Coyotes Renounce Rights to Mitchell Miller

[Puck_Pun]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitchell-miller-arizona-coyotes-renounce-rights-bullying-black-classmate/

 

Apparently Arizona was the last team willing to deal with him

[pilldoc]

 

https://www.nhl.com/coyotes/news/coyotes-renounce-rights-to-mitchell-miller/c-319543540

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2020/10/29/arizona-coyotes-renounce-rights-controversial-pick-mitchell-miller/6073962002/

 

The Arizona Coyotes announced today that the club has renounced the rights to Mitchell Miller. Miller was selected by the Coyotes in the fourth round (111th overall) of the 2020 NHL Draft.

 

"We have decided to renounce the rights to Mitchell Miller, effective immediately," said Coyotes' President & CEO Xavier Gutierrez. "Prior to selecting Mitchell in the NHL Draft, we were aware that a bullying incident took place in 2016. We do not condone this type of behavior but embraced this as a teachable moment to work with Mitchell to make him accountable for his actions and provide him with an opportunity to be a leader on anti-bullying and anti-racism efforts. We have learned more about the entire matter, and more importantly, the impact it has had on Isaiah and the Meyer-Crothers family. What we learned does not align with the core values and vision for our organization and leads to our decision to renounce our draft rights. On behalf of the Arizona Coyotes ownership and our entire organization, I would like to apologize to Isaiah and the Meyer-Crothers family. We are building a model franchise on and off the ice and will do the right thing for Isaiah and the Meyer-Crothers family, our fans and our partners. Mr. Miller is now a free agent and can pursue his dream of becoming an NHL player elsewhere."

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by pilldoc

[WordsOfWisdom]

3 hours ago, pilldoc said:

"Prior to selecting Mitchell in the NHL Draft, we were aware that a bullying incident took place in 2016. We do not condone this type of behavior but embraced this as a teachable moment to work with Mitchell to make him accountable for his actions and provide him with an opportunity to be a leader on anti-bullying and anti-racism efforts.

 

F__k sakes I want the old NHL back. (For real.) Wind the clock back to the 1990's. I know I'd get the neutral zone trap back but the hitting and the head shots (ie: Scott Stevens) makes up for it. 

 

I'm so tired of this crap.  Is this a professional sports league played by MEN (with actual functioning testicles) or a group therapy session on how to feel your feelings?  Your employer doesn't need to "teach" you anything. They pay you to play hockey and everything that's not hockey is none of their concern. If I worked at Home Depot, I don't need my employer "teaching" me how to drive, what car to buy, who I should date, how I should dress, what music I should listen to, what bars I should frequent, etc......  Enough!

 

And then to fault him for something four YEARS ago? Enough!

 

What happened to this league? When did the fans become tougher than the players?

 

Sorry for the rant.  There's nothing to talk about these days NHL wise and stories like these drive me nuts. You don't have to like your team mates, and I don't care if someone is a bully. If there's a problem, drop the gloves and solve it on the ice man to man.

 

 

[pilldoc]

6 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

F__k sakes I want the old NHL back. (For real.) Wind the clock back to the 1990's. I know I'd get the neutral zone trap back but the hitting and the head shots (ie: Scott Stevens) makes up for it. 

 

I'm so tired of this crap.  Is this a professional sports league played by MEN (with actual functioning testicles) or a group therapy session on how to feel your feelings?  Your employer doesn't need to "teach" you anything. They pay you to play hockey and everything that's not hockey is none of their concern. If I worked at Home Depot, I don't need my employer "teaching" me how to drive, what car to buy, who I should date, how I should dress, what music I should listen to, what bars I should frequent, etc......  Enough!

 

And then to fault him for something four YEARS ago? Enough!

 

What happened to this league? When did the fans become tougher than the players?

 

Sorry for the rant.  There's nothing to talk about these days NHL wise and stories like these drive me nuts. You don't have to like your team mates, and I don't care if someone is a bully. If there's a problem, drop the gloves and solve it on the ice man to man.

