Sunday, January 20, 2008
Walberg to Staff: No Vacation
I heard something interesting not too long ago, which I think you'll find interesting.
Congressman Walberg's staff has apparently been told that no vacation requests will be granted from January 1, 2008 to November 4, 2008. What's November 4? Why, it's Election Day!
When asked whether that meant Walberg's staff would be required to help on the campaign, apparently they were told that they couldn't be required, but, if anyone wanted a job next year, they had to "do their part."
Some staffers, from what I hear, already had vacation plans. They are not pleased about this. Apparently, they were told that as employees of a "targeted" congressman, they should have expected these kinds of sacrifices.
Now, I probably used the word "apparently" more often than you'd like, but since I wasn't there myself, that's all I can say. Considering what I heard from someone a couple of months ago about Walberg and his staff, none of this really surprises me.
So let's suppose all of this is true. What does this mean?
First, I think it's obvious that it's a low and very unfair move on Walberg's part. These staffers are working long hours for this man, and how does he repay them? He takes away their vacation! Personally, that doesn't sound like the kind of boss I'd want to have.
Is it legal? Honestly, I have no idea. I know that for executive branch employees, the Hatch Act applies (basically, government resources can't be used on political campaigns), but Walberg's staffers aren't part of the executive branch. Anyone out there know more about this than me?
But at the very least, I think we can agree that it must not be fun working for Tim Walberg.
UPDATE: An anonymous comment:
I recently spoke to one of his staffers about this and they said there is no such policy nor statement made. So, I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Especially when it appears this is completely false. I thought this was a serious website talking about the issues, not some rag spreading fallacious rumors...I hope the fact that I bumped this comment to the front page as soon as I saw it restores a little bit of my credibility. If there is no such policy, then I apologize to Congressman Walberg and his staff.
As far as spreading rumors, I can promise I'll never intentionally or knowingly slander Tim Walberg or anyone else. I've done my best to maintain a high standard here, and I hope that I've been fairly good about admitting when I'm wrong.
But when someone comes to me with a piece of information and seems credible to my best judgment, I'll share that information on Walberg Watch. Might I make mistakes? Sure. And when I do, I appreciate being corrected, and I welcome any input from Walberg's office when I post misstatements. I oppose Tim Walberg and his ideas, but I do not wish to lie about my opponents or spread fallacious rumors. That's what his side does.
So, if this story proved to be unfounded, I apologize. At the same time, you are an anonymous commenter... so I don't necessarily have a reason to believe you either. Not that the comment isn't credible, just that I wouldn't entirely trust it, nor would I entirely trust any other anonymous information without anything else to support it.
All of this is a long-winded way of saying... here's a claim, here's a counter-claim. I'd appreciate any other information anyone could give to set me right.
Sounds like he is really scared and is starting to circle the wagons! He's raised very little money and Club for Growth has pretty much abandoned him and turned their resources to other candidates they have no logical reason to support.
I think it will come down to who can raise more money. Hopefully another GOP challenger will emerge who will make him spend his primary money.
I doubt that this is written policy. What a lot of offices do is convert staff to part time to work on campaigns in their "free time". Or their vacation days are converted to campaign days. This is not unusual for an office in a competative district.
Hey, all. I just saw a post on MichLib that talks about the partial birth abortion ban. It is attacking some Dems for supporting the ban, but I did not see Mark Schauer's name as opposing partial birth abortion.
Is Mark Schauer in favor of partial birth abortions?
The have every right to refuse to work on his campaign. If they stood up for themselves, the would either be fired or respected. I am guessing Walberg would fire them rather than show them respect. After all, he went out and hired a bunch of inexperienced kids so he was probably expecting them to keep quiet and put up with his BS...
With the way Walberg votes on labor issues, it is not much of a suprise to hear he treats his employees poorly.
I recently spoke to one of his staffers about this and they said there is no such policy nor statement made. So, I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Especially when it appears this is completely false. I thought this was a serious website talking about the issues, not some rag spreading fallacious rumors...
Why in the world would you think his staffers would go public with the information if it's true? If it is, look for more people to pull a Rick Baxter and get out of Dodge.Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008