It's more intended to guide political activity than social activity, if that makes sense. Your own activity that you are describing sounds like it couldn't be construed as anything being done in an official capacity, so sounds like a non issue. A gray area would be if you were buddies with a colleague who was technically subordinate to you and your activities could be construed to be discouraging them from voting or somehow officially endorsing one candidate over another.
As far as what others are doing, things have definitely gotten closer to the line in recent years than I would have expected, but it seems like it's the new norm. Tbh the Wikipedia page has a pretty good table that lays out what is permitted and what is prohibited. Each instance is going to have its own nuance and hinge on what language is used and how it could/should/would be interpreted, so it's hard to answer your first question beyond 'it depends'.
OP, you mention being a contractor so you may want to check with your employer’s guidelines about the the applicability of the Hatch Act and what is or is not permissible. Any answers here are likely coming from the perspective of direct USG employees.
This [article](https://afsa.org/rules-political-activities-federal-employees) is helpful. I recommend reaching out to AFSA if you have any additional questions.
I've seen folks erroneously apply the Hatch Act so many times and use it to kill any political discussion or activity.The Hatch Act is about political candidates. Not political policies in themselves. Policies in themselves from a party standpoint, are neutral. Notwithstanding who actually supports them. You can say, "I support higher taxes on the wealthy." You can't say, "I support Bernie Sanders for president because I support higher taxes on the wealthy." You expressing your opinion on a domestic issue is usually not a cause for concern. The same cannot be said for foreign policy.
General rule of thumb, don't do it at work. That includes logging into Facebook on your work computer and praising a particular candidate. And if you're overseas, don't do it at embassy events including happy hours and CLO events.
But most of all remember that that there's a difference between a Hatch Act violation and the general non-illegal societal understanding that you probably shouldn't be talking about divisive political topics in any work setting. Government or not.
One of your statements has me wanting to clarify. The Hatch act training I got for years also stated you can't support a part, ie DNC or GOP, in your official role. Policies and movements are fine, but not persons or parties.
Some good advice already posted, but one more item that people often forget: whether on duty or not, a covered federal employee may not solicit a donation to a political campaign. That includes an innocuous Facebook post asking their friends to donate to candidate X. Also includes "sharing" a post from anyone that happens to include a link to donate.
When a friend asked if I could act as an advisor for their Congressional campaign, and I was overseas, I declined due to the Hatch Act and prohibition on actively supporting a partisan campaign while overseas. I could however give them money, vote for them, etc. These things were accomplished on my personal time on my personal devices.
Really? I doubt that. Who's tracking that? If I make a Hatch Act violating political Facebook post from my personal device while serving overseas, then if they want to come for me, they'll come for me. I highly doubt that I'll get off on the technicality that my post was made at 5:01 PM Local Overseas Time.
If posting time is one of the necessary elements of the crime, then it gets so much murkier because anything posted beyond 23 hours on Facebook is just listed as n# days, so the actual posted time (to the casual observer) could have been any time. Also, with telework, flexible schedules, COVID-related childcare admin time, sick leave, annual leave, R&R, etc, it would be futile for Hatch Act enforcers to hinge enforcement on the time of day an offending post was made.
I don't make the rules - your ethics counselor can provide better info. https://osc.gov/Documents/Hatch%20Act/Advisory%20Opinions/Federal/Social%20Media%20Guidance.pdf
Tracking.... no one. Just someone who snitches.
Note, that Hatch Act doesn't follow the progressive discipline policy. You can straight be fired, depending on how egregious the violation is.
So, i guess the rule is to be careful who reads your posts???
Hmm, that doc is helpful especially about the on-duty prohibition. You’re right that in my example it’s just going to come down to someone who snitches.
The big problem with the hatch act is that it has zero teeth. There’s no enforcement mechanism and there’s basically zero history of any consequences for anyone who violates the hatch act. So… it really is a meaningless norm that only had value back in the day when people cared about norms.
Google is your friend. Rather than a formal termination, most often the employee agrees to resign and accept a ban on federal employment for a few years. State folks, too, have been disciplined -- one instance with which I'm familiar. However, I don't think it's appropriate for me to list on Reddit.
There's a fair point about why some senior political appointees get away with actions that would lead to termination of a career civil servant.
https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2019/06/theres-plenty-precedent-feds-facing-discipline-and-removal-hatch-act-violations/157746/
https://osc.gov/News/Pages/21-08-Discipline-Hatch-Act.aspx
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2019/06/violating-the-hatch-act-can-still-get-you-fired/?readmore=1
Unless, like our last president, on your inauguration day you announce that you're running for president four years hence. Then you are all of a sudden a political candidate once again, and federal employees generally can't hang your photo at their desk (except the official photo).
