Colin Kaepernick

Official Seahawks Forum, for the 12th man, by the 12th man.

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Rambo2014 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:03 pm

Seattle forget sports! It has not been your forte. Better stick to harp music etc..

Looks at Cali Niners 5 trophies, Warriors - 5, A's - 4, Giants - 3 or 4..Stanford, Cal you name it oozing with titles...LA-Rams - 2, Chargers - 1. Lakers too many to count, Angels, Padres, USC, UCLA, and on and on I go

Seattle ? Hockey - 0, NFL - 1, NBA-1, NCAA FB 1/2, MLBB - 0
Rambo2014
Legacy
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:56 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:55 pm

NorthHawk wrote:Interestingly there is no deal with North Korea and they have nukes.
We have a deal with Iran and they do not.
I'd rather have just NK than both with nukes.


Interestingly there actually was a deal with North Korea, it just didn't get ratified by the Senate.

But be that as it may. If you think that this current NK regime would have honored the Clinton-Carter deal and that we wouldn't have this menace we're currently having to deal with, then I have some ocean front real estate in Nebraska that I'd like to sell to you.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby NorthHawk » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:46 pm

If we look through the lens of today it's quite doubtful they would have kept to the agreement, but if it was in place we really don't know for sure as many of the dynamics would be different and have evolved.
We'll never know for sure now.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Uppercut » Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:32 pm

O was sort of changing my impression of him but this stopped me , glad we didn't take him, wish him luck

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/18/colin-kaepernick-police-fugitive-slave-patrols-philando-castile-verdict
Uppercut
Legacy
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:23 pm

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby burrrton » Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:58 pm

Uppercut wrote:O was sort of changing my impression of him but this stopped me , glad we didn't take him, wish him luck

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/18/colin-kaepernick-police-fugitive-slave-patrols-philando-castile-verdict


No kidding.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby monkey » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:30 pm

Uppercut wrote:O was sort of changing my impression of him but this stopped me , glad we didn't take him, wish him luck

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/18/colin-kaepernick-police-fugitive-slave-patrols-philando-castile-verdict
like I've been saying, the guy is a complete loser. He is friends with gang bangers and hates cops, he loves Fidel Castro and hates America... He's a lost cause. So glad we didn't sign him.
User avatar
monkey
Legacy
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:19 pm

Uppercut wrote:O was sort of changing my impression of him but this stopped me , glad we didn't take him, wish him luck

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/18/colin-kaepernick-police-fugitive-slave-patrols-philando-castile-verdict


And who was it that said with supreme confidence that Kaepernick's protests were in his past? You would think that at least while he's still unemployed and looking for a team that will take a chance on him that he'd be on his best behavior. Just think of the outrageous statements and actions he might do if he were under contract.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Largent80 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:08 pm

monkey wrote: like I've been saying, the guy is a complete loser. He is friends with gang bangers and hates cops, he loves Fidel Castro and hates America... He's a lost cause. So glad we didn't sign him.


And you must hang out with him since you are SO informed about everything. Believe everything you read these days?
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1745
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Tex-ass

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Rambo2014 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:59 am

I am glad the Seahawks did not get smart and hire Kap. He would give us Rams issues! He would have been Sea starter soon after the first Rams game as A Donald has RW in his sights... Just the truth
Rambo2014
Legacy
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:56 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Largent80 » Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:09 am

LOL, Rams should get Kap, then they would have two one read and run QB's.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1745
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Tex-ass

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Zorn76 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:01 pm

Even at league minimum, I wouldn't want Kaep.
To often there'd be some sidebar story about his view on things blah, blah, blah, and we just don't need it.
Don't care how many guys would welcome him w open arms, it ain't worth the trouble.
User avatar
Zorn76
Legacy
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:33 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby NorthHawk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:21 pm

I think him being a distraction is overblown.
He might even be welcomed by others to take away attention on them.
The real reason, I think is with our often moribund Offense, calls for him to replace Wilson might happen and create a rift.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Zorn76 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:54 pm

To each their own.
But the idea that a QB controversy could ever develop between RW and Kaep is about as far fetched as it can get. CK got figured out awhile ago now, and Pete's stance that "he's still a starter in this league.." was just a polite way of saying no thanks.
User avatar
Zorn76
Legacy
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:33 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby NorthHawk » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:16 am

