Just because someone's your "boss" doesn't mean they have a free call option on your time

Ummm.... unless you have an employment contract or are a member of a union, that's exactly what they have. So long as they're not in violation of any laws or contractual obligations, they can tell you what to do and when to do it. If you don't like it, you can leave and work someplace else. We can have a discussion over whether this is the way things should be, but it is the way things are.

I can't believe how many smart people here think a grown man can be reasonably forced to drop everything he's doing and come to his "superior's" office immediately any time the superior wants a meeting.

Bosses are under no obligation to behave reasonably. Most of the time they do, because it leads to a better functioning workplace, but they don't have to.

"Bred for docility" -- great term from the Harper's article quoted earlier.

Rawwwwrr!! No clipped balls here!

I would add that you absolutely can pull a Chacon anytime you like. If your boss pisses you off, for whatever reason, you can hit him or shove him to the ground. I mean, show you have balls, man.

The flip side is that your boss will then display his/her balls and a) fire you and, perhaps, b) have you arrested.

But if you really have balls, you won't fear either a or b.

Ummm.... unless you have an employment contract or are a member of a union, that's exactly what they have. So long as they're not in violation of any laws or contractual obligations, they can tell you what to do and when to do it. If you don't like it, you can leave and work someplace else. We can have a discussion over whether this is the way things should be, but it is the way things are.

Yeah, unless there's some separate negotiated issue. This is why I can't fathom working WITHOUT a union. It's not that I worry about my job security, it's that I'm breaking myself working for the kids and I don't have time to talk to some bureaucrat. I probably see the principal more than most of the other instructors combined, but that's because she's always bringing in guests and I'm going to get approval on programs. When I'm called, I finish whatever kid centered work there is before heading in to the office. If there was a instant call button for me, it would annoy me to no end.

I can see how this is different from a more management directed career.

Ummm.... unless you have an employment contract or are a member of a union, that's exactly what they have. So long as they're not in violation of any laws or contractual obligations, they can tell you what to do and when to do it. If you don't like it, you can leave and work someplace else. We can have a discussion over whether this is the way things should be, but it is the way things are.

In the world of servility that so many Americans plainly crave, what you say is correct.

In the real world, "at will" employment relationships really aren't that and if your boss says, "Come into my office right now, I want to tell you again how much you *," you say no, and you get fired, you'll have legal recourse whether or not you have an employment contract or are a union member -- and Shawn Chacon is, of course, both.

If it was me who was the GM I would be pissed if my Manager couldn't handle a Chacon level personnel problem, he is being paid to manage personalities and handle conflicts. Even if those conflicts involve himself. The guy at the top of the pyramid should not be getting involved/

To use my own analogy it would be like my Manager getting the regional VP to fly in order me into his office. It would reflect just as badly on my manager as it would on me, just from different angles.

I would add that you absolutely can pull a Chacon anytime you like. If your boss pisses you off, for whatever reason, you can hit him or shove him to the ground. I mean, show you have balls, man.

The flip side is that your boss will then display his/her balls and a) fire you and, perhaps, b) have you arrested.

But if you really have balls, you won't fear either a or b.

A baseball team an hour before a game is orders of magnitude a physically rougher workplace than your everyday office. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to compare the two.

In the real world, "at will" employment relationships really aren't that and if your boss says, "Come into my office right now, I want to tell you again how much you *," you say no, and you get fired, you'll have legal recourse whether or not you have an employment contract or are a union member -- and Shawn Chacon is, of course, both.

I don't specialize in employment law, but unless I've really been napping on this over the past few years, I call ########. Corporate employers typically prefer to document a history on people before they fire them because of the omnipresent risk of discrimination suits, but a naked act of insubordination in front of witnesses could very well be enough to get a non-valued employee (Chacon) fired on the spot.

In the world of servility that so many Americans plainly crave, what you say is correct.

OMG, is that... it's William Wallace's music!

I don't specialize in employment law, but unless I've really been napping on this over the past few years, I call ########. Corporate employers typically prefer to document a history on people before they fire them because of the omnipresent risk of discrimination suits, but a naked act of insubordination in front of witnesses could very well be enough to get a non-valued employee (Chacon) fired on the spot.

The issue isn't whether they can release him, which they can. It's whether they have to pay him the money McLane agreed to pay him -- almost a million dollars.

