Author: Site Staff

Mr. Editor,

I was appalled at the stream of insults that Atlanta relief pitcher, John Rocker, hurled at America via his interview with Sports Illustrated. However, while I support his First

Amendment rights to prove to the world the strength of his moral character, I support Major League Baseball’s right to censure and fine this young man.

I served my nation in the United States Navy for nearly ten years. During this time the military instilled in me from the day of my first enlistment of oath a belief in the

Constitution of the United States. “… support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic…”

While I may not have fully understood the true meaning and depth of those words, I did take my own meaning to be that the rights of American citizens are worth defending. Rocker has that right. We need not rally behind his misguided words, but as a nation, we must give him that right.

Where I find fault with your editorial is that “suspension that never should have been levied.” I believe Major League Baseball has a duty to protect itself from one of theiremployees. Should for instance, an employee or a contributor to your magazine editorialize about the Holocaust being a fraud, would you feel this person deserves to be heard regardless of the hurt it would cause to those who survived it just to bring about dialogue? Or would you be more inclined to distance your magazine from this person and more importantly, distance that person from your magazine?

Rocker’s words were directed at several protected classes and at the core of what makes America the greatest nation in the world, Diversity. While legally protected by the First Amendment, should not go unpunished by his employer. While hiding the issue of hate under the carpet is not the answer to the problem, neither is allowing those who propagate hate in any of its guises to escape punishment.

I agree with your assessment of the Rocker situation. I do not condone many of his viewpoints but we are all entitled to an opinion. STICKS AND STONES… It’s called freedom of speech and it’s something this country is drifting away from.

Unless a person is completely incapable of thinking for himself, I think we all have at least one stereotypical viewpoint but are too tactful to blurt it out for the world to hear. Mr Rocker just didn’t think that far ahead. Plus, if anything, sensitivity training will just sour him even more. If we’re going to change these attitudes we need to stop focusing on the differences and preferential treatment, and start focusing on our commonalities and equal treatment (but as you said, affirmative action is a topic for another day….)

Thanks for having the courage to disagree with the “PC” BS.

In this booming economy, organizations should hold their employees to high standards. After all, take a look at the implementations of training and awareness employers have relating to standards of workplace safety, substance and alcohol abuse, and workplace violence. This does not just apply when you are on the work site, it should be carried over into your daily life activities as well.

Ultimately, negative behavioral patterns of employees will eventually effect the bottom line the business economy.

If the money you make and career you have is important to you, you will make the behavioral adjustment, or else the employer will find someone that can fulfill their mission requirements. For example, it is well know that when first time offenders get sent to prison, they tend to go in with this “I’m a bad dude attitude”, but they soon and quickly they learn that there is a different set of rules in the penitentiary then what they had on the outside.

In prison, negative behavior is dealt with shiftily and severely. This is not to say that organizations should gain the prison mentality, but they should seek the significance of regarding high behavioral standards of their employees as valuable assets.

Life is hard for all of us, to take it easy on one would eventually lead to a tragedy of the commons.

(This is an excerpt of Jeff’s letters).

 

I commend you for writing on an issue that is controversial and bound to provoke criticism.

I personally find that your viewpoint on the issue is reasonable and balanced on a global scale, however I disagree to some extent in the specific case.

It is certainly true that one should (try to) separate his opinion on Rocker’s comments from his opinion on how Rocker should be dealt with. By this I mean that if I am appalled by Rocker’s behavior (I am) it doesn’t mean that it is correct to exact a heavy penalty just so that I can distance myself from his behavior.

Another result of the very public “spanking” of Rocker is to give his comments far more exposure than was initially the case. If 200,000 people read the original article, we can now be sure that perhaps 10 times as many people are now intimately aware of his comments and opinions.

Having said all that, I now must confide that I agree with professional baseball’s decision to impose a significant penalty on Rocker. The bottom line is they had no choice. If your eight-year-old son says mean things about the neighbors, it pretty much resides in an orbit around you, your son and your neighbors.

John Rocker, on the other hand, by virtue of his position in major league baseball (and only because of that affiliation) is and was able impose is vindictiveness on a national, even inter-national, scale. It is because of baseball that his opinion is national news. (I don’t think Sports Illustrated would give our kids much space in which to present their opinions of our neighbors).

It may be the case that major league baseball chose to impose these penalties out of self-interest or self-image. That is something I can not know but I believe that baseball had a responsibility to respond as it has.

I agree with your thoughts on most levels, but as an employer I think (and the courts agree) that I have a responsibility to other employees and customers to ensure that they are treated fairly and without discrimination or harassment. The only thing that I might have done that was different from what was done to Mr. Rocker is that he would be looking for a new employer.

With an eight year old child you can teach diversity and it’s values, but to a man that is obviously ignorant there is little hope for that lesson to ever be learned except through life’s experiences.

Mr. Rocker needs, as do many of our professional athletes, to grow up and to realize that like it or not as professional athletes they (like politicians and others in the lime light) have a higher set of rules to follow and if they are not willing to do that then they should not play or run for office.

