flip

at a certain point, you're liable to wind up having the sort of case (and this is not gender-specific) of one person being in a position to blackmail the hell out of the other person - repeatedly. 5 grand to stay quiet and keep this job, 15 grand for the new one because it pays more.

Except that's not what happened. And, looking broadly at society, is not a real concern. Sexual harassment is.

If someone is being blackmailed, I would encourage that person to go to the authorities. If someone is being sexually harassed, I would not do that because people *still* face hard consequences for speaking up about this ####.

now, maybe you should explain what you meant by:

"Some people on this website seem to have real problems with women."

Your comment that "how many years does someone get to hold the power" is part of that. So is 52 and a few other posts.

How many years does a woman get to decide whether or not she wants to tell other people about an injury she received from a man? As many ####### years as she likes.

Why? What if he's grown and truly sorry?

It's like the Kavanaugh hearing. Is it really valid to try and ruin a person 's life 30 years later?


The question is in regards to going public and informing employers not about keeping things bottled up.

How many years does a woman get to decide whether or not she wants to tell other people about an injury she received from a man? As many ####### years as she likes.

Has it been established that the female here does feel injured? I dont know alot about the younger generation but what I read is that dic pics, unsolicited or not, are not uncommon. Not saying its cool but I know women at work who laugh about them.

As always it depends.

I mean women also laugh about getting hit on at bars. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of traumatic interactions coming from getting hit on.

How many years does a woman get to decide whether or not she wants to tell other people about an injury she received from a man? As many ####### years as she likes.

Is it really that simple? I don't really blame her for keeping quiet, as the stakes here were relatively low - unwanted texts are annoying in general and these specifically are obviously offensive, but there's no indication that she was in real physical danger or that she even thought she was. And the benefit to her - or anyone - in speaking up was likely not worth the hassle by any reasonable standard. But the fact remains that as she kept quiet, he escaped accountability, and continued to be in a position to do this to other people. So who exactly is the attitude that you're expressing here designed to protect?

I mean, let's play this logic out. Suppose instead of offensive texts, a woman is drugged and raped by a coworker. What responsibility does she have to speak up, to protect others if for no other reason? If I know about it, what responsibility do I have to speak up, even if against her wishes? Is the ethical thing to do always to respect the wishes of the one receiving the injury, and if so, isn't this culture of silence a big reason that men face so little accountability for this kind of thing?

I guess what I'm getting at is that Howie was trying to express a genuine ethical question *in support of victims* and you decided to attack him for "having real problems with women." You obviously don't have to agree with Howie (or me), but at the very least, genuine discussion is called for instead of leaping immediately to aggressive smears.

Except that's not what happened. And, looking broadly at society, is not a real concern. Sexual harassment is.

Well, a reasonable person might say that both sexual harassment AND blackmail are real concerns.

If you read the article, you'll find these questions are clearly answered.

Maybe so. I didnt read the article and I didnt even read the entire thread before posting my comments so Im liable to be missing something. I bring up points that interest me, and hopefully I dont sound like a chauvanist or an a-hole.

I also dont think it's fair to say Clapper's commment 52 was some indication of some failing. We (society) gives people second chances all the time. Surely MLB is well known for giving drug abusers and domestic violence perpetrators second chances. As far as I know, dick pics in most jurisdictions are not illegal. Although I understand Texas has passed some tough dic pic laws.

Yea I just watched the video portion of the story. This is way too much about nothing. The woman at first responded to him and he said do you like the photo (this is the one with pants bulge) and she said yes. ANd on another occasion she also said ok to him. So he's just texting her. This is normal flirting or whatever in 21st century western world. Then there's like a billion messages that she ignores, so OK he's kind of silly to keep sending. It not illegal and its not even inappropriate to pursue someone who's sick of you. Finally he sends her ten billion shots of the hotel another pants shot and finally....THE DICK PIC!

Oh my god! A dick pic.

Her story at 2:30 of the video is that "if she had better understanding of the language and culture she would have realized sooner what was going on."

Read that again does that even make sense? what is it about the culture she doesnt understand? They dont text one another in Serbia or Kenya or whatever? And what is going on she doesnt understand? She asked him if he's married (he's not, and he said no) so she doesnt understand flirting?


Followed by this part of the story: after said dick pic is sent she responds (not sure if immediate or not) with the following message:


"This is extremely inappropriate, offensive and getting out of line. Could you please stop sending offensive photos or mssgs?"

SO he says "Sorry" a couple times. and that's it.

Does that sound like someone who doesnt know the language? My guess is she's pretty fluent in English.

Wow great story ESPN. This some really hard hitting journalism right here.

I almost certain this part about now knowing the culture was something some ESPN producer came up with as her cover story. Who talks like that?

too late

Guys, leave Mouse alone. All he wanted to do was make a substance-free, innuendo-filled post to make him look like one of the Nice Guys. And here you all are asking him follow-up questions and stuff.