There's an old expression that the most popular player on a team is the backup QB.
So given his past play, if the Offense should stumble, there would be the inevitable calls for Kaepernick to play.
Add in the support of players including team leaders that have already expressed their opinion that he should be starting in the league and voila! - a QB controversy.
I can see why they didn't sign him because of that, but he's a better QB than some of those starting as of today.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:38 am

NorthHawk wrote:There's an old expression that the most popular player on a team is the backup QB.
So given his past play, if the Offense should stumble, there would be the inevitable calls for Kaepernick to play.
Add in the support of players including team leaders that have already expressed their opinion that he should be starting in the league and voila! - a QB controversy.
I can see why they didn't sign him because of that, but he's a better QB than some of those starting as of today.


It's not just the fans that would be calling for the backup. It could cause locker room divisions as well. And that's one of the reasons why I didn't want to bring him in here. Pete's "always compete" motto is a good philosophy for every other position, but it could be counter productive to bring in a player that everyone admits is a starting quality QB when you already have your franchise QB.

That's also one of the reasons why the market for Kaepernick isn't as robust as it normally would be for a player with his resume. It immediately scratches over half the teams in the league...places like New England, Green Bay, Baltimore, Detroit, Dallas, New Orleans, Oakland, Miami, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Indy, Tennessee...places that either have a franchise QB in place (Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Ryan) or a QB (Carr, Mariota, Winston, Prescott) that they're grooming as their QB of the Future.

So the only teams that might be interested are teams like the Browns, Jets, and Bears, teams that are still in search of a signal caller.

Combine those facts with Kaep's self inflicted baggage issues and it's not hard to understand why he's unemployed.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby NorthHawk » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:17 pm

It's clear to me he's being blackballed.
But the point is moot, really because he isn't our problem after signing Davis.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Zorn76 » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:05 am

NorthHawk wrote:There's an old expression that the most popular player on a team is the backup QB.
So given his past play, if the Offense should stumble, there would be the inevitable calls for Kaepernick to play.
Add in the support of players including team leaders that have already expressed their opinion that he should be starting in the league and voila! - a QB controversy.
I can see why they didn't sign him because of that, but he's a better QB than some of those starting as of today.


Yes - for like the remaining quarter of a game that's already a loss.
Wow.
Actually, you're right, I could see some fans being that stupid.

As for Bennett, Sherman, etc., their legit respect is really about Kaep's social mumbo jumbo than his ability to play ball now.
Yea - he's a starting quality when compared to Glennon, Hoyer, and so on. But in a 2-14 season, you can chalk up a lot of his numbers from '16 as pure garbage.

Again, Pete's a nice guy. And in between the lines quite clearly is just a polite way of saying no. That's because the issue isn't Colin being some kind of legit threat to RW, it's the polarizing figure he allowed himself to become. He's public figure with an identity crisis, among other things, but I do respect him at least forking over money for the cause.

That said, you never know in the future. Davis may not even make the team, and I'd like to keep Boykin anyway until a better option comes along.

But not Kaepernick.
User avatar
Zorn76
Legacy
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:33 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Hawktawk » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:15 am

Thank god we didn't sign this unpatriotic anarchist idiot. F him maybe he should move to Cuba and play on their NFL team.....
Call it blackballed all you want, I don't care, Ill be pissed if ANYONE signs this jackass after this latest salvo of bull$#!+
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:59 am

NorthHawk wrote:It's clear to me he's being blackballed.
But the point is moot, really because he isn't our problem after signing Davis.


Some teams, like the Giants, who didn't have a need anyway, probably wouldn't have signed him as their owner indicated that had they done so it would upset their fan base, and that's not black balling. It's a legitimate concern about causing a PR issue with their fans. I see it as being no different from teams not wanting to bring in Tim Tebow due to the distraction ("The Circus") he would have brought in with him.

Black balling implies that there was some sort of agreement between the league's 32 owners not to sign him, and that's almost impossible to pull off and keep a secret. It would be tough keeping it a secret within one team let alone a conspiracy of 32 of them.

