biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 11, 2018 7:21:55 GMT -7
(I have to double post since we dont have multi-quote on this new forum) I have no problem with him endorsing his friend. Not in the least. The question is: why on the AZ Cardinals platform? Would it be appropriate for you to send a mass email at your company telling everybody who you endorse for President? Your workplace and your politics are separate, and should be. Hows this any different? Cards are a business. A company. Mike is a civilian. Who he supports politically has no place in the Cards business. Big difference. Bidwill signs the checks. It’s good to be the king. And while it may not be good business to speak out personally through a business you own, be it religion or politics or anything else, it happens all the time. It’s his money, his property, so it’s appropriate for him to do with it what he will. The same doesn’t go for employees. Both the owner and employees have the right to say what they want and protest. The both have the right to their views. In this case the owner has expressed his right to speak. No problem but it's not appropriate in light of the leagues action against the players. It's completely hypocritical. I'm okay with the owner being a hypocrite, it's his right on American soil. One thing you need to realize is the product is the players. I've been a season ticket holder in the past and have been on the fence because we drafted Rosen. I'm not on the fence anymore. I won't be attending Cardinal games anytime soon. Those who won't attend of watch because of the kneeling have the same rights that those who have a different POV. The President and owners have politicized this and have to live with the consequences from all sides of the issue. As far as I'm concerned NFL management and ownership can wrap themselves in the flag and Conservative values all they want. I enjoyed watching the players, I can't support management that's drunk, driving and supporting the kind of government that has completely sold out our public institutions for corporate interests. Enjoy the season. My boycott of the Cardinals and everything they stand for starts today. It was fun guys. |
|
|
|
Post by Dry Heat on Jul 11, 2018 8:06:02 GMT -7
Big difference. Bidwill signs the checks. It’s good to be the king. And while it may not be good business to speak out personally through a business you own, be it religion or politics or anything else, it happens all the time. It’s his money, his property, so it’s appropriate for him to do with it what he will. The same doesn’t go for employees. Both the owner and employees have the right to say what they want and protest. The both have the right to their views. In this case the owner has expressed his right to speak. No problem but it's not appropriate in light of the leagues action against the players. It's completely hypocritical. I'm okay with the owner being a hypocrite, it's his right on American soil. One thing you need to realize is the product is the players. I've been a season ticket holder in the past and have been on the fence because we drafted Rosen. I'm not on the fence anymore. I won't be attending Cardinal games anytime soon. Those who won't attend of watch because of the kneeling have the same rights that those who have a different POV. The President and owners have politicized this and have to live with the consequences from all sides of the issue. As far as I'm concerned NFL management and ownership can wrap themselves in the flag and Conservative values all they want. I enjoyed watching the players, I can't support management that's drunk, driving and supporting the kind of government that has completely sold out our public institutions for corporate interests. Enjoy the season. My boycott of the Cardinals and everything they stand for starts today. It was fun guys. An employee simply does not have 1st Amendment free speech rights while on (or even off) the clock when it comes to employment. The 1st says the Congress may make no law limiting speech. They can give all the personal views they want and the government can do nothing about it, short of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater. But they aren’t protected from losing their jobs when expressing themselves, even when on their own time. Ask Rosie O’Donnell. Even journalists sometimes lose their jobs for the things they write or tweet out. |
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 11, 2018 8:18:54 GMT -7
Both the owner and employees have the right to say what they want and protest. The both have the right to their views. In this case the owner has expressed his right to speak. No problem but it's not appropriate in light of the leagues action against the players. It's completely hypocritical. I'm okay with the owner being a hypocrite, it's his right on American soil. One thing you need to realize is the product is the players. I've been a season ticket holder in the past and have been on the fence because we drafted Rosen. I'm not on the fence anymore. I won't be attending Cardinal games anytime soon. Those who won't attend of watch because of the kneeling have the same rights that those who have a different POV. The President and owners have politicized this and have to live with the consequences from all sides of the issue. As far as I'm concerned NFL management and ownership can wrap themselves in the flag and Conservative values all they want. I enjoyed watching the players, I can't support management that's drunk, driving and supporting the kind of government that has completely sold out our public institutions for corporate interests. Enjoy the season. My boycott of the Cardinals and everything they stand for starts today. It was fun guys. An employee simply does not have 1st Amendment free speech rights while on (or even off) the clock when it comes to employment. The 1st says the Congress may make no law limiting speech. They can give all the personal views they want and the government can do nothing about it, short of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater. But they aren’t protected from losing their jobs when expressing themselves, even when on their own time. Ask Rosie O’Donnell. Even journalists sometimes lose their jobs for the things they write or tweet out. You are mistaking the right to protest vs. the right of an employer to retaliate. The right to protest doesn't go away. In this case the retaliation is against the product the owner is selling. If you own a factory making underwear the employee can be replaced and you can still produce underwear. You can't replace an all pro player with a scrub. We had strike football back in the 80's it didn't really work out. |
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Jul 11, 2018 8:55:33 GMT -7
(I have to double post since we dont have multi-quote on this new forum) I have no problem with him endorsing his friend. Not in the least. The question is: why on the AZ Cardinals platform? Would it be appropriate for you to send a mass email at your company telling everybody who you endorse for President? Your workplace and your politics are separate, and should be. Hows this any different? Cards are a business. A company. Mike is a civilian. Who he supports politically has no place in the Cards business. Big difference. Bidwill signs the checks. It’s good to be the king. And while it may not be good business to speak out personally through a business you own, be it religion or politics or anything else, it happens all the time. It’s his money, his property, so it’s appropriate for him to do with it what he will. The same doesn’t go for employees. Your argument is shifted slightly from the question. Youre saying "He can do what he wants". Yes he can. I never said he couldnt. He doesnt answer to anybody, so he can do it. The question was "is it OK"/"is it right" for him to do it? In which case the answer is no. Owning something doesnt mean everything you do is OK. Just because you can do something, doesnt mean you should. The tangible damage of his choice is that he can not justifiably tell his players not to be political while at work, if Mike is being political at work. |
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Jul 11, 2018 9:02:02 GMT -7
Both the owner and employees have the right to say what they want and protest. The both have the right to their views. In this case the owner has expressed his right to speak. No problem but it's not appropriate in light of the leagues action against the players. It's completely hypocritical. I'm okay with the owner being a hypocrite, it's his right on American soil. One thing you need to realize is the product is the players. I've been a season ticket holder in the past and have been on the fence because we drafted Rosen. I'm not on the fence anymore. I won't be attending Cardinal games anytime soon. Those who won't attend of watch because of the kneeling have the same rights that those who have a different POV. The President and owners have politicized this and have to live with the consequences from all sides of the issue. As far as I'm concerned NFL management and ownership can wrap themselves in the flag and Conservative values all they want. I enjoyed watching the players, I can't support management that's drunk, driving and supporting the kind of government that has completely sold out our public institutions for corporate interests. Enjoy the season. My boycott of the Cardinals and everything they stand for starts today. It was fun guys. An employee simply does not have 1st Amendment free speech rights while on (or even off) the clock when it comes to employment. The 1st says the Congress may make no law limiting speech. They can give all the personal views they want and the government can do nothing about it, short of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater. But they aren’t protected from losing their jobs when expressing themselves, even when on their own time. Ask Rosie O’Donnell. Even journalists sometimes lose their jobs for the things they write or tweet out. (hate not being able to multi-quote) having bit of a round robin argument, going in circles. I mentioned before and will say again, this players vs owners situation is not a simple employees vs employer issue. This is a Union vs Owners issue. We dont have Unions out here in AZ really, at least not strong ones. But back East (Pennsylvania for example), a workers Union is viewed moreso as a partner in a business, rather than employee. Thats how powerful they are. |
|
|
|
Post by ThrowItToFITZ on Jul 11, 2018 9:11:23 GMT -7
Give it a rest.Great pick for SC. Disrespecting my flag started this bs, where was the same outrage? LOL love it when people say **** like this..hilarious as if they have more right to the flag than other US citizens  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 9:27:13 GMT -7
What a trash Thread. Moderators this thread needs closed. It is going down the tubes faster than a flushed toilet.  |
|
|
|
Post by lacardsfan on Jul 11, 2018 9:59:48 GMT -7
What a trash Thread. Moderators this thread needs closed. It is going down the tubes faster than a flushed toilet. I disagree, if you dont like the thread dont read it. I for one am engaged on this thread, people are being very civil and discussing their thoughts on the issue. No one is name calling. It is very Cardinal News related and in my opinion, important. |
|
Boomer
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,452
|
Post by Boomer on Jul 11, 2018 11:24:24 GMT -7
Between this thread and the Keim DUI thread I'm ready to pull the plug on this forum until training camp.