Primey.

I thought you didn't want to sound like an a-hole.

Does that sound like someone who doesnt know the language? My guess is she's pretty fluent in English.

"My number one motivation is I want to prevent this from happening to someone else," she told ESPN through an interpreter.

ME: "maybe you should explain what you meant by [your]:

"Some people on this website seem to have real problems with women."

YOU: "Your comment that "how many years does someone get to hold the power" is part of that. So is 52 and a few other posts. How many years does a woman get to decide whether or not she wants to tell other people about an injury she received from a man? As many ####### years as she likes."

first off, my comment was a journalistic one - not gender-specific (RTing the female MLB writer's comment was different, offered in an effort to bring a much-needed perspective to this male bastion).

so your "some people" at the time of your post consists of a one-liner in Post 52 that most of us missed, and me - with your objecting to a post that includes "it feels very refreshing that a woman in a scenario like this finally gets treated respectfully, given this country's past history on such matters" and "I don't care about this [GM Porter] clown."

ok, you misunderstood my point, which is about the highly unusual situation of a reporter knowing about this issue, watching this person get hired by the Diamondbacks, and hired by the Mets.

the most likely conclusion seems to be that the reporter knowingly allowed a number of other women (who likely will be coming forward this week) to put up with this sort of harassment - which in many cases can be traumatizing.

and then, when the person decides to come forward, boom - the harassment is over because the victim from 4-5 years ago decided it is over. and a reporter sits back and watches - one hopes at least spending a moment's thought about Porter's continuing harassment of victims made possible by this silence.

it's difficult to say that one takes this sort of harassment very seriously and at the same time not even be willing to engage in a discussion about whether this might be complicated - especially with a journalist right in the middle for years.

so wires got crossed regarding what you thought I meant. it happens to all of us.

but why leap to the conclusion you did, at the time you did, about a discussion that a lot of reasonable people might find a bit encouraging - that being the level of concern expressed by a bunch of middle-aged males against 'one of their own' and for the woman who was repeatedly harassed?

(granting that if you had only waited a while, you'd have had a decent amount of evidence for your case and I wouldn't have responded.)

Well, a reasonable person might say that both sexual harassment AND blackmail are real concerns.

A reasonable person would say that sexual harassment has been a common and deep-seated problem for a very long time, and is still far too common, while blackmail is exceedingly rare.

But that's not you.

For those saying 'so what' - how would you like a dick pick from someone you need to work with? Who has a lot more power than you? Think about that for a moment.

how would you like a dick pick from someone you need to work with? Who has a lot more power than you?

If I played my cards right, I might be able to use it to blackmail my way into a promotion.

but why leap to the conclusion you did, at the time you did, about a discussion that a lot of reasonable people might find a bit encouraging - that being the level of concern expressed by a bunch of middle-aged males against 'one of their own' and for the woman who was repeatedly harassed?

(granting that if you had only waited a while, you'd have had a decent amount of evidence for your case and I wouldn't have responded.)

All the #### that came out in 106 through 110 was there in the thread before.

They dont text one another in Serbia or Kenya or whatever?

Oh my God.

All the #### that came out in 106 through 110 was there in the thread before.

and yet you only offered as 'bread crumbs' post 52 and my post - which, I think, you now may be setting aside at this point.

seems like a curious way to build your case - especially in the face of dozens of emphatic posts crushing the [now-ex] GM and backing the victim. since they are so obvious to you, why not post them and make it easier for followers of the thread?

The problem here is that there are multiple seemingly contradictory things that are all true at the same time:

1. Porter's behavior was inexcusable and legitimate grounds for firing.

2. It's a little disconcerting that Porter's behavior was made public years after it occurred, and only once he achieved a certain level of professional success, and because of that success.

3. The victim had perfectly legitimate and logical reasons for keeping quiet for as long as she did and permitting publication when she did. Other victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault make the same choice she did, for the same completely valid reasons.

4. Porter's behavior falls in the zone beyond inexcusable but short of violent/criminal. The language of degrees of inexcusable misconduct is hard to nail precisely on a message board, but it doesn't seem right that the statute of limitations for punishment for Porter's behavior should be indefinite. But 3-ish years seems in-bounds.

A reasonable person would say that sexual harassment has been a common and deep-seated problem for a very long time, and is still far too common, while blackmail is exceedingly rare.

But that's not you.

1) You have no idea how common blackmail is or isn't. The very nature of the crime means that it's going to stay secret in a substantial number - possibly even the vast majority - of cases.

2) Regardless of how common it is, what's your actual point that you're trying to make?

Part of being reasonable is trying to explain what you mean, instead of coupling a one-liner with a petty and witless insult.

