I think that it shouldn't change one bit, just because an NFL player commits these crimes doesn't mean that the head man of the NFL should be given the responsibility to punish said person. However, if the team goes a head and cuts him for doing such things then that decision is on them.
The judge should have to decide whether or not he can continue to play, having the commissioner deal with this, on top of the police is wrong.
The judge should have to decide whether or not he can continue to play, having the commissioner deal with this, on top of the police is wrong.
When you're famous like a football player you're an inspiration and a figure head of a sport, when you fuck up outside of work, you're still a football player an inspiration and a figure head whether you like it or not.
Same with school you're a student about to graduate and if you're doing drugs in public places outside of school and a teacher sees you it should be up to them on what should be done to keep a certain image on their school after all you are graduating from their school.
To think you can do illegal activities in public places and expect it not to effect your work is kind of dumb. No employer wants an idiot working for them even if they are good workers, it's too much of a liability and a potential risk in the future.
Same with school you're a student about to graduate and if you're doing drugs in public places outside of school and a teacher sees you it should be up to them on what should be done to keep a certain image on their school after all you are graduating from their school.
To think you can do illegal activities in public places and expect it not to effect your work is kind of dumb. No employer wants an idiot working for them even if they are good workers, it's too much of a liability and a potential risk in the future.
Last edited by T0ribush; Sep 23, 2014 at 08:39 PM.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
In a perfect world I agree with this. It's unrelated to his job so why would he be fired because of it. In almost any job this is the way it works - you can't fire something for something that does not impact their job.
But considering the amount of activists there are these days, they will lobby and protest and make a huge problem. I know it's cancerous to start giving in to these people, but I can see why it's the easiest course of action.
You can get fired just for being accused of domestic violence? I think that's a problem
I believe Oracle has already stated something like this, but let me give it a shot.
For the most part, domestic violence is illegal. If you work for a company/organization that holds you to high expectations such as the NFL, or as a high ranking executive, doing illegal things (and getting caught) is a pretty good way to get terminated. Besides the bad publicity and apparent moral precedent that could follow suit for the organization, it could also disrupt the teamwork inside the organization. As in, it's likely that people in the organization working with the individual in question probably have a problem with the behaviors he has been accused of. Furthermore, if you, as an organization, are responsible for the individual, backing away from their situation by suspending them could limit your involvement in their judicial processes.
On a lesser note, another reasons organization typically frown on violent or illegal behavior is because behaviors tend to be reoccurring. If you can get pissed and hit your wife, it shows something about your personality that could reasonably worry someone responsible for you. What it shows may or may not be accurate, but that's irrelevant in the subject of perception.
Omnia Mori
sed Evici Amor
sed Evici Amor
Originally Posted by Thorn
I believe Oracle has already stated something like this, but let me give it a shot.
For the most part, domestic violence is illegal. If you work for a company/organization that holds you to high expectations such as the NFL, or as a high ranking executive, doing illegal things (and getting caught) is a pretty good way to get terminated. Besides the bad publicity and apparent moral precedent that could follow suit for the organization, it could also disrupt the teamwork inside the organization. As in, it's likely that people in the organization working with the individual in question probably have a problem with the behaviors he has been accused of. Furthermore, if you, as an organization, are responsible for the individual, backing away from their situation by suspending them could limit your involvement in their judicial processes.
On a lesser note, another reasons organization typically frown on violent or illegal behavior is because behaviors tend to be reoccurring. If you can get pissed and hit your wife, it shows something about your personality that could reasonably worry someone responsible for you. What it shows may or may not be accurate, but that's irrelevant in the subject of perception.
Better fire all minorities too because people don't work as well with people of different race. Also make everyone look the same if possible, have a uniform and oh yeah fire all of the minority genders.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
