Walsh bans city employees from criticizing the Olympics

Sometime people go outside their reporting hierarchy to raise concerns about a project because the folks in their reporting structure don't take the concern seriously. This puts a chilling effect on criticism that might improve an outcome.

... the major media in Boston are already tail-wagging IOC bootlickers.

Read the Cornell link above.

City employees still have the right to self-determinedly say whatever they want about the Olympics. However, they don't have a self-determined right to work for the city. That's what the courts have decided. So, the city could fire them as long as it follows its contract agreements with them just like it fired the part-time employee from the highway protests. That's why I stated above that it'll be fun to see him try to enforce this with a unionized city employee. They will have far more protections about when, how, and for what they can be fired for than at-will employees and contractors.

So, he hasn't forfeited their rights with a signature. He's definitely created a conundrum and legal (read: money) battle should he ever be told to enforce this rejoinder by the USOC due to something that's said by a city employee, especially a unionized one. But they'd get to keep on saying whatever they wanted even if/after losing their job without fear of prosecution.

There's a big difference between prosecution and losing your job over having said something and the courts have split that difference just fine even for government employees (again, read the Cornell link).

Any politician who is capable of feeling shame is clearly unfit for office.

You just said "He's done" not becuase you have any insight into the politics but because you don't want him to be mayor.

... the Mayor is not (or was not, before today) even aware he agreed to this. I assume his staff just shoved the paperwork in front of him and said -- here, you have to sign this, the IOC folks have assured us that is all just routine boilerplate that all serious candidate cities have to agree to in order to be considered.

But now aren't you worried that as soon as the doors open, every seat in the place will already be filled with smiling robotic pro-Olympics city-or-otherwise personnel? They did promise 70,000 jobs...

... just because it is uniform, using standardized language, does not make it meaningless -- or unenforceable. When you take out a mortgage, almost everyting you sign is "boilerplate" -- try using its boilerplateness as an excuse for missing some payments -- and averting foreclosure.

BTW -- I am not offering "not actually reading it" as an excuse -- only as an explanation. He is totally responsible for signing this dreck whether he personally read it or not.

His intent is going to come out when he finally speaks on this matter. That will be fun as well.

However, his intent doesn't matter. What he signed an agreement to do is what matters here. He signed an agreement to make our city's employees play nice with the Olympics. That's offensive since it comes from a government official, not just an employer.

If I'm working for the city and I'm public complaining about the mayor and everything he does, there's a good chance I'm not getting that promotion.

The IOC wants something like 80% support when they choose a city...I certainly don't see that happening here (thank god).

We invented America.