Mora's blog and McPimp

[BiscuitintheBasket]

1st example above - you find out first if it was carelessness on the employee's part or the failure of the forklift. If carelessness you fire the employee

2nd example above - you find out why the shipment was not sent. Did he forget? Ignore the deadline? What was his immediate supervisor doing to oversee this? Did he fail as well to verify the shipment went out? If so I fire them both.

Ah, so based on the facts of the situation the result can be different.



With the second case you used the word immediate supervisor. Since the Asst. GM is the immediate supervisor of QO's, should it not follow that he would be one fired for the failing of the QO's? Shouldn't the office staff that failed to send out the QO's as well?

 

[R K]

I reread this thread top to bottom and the only argument your people 'in the know' are making here is that the written job description of asst GM says he's responsible for the QO. That's a pretty weak argument to pin the whole QO fiasco on Stan.



btw Stu - I worked with Stan back around '95-96' when we were both with Arthur Andersen at the time doing consulting. He left shortly thereafter to join the hockey world. He's a good guy and not one I would ever think of participating in a conspiracy to hold back QO offers - that's not him and that's a big reason why I call bullshit here.

He was going to become GM. Sometimes one's desires out weigh what the good in them says. Then again Fluff none of us here know shit "about the real world". You are the only one that does.



We all are stupid folks.

On a side note do you know how Stan came to get his job with the Hawks? Since you worked with him and all I assume you actually know how that transpired. How a guy with ZERO hockey knowledge other than his NAME gets an assistant GM position within an NHL club without ANY mentoring in the minors? Do you?

 

[R K]

Yeah like Pahlsson was such a wonderful pickup

Discussion for another thread but he's on his 2nd NHL team since. Ironic? No.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Ah, so based on the facts of the situation the result can be different.



With the second case you used the word immediate supervisor. Since the Asst. GM is the immediate supervisor of QO's, should it not follow that he would be one fired for the failing of the QO's? Shouldn't the office staff that failed to send out the QO's as well?

Yes I agree that if Stan failed to get out the QOs he should have been fired. But, that does not absolve Tallon here. Stan reported to Tallon and Tallon was the boss as I've said numerous times in this thread. While I support the firing of Tallon over this matter I do not support the promotion of Stan. I would have terminated both for this mess-up - unfortunately the Hawks only got 50% of it right.

 

[R K]

Yes I agree that if Stan failed to get out the QOs he should have been fired. But, that does not absolve Tallon here. Stan reported to Tallon and Tallon was the boss as I've said numerous times in this thread. While I support the firing of Tallon over this matter I do not support the promotion of Stan. I would have terminated both for this mess-up - unfortunately the Hawks only got 50% of it right.

I'm sorry but you are an idiot. Plain and simple.



The entire scenario was a SET UP! Funny there was never a problem with these offers in the PREVIOUS fucking 5 years. You know when the STANLEY CUP TEAM YOU FUCKING WATCHED WIN IT WAS BEING BUILT.



I can't read the dumb shit you type anymore. I'm putting you on fucking ignore until your stupidity gets you kicked the **** off of this site.



You are the reason most of us came here.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Yes I agree that if Stan failed to get out the QOs he should have been fired. But, that does not absolve Tallon here. Stan reported to Tallon and Tallon was the boss as I've said numerous times in this thread. While I support the firing of Tallon over this matter I do not support the promotion of Stan. I would have terminated both for this mess-up - unfortunately the Hawks only got 50% of it right.

However, if you are stating that the immediate supervisor should also be fired for failing to ensure that an employee did not cause a loss of revenue, and that immediate supervisor responsible for QO's is Stan, why was Stan not fired?

 

[Kerfuffle]

However, if you are stating that the immediate supervisor should also be fired for failing to ensure that an employee did not cause a loss of revenue, and that immediate supervisor responsible for QO's is Stan, why was Stan not fired?

He should have been - that's why I said in the above post I would have terminated both.

 

[TSD]

Yes I agree that if Stan failed to get out the QOs he should have been fired. But, that does not absolve Tallon here. Stan reported to Tallon and Tallon was the boss as I've said numerous times in this thread. While I support the firing of Tallon over this matter I do not support the promotion of Stan. I would have terminated both for this mess-up - unfortunately the Hawks only got 50% of it right.

Secondly, in your world for some reason people are just dropping the pink slips left and right for every mistake.



I mean by your logic whenever there is a decent fuckup that could be caused by the lowest copy boy....that entire leadership chain should be canned.



Say some deal needed to be sent out and some mail room boy misplaced it or something, causes a big problem.



so the mail room boy should be fired, his immidiate supervisor, the head of the mail department, then we move on to the area the work was done, fire the employee that did it, fire his supervisor, fire the head of their department, fire the executive in charge of their project, and now frankly, I suppose you should fire the CEO because he is "ultimately responsible" for the direction of the company.



