Asst. GM's 24-year LA run ends

[stb]

What a classless organization...

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/columns/story?id=6732871

[Redz]

I never understood how any organization can take such a cowardly way of dismissing employees.

[Chris]

I never understood how any organization can take such a cowardly way of dismissing employees.

Eh, I think we are getting one side of the story here by a guy who feels burned.  

I actually don't know else the Lakers should have done.  These peoples contracts were up, and there is currently nothing for them to do.  Were they going to be kept on the payroll indefinitely, while they couldn't really do their jobs (scouts aren't even allowed to go to college practices during the lockout).

These people should have all seen the writing on the wall years ago when they signed contracts that ended at the same time of a lockout that everyone has known about for a LONG time.  

And it sounds like he is inferring that he is taking the fact that the Lakers haven't told him or others "after the lockout, we will take care of you" as a reason that they don't want anyone back, and this was just an excuse they were using to ditch people they wanted to get rid of anyways?  I think that is a major assumption on his part, and I would argue that the Lakers organization would be putting themselves in a potentially sticky situation if they did make statements like that to contract employees, and open themselves up to problems if they changed their minds a year from now.

What should the Lakers have done differently here?

[Finkelskyhook]

I never understood how any organization can take such a cowardly way of dismissing employees.

Eh, I think we are getting one side of the story here by a guy who feels burned.  

I actually don't know else the Lakers should have done.  These peoples contracts were up, and there is currently nothing for them to do.  Were they going to be kept on the payroll indefinitely, while they couldn't really do their jobs (scouts aren't even allowed to go to college practices during the lockout).

These people should have all seen the writing on the wall years ago when they signed contracts that ended at the same time of a lockout that everyone has known about for a LONG time.  

And it sounds like he is inferring that he is taking the fact that the Lakers haven't told him or others "after the lockout, we will take care of you" as a reason that they don't want anyone back, and this was just an excuse they were using to ditch people they wanted to get rid of anyways?  I think that is a major assumption on his part, and I would argue that the Lakers organization would be putting themselves in a potentially sticky situation if they did make statements like that to contract employees, and open themselves up to problems if they changed their minds a year from now.

What should the Lakers have done differently here?

Very well said, Chris.

Sometimes I think people think that companies, teams, corporations, etc exist to employ people.  They exist to be profitable. 

A classless organization would try not to honor the contracts.  (Ala the other Los Angeles team) Their contracts are over and these people have nothing to do.  This isn't government...A private sector organization can't indefinitely pay people for producing nothing.

[Fafnir]

There is a difference between Jeff Green and Paul Pierce, just as a 24 year front office veteran who also played for the franchise is different from most personal.

We're only hearing one side of the story certainly, but the unless this was a Clifford Ray situation where they didn't feel he could perform or hadn't been performing well this is cold.

I wonder how much of this is part of the power struggle for the Lakers and who sided with who in the Phil Jackson mess. This sort of politics has apparently been messy in the organization as Jerry Buss has gotten older and older.

[Redz]

I never understood how any organization can take such a cowardly way of dismissing employees.

Eh, I think we are getting one side of the story here by a guy who feels burned.  

I actually don't know else the Lakers should have done.  These peoples contracts were up, and there is currently nothing for them to do.  Were they going to be kept on the payroll indefinitely, while they couldn't really do their jobs (scouts aren't even allowed to go to college practices during the lockout).

These people should have all seen the writing on the wall years ago when they signed contracts that ended at the same time of a lockout that everyone has known about for a LONG time.  

And it sounds like he is inferring that he is taking the fact that the Lakers haven't told him or others "after the lockout, we will take care of you" as a reason that they don't want anyone back, and this was just an excuse they were using to ditch people they wanted to get rid of anyways?  I think that is a major assumption on his part, and I would argue that the Lakers organization would be putting themselves in a potentially sticky situation if they did make statements like that to contract employees, and open themselves up to problems if they changed their minds a year from now.

What should the Lakers have done differently here?

Perhaps.

I guess from what I read it sounded like a rather impersonal parting.  Just tell them to their faces what the deal is.

[Chris]

I never understood how any organization can take such a cowardly way of dismissing employees.

Eh, I think we are getting one side of the story here by a guy who feels burned.  

I actually don't know else the Lakers should have done.  These peoples contracts were up, and there is currently nothing for them to do.  Were they going to be kept on the payroll indefinitely, while they couldn't really do their jobs (scouts aren't even allowed to go to college practices during the lockout).

These people should have all seen the writing on the wall years ago when they signed contracts that ended at the same time of a lockout that everyone has known about for a LONG time.  

And it sounds like he is inferring that he is taking the fact that the Lakers haven't told him or others "after the lockout, we will take care of you" as a reason that they don't want anyone back, and this was just an excuse they were using to ditch people they wanted to get rid of anyways?  I think that is a major assumption on his part, and I would argue that the Lakers organization would be putting themselves in a potentially sticky situation if they did make statements like that to contract employees, and open themselves up to problems if they changed their minds a year from now.

What should the Lakers have done differently here?

Perhaps.

I guess from what I read it sounded like a rather impersonal parting.  Just tell them to their faces what the deal is.

But it sounds like they did.  At the beginning of the article it says they were told by the team that all personnel with contracts ending before June 30th would not have their contracts renewed?  What else is there to tell them?

The tough thing about these things is that if they did tell them more than that, they are opening themselves up to issues.