Kaepernick made a stupid financial decision to embark on a controversial political crusade then opt out of a huge contract, expecting teams to be falling all over each other in an effort to sign him. I have zero sympathy for him.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby NorthHawk » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:50 am

So a QB, in a QB desperate league who passes for 16 TD's vs 4 Int's on a team with little talent can't even get a workout isn't blackballing?
A QB that has gone to the Super Bowl and 2 NFC Championship games? It's an agenda that's pretty obvious.

Players that have played for him have said he's a very good QB and should be able to get a tryout. I haven't heard any who say he isn't, nor have I heard from any player that he's a distraction.
Rather all we hear from players is he's a guy who they respect and think he should get a shot. But he never gets the chance. Is he perfect? No, nobody is and he's made some dumb mistakes,
but once the games start and he's standing, it will all be over with quickly.
Regarding fan base turnoff? There are lots of people waiting to buy season tickets and even PSLs because the opportunity doesn't come along very often for some or maybe a lot of teams.
If he got the chance and won a game mostly all would be forgiven and if he took them to the playoffs, the narrative would be positive for the team that 'took a chance' on him.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:30 pm

NorthHawk wrote:So a QB, in a QB desperate league who passes for 16 TD's vs 4 Int's on a team with little talent can't even get a workout isn't blackballing?
A QB that has gone to the Super Bowl and 2 NFC Championship games? It's an agenda that's pretty obvious.

Players that have played for him have said he's a very good QB and should be able to get a tryout. I haven't heard any who say he isn't, nor have I heard from any player that he's a distraction.
Rather all we hear from players is he's a guy who they respect and think he should get a shot. But he never gets the chance. Is he perfect? No, nobody is and he's made some dumb mistakes,
but once the games start and he's standing, it will all be over with quickly.
Regarding fan base turnoff? There are lots of people waiting to buy season tickets and even PSLs because the opportunity doesn't come along very often for some or maybe a lot of teams.
If he got the chance and won a game mostly all would be forgiven and if he took them to the playoffs, the narrative would be positive for the team that 'took a chance' on him.


The terminology that you are using, blackballing, or at least the way you are using it in this discussion, implies collusion, that teams are agreeing amongst each other not to sign him because of his politics, and that is almost certainly not the case. Each of the 32 teams made an independent decision not to bring him in, and their reasons varied. One of those reasons appears to have been his political stance, but it was almost certainly not the only reason why teams didn't want him.

Regarding your last paragraph, here's a good article about the Giants' dilemma regarding Kaepernick:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... -1.3206559
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby NorthHawk » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:04 pm

And yet the Giants have thousands on a waiting list for Season Tickets who would snap them up in a minute if given a chance.

Regarding blackballing from the Urban Dictionary:
To cosnpire to ruin someones reputation untill they become unemployable and people refuse to associate with them.

It's pretty much an open secret. We can see it by the lack of even having him in for a workout by teams that need help at QB.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Hawktawk » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:32 pm

http://sea.247sports.com/Bolt/Report-49 ... -interest-


More gas on the hair fire.

Kap was better at one time than he is now, way better.he worked harder and didn't bring distractions . He's trending hard the other direction and is radioactive after the latest outburst. It's not blackball in the classic sense. It's a business decision.

It's a lot like Tebow not finding one of 62 or so jobs for very different reasons . Why deal with the circus for what you will get on the field?any GM would be leery.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby MackStrongIsMyHero » Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:42 pm

No way it is league wide blackballing. Out of 32 teams, only 5 I would give a maybe take a look and 3 that need a starter.

Maybes:

1. Vikings - Have Sam Bradford who started last season with 20 TD/5 Int. Kaepernick numbers are on par with this, so he could legitimately compete for this job.
2. Jaguars - Blake Bortles was awful after having a promising 2015 campaign. If the Jags think they can right the ship, then they wouldn't bring in Kaepernick, but he could compete for this job. I was borderline on dropping this into Starter territory.
3. Texans - Drafted Deshaun Watson and still have Tom Savage who they also drafted. Kaepernick could compete here, but the staff may be comfortable with the competition they have. No reason to pay starter money when these two guys are cheap.
4. Bills - Still have Tyrod Taylor who has started putting his game together, and he's already been extended for the long term. Kaep could compete, but they seem set on Taylor.
5. Broncos - Have Siemian, Lynch, and Kelly. All young guys they drafted with upside. Kaep could compete here, but they may be content to develop talent they drafted.

