breaking news on Vick

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

I am so tired of hearing this lame statement. "Innocent until proven guilty" is strictly a presumption in criminal proceedings, nothing more. A private corporation can do whatever it wants to its employees. You don't think Joe Jackson gets fired from the filling station simply because his employer beleives that he's taking a donut from the bakery section every morning?

Shoeless Joe works at the AM/PM station?

[Dr. Octopus 0]

Innocent until proven guilty has to do with your legal rights...not your rights to be a part of the NFL. Goodell has the power to try and protect the image of his league. The problem I have with his policy is that it is too subjective to what Goodell thinks or feels about something. The terms as to what gets your suspended are not really laid out clearly.

If Vick is suspended for the year but later found innocent...on what grounds will he sue? The policy does not state that there needs to be a conviction. Its basically something that puts the NFL in a negative light...and Vick has really already done that.

 

Not to mention that the NFL Player's Association gave the commisioner this right in the Coleective Bargaining Agreement.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

It's fairly simple to me. If you are the face of your company, you can't do just whatever you want. Image means everything in todays America.

 

ANd as far as lawsuits go...The NFL has enough high powered high priced lawyers on it to fight it all the way to the supreme court. They beat down Clarett, they'd beat down Vick too.

[famousb 11]

I've got a call in to an attorney friend to help explain why the guys heading the investigation have had a search warrant since 5/23 but have blocked it's being executed...I don't get that.

 

i believe their reasoning is due to language in it... meaning that either they want broader search terms so not as to miss anything, or they think the way that it was worded could result in resulting evidence being deemed inadmissable. That's just my take, but i'd be willing to gamble that it's to help build a more air-tight case if something is found...

[Dr. Octopus 0]

Marinerate you couldn't be more wrong adn you may want to step back from this conversation.

 

1. A company can definately set a "personal conduct policy" and every major corporation does. Your examples are not on point. Of course they cannot discriminate based on race, religion, marriage, sexual orientation, but they can surely block you from sexual websites, or have the right to fire you based on an arrest, or a public embarressment.

 

2. The NFL Players Association bargained for and ratified the Collective Bargaining Agreemnt which sets the policy that you say corprations cannot (conduct detrmintal to the league) and gave the commisioner the right to enforce the policy and guess what. It also gives the Commisioner the sole right to hear appeals.

 

3. If Vick did sue the NFL it would likely never even make it to the jury. A judge decides issues of law and a case can be ended and judgment awarded to a party based solely on the law if the parties agree to all the facts. The law is on the NFL's side here. They did what they had the pwoer to do under the Agreement. The McDonald's lawsuit has no basis in this discussion. McDonald's has a duty to keep its customers safe and free from harm. Was that a bogus decision. Yes, but based on the law it has a basis to go forward.

[marinerate 0]

I am so tired of hearing this lame statement. "Innocent until proven guilty" is strictly a presumption in criminal proceedings, nothing more. A private corporation can do whatever it wants to its employees. You don't think Joe Jackson gets fired from the filling station simply because his employer beleives that he's taking a donut from the bakery section every morning?

 

A private corporation cannot do whatever it wants to its employees. If you fire a someone and he or she is a minority for no good reason, you are opening up your company for a lawsuit. If you don't promote people based on race, religion, or gender you are opening yourself up for lawsuits. I don't like the system, I think it need to be changed, but it is what it is. The Joe Jackson you refer to doesn't sue because he makes nothing, and therefore will get nothing even if he wins, because the money he would have made from that job must be subtracted from the money he is currently making in his new job, the difference would be the settlement dollars, which in this case would be nothing. In the NFL, you are talking about millions. Vick cannot go anywhere else and make the kind of money he is making now. Based on the aforementioned scenerio, how could Vick sue? Easy. Lost wages. First, the wages he lost by being suspended. Second, the wages he could have earned throughout his career. We are potentially talking about a fortune, that is why the commissioners policy is flawed. I think it will only be a matter of time until it is tested.