I can tell you as someone who works for a large organization (that also has a large HR department filled with J.D.'s) that if I were in their position (and I have been in a similar position), that the word from the lawyers would be to keep your mouth shut.

The bottom line is there is nothing you can say to make those people happy, because all they see is that the organization has money, therefore, they should still be paying them.  So, you keep your mouth shut, because all you can do is more damage by opening it.  Maybe its impersonal, but in a society marred by constant litigation, it is the way organizations are forced to do business.

[Edgar]

I never understood how any organization can take such a cowardly way of dismissing employees.

Eh, I think we are getting one side of the story here by a guy who feels burned.  

I actually don't know else the Lakers should have done.  These peoples contracts were up, and there is currently nothing for them to do.  Were they going to be kept on the payroll indefinitely, while they couldn't really do their jobs (scouts aren't even allowed to go to college practices during the lockout).

These people should have all seen the writing on the wall years ago when they signed contracts that ended at the same time of a lockout that everyone has known about for a LONG time.  

And it sounds like he is inferring that he is taking the fact that the Lakers haven't told him or others "after the lockout, we will take care of you" as a reason that they don't want anyone back, and this was just an excuse they were using to ditch people they wanted to get rid of anyways?  I think that is a major assumption on his part, and I would argue that the Lakers organization would be putting themselves in a potentially sticky situation if they did make statements like that to contract employees, and open themselves up to problems if they changed their minds a year from now.

What should the Lakers have done differently here?

Perhaps.

I guess from what I read it sounded like a rather impersonal parting.  Just tell them to their faces what the deal is.

But it sounds like they did.  At the beginning of the article it says they were told by the team that all personnel with contracts ending before June 30th would not have their contracts renewed?  What else is there to tell them?

The tough thing about these things is that if they did tell them more than that, they are opening themselves up to issues.

I can tell you as someone who works for a large organization (that also has a large HR department filled with J.D.'s) that if I were in their position (and I have been in a similar position), that the word from the lawyers would be to keep your mouth shut.

The bottom line is there is nothing you can say to make those people happy, because all they see is that the organization has money, therefore, they should still be paying them.  So, you keep your mouth shut, because all you can do is more damage by opening it.  Maybe its impersonal, but in a society marred by constant litigation, it is the way organizations are forced to do business.

I disagree to a point
more often than not they asume alll know the contracts end
but they never tell the peopel theyre not going to be renewed

And somehow i am taking by experience

system stinks
really it does

not only on laker organization


theyre not obligated and probably saves trouble not to tnounce if people is going to be rehired or not
after all its just a matter of honor
is not the same to let people know their contracts are over
and to let people know they arent being renewed

imho

[Chris]

I never understood how any organization can take such a cowardly way of dismissing employees.

Eh, I think we are getting one side of the story here by a guy who feels burned.  

I actually don't know else the Lakers should have done.  These peoples contracts were up, and there is currently nothing for them to do.  Were they going to be kept on the payroll indefinitely, while they couldn't really do their jobs (scouts aren't even allowed to go to college practices during the lockout).

These people should have all seen the writing on the wall years ago when they signed contracts that ended at the same time of a lockout that everyone has known about for a LONG time.  

And it sounds like he is inferring that he is taking the fact that the Lakers haven't told him or others "after the lockout, we will take care of you" as a reason that they don't want anyone back, and this was just an excuse they were using to ditch people they wanted to get rid of anyways?  I think that is a major assumption on his part, and I would argue that the Lakers organization would be putting themselves in a potentially sticky situation if they did make statements like that to contract employees, and open themselves up to problems if they changed their minds a year from now.

What should the Lakers have done differently here?

Perhaps.

I guess from what I read it sounded like a rather impersonal parting.  Just tell them to their faces what the deal is.

But it sounds like they did.  At the beginning of the article it says they were told by the team that all personnel with contracts ending before June 30th would not have their contracts renewed?  What else is there to tell them?

The tough thing about these things is that if they did tell them more than that, they are opening themselves up to issues.

I can tell you as someone who works for a large organization (that also has a large HR department filled with J.D.'s) that if I were in their position (and I have been in a similar position), that the word from the lawyers would be to keep your mouth shut.

The bottom line is there is nothing you can say to make those people happy, because all they see is that the organization has money, therefore, they should still be paying them.  So, you keep your mouth shut, because all you can do is more damage by opening it.  Maybe its impersonal, but in a society marred by constant litigation, it is the way organizations are forced to do business.

I disagree to a point
more often than not they asume alll know the contracts end
but they never tell the peopel theyre not going to be renewed

And somehow i am taking by experience

system stinks
really it does

not only on laker organization


theyre not obligated and probably saves trouble not to tnounce if people is going to be rehired or not
after all its just a matter of honor
is not the same to let people know their contracts are over
and to let people know they arent being renewed

imho

While I agree in theory, the problem is, law suits and terrible work ethics have killed honor when it comes to large organizations in the US.  

You can't get away with saying ANYTHING anymore, because it all can come back in a lawsuit.  

If they tell them that they are not renewing their contracts ahead of time, then you have employees with little motivation to work hard through the end of their contracts.  If you tell them you are going to renew it, and something changes, suddenly you are looking at a lawsuit.

So, I agree, 20 years ago, they should have been more open about that stuff.  However, today, you just can't get away with anything like that anymore, because you simply can't trust anyone when you know there are lawyers just begging for a chance to sue you.