 

 

my issue is this .... if he had a questionable character in the first place and the Yotes knew about this particular incident... then why draft him at all. Just pass.

[AJgoal]

Armchair psych-evaluating, but Miller seems like a borderline sociopath at the least, maybe a narcissist. Maybe both. Apparently Chayka had him on their no-draft list, but with his departure and the sanctions they had in place during the draft, the group leftover didn't get the message.

 

UND dropped him too. 

 

Miller doesn't have a right to play hockey for UND or the Coyotes. That said, while I may not have been thrilled with the idea, it's possible that UND could have moved forward with him on the team if they'd attached significant strings. There's a serious question to be asked here of whether it's better for everyone to tear Miller's future up over things he did as a 14 to 16-year old, or if hockey could be used as the carrot to see if you can change him for the better. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

2 hours ago, pilldoc said:

my issue is this .... if he had a questionable character in the first place and the Yotes knew about this particular incident... then why draft him at all. Just pass.

 

I guess the question is simply this:  Is the NHL going to be filled with the best hockey players in the world going forward or the most polite hockey players in the world? Do we want a league of alpha males or a league of beta males? 

 

The Broad Street Bullies were an entire team of bullies. You were supposed to be somewhat nasty and a badass to be a hockey player. These are gladiators. They're men. They're not supposed to be "sensitive". 

 

Issues like these should be buried. They should never become public (because quite frankly nobody cares). The courts don't even look at trivial cases like this when they're four years old because the incident is long since forgotten. A teenage male does lots of wild and crazy things. They're allowed to call people names. In what world does an employer get to look into your far distant past and not hire you because you said a mean word to someone?  By that standard, NOBODY ever gets hired anywhere. 

 

NHL: "Yes WoW, it says here in our notes that you once told a kid to F off back in grade 5. That's bullying and we don't accept that in our policy. Therefore, we can't hire you for the position of VP. Thank you for applying."

 

The league has gone down a path that leads off a cliff in my view.   

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

12 hours ago, pilldoc said:

"Prior to selecting Mitchell in the NHL Draft, we were aware that a bullying incident took place in 2016. We do not condone this type of behavior..."

 

Based on that quote alone this appears to be nothing more than a political play aimed at the BLM crowd.  In other words, they're trying to BUY fans by trying to jump on the BLM bandwagon. 

 

If they had quietly NOT selected him, it wouldn't have sent the same PR message.  They specifically selected him to "fire" him and make their reason public. 

 

My two cents...   

 

[flyercanuck]

I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do to someone who was an idiot when he was 14. Has he continued with this type of behavior? If so, then he deserves it. (I don't know if he has or not) If not, maybe he should be getting some guidance here, and him personally apologizing to Meyer-Crothers and his family. 

 

Bullies suck. And they deserve to be punished for their actions. But kids do stupid things. And maybe if they learn from them they deserve a second chance.

[JR Ewing]

18 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Based on that quote alone this appears to be nothing more than a political play aimed at the BLM crowd.  In other words, they're trying to BUY fans by trying to jump on the BLM bandwagon. 

 

The words "Prior to selecting Mitchell in the NHL Draft, we were aware that a bullying incident took place in 2016. We do not condone this type of behavior..." clearly indicate an attempt to be seen as pro-BLM? What the hell are you talking about?

 

Quote

If they had quietly NOT selected him, it wouldn't have sent the same PR message.  They specifically selected him to "fire" him and make their reason public. 

 

My two cents...   

 

 

Just so I have your argument straight... You're suggesting that the Coyotes drafted a guy who had spent years mentally and physically abusing a handicapped kid for the GOOD press? You might want to run that one through the LogicTron v0.3 again...

 

Does anybody want to take bets on Mitchell Miller turning to a career in law enforcement?

