Pegulas mentioned by name in Eric Reid story

[sleeby]

16 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

The only argument to be made is when someone puts up 1.4 Billion he should have his voice heard when the actions of his employees start to lose him money.

Nonsense.  Employees have contracts.  By your logic any employer can fire anyone for any reason so long as they can tie it to profit.  Female employee pregered up?  Fire her.  Sorry.  You're wrong.  Can your employer fire you for not standing for the anthem?  It's surely not in your employment contract same as it's not in theirs.

22 minutes ago, CLTbills said:

It's a simple concept, really. I can't believe how many people can't understand this. If I owned a business, and an employee is costing me money/business, sorry bud, you're gone.

You obviously know nothing about running a business.  You would be sued repeatedly and into poverty. There are labor laws.

Edited October 31, 2018 by sleeby

[CLTbills]

8 minutes ago, sleeby said:

Nonsense.  Employees have contracts.  By your logic any employer can fire anyone for any reason so long as they can tie it to profit.  Female employee pregered up?  Fire her.  Sorry.  You're wrong.  Can your employer fire you for not standing for the anthem?  It's surely not in your employment contract same as it's not in theirs.

You obviously know nothing about running a business.  You would be sued repeatedly and into poverty. There are labor laws.

In my state, I can be terminated for any reason at any time, as long as it is not discriminatory. So yes. If I do something stupid that costs my employer money, they can fire me at any time.

No, you can't fire an employee for being pregnant, because that's discrimination. Try another example, because that's not even a comparison to what we're talking about.

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

So eh... your job isn't an NFL athlete. I understand the company you work for may have rules against it. The NFL, they don't. So you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

I feel like the people who make this point are people who just disagree with some players and want an easy way to silence them

I'll wager you're not an expert at labor relations or contracts either.   See collective bargaining agreement article 42 club discipline, conduct detrimental to the team. 

[Beast]

19 minutes ago, sleeby said:

Nonsense.  Employees have contracts.  By your logic any employer can fire anyone for any reason so long as they can tie it to profit.  Female employee pregered up?  Fire her.  Sorry.  You're wrong.  Can your employer fire you for not standing for the anthem?  It's surely not in your employment contract same as it's not in theirs.

You obviously know nothing about running a business.  You would be sued repeatedly and into poverty. There are labor laws.

 

An employer can certainly dictate terms of employment. If you don’t think so you are very naive.

 

In fact, the NBA faced this issue years ago and took action.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Binghamton Beast

[sleeby]

"In my state, I can be terminated for any reason at any time, as long as it is not discriminatory. "

 

Do You say this as though it's a good thing?  If true then your state is a disgrace.  Vote wisely next week would be my advice. 

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Fred Clause said:

What makes him an idiot is fighting for a cause that is garbage, complaining that a few idiots who couldn’t follow simple instructions of LEO’S and died because of it is ridiculous. A simple review of arrest statistics shows the number of blacks killed by Law Enforcement where they weren’t reason for the action shows the number is irrelevant. Still people would be on board if they weren’t jamming it down peoples throats. Go out on your own time, march on Washington, start your own foundation, actually show that you care about the real problem in your community which is black on black crime. Sorry, he’s an idiot because he wants to blame others for poor behavior of certain individuals who won’t take personal responsibility for their own actions.

Philando Castile. Killed because he had a gun in the car. Told the officer he had a gun. And reached for the glove compartment to show the proper documentation for the gun. Cop gets nothing.

 

Eric Garner. Killed by the hard working folks of the NYPD for the heinious crime of selling cigarettes. Told the officer's he couldn't breathe, and they still didn't care.

 

Botham Jean. Killed in his own appartment because he would follow the commands of a cop who broke in for no reason. For some reason, after the man was murdered, the police found it necessary to search his home to find marijuana.  She didn't get arrested for three days, and got an escort by her buddies in the police force to and from the court house.

 

But yeah. Bunch of idiots not following commands. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by The Real Buffalo Joe

[Ol Dirty B]

12 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

An employer can certainly dictate terms of employment. If you don’t think so you are very naive.

 

In fact, the NBA faced this issue years ago and took action.

 

You're right. Perhaps in the next CBA, the NFL will approach it the way the NBA does.

 

Just saying you're cut because you knelt during something you aren't contractually obligated to do would be dicey. I think the owners, fairly, just dont want to be publically involved in politics.

 

However, their employees are public figures and it opens up a whole other can of worms. Whether someone would win a lawsuit or arbitration for kneeling, would just be a PR mess. 