Starters:

1 Bears - A team that needed a starter and went for Mike Glennon. Not as extensive body of work as Kaepernick. Don't understand his contract nor not bringing in Kaep, but, if Mike Glennon does well, then this is moot.
2. Browns - A dumpster fire at QB going way back. Did grab Kizer out of Notre Dame, but they all the help they can get.
3. Jets - Dismal stable of QB's; don't know why you would give Kaep a look.

Only three teams were in absolute need of a starting QB and they didn't give Kaep a call. The rest of the teams in the NFL either have set starters or have promising guys they think will be starters.

This doesn't even take into account Kaep's desire for starter money, the cap space of teams, and the system of offense used by the teams. Saying he could walk in and start for any team by stats alone means that you know better than professional coaching staff and talent scouts. Also, whether it would transpire or not, if an owner even has the inkling that signing Kaep would lose them money, they'll stay away from him, period. The reasons don't really matter. They may take what he did personally, and they may not, but they are in the business of making money.

8 possible landing spots with only 3 sure fire spots doesn't support blackballing.
User avatar
MackStrongIsMyHero
Legacy
 
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:26 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:07 pm

NorthHawk wrote:And yet the Giants have thousands on a waiting list for Season Tickets who would snap them up in a minute if given a chance.

Regarding blackballing from the Urban Dictionary:
To conspire to ruin someones reputation untill they become unemployable and people refuse to associate with them.

It's pretty much an open secret. We can see it by the lack of even having him in for a workout by teams that need help at QB.


The key words in your definition are the first two, "To conspire".

I used to work for a large employer in a relatively small town of around 15,000. There were 3 other large employers and combined, they dominated the local workforce. When an employer had a bad experience with an employee that resulted in their termination, the HR managers of the 4 companies would talk to each other so as to advise them of their bad experience and recommend not to hire them. It effectively ran the individual out of town. Sort of a good ole boy's network. That's my understanding of the term "blackballing", a practice which is now illegal.

I simply do not believe anything close to that is happening. There are perhaps one or two teams, such as the ones Mack has suggested, that refused to bring him in because they didn't agree with his politics, but that hardly amounts to some sort of conspiracy with the aim to run him out of the league. The vast majority of teams have perfectly legitimate reasons for not bringing him in that have nothing to do with a personal vendetta against a player they may view as unpatriotic.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby jshawaii22 » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:44 pm

RD, the problem with calling it "Blackballing" is that it's perfectly LEGAL to check with former employers and use that information about poor job performance, issues with co-workers or management, etc etc and use that to make a determination not to hire.
As long as you don't use Race, Religion, Age, Sex, or any other myriad of non-performance reasons.
In management it's called "discretionary hiring practices" -- in Kap's world, some call it "Blackballing" -- either way you see it, its absolutely the right of the potential employer to make sure that the person fits your model of an employee.
User avatar
jshawaii22
Legacy
 
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:32 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:08 pm

jshawaii22 wrote:RD, the problem with calling it "Blackballing" is that it's perfectly LEGAL to check with former employers and use that information about poor job performance, issues with co-workers or management, etc etc and use that to make a determination not to hire.
As long as you don't use Race, Religion, Age, Sex, or any other myriad of non-performance reasons.
In management it's called "discretionary hiring practices" -- in Kap's world, some call it "Blackballing" -- either way you see it, its absolutely the right of the potential employer to make sure that the person fits your model of an employee.


Not from what I have experienced. As a member of management of a Fortune 500 corporation, I cannot give out to anyone any kind of opinion of any current or former employee based on my experiences as a supervisor. The best I can do is give them a personal reference not associated with any experiences I've had at work. We can't even say what kind of work they did. All my company will do is confirm the dates of employment and salary. Former employers have been successfully sued for bad recommendations or references, so my company's position is that we have absolutely no comment one way or another.

Here's what California law says about the subject:

A former employer is only free to state whatever they know to be factually true about an employee in references.

http://www.encinoemploymentlawyer.com/p ... cklist-me/

Most work performance appraisals, issues with co workers or management, etc, is not factually true, to the contrary, they are highly opinionated. A manager or supervisor offers an opinion of how John Doe had "issues with co-workers" and the aggrieved can bring in 10 people to contest that opinion.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Hawktawk » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:46 am

You are correct RD. I cannot trash a bad former employee. I can say whether I would hire them back.

