Coach Tuesday
-
Posts
17,773 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Coach Tuesday
-
-
Make the smoker go outside, fine. They have no right to impose their smoke on another person. Just as you my friend, have no right (business, government, or otherwise) to tell them they can't smoke or they'll be fired, stripped of their citizenship, or rights, etc, etc, etc.
Yes, I do smoke. At home, I go to the garage or outside for the sake of my family (not to mention the yellow sticky film it leaves on everything inside one's home). I've quit a dozen times, yet ultimately have wandered back. I'll quit again. Maybe someday I'll make it, but that should be MY choice, not yours or my employer's, or the government's.
By your logic, next on the list will be Mickey D's and so on until society matches up with your self perceived best intentions. Clearly you enjoy freedoms today you simply do not deserve because you fail to understand what freedom is.
Ahhh, the irony. You're obviously the one who fails to "understand what freedom is." It has nothing to do with companies. "Freedom" is a sphere of free choice where the government is not allowed to interfere with your actions. Businesses are not the government, OhBf. Get that thru your skull. They DO have the UNQUALIFIED RIGHT to tell you that you can't smoke or you'll be fired. Go back and take Social Studies and you'll figure this out. My so-called "best intentions" for society is that the Constitution should be enforced, meaning that government shouldn't interfere with the free choices of individuals or companies (which are considered individuals for most purposes under our laws).
-
Great post Astro, thanks for doing that work. BTW, Sproles is gonna be a star - some lucky team is going to land him on Day 2, I'd love it if it were us.
-
-
I don't understand all of this talk about Shane Matthews, John Kitna, Jeff Garcia, Joey Harrington, etc. It's obvious to me who the perfect vet backup would be, and you don't have to look very far to find him. Let's face it, Bledsoe would be the perfect guy. I'll list the reasons:
1) We know he can win a game. Not 11 of them, but 9/16. How many backups you gonna find with his track record?
2) He knows the offense already. Huge advantage, not just if he has to play, but also for helping to mentor JPL.
3) He's a team guy. He's shown that repeatedly. Some here seem to think he'll cause a QB controversy if he stays - not me. I think, if he stays as a backup, he'll accept his role just like he did in NE - he might think he should be starting, but he won't be mouthing off about it in the locker room (Flutie) or to the media (Flutie).
4) He may actually perform better as a backup. I know this is a longshot, but think about it - DB performs poorly under pressure, in big games that he's been dwelling on all week. Perhaps if he has to trot in from the sideline at a moment's notice, he'll forget about the pressure and actually perform. He did it against Pittsburgh in the AFC Championship Game in '01 (I know, I know, he also almost threw a game-losing pick, but still...)
5) We only save a few bucks by cutting him. That money would almost surely be eaten by the cost of signing a vet to replace him, so it's a wash - and I'd rather have Drew then any of the other guys out there.
I for one would love this scenario, and believe it or not, should something happen to JPL, I would be far more excited were Drew to trot out there than anyone else who's out there right now. At least I would know the game ain't over, the D will have to play honest w/ the deep ball possibility, and the offense will run somewhat smoothly.
(actually it's kinda fun to beat a dead horse. try it sometime.)
-
Actually you can take a Wonderlic online - that would be an interesting event at TSW...
Nice find with the Marino score bwt (16). My dad always said that Marino was a good right arm away from flipping pizzas at the Pittsburgh airport...
-
I think you're missing the larger picture here Coach. What about the additional costs imposed on us by overweight individuals who suffer from heart disease and other ailments from being overweight? I'd be willing to bet there are more overweight people in the US than there are smokers. What about the invasion of our personal lives outside of work?
Was there a pun intended by "larger picture"? Actually, I'm quite sure companies would fire obese people for the same reason if they weren't so afraid of getting sued. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, other than not working for these companies, you should try to push negative publicity upon them (thru the media, boycotts, etc.). I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with anyone suggesting that the government should put a stop to the choices made by private actors.
