Telling an employee to "[forget]ting look in the mirror" in a loud voice in this circumstance would not be fireable in and of itself, IMO, but pretty much anything beyond that is pushing it.

I can't imagine "f-cking look in the mirror" in response to anything but attempts to shift blame. And if those attempts were particularly lame or lacking in team spirit, you bet I'd want to be profane.

So, the fact that Chacon is rich and represented by a union makes him more likely to defend himself against abusive behavior if not snap, not less likely.

I disagree with this. If we're to believe that Chacon actually considered these types of things before he throttled Wade, he would be far less likely to snap since he has far more to lose in this situation. He's nearing the end of his earning potential as a ball player, he may have three or four years left (or even zero because of this). What if he actually had hurt Wade's neck/back/head when he put him on the ground? An expensive lawsuit to defend himself or even criminal charges could easily wipe out a nice chunk of his nest egg.

I don't know what role the union would play in something like this, other than to ensure whatever suspension is handed to him from the team is within the contraints of the CBA.

can't imagine "f-cking look in the mirror" in response to anything but attempts to shift blame.
Agreed, I was imagining that situation when I wrote that. I.e., Chacon trying to shift blame to anything but his own poor performance.

I take it you've never seen Royce Gracie fight. Okay, granted, not TKD.

Wiki suggests to me that that guy is mighty impressive, but I think he also sort of proves my point, that pretty much you have to be about the best fighter in the world to overcome that discrepancy.

195: I said 'less likely to abuse;' I didn't say 'never abuse.' I made a probabilistic argument, not an argument which claimed that abuse would never happen under certain conditions. Learn to read.

Wiki suggests to me that that guy is mighty impressive, but I think he also sort of proves my point, that pretty much you have to be about the best fighter in the world to overcome that discrepancy.

Well, if the guys you're fighting are also among the best in the world, yeah, but if you're fighting some schlub off the street, not so much. Apples to apples.

Obviously, Chacon should not have put his hands on Wade. But sw is right: if the account is accurate, Wade blew it. Having done a lot of teaching of rough, troubled, immature people, of all ages, Rule 1 when you are in authority in a conflict situation is "Stay cool." Rule 2 is--and I tell trainees this--"Don't lose face, stay consistent, but do it without getting in anybody's face in public." Some people are able to laugh off getting "dissed." Many more, though, will freak, either verbally or physically as Chacon did--if they feel they are being publicly disrespected. Cussing, raised voices--this is not how management-type authority figures should conduct themselves.

There is no excsuse for what Chacon did, but Wade handled himself ineptly and foolishly--if the account of his behavior is accurate.

This completely ignores the fact that both Cooper and Wade attempted to have the conversation in private, and it was Chacon who 1) stated he'd like to have the conversation in front of others, and 2) showed up his boss in front of others.

Chacon has no excuse.

If your boss and your bosses boss tell you to come to a meeting, you go, right then.

You're eating lunch? Boo frickin' hoo.

He wouldn't have been embarassed in front of his teammates if he had just gone to the meeting.

Wade should have him arrested, and suspend him without pay.

After they pulled Chacon off him, Wade should have said "You just signed your DFA papers, Niwanda."

Sounds like Wade could have handled this better, but short of Wade actually initiating physical contact or brandishing a weapon, there's simply no excusing Chacon here. A guy being an ####### isn't a license to attack him, even if he's your boss, even if he's done it before, even if he's doing it in front of your peers, etc.

A guy being an ####### isn't a license to attack him, even if he's your boss, even if he's done it before, even if he's doing it in front of your peers, etc.

Exactly. It isn't even a mitigating factor, let alone a license.

195: I said 'less likely to abuse;' I didn't say 'never abuse.' I made a probabilistic argument, not an argument which claimed that abuse would never happen under certain conditions.

When making probabilistic arguments and offering a single data point, one might expect said datapoint would support the argument being made. You, however, have gone in a different direction; make a naked assertion, then support it with an event that directly contradicts your point. Bravo.

it is a complete defense to a discrimination charge that one mistreats all one's employees

Thanks for the tip. I'll get to work on that right away.

If your boss and your bosses boss tell you to come to a meeting, you go, right then.

Yes, but the typical way my boss pulls me out of lunch for a meeting, or even springs a meeting on me without early warning, is "are you free for a meeting?" or something like that. If I'm eating, she'll typically say "come by when you're finished" even though I'm just eating in my office and working or doing something that looks like work, like posting here. If it's ever a drop-everything and meet now request, it's done with apology -- even though I'm rarely inconvenienced or shown up by it -- and I trust that it's because of something that is extremely time-sensitive, based on prior experience. Of course I have a competent and respectful boss.

If my boss was a turd, and I was told to come to meeting right now, and I'd recently made my desire to leave the organization clear, then yeah I'd say something like "I'll come when I'm done eating" (and then take a really long time) or "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" and not go.

Exactly. It isn't even a mitigating factor, let alone a license.

Not in the northeast, but some states still have versions of the old "true man" laws on the books (which one of my law prof's helpfully called the "make my day" rule)

Everyone looks really bad in this. That is all.