2. It's a little disconcerting that Porter's behavior was made public years after it occurred, and only once he achieved a certain level of professional success, and because of that success.

My guess, based on talking to a friend who works in sports journalism, and from my own observations having worked in banking for 20 years, is that Porter is probably not the only guy who harassed or propositioned her over the years. So if you’re in that position, do you report every middle manager who said or did something inappropriate, knowing there’s a good chance it will torpedo your own career (and personal reputation back home, in this case)? Or do you keep it to yourself, and only report it when one of those middle managers is placed in a position of real authority?

And look, it wouldn’t surprise me if she was a little flirty with him over text messages in an effort to cultivate a potential source. If he had simply read too much into those texts and asked her out a bit too persistently, it would be a bit creepy and inappropriate but he’d probably still have his job. But the dick pic, after she had ignored his dozens of other messages, clearly crossed a line.

Going back to your #2, yes I agree it’s disconcerting, but maybe not for the reasons you think (not trying to call you out specifically here, so don’t take this post the wrong way.) Ideally, women would feel empowered to come forward about this stuff more often than they do (and then hopefully it would become less frequent). But the reasons they don’t are pretty understandable to me.

and yet you only offered as 'bread crumbs' post 52 and my post - which, I think, you now may be setting aside at this point.

I don't think, "Actually, the real issue is with ethics in journalism," is as convincing as you seem to think it is.

So, what is objectionable about Post #52, which followed my early post (#21) suggesting Porter’s employment was likely over? The full text:

52. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:45 PM (#6000537)
Will Porter work in baseball again, even as a scout? Could he come back as a eunuch?

The post merely asked if Porter would work in baseball again, even in a lower level scouting position, followed by a modest attempt at humor. Not great humor, not the best humor, just BBTF humor. That humor, such that it was, was directed at Porter, not the dick pic victim, BTW. Seems like the objector is really stretching to assert his assumed moral superiority, notwithstanding the facts.

"and yet you only offered as 'bread crumbs' post 52 and my post - which, I think, you now may be setting aside at this point.

seems like a curious way to build your case - especially in the face of dozens of emphatic posts crushing the [now-ex] GM and backing the victim. since they are so obvious to you, why not post them and make it easier for followers of the thread?"

response: "I don't think, "Actually, the real issue is with ethics in journalism," is as convincing as you seem to think it is.

No further questions.

I'm ready to send this one to the BBTF jury.

I trust that they will reach a fair verdict - although the judge may well first dismisses the case, due to lack of evidence.

you had a shot at offering more that was posted before your claim, but you declined to do so. even the BBTF court is liable to frown on such behavior.

I even offered you a plea bargain of "well, I misunderstood your post," but you declined to take it.

It's like the Kavanaugh hearing. Is it really valid to try and ruin a person 's life 30 years later?

Well, that depends on how they feel about [insert political issue here].

I remember reading an article about dick pics written by a woman who claimed to received several, and was disgusted by them. So, she proceeded to send "vag pics" (not her own) to various men she knew, assuming she would elicit a similar revulsion.

She didn't.

Come on, everyone knows there’s no such thing as vag pics.

Thing is, most employers, if you call and ask about a prior employee you are thinking about hiring, if they have counsel or professionally trained HR personnel, will say nothing.

Nothing good, nothing bad.

Because they are concerned about being sued by the former employee if they say something bad, and are concerned about being sued by the new employer if they say something good and he/she turns out to be a stinker.

So the most they will do is confirm dates of employment, and then state that this is all they are authorized to provide. That is the precise advice they receive from their employment attorneys.

Can definitely confirm this is how I was directed to operate. I never had any instances of sexual harassment or even anything criminal reported to me by staff; but there were a few other things I inquired about passing along to new employers and was always told in no uncertain terms "no ####### way, no, and also, no." (Positive drug and alcohol tests [in our industry] are required to be passed along by federal law.)

For intracompany we could say everything for outside the company it was yes they worked here and generally that's about all they would ask. They knew the score.

Well, that depends on how they feel about [insert political issue here].

It really doesn't.

I actually do believe in redemption, so whether Porter works in baseball again is, I believe is mostly in his own hands.

Redemption, though has to start with an admission of the wrong and - whether it comes from self-reflection, some manner of spirituality, psychological help, or whatever - demonstrated understanding of why it was wrong. One cannot whattabout or youthful indiscretion the way to redemption... and it requires biting your tongue because, there will be people who overplay the offense. But - deflection isn't redemption. To be sure, there's a point where one needs to move on with one's life... and a time when "I was wrong, I've admitted it, I've atoned, I'm a person who is more than my offense". But you cannot skip steps.

It's like the Kavanaugh hearing.

In the sense that people are scratching around desperately for reasons to side with the perp rather than the victim? Absolutely.