Also, those "costs" you're talking about are government-imposed, and I DO have a problem with them - as you can see, I take issue with the healthcare laws and they way in which they force healthy individuals to subsidize unhealthy individuals (including obese people).
-
This is completely different than the "alcohol for a bus driver" issue, or even the "no motorcycle riding in the offseason" argument. These people weren't fired because smoking impaired their job performance. They were fired because it *increased* insurance premiums for the employer. Yes, people who smoke have more health issues later in life, but it's not like "I started smoking yesterday and will die tomorrow."
CW
Then you should take issue not with the companies, but with whatever law it is that prevents them simply from slashing the health insurance of these individuals. Why shouldn't these companies be entitled to fire those who force them to spend more on premiums? Do you people realize that these extra costs are imposed on consumers? Hey smokers, I've got a novel idea! Why don't you quit imposing social and medical costs on other people? How about you pay for your own vices and stop expecting others to subsidize your costs later in life? And how about you stop imposing the costs of second-hand smoke-related healthcare on others?
-
THEN DON'T GO WORK FOR CORPORATE AMERICA. They don't owe you anything. They don't owe you a livelihood. They can hire and fire you at will, unless your employment contract says otherwise, whereby you'd have a legal cause of action for something like this. THIS ISN'T A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.
-
Ok, does taking frequent smoke breaks, and having poor health otherwise (as a result of smoking) affect one's job performance? Could it?
-
-
Except the solution isn't, and never will be, "more laws." I think we'd agree on that. Yes the government created this problem (and creates the problem of my girlfriend having to pay at least $280 in premiums per month for private health insurance, because she's forced by the government to subsidize old people), but the solution is not that the government pass more laws in response. It should just get out of the way altogether.
-
Again, you need to recognize that in this situation it's not the government who's acting. I couldn't agree more with you about the ridiculousness of the War on Drugs, but at the same time, I can't say that the government has a right to restrict private employers who want to fire employees for taking drugs, for example.
-
I'm actually surprised you'd take this position. IMO, our "Forefathers" wanted freedom of contract more than anything, with the government not being able to swoop in and make laws that interfere with the free choices of individuals. The two examples I mentioned (football and baseball players) are perfect examples of situations where the employer has every rational reason for wanting that insurance built into its employment agreement. Are you suggesting that the government should step in and allow employees to do all sorts of self-destructive things that their employers will ultimately be on the hook for? That doesn't sound like a position you'd advocate. Don't forget - health insurance isn't an entitlement. My girlfriend doesn't get it from her employer. I suspect what happened here is that this particular employer is forced either to provide health insurance coverage, or, perhaps it is forced to provide it for all employees if it provides it for some. So the government already in this situation is forcing the employer's hands (again, not what our "Forefathers" wanted), and forcing the employer to choose between subsidizing a destructive behavior or firing some employees.
-
It's called a contract - it's something you agree to. You're not forced. Don't like it, work somewhere else.
-
Women and minorities fall into "suspect classes" that receive higher scrutiny in these types of situations. Smokers don't. Folks, I don't write the laws.
-
You mean like baseball players not being allowed to ride motorcylces in the offseason? Football players not being allowed to play pickup basketball during the offseason?
-
Well, they would certainly have civil claims. As for Constitutional claims, those groups (which likely fall into "suspect classes") would have their arguments bolstered by federal laws specific to that situation. Smokers would not be able to take advantage of those laws.
-
I love when I click on a Fake-Fat thread and the little grey browser rectangle on the right starts shrinking, and shrinking, and shr....
-
Wow, this seems dangerous. I can't imagine the ACLU not challenging this. Nor the employees not suing for wrongful termination and invasion of privacy.
What's next -- fire everyone who drinks alcohol, or drinks caffeinated drinks, or is considered obese by National Institute of Health standards, or uses birth control pills.
This can't be upheld.