 

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by JR Ewing

[pilldoc]

4 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

The Broad Street Bullies were an entire team of bullies. You were supposed to be somewhat nasty and a badass to be a hockey player. These are gladiators. They're men. They're not supposed to be "sensitive". 

 

you simply cannot equate the two .....  

 

4 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I guess the question is simply this:  Is the NHL going to be filled with the best hockey players in the world going forward or the most polite hockey players in the world? Do we want a league of alpha males or a league of beta males?

 

but some will argue that kids look up to NHL players as role models.  Not saying that is right or wrong...just saying based on our current society, what you do in your past does matter.. I doubt this would be a story had there not been a police report filed and a judge ordered Miller to apologize.  That alone tells me this had to be a pretty significant incident going far above just name calling.

 

For the record ... WE ALL do something dumb in life and if Miller changed his behavior after the incident then I do believe in second chances, but if said behavior did not change then I really have no sympathy for him. However there are consequences for our actions even if given a second chance in life.  It is a privilege to be drafted and play in the NHL not a right.

Regardless, I do get that the Coyotes are trying to protect themselves from a media backlash.  As I mentioned above, if there was some question in this kids character then why draft him in the first place?  (we the public never would have known otherwise)

Edited October 31, 2020 by pilldoc

[Hockey-78]

A very good decision. Talking about karma...

 

Nasty situation for Miller to be in, torn apart like this in social media but let's face it, he can only blame himself. All the details I've read about the abuse, abuses, are very disturbing. So they're making an example of him; great.

 

Hopefully many bullies take notes and even for a second stop and think about the consequences of their actions... to themselves. 

[pilldoc]

4 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Issues like these should be buried. They should never become public (because quite frankly nobody cares). The courts don't even look at trivial cases like this when they're four years old because the incident is long since forgotten. A teenage male does lots of wild and crazy things. They're allowed to call people names. In what world does an employer get to look into your far distant past and not hire you because you said a mean word to someone?

 

For the record this went above and beyond calling someone names.  

 

Meyer-Crothers is the young man who at an Ohio junior high school in 2016 was given a lollipop that Miller and another boy, Hunter R McKee, rubbed in a urinal. The boy wanted to be friends with Miller and McKie, so he accepted the candy and had to be tested for hepatitis, HIV and STDs, according to a police report. The abuse didn’t end there. For years he was the target of their taunts, which included racial slurs. At the time of the abuse Meyer-Crothers had the mental ability of a 10-year-old.

 

To wipe a lollipop in a men's urinal is disgusting on so many levels.  This poor teenager could have contracted a disease that would affect him for the rest of his life.  This goes beyond simply name calling.

 

As I said above, sometimes there are consequence to your actions even you make a sincere apology......  (EDIT ...apparently there seems to be a discrepancy if Miller even apologized to the teen involved. )

Edited October 31, 2020 by pilldoc

[pilldoc]

This is pretty damning evidence ....from the magistrate who heard the case...

 

The magistrate said it best: 'Mitchell, I don’t think you are remorseful for what you did more than you are upset for the negative attention you are getting.'

 

Granted it is only an opinion and we were not present, but that statement says a lot .....

 

Finally ......

 

Though Miller apparently apologized to those in control of his hockey career for his actions, Meyer-Crothers has received nothing for his trauma.

 

Miller and another juvenile were charged with assault and violating the Ohio Safe Schools Act in February of 2016, when they were alleged to have made Meyer-Crothers eat candy that had been placed in a urinal. Other accounts in the police report, according to the Republic, state that the teenagers urinated on the candy before giving it to Meyer-Crothers.

 

Miller and the other teen also “punched and pushed Meyer-Crothers,” according to the police report obtained by The Republic.

 

According to Joni Meyer-Crothers — Isaiah’s mother — the younger Meyer-Crothers had the mental ability of a 10-year-old at the time of the bullying.