The problem here is that there are multiple seemingly contradictory things that are all true at the same time:

1. Porter's behavior was inexcusable and legitimate grounds for firing.

The main problem seems to be that there are a number of people here who don't seem to think this, and are scratching around to put this on her.

This seems to be going on in your head exclusively.

This seems to be going on in your head exclusively.

Yeah exactly, what is it with people who think they've waded into a Bleacher Report thread here?

I will say this as a warning to some folks here: the track record of men who use reports of sexual harassment to posture about their own righteousness and superiority is dismal - in fact it's a huge red flag of its own. So before coming in here and making statements like manchestermets (or Mouse's or tshipman's earlier in thread) - maybe think twice about how it's actually reflecting on your character and whether your comments are really saying about you what you imagine they are.

My first thought when confronted with tales of sexual harassment is always other men.

I will say this as a warning to some folks here:

Thanks guy.
What a flog

The main problem seems to be that there are a number of people here who don't seem to think [Porter's behavior was inexcusable and legitimate grounds for firing]

Oh yeah? Name one such person in this thread. The "main problem," indeed.

Name one such person in this thread.

Yea I just watched the video portion of the story. This is way too much about nothing.

I really dont think he should be fired. Its not illegal. Its gross and so what. This why you block people

I really dont think he should be fired. Its not illegal.

It's not illegal for me to tell clients and contacts to fucking eat shit, either. Or send dick pics to vendors.

Quality rap, dude. LOL. See ya.

Obviously should be fired. Not even remotely debatable.

The problem here is that there are multiple seemingly contradictory things that are all true at the same time:

Of course, and that's typically the case and as usual the combination gets the Puritans and the unfamiliars at BTF all aflutter and atwitter. Of course it's the reality that in today's sexual culture, dick pics are sometimes sent. Sometimes they're even ... gasp!!! ... asked for by women. But of course, consent and the workplace change everything. It could have just been left at that: If you send unsolicted dick pics to a woman in the workplace that she clearly didn't consent to receive (*), you're going to be deservedly fired, but I guess it wouldn't be the internet if it was just left at that.

(*) And hopefully ridiculed and mocked.

Well, that depends on how they feel about [insert political issue here].

It really doesn't.

Oh, you sweet summer child, you.

(Porter) obviously should be fired. Not even remotely debatable.

Yup.

I really dont think he should be fired. Its not illegal. Its gross and so what. This why you block people

Come on.

He's not an unabashed public nose picker or a guy who prefers moldy flip-flops. He's pestered at least one woman - a woman who, by the way, was in a profession that a GM inevitably needs to deal with and requires some level of professionalism and decorum - with dick pics.

Let's not be silly here.

"This is extremely inappropriate, offensive and getting out of line. Could you please stop sending offensive photos or mssgs?"

SO he says "Sorry" a couple times. and that's it.

Does that sound like someone who doesnt know the language? My guess is she's pretty fluent in English.

Pretty sure that one of the articles indicated that she sought the assistance of a compatriot who spoke better English in crafting the response to the chap snap.

I will say that I am troubled by the notion that people should be fired from their jobs for incidents that occurred prior to the person's employment. The logical extension is that the person shouldn't be hired for a job because of the prior incident, making him or her unemployable. Nobody but politicians benefit from creating populations of unemployable people.

Oh yeah? Name one such person in this thread. The "main problem," indeed.

I will say that I am troubled by the notion that people should be fired from their jobs for incidents that occurred prior to the person's employment.

The guy, as an employee of a major league front office in a role which should be reasonably expected to interact with members of the media, decided to go all Option J with a member of the media. No one is saying he should never be hired for any job ever again, but it's also clear that had his incredibly bad judgement been known before, the Mets would not have hired him for a job in which not showing your dick to members of the media is a key requirement. There's still lots of other jobs out there. He can always apply to those instead.

I will say that I am troubled by the notion that people should be fired from their jobs for incidents that occurred prior to the person's employment. The logical extension is that the person shouldn't be hired for a job because of the prior incident, making him or her unemployable.

Or, perhaps, that such a person should be open and up-front about their involvement about such incidents during the process of applying to jobs like this, since not only will it impact their ability to deal with the media based on the incident that we now know about, but the risk of similar incidents happening again if they don't understand why their behaviour isn't acceptable must be considered significantly higher.

Hiring a person who admits they made a major mistake, knows why that mistake happened, and is taking some kind of action to prevent slipping into that behaviour again seems to me very different to hiring a person who doesn't admit the behaviour, or doesn't see a problem with it.

I'd have settled for honesty at the time the story broke.

Or, perhaps, that such a person should be open and up-front about their involvement about such incidents during the process of applying to jobs like this

The key here is "jobs like this." I agree that the Mets are correct to fire Porter. (I am not sure that I fault Porter for not being up-front about it during the interview process. Is he responsible for bringing all of the skeletons out of his own closet?) But in any case, what would the general public response be if he were a CitiField janitor or ticketbooth employee, and had engaged in the same activities? I suspect many would still be calling for his firing.

