Seattle Times seeking Kraken/NHL reporter

Portnoy led a drive that raised money for the player. It was a super positive thing that still brings tears to the player's eyes.



And then ...

Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy threatens to sue Vice over ‘lies and slander’

Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy threatened to sue Vice, claiming the liberal website lied and reported that he mocked a female hockey player who suffered a career-ending injury when he actually helped raise money and awareness for her cause.

Portnoy posted an "emergency press conference" video on social media Wednesday that detailed his side of the situation.​

 

Means if it’s performance related it is usually progressive discipline.

 

If everyone on Twitter whose mental maturity is equivalent to or greater than that of a four-year-old just didn't interact with or mention Barstool Sports, their lives would be much easier.

(That's not directed at Songbird, who was answering a question, just general life advice)

 

Having a tangential connection to the paralyzed hockey player, Ive always felt it was really shitty she got dragged into this thing between Portnoy and Ingemi and by extension the online minions. Kids been through quite enough

 

In some states it comes down to whether the company wants to contest it.

 

Can we agree that the Times put in a crapton of time and money in making the hire originally? If we can, can we agree that the Times probably did not WANT to release her – including also for all of the reasons Geoff Baker mentioned about the timing of the decision?

As for “fired without warning,” I’ll start by saying, again, that I doubt the Times wanted to fire her. Could the “without warning” have come from a place of poor self-awareness, such as if a supervisor mentioned several issues about performance but included a, “We can make this work,” or identified portions of her body of work that were encouraging, all that was heard was the positive statement?

I doubt a supervisor would say, “If these things don’t improve within x weeks, we’re going to release you,” but a person attuned to receiving and acting on feedback probably could have grasped the way his/her performance was being regarded – if there were problems. I’ve had individual meetings with people who reported to me, and sometimes their understanding of what I was saying made me wonder if I was speaking Farsi.

I’ll argue again the Times didn’t want to fire her. If there were issues with her performance and she had reached her six-month term, she might have qualified for an improvement plan – and maybe she didn’t qualify for one before the six-month term. If things were headed to an improvement plan after six months, maybe the Times decided to cut bait beforehand. (I’ve heard improvement plans suck for all involved, so I can see management doing this.)

 

Things might have changed, but I've heard of companies who did not, as a strictly followed policy, attempt to audit a job applicant's social media.

 

Everyone seems to beating around some sort of proverbial bush here. One of those things where what’s not being said is perhaps more interesting

 

Good for her. If she were that toxic, she wouldn't have found a job in three weeks.

 

LOL

 

Right, because the content farm that is The Hockey News (since it's purchase by Maven) wouldn't just hire a social media personality who has a following for the clicks, regardless of toxicity?