The Absence
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
Common Sense
By Gary
Gerard,
Managing
Editor
This week, a couple items that stretch the limits of rational thought.
First, the Latrell Sprewell nonsense.
He's the really good National Basketball Association player who choked his coach.
On Dec. 1, 1997, during a practice with the Golden State Warriors, Sprewell got into an argument with his coach, P.J. Carlesimo.
Sprewell grabbed Carlesimo by the throat. After the initial incident, Sprewell left the gym and took a shower.
Twenty minutes later he returned to the practice and took a swing at Carlesimo. The NBA players' association disputed whether the punch landed but the arbitrator in the case found that it did.
On Dec. 3, the Warriors terminated Sprewell's $32 million contract. On Dec. 4, NBA commissioner David Stern suspended Sprewell for a year.
On Dec. 5, the players' association filed grievances on behalf of Sprewell.
There were hearings in January and February, arbitrated by John Feerick, Dean of Fordham University law school in New York.
When it was all said and done, Feerick decided that the Warriors and the NBA were just too darn hard on poor Sprewell.
Feerick said that the Warriors have to reinstate Sprewell's contract and the NBA must reduce the player's year-long suspension by five months.
So Sprewell sits out the rest of this season and then everything is business as usual for him after that.
The suspension part of the deal doesn't bug me that much. I suppose sitting out two-thirds of the season - and losing $6.4 million in salary - is fair.
It's the arbitrator telling the Warriors that they can't terminate Sprewell's contract that makes no sense to me.
They're basically telling the team (a business) that they can't fire Sprewell (their employee) for assaulting the coach (his boss.)
Come on. If you can't get fired for choking your boss, what can you get fired for?
I'll bet managers all over the country are scratching their heads over this one.
The Warriors said they had the right to terminate the contract under a section of the uniform player contract which says players must "conform to standards of good citizenship and good moral character" and prohibits "engaging in acts of moral turpitude."
But Feerick said the two attacks, when treated as one single altercation, did not constitute an act of moral turpitude.
Uh huh.
Sprewell had 20 minutes to think about it. He came back and went after the coach a second time.
What exactly does it take to constitute moral turpitude these days?
The only thing more absurd than Feerick's logic is what would have happened if Sprewell had lost his job.
Then there would be 20 other teams in the NBA chomping at the bit to pay Sprewell $30 million or $40 million to come and choke their coaches.
As it is, he probably will be traded and there will be no lack of teams interested.
Either that, or the Warriors will fire the coach and get somebody that Sprewell can get along with. After all, Sprewell can really score.
Yet another role model for our youth to emulate.
Only in America.
*****
The second bit of nonsense involves the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.
These are the folks in government charged with making sure nobody discriminates against anything.
A daunting task, at best.
Anyway, without a single complaint being filed, the EEOC have instituted an action against a Miami Beach restaurant that hasn't really done anything wrong in the eyes of any rational person.
Of course, this assumes that EEOC officials are rational people. Poor assumption.
This restaurant may have to pay a $1 million fine. The restaurant already has paid $750,000 in legal fees to have its case adjudicated.
The place is called Joe's Stone Crab. Joe's has been judged guilty of discrimination because 31 percent of its waitresses aren't female. The judge says that since that is the percentage of females in the workforce in Miami Beach as a whole, Joe's has to have that many females, too - or pay a huge fine.
Sounds reasonable, right?
Fact is, there are no female waitresses at Joe's. That's because the trays full of stone crabs weigh more than 40 pounds. Women didn't even apply for the jobs. They didn't want to hoist the trays.
But the restaurant is owned by women and its managers are mostly women. News accounts also report that Joe's was one of the first restaurants in that part of Florida to admit blacks and hire them. By all accounts, the restaurant is not a hotbed of sexism, racism or any other -ism for that matter.
Of course all that is lost on the EEOC. Those guys - I mean, those "persons" - seem bent on making everyone conform to some twisted form of political correctness.
And they'll trample your rights to get it done.
Resistance is futile because when resistance is attempted, the legal fees will bankrupt you.
