This is A level irony.
- atibus

Loved your posts today. It's nice to read something written with confidence but without arrogance.

If they DONT think the environment caused or contributed bto the cancer they most definitely would NOT want to contribute to the bills.

That could be seen as tacit admission to guilt and would open themselves up to scrutiny in the future for any employee with similar diagnoses.

I think they already know exactly what happened and they're going to settle.
- DrMidnite

I agree and then it will be about just how Mcrossin wants to push it because I think it's more about just getting their medical expenses paid. They also want to bring awareness about this so it doesn't happen to someone else.

This is rich. You accept all of these claims against the team as true and then moralize about the team's failure to take immediate action to rectify this situation and someone who says that these are claims for now and nothing more is "too far down the line." If you think that your workplace is safe and that you have adequately protected your employees, don't you think that you should defend your actions? It seems that your position is posited on the contradiction that it is "unethical" to defend that you have acted "ethically."
- iamscore2day

What you're describing here is an ethical dilemma. I don't know how to say it more clearly.

As the other poster said, you have supplied no standards. An ethical dilemma is not present based on a few random opinions of a few posters on the internet. Again, you've ignored the part of accepted ethical standards in the definition of an ethical dilemma.
- MJL

Scroll back up and read where I posted commonly accepted ethical standards. The first in any business is the health and safety of its employees.

Scroll back up and read where I posted commonly accepted ethical standards. The first in any business is the health and safety of its employees.
- atibus

I read it. You fail to realize two points. It has not been determined factually that the Flyers didn't properly protect their employees. So where is the ethical dilemma there? The only ethical responsibility related to that is for the employer to provide the employee with a health care plan. The Flyers have met that obligation. Again, until it is litigated that the Flyers failed to provide for the healthy and safety of it's employees, there is no ethical dilemma present. As the other poster pointed out, how is it unethical for the Flyers to protect themselves if they feel they have acted ethically and protected their employees adequately?

I read it. You fail to realize two points. It has not been determined factually that the Flyers didn't properly protect their employees. So where is the ethical dilemma there? The only ethical responsibility related to that is for the employer to provide the employee with a health care plan. The Flyers have met that obligation. Again, until it is litigated that the Flyers failed to provide for the healthy and safety of it's employees, there is no ethical dilemma present. As the other poster pointed out, how is it unethical for the Flyers to protect themselves if they feel they have acted ethically and protected their employees adequately?
- MJL

You're back to litigating this. The ethical dilemma happens before it made it to the point of a lawsuit. It's quite literally a business case studied by all MBAs (which the Flyers have a lot of) about how to approach these types of decisions.

There is a quite clear argument to be made that health insurance in this case is inadequate, that the team acted in bad faith, and circumstances demanded more from business leaders in this case.

You speak often about failed leadership in this particular organization. Most specifically with the product on the ice. And I agree - it has no direction, no identity, and no heart. And this is a textbook failure of leadership inside of an organization. One that could have with some small (relatively) amount of money rallied around quite senior employees and made the situation right within commonly accepted business ethical standards. Do all companies do this? No, not at all. Some do.

Does it mean they're evil? No. It just shows me that, like the product on the ice, the business leadership of this organization has achieved "uncaring corporate" status and will do things that while legal and within their rights, are the wrong thing ethically.

What you're describing here is an ethical dilemma. I don't know how to say it more clearly.
- atibus

But I have claimed that your professed ethical view is wrong. Doesn't your logic mean that you are now facing an ethical dilemma too? I certainly feel an ethical dilemma from your rejection of my view. Your logic seems less than clear or consistent, if you see what I mean.

But I have claimed that your professed ethical view is wrong. Doesn't your logic mean that you are now facing an ethical dilemma too? I certainly feel an ethical dilemma from your rejection of my view. Your logic seems less than clear or consistent, if you see what I mean.
- iamscore2day

So you've made a decision then when presented with two possible outcomes? And there are two sides to this that each have an interpretation of what is right in the context of how a business should act? Congratulations, you and I just participated in an ethical dilemma.

You're back to litigating this. The ethical dilemma happens before it made it to the point of a lawsuit. It's quite literally a business case studied by all MBAs (which the Flyers have a lot of) about how to approach these types of decisions.

