Slava Voynov Deported

[teenagemutantninjahertl]

 

Slava Voynov is heading back to Russia. Whether it's by choice, or for legal reason, the Kings are now down a really good 25 year old defenseman.

[hf101]

Here's the full release by he Kings.

 

 

 

On July 2, Slava Voynov entered a plea of no contest to domestic violence. Since that development, Mr. Voynov has been in the custody of the Seal Beach Detention Center and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. During this period of detention, the Los Angeles Kings decided he would no longer play for the team. The method by which we would ensure this outcome was something we carefully considered and we established a deadline of September 17 – the beginning of our 2015-16 training camp – to reach this outcome. Recently it became evident to us that our conclusion to this process would be to terminate Mr. Voynov’s Standard Player’s Contract. However, Mr. Voynov’s announcement today of his intention to leave the United States and return to Russia makes the termination unnecessary.

 

As we have publicly stated since Mr. Voynov’s arrest last year, the Kings organization will not tolerate domestic violence. As part of that commitment, we will soon announce a series of new Conduct Awareness Training Initiatives that reflect the values and principles central to our franchise.

 

 

 

a couple of interesting tweets by Pierre LeBrun

 

 

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2015/09/16/kings-release-interesting-statement-on-voynov/

[hf101]

I guess I'm not sure why Voynov's contract isn't voided.  Why would they want to keep it as one of the 50 allowed? -- especially since I highly doubt he will be back.

[WordsOfWisdom]

 

Here's the full release by he Kings.

 

On July 2, Slava Voynov entered a plea of no contest to domestic violence. Since that development, Mr. Voynov has been in the custody of the Seal Beach Detention Center and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. During this period of detention, the Los Angeles Kings decided he would no longer play for the team. The method by which we would ensure this outcome was something we carefully considered and we established a deadline of September 17 – the beginning of our 2015-16 training camp – to reach this outcome. Recently it became evident to us that our conclusion to this process would be to terminate Mr. Voynov’s Standard Player’s Contract. However, Mr. Voynov’s announcement today of his intention to leave the United States and return to Russia makes the termination unnecessary.

 

As we have publicly stated since Mr. Voynov’s arrest last year, the Kings organization will not tolerate domestic violence. As part of that commitment, we will soon announce a series of new Conduct Awareness Training Initiatives that reflect the values and principles central to our franchise.

 

Businesses are your new government! 

 

I know I mentioned this in the initial thread on this topic, but this issue is none of the LA Kings business. Period. The only question should be: "Can he play or not?". The justice system doesn't tolerate domestic violence. It has nothing to do with the LA Kings.

 

We are seeing dangerous precedents being set in our society today that continue to take away people's rights. He doesn't have to be a "good guy" to be a hockey player. Mike Tyson was a rapist. He came back and boxed after he got out of prison. No matter how bad the offence, only the justice system should be allowed to punish. This isn't "King's Court".

[radoran]

He doesn't have to be a "good guy" to be a hockey player.

He has to be a good guy to a certain extant for people to want to PAY him to be a hockey player.

No one is stopping him from being a hockey player, they're just not going to PAY him to do it.

[ScottM]

Businesses are your new government! 

 

I know I mentioned this in the initial thread on this topic, but this issue is none of the LA Kings business. Period. The only question should be: "Can he play or not?". The justice system doesn't tolerate domestic violence. It has nothing to do with the LA Kings.

 

We are seeing dangerous precedents being set in our society today that continue to take away people's rights. He doesn't have to be a "good guy" to be a hockey player. Mike Tyson was a rapist. He came back and boxed after he got out of prison. No matter how bad the offence, only the justice system should be allowed to punish. This isn't "King's Court".

 

The problem with that is that the business has to look out for its own reputation. If they appear to condone it, even if they don't in reality, that can torpedo them.

 

If the front office feels that a player is detrimental to the franchise for whatever reason, they get rid of him. If they have grounds, they can do so by terminating the contract. If not, they may have to buy him out. Either way, they cut the ties and they mold public perception. There's nothing at all wrong with that.