I love how the lapdogs who say we all need to shudder in the presence of the "boss" give the "boss" a complete pass when he says, "The contract I signed really doesn't let me do this, but I'm not going to pay you what I owe you." I especially love how the "boss" goes on about "anarchy" and "rebellion" about a little physical contact in a physical workplace when breaking signed contracts willy nilly would let loose a hundred times more "anarchy" and "rebellion," and all his servants crow on that "Hey, he's the boss ... he can do whatever he wants!!!!!"

Bred for docility.

Just because someone's your "boss" doesn't mean they have a free call option on your time and I can't believe how many smart people here think a grown man can be reasonably forced to drop everything he's doing and come to his "superior's" office immediately any time the superior wants a meeting.

Well, it kind of does mean that, actually. Of course they can't "force" you to come -- but they can fire you if you don't.

Of course, that doesn't apply to Chacon, since he's in a union and thus has a contract. But I explicitly was talking about normal, at will employees.

- it is not jeff bagwell for larry anderson unless patton/albers turn out to be fine after the surgery - youneverknow. but like i said, that 30 year old OF you got is better than any OF we got. he's bettern the 3 of em put together

Yeah, well, that shortstop you got is better than all 7 or 8 people the Orioles have tried at shortstop this year.

In the real world, "at will" employment relationships really aren't that and if your boss says, "Come into my office right now, I want to tell you again how much you *," you say no, and you get fired, you'll have legal recourse whether or not you have an employment contract or are a union member

That's not just wrong, it's criminally wrong. You have no "legal recourse" in such a situation. (I mean, you can lie and claim you were fired because of your race/sex/religion, but I wouldn't really call that sort of perjury to be "legal.")

That's not just wrong, it's criminally wrong.

The concept of at will employment is largely an American concept- the Europeans I've met have been bewildered by it, including a lawyer from Belgium who was baffled that he had no recourse after his NYC law firm employer fired him because he was only billing about 10-12 hours a week...

I don't specialize in employment law, but unless I've really been napping on this over the past few years, I call ########. Corporate employers typically prefer to document a history on people before they fire them because of the omnipresent risk of discrimination suits, but a naked act of insubordination in front of witnesses could very well be enough to get a non-valued employee (Chacon) fired on the spot.

The issue isn't whether they can release him, which they can. It's whether they have to pay him the money McLane agreed to pay him -- almost a million dollars.

I love how the lapdogs who say we all need to shudder in the presence of the "boss" give the "boss" a complete pass when he says, "The contract I signed really doesn't let me do this, but I'm not going to pay you what I owe you." I especially love how the "boss" goes on about "anarchy" and "rebellion" about a little physical contact in a physical workplace when breaking signed contracts willy nilly would let loose a hundred times more "anarchy" and "rebellion," and all his servants crow on that "Hey, he's the boss ... he can do whatever he wants!!!!!"

Bred for docility.

So you're backing down on your baseless statement about at-will employees having recourse under the law? *

Sounds kind of.... docile to me.

* Assuming no violation of law on the part of the employer.

Well, it kind of does mean that, actually. Of course they can't "force" you to come -- but they can fire you if you don't.

But they can fire you for anything under your reading of "at will," so who cares? If you don't have to be insubordinate to get fired, who cares if you're insubordinate?(**)

(**) Of course, no one's really talking about the Astros' right to DFA the guy for anything they want; the question is whether they can withhold the pay they're contractually liable to pay him.

That's not just wrong, it's criminally wrong. You have no "legal recourse" in such a situation. (I mean, you can lie and claim you were fired because of your race/sex/religion, but I wouldn't really call that sort of perjury to be "legal.")

Sure you do; there are all sorts of state employment law exceptions to the "at will" contract having nothing to do with what you're talking about. You shouldn't confuse your dream world of servants and masters with the real world.

So you're backing down on your baseless statement about at-will employees having recourse under the law? *

Sounds kind of.... docile to me.

No.(**)

(**) And the "bred for docility" phenomenon is obviously alive and well here, wherein a bunch of otherwise smart guys are positively drooling over the at will relationship in proportions having nothing to do with its utility and everything to do with their subconscious. Normal people require at least B+ porn to get so aroused.

But they can fire you for anything under your reading of "at will," so who cares? If you don't have to be insubordinate to get fired, who cares if you're insubordinate?

