An extremist state attorney general recently sacked tens of collections firms that were collecting state debts for the AG's office, and staffed primarily of workers who were registered as an opposing political party.

As I understand it, the basis for which companies got selected for sacking was not tied to performance in the slightest. It's apparently no secret that it was political (despite the apolitical nature of simply collecting money for the state).

IMO, this act was pure spite, with no apparent strategic advantage to the AG's political party. However misguided, it's legal, AFAIK. The question is, do the victims have any recourse, considering political standing is not protected from discrimination?

Do you have a link to this story?

Sacking people based on political leanings sounds very Rovian to me. If a link is provided, I'm guessing GOP AG. Unless it's La.

__________________
"beep beep"

rotflmbo

:crickets:

I looked, couldn't find one.

__________________
"beep beep"

There is no published story. It's supposedly something that's so common when there's a party change that it's not even newsworthy.

The point in the thread is not to tattle, and rant about who's doing what to who.. at least not at the moment, which is why I'm not detailing where it happened. I was just hoping to find out if it's purely something victims must accept.

It would be interesting to know if any states have established any means to prevent this spiteful practice, which besides damaging livelihoods, it's expensive to the taxpayer. Canning skilled and experienced veterans simply because of who they voted for is inefficient and costly.

Really


SOunds a lot like what happens at every election.............you win.......you bring your team.............nothing to see here