If my boss was a turd, and I was told to come to meeting right now, and I'd recently made my desire to leave the organization clear, then yeah I'd say something like "I'll come when I'm done eating" (and then take a really long time) or "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" and not go.

The real reason HAL went kablooey.


Not in the northeast, but some states still have versions of the old "true man" laws on the books (which one of my law prof's helpfully called the "make my day" rule)

The man needed killin'. /Texan

I, for one, like these laws. However, I'm not sure how Wade's actions get there on this basis. I don't think "my boss is a jerk" rises to that level.

AP:

The team requested waivers on Chacon on Thursday for the purpose of giving him his unconditional release. If he isn’t claimed by another major league team by Monday, waivers will expire and his contract will be terminated without pay.

Refresh my memory, why doesn't he get paid?

From an AP report (which I may need to pay $5 for the privilege of quoting!)

The team requested waivers on Chacon on Thursday for the purpose of giving him his unconditional release. If he isn’t claimed by another major league team by Monday, waivers will expire and his contract will be terminated without pay.

Can they really terminate his contract without pay? Maybe "Don't grab your boss's boss around the neck" is a stipulation in his contract.



EDIT: I hate it when I look this stupid.

"nobody covered themselves with glory on this one."

Now, if he'd kicked Wade in the junk after he went down, THAT would have been glorious.

"Refresh my memory, why doesn't he get paid?"

If no team claims the right-hander, the Astros say they have the backing of Major League Baseball to release Chacon without pay in accordance to the provisions of the player's contract. -Zachary Levine, Houston Chronicle

There you have it.

Refresh my memory, why doesn't he get paid?

Because getting fired for physically attacking your boss is usually considered termination "for cause"...

213: You continue to believe what suits you. There was no contradiction in my original post. The first sentence asserted that Wade mishandled the situation. He did. The second sentence stated that bosses are less likely to act as Wade did when certain conditions obtain. It did not assert that they would not act as Wade did. Why are bosses less likely to act as Wade did with Chacon? They are less likely to act as Wade did because subordinates are more likely to defend themselves or even snap when they are financially secure, can effectively defend themselves legally and have viable options. So far as we know, Chacon has money and belongs to a strong union. Therefore, he was more likely to defend himself than, say, a poor migrant worker. So, the case at hand supports my point that Wade mishandled the situation and it gave a defensible explanation for Chacon's reaction.

No contradiction here. Have the last word if you feel so inclined.

So far as we know, Chacon has money and belongs to a strong union. Therefore, he was more likely to defend himself than, say, a poor migrant worker. So, the case at hand supports my point that Wade mishandled the situation and it gave a defensible explanation for Chacon's reaction.

Wow. This is some of the most mind-bogglingly, comically specious reasoning I've ever seen employed on BBTF. So your argument is essentially that the more someone is paid, and the more job security they have (due in this case to a union backing), the more justifiable their violent reaction to a disliked superior is?

Wow. It's good to know that I'll be able to beat up the managing partner at my biglaw firm next year if I get relegated to doc review as a first-year associate. Because hey, I'm getting paid an obscene amount after all, and with my pedigree I could easily transfer anywhere else I wanted. Thanks, zielenski!!

They are less likely to act as Wade did because subordinates are more likely to defend themselves or even snap when they are financially secure, can effectively defend themselves legally and have viable options.

This strikes me as dubiously naive.

So long as we're speaking about likelihoods, employees who are not financially secure are more likely to be less capable, less educated, and more disgruntled than employees who are financially secure. These are the type of employees who are more likely to snap.

Keep in mind that "snapping" is typically not a rational act. People don't sit back and think, "Okay... am I happy with my job? Am I financially secure? Yes? No? Okay, let's go apeshit!" It is an impulsive act, rationality be damned.

That's not the way it went down. I was listening to a correspondence a Houston reporter had with ESPn last night and, apparently, Cooper called a meeting with Chacon in his office, which Chacon apparently declined to attend, on the grounds that it meant bad news for him he would rather not hear. It was then that Wade was contacted by Cooper that Chacon was being recalcitrant.

This is all fine.

Wade then confronted Chacon in the locker room to get his ass in the manager's office, which Chacon still refused to do.

This is what should have happened: Wade tells Cooper, "Tell Chacon to change out of his uniform, and report to my office." At that point, Chacon can comply, call his agent or the union, or just leave. If he stays and goes mental, it's a clubhouse thing like baseball sees once a month.

While Wade might have handled it a bit better, it is entirely undertandable he was so angry at Chacon for being so intransigent.

Was he angry at Chacon for being intransigent? Or was he angry at Chacon for making Wade's signing of Chacon look ridiculous? No one will ever know, because he confused his role with that of the manager.

The message of this whole thing is that anyone in a suit should act like a guest in the clubhouse.

#221 / #222 The CBA provides at Article XII, "The Parties recognize that a Player may be subjected to disciplinary action for just cause by his Club, the Vice President, On-Field Operations or the Commissioner. Therefore, in Grievances regarding discipline, the issue to be resolved shall be whether there has been just cause for the penalty imposed." Both fines and suspensions are expressly provided for. Termination for cause is possible, but there isn't much precedent. (In hoops, Sprewell was terminated, but the grievance was granted and the arbitrator substituted a suspension.)