There is a quite clear argument to be made that health insurance in this case is inadequate, that the team acted in bad faith, and circumstances demanded more from business leaders in this case.

You speak often about failed leadership in this particular organization. Most specifically with the product on the ice. And I agree - it has no direction, no identity, and no heart. And this is a textbook failure of leadership inside of an organization. One that could have with some small (relatively) amount of money rallied around quite senior employees and made the situation right within commonly accepted business ethical standards. Do all companies do this? No, not at all. Some do.

Does it mean they're evil? No. It just shows me that, like the product on the ice, the business leadership of this organization has achieved "uncaring corporate" status and will do things that while legal and within their rights, are the wrong thing ethically.
- atibus

I actually just wanted to point out that you have quite exceeded your "quite" quota with this post. These many "quites" help reinforce the sanctimonious tone but utterly fail to conceal the many bromide-like prevarications throughout this post.

Did you use to post here as "PT20?" That is the last time we have had so many pretentious and off-base assertions in a single day that I can remember for a long time.

So you've made a decision then when presented with two possible outcomes? And there are two sides to this that each have an interpretation of what is right in the context of how a business should act? Congratulations, you and I just participated in an ethical dilemma.
- atibus

TBH, I have never had an ethical dilemma raising the BS flag on things like this. Cheers.

I actually just wanted to point out that you have quite exceeded your "quite" quota with this post. These many "quites" help reinforce the sanctimonious tone but utterly fail to conceal the many bromide-like prevarications throughout this post.

Did you use to post here as "PT20?" That is the last time we have had so many pretentious and off-base assertions in a single day that I can remember for a long time.
- iamscore2day

I've been here a long time so I know who he is

And thanks for going straight to personal attacks on character when you don't like the way it is going for you. One of the best logical fallacies. It's quite appreciated

I've been here a long time so I know who he is

And thanks for going straight to personal attacks on character when you don't like the way it is going for you. One of the best logical fallacies. It's quite appreciated
- atibus

That is an odd remark. Not sure that you really understand the point. Plus, I focused on statements, not the person. Nice try, though.

send lawyers, guns, and money- the schit has hit the fan

Incorrect. I'm debating in a debate about whether the Flyers should pay the medical expenses of the two parties that the Flyers have met their responsibility of the accepted ethical standard in that context of providing their employees with a medical coverage plan and are not obligated further. Not ethically, morally or legally at this point in time.

I stopped reading at that point.
- MJL

They shouldnt do a thing until this goes to court.

If they pay anything toward the costs incurred over what the parties' insurance covers, even in good faith, it opens up to future lawsuits. The affected parties may be ok with x amount to cover, pass and then the families initiate a wrong death, hazardous work, negligence suit

I read it. You fail to realize two points. It has not been determined factually that the Flyers didn't properly protect their employees. So where is the ethical dilemma there? The only ethical responsibility related to that is for the employer to provide the employee with a health care plan. The Flyers have met that obligation. Again, until it is litigated that the Flyers failed to provide for the healthy and safety of it's employees, there is no ethical dilemma present. As the other poster pointed out, how is it unethical for the Flyers to protect themselves if they feel they have acted ethically and protected their employees adequately?
- MJL

I don’t think he ever said the Flyers decision was unethical. I don’t think he ever said he felt it was the right or wrong decision. Just that there was a decision to make.

That is an odd remark. Not sure that you really understand the point. Plus, I focused on statements, not the person. Nice try, though.
- iamscore2day

Sure, you didn't like the tone or the specific words. You made fun of a repetition of a word... to diminish my status. You likened me to someone who, to you, isn't worth the conversation in an attempt to diminish what I'm putting forward. So yeah, I totally got what you were doing and I'm seeing through your attempt to brush it off. It's cool, it's the Internet

16 points in 55 games, some things to improve on
- ClaudeFather

So? It was his rookie season on the 3rd line. B.Schenn had 18 points in 54 games his rookie season too. Frost is older and has some catching up to do but he also missed a full year of development

You're back to litigating this. The ethical dilemma happens before it made it to the point of a lawsuit. It's quite literally a business case studied by all MBAs (which the Flyers have a lot of) about how to approach these types of decisions.

