Webcor, Clinger, and facial art

I think that when you are paying your people a real "living wage", it's
ok to establish well understood conduct policies that you can hold your
people accountable to. But when you pay them less money than a
McDonalds worker, and try to use vague references to professional
conduct, I think you have less of a say in the choices they make.

Quoted message said:

I think that when you are paying your people a real "living wage", it's
ok to establish well understood conduct policies that you can hold your
people accountable to. But when you pay them less money than a
McDonalds worker, and try to use vague references to professional
conduct, I think you have less of a say in the choices they make.

I agree conduct is a part of employment. For example, if he tattood a
symbol of a highly offensive organization (I'm sidestepping
Godwin, here) or an "obscene" symbol to his head, it would be an entirely
different matter. Similarly, if he took a position that he was going to
ceased showering or shaving his legs (🙂), that also would be a different matter.
However, if the tattoo is within the bounds of unoffensive personal expression,
then there needs to be a degree of respect for that.

Dan

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:4207A19B.2030201@i_e_e_e.o_r_g...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think that when you are paying your people a real "living wage", it's
ok to establish well understood conduct policies that you can hold your
people accountable to. But when you pay them less money than a
McDonalds worker, and try to use vague references to professional
conduct, I think you have less of a say in the choices they make.

I agree conduct is a part of employment. For example, if he tattood a
symbol of a highly offensive organization (I'm sidestepping
Godwin, here) or an "obscene" symbol to his head, it would be an entirely
different matter. Similarly, if he took a position that he was going to
ceased showering or shaving his legs (🙂), that also would be a different
matter.
However, if the tattoo is within the bounds of unoffensive personal
expression,
then there needs to be a degree of respect for that.

Dan

If Clinger wants to make himself look like Queequeg, what's the harm? He's
racing a bicycle, not going to corporate sales meetings. Personally, I
think nose rings are more difficult to view (my first reaction is usually
that the person must have snot coming out of their nose) and yet they have
become more accepted in retail here in the Northeast. Granted, that's quite
different from life in the Red States. Live and let live. He's not hurting
anyone.

Dan Connelly said:

Interesting views on Clinger's tattoo:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7531.0.html

Suppressing inoffensive personal expression is generally a mistake, I

feel. I

Quoted message said:

am surprised at the magnitude of the support for the team position.

Since you think that is inoffensive try showing up at your employment
with such a facial design with simple paint and watch the reactions.

Personally I would simply have fired Clinger as someone without the
judgement to make him valuable to the team.

Now this is really amusing - someone who can't hold a job telling us
what constitutes harm to a professional organization.

Quoted message said:

I think that when you are paying your people a real "living wage", it's
ok to establish well understood conduct policies that you can hold your
people accountable to. But when you pay them less money than a
McDonalds worker, and try to use vague references to professional
conduct, I think you have less of a say in the choices they make.

Dumbass,

If you're paying them a wage, you'd hope they are living, or else you'd be a
real dumbass. That said, I believe most riders are contractors, not employees,
and so don't earn wages. They earn profits, which can even be negative (loss).

Tom Kunich said:

Since you think that is inoffensive try showing up at your employment
with such a facial design with simple paint and watch the reactions.

Probably not good (I'm talking about formal meetings, not daily "cubical"
activity). Would it be worse, however, than if I showed
up wearing skin-tight shorts?

A large part of presentation standards is whether one is showing respect for
ones co-workers, customers, etc. Sloppiness or offensiveness in presentation
is interpreted as a lack of respect, taken in the context of the interaction.
The question is whether Clinger's choice fails this respect standard. To me,
it does not, but it's clear the criteria for this judgement are hardly objective.

Dan

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now this is really amusing - someone who can't hold a job telling us
what constitutes harm to a professional organization.

Where on Earth do you get these nonsensical ideas about my business
dealings?

Dan Connelly d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

A large part of presentation standards is whether one is showing respect for
ones co-workers, customers, etc. Sloppiness or offensiveness in presentation
is interpreted as a lack of respect, taken in the context of the interaction.
The question is whether Clinger's choice fails this respect standard. To me,
it does not, but it's clear the criteria for this judgement are hardly objective.

Really, it comes down to the standards of the people Webcor is trying to
reach by using the team as an advertising vehicle. They are not attempting
to raise their image in building services with people like you or me.

Webcor is not Jittery F Joes. What they are trying to accomplish through
sponsoring a cycling team is different. The population they are hoping
to reach is way different. The standards of professional conduct are way
different.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:57:36 -0000, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Webcor is not Jittery F Joes. What they are trying to accomplish through
sponsoring a cycling team is different. The population they are hoping
to reach is way different. The standards of professional conduct are way
different.

I'm not sure that the Webco standards of professional conduct are
relevant to the firing. However, the standards they choose to set for
what they expect from the bike team are probably theirs to set as they
choose and they choose to be strict.