The message of this whole thing is that anyone in a suit should act like a guest in the clubhouse.

This is very silly. Are you telling me that the owner has to act like a guest in the clubhouse?

The message of this whole thing is that Chacon, for a brief moment, forgot how to act like a professional.

227: I never claimed Chacon's actions were justified. Where did I make make this claim?

228: So, you wish to argue that individuals who are financially secure, capable, etc. will tolerate abuse, will neither defend themselves nor find themselves pushed beyond the breaking point. It seems success makes individuals masochists in your world. Why succeed when doing so makes one an ass kissing simp?

Exactly. It isn't even a mitigating factor, let alone a license.

I'm sure he doesn't necessarily care, but this is the first time in the history of ever that David and I are in complete and utter agreement.

The message of this whole thing is that anyone in a suit should act like a guest in the clubhouse.

Personally, I think the GM is a little more important than that.

They are less likely to act as Wade did because subordinates are more likely to defend themselves or even snap when they are financially secure, can effectively defend themselves legally and have viable options.

I think this is almost exactly backwards. People in positions of prestige or authority quite often have to deal with aggressive Type A personalities. You think no doctors are ever rude to one another? No lawyer is pushy and manipulative? I'm told people on Wall Street raise their voices on occasion.

Trying to turn everything into a referendum on their worth as a person strikes me as less the action of someone who has status and more the action of somebody insecure about not having much.

you wish to argue that individuals who are financially secure, capable, etc. will tolerate abuse, will neither defend themselves nor find themselves pushed beyond the breaking point. It seems success makes individuals masochists in your world. Why succeed when doing so makes one an ass kissing simp?

This is an alien concept to you, so we'll spend a little time to explain.

"Defense" of a person's honor and dignity doesn't have to mean violence. In fact, it usually does not in civilized societies, which you are understandably unfamiliar. In a structured society, we construct organizations like the legal system and unions to regulate disputes so we don't have to use violence every time we argue.

So, you wish to argue that individuals who are financially secure, capable, etc. will tolerate abuse, will neither defend themselves nor find themselves pushed beyond the breaking point. It seems success makes individuals masochists in your world. Why succeed when doing so makes one an ass kissing simp?

You know, most of us are perfectly capable of defending ourselves from verbal abuse w/o beating up an old man. If Chacon wants to curse back at Wade, great.

Physically attacking him, and trying to choke him, criminal.

To illustrate how serious Chacon's behavior is, if Wade and Chacon had been alone, with no one to pull Chacon off, and Wade had been armed, he could have shot Chacon, and gotten off scot-free (especially in Texas).

defensible explanation for Chacon's reaction

the more justifiable their violent reaction to a disliked superior is?

I think zielinski was defending his (zielinski's)explanation of Chacon's actions, not the actions themselves.

I think zielinski was defending his (zielinski's)explanation of Chacon's actions

No, check 142. His argument was about Wade's behavior and not Chacon; The argument was normative.

His argument has show that zielinski has no conception of civilized behavior, specifically non-violent resolution to verbal confrontations.

238: The statements in #142 weren't normative. They were descriptive. #142 does not defend or blame Wade or Chacon for their actions. As a matter of fact, I consider both blameworthy. But that belief is irrelevant to what I wrote in #142.

Straw man arguments seem to appeal to you....

Straw man arguments seem to appeal to you....

Wow. A straw man argument criticizing another for using a straw man argument...

241: What straw man argument did I make?

240. tsk, tsk, most people born outside of civilization were at least simple and therefore had the virtue of honesty.

Now you've done proven you are a liar too.

This is very silly. Are you telling me that the owner has to act like a guest in the clubhouse?

I don't know of an owner getting popped, but didn't Rick Cerone enter the legend by saying "F***, you George," in the clubhouse? Does anyone think that if a player went off like Wade is supposed to have gone off, then there would not have been a physical altercation? Why does anyone think that, if you go out and hire a bunch of guys largely based on how much testosterone they manufacture, they're somehow going to act like a bunch of computer geeks when you're in the area? What do you think McGraw, Mack, Rickey, or Durocher would have thought of this, huh? HUH?

Why does anyone think that, if you go out and hire a bunch of guys largely based on how much testosterone they manufacture, they're somehow going to act like a bunch of computer geeks when you're in the area? What do you think McGraw, Mack, Rickey, or Durocher would have thought of this, huh? HUH?

Act like a bunch of computer geeks? All people are expecting is that they act like professionals. Not assaulting your boss really is not too much to ask.

The Astros are saying that they have placed Chacon on waivers, and that if no one claims him, they will not pay him the balance of his salary. So at what point does the union step in and file a grievance? The union never stepped in on the Lenny Randle incident, but only because Randle didn't challenge his suspension.

243: And you are an ass.

The Astros are saying that they have placed Chacon on waivers, and that if no one claims him, they will not pay him the balance of his salary. So at what point does the union step in and file a grievance? The union never stepped in on the Lenny Randle incident, but only because Randle didn't challenge his suspension.