There is a quite clear argument to be made that health insurance in this case is inadequate, that the team acted in bad faith, and circumstances demanded more from business leaders in this case.


- atibus

That's a hypothetical. Secondly, even if the healthcare is inadequate, as long as it meets ethical standards in the marketplace. There is no ethical dilemma. Again, you are ignoring the part about accepted ethical standards.
You can't make a factual argument that the team acted in bad faith without knowing the facts. Again, offering no standard of measurement and are offering generalizations. By what standard are you judging that business leaders in this case should've done more? Until that is litigated, you have no argument.

So you've made a decision then when presented with two possible outcomes? And there are two sides to this that each have an interpretation of what is right in the context of how a business should act? Congratulations, you and I just participated in an ethical dilemma.
- atibus

You're repeatedly characterizing a debate from two different viewpoints as an ethical dilemma. It is not.

send lawyers, guns, and money- the schit has hit the fan
- hello it's me 2050

Awesome! I just don’t go home with waitresses anymore. The ravages of time and all that.

They shouldnt do a thing until this goes to court.

If they pay anything toward the costs incurred over what the parties' insurance covers, even in good faith, it opens up to future lawsuits. The affected parties may be ok with x amount to cover, pass and then the families initiate a wrong death, hazardous work, negligence suit
- THE BLACK HAND

Pretty obvious.

Sure, you didn't like the tone or the specific words. You made fun of a repetition of a word... to diminish my status. You likened me to someone who, to you, isn't worth the conversation in an attempt to diminish what I'm putting forward. So yeah, I totally got what you were doing and I'm seeing through your attempt to brush it off. It's cool, it's the Internet
- atibus

All I can say is wow. You have a literally inundated the site with sanctimonious, condescending posts belittling other people for not getting the “ethical dilemma.“ Now you are complaining that someone making fun of your posts is “diminishing you.“ That’s hysterical.

Frankly I dont see Fletcher doing much this offseason.

I really dont feel like they are looking to Trade Provorov, Sanheim, York or Konecny. Fletcher appeared to be high on all them. He also seemed impressed with Tanner who had just returned from hip surgery. I really dont see many players he would try to move

C: Couturier, Hayes and Frost. Tanner will likely be the 4th
Wing: Konecny, Farabee, JVR, Atkinson, Laughton, Lindblom, Cates, Tippett and Brink
D: Provorov, Ellis(Maybe), Sanheim, York, Ristolainen

There isnt much to move if Fletcher is serious about getting younger, faster and more talented.

The players that fit what Fletcher said is

Couturier
Hayes
JVR
Atkinson
Laughton

What also peaked my interest is he mentioned that it was hard to add a #1C and Top pair D in the offseason. This makes me think Couturier might be on the block

I also have a feeling Laughton gets moved.

Frankly I dont see Fletcher doing much this offseason.

I really dont feel like they are looking to Trade Provorov, Sanheim, York or Konecny. Fletcher appeared to be high on all them. He also seemed impressed with Tanner who had just returned from hip surgery. I really dont see many players he would try to move

C: Couturier, Hayes and Frost. Tanner will likely be the 4th
Wing: Konecny, Farabee, JVR, Atkinson, Laughton, Lindblom, Cates, Tippett and Brink
D: Provorov, Ellis(Maybe), Sanheim, York, Ristolainen

There isnt much to move if Fletcher is serious about getting younger, faster and more talented.

The players that fit what Fletcher said is

Couturier
Hayes
JVR
Atkinson
Laughton

What also peaked my interest is he mentioned that it was hard to add a #1C and Top pair D in the offseason. This makes me think Couturier might be on the block

I also have a feeling Laughton gets moved.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Fletcher is not going to stand pat. He is going to do what he said. He is going to be aggressive in free agency and with trades. Somebody is getting moved.

Fletcher saying it's hard to add a #1C makes you think Couturier might be traded? LOL. That indicates the opposite.

Fletcher is not going to stand pat. He is going to do what he said. He is going to be aggressive in free agency and with trades. Somebody is getting moved.

Fletcher saying it's hard to add a #1C makes you think Couturier might be traded? LOL. That indicates the opposite.
- MJL

Yes because it sends a message that he possibly doesnt think Couturier is a #1C and is looking for one.