 

Miller and the other unnamed boy admitted to the bullying misdemeanours and were sentenced to 25 hours of community service. They were also “ordered to write an apology through the court system to Meyer-Crothers.”

 

Joni Meyer-Crothers said the other boy involved in the incident “broke down in tears while personally apologizing to her son,” yet Miller has never personally apologized, she said.

 

The Republic says the Coyotes sent a copy of the letter that Miller claimed to have given to the victim and his family, but the family says they never received such a letter.

 

Joni Meyer-Crothers claims that the main reason Miller and the other boy admitted to the crime in the first place and avoided a trial was because the incident was caught on surveillance footage.

https://sports.yahoo.com/arizona-coyotes-draft-pick-was-convicted-for-bullying-black-disabled-teen-nhl-191431005.html

 

This goes above and beyond simple name calling.

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by pilldoc

[J0e Th0rnton]

13 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

F__k sakes I want the old NHL back. (For real.) Wind the clock back to the 1990's. I know I'd get the neutral zone trap back but the hitting and the head shots (ie: Scott Stevens) makes up for it. 

 

I'm so tired of this crap.  Is this a professional sports league played by MEN (with actual functioning testicles) or a group therapy session on how to feel your feelings?  Your employer doesn't need to "teach" you anything. They pay you to play hockey and everything that's not hockey is none of their concern. If I worked at Home Depot, I don't need my employer "teaching" me how to drive, what car to buy, who I should date, how I should dress, what music I should listen to, what bars I should frequent, etc......  Enough!

 

And then to fault him for something four YEARS ago? Enough!

 

What happened to this league? When did the fans become tougher than the players?

 

Sorry for the rant.  There's nothing to talk about these days NHL wise and stories like these drive me nuts. You don't have to like your team mates, and I don't care if someone is a bully. If there's a problem, drop the gloves and solve it on the ice man to man.

 

 

Its a bit more complicated than name calling.

 

Wiping a push pop in a urinal and forcing a kid with downs syndrome to eat it, while being on video punching and kicking him and knowing that was just one incident he was caught for is sociopath territory. Apparently this abuse went on for years before intervention.

 

I went to a high school of 1000 and I can think of 3 kids who would pick on someone with the mental abilities of a 10 year old in such a fashion. All 3 are in jail now or on parole and were skinheads who delighted in tormenting others.

 

And the parents of the disabled boy went into a lot of detail, including the fact that Miller never apologized to their son for his actions and is pretty remorseless. He's sorry he got caught at most.

 

Sorry. Unless you can point me to some indication that for years this guy was trying to make amends and mend his ways, I'd rather he pay the steep price of no longer being eligible for a career that allows him to make millions of dollars while remaining a meathead

[WordsOfWisdom]

8 hours ago, JR Ewing said:

The words "Prior to selecting Mitchell in the NHL Draft, we were aware that a bullying incident took place in 2016. We do not condone this type of behavior..." clearly indicate an attempt to be seen as pro-BLM? What the hell are you talking about?

 

 

What I mean is that IF they knew in advance... AND they decided to select him anyway... then this action means that it was a "throw-away" draft pick. They selected him specifically so they could "send a message" by releasing him. 

 

Had they bypassed him, nobody would have known who he was or what he did. Selecting and releasing makes public what he did. 

 

Here's an analogy:

 

A shoplifter gets caught shoplifting. If you quietly escort them to a back room, talk to them, and ban them from the store, nobody in the store knows that a shoplifter has been caught.

 

On the other hand, if you post a sign outside the store saying "WE CAUGHT THIS GUY SHOPLIFTING" and then proceed to cane him in front of customers at the main entrance, then it sends a message to other would-be shoplifters that "this will happen to you if we catch you shoplifting here".  

 

That's what this was. A sign and fire to send a PR message. It wouldn't have had the same effect if every team quietly bypassed him. They wanted everyone to KNOW why he wasn't picked. 