You can't just go around firing everybody involved no matter how big the **** up.



This would essentially be similar to me hitting homeruns project after project, then I mis-estimate a budget and go over budget , and they fire me. Now that is even direct responsibility, and they wouldn't fire me in that situation, its not like tallon was embezzeling money or something unforgivible like that where past performance is meaningless. You just don't fire a guy who has perfomed consistenly outstanding for one fucking mistake(that was a passive mistake mind you), UNLESS you don't like the guy and are itching for a reason to get rid of him, or possibly in this case, a good enough reason to tell teh public why he is being fired when you are really just canning him for nothing.







Also, what line of work are you in? I want to ensure to stay the hell away from any possibility albeit remote, of you ever being above me in anything, I might get fired for using the wrong stapler. ITS NOT A SWINGLINE, YOUR FIRED!



Oh by the way, if your posting from work, you're slacking off you should be fired.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

I'm really finding it laughable that you guys keep playing into Darth Fluff's hands.

Keep piling up the mountains of facts and logic. It means nothing to him.

 

[DBQHawkFan]

Secondly, in your world for some reason people are just dropping the pink slips left and right for every mistake.



I mean by your logic whenever there is a decent fuckup that could be caused by the lowest copy boy....that entire leadership chain should be canned.



Say some deal needed to be sent out and some mail room boy misplaced it or something, causes a big problem.



so the mail room boy should be fired, his immidiate supervisor, the head of the mail department, then we move on to the area the work was done, fire the employee that did it, fire his supervisor, fire the head of their department, fire the executive in charge of their project, and now frankly, I suppose you should fire the CEO because he is "ultimately responsible" for the direction of the company.



You can't just go around firing everybody involved no matter how big the **** up.



This would essentially be similar to me hitting homeruns project after project, then I mis-estimate a budget and go over budget , and they fire me. Now that is even direct responsibility, and they wouldn't fire me in that situation, its not like tallon was embezzeling money or something unforgivible like that where past performance is meaningless. You just don't fire a guy who has perfomed consistenly outstanding for one fucking mistake(that was a passive mistake mind you), UNLESS you don't like the guy and are itching for a reason to get rid of him, or possibly in this case, a good enough reason to tell teh public why he is being fired when you are really just canning him for nothing.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Secondly, in your world for some reason people are just dropping the pink slips left and right for every mistake.



I mean by your logic whenever there is a decent fuckup that could be caused by the lowest copy boy....that entire leadership chain should be canned.



Say some deal needed to be sent out and some mail room boy misplaced it or something, causes a big problem.



so the mail room boy should be fired, his immidiate supervisor, the head of the mail department, then we move on to the area the work was done, fire the employee that did it, fire his supervisor, fire the head of their department, fire the executive in charge of their project, and now frankly, I suppose you should fire the CEO because he is "ultimately responsible" for the direction of the company.



You can't just go around firing everybody involved no matter how big the **** up.



This would essentially be similar to me hitting homeruns project after project, then I mis-estimate a budget and go over budget , and they fire me. Now that is even direct responsibility, and they wouldn't fire me in that situation, its not like tallon was embezzeling money or something unforgivible like that where past performance is meaningless. You just don't fire a guy who has perfomed consistenly outstanding for one fucking mistake(that was a passive mistake mind you), UNLESS you don't like the guy and are itching for a reason to get rid of him, or possibly in this case, a good enough reason to tell teh public why he is being fired when you are really just canning him for nothing.







Also, what line of work are you in? I want to ensure to stay the hell away from any possibility albeit remote, of you ever being above me in anything, I might get fired for using the wrong stapler. ITS NOT A SWINGLINE, YOUR FIRED!



Oh by the way, if your posting from work, you're slacking off you should be fired.

Wow - you really went down the wrong path here. I never said fire everyone up to the CEO - and your example is totally NOT what I said or was stating at all. C'mon man let's discuss this as adults. You really think Tallon has zero responsibility here? This mistake was not minor, it was huge - this was a critical deadline and he missed it.

 

[Kerfuffle]

I'm really finding it laughable that you guys keep playing into Darth Fluff's hands.

Keep piling up the mountains of facts and logic. It means nothing to him.

Paul, how about providing some facts and logic to back that up? All I'm hearing is this:



- McD intentionally held back the contracts in a conspiracy to fire Tallon

- the written job description of Stan says he's in charge of the QOs



And I say this - why would McD do this when he could have fired Tallon at any time he wanted to? All he had to say is 'we are making a change for philisophical differences in direction of the team'. GMs are fired all the time and people would have figured it out that the 2 men didn't get along - it wasn't a big deal. Why this elaborate scheme behind the scenes? No one has provided anything to show that happened.



As for Stan's job description - fine it was Stan's job to handle the QOs. But why wouldn't you hold Tallon responsible at all here? He's still the boss and this is a huge piece in his department that he's ultimately responsible for.