Under American and Canadian law, it is incredibly hard to fire someone with cause. Unfortunately for Chacon, two of the situations where it is acceptable is a) insubordination, and b) physical assault. I'm sure the union will file a grievance, but the Astros actually have a decent case here.

I'm kind of lost as to your point, Babe.

Why succeed when doing so makes one an ass kissing simp?

Because you'll be a successful ass-kissing simp.

didn't Rick Cerone enter the legend by saying "F***, you George," in the clubhouse?

I think it was "Shut up, George. You never played the f*****' game." In any case, and legend aside, it's probably fair to say that it wasn't exactly a brilliant career-advancement strategy.

I'm kind of lost as to your point, Babe.

I think his point is that while Chacon's actions may fairly be characterized as indefensible, they aren't really all that much of a surprise.

Under American and Canadian law, it is incredibly hard to fire someone with cause. Unfortunately for Chacon, two of the situations where it is acceptable is a) insubordination, and b) physical assault. I'm sure the union will file a grievance, but the Astros actually have a decent case here.

I think Chacon's best argument is a disperate treatment defense -- other people have committed off-field assaults without being terminated. But the most relevant precedent is probably Julio Lugo; same employer, and in the most broad terms similar conduct. After he was accused of assault, the Astros severed ties with him. Does anyone know if Lugo was paid by Houston after his release?

(And I really disagree with your summary of the basis for just cause for termination at least south of the border; as an arbitrator, I've upheld terminations that were not based on either insubordination nor violence. Absenteeism, drug use, violation of a workplace rule where there is adequate notice and the rule is sufficiently important, or repeated violation of a less important rule but where progressive discipline failed are some examples. Poor work performance too, but clearly that is not applicable in MLB-MLBPA guarenteed contracts.)

(And I really disagree with your summary of the basis for just cause for termination at least south of the border; as an arbitrator, I've upheld terminations that were not based on either insubordination nor violence. Absenteeism, drug use, violation of a workplace rule where there is adequate notice and the rule is sufficiently important, or repeated violation of a less important rule but where progressive discipline failed are some examples. Poor work performance too, but clearly that is not applicable in MLB-MLBPA guarenteed contracts.)

I didn't say that those two situations were the only ways to get terminated with cause. Just that they were two common ones. Obviously, there are other reasons. My point is that "cause" is pretty hard for the employer to establish.

I think Chacon's best argument is a disparate treatment defense -- other people have committed off-field assaults without being terminated. But the most relevant precedent is probably Julio Lugo; same employer, and in the most broad terms similar conduct.

That's not similar, beyond the fact that assault was related somehow. Lugo was released after being accused of assaulting his girlfriend or wife. (He was later acquitted.) I believe it allegedly took place within Lugo's own home, but certainly it did not take place while at work. Chacon assaulted Wade (his boss's boss) while on the job. (Post-game activities in the clubhouse are still on the job.) Very different.

#252 ~ Generally the burden is on the employer, but from the data I've looked at employers are successful in over 65% of discipline grievance hearings. Most union reps will tell me that they generally feel they are doing well if their batting average is in the Rod Carew territory.

#253 ~ Different yes, but reasonably comparable. The core function of the job is on-field performance. Both employees disciplined for off-field conduct. That off field conduct, in both cases, is an alleged physical assault. I certainly agree that there is a greater nexus between an assault in the clubhouse then one at the house, but that is a difference in degree, not in kind. And note that "best defense" does not necessarily equal successful defense.

#252 ~ Generally the burden is on the employer, but from the data I've looked at employers are successful in over 65% of discipline grievance hearings. Most union reps will tell me that they generally feel they are doing well if their batting average is in the Rod Carew territory.

No doubt that the employers are usually successful in "generic" grievance hearings. Hearings for terminations, however, require the employer to show a substantial amount of evidence to justify termination with cause. It is a very, very high standard.

Different yes, but reasonably comparable. The core function of the job is on-field performance. Both employees disciplined for off-field conduct. That off field conduct, in both cases, is an alleged physical assault. I certainly agree that there is a greater nexus between an assault in the clubhouse then one at the house, but that is a difference in degree, not in kind.

Actually, they are different in kind, since Chacon's assault was definitely work related. A player can't just show up 30 seconds before the first pitch and say he's fulfilling his contract, after all. He is expected to be in the clubhouse well before the game. In addition, he was assaulting his boss, after refusing to go to a work related meeting.

Also, Lugo's assault was alleged (and he was later acquitted). Chacon has already admitted the assault, thanks to his willingness to talk to the press.

Both major differences.

No doubt that the employers are usually successful in "generic" grievance hearings. Hearings for terminations, however, require the employer to show a substantial amount of evidence to justify termination with cause. It is a very, very high standard.

And they happen to have that evidence.

#255 ~ Some arbitrators call termination the "industrial death penalty" and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the trend is to impose a burden that is somewhere between preponderance and clear & convincing. Substantial burden? Yes. Very, very high? I don't think so.

