In my company’s handbook it states something to the effect of “...rules and policies are no substitute for sound judgement and understanding.  There may, at times, be exceptions which must be handled on an individual basis…”

Doesn’t this apply to just about anything?  It’s something I use as a personal guide, and probably had much to do with my attraction to the company in the first place.

I must say, this is the first good column Peter Schmuck has written in a long time. Mostly he just writes jokes about himself. Hacky sportswriter stuff like buffets and hawaiian shirts and stuff.

First, they need to separate the conduct clause from the conditioning clause - they’re not the same thing and the jurisprudence is going to be different.

Conduct outside of work that brings the employer into disrepute is always a difficult one in employment law.  Obviously someone convicted of a felony can be sacked for that alone, but anything short of a felony conviction is always going to be a gray area.

It’s a damn shame, too, because there’s no way Ponson doesn’t get his money - but the only basis for this decision is going to be precedent.  It won’t be about whether or not Ponson breached his contract, it’ll be about how do we keep the owners from exploiting this over the really big contracts.  And there’s nobody on the planet who deserves to lose this case more than Sir Sidney Ponson, Judge-Puncher.

I think that assault is a pretty good spot to draw the line.  Of course, that hasn’t happened previously, but per the note above, each case is handled individually and there are sometimes exceptions (like when the player is really good) but like the Michael Vick case, there are some that you know are spot on.  I suppose it is vague, but it’s like the ruling on pornography, where you know it when you see it.

I’m tired of the ones who are rich and spoiled who think the world is their private playground.  I thought this was appropriate action and hope it sticks, but like the cynic above, I expect the arbitrator to rule in favor of the player, particularly because of the vagueness of the rule itself, and especially because the arbitrators in baseball don’t really seem to use much logic in their rulings.  I think a randomly selected group of 12 fans would make better judgments than I’ve seen in arbitration over the years.

Would Howard be less-than-svelte or more-than-svelte?

I’m just delighted that I have to wonder about degrees of sveltitude today.  That’s the power of ShysterBall.

I view this type of broad “conduct” clause as a hedge in the other direction as it doe not allow a player to, for example, get 5 DUIs, or punch a judge, or (the good lord willing) shower strippers with $81,000 in cash, and do so with complete contractual and workplace impunity.  In other words, the clause is not there to be used to justify dismissal, but rather to prevent a player from misbehaving and then be able to say, without any argument, that his behavior did not violate his contract.  It at least puts the issue in play for the really bad guys, even if its not strictly enforceable to the letter.

http://www.seans-sports.com/2008/12/18/nick-puntos-dark-secret/

What do you know about Nick Punto that we don’t?