Okay, students, sit up straight and get ready for 6th grade civics. I have been hearing on sports talk radio that Michael Vick should not be suspended because in this country we are innocent until proven guilty and that the NFL has no right to suspend a man who has yet to be convicted of a crime.Pay attention all you victims of public school in the 90s (fortunately, I had 6th grade in the early 70's, before modern educational theory messed everything up). Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty so HE CANNOT BE SENTENCED FOR A CRIME BY THE GOVERNMENT.
However, and this is the important part, being innocent of a crime does not mean you cannot be fired by your employer.
Allow me to draw and analogy to Don Imus. Imus committed no crime (except against good judgement and good manners), and yet was removed from his job by his employers. At the time, some of my conservative friends said, "We must stop this, for it is the first step to ending free speech." But they were wrong. His employer also has the right to free speech and doesn't have to pay Don Imus to say something else if he doesn't want to. In this case, Don Imus's product for public consumption became less valuable to his employers than did keeping him. So they fired him, and they were within their rights.
Likewise, NFL football is an employer that makes it's money --and quite a bit of money-- by producing a product for public consumption. That product is football games played for the joy of spectators who pay through their ticket sales, their support for sponsoring products, and their purchase of licenced NFL merchandise. The NFL is not required to employ every human capable of playing professional level football. Like it or not, Michael Vick is not guaranteed a job because of his talent. If the NFL decides that the product he gives for public consumption (that is, his football skills) has become less valuable than what he costs in public good will, they are free to fire him.
Now, they are not free to forbid him to play football. He may buy a football --he probably owns one already-- and go in his yard and play all he wants. Perhaps he can even throw a ball to his dogs who can retrieve it for him.
Thus ends the lesson. Class dismissed.
11 comments:
I suppose my complete lack of interest in sports is to blame for not knowing what he did, but employers should have the freedom to terminate for any reason. Defense usually spurs the famous "slippery slope" that has people making comparisons of race and sexual orientation being oppressed in their arguments.
I just looked at the registered sex offenders in the area, and I wouldn't hire any of them - working with kids or not - they're just plain strange looking....I do still have that right, don't I?
Mike
It's funny you should post this. I was listening to ESPN Radio's local affiliate here, and the host was saying how the Falcons and the NFL didn't have the right to terminate or suspend Vick because he wasn't proven guilty yet.
My head almost exploded. That was completely false. It is amazing this guy can air such ignorance.
As we know, most of America (I know it is a fact in PA) says employers can fire for no reason at all. We work at the will of our employer.
While they can fire for no reason, they can't fire for any reason. Specifically, the can't fire for reasons outlined under Title 7 of the US Constitution. Those reasons include (but probably aren't limited too) race, gender, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.
If the reason they are firing you is not covered under Title 7, then you have no leg to stand on.
Andy, I understand what you are saying about employers, but I think employment and termination is one area that is pretty clearly defined under the law, and the slippery slope argument isn't used much.
All in all, the lack of knowledge of the average American in this area is staggering. I only learned about it through personal experience.
On the case of Vick, I hope the league suspends him pending results of the trial. Then if he is guilty, obviously he is gone.
Vick is a bad dude. This isn't his first brush with bad ethical behavior. This is a family site, so I won't go into detail.
GW is referring specifically to title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964 (I had to deal with this often when working in HR for the drug store company). The salient paragraphs are below. Note that "reputation for cruelty to dogs" is not a protected class:
" (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.
(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency
to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate
against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on
the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Yes, I clearly am a bonehead. Of course its the civil rights act, not just "the constitution."
Anyway, the point is made. The NFL and the Falcons can fire Vick because he is sick and twisted with regard to his treatment of dogs.
I would. Of course, I think Vick is overrated anyway.
Dude, I wasn't calling you a bonehead, I was backing you up!
hey, can you imagine what would happen if Vick played this year? Man, every single game would be a circus of protests, boycotts, etc.
The guy won't play football this year.
I know you weren't calling me a bonehead. I was. I need a personal editor.
If Vick plays, you can expect huge PETA protests, etc, at every game he is in, and probably many others.
Not to mention brilliant signage is some of the more creative cities.
The Falcons would be crazy if they keep him on the active roster. It's a shame they let their backup (Schaub, I think) go. He is actually better than Vick.
Ok, I just googled him.... They have the right to fire him, he even made it easy for them. I'm not saying they 'should', I really don't care either way, but if he gets jail time, it would be a little tough to play ball. Usually non performance = termination.
Even in the U.S. Senate you only have to be charged if you're a republican. Tom Delay still hasn't been found guilty of anything. However, he had to step down from his position as majority leader because he was indicted for a crime. Pretty stupid if you ask me. I think it's a stupid rule because it makes you a target for an indictment.
Are you comparing Vick to DeLay? I am not sure either would be thrilled with the comparison.
Both are 100% responsible for their predicaments, in my opinion.
No, I am not comparing their indictment. Delay's indictment was baloney and he shouldn't have had to step down. Vick is a monster in waiting. They say a lot of serial killers start with animals, then "move on" to humans. I think Vick belongs behind bars if he is guilty of what they are charging him with.
Scott,
I dont' want to make this a political debate, but characterizing Delay's indictment as "baloney" is somewhat irresponsible.
Post a Comment