#256 ~ There is a distinction between misconduct on the job floor, on the one hand, misconduct in a breakroom, on the other, and misconduct away from the job site, on the proverbial thrid hand. The former is more directly related to job function and lesser misconduct is required to support a termination than in a purely off the job act. But depending on the nature of the actions, a breakroom is often treated in disciplinary hearings as more similar to away from work than conduct on the work floor. The clubhouse is in that grey area and isn't necessarily clearly "on the job" misconduct.

As to your second point, if I recall the timing of the Lugo situation, he was "terminated" (again I can't recall if it was with or without pay) before the acquittal.

#256 ~ There is a distinction between misconduct on the job floor, on the one hand, misconduct in a breakroom, on the other, and misconduct away from the job site, on the proverbial thrid hand. The former is more directly related to job function and lesser misconduct is required to support a termination than in a purely off the job act. But depending on the nature of the actions, a breakroom is often treated in disciplinary hearings as more similar to away from work than conduct on the work floor. The clubhouse is in that grey area and isn't necessarily clearly "on the job" misconduct.

The clubhouse is used for a variety of things, most of which ARE work related, so it's not all that close to a break room. But regardless, the battery occurred in the context of his refusing to go to a meeting (clearly work related) and when confronted on it, proceeding to attack his boss (also work related).

As to your second point, if I recall the timing of the Lugo situation, he was "terminated" (again I can't recall if it was with or without pay) before the acquittal.

Sure. But Lugo was denying the charges. Chacon has admitted that he attacked his boss, after refusing to go to a work related meeting. So radically different than the Lugo situation.

A more relevant situation, even though it didn't involve battery against his boss at the work site, is Denny Neagle's release after his arrest for paying for oral sex. Even though it was far more tenuous in terms of relevancy to his job, a deal was eventually negotiated allowing his release, with the Rockies only paying part of what he was owed. The situation against Chacon is far stronger, imo.

Act like a bunch of computer geeks? All people are expecting is that they act like <strike>professionals</strike>adults. Not assaulting your boss really is not too much to ask.

FIFY. It hardly takes a "professional" not to commit a crime.

The Derrick Jensen quote in post #43 is my best contribution to this debate.

Also read the link at the bottom of this page if you haven't already -- Wade is an unsufferable a-hole and treats people beneath him like crap.

Or you can continue to give l'il old Eddie the benefit of the doubt because he's the boss and Chacon's an angry black man in need of employee re-education camp.

We've all been to this camp at one time or another, as evidence all the talk about how violence is never justified, at least for people lower on the food chain.

Of course I've worked in a corporate environment, of course I bought into all of the above and still respond that way at times -- it's how I was trained before I knew I was being taught the art of self-betrayal. And yes, you can dismiss my angry comments as those of a social misfit pissed that his balls were clipped -- it's been true and is true still to more of an extent than I'd like to admit.

Let's just say that the Chacon/Wade incident resonated deeply because I've been there in that shouting match stopping short of a choke-slam, I've been maltreated by bosses, and I've basically accepted their right to treat me with abuse and disrespect and it angers me that I've allowed them to do it to me, and that others allow themselves to be so treated with the only consolation getting drunk with their buddies and blowing off steam in socially-acceptable ways -- many of which include taking out the same abuse on people under you.

It's not good to accept it, neither is it good to act out in a passive/aggressive manner towards others including internet behavior. On my part, I apologize for making the 'clipped balls' comment here and on the Sutcliffe thread -- it's just personal frustration with how sex and violence are beyond the pale as appropriate behavior in the social sphere, all the while sex and violence rage in the media and in fantasy life.

Still, a neutered dog is not a pretty picture.

I'll stop right there -- if I am condemning some of you, I condemn myself first and foremost.

It is completely and laughably irrelevant whether Ed Wade is a good person or an #######. It doesn't matter. Nobody has given him the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't even make sense. Doubt about what?

Doubt that he provoked Chacon, that Chacon's account is believable. Wade has a history of acting out inappropriately towards people under him. It's relevant to the picture.

We've dissected Chacon's behavior and alleged incidents of his problem with authority and more than a couple of suggestions that he has anger management issues, but that same microscope has not been turned back on Wade, at least not with the same intensity.

Chacon paid and will pay the price of his actions. Wade won't pay any price, at least not directly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's apparently acceptable to the majority that a manager can act like Wade with impunity.

You yourself just said his behavior is completely and laughably irrelevant. Why?

Of course, the meeting, starting with the invitation to look in the mirror, was going to go into all the cliches about not being aggressive enough on the mound, etc.

Excuse Chacon for cutting to the chase.

& since he's such a lover of gustatory pleasures, it would have been wise to leave Chacon a son gout.

Also read the link at the bottom of this page if you haven't already -- Wade is an unsufferable a-hole and treats people beneath him like crap.

Or you can continue to give l'il old Eddie the benefit of the doubt

"Benefit of the doubt" for what? We can believe everything Chacon says, and the only rational conclusion is still that Chacon is 100% in the wrong.

...the only rational conclusion is still that Chacon is 100% in the wrong.

Why is it the only rational conclusion? Why is Chacon 100% in the wrong and Wade's behavior irrelevant?

Is that rational or a rationalization of certain kinds of behavior/force/violence?