[famousb 11]

I don't agree. Corporations are not allowed to have personal conduct policies. A company, for example cannot say they want those who believe in God to work for them. They also cannot say they only want those who are married working for them. There are all types of of anti-discrimination laws out there. Those who get in trouble for e-mailing at work get in trouble because they were not doing their job while on the clock. Vick and these other guys cannot be held responsible 24/7, unless their contract states that their job is 24/7. I just feel the league is opening themselves up to lawsuits, and when you're talking about millions, the lawyers will jump on board. Also, if and when these civil claims trials go to jury, anything is possible. Just look at the hot coffee at McDonald's case. Again, I don't defend the actions of those responsible, I just think the league need to cover itself better by making suspensions after plea bargains or jury convictions.

 

you can't seriously be that naive about corporations having the right to formulate their own policies, can you? You most certainly can, and will, be fired for the ACT of emailing p0rn if it is against your corporate policy to do so through their system. I've seen news stories for teachers getting fired for having p0rn in their emails. Heck, i saw one story where a teacher was fired for having p0rn on his PERSONAL laptop that he just happened to plug into the school system one day. Corporations are the same, some make you sign a personal conduct policy when you are hired.

Have you ever worked in a large corporate environment? if your answer is Yes that you work in one right now, send a quick email to your HR dept and ask them if you can get fired for emailing p0rn through your email system. Or what is the organization's personal conduct policy. Maybe it'll open your eyes a little...

and if your answer is No, then i really don't think you should interject your uninformed opinion on that particular aspect of the topic.

 

HTH.

 

A private corporation cannot do whatever it wants to its employees. If you fire a someone and he or she is a minority for no good reason, you are opening up your company for a lawsuit. If you don't promote people based on race, religion, or gender you are opening yourself up for lawsuits. I don't like the system, I think it need to be changed, but it is what it is. The Joe Jackson you refer to doesn't sue because he makes nothing, and therefore will get nothing even if he wins, because the money he would have made from that job must be subtracted from the money he is currently making in his new job, the difference would be the settlement dollars, which in this case would be nothing. In the NFL, you are talking about millions. Vick cannot go anywhere else and make the kind of money he is making now. Based on the aforementioned scenerio, how could Vick sue? Easy. Lost wages. First, the wages he lost by being suspended. Second, the wages he could have earned throughout his career. We are potentially talking about a fortune, that is why the commissioners policy is flawed. I think it will only be a matter of time until it is tested.

 

again you are off-base. Playing in the NFL is not a right granted by the Constitution, it is a privilege, much like working for any organization.

I can fire ANY employee from my company, minority or not, ANY time i want if i have documented their breach of any company policy. Most of the time their not getting fired for one offense unless it is an eggregious one, but if they repeatedly breach policy and it is documented, there is no legal ground for them to stand on.

[marinerate 0]

Marinerate you couldn't be more wrong adn you may want to step back from this conversation.

 

1. A company can definately set a "personal conduct policy" and every major corporation does. Your examples are not on point. Of course they cannot discriminate based on race, religion, marriage, sexual orientation, but they can surely block you from sexual websites, or have the right to fire you based on an arrest, or a public embarressment.

 

2. The NFL Players Association bargained for and ratified the Collective Bargaining Agreemnt which sets the policy that you say corprations cannot (conduct detrmintal to the league) and gave the commisioner the right to enforce the policy and guess what. It also gives the Commisioner the sole right to hear appeals.

 

3. If Vick did sue the NFL it would likely never even make it to the jury. A judge decides issues of law and a case can be ended and judgment awarded to a party based solely on the law if the parties agree to all the facts. The law is on the NFL's side here. They did what they had the pwoer to do under the Agreement. The McDonald's lawsuit has no basis in this discussion. McDonald's has a duty to keep its customers safe and free from harm. Was that a bogus decision. Yes, but based on the law it has a basis to go forward.

 

 

You may be right, and I hope you are, but I still say the NFL is opening itself up to lawsuits. I just think the NFL should step back and wait until after plea bargains or jury convictions before they suspend players. Agreements between workers and employers can say one thing, but when it goes to a jury, anything can happen. There are all kinds of doctors out there that had patients sign forms stating that there was a risk of death from such and such operation, only to find out that after the patients death the family sued and won. Agreements don't matter much if the jury sees it a different way. As far as me stepping back, I will take that advice, at least for now. I've wasted more time this morning discussing this than I wanted to for this issue really has no significance for me or my family. Thanks

[fastfish 0]

 

i believe their reasoning is due to language in it... meaning that either they want broader search terms so not as to miss anything, or they think the way that it was worded could result in resulting evidence being deemed inadmissable. That's just my take, but i'd be willing to gamble that it's to help build a more air-tight case if something is found...

or maybe there is a Swiss bank account that has $1,000,000.00 waiting for each guy if this case somehow gets botched beyond repair. Vick can pay that and that's one helluva retirement nest egg for regular working folk eh?