 

Some fans will love it, some will feel alienated.  

12 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'll wager you're not an expert at labor relations or contracts either.   See collective bargaining agreement article 42 club discipline, conduct detrimental to the team. 

 

I'm not looking up article 42...

 

Perhaps conduct detrimental to the team can include the bottom line. I'm not saying that if someone was cut for kneeling, they'd win a law suit.

 

It'd just be an awful look and a PR nightmare. 

 

I'm assuming you are an expert on this, since you called me not one? 

[boyst]

Just following up that maybe this clown wasn't signed because of his off the field mental liabilities but maybe his on the field. Dude was a joke last night. 

[Boatdrinks]

On 10/31/2018 at 11:16 AM, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

 

 

 

Philando Castile. Killed because he had a gun in the car. Told the officer he had a gun. And reached for the glove compartment to show the proper documentation for the gun. Cop gets nothing.

 

Eric Garner. Killed by the hard working folks of the NYPD for the heinious crime of selling cigarettes. Told the officer's he couldn't breathe, and they still didn't care.

 

Botham Jean. Killed in his own appartment because he would follow the commands of a cop who broke in for no reason. For some reason, after the man was murdered, the police found it necessary to search his home to find marijuana.  She didn't get arrested for three days, and got an escort by her buddies in the police force to and from the court house.

 

But yeah. Bunch of idiots not following commands. 

Not exactly what happened on Castile. Once he made the officer aware that he had a weapon, he was then told to keep his hands visible. He proceeded to reach for his wallet anyway. Unfortunate, but instructions weren’t followed and he had a weapon. The Office was fired, but his actions were not criminal. The off duty cop that mistakenly entered the wrong apartment and discharged her weapon was fired, and charged criminally as she should have been. That’s a far cry from an incident that occurred while on duty. On duty incidents are investigated and even go to jury trials. With the amount of Police/ civilian encounters that occur on an annual basis, shootings are very rare. It’s a microscopic “ issue” relative to civilian on civilian shootings which are almost never justified. Those are Okay though in the eyes of “ activists” and “ protesters” who are very concerned about “ justice”...depending on who is pulling the trigger, that is.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

5 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Not exactly what happened on Castile. Once he made the officer aware that he had a weapon, he was then told to keep his hands visible. He proceeded to reach for his wallet anyway. Unfortunate, but instructions weren’t followed and he had a weapon. The Office was fired, but his actions were not criminal. The off duty cop that mistakenly entered the wrong apartment and discharged her weapon was fired, and charged criminally as she should have been. That’s a far cry from an incident that occurred while on duty. On duty incidents are investigated and even go to jury trials. With the amount of Police/ civilian encounters that occur on an annual basis, shootings are very rare. It’s a microscopic “ issue” relative to civilian on civilian shootings which are almost never justified. Those are Okay though in the eyes of “ activists” and “ protesters” who are very concerned about “ justice”...depending on who is pulling the trigger, that is.

Hypothetically, and this hasn't happened yet to my knowledge. But if the police do a no knock raid on the wrong house, if the homeowner heard people breaking in, grabbed his gun, and shot an officer, would that be justifiable? 

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Hypothetically, and this hasn't happened yet to my knowledge. But if the police do a no knock raid on the wrong house, if the homeowner heard people breaking in, grabbed his gun, and shot an officer, would that be justifiable? 

Possibly, depending on what State the hypothetical situation occurred in. Many variables in that scenario. A jury might find the homeowners actions reasonable. 

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

2 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Possibly, depending on what State the hypothetical situation occurred in. Many variables in that scenario. A jury might find the homeowners actions reasonable. 

Don't care what the state is. Strictly from an ethical standpoint. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 10:20 AM, sleeby said:

"In my state, I can be terminated for any reason at any time, as long as it is not discriminatory. "

 

Do You say this as though it's a good thing?  If true then your state is a disgrace.  Vote wisely next week would be my advice. 

 

Why?  It's not your job.  It's the employers job, which he has agreed to allow you to do for an agreed upon sum.

 

I'm pretty sure that that you should be able to choose to leave your employment for any reason (even discrimination).  Why should the other party to your contract not be permitted to enter into it on the same grounds as you?

[BigDingus]

On 10/30/2018 at 1:32 PM, Billzgobowlin said:

Let's not kid ourselves the players are about the money too

But sports is the place where fans typically side with Billionaire owners who look for handouts over their millionaire employees who actually risk physical harm for their money, and who have a much shorter window to make that money.