Chacon paid and will pay the price of his actions. Wade won't pay any price, at least not directly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's apparently acceptable to the majority that a manager can act like Wade with impunity.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Wade was mean to someone in some way, whether he can do so "with impunity" is a matter between Wade and his boss.

Players do have their own recourse, of course; they can refuse to sign with a team run by Wade, and if they find themselves working for Wade (either because they were traded to Wade's team or because Wade was hired after they signed), they can quit. And they can make public why they refuse to sign / work for the team in question.

What they can't do -- something you seem to have trouble grasping -- is assault him.

You yourself just said his behavior is completely and laughably irrelevant. Why?

Because whatever Wade has done is not justification for assault.

Why is it the only rational conclusion? Why is Chacon 100% in the wrong and Wade's behavior irrelevant?

Is that rational or a rationalization of certain kinds of behavior/force/violence?

We're cross-posting here, so our exchange is out of sync. You answered my post 265 in post 263, and I answered your post 266 in 267, even though I hadn't seen it yet. But to get our exchange in sync, I'll answer your question again here:

Chacon is 100% in the wrong because unless Wade was in the process of assaulting Chacon -- and I think it's pretty undisputed that this did not happen -- Chacon had no justification for assaulting Wade. "He was mean to me" is not an excuse for assault. "I was really mad" is not an excuse for assault. "I was really really mad" is not one either. "He's a jackass" is not a defense to an assault charge. Etc.

One can use force to defend oneself. One cannot use force because one is frustrated or feels like one hasn't been treated with respect. This isn't complicated.

So short of an employer physically striking an employee, anything goes?

My objection is not that Chacon is legally justified pulling a Wayne Brady -- I'll agree that he's not -- but that management can act in any way towards an employee because of its power relation to that employee.

Again, we've had a lot of talk about how wrong, immoral, unacceptable, etc. Chacon was to fight back physically. I'll concede the legality of it, but even Alberto Gonzalez wouldn't argue that Wade is beyond fault or responsibility for this incident.

I'll repeat the Jensen quote as sleep beckons --

"'Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.'"

Also, it's not necessarily a bad thing to stand up to authority.

It's always a good idea to stand up to authority (which probably explains why I'm self-employed), but it's generally a bad idea to physically attack another human being unless you're in imminent, physical danger.

So short of an employer physically striking an employee, anything goes?

No. If the employer slanders the employee, legal action can be brought. If the verbal abuse is severe enough, it could be brought to the attention of the MLBPA, to see if it's something that in some way violates either the CBA or any laws. I suggested last night that if Chacon felt that going to the office for the meeting alone was going to allow out of bounds behavior on the part of Wade, that Chacon could have demanded that the MLBPA team rep accompany him.

But saying that there are verbal bounds of various sorts that Wade cannot cross does not mean that Chacon can assault him, even if the lines are crossed. There are legal ways to react. Chacon didn't go that route.

Incidentally, I've yet to see any story, even with unnamed sources, that has Chacon's (former) teammates saying that Wade crossed the line with this incident.

I doesn't really have anything at all to do with this situation, but somehow I thought of the following quote. It's from the original (1980's) Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, and it's hiding in the player comment for Willie Stargell:

A couple of years ago, I went around asking people I met who were in baseball who they considered to be the best human being in baseball and the worst human being in baseball. I thought it would make an interesting magazine article or pair of articles ...

I never did the article, but anyway, there was virtual unanimity as to who was the worst human being in baseball, a general manager famous for lying, cheating, swindling, bullying and bragging during contract negotiations, trade talks, job interviews and sometimes just for the heck of it. Everryone in baseball will know to whom I refer as soon as they read the description, and unfortunately I cannot tell the rest of you. There was no such agreement as the was the best human being in baseball, but several people did think of Willie Stargell.

...it's generally a bad idea to physically attack another human being unless you're in imminent, physical danger.

Off-topic, but if you wait until that point, you may be SOL. If you wait until you're hit, almost certainly. (See Harvey's anecdotes)

If you have your lawyer present, neither of you may survive.

#272: So who was the GM? Someone must have publicized it once James' book came out.

Off-topic, but if you wait until that point, you may be SOL. If you wait until you're hit, almost certainly. (See Harvey's anecdotes)

If you have your lawyer present, neither of you may survive.

I probably should have clarified/done better by inserting "when you believe" you're in imminent physical danger, and by adding that I would put the burden on the person implying harm. If someone comes up behind you on a dark street while you're walking home from your summer evening baseball game, and says to you, "give me your wallet", if you turn and take a serious cut at the voice with your Louisville Slugger, any damage is the other guy's problem, even if he's unarmed and would have taken "no" for an answer.

So short of an employer physically striking an employee, anything goes?

No. Not at all. Short of an employer physically striking an employee, an employee cannot assault his employer (*). Seriously, I don't understand why you have so much trouble with this. An employee has many remedies if he is unhappy with the way he is treated by his employer, ranging from quitting (always available) to badmouthing his employer (always available, within limits) to filing a lawsuit (sometimes available). But assault, no.



EDIT: (*) To be precise, an employee can never "assault" his employer, because the very word assault implies that it is illegitimate. However, he can use physical force in self-defense against physical force.

274: I have no idea.