Somewhere along the line, you missed the notion that your employer hires you because he wants you to work for him. Thus, if you do the work he expected of you when he hired you, he probably won't fire you on a whim. If this is a problem for you, I suggest that you try to provide enough value to your employer that he wants to keep you.

Somewhere along the line, you missed the notion that your employer hires you because he wants you to work for him. Thus, if you do the work he expected of you when he hired you, he probably won't fire you on a whim. If this is a problem for you, I suggest that you try to provide enough value to your employer that he wants to keep you.

What's your proof I have an employer?

Since you seem so desperate to discuss it, what exactly do you do for a living?

Since you seem so desperate to discuss it, what exactly do you do for a living?

Let's just say I try to stay as far away as possible from being subject to some jagoff having the authority to summon me to a meeting at his/her whim.

Sure you do; there are all sorts of state employment law exceptions to the "at will" contract having nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Goodness gracious, yes. You can't be fired for attending jury duty. You can't be fired for making a claim to workers' comp. You can't be fired for voting. You can't be fired because of your race, religion, national origin, or physical handicap. In some states, you can't be fired for your sexual preference.

But the idea that you can't be fired for insubordination, let alone physically attacking a co-worker or supervisor? Rubbish.

But the idea that you can't be fired for insubordination, let alone physically attacking a co-worker or supervisor? Rubbish.

Will the Red Sox be firing Manny for assaulting his co-worker, a member of management (albeit middle)?

#547 ~ I have no idea where your confusion between a management's contractual right to take action X and a management's obligation to take action X lies. As such, I can't really address it. The Sox possibly can terminate Ramirez; there is nothing that requires that they do so.

He had no reason to suspect Chacon would attack him...

Perhaps I missed the context of this bit, but screaming in the face of another man, unless you are a drill sergeant, could reasonably be expected to lead to physical confrontation.

SBB -- sexual arousal usually disappears after neutering.

i have to say based on this last round of exchanges that i too would like to know what you do for a living, sugarbear.

(edited for clarity.)

He's a high school guidance counselor, flournoy.

Actually, this is probably the most important job in the world, but very few people are any good at it.

Sugar, I take it from your posts that you've never had to deal with the responsibility of managing others under conditions that require high anbd demanding performance.

Somewhere along the line, you missed the notion that your employer hires you because he wants you to work for him. Thus, if you do the work he expected of you when he hired you, he probably won't fire you on a whim. If this is a problem for you, I suggest that you try to provide enough value to your employer that he wants to keep you.

This assumes that most employers have any clue how to evaluate job performance. My experience is that most evaluate you on whether you go bowling with them or kiss their ring or whatever and it was worse in the corporate world than in the non-corporate world.

come on, e-x. are you serious? then my hope for you is you find a job you actually like. my job simply does not depend on bowling with my superior or kissing up to him, we have goals to meet. i am expected to do my part. i like my boss. he can be maddening, but i'm on board with the company's objectives. if that makes me sound ball-clipped, whatever. put me in the alto section.

Perhaps I missed the context of this bit, but screaming in the face of another man, unless you are a drill sergeant, could reasonably be expected to lead to physical confrontation.

I'd love to hear some corroboration of EITHER of these people's stories. Weren't there witnesses? Security cameras? Anything?

This assumes that most employers have any clue how to evaluate job performance. My experience is that most evaluate you on whether you go bowling with them or kiss their ring or whatever and it was worse in the corporate world than in the non-corporate world.

How long do companies that employ these jokers stay in business?

I can only go by what I know, but I've never had a boss like that, nor have I known anybody who has. Sure, I've had a bad boss, but not for those reasons.

This assumes that most employers have any clue how to evaluate job performance.

What I was referring to with the horsebleep comment at the beginning.

I work on the ground floor of a huge bureaucratic organization. Management, even with ground floor experience, while supposedly relying upon objective measures, basically rewards the people they like for non-work-related reasons. Though the reasons they give vary depending upon who they are talking to.

Watching management in this huge organization for the past five years has often led me to ask: Were they stupid before they were tabbed to manage, or did managing make them stupid? Partly answered by the maxim that barely competent workers with the right credentials are often made middle managers because they can't get the job done.

I really like the work I do, but management does its best to make working conditions intolerable.

