Gagging clause?

[Jeremy Strickland]

I would like your views and interpretations of the following -

It's article 34 taken from the Employment of States Employees (Jersey) Law 2005.

34 Political activities of politically eligible States’ employees

(1) A politically eligible States’ employee may take public part in any political matter.

(2) However, the States’ Employment Board may, by notice in writing to a States’ employee who is a politically eligible States’ employee, discipline the employee, or terminate his or her employment as a States’ employee, if the employee has engaged in behaviour that constitutes gross misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (3).

(3) A politically eligible States’ employee shall be taken to have engaged in behaviour that constitutes gross misconduct if while he or she is a States’ employee he or she has, in the course of taking public part in any political matter –

(a) commented on existing States’ policies in an immoderate manner;

(b) engaged in personal attacks on members of the States; or

(c) used for political purposes information that the person was only able to obtain because the person is a States’ employee.

I see merit in paragraph (c) about information, but paragraphs (a) & (b) ?

[Jersey Forum Admin]

Well it seems pretty clear. If you're a States employee eligible to become a politician, you can't slag off your potential future political workmates (or their current policies - immoderately!)....so yeah, to paraphrase the title of this thread, it's a gagging order of sorts.

Interestingly, the term "politically eligible States’ employee" can probably be applied to the vast majority of the States workforce, from Cleaners to Managing Directors.

[onecheesey]

The problem with Jersey is that there are so many people who work for the States. This potential 'gagging order' therefore applies to a pretty large section of the voting populace.

I seem to remember a post on a local blog some time ago, from someone in the finance sector, who intimated at similar tactics in their place of work. Basically, all employees were emailed and bullied into voting for the pro-finance candidates. Although not a 'gagging order' as such nevertheless it was a shove to wards the right person.

I suppose that it would be reckless to bite the hand that feeds. But if you can see that a politician is bad at his/her job and it directly effects your employ then why not make a stand from within?

[Bea]

Because they clearly do not have effective Whistle blowing policies in place in states departments .
They might try and make the employers believe they have , but having read Stuart's blog and others,clearly evident ,you do not cause a fuss .
Thinking back even a few monts ago ,people were reluctant to challenge the Government on forums ,it was not done .
Once people did make a stand and say enough is enough ,gave people confident to vocalise what they really thought.