I don't understand the reference to Post #43. The implication is that there is a double standard? Well, NO. With regard to physical assault, there is NO double standard here. An employer also can not strike an employee. If Wade had assaulted Chacon because Chacon had gotten verbally abusive, Wade would probably have faced the same consequences as Chacon.

Niether members of management or staff are allowed to assault the other - minus self defense. As David said, what's so hard to understand about this?

There is a double standard for verbal abuse between management and staff BUT I doubt Chacon would be out a $1 million if he had simply yelled back at Wade rather than resorting to physical assault ... and that's an option that David didn't mention, Chacon could have just yelled back at Wade without getting physical. In alot of regular jobs, you'd be putting your job on the line by yelling but for a major league ballplayer with a guaranteed contract, I doubt the consequences would have been all that severe - especially if Wade went off verbally on Chacon first.

Man, out $1 million! I hope physically assaulting Wade (rather than yelling back at him or walking away) was really satisfying for Chacon.

/wiki Derrick Jensen/

Pfft, paperpushing whiteboy internet tough-act radicalism always cracks me up.

If he was going to assault wade he should have gone for something really satisfying like punting him in the bollocks.

By the way, I disagree that Wade paid no price, he WAS physically assaulted. I think Chacon might have had an actionable greivance against Wade, but as soon as he choke-slammed him, that avenue was lost. The price you pay for losing your temper. I still think Wade should be fired, as he's not good at any aspect of his job, but Chacon deserves termination without pay.

I never did the article, but anyway, there was virtual unanimity as to who was the worst human being in baseball, a general manager famous for lying, cheating, swindling, bullying and bragging during contract negotiations, trade talks, job interviews and sometimes just for the heck of it. Everryone in baseball will know to whom I refer as soon as they read the description, and unfortunately I cannot tell the rest of you.

Dallas Green

I've worked at a number of businesses, large and small over the last 30-odd years. I've had some real $h1thead bosses and bosses' bosses and the like. I've had some interesting and nearly wonderful ones too. And the requisite number of mediocrities. One mantra that has gotten me through bad times is this twist on an old adage, "Time wounds all heels." It's not perfect, but I've seen that kind of karmic effect often enough.

One of the least favorite bosses' boss was a guy named Ray. He was a VP of something IT-y but not in the direct line above me. I was managing a SW development team and one day, Jeff the architect, Buddy the lead programmer and I went up to our No. Jersey office for a series of meetings. This was before the days of cell phones and laptops, so when we arrived about 10:00 AM we were greeted with the news that one of our bellwether apps was down and the support team was baffled. Buddy was a crackerjack debugger, so he went off and Jeff and I went to the meeting. Our first meeting was over slightly before noon and we found Buddy. He had diagnosed the problem, recompiled and was starting to run some tests. Those tests would run about 20 minutes so once he submitted them, we went off to the cafeteria to wolf down some food.

So the three of us were sitting at a table and Buddy was giving us the explanation of what went wrong, how he fixed it, etc. Ray the VP came over and asked in a loud voice so that his table of VPs and Directors could hear, "Is production back on line?" When we started to explain that the regression test was running, he yelled that we should be in that office making sure the test was still running, blah, blah, blah. I confronted him, telling him that these are tests Buddy runs all the time and he knows exactly how long it took and we needed to discuss it anyway and we were going back as soon as we gobbled our food. He blustered something and went back to his table. Later that day, his boss, the Senior VP, apologized to the three of us for his behavior.

The best Ray story, which fortunately didn't involved me, concerned final system testing for some changes that were due to go in the Monday one week after the Thanksgiving weekend. Ray confronted the PM and asked was testing was going on over Thanksgiving and the manager said none, that they were well on schedule, had done this testing a number of times before, had all week and the following weekend to do the testing. Ray was quoted as saying, "I don't care if they have to eat Turkey McNuggets, they are going to be in testing all weekend."

In the "Time wounds all heels" department, about a year after my confrontation with him, he lost his job in a re-org. About a year after that, he started calling up all his old contacts -- trying to sell basement water-proofing! Not that there is anything wrong with selling water-proofing services, but this guy went from a 1990 100K a year job to a hard-scrabble job.

Dallas Green
Oh, it can't be. Our Phillies announcers are always telling us what a great man he is.

Dallas Green
Oh, it can't be. Our Phillies announcers are always telling us what a great man he is.

We are going back a few years and I have asked Bill James if he was referring to Dallas and have received no definitive answer but I am absolutely sure it was him.

bullying and bragging

, who better?

Hack, I can't tell if your sarcasm radar was working or not by your response, but I was in full sarcasm mode in my response.

My wife and I like to guess at which celebrities would be fun to have a drink with.
Let me try baseball people vs. Dallas Green.
Billy Werber:DG - BW
Stan the Man:DG - Stan
Yogi:DG - Yogi
Ernie Banks:DG - Ernie
Larry Bowa:DG - Larry (just a couple of Bushmills and Larry would go from there)
Tommy Lasorda:DG - probably Tommy and I don't think much of Tommy
Cowboy Joe West:DG - maybe Dallas
Shawn Chacon:DG - tough one :)

Tommy Lasorda:DG - probably Tommy and I don't think much of Tommy

I'd pick the ten dogs, and I don't think much of dogs (in any quantity).

