11-30-2017, 05:30 PM
(11-30-2017, 05:20 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But in some, if not many cases, it IS very much a function of govt work. People get justifiably terminated, and sometimes they sue. Why would you think govt employees are any different from the private sector? I'd like transparency to see the payouts, but my suspicion is the vast majority are reasonable settlements (as opposed to "hush-money") that would hardly be indicative of any wrongdoing.
There is a HUGE difference between a $30k settlement that is simply cost-effective over litigating vs. a $250k settlement for a suit that probably had strong merit/evidence.
Some guidelines need to be established - I believe you can also be personally sued, and in that scenario I agree it should not come out of taxpayer funds (although indemnity of legal costs probably should).
But if people are going to sue the deeper-pockets of state/federal govt, then it's really the state/federal govt to litigate or settle as they see fit. And that has to come from taxpayer dollars.
I disagree when it comes to elected officials. Elected officials are a different beast in government work and the staffers that work directly for them are also treated differently from an HR perspective than the rank and file bureaucrat. The political positions like that carry a much different air to them and this is why I feel like the way things are treated within those offices should be different than we see with regular employers.
While they are public employees, each lawmaker is essentially an employer, not merely a manager or supervisor, when it comes to their office. Because of this autonomy, I feel like if something happens within their offices it is they, and not the Congressional budget, that should take the hit.
