I find this article interesting as well, especially the last section:

"Finally, Kennedy made his point - a point that is little help to the discommoded high school teacher in New York: 'We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.'
Maybe that is the best the court can do in these constantly recurring cases.
But Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting in the Caballos case, made a good point: Public employees must have some freedom to make 'unwelcome speech' without suffering the kind of discipline imposed upon Caballos."

It is unfortunate that the majority decision would seek to restrict the speech of public employees regarding their official duties. Who is in a better position to offer reasonable criticism about a particular area than one who is responsible for carrying out administrative actions and policies as well as dealing with the complications that might arise from these actions and policies?