It's not governmental action. It's private actors - perfectly legal. The Constitution only applies to governments.
-
FFS, I hear what you're saying, but I really don't think you're considering the long-term, big picture. Donahoe's job isn't just to make the Bills competitive next year - his job is to make the Bills competitive for the forseeable future. And the fact is, we have ONE YEAR of Travis left - that's it. So the question becomes, would you rather have a high-quality backup running back for one year, or a potentially productive second-rounder for the next 5-6 years? In my mind it's simple. You go for the long term option. The only way I'd do what you're suggesting was if we could land a quality young player with a few years left on his contract. Otherwise, you're going with one year of Travis as a backup insurance policy instead of 4-5 years of a starter.
EDIT - I've thought about it some more, and I just want to be clear I understand what you're saying, FFS. Is your point that you'd rather trade TH for a proven player who can contribute right away? If so, I don't think anyone disagrees. However, if your point is that we should either get a player in return or not trade Travis at all, I think that's misguided for the reasons I stated above. One year of Travis as a backup simply ain't worth getting nothing in return.
-
If that's the case, might as well post this:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/enviro...sp?story=603975
Countdown to global catastrophe
Climate change: report warns point of no return may be reached in 10 years, leading to droughts, agricultural failure and water shortages
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
24 January 2005
The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already.
The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached.
The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union.
And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.
The report says this point will be two degrees centigrade above the average world temperature prevailing in 1750 before the industrial revolution, when human activities - mainly the production of waste gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which retain the sun's heat in the atmosphere - first started to affect the climate. But it points out that global average temperature has already risen by 0.8 degrees since then, with more rises already in the pipeline - so the world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude before the crucial point is reached.
More ominously still, it assesses the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after which the two-degree rise will become inevitable, and says it will be 400 parts per million by volume (ppm) of CO2.
The current level is 379ppm, and rising by more than 2ppm annually - so it is likely that the vital 400ppm threshold will be crossed in just 10 years' time, or even less (although the two-degree temperature rise might take longer to come into effect).
"There is an ecological timebomb ticking away," said Stephen Byers, the former transport secretary, who co-chaired the task force that produced the report with the US Republican senator Olympia Snowe. It was assembled by the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK, the Centre for American Progress in the US, and The Australia Institute.The group's chief scientific adviser is Dr Rakendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The report urges all the G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their research spending on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010. It also calls on the G8 to form a climate group with leading developing nations such as India and China, which have big and growing CO2 emissions.
"What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20 years that will deliver a stable climate, not what we do in the middle of the century or later," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on green issues who now advises business.
The report starkly spells out the likely consequences of exceeding the threshold. "Beyond the 2 degrees C level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly," it says.
"It is likely, for example, that average-temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increased numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts. [They] could also imperil a very high proportion of the world's coral reefs and cause irreversible damage to important terrestrial ecosystems, including the Amazon rainforest."
It goes on: "Above the 2 degrees level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change also increase. The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea level more than 10 metres over the space of a few centuries), the shutdown of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and the transformation of the planet's forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon."
-
It's definitely an opinion, one shared by some here (and some at the park). We're holding out hope that we can correct her behavior, because she plays well 90% of the time and because she only started exhibiting this stuff lately. But, if she can't learn to behave, we won't let her run around in the park - it would be a shame.
-
TO won't play, or if he does he'll be a decoy. The Pats will win because Belicheck will take away the Eagles one strength - Brian Westbrook. Take him out of the game, and the Eagles won't score.
-
Hey T-Bone, you seem like a stand-up guy and all, but really, do you go over to the Ethiopian message boards and post about how great a meal you had for dinner?? I mean, let us wallow in our misery a bit, huh?
Company Fires All Employees
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Actually, if they have an employment contract at all (most likely they don't), it almost certainly allows the company to fire them "for cause" or at its "sole and absolute discretion." So, chances are, they're SOL.