Edited October 31, 2020 by WordsOfWisdom

[WordsOfWisdom]

4 hours ago, pilldoc said:

you simply cannot equate the two .....  

 

Admittedly, I'm not up on the details of this case. My first thought was that he probably uttered the N-word to a black kid on his high school hockey team and here we go today. Looks like he was much more disturbed. 

 

4 hours ago, pilldoc said:

but some will argue that kids look up to NHL players as role models.  Not saying that is right or wrong...just saying based on our current society, what you do in your past does matter.. I doubt this would be a story had there not been a police report filed and a judge ordered Miller to apologize.  That alone tells me this had to be a pretty significant incident going far above just name calling.

 

Sounds like he was headed towards criminal charges.

 

4 hours ago, pilldoc said:

For the record ... WE ALL do something dumb in life and if Miller changed his behavior after the incident then I do believe in second chances, but if said behavior did not change then I really have no sympathy for him. However there are consequences for our actions even if given a second chance in life.

 

But those consequences are legal punishment through the court system, not by employers. 

 

If I work at Home Depot and I get into a car crash on my way back from the Leafs game, my Home Depot supervisor shouldn't be called to the scene to assess the accident and whether I was fault, whether I was drinking, etc...  It's none of their business. It's for the police/judge to decide, not employers. Once charges are dropped or time has been served, that's it. It's a clean slate. Employers shouldn't even know about a person's criminal record once they have served their punishment unless it's something severe and poses a direct threat to safety (ie: a pedo being around kids, or a rapist being around women, etc.). If your crime was that you stole $200 five years ago or you punched some guy in a bar and knocked his teeth out when you were drunk, those types of crimes should be "erased" from an employer's view. If they can't read about it in the news (because it's not newsworthy) they shouldn't be able to know about it. 

 

To me, the correct outcome here is an assault charge, fine, community service, and then that's it. If this was many instances of abuse over a *prolonged* period of time, I'd put him in jail/juvie/whatever you want to call it and send him to a shrink. Once he's been hit with all that, it's over though. It's a new day going forward and the NHL should have no knowledge of this.  

 

The problem I have is that employers are trying to institute a two-tiered system of justice whereby you are first punished by the legal system and then brought to "court" by your employer and put on trial again where your boss pretends to be a judge and hands out arbitrary punishment based on how the wind is blowing that particular day.

 

My two cents. 

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by WordsOfWisdom

[JR Ewing]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

For the Coyotes, the "PR move" was signing on to the Hockey Diversity Alliance. It was, from what we can see, a meaningless gesture where they can virtue signal in all the right ways. Where they failed was when they turned right around drafted a kid who spent years abusing and racially denigrating a mentally handicapped black kid. This wasn't some grand scheme by the Coyotes, where a perennial bottom-feeder just gleefully threw away a badly needed draft pick in order to look like the good guy. The only way that it could work out was that they would look bad for drafting such a sh|t stain.

 

Fact: the Phoenix Coyotes organization thought that Mitchell Miller's apology letter would be enough to let his troubles stay in the past, and they didn't count on the boy's mother (bless her heart) to continue defending him with every breath she draws.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

4 hours ago, pilldoc said:

For the record this went above and beyond calling someone names.  

 

Meyer-Crothers is the young man who at an Ohio junior high school in 2016 was given a lollipop that Miller and another boy, Hunter R McKee, rubbed in a urinal. The boy wanted to be friends with Miller and McKie, so he accepted the candy and had to be tested for hepatitis, HIV and STDs, according to a police report. The abuse didn’t end there. For years he was the target of their taunts, which included racial slurs. At the time of the abuse Meyer-Crothers had the mental ability of a 10-year-old.

 

I updated my previous post to include:

• Assault charge
• Fine
• Community service
• Jail/juvie/boarding school (due to the extended nature of the abuse)
• Court ordered shrink

I'm happy to tack on lots of legal punishment..... but it stops with the justice system in my opinion.  Meaning once he's been punished for it by a judge, that's it. The NHL doesn't get to tack on more. There needs to be a law written that employers cannot implement their own form of justice on employees with prior criminal records. It's outside the scope of their duty as employers and outside their area of expertise.   

[WordsOfWisdom]

10 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

For the Coyotes, the "PR move" was signing on to the Hockey Diversity Alliance. It was, from what we can see, a meaningless gesture where they can virtue signal in all the right ways. Where they failed was when they turned right around drafted a kid who spent years abusing and racially denigrating a mentally handicapped black kid.

 

Okay now I think I'm fully "up" on events:  So basically the Coyotes knew about his past, drafted him anyway, word got out through social media about his prior charges, the Coyotes got negative PR for it and as a result... they released him. 

 

In other words, everyone comes out looking bad yet the Coyotes want to paint themselves as the heroes for releasing him.    

 

 

[pilldoc]

53 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

But those consequences are legal punishment through the court system, not by employers.

 

Not necessarily.... there are many documented cases where ones actions, say..on social media, can have significant impact on their careers at a particular job.  For instance, here at the hospital I work at, we are warned all the time about our actions on social media especially when it concerns your employer and management has the right and the authority to access appropriate actions up to and including termination.  I admit it it a fine line. 

 

31 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Okay now I think I'm fully "up" on events:  So basically the Coyotes knew about his past, drafted him anyway, word got out through social media about his prior charges, the Coyotes got negative PR for it and as a result... they released him. 

 

In other words, everyone comes out looking bad yet the Coyotes want to paint themselves as the heroes for releasing him.    

 

 

 

 

pretty much you nailed it ....

 

42 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

There needs to be a law written that employers cannot implement their own form of justice on employees with prior criminal records. It's outside the scope of their duty as employers and outside their area of expertise.   

 

agree to a point... a future employer does not have necessarily hire you if you have a questionable background.

[J0e Th0rnton]

41 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

I updated my previous post to include:

• Assault charge
• Fine
• Community service
• Jail/juvie/boarding school (due to the extended nature of the abuse)
• Court ordered shrink

I'm happy to tack on lots of legal punishment..... but it stops with the justice system in my opinion.  Meaning once he's been punished for it by a judge, that's it. The NHL doesn't get to tack on more. There needs to be a law written that employers cannot implement their own form of justice on employees with prior criminal records. It's outside the scope of their duty as employers and outside their area of expertise.   

Ummm. Absolutely workplaces can implement their own form of justice on employees.

 

Otherwise background checks after interviews and codes of conduct employees are forced to sign now would be meaningless.

 

This guy had a record. They assumed they knew how bad it was based on their info. The mother of the kid he bullied and tormented has decided to very vocally make further details of the tormenting of a boy with down syndrome known since the jerk never apologized and by all accounts, is pretty remorseless about it. There is a video circulating of this guy slaming the boys head into a brick wall now.

 

The yotes knew about one instance of documented court proceedings. They probably were unaware of the dozen other allegations and stories coming out now.

 

Not sure about the states, but Any job in canada has the right to release a new employee in the first 3 month probationary period with no reason or explanation given. I do it regularly if I think a new hire isn't going to be good. After 3 months it becomes a pain in the ass to get rid of people because you need documentation of progressive disciplinary action

[WordsOfWisdom]

8 minutes ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

Ummm. Absolutely workplaces can implement their own form of justice on employees.

 

 

I'm not disputing that they can. I'm disputing whether they should be allowed to do so.  In my view the answer is no. 

 

9 minutes ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

Otherwise background checks after interviews and codes of conduct employees are forced to sign now would be meaningless.

 

A Code of Conduct should be legally limited to performance while on-the-job. It would cover how an employee conducts themselves while they are working (or while in uniform let's say).  It should not be used a tool to control how people live their lives outside work otherwise there's no end to what can be inside it. That's a Pandora's Box if there ever was one.

