Alyson Walker

[El Diego]

4 minutes ago, DeRo_Is_King said:

It's shitty, but that's how a lot of employers operate. There are legal, HR, and financial best practices that exist to minimize legal risk and create efficiencies. Unless the laws are changed to prevent employers from acting shitty, they will act shitty as needed. 

I don't disagree with you at all on this point, I just don't think it absolves a (potential) employee from their actions

[Cheeta]

Rotten luck all around.  I mean really, really, rotten.

I'm sure Mrs/Ms Walker has conducted the arc of her career quite by the book, up to this point, and didn't withdraw lightly.   She knows how this could look if her reasons aren't exceptional and the impact that would have on her career.   I'm going to guess they are pretty exceptional reasons.

Everyone knows someone who's life was turned on its head in an instant.  Everyone.  For "personal" or "health" reasons or most likely, both.  Not sure anyone said she's the one who's sick.

And nobody will ever give the CSA a break on this, even if it's something out of their control.  Be disappointed if we did.

The soccer gods hate Canada.

Best wishes to Alyson Walker & family.

[DeRo_Is_King]

7 minutes ago, El Diego said:

I don't disagree with you at all on this point, I just don't think it absolves a (potential) employee from their actions

I get it. Employees also need to be accountable. As far as Alyson is concerned, though, I just don't see this as an action that deserves consequence (i.e. payment for damages, etc.), especially if her backing out was truly for health reasons. 

[SF]

3 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

If you don't have shareholders, if no one is ever at risk of losing money, if you really have no one overlooking what you do, if accountability is relatively low, it's an easy and even soft general manager or middling CEO equivalent job. 

Being hired to run any company whatsoever providing services or selling goods, from shoe polish to fertilizer to corporate communication to interior design, is infinitely more difficult. Much less gratifying. And much higher risk, subject to volatile markets and other intangibles. 

The CSA is not burdened by supply chain, wars end up simplifying things, a market crash is irrelevant, there are no hostile takeovers. I'd say it's cushy. I'd say the same about Canada Basketball or Rowing or Rugby. No one even looks at the General Secretary if a team bombs out in a competition, they just cruise through it. 

What you are describing in terms of communication, if you are at all used to communication, is not stressful at all.  Or let's say it is just intense, hard work, with a certain demand on quality and efficiency. 

It is an important job, but I would say it is far less important that head of the CSA, or being on the board of the CSA. If those people get it together, your job running the organisation would be even smoother.

The CSA is definitely at risk of losing money. In relative terms it lost a lot of it last year - it’s right there in its audited financial statements. 
 

It’s also at risk of running out of money - happens to NFPs all the time. Literally all the time. 
 

All this aside - I suspect one of the real issues here is that hiring for this job seems exceedingly difficult. We all want a superstar (even if we disagree on how complicated the job is), but the capacity for competitive remuneration in the superstar universe is severely lacking. 
 

Anyway, the whole thing truly blows for Canadian soccer. It seems the CSA simply can’t do anything right - signing bad 20 year business deals, teams going on strike, coaches quitting, executives being turned over for endless reasons….so frustrating. 

[SpursFlu]

CSA is not at risk of running out of money

Unfortunately, in the eye's of some the CSA is at risk of making money 

Edited January 24 by SpursFlu

[Ansem]

Hard to believe the CSA would start over from scratch when they can just appoint their #2 or #3 choice. Starting over would be really stupid

[An Observer]

3 hours ago, Ansem said:

Hard to believe the CSA would start over from scratch when they can just appoint their #2 or #3 choice. Starting over would be really stupid

That’s the logical choice but It depends whether their number 2 or 3 are still available and/or whether they still want to keep their names in especially if they view the fact they were not number one choice as damaging their ability to lead out of the gate. It’s possible the final decision was quite political with different camps supporting different candidates and a number 2 or 3 choice would need to be assured they have the full support of the opposing camps before agreeing to step in. 

[An Observer]

13 hours ago, DeRo_Is_King said:

Yeah. No way we're agreeing on this one. Both have a right to terminate an agreement, subject to the notice terms in the employment contract. 

Edit: Need to add that you may not like what Alyson did, but employers retract offers and fire employees with no warning or reason all the time. I think it's a cause of much instability in the world. Employees need to protect themselves. 

Another thing: I've seen so many one-way, employer-favoured contracts with overkill termination clauses (and probationary clauses). Coupled with non-competes, non-solicitations, etc., you basically swear allegiance to an employer with no assurance of the same level of loyalty. That, in and of itself, is not healthy or a great way to start a relationship. But employers will try to sneak this stuff in, which erodes trust from the get-go. 

Again you do your due diligence and you think very hard about whether you even consider taking a job with such an organisation. Companies that have such a track record are generally well known for it in the industry and now you even have online sites like Glassdoor where you can dig round to get such info as how they treat their employees. It doesn’t mean that you can fuck all companies just because some companies treat their employees like shit. It would be like saying be rude to everyone as a few people may be or have been rude to you at some point.  Then again I think that is some people’s credo on here. 

[DeRo_Is_King]

1 hour ago, An Observer said:

Again you do your due diligence and you think very hard about whether you even consider taking a job with such an organisation. Companies that have such a track record are generally well known for it in the industry and now you even have online sites like Glassdoor where you can dig round to get such info as how they treat their employees. It doesn’t mean that you can fuck all companies just because some companies treat their employees like shit. It would be like saying be rude to everyone as a few people may be or have been rude to you at some point.  Then again I think that is some people’s credo on here. 

Not every employer, but many, include in their contracts the types of clauses I referred to. I think retracting offers is more of a rarity, but even after accepted, employers can change work terms. Look at the remote-work situation. They'll say it's hybrid and then tell you to come in four days a week until eventually it's 100 per cent in office again. 

I get what you're saying, @An Observer. It makes sense not to react before something has happened, but it's hard not to have your guard up. Glassdoor isn't foolproof and neither are those "Great-Place-to-Work" badges. 

[Obinna]

10 hours ago, DeRo_Is_King said:

Not every employer, but many, include in their contracts the types of clauses I referred to. I think retracting offers is more of a rarity, but even after accepted, employers can change work terms. Look at the remote-work situation. They'll say it's hybrid and then tell you to come in four days a week until eventually it's 100 per cent in office again. 

I get what you're saying, @An Observer. It makes sense not to react before something has happened, but it's hard not to have your guard up. Glassdoor isn't foolproof and neither are those "Great-Place-to-Work" badges. 

I think "word of mouth" is far more important and that's where having a network is important, professional and otherwise.

I find Glassdoor is nice just to confirm what you've already gleened from asking around and/or keeping your ears opened to what people in your industry are saying. 

Even with the hybrid thing, we should consider that different organizations (like those related to Software) are inherently set up to accomodate and stick to a hybrid schedule. That said, I don't agree with a company moving people back into the office in that fashion, but that speaks to the management and values of that company. I view it as a case-by-case thing.