Getting in line with company objectives, following the lead of your boss, working in the middle or at the bottom of the place doesn't make you neutered -- the initial comment was directed at the idea that you do whatever the boss says and how he says it no matter what -- not only does that not apply with most bosses, the servile attitude to abuse of power is my primary objection.

I shall hereforth refrain from any disparagement of the most sensitive area of the male anatomy* from this point forward.

*pride

I'd love to hear some corroboration of EITHER of these people's stories. Weren't there witnesses? Security cameras? Anything?

You're not going to get your wish. I don't think any more details about what specifically happened in that clubhouse will be made public.

lassus, baseball chick says chacon's version is backed up by players in the dining room at the time, but ... i'd like to hear some real corroboration too.

alex, do you mind me asking for a little more detail? i'm just curious, because your strong comments in reference to having 'balls' and then your more thoughtful posts later are intriguing. i have work issues of my own, but on the whole am happy with my career choice. there seems to be more than a few 'hate work, hate my managers' folks here. i've been on both sides of the equation in my career, labor and management.

You're not going to get your wish. I don't think any more details about what specifically happened in that clubhouse will be made public.

I want Gil Grissom and Catherine Willows on this case.

Mostly so I can watch Marg Helgenburger walk around.

Lassus Posted: July 01, 2008 at 07:35 PM (#2839354)

Perhaps I missed the context of this bit, but screaming in the face of another man, unless you are a drill sergeant, could reasonably be expected to lead to physical confrontation.

I'd love to hear some corroboration of EITHER of these people's stories. Weren't there witnesses? Security cameras? Anything?

- there were at least 6 other ballplayers there as well as clubhouse people. mark loretta, that well known rabble rouser rebbel corroborates chacon's version. on the record. he was quoted by 2 of the chron's baseball writers. in print.

i hear tell that the other witnesses also corroborated chacon's story. no one has backed ed wade's version

no one has backed ed wade's version

That he yelled at somebody and was assaulted?

i thought wade had no comment about what happened. what's his version?

That Ed Wade has a "version" is news to me.

BC can probably relay Wade's response -- from the snippets I've read, it appears his story has varied in its telling. I believe he states that Chacon pushed him to the floor; no actual choking was involved, though the push may have been in the neck area. One Philly wisecracker wrote that someone asked Chacon for an autograph and he thought he was grabbing a pencil.

lassus,

ed wade denies he ever swore or raised his voice

his version is in the houston chronicle - jose de jesus ortiz wrote about it and there is alink to the speech he gave. i'd link it but the game is starting

come on, e-x. are you serious? then my hope for you is you find a job you actually like. my job simply does not depend on bowling with my superior or kissing up to him, we have goals to meet. i am expected to do my part. i like my boss. he can be maddening, but i'm on board with the company's objectives. if that makes me sound ball-clipped, whatever. put me in the alto section.

Oh, don't cry for me. I have the best job in the world now. I couldn't be happier. I have yet to have had a truly brilliant principal yet, but I have one that lets me dream and do all the work and signs off on anything and that's more than enough for me--I'm happy to work my ass off as long as administration stays out of my way and doesn't mess with the kids.

I would argue that having a great boss with good vision and objectives for you to work hard to accomplish is awesome, and only surpassed by having complete freedom and the personal ability to set your own objectives and break yourself to meet them.

As I said, I have the best line of work in the world. I am not interested in moving, and have found a place in which I have the freedom to not be troubled by what I've described, in no small part to our union--as crappy as it is.

phred -- if you ask for specific details, I could perhaps fill in some gaps. From all the details I've given here at various times, it wouldn't be that difficult to track me down, and I'd prefer that angry, neutered BBTFers didn't show up at my workplace.

Obviously, I'm not liking my job too much right now, and if it was only me, perhaps some of the comments directed towards me would apply. But EVERY worker with half-a-brain at my workplace feels pretty much the same.

As I later stated upthread, the poster who said I wrote like a guy who had been clipped himself isn't that far off the mark. God knows I've taken more #### than I should have in the workplace precisely because I cannot afford to give up the paycheck and there are few attractive options unless I move. And living in a different city from my children will never be an option until they are grown.

