Arrowhead anxiety: Turnover off the field causes concern

[Dr. Gigglepants]

Secrecy, intimidation, fear and a watchful eye have become hallmarks of working for the Chiefs, say some current and former employees.

BY KENT BABB THE KANSAS CITY STAR

Todd Haley walked into the public relations office at Chiefs headquarters on a Thursday in early December. Four days before he was fired as the team’s coach, he wanted to talk about what life was like inside this organization. But he didn’t know who else might be listening.

continued...

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/14...nover-off.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This article goes into a lot of detail on the changes that came into effect with the Pioli regime. Sounds like a shitty ass place to work now.

[chief52]

Originally Posted by unlurking

Re-read the article, then check the legal requirements again.

As I stated earlier, one party MUST be informed that their conversations are being recorded. Businesses that do so inform their employees in writing and 99% of the time require an employee to sign a statement that they have been notified of this fact. It is illegal to monitor conversations without either party being informed.

The article clearly states that Haley thinks his personal cell phone is being monitored. It also states that the Chiefs have denied that they are monitoring phone calls.

Obviously the Chiefs cannot legally record Haley's personal cell phone, and if the Chiefs denied they were recording office phones somebody would have claimed that they signed an ROB acknowledging the fact that their calls were being recorded.

EDIT:
I can see where I might have been unclear in the previous post you quoted. I should have stated explicitly in that post (as I did in follow ups), that it is is illegal to record conversations without at least one party consent. The comments about people "fearing" they were being recorded in the article means that they obviously were not. By law they would have to be informed of that fact. Since they didn't know if they were being recorded, it stands to reason that they were not. Unless you believe the Chiefs were willing to commit federal crimes.

I do not know the law, but I know my conversations on the work phone are recorded and I have never signed anything. We all just know it is recorded I guess, but there has never been paper work or an explanation of it. We can hear a beep periodically when we talk. Yes, the conversations have been pulled back up.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Does this cloak and dagger stuff work in the NFL?

Yes, if Tom Brady is the one keeping all the secrets.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by -King-

Wouldn't it speak even more volumes if it was pioli that did the interviews and not the employees? If it was a big deal like the article states it is, then employees would not be made available.
Posted via Mobile Device

It would be hard to believe that those current employees weren't rigorously coached. I don't take much stock in what they have to say.

[Okie_Apparition]

I could care less, If I tried

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Okie_Apparition

I could care less, If I tried

So it doesn't bother you that Arrowhead is building a reputation for being a horrible place to work, which could very much limit the quality of the front office and coaching staff working for the team we cheer for?

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by Okie_Apparition

I could care less, If I tried

Yes, you could care less if you tried.

[Okie_Apparition]

Bob Gretz was paid to run his site by Carl Peterson...
Give that some thought

[Brock]

Originally Posted by ChiefsandO'sfan

Haley will be a HC in 2 years.

[Mr. Laz]

i see a lot of words with almost zero proof of anything at all.

employee turnover after a long tenured GM is gone? No duh.

tension about getting fired after said GM change? No duh.

Pioli is overdoing the micromanaging in his first GM job away from Belichek? no suprise, he's insecure and trying to prove himself.

Haley is a paranoid maniac? no doubt. On a side note Haley has worked with him before. He shouldn't be surprised.

Pioli yelled at someone for parking in his spot? He's sort of a dick ... so?!?

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by Okie_Apparition

Bob Gretz was paid to run his site by Carl Peterson...
Give that some thought

Who is Piolis snitch on CP? I'm sure he has one

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by unlurking

Lot of exaggeration and hyperbole here. First off, there's no way the Chiefs could legally tap any phones in the office, let alone personal cell phones. All they can do is check logs, which include the numbers and dates/times on the office phones. It's not legal to secretly record conversations in the building either. Of course they can read company email and track internet usage as well. This happens (or can happen) in most of corporate America, so why would an NFL team be any different?

I'm not saying Pioli/Hunt aren't mad scientist, evil whack-job, Nazis. I'm just saying that this article doesn't have enough legitimate information in it that can't be argues away as he said/she said or disgruntled employee complaints. Pioli sounds like a micro-managing asshole who I'd never want to work for, but I've known people like that to do some amazing things. Although they usually burn out quickly.

I'm sure what they did was within legal bounds, probably a few areas where they stretched that. Sometimes maybe a little too far (e.g. they knew Spygate was wrong years ago, but did it anyway). But yeah, they probably operated with the law in mind.

The problem isn't whether they operated within legal boundaries. The problem is that they've extended their power in ways very few organizations do. This is the first I've ever heard of that kind of abuse of workplace privacy. Most companies will monitor e-mails and internet usage, but only raise an issue if there is a major red flag. They let a lot of things slide.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I'm sure what they did was within legal bounds, probably a few areas where they stretched that. Sometimes maybe a little too far (e.g. they knew Spygate was wrong years ago, but did it anyway). But yeah, they probably operated with the law in mind.

The problem isn't whether they operated within legal boundaries. The problem is that they've extended their power in ways very few organizations do. This is the first I've ever heard of that kind of abuse of workplace privacy. Most companies will monitor e-mails and internet usage, but only raise an issue if there is a major red flag. They let a lot of things slide.

only problem is that you have no idea/proof that they have done anything

[FloridaMan88]

Here is the bottom line for the homers on this board rushing to Fat Scott's defense...

The Chiefs WINS/LOSSES record under Fat Scott is a mediocre 21-28 in 3 seasons, including 0-1 in the playoffs. His first head coaching hire in KC has already been a failure. His biggest addition to the franchise, Cassel, has been a disaster.

Based on the level of accountability Clark is apparently holding everyone else in the franchise to, why does Clark still claim that he believes in Fat Scott?

Answer: Clark is a dickless piece of garbage who doesn't care about winning.

That is the bottom line.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsfan50/50

Here is the bottom line for the homers on this board rushing to Fat Scott's defense...

The Chiefs WINS/LOSSES record under Fat Scott is a mediocre 21-28 in 3 seasons, including 0-1 in the playoffs. His first head coaching hire in KC has already been a failure. His biggest addition to the franchise, Cassel, has been a disaster.

Based on the level of accountability Clark is apparently holding everyone else in the franchise to, why does Clark still claim that he believes in Fat Scott?

Answer: Clark is a dickless piece of garbage who doesn't care about winning.

That is the bottom line.

Really can't argue with this.

[DRU]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

So it doesn't bother you that Arrowhead is building a reputation for being a horrible place to work, which could very much limit the quality of the front office and coaching staff working for the team we cheer for?

This story could have been spun in any direction. He's got just as many people saying there's nothing to this as he does people griping about it, but he chose to focus on the negative interviews so that he'd actually have a story. Otherwise, what would he have had other than what it is: people fired, therefore upset, and plenty of others still working and just fine with it. Hmmm...not much of a story there.

Anybody that takes the media's word about this sort of thing and uses it to base important decisions about their own life probably isn't somebody we'd want here in the first place.