Wouldn't it be nice if a little common sence prevailed in cases like these? [[In-content Ad]]
Common Sense
By Gary
Gerard,
Managing
Editor
This week, a couple items that stretch the limits of rational thought.
First, the Latrell Sprewell nonsense.
He's the really good National Basketball Association player who choked his coach.
On Dec. 1, 1997, during a practice with the Golden State Warriors, Sprewell got into an argument with his coach, P.J. Carlesimo.
Sprewell grabbed Carlesimo by the throat. After the initial incident, Sprewell left the gym and took a shower.
Twenty minutes later he returned to the practice and took a swing at Carlesimo. The NBA players' association disputed whether the punch landed but the arbitrator in the case found that it did.
On Dec. 3, the Warriors terminated Sprewell's $32 million contract. On Dec. 4, NBA commissioner David Stern suspended Sprewell for a year.
On Dec. 5, the players' association filed grievances on behalf of Sprewell.
There were hearings in January and February, arbitrated by John Feerick, Dean of Fordham University law school in New York.
When it was all said and done, Feerick decided that the Warriors and the NBA were just too darn hard on poor Sprewell.
Feerick said that the Warriors have to reinstate Sprewell's contract and the NBA must reduce the player's year-long suspension by five months.
So Sprewell sits out the rest of this season and then everything is business as usual for him after that.
The suspension part of the deal doesn't bug me that much. I suppose sitting out two-thirds of the season - and losing $6.4 million in salary - is fair.
It's the arbitrator telling the Warriors that they can't terminate Sprewell's contract that makes no sense to me.
They're basically telling the team (a business) that they can't fire Sprewell (their employee) for assaulting the coach (his boss.)
Come on. If you can't get fired for choking your boss, what can you get fired for?
I'll bet managers all over the country are scratching their heads over this one.
The Warriors said they had the right to terminate the contract under a section of the uniform player contract which says players must "conform to standards of good citizenship and good moral character" and prohibits "engaging in acts of moral turpitude."
But Feerick said the two attacks, when treated as one single altercation, did not constitute an act of moral turpitude.
Uh huh.
Sprewell had 20 minutes to think about it. He came back and went after the coach a second time.
What exactly does it take to constitute moral turpitude these days?
The only thing more absurd than Feerick's logic is what would have happened if Sprewell had lost his job.
Then there would be 20 other teams in the NBA chomping at the bit to pay Sprewell $30 million or $40 million to come and choke their coaches.
As it is, he probably will be traded and there will be no lack of teams interested.
Either that, or the Warriors will fire the coach and get somebody that Sprewell can get along with. After all, Sprewell can really score.
Yet another role model for our youth to emulate.
Only in America.
*****
The second bit of nonsense involves the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.
These are the folks in government charged with making sure nobody discriminates against anything.
A daunting task, at best.
Anyway, without a single complaint being filed, the EEOC have instituted an action against a Miami Beach restaurant that hasn't really done anything wrong in the eyes of any rational person.
Of course, this assumes that EEOC officials are rational people. Poor assumption.
This restaurant may have to pay a $1 million fine. The restaurant already has paid $750,000 in legal fees to have its case adjudicated.
The place is called Joe's Stone Crab. Joe's has been judged guilty of discrimination because 31 percent of its waitresses aren't female. The judge says that since that is the percentage of females in the workforce in Miami Beach as a whole, Joe's has to have that many females, too - or pay a huge fine.
Sounds reasonable, right?
Fact is, there are no female waitresses at Joe's. That's because the trays full of stone crabs weigh more than 40 pounds. Women didn't even apply for the jobs. They didn't want to hoist the trays.
But the restaurant is owned by women and its managers are mostly women. News accounts also report that Joe's was one of the first restaurants in that part of Florida to admit blacks and hire them. By all accounts, the restaurant is not a hotbed of sexism, racism or any other -ism for that matter.
Of course all that is lost on the EEOC. Those guys - I mean, those "persons" - seem bent on making everyone conform to some twisted form of political correctness.
And they'll trample your rights to get it done.
Resistance is futile because when resistance is attempted, the legal fees will bankrupt you.
Wouldn't it be nice if a little common sence prevailed in cases like these? [[In-content Ad]]