[famousb 11]

or maybe there is a Swiss bank account that has $1,000,000.00 waiting for each guy if this case somehow gets botched beyond repair. Vick can pay that and that's one helluva retirement nest egg for regular working folk eh?

i'm actually expecting to hear that Vick sold that property to someone in the prosecutor's family, extended circle, etc... since it sold in 1 day for 1/2 of it's appraised value...

 

 

and on a slightly different note... i don't know how Vick can't get convicted by a jury if they just show picture after picture of tortured dog, and the pens, and the pit, etc... emotions can be a very strong influence on people...

[Parja 0]

you can't seriously be that naive about corporations having the right to formulate their own policies, can you? You most certainly can, and will, be fired for the ACT of emailing p0rn if it is against your corporate policy to do so through their system. I've seen news stories for teachers getting fired for having p0rn in their emails. Heck, i saw one story where a teacher was fired for having p0rn on his PERSONAL laptop that he just happened to plug into the school system one day. Corporations are the same, some make you sign a personal conduct policy when you are hired.

Have you ever worked in a large corporate environment? if your answer is Yes that you work in one right now, send a quick email to your HR dept and ask them if you can get fired for emailing p0rn through your email system. Or what is the organization's personal conduct policy. Maybe it'll open your eyes a little...

and if your answer is No, then i really don't think you should interject your uninformed opinion on that particular aspect of the topic.

 

First off, I don't agree with marinerate, but you're using the wrong example for this argument.

 

E-mailing porn on the company's e-mail system is certainly a fireable offense because it's violating their computer system use policy as well as the fact that you should be working, not because of any personal conduct policy.

 

I can surf all the porn I want at home. If, for some reason, my company finds out that I do so, they have no right to fire me.

[famousb 11]

E-mailing porn on the company's e-mail system is certainly a fireable offense because it's violating their computer system use policy as well as the fact that you should be working, not because of any personal conduct policy.

I can surf all the porn I want at home. If, for some reason, my company finds out that I do so, they have no right to fire me.

good point... for the regular worker that doesn't apply in that regard.

 

maybe a public politician (non-elected) figure getting a few too many DUIs and being "asked" to resign from his position is a better example...

 

ps. you got any good links that i may not have found yet...

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

good point... for the regular worker that doesn't apply in that regard.

 

maybe a public politician (non-elected) figure getting a few too many DUIs and being "asked" to resign from his position is a better example...

 

ps. you got any good links that i may not have found yet...

A better example would be someone who is the face of a company. Say Kobe Bryant advertising for McDonalds and gets accused of rape... Link

 

Doesn't really matter that he was never convicted. You can't be the face of something and be involved in bad things. You can't bring bad press and expect in these days to not have some action taken against you.

[Parja 0]

good point... for the regular worker that doesn't apply in that regard.

 

maybe a public politician (non-elected) figure getting a few too many DUIs and being "asked" to resign from his position is a better example...

 

ps. you got any good links that i may not have found yet...

 

Though I've never seen any corporate personal conduct policy that applies to the employee while not involved in work related activities, the NFL does. The players' union approved that policy and gave the commissioner the powers he has, so I don't see the problem. Plus, it seems logical that due to the popularity of the NFL and its players, a player can always be considered to be "on the job" when in public, to some extent.

[RoadLizard 73]

Though I've never seen any corporate personal conduct policy that applies to the employee while not involved in work related activities, the NFL does. The players' union approved that policy and gave the commissioner the powers he has, so I don't see the problem. Plus, it seems logical that due to the popularity of the NFL and its players, a player can always be considered to be "on the job" when in public, to some extent.