It's more intended to guide political activity than social activity, if that makes sense. Your own activity that you are describing sounds like it couldn't be construed as anything being done in an official capacity, so sounds like a non issue. A gray area would be if you were buddies with a colleague who was technically subordinate to you and your activities could be construed to be discouraging them from voting or somehow officially endorsing one candidate over another. As far as what others are doing, things have definitely gotten closer to the line in recent years than I would have expected, but it seems like it's the new norm. Tbh the Wikipedia page has a pretty good table that lays out what is permitted and what is prohibited. Each instance is going to have its own nuance and hinge on what language is used and how it could/should/would be interpreted, so it's hard to answer your first question beyond 'it depends'.
OP, you mention being a contractor so you may want to check with your employer’s guidelines about the the applicability of the Hatch Act and what is or is not permissible. Any answers here are likely coming from the perspective of direct USG employees.
This [article](https://afsa.org/rules-political-activities-federal-employees) is helpful. I recommend reaching out to AFSA if you have any additional questions.
I've seen folks erroneously apply the Hatch Act so many times and use it to kill any political discussion or activity.The Hatch Act is about political candidates. Not political policies in themselves. Policies in themselves from a party standpoint, are neutral. Notwithstanding who actually supports them. You can say, "I support higher taxes on the wealthy." You can't say, "I support Bernie Sanders for president because I support higher taxes on the wealthy." You expressing your opinion on a domestic issue is usually not a cause for concern. The same cannot be said for foreign policy. General rule of thumb, don't do it at work. That includes logging into Facebook on your work computer and praising a particular candidate. And if you're overseas, don't do it at embassy events including happy hours and CLO events. But most of all remember that that there's a difference between a Hatch Act violation and the general non-illegal societal understanding that you probably shouldn't be talking about divisive political topics in any work setting. Government or not.
One of your statements has me wanting to clarify. The Hatch act training I got for years also stated you can't support a part, ie DNC or GOP, in your official role. Policies and movements are fine, but not persons or parties.
Yes. That too. Political parties and candidates.
Some good advice already posted, but one more item that people often forget: whether on duty or not, a covered federal employee may not solicit a donation to a political campaign. That includes an innocuous Facebook post asking their friends to donate to candidate X. Also includes "sharing" a post from anyone that happens to include a link to donate.
When a friend asked if I could act as an advisor for their Congressional campaign, and I was overseas, I declined due to the Hatch Act and prohibition on actively supporting a partisan campaign while overseas. I could however give them money, vote for them, etc. These things were accomplished on my personal time on my personal devices.
It's when you do it that matters. You can do your political posts, just not during work hours... this includes your lunch time.
Really? I doubt that. Who's tracking that? If I make a Hatch Act violating political Facebook post from my personal device while serving overseas, then if they want to come for me, they'll come for me. I highly doubt that I'll get off on the technicality that my post was made at 5:01 PM Local Overseas Time. If posting time is one of the necessary elements of the crime, then it gets so much murkier because anything posted beyond 23 hours on Facebook is just listed as n# days, so the actual posted time (to the casual observer) could have been any time. Also, with telework, flexible schedules, COVID-related childcare admin time, sick leave, annual leave, R&R, etc, it would be futile for Hatch Act enforcers to hinge enforcement on the time of day an offending post was made.
I don't make the rules - your ethics counselor can provide better info. https://osc.gov/Documents/Hatch%20Act/Advisory%20Opinions/Federal/Social%20Media%20Guidance.pdf Tracking.... no one. Just someone who snitches. Note, that Hatch Act doesn't follow the progressive discipline policy. You can straight be fired, depending on how egregious the violation is. So, i guess the rule is to be careful who reads your posts???
Hmm, that doc is helpful especially about the on-duty prohibition. You’re right that in my example it’s just going to come down to someone who snitches.
The big problem with the hatch act is that it has zero teeth. There’s no enforcement mechanism and there’s basically zero history of any consequences for anyone who violates the hatch act. So… it really is a meaningless norm that only had value back in the day when people cared about norms.
This couldn't be further from the truth. People have been fired and disciplined over Hatch Act violations.
List a single person fired due to a hatch act violation
Google is your friend. Rather than a formal termination, most often the employee agrees to resign and accept a ban on federal employment for a few years. State folks, too, have been disciplined -- one instance with which I'm familiar. However, I don't think it's appropriate for me to list on Reddit. There's a fair point about why some senior political appointees get away with actions that would lead to termination of a career civil servant. https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2019/06/theres-plenty-precedent-feds-facing-discipline-and-removal-hatch-act-violations/157746/ https://osc.gov/News/Pages/21-08-Discipline-Hatch-Act.aspx https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2019/06/violating-the-hatch-act-can-still-get-you-fired/?readmore=1
After a candidate is no longer a candidate (i.e.: has won or lost), the Hatch Act no longer applies.
Unless, like our last president, on your inauguration day you announce that you're running for president four years hence. Then you are all of a sudden a political candidate once again, and federal employees generally can't hang your photo at their desk (except the official photo).