Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

    Originally posted by busterman62 View Post
    I certainly don't want to defend Meyer but.......the policies you have sited relate to the "campus" of tOSU. Policy 7.05 is titled "Workplace Violence" and the Sexual Misconduct Policy clearly states:

    I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that one worth his/her fee could shoot a few holes in your theory that Urban violated these policies. I would however bet the farm that, in all likelihood, he has a morals clause that they can utilize if they choose to.
    There is an explicit section called "Domestic Violence", which I quoted. I'm not sure how one can conclude that domestic violence that on off campus is technically ok based on that wording. And in there, it also points out that there's an "Employee Duty to Report" which has specific rules. That's all in this document- https://hr.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/policy115.pdf

    Given how many years it seems that Meyer knew this guys was abusing his wife, including at Florida, and he STILL hired him, and kept him on the staff- after another it was reported to another university employee who also did nothing (Meyers wife), well....

    Comment


    • Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

      Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
      Be glad you don't work at my hypothetical Home Depot - I would absolutely fire any abuser I knew about, in any job. Why take the risk that those violent tendencies might spill over to the workplace someday? It's a lot easier to find a new forklift driver than to deal with years of lawsuits over my negligence in keeping a known sociopath in the workplace. No way that guy is so awesome at driving a forklift that it is worth the risk.
      I don't doubt there are a few employers who think like you do. However, by and large I doubt most in the situation of my hypothetical Home Depot would act the same way.

      Personally, I just disagree with your thinking on this, even though I understand the rationale. First, I don't think your Home Depot faces any increased risk of liability just because your employee engaged in domestic violence. If there are example out there of employers being held liable for some sort of wrongful hiring or wrongful retention claim because they didn't fire an employee who abused his wife and later became violent in the work place, I'd like to see it. If the guy punches a customer, I agree with you. But, if outside the workplace he is accused of abusing his wife, I don't think most courts would make that stretch, but I could be wrong.

      Second, I don't think it's good for society to think that way. Do we then just declare that all perpetrators of domestic violence are unemployable? We've kind of done that with felons and where has that gotten us? We've only just begun to realize the wrongful thinking associated with refusing to hire convicted felons. Do we want to double down on that mistake?

      Yeah, if there is a connection to the job, I understand it. You obviously can't expect to continue in your job as a marital counselor if you are found guilty of spousal abuse. But what does it really have to do with driving a forklift? If a guy is convicted of felony theft for stealing thousands of dollars, sure you don't hire him for the bookkeeper's position at your company. But should you refuse to hire him to pour asphalt on a road crew?

      These perpetrators need to be punished by the criminal justice system. Making the same mistake we do with felons and branding them with the scarlet letter goes too far, imho.
      That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

      Comment


      • Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

        Originally posted by busterman62 View Post
        I certainly don't want to defend Meyer but.......the policies you have sited relate to the "campus" of tOSU. Policy 7.05 is titled "Workplace Violence" and the Sexual Misconduct Policy clearly states:

        I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that one worth his/her fee could shoot a few holes in your theory that Urban violated these policies. I would however bet the farm that, in all likelihood, he has a morals clause that they can utilize if they choose to.
        It has been reported by plenty that the policy states Meyer had to report it no matter where it happened. That is why he changed his story and now says he did report it even though at Big Ten Media Day he said no such thing. It could have taken place in Antarctica but if he knew it was his job to tell the school.

        Now the question is, why did he have this in his contract to begin with? Does every tOSU coach have it in their contract or was it specific to Meyer? That brings about more questions...
        "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
        -aparch

        "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
        -INCH

        Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
        -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

        Comment


        • Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

          Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
          I don't doubt there are a few employers who think like you do. However, by and large I doubt most in the situation of my hypothetical Home Depot would act the same way.

          Personally, I just disagree with your thinking on this, even though I understand the rationale. First, I don't think your Home Depot faces any increased risk of liability just because your employee engaged in domestic violence. If there are example out there of employers being held liable for some sort of wrongful hiring or wrongful retention claim because they didn't fire an employee who abused his wife and later became violent in the work place, I'd like to see it. If the guy punches a customer, I agree with you. But, if outside the workplace he is accused of abusing his wife, I don't think most courts would make that stretch, but I could be wrong.

          Second, I don't think it's good for society to think that way. Do we then just declare that all perpetrators of domestic violence are unemployable? We've kind of done that with felons and where has that gotten us? We've only just begun to realize the wrongful thinking associated with refusing to hire convicted felons. Do we want to double down on that mistake?

          Yeah, if there is a connection to the job, I understand it. You obviously can't expect to continue in your job as a marital counselor if you are found guilty of spousal abuse. But what does it really have to do with driving a forklift? If a guy is convicted of felony theft for stealing thousands of dollars, sure you don't hire him for the bookkeeper's position at your company. But should you refuse to hire him to pour asphalt on a road crew?

          These perpetrators need to be punished by the criminal justice system. Making the same mistake we do with felons and branding them with the scarlet letter goes too far, imho.
          Agreed unless the spouse also works for me at Home Depot. Blackballing anyone for spousal abuse is going to make things worse overall not better. The abusers would certainly never seek help since they are screwed either way.

          The only caveat being if say Home Depot is making a big push in the media to show they are anti-spousal abuse or something like that then you gotta fire the guy. Otherwise as long as he isnt doing anything at work you should probably let him be.
          "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
          -aparch

          "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
          -INCH

          Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
          -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

          Comment


          • Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

            Originally posted by Handyman View Post
            It has been reported by plenty that the policy states Meyer had to report it no matter where it happened.
            What is he to report though - that there was an allegation of abuse?