 

Good points. I know that people deserve some privacy and all that but those that earn the big bucks have to realize that part of the "deal"(mansions, cars, luxuries, fame, etc, etc) is that they are held to higher standards and the expectations will be greater from a character perspective. Its not always "fair" per say, but you could argue that its not "fair" that these guys make more money in one MONTH than many families will earn over a 20 year period. Those families work just as hard and struggle prolly even more so the "fair" argument for popular people/atheletes holds very little water. In other words..... they are responsible for their actions in a BIG way!

 

You would think that Vick cant be that stoopid though, at least I hope. If you see any footage of those dog fights or read some of the horrors it just turns your stomach, even if you have a strong stomach. It is vile and disgusting...... and I dont even like dogs. Actually, I cant stand big, mean dogs but to have them fight each other until one is basically defacating on itself and then it dies is pretty freegin sad. What the fock is wrong with these people? Vick really out to know better...... geeesh!

[jgcrawfish 232]

Anybody who thinks companies don't have conduct policies that extend beyond the scope of employment is dead wrong. Commit and be convicted of a felony and you'll quickly find that your job is eliminated as well. Almost all large companies have a code of conduct that not only dictates what happens on your job, but also stipifies that you must report any circumstances outside of employment which fit a certain kind of definition, felony arrest/conviction being one. If you fail to report and they find out, you can be dismissed for non-notification. If you do report it and aren't dismissed for violating the terms of employment (ie, cannot ever have been convicted of a felony) then you can be sure that your will be managed out the door at some point. There's too much risk/liability for corporations to employ someone they cannot vouch for, especially in places that require licenses (brokers, real estate, insurance) or access to financial records (just about any place else) or jobs that require bonding. So throw your innocent until proven guilty arguement out the door, doesn't hold weight with companies/corporations.

 

This doesn't even take into account the fact that Vick has certain language built into his contract regarding behavior, arrests, convictions, etc. This guy is doomed if the slightest piece of hard evidence linking him to any of these activities is found, not to mention how hard the Feds will come down to break up a ring like this. Hell, it already looks really, really bad since it's on his property which he promptly sold. I'm telling you there will be records that come out from contractors who built those dog fighting houses which will link Vick's wallet to all of this.

[fastfish 0]

The PR facts: you can be outrageous, get in fights, hit your woman, drink, do dope and if ya say "sorry" and play well on Sunday, you'll likely be ok in the long run. BUT...if you abuse kids or dogs, you are dead to the public and to NFL fans. Zero tolerance for hurting kids or dogs on purpose. The Commish won't wait to suspend Vick...all he needs is to have the charges made and a few of the facts made public. That's it...Vick sits until proven innocent. That's the law of PR and what the Commish meant when he said he'd "protect the shield." Imagine with charges pending and Vick still leading the Falcons all over the country to play on Sundays...it would be a circus with protesters at the stadium, bottles on the field, maybe boycotts of games...endless PR damage to the NFL. Not a chance the Commish allows it.

[wiffleball 4,640]

You know what happens when you bury a pitbull in the ground?

 

You get a Dogwood tree!!!

 

 

 

Also explains why Vick sold his house at a HUGE discount to the very first buyer.

[Riddlen 1]

I am not a lawyer, but I styayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I say they can suspend him.

[traders2001 0]

I am so tired of hearing this lame statement. "Innocent until proven guilty" is strictly a presumption in criminal proceedings, nothing more. A private corporation can do whatever it wants to its employees. You don't think Joe Jackson gets fired from the filling station simply because his employer beleives that he's taking a donut from the bakery section every morning?

 

 

except that Joe Jackson does nt have a multi year multi million dollars contract.

 

The PR facts: you can be outrageous, get in fights, hit your woman, drink, do dope and if ya say "sorry" and play well on Sunday, you'll likely be ok in the long run. BUT...if you abuse kids or dogs, you are dead to the public and to NFL fans. Zero tolerance for hurting kids or dogs on purpose. The Commish won't wait to suspend Vick...all he needs is to have the charges made and a few of the facts made public. That's it...Vick sits until proven innocent. That's the law of PR and what the Commish meant when he said he'd "protect the shield." Imagine with charges pending and Vick still leading the Falcons all over the country to play on Sundays...it would be a circus with protesters at the stadium, bottles on the field, maybe boycotts of games...endless PR damage to the NFL. Not a chance the Commish allows it.

 

 

So what you mean is that it s ok to beat your wife but you cant abuse dogs ( That s exactly your words ) very very smart i would not want to be your wife.