It's an odd situation that doesn't mirror how most people view other professions. 

[sleeby]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Why?  It's not your job.  It's the employers job, which he has agreed to allow you to do for an agreed upon sum.

 

I'm pretty sure that that you should be able to choose to leave your employment for any reason (even discrimination).  Why should the other party to your contract not be permitted to enter into it on the same grounds as you?

Not sure who you are but the person I replied to had an avatar of a youngish, fit and able looking white guy - wait until he turns 59 and develops rheumatoid arthritis or whatnot.  The gig economy shift is for the .01% and not the workers.  But, hey, pity them and screw the masses I guess.  Whatever works for ya.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, sleeby said:

Not sure who you are but the person I replied to had an avatar of a youngish, fit and able looking white guy - wait until he turns 59 and develops rheumatoid arthritis or whatnot.  The gig economy shift is for the .01% and not the workers.  But, hey, pity them and screw the masses I guess.  Whatever works for ya.

 

I'm a person who responded to a post you made in a public forum.

 

Again, employment is nothing more than a contract based on a mutual agreement to associate.

 

You should be free to leave your employment agreement for any reason, why shouldn't the other party?

[John from Riverside]

On 10/30/2018 at 11:32 AM, Billzgobowlin said:

Let's not kid ourselves the players are about the money too

IKR?

 

Are the players doing this for charity?

[sleeby]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm a person who responded to a post you made in a public forum.

 

Again, employment is nothing more than a contract based on a mutual agreement to associate.

 

You should be free to leave your employment agreement for any reason, why shouldn't the other party?

Ok, let's go with they should be allowed to remove and replace as desired no major rules save discrimination .  that's your stand.  So therefore it's smart and acceptable and, well, common sense capitalism that they fire their US staff amd replace with alternatives that make best sense - cheaper educated labor in other countries such as India; cheaper less skilled labor in other countries such as Hong kong and china and cheaper lesser skilled labor domesticly such as young men in their 20s and recent immigrants.  Why keep the janitor who's been doing his job well for 30 years and making more than the minimum they could pay a recent high school grad or guy back from the wars and looking for.a job?  Screw em. The janitor shouldn't have stayed so long amd started making more I guess.  

Let's worry ourselves about what's best for the 1% a few more decades and see how the US turns out.

[Luka]

24 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

But sports is the place where fans typically side with Billionaire owners who look for handouts over their millionaire employees who actually risk physical harm for their money, and who have a much shorter window to make that money.

It's an odd situation that doesn't mirror how most people view other professions. 

 

That's because owners, like Pegula, are providing a source of entertainment for the people watching. Fans are acutely aware that most players are playing for money and have no loyalty to the team. They however, do have said loyalty and will continue to have said loyalty long after the player leaves or retires.

 

I also think you are painting with an extremely broad brush and siding with the owners is more like siding with keeping football around as opposed to not having football.

 

The millionaire employees are just that, millionaire employees playing a game. I think most people would kill to be able to play football and make millions doing it. They are choosing to play. They should understand the risk associated with playing before signing up. After all they've probably been playing their whole life. I'll tear my ACL right now for 6 million dollars.

 

The players are more than compensated for the "risk" they are taking. The truth is most trade workers face entirely more risk everyday and get compensated far less.

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, sleeby said:

Ok, let's go with they should be allowed to remove and replace as desired no major rules save discrimination .  that's your stand.  So therefore it's smart and acceptable and, well, common sense capitalism that they fire their US staff amd replace with alternatives that make best sense - cheaper educated labor in other countries such as India; cheaper less skilled labor in other countries such as Hong kong and china and cheaper lesser skilled labor domesticly such as young men in their 20s and recent immigrants.  Why keep the janitor who's been doing his job well for 30 years and making more than the minimum they could pay a recent high school grad or guy back from the wars and looking for.a job?  Screw em. The janitor shouldn't have stayed so long amd started making more I guess.  

Let's worry ourselves about what's best for the 1% a few more decades and see how the US turns out.

 

You aren't answering the question, you're pontificating.

 

I'll present you with three facts, and then ask the question again:

 

1)  Employment is nothing more than a contract based on a mutual agreement to associate.

 

2)  The employee doesn't own the job.  The employer owns the job.

 

3)  You should be free to leave your employment agreement for any reason.

 

Why shouldn't the other party, who actually has the equity stake in the job, not be permitted the same leverage as the first party to the contract?