King P
Legends Never Die
Cornette is inviting the smoke
So Tony is a bad manager for not forcing his employees to sit and hash things out with man that physically abused them?
This wasnt an argument this was a fight. He cant force these guys to do anything nor did they owe it to Tony OR Punk. Tony's problem wasnt firing Punk after that incident.
Also as a side note, why are we acting like Tony working with talent to appease them is something only Tony does? Vince let Shawn do it for half a decade. This shyt happens so why are people being weird about it now?
If it’s not AEW Hate,Joshi Hate, or Hate for just about anything he has no other contentFor somebody who hates stuff like AEW, The Elite, and hell even Russo. This cuck sure loves constantly talking about them on twitter and his podcast
Breh prior to Collision's launch, anytime there was reported traction towards CM Punk's return it was IMMEDIATELY followed up with a smear story by known elite stooge Meltzer. The shyt got hilarious at one point because you could literally count on any positive Punk story to be followed up with a hit piece from Dave. And leaking shyt to dirtsheets like rumors about Cabana getting fired because of Punk is how everything started in the first placeAdditionally, it's very funny that they'll said that TK is a poor manager for not reigning in the Bucks/Elite (when that hasn't been an issue since last year) but they won't criticize the actual poor managerial skills TK showed by not reigning in CM Punk at any point before he had to fire him.
Punk couldn’t take Jungle Boy Sneak dissing himi don't watch Aew like that and i don't who these non wwe guys are.
Was punk in da wrong for either situation?
and why did he beat em up over a disagreement about glass Please tell me there's more to it then that.
Prime Vince woulda had all these guys in check a long time ago
"Physically abuse them?" They had a fight and all got suspended for it and then came back.
Punk was out longer only due to injury.
So in answer to your question, Yes.
He is a bad manager.
Part of management is reconciling issues and addressing problems at the root, not when you feel like it.
You can't stick your head in the stand and let your employees do whatever they want. This is wrestling -- so unlike an office environment where I am dealing with people sniping back and forth -- let's say a fight does happen. Two top tier employees, for argument sake, an executive at the company and a high ranking manager. Both got into it physically.
An investigation takes place. HR is involved, we discover that OK, both parties were at fault with this. Now we have to keep working together because every person involved is critical to several projects that are huge cash cows for the company. Both parties agree to return to work after a suspension and sign an agreement to a certain code of conduct.
I'm in charge of all of these people. They've separately been allowed back to work, but now we have to have them on a project together. I call them up, I express we're putting together a joint meeting because we are on this project together and they have certain roles they are going to take over.
One of them decides at the last minute they are going to pull out because they are upset about what happened a year ago (even though it was resolved, everyone admitted or was found at fault and has since returned to the office).
Yes, the conversation would be:
"Are you able to work here, and do the minimum that is required of you for this job, or is this something you don't think you can do?"
You notice I didn't use the word feel. I don't care about their feelings. Their feelings are their own to manage. Now they have to decide, do they want to work on this project, or is this environment too much -- even though everyone was at fault -- perhaps I don't know, they have PTSD. Fine.
But that doesn't mean my work as a business has to be encumbered or interfered with. I have a right to decide, OK, you aren't going to fulfill x work, so I'm paying you less, since I'm not getting the agreed upon output (obviously pay structure is dependent, imagine this is a job where bonuses are received for projects taken on completed).
The key here is, both were at fault - both agreed to return to work - time has passed and now you're refusing to do your job because of your feelings. Well, that's not really my problem. You can't keep managing people based on their feelings. Either they get along together, or they get out. You don't let them dictate the pace of business. We all have requirements here we have to adhere to, I'm reportable to the CEO, you're reportable to me, your colleague's reportable to me, the company is reportable to the client - so if you can't do your job, which you said you could do, then I guess we're not going to be working with you anymore.
Again - the key is that all parties were at fault, the company remediated, the company allowed all employees back in -- this is just having a conversation/meeting. We're not asking you to carry his groceries and wash the guy's car. We can have a third party there to make you more comfortable.
All we're doing is discussing roles and responsibilities and how we're going to communicate and work together going forward knowing this will be a high stress assignment. You're telling me these near 40 and 40+ year old men can't even get on the phone or sit down and talk about how they are going to work together? Get out of here~! lol
And I've managed literally millions of dollars of business per year and large teams for companies. This is exactly how it would be done (I of course would be consulting with HR, but I've dealt with and seen some shyt and I'm just giving you the high levels). You don't let employees just run this and throw your hands in the air. Bad management.
Some of y'all definitely gotta be White, because only CACs find that passive aggressive trolling type shyt funny and only they have a problem when they're made to stand on what they said