[famousb 11]

except that Joe Jackson does nt have a multi year multi million dollars contract.

 

last i checked, NFL contracts still weren't guaranteed... could be alot different if they were guaranteed, but they're not, so it makes no difference.

[jgcrawfish 232]

last i checked, NFL contracts still weren't guaranteed... could be alot different if they were guaranteed, but they're not, so it makes no difference.

 

Bingo

 

Not only that, but he's suspended they can go after him for pro-rated signing bonus, ala Ricky Williams.

[G-in O-town 0]

Also explains why Vick sold his house at a HUGE discount to the very first buyer.

 

 

I'd like to see who he sold it to. I wouldn't be surprised if he sold it to someone close such as family or friend.

[Parja 0]

Anybody who thinks companies don't have conduct policies that extend beyond the scope of employment is dead wrong.

 

Scan and post a copy of yours, then.

 

Personally, I've never seen one and I don't believe many companies would publish one because it would cause a significant uproar.

 

However, if something like this were to happen to an employee of just about any company, you can be sure that company will find a reason to fire that person. They won't come right out and say, "Joe got fired because he 'made it rain' at a strip joint," because, again, that would cause an uproar, but they'll dig out all of the dirt they have on him and be rid of him, nonetheless.

[famousb 11]

Scan and post a copy of yours, then.

 

Personally, I've never seen one and I don't believe many companies would publish one because it would cause a significant uproar.

 

However, if something like this were to happen to an employee of just about any company, you can be sure that company will find a reason to fire that person. They won't come right out and say, "Joe got fired because he 'made it rain' at a strip joint," because, again, that would cause an uproar, but they'll dig out all of the dirt they have on him and be rid of him, nonetheless.

 

just did a google search for:

"personal conduct policy" -NFL

 

and came up w/ some pretty good links. alot of church/religious links, but if you care to scan through, you'll find some pretty interesting things... alot have links that then tell you to refer to the employee handbook/manual, etc...

but here's one i found interesting from the City of Monroe, NC:

http://www.monroenc.org/Employee%20Ethics.pdf

(3) Officials and employees shall exercise discretion in their care of personal financial

activities to avoid any legal responsibilities/liabilities which would reflect unfavorably

upon the city. They shall not borrow money from or lend money to any employee,

executive, officer, director, competitor, or supplier.

...and...

(7) No employee shall engage in off-duty personal conduct which affects an employee’s

job performance or adversely affects the public trust and confidence placed in City

employees. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, acts of domestic violence, child

abuse or neglect, consensual sexual relationships between City employees, particularly

with a supervisor/subordinate relationship, and other inappropriate off-duty conduct by an

employee.

 

don't we have any HR people here?

[fastfish 0]

 

 

except that Joe Jackson does nt have a multi year multi million dollars contract.

 

 

 

 

So what you mean is that it s ok to beat your wife but you cant abuse dogs ( That s exactly your words ) very very smart i would not want to be your wife.

Exactly...it has to do with innocence. Kids and dogs are innocent...abusing them offends us at a very deep level. How many known pedophiles in the NFL? ZERO....How many guys have hit their woman and still play in the NFL? LOTS....And how many (now) known dog abusers? ONE...and he won't be around for long..... PS. I'm sure you'll make someone a fine wife.

[berven 0]

The way the investigation is unfolding, the facts will be clear soon enough. I think it's likely that Vick will make a deal with the prosecutors. What's more important is what the NFL is going to do. Animal lovers are a vocal movement, and leniency will ensure that Vick is an issue all season long. My prediction is that Vick will not play this year.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Scan and post a copy of yours, then.

 

Per your request, right off our company HR website:

 

Criminal Convictions

At (company name removed), we strive to maintain a safe environment for employees and customers, as well as minimize potential risks to our reputation and assets. Accordingly, newly hired employees and all individuals who are re-employed are required to be fingerprinted as a condition of employment.

 

Generally, individuals may not be hired or retained as employees if they have been convicted of, plead guilty or no contest to, or have entered into a pre- or post-trial diversion or similar program for criminal offenses involving dishonesty, money laundering or breach of trust, including crimes involving the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution of or trafficking in controlled substances.