I'd pick the ten dogs
Well duh :), but you really shouldn't give dogs booze.

EDIT: made my comment funnier, IMHO

I never did the article, but anyway, there was virtual unanimity as to who was the worst human being in baseball, a general manager famous for lying, cheating, swindling, bullying and bragging during contract negotiations, trade talks, job interviews and sometimes just for the heck of it. Everyone in baseball will know to whom I refer as soon as they read the description, and unfortunately I cannot tell the rest of you.

I always assumed it was George Weiss, but that may be going too far back.

Edmundo, I am aware of the, uh, relationship between Dallas and the Phillies, condolences. At a meetup some years ago DeJesus Freak ordered a round of Bushmills. At the time I had forgotten that Dallas Green had traded DeJesus for Larry Bowa, a round of Bushmills and a minor leaguer. I think he is having that trade put on his tombstone.

As a manager Dallas was a uniter, everybody hated him. I'm sure he has mellowed.

I always assumed it was George Weiss, but that may be going too far back.

I assumed it was a specific somebody whose name for the life of me I cannot recall right now- but it wasn't Green or Weiss- aren't their any baseball insiders trolling this site who can tell us? :-)

As a manager Dallas was a uniter, everybody hated him. I'm sure he has mellowed.
Not at all. That's part of his charm, apparently.

Let me see now...a 31-year-old millionaire assaults a much older superior because he was "dissed". But it's OK, because the superior apparently is a jerk, and it's OK to beat up jerks, because they remind us of the jerk bosses we woulda beat up, too, if only we'd had half a chance.

Based on remarks James made elsewhere, I feel very confident that the GM in question was former Astros (go fig!) GM Dick Wagner. I think I may even have seen this explicitly confirmed somewhere, but I have no cite for that.

you really shouldn't give dogs booze.

But the poker games suck otherwise!

Oh man, if his name was Dick Wagger he'd have been a lock to GM the porn-name team.

/wiki Derrick Jensen/

Pfft, paperpushing whiteboy internet tough-act radicalism always cracks me up.

Hmm. Checking him out on Wikipedia, at your recommendation, he sounds like someone who watched Fight Club too many times and didn't get that it was just a bad movie.

Based on remarks James made elsewhere, I feel very confident that the GM in question was former Astros (go fig!) GM Dick Wagner.

Yes- that's who I was thinking of at the time.

". But it's OK

Who do you think said its OK?

I saw in the paper today that Wade is claiming that he did not curse at Chacon. Have any players chimed in on this either publicly or privately as to how true that is?

I saw in the paper today that Wade is claiming that he did not curse at Chacon. Have any players chimed in on this either publicly or privately as to how true that is?

I have no answer to your question, but it's possible they're both telling the truth, in that they could be interpreting the phrase differently. If Wade said, "Get the #### into my office," he may not interpret that as cursing <u>at</u> Chacon, as opposed to, "Get into my office, you ####."

As much as I'm on Wade's side in this fracas, for him to think "get the #### into my office" isn't cursing at Chacon would be quite a stretch, in my opinion.

"Get the #### into my office," he may not interpret that as cursing at Chacon, as opposed to, "Get into my office, you ####."
Nieporent channeling Clinton. Now I've seen everything. :)

Well I know a number of people, mostly from my days working in warehouses, that use #### as a punctuation market and I doubt that they are even aware that they are swearing. Of course I also doubt any one notices in that environment. Of course this is not a professional environment like a baseball front office

This whole respect thing seems to have missed the fact that Wade is the boss. So by definition he has some power over Chacon. When Chacon signed with the Astros, he agreed that Cooper (or whoever the Astros decide is the manager) was his boss and Wade (or whoever the Astros decide is the GM) was his boss's boss. It doesn't matter whether he's incompetent, a jerk, whatever.

When you agree to work for a company, you agree to work for whoever the company says is your boss, and to take direction from them and treat them with respect. If you don't like it, you can quit. You at least need to act like you respect your boss, even if you don't. It's not like a company picks 50 people and draws straws to see who's in what position. And even if they did, then by choosing to work there you've accepted the conditions.

that use #### as a punctuation market

Where is this market, I'm short on hyphens. :)

There's a lot of swearing in my office, as well, and it's rarely noticed. It's all about the tone. I would imagine Jim Leymand drops an F-bomb every otehr word and no one notices.

Now that I've had a day to ponder this, Chacon looks more and more like a jackass in this situation. He blew it and I can't think of a way to excuse it. I can think of ways of understanding him, but I can't think of a reasonable excuse, especially after seeing Wade's presser. That is a very unimposing man physically.

My other thought on the situation is that I wish Wal-Mart employees would rise up en masse and tell Drayton McLane to go #### himself. A hundred years ago that guy would be a mining tycoon and he would have sat on a bluff overlooking his Pinkerton's beating and shooting striking miners, rubbing his bony hands together and muttering "excellent, excellent" to himself in a vaguely erotic way. (Yes, exactly like Mr. Burns.)