Post User Polls

Should SEC employees be fired?

None of the Securities and Exchange Commission employees caught using government computers to view pornographic images has been fired, according to the agency.Read the full Federal Eye post.

By Jodi Westrick  |  April 28, 2010; 2:54 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Can men be pole dancers too? | Next: Is Virginia license plate racist?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Yes , right after Sen. Vitter and Ensign leave.

Posted by: waawaazaire | April 29, 2010 3:17 AM

Did the resignations clear out the top offenders? If so, punishment has been complete. Many companies and government agencies have filtering software that effectively blocks porn access, gambling and other non-business related sites. An administrators can unblock sites that are mistakenly listed or specifically needed for business. Some software also allows a "quota" (30 minutes) time for sports, etc. so that lunchtime access can allowed.
Human nature being what it is (and some "accidental" hits, this is a prudent step.

Posted by: pjohn2 | April 29, 2010 7:32 AM

Yes, but you're asking the wrong question. They should be fired for what they were NOT watching.

Posted by: trh123 | April 29, 2010 7:32 AM

Yes, they should, but the outrage I'm seeing is a little overblown if you know anything about the federal disciplinary process.

If a disciplinary action (like removal) is proposed, the employee has 30 days to respond. During that 30 days they may resign or retire (if eligible) and then they are not "removed" (fired).

IIRC at least 8 employees resigned, so they were effectively removed from their positions and no longer work at the SEC, albeit not having been fired.

Federal applications, btw, ask whether you have ever resigned from a job under threat of disciplinary action, so unless the employees who resigned want to lie and commit a criminal violation of 18 USC 101, they will have to reveal that on any future applications for federal employment.

Posted by: fendertweed | April 29, 2010 8:06 AM

I understand that it was a requirement for those appointed to the SEC in 2007 to NOT believe in regulation. That the Bush Administration did NOT want the SEC to investigate troubled companies - that they would somehow fix themselves thanks to the magic of human greed and the marketplace.

I think it must be very boring to show up at your desk day after day and not be expected to work. I can understand the temptation to surf the internet, and if they had been reading the on-line WaPo instead of viewing porn, I don't imagine there would be such a concern.

In my opinion - the real problem is ignoring the financial rot that exported 8.2 million jobs forever, lost 50% of 401(k)s and required a bailout of hundreds of billions to continue the Wall Street casino. I just can't get that indignent about some guys looking at a naked human female.

Posted by: shadowmagician | April 29, 2010 10:59 AM

TRH123 hits the nail on the head. The porn is irrelevant. They could have been watching golfing for all I care. The point is, they weren't doing their jobs.

They should be fired for gross negligence and incompetence. And if the management couldn't document the incompetence, that only means that the management is incompetent itself.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | April 29, 2010 11:20 AM

Why are you posing this stupid question? What kind of place keeps people employed after they violate procedures multiple times in the most egregious fashion? Only a moronic government worker would think this is a matter for arbitration.

Posted by: jackson641 | April 29, 2010 12:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company