            Comment


            • Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

              Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
              What is he to report though - that there was an allegation of abuse?
              From what I can tell yes. I dont know why, but I would guess because of the previous incident involving said coach. tOSU also had Meyer's wife under the same restriction in her contract if I read right. When the story broke she knew and didnt report it put them both in a bad spot. (again if I read the story correctly) That is why his story changed, firing for cause became a legit possibility.
              "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
              -aparch

              "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
              -INCH

              Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
              -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

              Comment


              • Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

                Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                From what I can tell yes. I dont know why, but I would guess because of the previous incident involving said coach. tOSU also had Meyer's wife under the same restriction in her contract if I read right. When the story broke she knew and didnt report it put them both in a bad spot. (again if I read the story correctly) That is why his story changed, firing for cause became a legit possibility.
                I see. Thanks.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                  Personally, I just disagree with your thinking on this, even though I understand the rationale. First, I don't think your Home Depot faces any increased risk of liability just because your employee engaged in domestic violence. If there are example out there of employers being held liable for some sort of wrongful hiring or wrongful retention claim because they didn't fire an employee who abused his wife and later became violent in the work place, I'd like to see it. If the guy punches a customer, I agree with you. But, if outside the workplace he is accused of abusing his wife, I don't think most courts would make that stretch, but I could be wrong.
                  Here's a general statement with one case citation: https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/violence-in-the-workplace-why-employers-are-caught-in-the-middle.html

                  When violence strikes a workplace, a company is likely to be faced with any one of a number of potential claims. When the perpetrator is an employee, likely claims against an employer include negligent hiring or negligent retention. Under Pennsylvania law, an employer may be liable for the violent acts of its employees if the employer knew or should have known that the employee had a "dangerous propensity for violence."*Coath v. Jones, 277 Pa. Super, 479, 419 A.2d 1249, 1250 (1980). Often, when an employee has a criminal history, a history of drug abuse or a history of workplace violence in current or former employment, an employer will be found negligent in hiring or retaining the employee.
                  If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                    Here's a general statement with one case citation: https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/violence-in-the-workplace-why-employers-are-caught-in-the-middle.html

                    When violence strikes a workplace, a company is likely to be faced with any one of a number of potential claims. When the perpetrator is an employee, likely claims against an employer include negligent hiring or negligent retention. Under Pennsylvania law, an employer may be liable for the violent acts of its employees if the employer knew or should have known that the employee had a "dangerous propensity for violence."*Coath v. Jones, 277 Pa. Super, 479, 419 A.2d 1249, 1250 (1980). Often, when an employee has a criminal history, a history of drug abuse or a history of workplace violence in current or former employment, an employer will be found negligent in hiring or retaining the employee.
                    I’ve heard nothing about workplace violence with this coach. If he has that history then OSU clearly has a risk if they continue to employ. The domestic violence was not work related.
                    So that leaves us with the second part of your post, “criminal history.”

                    First, are accusations but no convictions “criminal history?” Second, I believe it has to be related to create liability. If the employee has a criminal history of theft but then rapes someone in your workplace is that negligent retention? I don’t think so. Domestic violence is a very unique crime and I’m unaware of any studies that suggest it predisposes you to other violent crimes.
                    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                    Comment


                    • Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

                      Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                      I’ve heard nothing about workplace violence with this coach. If he has that history then OSU clearly has a risk if they continue to employ. The domestic violence was not work related.
                      So that leaves us with the second part of your post, “criminal history.”

                      First, are accusations but no convictions “criminal history?” Second, I believe it has to be related to create liability. If the employee has a criminal history of theft but then rapes someone in your workplace is that negligent retention? I don’t think so. Domestic violence is a very unique crime and I’m unaware of any studies that suggest it predisposes you to other violent crimes.
                      If you read the OSU policy, you would have noted that you don't have to have a conviction to face the policy. Nor does the policy state that the domestic violence had to be on campus to it to be covered- although some seem to bring that up.

                      If this tangent is just being brought up as a "general" idea, one should note that the nominal workplace rules are overruled by OSU specific ones, particularly ones that anyone signed into their contract.

                      On the country in general thinking- if you have a known domestic abuser in your ranks, doesn't that also make the workplace a little more hostile to the gender that is being abused? If you know that a co-worker is abusing their spouse, don't you think you would be hesitant to talk to them, and the odds of that person being verbally abusive would be higher? If anything is learned from the "Me Too" movement, it should be that harassment should not be tolerated, anywhere. Need to change the culture so that domestic abusers are less likely to abuse, since they know that society will not tolerate that kind of behavior. So lets not dance around the thinking that it's a bad idea to fire abusers if they are "nice" at work, and fix the real problem of abuse.

                      Comment


                      • Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

                        Potential monkey wrench...

                        https://sports.yahoo.com/report-moth...223132593.html
                        Report: Mothers of both Zach and Courtney Smith claim ex-OSU assistant is victim of retaliatory plot by ex-wife
                        "If you leave ignorance and stupidity alone, ignorance and stupidity will think it's ok."
                        -Gallagher

                        R.I.P.
                        Grandpa G. ~ Feb 11, 1918-Oct. 6, 1999
                        Grandma ~ Jan 2004
                        Dad ~ Nov. 4, 1958-April 21, 2008
                        Grandpa S. ~ June 21, 1932-November 11, 2013

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X