So we would assume that the "cover the collective ass" would mean to avoid lawsuits by addressing the issue directly. HR needs to have accountability in that regard.
At my old employer it did felt like HR was not my enemy, even when I was laid off and the HR person was helpful to me in the process and also crying when she broke the news. And the one harassment case of note in my time was handled quickly with the offender fired in about five weeks. But it was also a nonprofit and about 65 percent of the staff were women and probably less likely to tolerate harassment.
I think the makeup of a company is a huge tell. So when there is an equal amount of women, when people of color are represented, that’s a company that isn’t trying to recreate the boy’s club of the 1970s and earlier.
But often "covering the collective ass of ownership/business" means making sure your employees aren't ominously chanting outside the door with torches and pitchforks. If you have so many people talking to the media because of what you are doing it likely doesn't matter how many bodies you successfully buried for your bosses because you still failed.
The "capital punishment" comment is so mind-bogglingly tone-deaf that I can't even…Reasonable people are saying that firings are in order, including of people who enabled this toxic corporate culture, *not* firing squads.
My mentor at my old firm gave the best answer for this. "If you hire me, you lose your ability to speak about this ever. If anyone asks you about this, you give them my number. Write on a sheet of paper because you lost your ability to speak." Do they not teach lawyers that any more?
When you read "capital punishment" and think, "Surely he doesn't mean...", and then the next sentence references EXECUTION. That's right, holding a man even a little accountable is the same as murder by the state. Checks out.
It's amazing how out of touch these people are. And I hope that someone is looking at the Angels, too. None of this should be tolerated. Anywhere. And why is Mickey Callaway still "suspended"?
The absolute irony of him whining that women are so sensitive and why can't we let this go, while comparing some uncomfortable questions WITH BEING KILLED. Why does no one call Alderson a snowflake? Why does no one say he's a spoiled baby who needs to toughen up and face the real world? Why isn't he seen as pathetic and weak for whining that the mean reporters are so unfair?
Sandy Anderson's comments have a strong stench of "cancel culture" rebop that many people of a certain political party spew regarding topics like sexual harrasment or racial/cultural insensitivities. No idea what his personal politics are but I think we now know the toxic culture starts at the top for the Mets.
First it was "PC", then "SJW", then "woke", and now "cancel culture". People who do bad things are always looking for the next pithy bit of language they can appropriate to wield as a weapon against those who dare try to hold them accountable for their actions.
For sure. Easier to do that and get people outraged than try to justify their words and actions (which they probably realize is impossible). Nothing but bad faith arguments...
Mets have "new" ownership, but not really. Cohen was a part owner and his own huge firm has been fined ($1.8B with a B) for insider trading (in a more just society he'd have faced charges) and there have been accusations of sexism in his firm as well. The only change in this "organization" is the amount of money it is assigning to player payroll. Same old Mets.
As for Alderson, the ex-Marine, attorney, cancer survivor who rode in on a white horse? A fish with a fat resume still rots from the head down.
For what its worth, the phrase "industrial death penalty" is pretty often used in labor law and collective bargaining agreements to refer to employee termination. I would terminate Alderson for allowing the atmosphere to fester during his first stay in Queens and failure to quickly address it during his second stay including hiring someone known to be problematic, but I am not too concerned about the language he used.
It's not the language. It's Alderson's belief that everyone is blowing this out of proportion. How? ONE guy was fired and I've yet to see anyone claim it wasn't justified. The argument isn't just the number of harassment, discrimination, etc complaints, but also that they weren't addressed at all.
Also, his insistence on calling it man woman stuff, like the demand is for people to never socialise or have relationships, this is just ordinary flirting. He isn't defending that idea on the merits, because he can't. None of the complaints were "Guy asks woman on a date, she accuses him of rape" like Alderson's implying.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. But for what it is worth, I'm more concerned with the conduct (knowingly allowing the atmosphere to fester & rehiring someone with knowledge of these issues) than I am the intemperate at best statements about the situation. The conduct, even without the statements, is worthy of termination.
A 60-70ish white corporate exec mansplains to two female reporters that sexual harassment isn't that big a deal and people should just get over it already? Color me shocked.
I am reminded that in 1999, Sandy Alderson was working as Bud Lite's hatchet man, and that's when the umpires union screwed up with that resignation idea. That said, Alderson clearly was out to get them and show that he was a tough customer, and he ruined some lives and got rid of some fine umpires in the process. Nor did it solve what was perceived as a problem with umpires. That was a signal to me at the time that he wasn't someone to be trusted and, well, here we are again.
So we would assume that the "cover the collective ass" would mean to avoid lawsuits by addressing the issue directly. HR needs to have accountability in that regard.
At my old employer it did felt like HR was not my enemy, even when I was laid off and the HR person was helpful to me in the process and also crying when she broke the news. And the one harassment case of note in my time was handled quickly with the offender fired in about five weeks. But it was also a nonprofit and about 65 percent of the staff were women and probably less likely to tolerate harassment.