#150 Sure. Many would. Doesn't mean he would be. In the same way that many wanted Tony LaRussa fired. Businesses will make calls like this using their own cost/benefit calculations.

Despite what lip service ESPN is going to give about the woman's feelings (because ESPN will know that smart people are going to look at the dates here and wonder, so they tried immediately to go where few will dare venture), the only explanation that can possibly fly here is that it wasn't a big story when Porter didn't have a big enough job (i.e., when he was in charge of coffee procurement or whatever else he did for Theo when he was there with the Cubs), but it was a big story when he had a bigger job.

You discount the possibility that ESPN was fed the story by a rival of Porter's who was upset he didn't get the job.

(I am not sure that I fault Porter for not being up-front about it during the interview process. Is he responsible for bringing all of the skeletons out of his own closet?)

Yes, he is. Maybe that means he doesn't get hired, but then again, here we are. He doesn't have a job and he's much less hireable than he would have been had he been honest about the incident and the steps he's taken to address it. I think the problem is that the latter assumes he's taken steps to address it, when in reality he's probably just hoped that it had gone away.

I am not thrilled with the idea that ESPN is carrying around oppo files on sports figures who just aren't quite important enough to run the story yet.

hello boys

and who better then me to talk about how it feels as a dickless wonder to get a dick pic from someone you hardly know who you think you need to stay on good terms with for your job

if you don't know the guy who sends you the pic, you take it as a threat because that is what it is.

ima try to think of something you might could have the same reaction to - say, like getting a pic of a machine gun pointed at a pic of you. or a pic of you (photoshopped of course) nekkid and bent over and a nekkid erect youknowwhat pointed right at yo booty. and you can't say nothing to HR because you don't work for the same place. AND you're in a foreign country and don't speak the language real too good or know how folks are usually

i know us penis-free persons often try to say something polite to rude obnoxious males in hopes that they will just go away but you see, it is because we are taught to Be Nice because we can't afford to get into a fist fight because it won't go real too good for us.

a good rule about dick pics - if she didn't ask you - like, say, boy send me a pic of your dick pls - then trust me on this she don't wanna see it. it turns us OFF. this rule is for folk who are not already sexting/sending naughty pics/having sex already. and a lot of females prefer to imagine that dick and not actually see it. trust me on this

as for the dikkhead we are talking about, mr porter, well

the guy was in his late 30s when this happened. he a grown ass man, not a stupid teen/collitch boy. this is how this guy comes on to females he wants to screw and/or intimidate. it's not a new idea he suddenly got when he met this foreign lady hardly spoke english. people are not like that. if he did this with some female he met in a club or even in the supermarket, it's still dumbass. but this female was a bidness connection and he KNEW she was supposed to have to work with him. seriously bad judgement

the reason he had to get fired from a GM job is that in his job, he HAS to interact with female media. and he can't be trusted

he didn't have to get fired from a non-media job unless the new boss was really worried that he would harass females he worked with in the company. there are a whole lot of males who feel perfectly comfortable harassing females and a lot of that is because too many other males don't tell them to cut it out. and too many females are afraid of losing their jobs or promotions if they don't "know how to handle" creeps

sending strange females over 18 a dick pic is not illegal unlike actually showing it to her in person in public, but who is talking about legal? dude too old to know that if some woman don't answer you and don't answer you, the solution is NOT to send her a pic of a nekkid youknowwhat because that fer DAMMM sher is not gonna get her to change her mind.

and if a 37 year old grownass man ain't got no dammm sense, he should not be a GM of a ML team

oh yeah

and as for this story appearing with her permission juuuuuuuuust after he got the job, well, let's say that revenge is a dish best tasted cold, as mah daddy would say

bbc,

was hoping you would check in!

not that it's your job in the slightest, but if you get a chance to read much of the thread (from all dudes and possibly all white dudes, presumably), what sort of vibe do you see, vs what you would have expected?

(spoiler alert: you might find the first half of the thread sending you in one direction, and the second half....)

well

some guys who work in large companies know who is and who is not the guy who intimidates/harrasses women and some guys know and GET that this kind of stuff is not a one-off. and the harasser is not about to stop because he gets off on frightening people who usually can't really fight back

some guys do not get that this was NOT a "mistake" like picking up the wrong package at the store and not realizing it until someone had to stop them because they were on their phone and not looking. this is modus oparandi NOT a "mistake"

i was kind of disappointed in a few guys they know who they are. i mean, even certain non-librilz knew this guy needed to get tossed

a whole lot of people being blackmailed are not going to run to the cops about it because you know, they being blackmailed. well officer, this person found out i killed 2 people/stole all this $$$ a couple years back and now they want me to pay them off. um, no

and i promise you that what porter did is not exactly a White guy only thing. it's a any kind of guy can be a complete ****head thing

oh yeah
i got this sneaking suspicion that the person at espn who kept this to themself for 4 years was female too... like i said about revenge, some people can't be waitin for the Lord to act

Nope, not illegal at all
Cue the, "awwww, it's just a misdemeanor."

Are Texas state laws applicable? Didn't the incidents happen while Porter was working for the Cubs? Was he in Texas at the time?

Weirdly I have been name checked multiple times since finding better thing to do. Anyway, despite the various silly things written about me and what I wrote my point was MLB front offices are a small world. This is not like moving from GM to Toyota. Everyone knows everyone (slight exaggeration).

I think it way too easy to just assign no blame for this to anyone except dicpic dude. I don't know that the Mets knew about these issues. I never claimed I knew. But I think it ridiculous for snapper and others to just assert the Mets are 100% blameless.

But some here are really, really, threatened by the mere thought of accountability. That sexual harassment is common and a huge problem, and that maybe this is more than "hey, just a bad apple. Once he is gone everything is fine again!".

It is more than just a few bad apples. It is bad apples and people who cover up for and enable bad apples (which, BTW, makes them bad apples as well). It is people who look the other way and who don't ask questions about such things, and they don't ask because they don't want to hear the answer.

But it is way easier to just pretend it is a bad apple and that everything is fine.

I am not thrilled with the idea that ESPN is carrying around oppo files on sports figures who just aren't quite important enough to run the story yet.

That’s not what happened. They didn’t initially run the story because the victim wouldn’t go on the record. When she was willing to, they did.

But in any case, what would the general public response be if he were a CitiField janitor or ticketbooth employee, and had engaged in the same activities? I suspect many would still be calling for his firing.

If a janitor or ticket taker harassed a reporter and it got back to management, yes I imagine they would be fired as well. If they harassed someone who reported to them at work, or someone else they dealt with professionally, good chance they would be fired or otherwise disciplined. If they just sent an unsolicited nude photo to a random woman, I doubt anyone would say anything unless the team somehow got dragged into it (I.e. woman goes to the team and says “please help me, I can’t get this guy who works for you to stop sending me pictures of his junk.”)

I don’t think Porter is the worst person in the world or should never work again, but there have to be consequences for these types of actions otherwise they’ll keep happening. So yeah, he probably has to start somewhere else (maybe outside of baseball) in a more junior role and demonstrate that he can do so responsibly, until someone will give him a chance at another prominent job. And maybe I’m wrong and he’ll get hired by another team as GM in a year.

I’m not going to say that he has to do X to show he’s truly changed his ways or anything like that, but it would help him to do some good deeds so that whoever considers hiring him or promoting him in the future has some ammo to weather any PR blowback.

None of the above strikes me as a great injustice; what I find more unfortunate is that a young woman who cared enough about baseball to move to a foreign country to report on it, got harassed and ultimately left the industry.

I think it way too easy to just assign no blame for this to anyone except dicpic dude. I don't know that the Mets knew about these issues. I never claimed I knew. But I think it ridiculous for snapper and others to just assert the Mets are 100% blameless.

If the Mets did normal pre-hiring back-ground checks and reference checks, they're blameless. Hie employers at the time would have no reason to act unless someone actually complained. Innuendo and rumors around the water-cooler are not a reason to terminate someone.

You can surely see the serious problem with the idea that someone can lose his or her job because "people think he/she is creepy"?

You can surely see the serious problem with the idea that someone can lose his or her job because "people think he/she is creepy"?

I hate to break it to you, but if someone is an at-will employee - said person can lose said job for any reason beyond a very narrow range of reasons that are illegal (age, race, religion, sexuality).

Being creepy is not a protected class... nor am I particularly interested in it becoming one.

You can surely see the serious problem with the idea that someone can lose his or her job because "people think he/she is creepy"?

Surely you can see there is a difference between not hiring and firing? You keep conflating the two.

Surely you can see there is a difference between not hiring and firing? You keep conflating the two.

If his previous team wouldn't fire him for his behavior, the Mets would have no particular reason to inquire about it. I'm sure they talked to people in the industry, and no one mentioned this incident. If some people knew about Porter's behavior, but didn't tell his previous employer, what makes you think they'd be willing to tell the Mets?

I hate to break it to you, but if someone is an at-will employee - said person can lose said job for any reason beyond a very narrow range of reasons that are illegal (age, race, religion, sexuality).

Being creepy is not a protected class... nor am I particularly interested in it becoming one.

Have you ever worked for a large company? They are very loath to fire anyone. Layoffs, sure, no problem. Firing an individual is a long drawn out process. It's not taken lightly. To be summarily dismissed you have to basically be caught red-handed. Wrongful termination lawsuits are expensive and a huge pain in the ass for management.

I'm not sure why we see this desire to blame someone besides the perpetrator for his misdeeds. This is Porter's fault. He acted badly. The Mets did the right thing in firing him.

Have you ever worked for a large company? They are very loathe to fire anyone. Layoffs, sure, no problem. Firing an individual is a long drawn out process. It's not taken lightly. To be summarily dismissed you have to basically be caught red-handed. Wrongful termination lawsuits are expensive and a huge pain in the ass for management.

Just a company with 20K worldwide employees for 21 years, the last 15 in supervisory roles that include hiring/firing. While I will admit that I no longer spend a ton of time carefully studying the employee handbook I have to acknowledge receipt of annually, I'm going to safely assume the US-specific codicils still include the portions I remember making clear the meaning of at-will employment.

But yes - having been interviewed on two different occasions by the EEOC on matters of terminations, they are not taken lightly... While the situation differs somewhat in Europe, in the US - I assure you, the line between "layoffs" and "terminations" is a lot less clear than you imply. Admittedly, I don't recall specific allegations of "creepy" leading to termination but the general preference to avoid terminations is more a matter of morale, mission, and the (non-suit based) financial benefits of a separated employee doing so of his/her own volition.

If his previous team wouldn't fire him for his behavior, the Mets would have no particular reason to inquire about it. I'm sure they talked to people in the industry, and no one mentioned this incident. If some people knew about Porter's behavior, but didn't tell his previous employer, what makes you think they'd be willing to tell the Mets?

You are still missing the point. People think he is creepy (your words, not mine - that is not how I would describe sexual harassment) may or may not be cause to fire someone. However, I personally would not want to hire someone who is thought of as creepy for a high profile position in my organization.

You and I have a different opinion regarding how much the Mets could have possibly known. It is my understanding that in many ways MLB front offices are very much "small town". A huge number of people "in the business" known other people "in the business" and it is common for people to know other people in front offices across the league.

They hire people from the same basic pool and hire from other front offices. People get promoted and hire their friends. People change jobs into another organization and bring many of "their people" to the new organization. There is a huge amount of cross-pollination across the various front offices. These are not isolated huge megacorporations.

I have never said the Mets acted badly. It is possible they had no idea. However, it is also possible they did know. It is likely that they didn't even look into that aspect at all in fact, because many "old boys network" businesses, especially hyper-masculine businesses like MLB, NFL, and so on don't care about such issues or think it is just "boys being boys".

Again, I am not claiming special knowledge on this situation. I am also not quite as eager as some to just assert a complete lack of culpability across MLB (including the Cubs, of course). Like I said before, I don't think this is just a case of one bad apple and once he is gone everything is fine.

And finally, I don't think any of that is letting Porter off the hook. He is absolutely to blame for his actions.

Just a company with 20K worldwide employees for 21 years, the last 15 in supervisory roles that include hiring/firing. While I will admit that I no longer spend a ton of time carefully studying the employee handbook I have to acknowledge receipt of annually, I'm going to safely assume the US-specific codicils still include the portions I remember making clear the meaning of at-will employment.

But yes - having been interviewed on two different occasions by the EEOC on matters of terminations, they are not taken lightly... While the situation differs somewhat in Europe, in the US - I assure you, the line between "layoffs" and "terminations" is a lot less clear than you imply. Admittedly, I don't recall specific allegations of "creepy" leading to termination but the general preference to avoid terminations is more a matter of morale, mission, and the (non-suit based) financial benefits of a separated employee doing so of his/her own volition.

Right. No one gets fired for rumors and innuendo about creepiness.

The confidence that many people have in this thread that this type of thing is always dealt with swiftly and correctly is... misplaced. I have experience in an organization in which a senior leader was turned in for multiple instances of unwanted harassment of his direct reports over multiple years. Two different women left the organization over it and made it clear that's why they were leaving. Texts and emails were turned over to HR/legal/the head of the organization. Multiple supportive statements in favor of the people who complained and against the guy. He got... a 5 day unpaid suspension, and he was able to determine when those dates were served (he just tacked them on to a pre-existing holiday break). Still works in the same role.

And this is a public agency, and the guy in question has no union protections, no contract, etc., no complicating factors.

Right. No one gets fired for rumors and innuendo about creepiness.

Well, apparently you've never worked for a large company... because in fact, of what I imagine are 1000s of terminations spanning two decades, I can only (but wouldn't) speak definitely to a tiny number I was directly involved in and only vaguely to a small number I've heard rumors about.

I assure you - the company newsletter and HR page has no "professional obituaries" section.

It is possible they had no idea. However, it is also possible they did know.

From the article: Three other people interviewed by ESPN said they saw or were told of the texts at the time.

However, it's not clear whether those people were employees of the Cubs, associates of the reporter (which is more likely), or others who may have heard secondhand about it. I don't know how many people the Cubs employ, but it would seem likely that it's a lot more than three, so that even if they did talk to additional members of the Cubs organization when interviewing Porter, they wouldn't have necessarily stumbled across someone who knew.

It is likely that they didn't even look into that aspect at all in fact, because many "old boys network" businesses, especially hyper-masculine businesses like MLB, NFL, and so on don't care about such issues or think it is just "boys being boys".

No major league organization is going to treat sending a dick pic to a member of the media as just "boys being boys". Maybe decades ago they might have, but certainly not now.

Maybe decades ago they might have, but certainly not now.

It would have been even creepier to get out your camera from its case, take a picture of your dick, drop the film off to be developed, wait a week, get the picture back, put it in an envelope, address it to the recipient, put your return address in the upper left corner, put a stamp on it, and drop it off at the post office.

But in any case, what would the general public response be if he were a CitiField janitor or ticketbooth employee, and had engaged in the same activities? I suspect many would still be calling for his firing.

If a janitor or clerical employee was sending dicpics to people coming to the park as a work place, they should and would get fired. And a boss who tolerated that would be risking his career by creating a hostile workplace.

Send dicpics to randoms is creepy but this is work and that makes it beyond creepy. if you #### where you eat, don’t complain that it stinks

It's like the Kavanaugh hearing. Is it really valid to try and ruin a person 's life 30 years later?

Yes for attempted rape. (Maybe not for all jobs, but for SCOTUS, I think so.) No for the thing that Ramirez quasi-accused him of without any evidence even including her own memory.

If a janitor or ticket taker harassed a reporter and it got back to management, yes I imagine they would be fired as well.

That's not the issue. It's if management found out that a janitor or ticket taker had harassed a reporter at a previous job, it would be analogous.

No major league organization is going to treat sending a dick pic to a member of the media as just "boys being boys". Maybe decades ago they might have, but certainly not now.

Well that sort of misses my point, but perhaps I did not say it well. There is a continuum of behavior with dick pics (and other worse things) on the fire side all the way to much more mild things. I think in general MLB is less likely to thoroughly investigate the possibility of being on that continuum than many other businesses are, because of the history and culture of men's professional sports.

#176 how a team would and should react in that situation depends on facts that we don’t have, so I’ll just stick to my original post. Besides, I think “make up some incomplete hypothetical and then get upset by people’s imagined reactions to it” is a pretty dumb game.

The Socratic method and attempting to rationalize your opinions are not for everyone.

i have heard more than a few stories about higher up males who have gotten reported for sexual harassment to HR by more than 1 person who were not fired/punished - suspected they either knew something about someone they didn't want getting out or else not replaceable (and the sexually harassed persons were, and would almost certainly not publicize what happened to them)

i have also heard how people at an organization or company will not officially say anything good or bad about an employee to another hirer. but i heard they also will sometimes make a courtesy call off the record not to HR but to their buds talking up someone good who "will be" looking for work or just saying "no comment" about someone bad.

maybe the people besides the "cubs employee" who knew about it were buds of the employee or just not connected with the cubs at all

- and, you know, there are a lot of misogynists out there. i have learned that over the past 4 years

RJ in TO Posted: January 21, 2021 at 12:19 PM (#6000998)

No major league organization is going to treat sending a dick pic to a member of the media as just "boys being boys". Maybe decades ago they might have, but certainly not now.

- it is not that they are suddenly woke, but that they do NOT want bad pub. so i would definitely agree with you

it is not that they are suddenly woke, but that they do NOT want bad pub

Or lawsuits

My wife’s firm gives serious cut that #### out talks to people who say untoward things to deliverers and caterers cause they know they can be liable for bad work conditions even for contractors. Fear is a good motivator. Whether the counsel and others are good people or just risk averse, I don’t know but it also doesn’t matter.

Is it really valid to try and ruin a person 's life 30 years later?

If he's stupid enough to lie about it under oath in the here-and-now? Yes, absolutely. Because that's displaying a disqualifying character trait in the present - the fact that he also used to be a shitty person when he was younger is almost redundant at that point.

I used to work with someone who wound up in a, well, ethical bind.

apparently the bright lights "are you now, or have you ever been..." segment included the explanation that any provably false claim - for which the bosses had documentation - would result in immediate termination.

here comes a question, and a denial - and a firing. game over.

now, this was all during the colleague's tenure at the company and all relative to the previous year or two.

but those were the parameters.

admitting the offense would have been a bit more complicated, in terms of having a defense along the lines of "well. I was just browsing and...."

so accepting the terms - and then violating them immediately - made it nice and tidy for the employer.

- it is not that they are suddenly woke

It's also not that sudden. It was 15 years ago that Keith Hernandez was roundly told to fuck off about his comments regarding a woman in the dugout.