OTOH, I doubt that even their clients are expecting the same from a
bike racer racing for the Webco team as they are from the executive at
their next meeting or the reception at Webco HQs. And a tatoo that
might get a couple of extra mentions on the loudspeakers at the races
can't be all bad.

IMO overreaction. Or an excuse covering something that wouldn't pass
the smell test.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

I believe it's pretty simple.

1. It's Webcor's team.

2. They pay the bills.

3. They didn't like the tat, so things had to be changed.

An overreaction? Possibly. But it's not what they wanted. See #2
above. I'm pretty sure he knew he was going to get a reaction from a
full facial tat. Who wouldn't? I know plenty of people who love
tatoos, and who have lots of them, but they would never get one on
their face just for the mere fact that it would limit them as to what
they might want to do in life. You can still do it, but don't expect
to be an investment banker with a face full of tatoo.

Tom

Tom said:

I believe it's pretty simple.

1. It's Webcor's team.

2. They pay the bills.

3. They didn't like the tat, so things had to be changed.

If I read the article correctly, Webcor didn't object, at least publicly.

And my point wasn't whether anyone had a right to give Clinger the ultimatum,
but whether it was smart to do so. If it makes Webcor look bad, or denies
them potential non-negative publicity, it isn't.

Dan

Tom said:

You can still do it, but don't expect
to be an investment banker with a face full of tatoo.

Or have a damn good track record. They're a forgiving lot in some
areas of investment banking, just so you're not under some
inconvenient SEC restraining order and you're covering your million
dollar salary at least a couple of times over in the net.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Off the record, Webcor freaked. That's the issue.

Actually, Webcor probably pays a fee to the company that owns the team.
The contact they have with the team owner determines how much actual
infuence that have on decisions such as Clinger's. The team pays the
bills. The tattoo issue probably has more to do with Webcor's
involvement in 2006 and beyond, not today.

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Since you think that is inoffensive try showing up at your employment
with such a facial design with simple paint and watch the reactions.

Probably not good (I'm talking about formal meetings, not daily "cubical"
activity). Would it be worse, however, than if I showed
up wearing skin-tight shorts?

A large part of presentation standards is whether one is showing respect
for
ones co-workers, customers, etc. Sloppiness or offensiveness in
presentation
is interpreted as a lack of respect, taken in the context of the
interaction.
The question is whether Clinger's choice fails this respect standard. To
me,
it does not, but it's clear the criteria for this judgement are hardly
objective.

I think that women who've shown up in skin tight shorts have been shown the
door in professional businesses as well.

Athletes main value to sponsors is in their PR value. Someone with a fright
wig or a Queeqeg facial design simply is useless in that capacity.

Dan Connelly d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

..."cubical"...

http://tinyurl.com/4q5es

One of my all time favorite threads, and an all-time favorite post too.

-Gerard

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Interesting views on Clinger's tattoo:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7531.0.html

Suppressing inoffensive personal expression is generally a mistake, I

feel. I

Quoted message said:

am surprised at the magnitude of the support for the team position.

Dan

I agree. I am not in support of rich folks that want to dictate the working
mans artistic expressions. A few other points: it was the fear based
initiative of the team directors, not Webcor. Shouldn't they have checked
with webcor first? (although I'm just going on info from the article and
maybe behind the scenes Webcor did object). Also, to all those that seem to
think such a display is bad for business, less controvercial things than
this are routinely used to generate publicity/revenue. You never know, a
call against artistic expression could be worse for their image. It should
be.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dan Connelly d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

Tom Kunich said:

Since you think that is inoffensive try showing up at your employment
with such a facial design with simple paint and watch the reactions.

Probably not good (I'm talking about formal meetings, not daily "cubical"
activity). Would it be worse, however, than if I showed
up wearing skin-tight shorts?

A large part of presentation standards is whether one is showing respect
for ones co-workers, customers, etc. Sloppiness or offensiveness in
presentation is interpreted as a lack of respect, taken in the context
of the interaction. The question is whether Clinger's choice fails this
respect standard. To me, it does not, but it's clear the criteria for
this judgement are hardly objective.

Dan

I don't see how Clinger's ink even comes close to failing what you
describe as the "respect standard", especially if you were considering his
teammates. It might be a bit of a distraction at first, but eventually it
wouldn't make any difference to anyone. I think Webcor overreacted, but I'm
sort of not too surprised by that. To me, if he wins races, then he's doing
his job. Times change: a few years ago, people would get all wigged out by
a tat on a shoulder. Now people don't even bat an eye at full sleeves (or
much more), except to be curious at what the art actually is. Like you
mentioned, Dan, there are things he *could* have done that truly would be
offensive. I don't think this falls into that category by a long way.

I do still think that David Clinger should have thought about it a
little more before committing. Because that's exactly what a facial moko
is: a committment. He should have tried to secure a personal sponsorship
from a sunblock company. Getting a faded tat touched up is a real drag.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?