I think the makeup of a company is a huge tell. So when there is an equal amount of women, when people of color are represented, that’s a company that isn’t trying to recreate the boy’s club of the 1970s and earlier.
But often "covering the collective ass of ownership/business" means making sure your employees aren't ominously chanting outside the door with torches and pitchforks. If you have so many people talking to the media because of what you are doing it likely doesn't matter how many bodies you successfully buried for your bosses because you still failed.
I am sure there are men in this country in their 70s who are not like this. But I suspect they are few and far between.
My dad is one of those rare men, fortunately. But yes, there are many men that he worked with who are just like that.
The older I get the luckier I feel for having him as a dad. My life could have been so much different growing up.
Yep. He really must, ASAP.
You know shit is bad when Craig hits you with the second post ON A FRIDAY.
I mean, I assume the bourbon was already out and ready to be poured.
Well, it's probably because it was a Friday. By Monday it would have been stale news.
The "capital punishment" comment is so mind-bogglingly tone-deaf that I can't even…Reasonable people are saying that firings are in order, including of people who enabled this toxic corporate culture, *not* firing squads.
In no way is this shocking. I wish it were, but of course we don't get to live in that timeline.
My mentor at my old firm gave the best answer for this. "If you hire me, you lose your ability to speak about this ever. If anyone asks you about this, you give them my number. Write on a sheet of paper because you lost your ability to speak." Do they not teach lawyers that any more?
Doesn't matter what the lawyer says if the client doesn't listen.
Been saying this for weeks now. Though the level of sheer cluelessness - or worse - is far beyond what I had always thought about Sandy.
Already, not always.
When you read "capital punishment" and think, "Surely he doesn't mean...", and then the next sentence references EXECUTION. That's right, holding a man even a little accountable is the same as murder by the state. Checks out.
It's amazing how out of touch these people are. And I hope that someone is looking at the Angels, too. None of this should be tolerated. Anywhere. And why is Mickey Callaway still "suspended"?
The absolute irony of him whining that women are so sensitive and why can't we let this go, while comparing some uncomfortable questions WITH BEING KILLED. Why does no one call Alderson a snowflake? Why does no one say he's a spoiled baby who needs to toughen up and face the real world? Why isn't he seen as pathetic and weak for whining that the mean reporters are so unfair?
Kinda like a squid ink cloud for Jeff Wilpoon, eh?
Sandy Anderson's comments have a strong stench of "cancel culture" rebop that many people of a certain political party spew regarding topics like sexual harrasment or racial/cultural insensitivities. No idea what his personal politics are but I think we now know the toxic culture starts at the top for the Mets.
First it was "PC", then "SJW", then "woke", and now "cancel culture". People who do bad things are always looking for the next pithy bit of language they can appropriate to wield as a weapon against those who dare try to hold them accountable for their actions.
For sure. Easier to do that and get people outraged than try to justify their words and actions (which they probably realize is impossible). Nothing but bad faith arguments...
Mets have "new" ownership, but not really. Cohen was a part owner and his own huge firm has been fined ($1.8B with a B) for insider trading (in a more just society he'd have faced charges) and there have been accusations of sexism in his firm as well. The only change in this "organization" is the amount of money it is assigning to player payroll. Same old Mets.
As for Alderson, the ex-Marine, attorney, cancer survivor who rode in on a white horse? A fish with a fat resume still rots from the head down.
For what its worth, the phrase "industrial death penalty" is pretty often used in labor law and collective bargaining agreements to refer to employee termination. I would terminate Alderson for allowing the atmosphere to fester during his first stay in Queens and failure to quickly address it during his second stay including hiring someone known to be problematic, but I am not too concerned about the language he used.
It's not the language. It's Alderson's belief that everyone is blowing this out of proportion. How? ONE guy was fired and I've yet to see anyone claim it wasn't justified. The argument isn't just the number of harassment, discrimination, etc complaints, but also that they weren't addressed at all.
Also, his insistence on calling it man woman stuff, like the demand is for people to never socialise or have relationships, this is just ordinary flirting. He isn't defending that idea on the merits, because he can't. None of the complaints were "Guy asks woman on a date, she accuses him of rape" like Alderson's implying.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. But for what it is worth, I'm more concerned with the conduct (knowingly allowing the atmosphere to fester & rehiring someone with knowledge of these issues) than I am the intemperate at best statements about the situation. The conduct, even without the statements, is worthy of termination.
Loving the midday rant.
A 60-70ish white corporate exec mansplains to two female reporters that sexual harassment isn't that big a deal and people should just get over it already? Color me shocked.
Wondering how he would put it if Rosenthal did the interview. Not that I want him doing it.
I am reminded that in 1999, Sandy Alderson was working as Bud Lite's hatchet man, and that's when the umpires union screwed up with that resignation idea. That said, Alderson clearly was out to get them and show that he was a tough customer, and he ruined some lives and got rid of some fine umpires in the process. Nor did it solve what was perceived as a problem with umpires. That was a signal to me at the time that he wasn't someone to be trusted and, well, here we are again.