 

In addition, crimes of violence, crimes related to the performance of an employee’s job or the job for which an individual is applying, and any drug-related crimes are closely scrutinized.

 

Pending or unresolved proceedings in connection with any of the crimes referenced above are also evaluated in accordance with the law.

 

Reporting Requirements

Employees are responsible for immediately informing their Human Resources Business Partner of any pending or unresolved criminal charge, arrest, pre- or post-trial diversion, adjudication withheld, plea of no contest, conviction or guilty plea for any felony or misdemeanor. Offenses that must be reported include, but are not limited to, crimes of dishonesty, breach of trust, crimes of violence and crimes involving the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution of or trafficking in controlled substances. Minor traffic violations do not need to be reported.

 

The information provided is considered in accordance with (company name removed) policy and applicable law, but will not necessarily result in termination of employment. If, however, an employee does not report such information or fails to report it in a timely manner, he or she may be subject to corrective action up to and including immediate termination of employment.

[Duff Bulgaria 0]

Scan and post a copy of yours, then.

 

Personally, I've never seen one and I don't believe many companies would publish one because it would cause a significant uproar.

 

However, if something like this were to happen to an employee of just about any company, you can be sure that company will find a reason to fire that person. They won't come right out and say, "Joe got fired because he 'made it rain' at a strip joint," because, again, that would cause an uproar, but they'll dig out all of the dirt they have on him and be rid of him, nonetheless.

 

 

I worked for a company who fired one of their drivers because he used the work truck to drive to a strip club. It was on his own time and he was allowed to use the truck for personal use.

[My_Dixie_Normus 0]

You heard it here first. Trent Green will be the starting QB on the Falcons this year and the Miami brain trust will have dumb look on their face.

[Duff Bulgaria 0]

There is a also difference between a gas station pumper and a high sales exec. Which is going to cause a higher negative impact on the perspective of the business should they be in trouble on the news.

 

So if we are comparing apples to apples, Vick would be the high sales exec. And anything he does, impacts the company.

[GobbleDog 816]

Why in the world would the cops say anything about a pending search warrant? The whole point is to find evidence and that's usually accomplished with a surprise search.

 

All they're going to find now is 30 holes in the ground.

[ROCKET 0]

Just curious but do any NFL players or owners own thoroughbred horses or greyhounds? You can definately make an analogy between the two. I say anyone involved with the use of animals for gambling should be immediately suspended too. Oh I forgot horse/dog racing is legal and socially accepted

 

And yes I am a big horse racing fan but I also know the toll it takes on the animal. For greyhounds it's even worse.

[football_scooter 0]

You heard it here first. Trent Green will be the starting QB on the Falcons this year and the Miami brain trust will have dumb look on their face.

 

actually, I said this yesterday, so they heard it here 2nd.

[GobbleDog 816]

You heard it here first. Trent Green will be the starting QB on the Falcons this year and the Miami brain trust will have dumb look on their face.

Not after Culpepper wins comeback player of the year!!! Go Dolphins!

 

[famousb 11]

actually, I said this yesterday, so they heard it here 2nd.

 

and i'm still calling for Trent to be Joey Ballgame's backup.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

Scan and post a copy of yours, then.

 

Personally, I've never seen one and I don't believe many companies would publish one because it would cause a significant uproar.

 

However, if something like this were to happen to an employee of just about any company, you can be sure that company will find a reason to fire that person. They won't come right out and say, "Joe got fired because he 'made it rain' at a strip joint," because, again, that would cause an uproar, but they'll dig out all of the dirt they have on him and be rid of him, nonetheless.

 

I'm not posting mine, but I work for a large internationl corp. and we had a 30 minute orietation seminar on just the policy when I started. Most if not all big corporations have a personal conduct policy.

[Parja 0]

Accordingly, newly hired employees and all individuals who are re-employed are required to be fingerprinted as a condition of employment.

 

Whoa! You work for a defense contractor or something?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Whoa! You work for a defense contractor or something?

 

Nope, just a big ol financial services company. There's other good stuff in there, but I can't type it...'cause they're probably watching me right now...

 

[famousb 11]

Whoa! You work for a defense contractor or something?

 

actually he could work at a daycare (or most places dealing w/ children) nowadays and be required to be fingerprinted...