Can't wait for football to start. I'm like Sarah Sanders, I came to the forum to read up about the product on the field and instead am getting force fed political and moral horse crap. I'll show myself out for now.....
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverhuntr on Jul 11, 2018 11:32:41 GMT -7
I like being able to post an opinion.. I always hated that about the old forum. The moderators locked every thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dry Heat on Jul 11, 2018 13:14:33 GMT -7
An employee simply does not have 1st Amendment free speech rights while on (or even off) the clock when it comes to employment. The 1st says the Congress may make no law limiting speech. They can give all the personal views they want and the government can do nothing about it, short of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater. But they aren’t protected from losing their jobs when expressing themselves, even when on their own time. Ask Rosie O’Donnell. Even journalists sometimes lose their jobs for the things they write or tweet out. You are mistaking the right to protest vs. the right of an employer to retaliate. The right to protest doesn't go away. In this case the retaliation is against the product the owner is selling. If you own a factory making underwear the employee can be replaced and you can still produce underwear. You can't replace an all pro player with a scrub. We had strike football back in the 80's it didn't really work out. The owners can do as they wish so long as it’s not in a contract. There is no right to protest without response from an employer in an NFL contract. There was in fact a clause in the NFL rulebook stating expected behavior during the anthem. Now there is an even stronger clause. If players want a right to protest during game time, they won’t get it constitutionally. They would have to get it into the language of a new union contract. True you can’t replace an All Pro with a scrub. Never said you can. I’m just saying it’s a business decision (eg...may be bad business) and the guy who owns the corporation has more power in those decisions. Zaz, I think you and I mostly agree...both employee and employer can speak up but not without consequence. I’m just trying to point out it’s not a Free Speech issue as so many falsely assume. Many falsely believe they can say anything without consequence “because it’s a free country”. All the 1st Amendment protects you from is legislatures making laws restricting your speech, practice of religion, right to assemble, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Jul 11, 2018 15:38:23 GMT -7
Big difference. Bidwill signs the checks. It’s good to be the king. And while it may not be good business to speak out personally through a business you own, be it religion or politics or anything else, it happens all the time. It’s his money, his property, so it’s appropriate for him to do with it what he will. The same doesn’t go for employees. Your argument is shifted slightly from the question. Youre saying "He can do what he wants". Yes he can. I never said he couldnt. He doesnt answer to anybody, so he can do it. The question was "is it OK"/"is it right" for him to do it? In which case the answer is no. Owning something doesnt mean everything you do is OK. Just because you can do something, doesnt mean you should. The tangible damage of his choice is that he can not justifiably tell his players not to be political while at work, if Mike is being political at work.