Unfortunately, in most cases these people are human and they cannot be expected to be responsible for their own actions and it is left up to us as their electorates or employers to police them and terminate relationships when necessary.

Growing up in the deep south in a predominantly black community I take a very rigid stance against this form of ignorance (I am Caucasian) and telling people to open their mouths and to express their feelings does nothing but create further division among the racial lines. The truly unfortunate thing about incidents like the one involving Mr. Rocker is that it has a tendency to stereotype all Caucasians as fitting into his category, which to me is alarming.

Sorry for the rambling, but I do take this very seriously and I will do all that I can as an HR professional to ensure that all people have a right to hold their personal beliefs, but as an employer ignorance cannot be tolerated in the work place lest we become enablers of racism.

Many of the points you made do make sense, but I believe the basic issue is; you may say what you wish, (free speech) but you also may incur consequences for what you say. Simple as that sounds, that would be the lesson I would give my children. There is a level of responsibility required to our actions. Speech is an action.

Our society has many freedoms such as free speech but it should be attached to being responsible for the views expressed. We have a bad habit of placing levels of acceptance on speech that could actually be repugnant to those whose freedom is so fleeting. Minorities have had a terrible road to freedom in this country therefore it is truly a more sensitive issue and may actually cause more anxiety. Paying the price for saying bad things, particularly if they are expressed by an adult, should be as important as keeping speech free.

History is full of examples of speech followed by actions of oppression, warfare and crime by the “innocent” speechmaker.

We all know why the man said what he did, I realize that he can say what he wants, I just do not want to hear him whine when we do not accept his apology.

First, realize the 1st amendment is not an issue here. I’m sure that you realize that since you didn’t bring it up. But please also realize that like it or not, actions have consequences. Thoughts do not. I would not penalize someone for what they thought. I would penalize them for putting those thoughts into action. There is precedent for such a principle.

Let’s consider a different but similar scenario. Since we’re dealing in stereotypes here, how about a shapely female office worker. Perhaps many co-workers think sexually provocative thoughts about her. No problem. Verbalizing those thoughts? Big problem.

Let’s also not bank too heavily on comparing Rocker to an 8 year old– whether or not he acts like a spoiled kid is irrelevant. He is an adult, and OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER. The 8 year old is still under my guidance, my tutelage, is still learning from me. I remember a lesson from when I was about 5 or 6 and saw a crippled man who, to me at that young age, “walked funny.” When I said so, I was reprimanded, and explained to, and educated, and probably even punished. But I learned a valuable lesson about expressing myself appropriately.

Rather than being grounded or sent to his room without dinner, Mr. Rocker needs to be consequenced in a way that he understands and that matters to him. If we let vigilanteism do the job, as you suggest, we have to remember that pitchers bat in the National league. I would hate to be Rocker facing a pitcher of color, or who was gay, or foreign, or even just a liberal thinker.

The lesson I want an 8 year old to see is that each choice and action comes with a free consequence. I want the 8 year old to see that doing something wrong is more serious than thinking something wrong. And I want him or her to see that it’s possible to take your consequence, learn, and become a better person. Let’s hope that John Rocker has that in him.

Sorry, but I think you have it all wrong. As an employer the Braves and MLB have no right to dictate what John Rocker thinks or feels (we are all entitled to that, no matter what). But they do have a legitimate interest, as do all employers, as to how, when and where he expresses his feelings/beliefs/fears/opinions.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that the biggest problem here is in hishead (and heart), but his employers can’t suspend him for being insensitive or a racist or both, they can and should, however, suspend him for hateful expression of his beliefs in the national media, if for no other reason than that it affects their legitimate business interests.

Remember too that not punishing Rocker could also be construed as tacitapproval of his behavior. Baseball would be accused of merely paying lipservice to the problem. (And if Rocker think that the number 7 train is uncomfortable, just wait till he walks back in to the Braves clubhouse to face his teammates, if he still has a job, that is.)

April 2000 Workforce Editorial Line-Up

Now more than ever, companies are investing in training to fill the need for need for highly skilled, knowledgeable employees. But the more a company spends on employee training, the greater the concern (and likelihood) those skilled people will leave and take their knowledge somewhere else—resulting in poor return on investment.

Bruce Tulgan, president of Rainmaker Thinking, Inc., offers a few ways to overcome the paradox of training vs. retention.

1. Offer flexible work arrangements. If your company just offers a full-time, onsite, uninterrupted, exclusive working arrangement, then you have only one way of getting any return on your training investment. It means you’re relying on someone staying for the long haul. However, by using part-time help, telecommuters or sharing staff with other employers, your chances for getting a better return on investment go up.


2. Put employees through ‘boot camp’ right away. Don’t draw out the learning process for new hires. Make it swift; otherwise they’ll get bored, feel unproductive and may start thinking about leaving.


3. Create a just-in-time learning infrastructure. Anticipate learning needs over a period of time; provide information resources in different media, and give employees the remote control. Most employees learn best when there’s a need to know and if they can avoid learning A, B, C when they need to know D.

SOURCE: Excerpted from “Solutions for Training,” from the January 2000 issue of HRfocus magazine, with permission of Rainmaker Thinking.