Texsox

"well I just lost another account, that's half my commission, we'll have to sell the house" "well at least people aren't drinking and driving like they use to"

I don't believe sales rep losing their jobs because sponsors pull out benefits anyone. A sponsor leaving the Sox will not put a dent in drunk driving.

Employers definitely should have a say. Punish the guilty. The team should fire him once he's convicted. Tony should be suspended by the league at a minimum. What we shouldn't do is punish the other employees by pressuring sponsors to stop their ads. The sales reps shouldn't be punished because of Tony's actions.

That's what our courts are for. Jail time. Heavy fines. Ignition lock devices. Easy to punish people. Punishment is what our justice system does best.

Agreed. But taking an indirect path that hurts innocent people isn't as productive as a direct path where the victim is punished. Should you have your income and livelihood in jeopardy because a coworker received a DUI? Is that the society we want to live in? Punish the guilty.

If you hear Greg screaming he just took a crap and needs tp so ignore him unless you have some paper to donate.

and so it doesn't get lost I believe Larussa should never have been hired. If convicted he should quit immediately or be fired. Drunk driving should be punished with a lifetime ignition lockout device. Innocent people should not be collateral damage while punishing guilty people.

I was shocked he gets belligerent when drunk. Actually I'm trying to find the article that proposed people with self driving cars are increasingly driving drunk in a belief that the car is a HoF driver. Well not HoF, but a better choice.

So your plan is to pressure sponsors to demand he goes into a victim impact panel and completes an alcohol awareness class. (At least in Texas that's pretty standard for everyone). And if he doesn't, the sponsor should stop supporting the Sox and pull their ads. I think it's easier to have the courts continue to require that for everyone. But whatever.

And that would have prevented this DUI 13 years later? Why not have the courts require everyone if it prevents repeats? Wait, isn't treatment and victim impact panels a requirement for most DUI convictions already?

Just more evidence how crooked the system is. How do they keep gaining votes after the election and see they are still throwing away Trump ballots. It will never convince his hardcore followers.

They hired him knowing he was facing DUI charges. They could have waited until it was adjudicated before hiring him.

Obviously not. We need tougher DUI laws. I'm in favor of a lifetime requirement of ignition lockout devices after your first conviction. So if the Cardinals had a dozen sponsors drop would that have stopped him?

For those that want the team punished would you agree to MLB fining the team and or taking away draft picks? That seems like a more direct response than pushing sponsors. I would support the Commissioner suspending Larussa for a year if he is convicted. I believe that's in the best interest of baseball.

I'm comfortable with our legal system punishing guilty people. It's certainly within your right to additionally punish the people and organizations around them. Is it your opinion that the justices system does not deliver a severe enough penalty on the individual?

Great point. I retract my earlier statement.

Are you organizing a protest of the teams you mentioned sponsors?

and I respect that decision. Now when will you start pressuring their sponsors? Or are you just pressuring the favorite team of everyone here?

I respect that decision. I'm not going out of my way to buy anything.

Just in Rudy Guilliani announced they will take the fight all the way to the Supreme Courtyard by Marriott.

At my wife's school an elective teacher tested positive. Because the teacher floated they stopped all face to face instruction and moved to 100% virtual. They had a good ten weeks.

2. Exactly, so why pick and choose which companies to not support? Attack the Sox but not other companies? 3. Yes you can, but you won't. You'll be here in March. I believe Tony should be fired, that's not using those employees as shields to keep him. I believe he should be punished, not them. 5. Again that has nothing to do with my post. I believe Tony should never have been hired and now that he was hired he should be fired.

the equivalent I am claiming is the risk to society. An executive and a minimum wage worker when driving drunk presents the same risk to society. If your goal is to make society safer by pressuring companies to not hire people with DUIs, it doesn't matter their position. If your goal is to mitigate the business damage from hiring someone then yes, there is a difference with high profile employees.

OK. So it's not about the danger to society that the employee caused but the position within the company? From a business risk standpoint I agree. It's a bad business decision. But you've lead us to giving a free pass to hire people who have a DUI as long as there are lots of other people who can also do the job. But if there are fewer people who can do the job and fewer openings, that's a problem. I don't think we believe that do we?

2. I spoke about the danger to society is the same. You're talking about the danger to the business. 3. Having their commissions cut is a serious punishment for someone who is innocent. How often in history have people hidden behind it was someone else's decision or they were just following orders. You are advocating for something that will punish innocent people. Own it. 4. I don't have a problem with them firing anyone. In fact I believe it's a wise path to follow. Punish the guilty. 5. That has nothing to do with what I posted.