*********REPLY:
My bet is that he did not give it a thought at the time, rather he was helping an old, good and qualified friend as best he could just as you or I would do with a friend in a similar situation. I have not had a hint that Mike B is overtly political, and in fact never seen anything indicating his preferences politically. Add one small and really insignificant point: I believe he was on vacation when this alleged sin was committed.  Really people, is anyone suffering because of this, or is it another instance of Chicken Little(s) screaming that the sky is falling? I know, I know - no football yet. But still . . . |
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 11, 2018 15:44:05 GMT -7
You are mistaking the right to protest vs. the right of an employer to retaliate. The right to protest doesn't go away. In this case the retaliation is against the product the owner is selling. If you own a factory making underwear the employee can be replaced and you can still produce underwear. You can't replace an all pro player with a scrub. We had strike football back in the 80's it didn't really work out. The owners can do as they wish so long as it’s not in a contract. There is no right to protest without response from an employer in an NFL contract. There was in fact a clause in the NFL rulebook stating expected behavior during the anthem. Now there is an even stronger clause. If players want a right to protest during game time, they won’t get it constitutionally. They would have to get it into the language of a new union contract. True you can’t replace an All Pro with a scrub. Never said you can. I’m just saying it’s a business decision (eg...may be bad business) and the guy who owns the corporation has more power in those decisions. Zaz, I think you and I mostly agree...both employee and employer can speak up but not without consequence. I’m just trying to point out it’s not a Free Speech issue as so many falsely assume. Many falsely believe they can say anything without consequence “because it’s a free country”. All the 1st Amendment protects you from is legislatures making laws restricting your speech, practice of religion, right to assemble, etc. The owners are subject to league discipline just like the players are. They can't do what they want unless the Commissioner says they can or ignores what they do. The same is true for players conduct. That is the realm of the Commissioner. Regardless both have the right to do as they wish when it comes to personal freedom issues. Again for clarification that doesn't mean either party is free from consequences the league may impose. |
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Jul 11, 2018 18:16:27 GMT -7
I would do with a friend in a similar situation You would use your company email to tell all your co-workers your buddy just got nominated for SCOTUS? Or let me put it this way: The CEO of the company you work for sends an email to all of you and your co-workers that his buddy got nominated for SCOTUS, and hes a really good choice! Thats essentially what Mike did. The company boss used company resources to make a political comment. The argument of "it was just 1 little tweet" doesnt fly. Because if you or I did that at work, we'd be fired on the spot. Theres nothing little about it. Keep politics/religion out of company time. And you say "whats the harm?". Again, the harm is that he further fuels the politics/sports issue. He tells players to not be political while on the clock, while he then goes and is political on the clock. |
|
rdo3
Starter
Warning
Posts: 324
|
Post by rdo3 on Jul 11, 2018 19:11:26 GMT -7
zaz I am starting to think you aree one of those people who believes kapernak deserves a roster spot in the nfl even tho he can only win 5% of his games because he took a knee. its not that you want politics out...you only want not your politics out. you don't want to eliminate it, you want the opposite, you want to monopolize it. he tweeted in the off season. kap was making an ass of himself dureing the time people owners and fans, had paid for his time so it wasn't his time anymore. you would be fired? by who? the owner? would the owner be fired? no. not the company boss, the company owner used his private property as private property. why is using company resources wrong? because its theft, unless you are the owner. then its not because you cant steal whats already yours. any value or benefit he could have acquired from it was already his before the tweet.
lets face it, the one person who has the indisputable right to do what they want did it and because you don't like what they said suddenly your angry. you are calling bidwell a hipocrit because he tells other people they cant drive his car while driving it himself. are you going to let anyone off the street walk up and take your car? no? are you going to drive it yourself? yes, because that's the whole point of you buying the car, paying the maintence fee, license, insurance etc...? why is it wrong for bidwell to do the same thing you are doing?
and biggs the commissioner has no say in this. if he had tweeted as the nfl account the commissioner could have but that's not what happened. he even personalized it and left no doubt he was speaking personally for and as himself. he ursuped nothing from the other 31 owners.
I find it strange that some think of the employees of having not only equal rights / ownership of the teams but superior rights of ownership than the actual owners. you can bet the next cba will end up at the ussc and there will be no doubt left as to who actually owns the team, who has the rights. if I take your car you are going to call the police because the fact that you paid all the bills for it gives you more of a right to it than I have, but it blows your mind that other people could think the very same thing.
one owner kneeled with the players, another owner said he would cut any player than kneeled. neither was wrong because they owned the teams. why is that so hard for some to understand?
|
|