It's possible to find more satisfying work, I shouldn't make excuses. Like every other person with a boss here, I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. But when I read this story, I knew exactly how Chacon felt and why he responded the way he did. I haven't backed down to my current boss, but I've twice had 'bosses' get in my face and yell at me and not responded physically; both were ex-cons with a proclivity for violence. But I did hold my ground in both instances. The first time, the working relationship ended shortly afterwards; the second time, we worked together amicably from that point forward, but not in close quarters.

The reason I so disrespect my current manager is because he is absolutely spineless, has a short temper, and disparages employees publicly. A few months back in a staff meeting, I was encouraged by the person who was previously in the position to challenge the CEO in a staff meeting on a matter of unfair company policy; the current manager said he valued his job too much to do so.

If it were only this worm, I could tolerate the place -- my immediate supervisor is very much a mentor to me and has actually taught me how to deal with/confront weasels in the workplace -- but most of the rest of management up the chain is similar in quality, only with a more practiced false front.

I really think these issues extend beyond my personal workplace -- worker status/morale in the US is at an all-time low by many indicators. Even if I manage to escape to a higher place on the ladder or am able to strike out independently of bosses, there's no escape from a society of increasing inequity. Ironically, I believe the path outward for me depends not upon an illusory escape, but through direct confrontation of the conditions of my unhappiness.

I just have to stop talking/writing about it and start taking one step at a time with as much integrity as I can.

Thanks for asking, and again, apologies for hitting below the belt.

bc --

Maybe I should wait until after tonight's game, but Rodriguez has been an Astros bright spot so far.

I love how the lapdogs who say we all need to shudder in the presence of the "boss" give the "boss" a complete pass when he says, "The contract I signed really doesn't let me do this, but I'm not going to pay you what I owe you."

I don't believe anybody has actually suggested that a boss -- not a "boss" -- would get a complete pass if he said that. In fact, the contract he signed really does let him do that -- or, at least, he has a colorable argument that it does. An arbitrator will make the final decision, it appears.

I especially love how the "boss" goes on about "anarchy" and "rebellion" about a little physical contact in a physical workplace when breaking signed contracts willy nilly would let loose a hundred times more "anarchy" and "rebellion," and all his servants crow on that "Hey, he's the boss ... he can do whatever he wants!!!!!"

1) Uh, Chacon was the one who breached the contract.
2) As long as we're getting into socio-psychological-ideological generalizations, I especially love how the people who are so eager to stand up for the oppressed millionaire employees here on political grounds somehow are the ones applauding most zealously as the government infringes upon the privacy rights of those same employees. (Kevin's the one exception here; as someone else noted, that's because he's consistently authoritarian in all contexts.)

I especially love how the people who are so eager to stand up for the oppressed millionaire employees here on political grounds somehow are the ones applauding most zealously as the government infringes upon the privacy rights of those same employees

.

This is a fair rejoinder given my earlier post, but it's not really accurate. I have said Chacon was way out of line several times. The fact that you and kevin are the ones going easiest on Wade should tell you something.

As to the implied suggestion about PED testing, well, we have covered that.

BTW, the 756 ball arrived at Cooperstown today--* and all.

That's not just wrong, it's criminally wrong. You have no "legal recourse" in such a situation. (I mean, you can lie and claim you were fired because of your race/sex/religion, but I wouldn't really call that sort of perjury to be "legal.")

Sure you do; there are all sorts of state employment law exceptions to the "at will" contract having nothing to do with what you're talking about. You shouldn't confuse your dream world of servants and masters with the real world.

There are a handful of narrow exceptions to the at will doctrine, all of which apply to very specific situations, none of which protect you from purely arbitrary firing or firing for disciplinary reasons. You shouldn't pretend you know what you're talking about.

This is a fair rejoinder given my earlier post, but it's not really accurate. I have said Chacon was way out of line several times. The fact that you and kevin are the ones going easiest on Wade should tell you something.

I actually wasn't talking about you; I was really generalizing from two data points -- Nutjob and Sugarbear -- though I suspect the generalization is more true than that.

Nutjob

Chris Snyder's new nickname

People who live in Libertarian houses...

Besides, I've been arguing against nutjobs, not for them.

Snyder's a cracked nut, not a nutjob... thought he may need one.

Alex: in case it wasn't clear, you're not Nutjob. You may be a nutjob, but you're not Nutjob.

Yep, no way I'll ever rise above Retardo in the BBTF nutjob hierarchy.

If workplaces are rational while the law protects thoughtful, scientific management, why is Dilbert popular?