Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
I have never been a professional hockey player, but I have a friend that was. You are foolish if you don't think that pressure is applied, either directly or indirectly to players to fight.
Flash posted a good comment. I would add to it. What if the employer knew or ought to have known that handling of the chemical could have detrimental affects to the employee, yet didn't stop or at least take significant steps to reduce exposure. What if the employee believed, as a result of actions/comments (direct or implied) during work reviews by the employer that handling the chemicals was part of their job description, when in fact it wasn't.
The work Flash noted, has a recourse if they are let go from their job and they believe it is incorrect or unjust. A hockey player does not have recourse.
Either directly or indirectly the NHL, their teams and staff are "forcing" some players to fight. If fighting was a requirement of being in the league, and a part of the job description why don't all payers fight?
|
No, they aren't forcing players to fight. Do they imply to them that if they want a spot on this team, that is what is expected from time to time? Absolutely.
The choice to actually drop the gloves though is no one's but the player's. If they didn't want to, there are plenty of other lines of work or other leagues they could participate in. Use our friend Bob Hartley as an example. Scott Parker has accused him in the past of telling him in in certain games that if he didn't want to fight, he could smell the chocolate in Hershey (IE. We need to fight here, if not, enjoy the AHL). Scott Parker enjoys living the high lifr and making 700K a year, so he decided to drop the gloves. No one forced him to do that. He made that choice to continue having a roster spot. He could have just as easily not fought, and accepted a spot in Hershey.