"He should have had a lawyer with him."
Yes he should have had a lawyer with him. But keep in mind things are a little different for a government employee. First, my understanding is that the "agent" doing the interrogation was a USPS IG/Postal Inspector, not FBI.
Most people are obviously familiar with the Miranda Warning given in a custodial interview of a criminal suspect. Most people are not familiar with Garrity and Kalkines warnings which apply to government employees. In the private sector, an employer can require an employee to provide a statement regarding an investigation of a workplace incident, be it sexual harassment, a workplace injury, etc. It's pretty straightforward: "I'm your boss, and I want you to tell the investigator what you saw. Failure to do so is failing to comply with a directive from your employer and may result in administrative action, up to and including termination."
It's a little bit different for a government employee, where the government doing the investigation is also the "boss". Garrity warnings arose from the interrogation of a NJ police officer accused of fixing tickets (which he did). His employer (the police department) required him to cooperate with the investigation as a condition of employment, during which he admitted to fixing tickets. The problem with this was that his admission of criminal activity was coerced by holding the threat of termination from his job, and it was held that his right against self-incrimination had been violated.
Consequently, Garrity Warnings were developed which, like a Miranda Warning, do advise a government employee that they do have a right to remain silent, but that information they provide may be used against them as evidence in a criminal proceeding.
Kalkines Warnings are the flip side of that coin. A Kalkines warning basically advised the government employee is being required by their employer to cooperate with an administrative or criminal investigation; however, because there is compulsion to provide a statement, they are essentially immunized from any self-incriminating statements being used as evidence in a criminal proceeding, and that the statement may not be shared with any parallel/concurrent criminal investigations. This does not immunize the employee from perjury if they knowingly lie or deliberately present false information during their immunized statement, nor does it immunize the employee from adverse administrative actions by the employer.
It would be interesting to see which warning the postal worker was given in this case.
An FBI agent named Strasser. Perfect. Wiki: Otto Strasser, together with his brother Gregor Strasser, was a leading member of the party’s left-wing fraction, and broke from the party due to disputes with the dominant “Hitlerite” faction. He formed the Black Front, a group intended to split the Nazi Party and take it from the grasp of Hitler. This group also functioned during his exile and World War II as a secret opposition group.
His brand of Nazism is now known as Strasserism.
Giving people warnings has nothing to do with them being allowed to have a Union Rep or legal counsel with them at the time of their questioning. I worked as an officer and Sergeant for NY State Department of Correctional Services. We had our own IG office that investigated alleged incidents that fell into a certain category. It didn’t matter, we were allowed to have a Union Rep, or a lawyer (Union or other) with us. We were even allowed to have a Union Rep if we were being counseled for anything.