Agreed, though, I'd say they act like that because they answer to the higher ups in the organisations they're apart of, and aren't properly independent. Thus there is no self-interested incentive to take the rank-and-file's side. I'm not sure why HR or IGs are ever assigned the task of 'representing' agents in the first place; it just seems like a conflict of interest.

Also, the plural of inspector general is inspectors general, not inspector generals.

I wonder if an independent board could eliminate this conflict of interest. We have a so-called independent system setup for lots of local policing agencies, yet they often coverup the misdeeds of the police rather than protecting the citizenry.