But pro sports has got to be the easiest profession for an owner or GM to judge the body of work of on field and off field actions of a player with the tape rolling constantly.
On the balance Kap doesn't grade out as worth the baggage, obviously, at least at this point. If he doesn't shut his yapper he will never suit up again except maybe the CFL.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:43 am

Hawktawk wrote:You are correct RD. I cannot trash a bad former employee. I can say whether I would hire them back.

But pro sports has got to be the easiest profession for an owner or GM to judge the body of work of on field and off field actions of a player with the tape rolling constantly.
On the balance Kap doesn't grade out as worth the baggage, obviously, at least at this point. If he doesn't shut his yapper he will never suit up again except maybe the CFL.


Saying that you would not re-hire is a factual statement, so I suppose you are correct, although my employer won't even divulge that much. I guess they don't want to take a chance on having to defend a no re-hire decision, which almost certainly would not be completely factual. Saying why they were terminated is a factual statement as well, but once again, defending the decision could be fraught with a minefield of opinions and subjectivity. Dates of employment and salary history is the only information we can release.

This isn't the first time that the NFL has been accused of blackballing a player. Remember when Michael Vick got released from prison and that race baiter Jesse Jackson was making waves about Vick's lack of offers? Is there anyone in this forum that believes that Vick was being blackballed?
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby c_hawkbob » Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:37 am

When I take calls about former employees I can only answer questions about attendance, job description, advancements in positions and time on the job. I can add positive evaluations if i want but I can't say anything negative for fear of the company getting sued.

The lack of adding anything positive does become a statement in and of itself though.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:00 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:When I take calls about former employees I can only answer questions about attendance, job description, advancements in positions and time on the job. I can add positive evaluations if i want but I can't say anything negative for fear of the company getting sued.

The lack of adding anything positive does become a statement in and of itself though.


Which is why my company has said that we are not to add any comments positive or negative. Admittedly it would take a pretty sharp lawyer to turn a "no comment" remark into a "he's a P.O.S."

We can be personally sued, too. On a number of occasions, I've had friends give my name to the federal government when they needed a security clearance for a particular job. One of the first things the investigator tells you is that you can be sued if you give false or misleading information.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby c_hawkbob » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:41 pm

That must be company policy (which I think is a bit ridiculous) then. Here, in Colorado and in Utah I was never restricted from telling someone that "so and so is the best I&C technician I've ever worked with, I'd hire him back in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself" if it were true (and actually I've given exactly that recommendation).

I can see if the guy was a POS not being able to smear him, but if he's a great guy and was an asset to me I can't at all see not being able to say so. Good work should be rewarded.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:28 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:That must be company policy (which I think is a bit ridiculous) then. Here, in Colorado and in Utah I was never restricted from telling someone that "so and so is the best I&C technician I've ever worked with, I'd hire him back in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself" if it were true (and actually I've given exactly that recommendation).

I can see if the guy was a POS not being able to smear him, but if he's a great guy and was an asset to me I can't at all see not being able to say so. Good work should be rewarded.


Yes, it's a company policy. As I stated, I work for a large company that has facilities in many states, so they have to craft their policy to comply with the strictest of state laws. I agree that it's a bit ridiculous. They're going way overboard to cover their asses.

Like I said earlier, I can get around the policy by keeping the company out of it by not using a company phone number/email account/letterhead, not committing anything to writing, etc. I've always found a way to get that hard working good guy (or gal) what they need. But officially, all we're supposed to give out is dates of employment and salary history.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby c_hawkbob » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:04 am

Here's to corporate arse covering lawyers then:

Image
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby Hawktawk » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:21 am

clearly the 9ers had no interest in re hiring him. They brought in stars like Hoyer and Barkley and didn't even give him a chance. :roll: :cry:
That speaks volumes........
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Colin Kaepernick

Postby RiverDog » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:39 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:Here's to corporate arse covering lawyers then:

Image


LOL! My sentiments exactly, except I'd give them a 180 degree view of the one that Hawkeye is giving us.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Previous

Return to Seahawks Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron