southsider2k5 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1925994 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I really enjoyed the piece. Everyone makes mistakes, the man should not have lost his job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I really enjoyed the piece. Everyone makes mistakes, the man should not have lost his job. Yes, he should have, IMO. Maybe if he told them about it prior to being hired he might have had a chance. But when you represent a "company" in the public as a manager does.. you and your personal life are open to all. His past is embarrassing. It's unfortunate, but I agree he should have been fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Yes, he should have, IMO. Maybe if he told them about it prior to being hired he might have had a chance. But when you represent a "company" in the public as a manager does.. you and your personal life are open to all. His past is embarrassing. It's unfortunate, but I agree he should have been fired. If they don't ask him about the trouble he got into in the past, why would he set himself back by informing them? My brother will have something on his permanent record for the rest of his life, I highly doubt you if some company looks into hiring him and they don't mention the incident that he won't come out and tell them what exactly happened and neither should have Backman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Yes, he should have, IMO. Maybe if he told them about it prior to being hired he might have had a chance. But when you represent a "company" in the public as a manager does.. you and your personal life are open to all. His past is embarrassing. It's unfortunate, but I agree he should have been fired. I gotta disagree Steff. I might agree that maybe he should not have been hired in the first place, but since he had already been employed by the D'backs and they didn't seem to mind then, I think it is ridiculous that they caved in to pressure. The D'backs hired the guy because of his fiery personality/style. Three days later things come out about him that weren't all that secret if they had their eyes open. A day later they say they are going to stand behind him. A day later they change their minds because of a lack of a spine. My timeline may be off a day or so here. Argue that he never should have been hired if you want, but the D'backs screwed this one up, not Wally. Once they hired him, and they decided they would stand behind him, they should have done so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisox05 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I gotta disagree Steff. I might agree that maybe he should not have been hired in the first place, but since he had already been employed by the D'backs and they didn't seem to mind then, I think it is ridiculous that they caved in to pressure. That is what I found most intriguing in Wally Backman's crazy week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 20, 2004 Author Share Posted November 20, 2004 To me, if the DBacks didn't ask, why should Backman be held responsible? If he lied (which I haven't heard said) then yeah, he should be fired no doubt. But if AZ just was lazy on their backround check, that is their own fault, and at very least they should have to pay Wally his full contract value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 To me, if the DBacks didn't ask, why should Backman be held responsible? If he lied (which I haven't heard said) then yeah, he should be fired no doubt. But if AZ just was lazy on their backround check, that is their own fault, and at very least they should have to pay Wally his full contract value. The key is, they should have asked or known about this before, since he had already been employed by the D'backs for a year. It is not like he was a new hire from outside the organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 The key is, they should have asked or known about this before, since he had already been employed by the D'backs for a year. It is not like he was a new hire from outside the organization. Yeah, basically it means that they hired him for two jobs without knowing/asking/caring about his past until it was brought up publicly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 To me, if the DBacks didn't ask, why should Backman be held responsible? If he lied (which I haven't heard said) then yeah, he should be fired no doubt. But if AZ just was lazy on their backround check, that is their own fault, and at very least they should have to pay Wally his full contract value. So if a guy with a history of DUI's applied and gets a truck driving job because the company didn't ask.. "do you have any DUI's?", or that a child molestor gets a job at a day care because the daycare didn't ask "by the way... are you a child molestor?" that's to bad on the employer and they should have to continue with the employment? Backround checks take up to 45 days to come back. If it's in the employment contract - which I'd bet it is and that's why Wally isn't making more of a stink about getting paid - the D'Backs are 100% in the right. JMO, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 If they don't ask him about the trouble he got into in the past, why would he set himself back by informing them? My brother will have something on his permanent record for the rest of his life, I highly doubt you if some company looks into hiring him and they don't mention the incident that he won't come out and tell them what exactly happened and neither should have Backman. I believe in being honest. Good luck to your brother in being deceitful the rest of his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Yeah, basically it means that they hired him for two jobs without knowing/asking/caring about his past until it was brought up publicly. Which sucks for him.. but I still agree with the D'Backs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 The D-Backs organization is quite the shambles right now. They could quite easily have a worst record next season than they did this season. Ken Rosenthal wrote a good piece on their struggles now and in the future a couple of days ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 So if a guy with a history of DUI's applied and gets a truck driving job because the company didn't ask.. "do you have any DUI's?", or that a child molestor gets a job at a day care because the daycare didn't ask "by the way... are you a child molestor?" that's to bad on the employer and they should have to continue with the employment? Backround checks take up to 45 days to come back. If it's in the employment contract - which I'd bet it is and that's why Wally isn't making more of a stink about getting paid - the D'Backs are 100% in the right. JMO, of course. It falls under the one little check box that asks about being convicted of crimes. Unless I missed it, the Diamondbacks never said anything about waiting for a backround check to come back, especially since he has worked for the DBacks for a year. That fact alone tells me that they have been neglegent in their activities. And if a day care company doesn't ask about child based offenses, or a driving company doesn't ask about driving based offenses, that company has some major problems. They sure as hell aren't doing their due dillegence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 So if a guy with a history of DUI's applied and gets a truck driving job because the company didn't ask.. "do you have any DUI's?", or that a child molestor gets a job at a day care because the daycare didn't ask "by the way... are you a child molestor?" that's to bad on the employer and they should have to continue with the employment? Backround checks take up to 45 days to come back. If it's in the employment contract - which I'd bet it is and that's why Wally isn't making more of a stink about getting paid - the D'Backs are 100% in the right. JMO, of course. Steff, his DUI was a few years ago. So was the domestic problem. His bankruptcy was the only thing that is recent. If I work for your company for a year and you give me a promotion and then you find out I had a transgression a few years back that has nothing with how I did my job the past year while working for you, yeah, I think it is crap if you fire me at that point. It is as much or more so the company's responsibility to ask. I'm sure in Wally's mind, those things had nothing to do with his ability to manage. The most appalling thing is they went on record saying they would stand behind him. Unfortunately, later, they decided to kick him in the balls while standing behind him. No one said Backman is a saint, but he got the shaft here. He should have never been hired, or kept. He was fired, because someone didn't have a spine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Ok you guys. I think differently. We can both give 500 examples of our logic. All of which would support our opinions and be right in a round about way. But that's not going to change anything. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 Ok you guys. I think differently. We can both give 500 examples of our logic. All of which would support our opinions and be right in a round about way. But that's not going to change anything. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. Hell no, I wanna fight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Ok you guys. I think differently. We can both give 500 examples of our logic. All of which would support our opinions and be right in a round about way. But that's not going to change anything. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. Why don't you just agree with us so we can move on? It would be much easier that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.