Terrance Toliver and Dennis Harris Incident

Good Lord. Not this argument again. Explain to me how getting a free college education, free access to academic support WAY beyond anything regular students get, free health care, free room and board, free job training for their possible future, a free life coach (which 99% of college students could really use), and free national publicity for their follow-on careers is exploitation.

IMO you have confused real life accountability with exploitation.

And the NFL eligibility rules PROTECT the players. That is the ONLY reason they are there. The numbers justifying this are so staggering that I cannot fathom why you would think otherwise.

:lol: I'm not sure you could have given a more cliche' response. Based on your evident philosophy, any system more restrictive than anarchy would be fascist.

Yes. Let's use my brother, for example. He can't take certain over the counter meds. He can't drink within a certain number of hours of reporting to work - far more hours than it would take the effects of alcohol to leave his system. He has to remain within a certain radius of work for recall, regardless of whether he intends to accept the overtime or not. He has to keep his hair cut and cannot have facial hair outside of certain rule sets - far more restrictive than any safety requirements. He has a weight limit that has nothing to do with his job performance. If he wants to get promoted, he has to complete academic requirements that have zero to do with his actual job and everything to do with the kind of person his boss wants at that level. He's expected to attend social functions outside of work. The list goes on and on.

Outside of hourly unskilled or maybe semi-skilled laborers, everyone I know has a job with rules that reach outside of their immediate workplace.

Doesn't matter anyway - because what TT did ABSOLUTELY effects his job performance, both in terms of his individual reliability and the performance of the team he works with.

 

Not going to disagree one bit, but to point out something that most of us probably don't realize, if you work for a company they do have some control of your actions outside of work. Here is an example involving sexual harrassment: if you are out after work, as a group from work, at a bar, restaurant, etc and you make unwanted advances, remarks, etc that would fall under the guidlines of your companies sexual harassment policies, should one of or the person who is offended complain to your supervisors, you can be disciplined and/or fired for sexual harrassment. This doesn't even have to be a work sponsered gathering, just friends going out after work. Believe it or not this is the case.

 

Are you talking company policy or actual law?

If you're talking guidelines mandated to the company by law for them to pass down, that's a whole other thread.

If you are referring to a company's policy, I accept your point. I mean, there are companies that don't hire smokers. There are companies that drug-test, and the sexual-harassment example is a good one too.

However, it's the employee's responsibility to look into these companies' terms before agreeing take up the job, and decide whether they can abide by them or not.

Again, none of this is an issue in this particular case, since it's done and over with. TT has been dealt with and will remain on the team provided he keeps his word that he gave to the coaches, team, and university when he decided to be a Tiger.

 

No, just company Sexual Harrassment policy. And you are correct this is over and done with, just trying to point out to gumbo that coaches, companies, universities, etc do have some control of your behavior outside of the workplace.

 

i get that, but only to a point, right? yall seem to think that i dont think tt should be disciplined. hell, i think he could be kicked off the team for what he did.

but i do think that the athletes are taken advantage of. being on the fball team is a job but it seems that the rules exploit it like the fball team is some sort of mens club where they can set whatever rules they want. like, you are 23 yrs old with a wife and two kids, you can vote, you can drink, you can go to war, but you cant stay up past the evening news.

thats what i object to and i would vehemently support my child if they were kicked off a team for such a reason.

 

lots of jobs have age requirements.
you gotta be 21 to work at the company that employs me.

yeah.

I have to maintain a clean driving record.

If I run a stop sign this weekend, and the ticket goes on my MVR, I could potentially lose my job. I was put on 1 year probation for my 1st ticket. If i get another before May (don't remember exact date) I could be gone.

even though it was on my time, and had zero to do with my perrformance sitting behind this desk doing quotes and sales.

 

Child? Hmm.. Earlier you said they're grown people that not even the parents have the right to tell them what to do. Granted, I understand that you're speaking of parental instinct.

And for the last time (no really, I mean it this time)... They agreed to the school's terms. They didn't have to agree to play at LSU, they could have went to Billy Bobs Community College, Transmission Service Institute, and Bait Shop if they'd have wanted to.. After all, they're free adults, right??

 

I'm at that job now. rules is rules, slick. You can follow the rules or you can find a new job.

 

how is this justified? worried about bad pr in case you kill a pedestrian?

see i dont think a rule is necessarily valid just because some employer puts it in place. there are limits. i think that a rule that cant reasonably be expected to affect job performance is out of bounds.

we need lawyer help. i know there is some term for the fact that a contract isnt valid just because its a contract and two parties agreed to it. like you go bungee jumping and they make you sign something saying they arent liable for your death. that doesnt mean they cant be held liable for your death.

and dwarfs cant take part in dwarf tossing even if they want to.