Could George Karl return to the Cavs?
April 25, 2014
Donald Sterling Fallout, and GQ’s 15 Funniest People: While We’re Waiting
April 28, 2014
We still don’t know the exact reason that Edward Loomis was dismissed as an usher for the Indians at Progressive Field, but the team’s statement that it had nothing to do with Issue 7 stickers has taken a hit. The Northeast Ohio Media Group has today’s report (working off an earlier Cleveland Scene story) in which the Indians’ instructions to ushers don’t make the wearing of the Issue 7 sticker sound all that voluntary.
“UNIFORMS: Be sure you are wearing a name tag & an Issue 7 sticker on your outermost layer of clothing,” the document states elsewhere. “See your supervisor for both.”
In defense of Curtis Danburg and the Cleveland Indians, there’s a decent chance that the organization never meant to make the stickers mandatory, but that someone down the line in the organization typed this info for the ushers in that department. I’m unsure of exactly how the hierarchy and flow of information goes, but anyone who has worked in larger organizations can understand how something like this can happen.
That being said, if that’s what happened, the Indians are going to need to provide that defense for themselves. Right now, this inconsistency in their story looks really bad for them with regard to Issue 7 and also the individual employment of Edward Loomis.
[Related: Was an Indians usher fired for not wearing an Issue 7 sticker?]
20 Comments
Well, tribe management needs to step up and take accountability for this situation. Pretty stupid, but they need to acknowledge, apologize and move on. Remember when the buck actually stopped somewhere?
I hate this because it has a very strong corollary to the WKYC Bernie story. Either the left hand isn’t talking to the right (which is perfectly possible given the size of the companies in question) or they’re outright lying to fans. Either way, these are more cases of Cleveland teams being on the wrong side of a PR issue which could have been easily avoidable.
Sick of this story and Edward Loomis. When your employer benefits from the passage (as well as your and your co-workers’ livelihood), and you’re instructed by your boss, then just shut up and wear your damn flare.
Or quit your job and find something else. There are choices here
Agreed. There are always options. Dude wasn’t an indentured servant.
Or respect the fact that employees have rights and shouldn’t have to be forced into supporting political campaigns they don’t believe in just to keep their job. If your employer’s profits increase from a rewriting of insurance law that would leave you without benefits should they be able to make you where clothing supporting that aim? Should they be able to send voting monitors along to ensure you adhere to their aims as a requisite of employment? Why are the only options “Get in line or take a hike”? Seem very oligarchish to me.
What if we supported people’s right to have a political opinion and not worry about that opinion jeopardizing their employment?
wear not where, my editor is 3 and preoccupied with Bugs and Daffy right now;.
I hear the concern of slippery slope–but frankly the facts here are pretty insular. The political issue (if we want to even go so far as to call it that) is about fund raising for an industry that relies on public funds and support. The employees are in a unique position to wear a pin to appeal to the customers/voters. The only somewhat analogous situation would be teachers all wearing pins for a school bond issue. No one is telling the employees how to vote or how to feel…just wear the damn pin. Or don’t if you have deeply held convictions. But don’t refuse and claim to be a victim. Ain’t nobody got time for that manufactured silliness.
Cleveland teams being tripped up by easily avoidable PR issues: tale as old as time
Just a difference of opinion. I feel its odd to categorize privately owned companies with unique anti-trust protections as industries that “rely on public funds”. They don’t rely on public funds, they are very wealthy people who have political access to coerce the subsidizing of their massively profitable business’s under the flimsy pretense that sports teams enhance local economies.
At least to me, if you refuse to support the political aims of your boss and you are fired you aren’t claiming to be a victim, you are in fact a victim. Issue 7 asks you to support the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in order to ease the financial burden on people who are already incredibly wealthy. The persons most likely to buy the products associated with Issue 7 are concentrated in the poorest economic group. If the money from Issue 7 went to serious anti-smoking and alcohol treatment programs for people who can’t afford such things I’d be in favor of it. Taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, and forcing employees to blindly support this program is something I can’t ever get behind.
You think people like me make too big a deal of this issue, and I think people like you don’t make enough of a big deal.
Mr. Dolan, is that you?
Maybe, probably, the team is perfectly with in its legal rights to fire Mr. Loomis for not wearing the sticker, or for any other number of reasons. But one of the founding principles of this country was that you don’t have to “shut up and wear your damn [sic] flare”. If he wants to speak about a practice he deems unfair, he gets to. And other people get to care about it enough to keep bringing it up.
Cleveland sports team lie, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat, no way Jose?
Mr. Dolan, is that you?
You mean dad?
Just to be clear, I think your view of the underlying issue is sound. Frankly, I have some of the same reservations about getting public funding for sports enterprises, using sin taxes, etc. But that’s another story entirely.
I’m not against whether people hold those beliefs. That’s not what my point was about. I think it’s more about a refusal to do your job and less about being a passionate crusader/whistleblower.
Look, if you work at Subway, then you might have to wear a stupid hat that says “Eat Fresh.” You might think that’s BS, but you wear it. If you work for a company who manufacturers missiles (like a friend of mine), your product might take lives. And your company might have to lobby a Congressman. And your company may worry about taxes and politics and other ugly things. And your boss might be an ahole and make you come in on Sat. Or he might say things at a meeting you don’t believe, but you tow the party line. These are the facts of life in keeping a job. Or find another one that suits you. Cool. Great. Not everything is for everybody.
So we have to believe Loomis feels so passionately about the issue of wearing a pin supporting his company’s position when he was perfectly fine to take a job at a house built on Bud & Camels. I call BS, but ok whatever, maybe working for the evil empire now is just too repugnant—then fine. Look for another job. But I suspect if you drill down deep enough, we’ll find this guy was just a malcontent looking for a controversy. And maybe for victimhood and 15 minutes. We can disagree, but I’m not going to buy in to that.
Can anyone confirm the line about the Indians paying 100% of repair costs as being true? Honestly curious.
When you sign up to work at Subway, you know from the get go that you’re wearing the hat. When you build missiles, you should have a pretty good idea how they’re going to end up being used.
But I’m not sure there should be an expectation of supporting politics you may not believe in when working as an usher.
“But I suspect if you drill down deep enough, we’ll find this guy was just a malcontent looking for a controversy. And maybe for victimhood and 15 minutes.”
This may all be true, but not only without any evidence, but with evidence to the contrary, I’m not sure we should buy this. We have his email stating to his supervisor that he didn’t feel comfortable wearing the sticker. It was polite and well-stated.
When you tell your boss at Subway that you don’t want to wear the hat, he doesn’t bar you from entering the next day, he tells you to put the stupid hat on. The Indians could have been a lot more tactful in handling this situation, and they could have not lied about their policy. This isn’t a controversy because of the usher, but because of the team.
The leases were re-negotiated (despite all the clamoring that the we have to pay the sin tax because the lease says so) in 2004 so that the Cavs and Indians paid all maintenance and capital repairs that cost under $500k.
It’s very possible that the original sin tax only financed the construction of the two buildings and hasn’t paid for maintenance on them yet.
Under $500k seems cheap to me.
For anyone who cares Les Levine will be giving time to a representative against passing Issue 7 this week on his show “More Sports and Les Levine” I will be tuning in to further educate myself on this issue.
Man I wish I knew how to insert clips from YouTube right now. All I can think about is Kramer doing the AIDS walk. Why don’t you wear the pin? Everybody else is wearing the pin.
I love that episode. btw, if it’s any consolation, I’m 99% certain Loomis has an atty by now and will get paid. I think the Dolans are smart enough to settle with him without a public lawsuit being filed. Well, hopefully they’re smart enough.