 

Criminal background checks should only reveal severe criminal activities to employers (murder, rape, etc.).  Anything that isn't a severe crime should not be on that record and therefore not accessible to employers. (Keeping people out of work doesn't help anyone.) That background check is already an invasion of privacy (technically) and where does it stop?  Today it's a criminal background check. Tomorrow it's a background check into your shopping habits, your travel habits, or your social media post history. 

 

The only thing employers need to know when they hire someone is whether they're qualified to do the job or not. Everything else is information they would LIKE to have just to pry into people's lives.  Nobody is ever going to turn down access to more information if they can get it. 

 

Example: Maybe an employer is hiring a female sales rep and (knowing that sex sells) they want to see what she looks like in various outfits. Since they can't ask for that during a job interview (yet), they might (in the future) demand access to Facebook, Twitter, etc. and gain access to those social media accounts so they can view her photo albums to see how attractive looking she is in bikinis, short dresses, etc. That way the company can hire their 10/10 sales rep with confidence.  

 

21 minutes ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

This guy had a record. They assumed they knew how bad it was based on their info. The mother of the kid he bullied and tormented has decided to very vocally make further details of the tormenting of a boy with down syndrome known since the jerk never apologized and by all accounts, is pretty remorseless about it. There is a video circulating of this guy slaming the boys head into a brick wall now.

 

Okay so here's a question:  Twenty years from now when this kid (guy) goes to apply for a job (after 20 years of unemployment) is the mother of this kid going to send the videos to every employer he interviews with so he gets rejected?  There is such a thing as punishing someone "in perpetuity" by punishing them over and over again for that same crime. You can only punish a person ONCE for committing a crime. They have to commit a NEW crime to get punished again.  

 

My two cents. 

 

[pilldoc]

22 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

A Code of Conduct should be legally limited to performance while on-the-job.

 

wrong .....  Here is our Code of Conduct for social media:

 

Employees are encouraged to be conscientious when personally posting online about topics related to **Health. When posting personal opinions in online communities, employees should express the fact that they are not representatives of ** Health. Employees posting on personal sites or other public sites relevant to ** Health are subject to all policies and laws regarding anti-harassment, anti-retaliation, privacy, confidentiality, copyrights, trademarks and code of conduct. LG Health has no interest in restricting its employees, volunteers, contracted staff, or medical staff providers in their personal interactions or communications. However, posts related to ** Health should not contain language that is defamatory, profane, threatening, harassing, abusive or humiliating to another person or entity. This includes, but is not limited to, comments regarding ** Health and/or its employees, customers, partners, or patients.

[WordsOfWisdom]

2 hours ago, pilldoc said:

wrong .....  Here is our Code of Conduct for social media:

 

I said should be lol. 

 

2 hours ago, pilldoc said:

Employees are encouraged to be conscientious when personally posting online about topics related to **Health. When posting personal opinions in online communities, employees should express the fact that they are not representatives of ** Health. Employees posting on personal sites or other public sites relevant to ** Health's website are subject to all policies and laws regarding anti-harassment, anti-retaliation, privacy, confidentiality, copyrights, trademarks and code of conduct. LG Health has no legal right interest to restrict its employees, volunteers, contracted staff, or medical staff providers in their personal interactions or communications. However, posts related to ** Health should not contain language that is defamatory, profane, threatening, harassing, abusive or humiliating to another person or entity. This includes, but is not limited to, comments regarding ** Health and/or its employees, customers, partners, or patients.

 

That's what it should be.   

[pilldoc]

10 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

I said should be lol. 

 

 

That's what it should be.   

then take it up with our legal department 

 

in all seriousness there has to be rules set forth by employers because if not damaging information and misinformation can be released to the public causing a whole host of problems.

 

so in essence.. yes how an employee acts in certain situations (such as social media) needs to be addressed by that employees employer both on and off the clock.