 

This isn't about "punishment." It's about business. The Kings can't throw him in prison, and they're not trying to do so. They're simply saying, we don't feel that it's in our best interests to be associated with Slava Voynov, and we choose not to be. They're saying that the image that Slava Voynov exhibits is not the image they want to portray.

[WordsOfWisdom]

The problem with that is that the business has to look out for its own reputation. If they appear to condone it, even if they don't in reality, that can torpedo them.

 

If the front office feels that a player is detrimental to the franchise for whatever reason, they get rid of him. If they have grounds, they can do so by terminating the contract. If not, they may have to buy him out. Either way, they cut the ties and they mold public perception. There's nothing at all wrong with that.

 

This isn't about "punishment." It's about business. The Kings can't throw him in prison, and they're not trying to do so. They're simply saying, we don't feel that it's in our best interests to be associated with Slava Voynov, and we choose not to be. They're saying that the image that Slava Voynov exhibits is not the image they want to portray.

 

This is a catch 22: It can only torpedo the NHL's reputation if they have control over something they shouldn't have control over: namely the personal lives of their players. The NHL has created their own problem here, and now they force themselves to "solve" it by taking this action. They are giving themselves additional power and authority over the players, and they're not the only ones. All businesses are trying to do this now.

 

His image is what he portrays on the ice. His private life is separate. This is a serious problem that will become an election issue someday because it's a complete 180 from the past. How you live your life, what you believe in, who you associate with, what organizations you belong to, how fast you were driving over the speed limit, or who you punched out in a bar, has nothing to do with your employer, your job, or your ability to perform at that job, and should not in any way affect your ability to earn a living. Your employer should only punish for work related (meaning at work) performance. The legal system is the only system that should punish someone in their private life.

 

I have strong feelings on this issue.

[ScottM]

His image is what he portrays on the ice. His private life is separate.

 

Respectfully, I have to completely disagree with you there. Where you or I are concerned that may be true, because we're not public figures. Voynov, on the other hand is. Every move he makes is under the microscope, and thus contributes to his image. The two can't be completely separated.

 

That said, there's another side to this whole thing. What if I'm the owner of the team? When that image starts to negatively affect my business, shouldn't I have the right to sever the relationship? Now, I'm not saying that any little disagreement is sufficient grounds for dismissal, but it's pretty obvious how an association with Voynov could conceivably damage the public image of the team. If I own the team, I have rights too.

 

Just to be clear: No, someone shouldn't be fired because they exercise their constitutional rights and their employer disagrees. After all, they're simply exercising their rights. When they cross the line to doing something that is potentially detrimental to their employer, we have to remember the employer's rights as well. It's not a one way street.

[WordsOfWisdom]

He has to be a good guy to a certain extant for people to want to PAY him to be a hockey player.

No one is stopping him from being a hockey player, they're just not going to PAY him to do it.

 

I think fans know way too much about the personal lives of NHL players. When the players are off the ice, I don't care what they're doing.  

[WordsOfWisdom]

1. Respectfully, I have to completely disagree with you there. Where you or I are concerned that may be true, because we're not public figures. Voynov, on the other hand is. Every move he makes is under the microscope, and thus contributes to his image. The two can't be completely separated.

 

2. That said, there's another side to this whole thing. What if I'm the owner of the team? When that image starts to negatively affect my business, shouldn't I have the right to sever the relationship? Now, I'm not saying that any little disagreement is sufficient grounds for dismissal, but it's pretty obvious how an association with Voynov could conceivably damage the public image of the team. If I own the team, I have rights too.

 

3. Just to be clear: No, someone shouldn't be fired because they exercise their constitutional rights and their employer disagrees. After all, they're simply exercising their rights. When they cross the line to doing something that is potentially detrimental to their employer, we have to remember the employer's rights as well. It's not a one way street.

 

1. Whether public figures should be treated differently is a whole other debate.    To me, they are people like anyone else, and should be held to the same standard (both good and bad).

 

2. He signed a guaranteed contract, so the employer should have to pay out the full amount of that contract to "fire" him. All monies owed must be paid to a terminated employee. (Again, they shouldn't be able to terminate him for this issue, but since they can, this is how it should play out.)

 

3. But that's what will happen next.

 

 

How would you deal with this situation:

 

Scenario: A guy gets a speeding ticket while cruising around in his sports car on a Saturday. He happens to work as a bus driver M-F. His employer gets wind of it. Guess what happens next? "You're fired." Right decision or wrong decision? 

[ScottM]

1. Whether public figures should be treated differently is a whole other debate.    To me, they are people like anyone else, and should be held to the same standard (both good and bad).

 

2. He signed a guaranteed contract, so the employer should have to pay out the full amount of that contract to "fire" him. All monies owed must be paid to a terminated employee. (Again, they shouldn't be able to terminate him for this issue, but since they can, this is how it should play out.)

 

3. But that's what will happen next.

 

 

How would you deal with this situation:

 

Scenario: A guy gets a speeding ticket while cruising around in his sports car on a Saturday. He happens to work as a bus driver M-F. His employer gets wind of it. Guess what happens next? "You're fired." Right decision or wrong decision? 

 

1. Yes, they are people just like anyone else, but the truth of the matter is and always has been that more scrutiny requires more responsibility. That's never going to change, nor do I think it should.

 

2. There are termination clauses in CBA's that have been negotiated by both sides, owners and players. I'm not going to shed any tears for a guy that does something stupid and allows it to be exercised.

 

3. That's one of the reasons we have a legal system. In the event of an unfair firing, the employer will be in a whole world of hurt, as they should be.

 

As for your scenario, I can't say what I'd do in the place of the employer because each situation would be unique with its own factors in play. If it's his first ticket, he's driving 70 in a 60 zone and not driving recklessly, no I'm not going to fire him. If it's his 10th ticket, he's driving 40 over the limit, weaving across lanes and is under the influence, he's gone.

 

Again, I'm repeating myself, but it's not a one way street. Both sides have their own arguments in any given situation, and the rights of both must be considered. The fact of the matter is, if I were the Kings' owner, I'd want to cut ties with Voynov too.

 

I know I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, but I'll go ahead and tell you that you won't convince me either. I also have strong feelings on the issue, and it's not something I'm going at with no prior consideration of such things.

[hf101]

Scenario: A guy gets a speeding ticket while cruising around in his sports car on a Saturday. He happens to work as a bus driver M-F. His employer gets wind of it. Guess what happens next? "You're fired." Right decision or wrong decision? 

 

 

Basically every company has a "Code of Conduct" for an employee to sign.  What that entails can vary according to the requirements of the job.  CDL drivers do have to carry a valid drivers license.  If you lose that license in the private sector ( after work hours ) somehow, then it isn't valid to work at the job.  An owner is going to replace that driver with someone who has a license.   This is no different than another Bus Driver or School teacher who has been found to be a child molester.   It is all the same.

 

Working, Driving are privileges not constitutional rights.

[WordsOfWisdom]

1. Yes, they are people just like anyone else, but the truth of the matter is and always has been that more scrutiny requires more responsibility. That's never going to change, nor do I think it should.

 

2. There are termination clauses in CBA's that have been negotiated by both sides, owners and players. I'm not going to shed any tears for a guy that does something stupid and allows it to be exercised.

 

3. That's one of the reasons we have a legal system. In the event of an unfair firing, the employer will be in a whole world of hurt, as they should be.

 

As for your scenario, I can't say what I'd do in the place of the employer because each situation would be unique with its own factors in play. If it's his first ticket, he's driving 70 in a 60 zone and not driving recklessly, no I'm not going to fire him. If it's his 10th ticket, he's driving 40 over the limit, weaving across lanes and is under the influence, he's gone.

 

Again, I'm repeating myself, but it's not a one way street. Both sides have their own arguments in any given situation, and the rights of both must be considered. The fact of the matter is, if I were the Kings' owner, I'd want to cut ties with Voynov too.

 

I know I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, but I'll go ahead and tell you that you won't convince me either. I also have strong feelings on the issue, and it's not something I'm going at with no prior consideration of such things.

 

I'm not worried about Voynov.

 

In my case, I have been fired from a previous job for an incident (fight/scuffle/minor altercation with no charges) that occurred outside of work hours and outside of work period. So I know what it feels like to have an employer piling on with added "justice" by sticking their nose in my personal business where it doesn't belong. 

 

I listed the speeding ticket thing as a simple and common example and I can see that you're already trying to work out a system of punishment while playing the role of employer. But as an employer, you weren't there, and you don't have all the facts. All you have is hearsay. Again, it's one of those situations where the best thing the employer can ever do is NOT KNOW about the incident. It's not their concern. The best thing to do is simply don't go there. His leisure driving habits are in no way a reflection of how he drives a bus with people in it. It's easy to combine the two and say that one will carry over into the other, but that would be making an assumption without any evidence to support it. You would be terminating someone that has a flawless bus driving safety record and no complaints against him from any passengers.

 

Anyway, I digress.... 

[brelic]

His leisure driving habits are in no way a reflection of how he drives a bus with people in it.

 

It might not be a reflection on how he drives a bus with people in it, but it is a reflection on the type of person the employer hires. And public perception and image are very important to employers. It is their prerogative to hire people that fit within the culture they would like to promote.

 

The modern pervasiveness of technology and the erosion of privacy (both in real terms and in how it is losing pertinence to younger generations) completely blur the lines between professional and personal life. In my mind, the brick wall that used to separate the two is gone, and I think that is a great thing. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

Basically every company has a "Code of Conduct" for an employee to sign.  What that entails can vary according to the requirements of the job.  CDL drivers do have to carry a valid drivers license.  If you lose that license in the private sector ( after work hours ) somehow then it isn't valid to work at the job.  An owner is going to replace that driver with someone who has a license.  

 

If he does something to lose his licence, then he would lose his job (by extension) since he could no longer legally drive the bus anymore. I'm fine with that outcome. Perfectly acceptable outcome. 

[radoran]

I think fans know way too much about the personal lives of NHL players. When the players are off the ice, I don't care what they're doing.  

 

I don't know anything about Wayne Simmonds off the ice. I know nothing about Zdeno Chara. I know nothing about Carey Price. I know nothing about 99% of the hockey players in the league off the ice.

 

I know about Slava Voynov because he was arrested, charged and plead nolo in open court to a charge of beating his wife and putting her in the hospital.

 

If you don't care if a guy is beating his wife, I feel sorry for you.

 

No, wait, I don't. I feel sorry for the guy's wife who's being beaten.

[WordsOfWisdom]

It might not be a reflection on how he drives a bus with people in it, but it is a reflection on the type of person the employer hires. And public perception and image are very important to employers. It is their prerogative to hire people that fit within the culture they would like to promote.

 

The modern pervasiveness of technology and the erosion of privacy (both in real terms and in how it is losing pertinence to younger generations) completely blur the lines between professional and personal life. In my mind, the brick wall that used to separate the two is gone, and I think that is a great thing. 

 

 The first time you find yourself "on trial" by your employer for something in your private life, you might feel differently. 

 

Scenario: You work for some "green earth" society and your employer catches you cutting down a tree in your yard. You get fired.  Yay or nay?

 

Scenario: You work for Ford and your employer notices that you drive a Toyota. You get fired. Yay or nay?

 

Scenario: You're a minister in a church and you get charged with molesting children in the church. Oh wait, nobody ever gets fired for that....... 

[brelic]

 The first time you find yourself "on trial" by your employer for something in your private life, you might feel differently. 

 

Scenario: You work for some "green earth" society and your employer catches you cutting down a tree in your yard. You get fired.  Yay or nay?

 

Scenario: You work for Ford and your employer notices that you drive a Toyota. You get fired. Yay or nay?

 

Scenario: You're a minister in a church and you get charged with molesting children in the church. Oh wait, nobody ever gets fired for that....... 

 

It is illegal to fire someone in the first two scenarios, unless that was somehow part of your contract. If it's part of your contract, and you signed it, then yes, you breached the contract. If it wasn't part of your contract, then no, they are not criminal charges and you can't legally be fired for those reasons. You could be "laid off" though.

 

In scenario three, that is a criminal charge. 

[radoran]

Scenario: You're a minister in a church and you get charged with molesting children in the church. Oh wait, nobody ever gets fired for that.......

 

Because there are people walking around who "don't want to know" what the minister is doing "off the ice"

[WordsOfWisdom]

I don't know anything about Wayne Simmonds off the ice. I know nothing about Zdeno Chara. I know nothing about Carey Price. I know nothing about 99% of the hockey players in the league off the ice.

 

I know about Slava Voynov because he was arrested, charged and plead nolo in open court to a charge of beating his wife and putting her in the hospital.

 

If you don't care if a guy is beating his wife, I feel sorry for you.

 

No, wait, I don't. I feel sorry for the guy's wife who's being beaten.

 

That's being a little dramatic I think. Of course I feel bad for the wife, but what I think about the issue doesn't matter. The legal system is handling it. 

[ScottM]

@WordsOfWisdom It does sound like you were wrongly fired based on the little bit of information you just gave. I'm sorry to hear that happened. I get why you're so passionate about that sort of thing. But, as far as the discussion about Voynov is concerned related to that, it's apples and oranges. It sounds as though your employer didn't have all the facts and didn't weigh all the factors. That's wrong, but it's not what the Kings did.

There were charges brought up against Voynov, and he even spent time in jail and customs detention. This is not someone who's innocent, and his behavior could clearly impact the team.

As I said before, firing for any reason isn't acceptable. That's not what the Kings did. They didn't fire the guy that simply had a slight case of a lead foot once. They're dumping the guy with multiple tickets, reckless driving, and DUI. They have the facts, as they should, and they're acting accordingly.

You were wronged, but Voynov wasn't. The two can't be lumped in together because they're not the same thing.

[ScottM]

Because there are people walking around who "don't want to know" what the minister is doing "off the ice"

I know a lot of people here know that I'm a church music director. I almost brought that sort of thing into this last night. Just say I did something "grossly immoral." Not something that only the members find distasteful, but something that makes everyone do a double take. Would I be fired? Yes. Should I be? Yes. If that were to ever happen, I'd be detrimental to the mission of the church. At that point, they could and should act.

[radoran]

That's being a little dramatic I think. Of course I feel bad for the wife, but what I think about the issue doesn't matter. The legal system is handling it. 

 

Yes, in the Voynov case, the legal system handled it. He left the team and left the country.

 

But, even if he didn't, the team and the league had every right to suspend and/or terminate his contract. It's a clause in the contract. The contract is legally binding.

 

So, it's pretty simple - if Voynov didn't want to risk his contract being voided, he shouldn't have beaten his wife.

 

Of course, he shouldn't have beaten his wife anyway - even "by accident".

[WordsOfWisdom]

@WordsOfWisdom It does sound like you were wrongly fired based on the little bit of information you just gave. I'm sorry to hear that happened. I get why you're so passionate about that sort of thing. But, as far as the discussion about Voynov is concerned related to that, it's apples and oranges. It sounds as though your employer didn't have all the facts and didn't weigh all the factors. That's wrong, but it's not what the Kings did.

There were charges brought up against Voynov, and he even spent time in jail and customs detention. This is not someone who's innocent, and his behavior could clearly impact the team.

As I said before, firing for any reason isn't acceptable. That's not what the Kings did. They didn't fire the guy that simply had a slight case of a lead foot once. They're dumping the guy with multiple tickets, reckless driving, and DUI. They have the facts, as they should, and they're acting accordingly.

You were wronged, but Voynov wasn't. The two can't be lumped in together because they're not the same thing.

 

I largely agree with what you're saying, but my concern is that 99% of cases are not so clear cut like this one is. 

 

Anyway, I'm all typed out for today. 

[Zz_]

So Voynov is gone? (Long summer missed a lot.)