|
|
Post by huskersjudy on Sept 28, 2022 12:24:31 GMT -5
Can we get back talking about Nebraska Volleyball?
|
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Sept 28, 2022 12:27:30 GMT -5
Why is a personal matter: because many company’s, teams, universities have guidelines/rules on this kind of , what you called orivate matters, see Boston Celtics, 1996 Womens Olympic Team, example, example,example….. Almost all of those examples are superior/subordinate relatinships. Not the case here. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyaudience on Sept 28, 2022 12:28:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Sept 28, 2022 12:32:26 GMT -5
Well said but i would add that anyone coaching a diverse group should have guidelines and penalty’s for operating outside guidelines: my thinking is that fraternizing between staff would be not tolerated. And would be reason to remove one or both from the staff for violating said standards. Trying to prohibit relationships between consenting adult employees is a formula for failure. Yes it is often disruptive, but these things happen. Firing one is typically not lawful based on equal opportunity laws, and firing both possibly not lawful either. Also firing both is often more disruptive than not firing either. Especially when no workplace harassment is involved. Is it disruptive? Sometimes, depending upon circumstance. Just another human nature thing we a have to co-exist with. I dont know where you work: but a fraternizing policy is pretty standard operating procedure these days: Here is general idea: Businesses create company fraternization policies (also known as dating policies or non-fraternization policies) to ensure a safe and professional work environment among employees. Because they spend the majority of their workweek together, there is a chance that work relationships may develop into romantic relationships. For this reason, company policies should include specific language regarding fraternization. And they usually have penalties for violating which often include termination! |
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Sept 28, 2022 12:35:51 GMT -5
Well said but i would add that anyone coaching a diverse group should have guidelines and penalty’s for operating outside guidelines: my thinking is that fraternizing between staff would be not tolerated. And would be reason to remove one or both from the staff for violating said standards. Only if that's part of employee standards a priori. That's why companies have an employee handbook. To lay out the rules of this type of thing. Many companies only have an issues if it's a superior/subordinate relationship. Both Reyes and Hunter are assistent coaches and neither reports directly to the other. It's much less likely (but no impossible) that it's forbidden when it's two people at equivalent levels. And if you try to set those standards after the fact and then remove someone for violating standards"that were never explicitly stated up front, that's grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. I dont know what they are : but the University of Nebraska we are sure has non-fraternization policies: and so to does the athletic department even if Cook doesnt have any for his team or staff! |
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Sept 28, 2022 12:41:10 GMT -5
Only if that's part of employee standards a priori. That's why companies have an employee handbook. To lay out the rules of this type of thing. Many companies only have an issues if it's a superior/subordinate relationship. Both Reyes and Hunter are assistent coaches and neither reports directly to the other. It's much less likely (but no impossible) that it's forbidden when it's two people at equivalent levels. And if you try to set those standards after the fact and then remove someone for violating standards"that were never explicitly stated up front, that's grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. I dont know what they are : but the University of Nebraska we are sure has non-fraternization policies: and so to does the athletic department even if Cook doesnt have any for his team or staff! University of Nebraska forbids relationships between faculty and students but not between those who have non-supervisor roles with each other. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan4321 on Sept 28, 2022 12:48:26 GMT -5
Great picture. Thank you for posting. Bekka and Whitney often have great hits over the blockers and it is awesome to see. GBR! |
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Sept 28, 2022 12:48:35 GMT -5
Assuming this is true, unless there was a conflict between the two of them, it probably isn’t disruptive at all for players. 20 yr olds move from drama to drama pretty darn quick. And most of them have S/O's, and have gone through breakups or other relationship drama. They aren't snowflakes like the rumor monger wants to insinuate. Well two weeks ago the concern was they may be thrown off due to their boyfriends coach being fired. Insert eye roll |
|
|
|
Post by ted_heise on Sept 28, 2022 12:52:36 GMT -5
Interesting (to me at least) to think about the gap between meeting legal requirements for protecting confidential employee information and “sweeping things under the rug.”
|
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Sept 28, 2022 13:00:34 GMT -5
Well then it just comes down to wether JC or athletic department have there own policy. Cook should have some kind if guidelines to avoid drama in the ranks. So right now it appears that its salacious gossip and fodder for the page 6 crowd! ps: i saw some poster say: i guess its not rumor since they have been removed?  I was confused by that comment? |
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Sept 28, 2022 13:01:24 GMT -5
Interesting (to me at least) to think about the gap between meeting legal requirements for protecting confidential employee information and “sweeping things under the rug.” There is no gap. You always protect confidential information and it's only considered "sweeping things under the rug" by gossip-mongers who think it's their right to know all the juicy details. The idea of sweeping things under the rug should only appy to issues where disclosure is clearly in the public interest but then covered up (eg MSU and PSU). |
|
|
|
Post by hornshouse23 on Sept 28, 2022 13:03:15 GMT -5
Interesting (to me at least) to think about the gap between meeting legal requirements for protecting confidential employee information and “sweeping things under the rug.” There is no gap. You always protect confidential information and it's only considered "sweeping things under the rug" by gossip-mongers who think it's their right to know all the juicy details. The idea of sweeping things under the rug should only appy to issues where disclosure is clearly in the public interest but then covered up (eg MSU and PSU). Well said. As much as Cook likes to spew from the mouth, what was he supposed to do in this situation? Go on his podcast and out their relationship? A very odd standard fo expectation there. |
|
|
|
Post by katn on Sept 28, 2022 13:04:25 GMT -5
I’ve heard it from multiple sources now too. It happened. My love for both volleyball and soap operas is now wrapped up in a box with a big red bow. this 👆 lmao |
|
|
|
Post by ted_heise on Sept 28, 2022 13:32:50 GMT -5
Interesting (to me at least) to think about the gap between meeting legal requirements for protecting confidential employee information and “sweeping things under the rug.” There is no gap. You always protect confidential information and it's only considered "sweeping things under the rug" by gossip-mongers who think it's their right to know all the juicy details. The idea of sweeping things under the rug should only appy to issues where disclosure is clearly in the public interest but then covered up (eg MSU and PSU). Exactly my point. |
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Sept 28, 2022 13:44:38 GMT -5
I can confirm that it would be dumb af for any single solitary person of an organization to ever say any solitary single piece of information about an employee's private life out loud for any reason at all that is not in the interest of the public, ESPECIALLY when it involves confidential info about them AND another person employed by the aforementioned organization.
Y'all need Jesus.
|
|
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/W34E6WUZKNAYPJECX7XWMXTMRM.JPG)
I was confused by that comment? 
