And bad employment practice.

Any Sworn position includes a clause as to the legitimacy and obligation to work within a set chain of command. Usually with a phrase like "to obey those appointed over me". Oathkeepers understand the concept, if you work for ABC agency or some particular municipality, you are not to hijack a chain of command from XYZ agency or some other municipality or government organization or it is bad ethics and a violation of your oath. In that sense, the Oathkeeper probably has a better understanding of this than a non-oathkeepr who figures he is a "cop" forever and just working for whatever agency at the moment.

The current Oathkeeper organization is not one to hijack some municipality over the placement of parking meters or how many witnesses are needed in order to make a Rape arrest. They only provide a functional moral framework for the justification of disobedience in the face of clearly unconstitutional orders which violate basic rights. It is not remarkably different from the way trade unions and guilds will, through association and organization, look out for certain ethical and competence in their respective trades, however in the field of law enforcement and to a lesser degree the military, those who associate with organizations like the Oathkeepers feel there is a significant importance to meeting certain moral, ethical and maybe even spiritual standards when dealing with the general public in areas and situations which quite literally place freedoms in this nation at stake, and quite often the lives of its individual citizens at stake.

I think what is really happening a lot right now, in violation of a lot of elements of the Constitution and concept of the various oaths of office and separation of powers is that certain Justice Department aligned organizations and NGOs are subverting the chains of command of other organizations in order to isolate people they perceive as political enemies, and thus you see such action in these things being taken against people who have sympathies in the patriot movement but are still employed in law enforcement or serving in the military.

There is a line somewhere that gets crossed between getting some things done, or dealing with a grievance by using someone else's chain of command make them aware of a problem, and forwarding an ideologically hate based agenda to "get" people who you think you want to put down.

If those guys were not breaking any major internal organization rules or hijacking the organization chain of command on behalf of the oathkeeprs, then even a left leaning union legal system should have concern for getting involved.

It is not particularly different from people getting fired for being associated with a union while working at a non-union associated agency (although most have a union of some sort now).