2Pair
Registered User
- Oct 8, 2017
- 12,633
- 5,103
You don't see a problem with Guerin being complicit in the coverup?Obviously not what I meant.
Referring to Guerin’s part.
You don't see a problem with Guerin being complicit in the coverup?Obviously not what I meant.
Referring to Guerin’s part.
You don't see a problem with Guerin being complicit in the coverup?
Its not a cover-up.You don't see a problem with Guerin being complicit in the coverup?
It's absolutely a cover up.Its not a cover-up.
The courts have consistently upheld an employees right to privacy. That includes details around performance reviews and disciplinary actions. Those rights extend even to shitheads.
Unless there is evidence BG was pressuring them not to go to the cops, which that hasn't been provided, this is a non issue.
There only real messup is probably the Pens having a meat head former player like BG explain the the organizations obligation, instead of a a lawyer or HR rep.
This isn't a legal issue. It's a moral issue. I understand why Pittsburgh and Guerin would choose to do what they did, but when you make the wrong choice and it gets out, people lose their jobs.
covering for a sex offender is most definitely a moral issue.Yeah it's not a moral issue either. They did the right thing, they just didn't tell anyone about it.
covering for a sex offender is most definitely a moral issue.
Its not a cover-up.
The courts have consistently upheld an employees right to privacy. That includes details around performance reviews and disciplinary actions. Those rights extend even to shitheads.
Unless there is evidence BG was pressuring them not to go to the cops, which that hasn't been provided, this is a non issue.
There only real messup is probably the Pens having a meat head former player like BG explain the the organizations obligation, instead of a a lawyer or HR rep.
Kinda just seems like you're looking for a reason to fire Guerin because you don't like him.
Why would Pittsburgh/Guerin tell them to keep it quiet?They're not covering for a sex offender.
See:
Kinda just seems like you're looking for a reason to fire Guerin because you don't like him.
Why would Pittsburgh/Guerin tell them to keep it quiet?
The courts have consistently upheld an employees right to privacy. That includes details around performance reviews and disciplinary actions. Those rights extend even to shitheads.
Unless there is evidence BG was pressuring them not to go to the cops, which that hasn't been provided, this is a non issue.
Why would Pittsburgh/Guerin tell them to keep it quiet?
You don't actually think that means anything?For at least the third time:
Do you think maybe there's a middle ground where you work with the victims to do the right thing?Do you want the organization to hold a press conference and publicly label him as sex offender, likely without much proof? I'm sure that wouldn't open up a whole world of legal liability.
Why would Pittsburgh/Guerin tell them to keep it quiet?
Do you think maybe there's a middle ground where you work with the victims to do the right thing?
Do you think maybe there's a middle ground where you work with the victims to do the right thing?
How does telling a current employee what he can/can't do about the situation fit into your timeline above?They did the right thing. They fired the guy that allegedly assaulted his wife. That's the end of the Penguins involvement in the issue. The rest is on the guy, his wife, and the Pittsburgh police department.
How does telling a current employee what he can/can't do about the situation fit into your timeline above?
I agree with a lot of this, but let's just simplify the discussion.Probably, but the victims also had multiple months to notify the authorities, which would've made it public, and didn't. When the organization found out, they investigated (right thing to do) and the guy was out of a job days later (the right outcome). Now, you could probably say a better outcome would be for him to face the courts, but that isn't the organization's responsibility.
How does telling a current employee what he can/can't do about the situation fit into your timeline above?
The courts have consistently upheld an employees right to privacy. That includes details around performance reviews and disciplinary actions. Those rights extend even to shitheads.
Unless there is evidence BG was pressuring them not to go to the cops, which that hasn't been provided, this is a non issue.
How does telling a current employee what he can/can't do about the situation fit into your timeline above?
You can't possibly believe that the Penguins are "legally responsible" to prevent the wife of one of their employees from reporting a crime?Probably somewhere in the "legally responsible" section.
You can't possibly believe that the Penguins are "legally responsible" to prevent the wife of one of their employees from reporting a crime?