loses $4million a year job over photo

[millbank]

A bank America Corp analyst was fired from his $4 million a year job for a photo he placed on his presentation. The photo had him being carried over a threshold by a man him wearing a dress and high heels. He is known for such humor and is regarded highly by all who use his services, who say they do not understand why he would get fired for this, as in a very bland business his style and humor appreciated. The New York Post says he will lose his $4 million dollar a year job and a $5 million bonus, good grief and Moss gets a $10000 fine for mooning and wiping his behind on a goal post....

Story and photo is here:

 

 

Fired over Photo

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Not to worry, he'll make a LOT more in the lawsuit against them.

[BuckeyeBill]

Moss should get a lot bigger fine than that. I like to see how much that would set me back.

 

Moss makes 10 million a year, right?

I make 30 thousand a year.

Okay..

 

so for every 1 dollar I make, Moss makes 333 dollars (roughly).

 

So, 10,000 dollars to me would be... let's see 10000/333...

 

30 bucks!!

 

The equivalency of hurt to Moss is 30 bucks to me! Heck, I spend 30 bucks on a nice dinner.

 

The point, the fine didn't hurt Moss one bit!! He will do it again in a heart beat!

 

So unfair.

[GG]

Gee, and I thought money equaled power.

 

But, I'd be very surprised if he's unemployed for more than one hour.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

It's not a matter of being fined what should hurt you. I mean when Eric Barton only gets fined $5000 for bashing his forearm into Drew Brees' head, versus Moss being fined $10000 for simulating a mooning, you KNOW something is wrong.

[millbank]

Gee, and I thought money equaled power.

 

But, I'd be very surprised if he's unemployed for more than one hour.

206488[/snapback]

 

very likely and a substantial raise as well..........

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Thw fining and the firing are not necessarily things I would compare because they designed to achieve different effects and also to achieve different things.

 

I see the fining of Moss as not designed at all to hurt him financially, because it is obvious that as far as he goes 10K is mere chump change in terms of what he makes from the NFL and what he has overall in terms of wealth,

 

I think it is more of a statement from the NFL of what it wants to be associated with or not and what it judges to be the relationship it wants to have between itself, its employees and its clients.

 

I think the Moss fine is low not in relation to its impact upon him and his finances, which quite frankly is going to be pretty negligible up to a huge fine, I think it actually is not much of a statement in terms of showing respect to its customers in terms of leveling some level of censure on a player for a blatant non-football act and an act of childishness.

 

The firing on the other hand involves a hefty financial hit on the individual involved because he substantial salary is being taken from him and uncertainty about his future delivered upon him by his firing.

 

BoA may actually be well within their rights forfiring him as his actions involved what the company deemed an inapprorpriate display on company letterhead and in a report.

 

It doesn't bother me even if he was a cross-dresser as long as he is providing me with the service I want for the price I am paying him.

 

However, I can easily see that BoA may not find it in their interest for him to cultivate a cavalier and fun style that I might not find offensive when their business is managing folks money.

 

So this judgment is not something that bothers my sensibilities even though the cover picture does not bother my sensibilities either.

[millbank]

Thw fining and the firing are not necessarily things I would compare because they designed to achieve different effects and also to achieve different things. 

 

I see the fining of Moss as not designed at all to hurt him financially, because it is obvious that as far as he goes 10K is mere chump change in terms of what he makes from the NFL and what he has overall in terms of wealth,

 

I think it is more of a statement from the NFL of what it wants to be associated with or not and what it judges to be the relationship it  wants to have between itself, its employees and its clients.

 

I think the Moss fine is low not in relation to its impact upon him and his finances, which quite frankly is going to be pretty negligible up to a huge fine, I think it actually is not much of a statement in terms of showing respect to its customers in terms of leveling some level of censure on a player for a blatant non-football act and an act of childishness.

 

The firing  on the other hand involves a hefty financial hit on the individual involved because he substantial salary is being taken from him and uncertainty about his future delivered upon him by his firing.

 

BoA may actually be well within their rights forfiring him as his actions involved what the company deemed an inapprorpriate display on company letterhead and in a report.

 

It doesn't bother me even if he was a cross-dresser as long as he is providing me with the service I want for the price I am paying him.

 

However, I can easily see that BoA may not find it in their interest for him to cultivate a cavalier and fun style that I might not find offensive when their business is managing folks money.

 

So this judgment is not something that bothers my sensibilities even though the cover picture does not bother my sensibilities either.

206570[/snapback]

 

 

 

What I noticed about article was that his clients did not have a problem with the photo and understood it clearly as humor , something this man is noted for. Like most things there is likely more to story and based on his clients comments it sounds as though he will land on his feet.