. Gotcha.

Oh, quit the bullshit. I got you too. We have to follow policies of non-conflict but you are NOT allowed to impose your personal feelings over the law whether you like the work choice or not. That applies to any faction of the government whether in shutdown or not. You may not like certain ethnic dress but if it falls within policy, you abide by it.

PP who was a DEO here ... I think you're both right. You have to abide by appropriate DAEO/ DEO/ ADEO determinations, but they, too, have to act in accordance with statutes, OGE regs., and Agency supplemental regs. If you get a cockamamie interpretation from your agency DEO/DAEO, then go to OGE, IME they have not hesitated to correct off base interpretations by agency ADEOs or DEOs. There is some discretion but if, in fact, OGE would agree with you that something was permitted by their regs and your agency supplemental ethics regs, they would probably tell your DEO/DAEO that.

If they agree with your DAEO/DEO and you defy that advice/interpretation, then you're fair game for any and all adverse actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Some people don't like or can't handle dogs, don't like kids, and can't even keep their own house clean. All about what you are capable of doing whether professionally or not. No one should ever try and dictate how you should earn your money during this shutdown but preferably legal.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. You took an oath as a federal employee to abide by ethics regulations including conflict of interest, so in some cases there is an interest of your agency/dept. in what you do even during a furlough. It may suck but it also is the law.

IYep, it sucks. What happens if this 'ethical manager' decides that your choice of work doesn't meet, in his opinion, the social status of the department or his personal expectations? This so-called ethical manager may not find working at Starbucks acceptable for a government lawyer. Or you'd like to wait tables at a gentlemen's club to pick up big tips? All perfectly legal. Yes, it happened to a co-worker who wanted to pickup super big tips by waiting tables for tuition but was advised Ihop would be a better choice. Good thing The Playboy Clubs are closed. She would have been fired for working as a Playboy Bunny.

There is a lot of personal bias with ethics.

PP here ... your statement is actually pretty ignorant and unconnected to the reality of what I saw in 15+ years as a DEO. Ethics officials (not "ethical manager[s]") interpret OGE's regulations and agency supplemental regulations, and applicable statutes. They don't do personal taste tests. If you find one who does, contact the Ofc. of Govt. Ethics and you can get a second opinion and if the agency ADEO or DEO is wrong, they'll tell them so (I have seen it happen).

An ethics official who says a govt. lawyer can't work at Starbucks is wrong (based on the OGE regs. and all the supplemental agency regs I've seen). Can't say about the other example without knowing what agency, what her job was, etc., but there are avenues of appeal.

But, bottom line, you're not even in the ballpark as far as understanding the ethics regs or the process for interpreting and enforcing them.

Where the hell do you get that it is all about what YOU saw and what YOU approved or disapproved during your 15+ years. You are not the only game in town and different officials will view situations differently. Get off your damn high horse. I find your sense of self-importance pretty ignorant and unconnected to reality. You are not above reproach nor are you the final authority on anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

No, he/she is right. I work in ethics too so I am comfortable doing the analysis myself -- but I would still need to seek permission per my agency's regs because I am not the official decider, the DAEO. Only the DAEO or her designee can make that call where I work. It's not worth being fired for. And we have disciplined people in the past. I've worked on those issues too. It's not pretty.

Yes, it can be tricky but I would never allow any DAEO or designee to tell me I can't work somewhere because it offends their personal senses though within the boundaries of policy regarding non-conflict.

This means you would be okay with being fired for it, or, proactively, you would quit first. Gotcha.

Oh, quit the bullshit. I got you too. We have to follow policies of non-conflict but you are NOT allowed to impose your personal feelings over the law whether you like the work choice or not. That applies to any faction of the government whether in shutdown or not. You may not like certain ethnic dress but if it falls within policy, you abide by it.

PP who was a DEO here ... I think you're both right. You have to abide by appropriate DAEO/ DEO/ ADEO determinations, but they, too, have to act in accordance with statutes, OGE regs., and Agency supplemental regs. If you get a cockamamie interpretation from your agency DEO/DAEO, then go to OGE, IME they have not hesitated to correct off base interpretations by agency ADEOs or DEOs. There is some discretion but if, in fact, OGE would agree with you that something was permitted by their regs and your agency supplemental ethics regs, they would probably tell your DEO/DAEO that.

If they agree with your DAEO/DEO and you defy that advice/interpretation, then you're fair game for any and all adverse actions.

Thanks for your insight that there are other avenues to pursue if you are legally in the right of choice to work which must follow statutes. There are many people who have experienced off base interpretations by ADEOs or DEOs who sought higher resolution to violation of statutes. People who acquiesce to wrongful interpretation because they are afraid of being fired do themselves a grave injustice by empowering DAEO/DEO to continue erroneous behavior whether by personal bias or ignorance of policy.