Bill Call wrote:Jim O'Bryan wrote: Another thing I cannot understand. Had he used his name and had the conviction he would be protected by the law against being harassed or being fired. But sniping like this protects no one and allows everyone to be open for attack.
Apparently you don't understand how this administration really works. Threats and intimidation are routinely used to keep people quiet.
My source is not who who think it is so you can call off your witch hunt.
Bill
We both know this is nothing compared to the last administration. I have a friend that is constantly butting heads with this administration, and has never recieved anything remotely like a threat. This guy is a pain.
You seem to miss some very important points.
1) By not using a real name, everyone in the department would be now part of this "witch hunt" you speak of. How fair is that? This would indicate to me someone that cares more about himself than his coworkers and the city. Just so you can attack the mayor for one of the other two candidates you back?
2) This guy could easily be fired for any of a number of reasons in this "witch hunt." Had he spoken up hismself he would have been protected.
3) He is complicit in the problem. He allows all of the things he thinks are so wrong to continue.
4) He and you are probably bringing real heat on your relative in that department. Which if it is not him, is very, very unfair.
I know that no boss likes to be told go to hell, it has to be even harder when it is presented as one in a hundred. This is common sense.
Faceless attacks in my book are worthless.
Tell your friend to come out of the closet and help make the city he works for better. Maybe he is too busy driving to and from work.
.