 

[phranchk]

Paul, how about providing some facts and logic to back that up? All I'm hearing is this:



- McD intentionally held back the contracts in a conspiracy to fire Tallon

- the written job description of Stan says he's in charge of the QOs



And I say this - why would McD do this when he could have fired Tallon at any time he wanted to? All he had to say is 'we are making a change for philisophical differences in direction of the team'. GMs are fired all the time and people would have figured it out that the 2 men didn't get along - it wasn't a big deal. Why this elaborate scheme behind the scenes? No one has provided anything to show that happened.



As for Stan's job description - fine it was Stan's job to handle the QOs. But why wouldn't you hold Tallon responsible at all here? He's still the boss and this is a huge piece in his department that he's ultimately responsible for.

For the many, many reasons already brought up in the thread.

 

[R K]

Can we just relegate the guy back to where he came from already?????

 

[R K]

Secondly, in your world for some reason people are just dropping the pink slips left and right for every mistake.



I mean by your logic whenever there is a decent fuckup that could be caused by the lowest copy boy....that entire leadership chain should be canned.



Say some deal needed to be sent out and some mail room boy misplaced it or something, causes a big problem.



so the mail room boy should be fired, his immidiate supervisor, the head of the mail department, then we move on to the area the work was done, fire the employee that did it, fire his supervisor, fire the head of their department, fire the executive in charge of their project, and now frankly, I suppose you should fire the CEO because he is "ultimately responsible" for the direction of the company.



You can't just go around firing everybody involved no matter how big the **** up.



This would essentially be similar to me hitting homeruns project after project, then I mis-estimate a budget and go over budget , and they fire me. Now that is even direct responsibility, and they wouldn't fire me in that situation, its not like tallon was embezzeling money or something unforgivible like that where past performance is meaningless. You just don't fire a guy who has perfomed consistenly outstanding for one fucking mistake(that was a passive mistake mind you), UNLESS you don't like the guy and are itching for a reason to get rid of him, or possibly in this case, a good enough reason to tell teh public why he is being fired when you are really just canning him for nothing.







Also, what line of work are you in? I want to ensure to stay the hell away from any possibility albeit remote, of you ever being above me in anything, I might get fired for using the wrong stapler. ITS NOT A SWINGLINE, YOUR FIRED!



Oh by the way, if your posting from work, you're slacking off you should be fired.

 

[TSD]

Wow - you really went down the wrong path here. I never said fire everyone up to the CEO - and your example is totally NOT what I said or was stating at all. C'mon man let's discuss this as adults. You really think Tallon has zero responsibility here? This mistake was not minor, it was huge - this was a critical deadline and he missed it.

I never said Tallon had zero responsibility. I said in a nutshell, no matter the mistake, as long as he wasn't doing something unethical or illegal. You don't fire a guy that performs that well for you for one infraction, that was on top of it all a passive mistake and not an active mistake.



Again, you seem to be hung up on the gravity of the mistake and completely ignore Tallons merits.



Hell, even if they did fire stan lets say, So they replace Tallon and Stan with who exactly? Thats what I am getting at, Tallon did his job very very well, you seem to be hung up on "principle" as opposed to reality.



Sure you can probably have that mentality when good people at the position you are filling are a dime a dozen. But jesus christ, you are talking about the GM of a professional hockey team that built a proven winner and makes one oversight flub with QO's that ultimately didn't have much of any detrimental effect and you release him to the competition and replace him with the one that was the Root cause of the **** up and has no experience as a GM.



Your mentality is simply that guy fucked up fire him, I don't care if hes the best so and so in the field right now, let our competition have him. That makes perfect business sense.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Can we just relegate the guy back to where he came from already?????

The thought is lovely, but we can't ban some one just because 90% of the boards disagrees with him.

Don't ask about the other 10%.

They just don't post.

 

[Kerfuffle]

The thought is lovely, but we can't ban some one just because 90% of the boards disagrees with him.

Don't ask about the other 10%.

They just don't post.

Am I that bad of a member here? Just because I see things differently - whether it's politics or hockey related matters. For the record I've never engaged in any personal attacks here and have never named called anyone. Someone could make the case that I used the word Democraps but I don't think that compares to the times I have to hear a couple people tell me to go ef myself.

 

[R K]

Am I that bad of a member here? Just because I see things differently - whether it's politics or hockey related matters. For the record I've never engaged in any personal attacks here and have never named called anyone. Someone could make the case that I used the word Democraps but I don't think that compares to the times I have to hear a couple people tell me to go ef myself.

You can't be that stupid. It has to be on purpose. At this point it has to be a joke.

 

[R K]

The thought is lovely, but we can't ban some one just because 90% of the boards disagrees with him.

Don't ask about the other 10%.

They just don't post.

Symantecs!