Originally Posted by Liddellianenko
Of course Dana can run his business however the hell he wants, as long as it's legal.
We as fans are free to comment on it however the hell we want. It's not co
The discussion in this thread was whether he was being compassionate or "nice". He wasn't. Cutting the guy under his personal situation was the least compassionate thing Dana could have done, especially considering Hallman's been on a decent run lately winning 3 out of his last 4, and considering many other chronic weight missers have been given multiple chances.
Of course it made business sense to cut the guy, he wasn't a star. RareNaked's response was never about what was practical or moneymaking, it was to those people praising Dana for his "niceness" in giving a guy a check and booting him on to the street, for good according to what he said even if you claim otherwise, while maintaining double standards. Nothing nice about it.
Practical and a good business decision, sure probably, but guys on here were preaching about Saint Dana and that's kinda stupid.
Giving a guy a paycheck he didnt earn is nice and then letting him go FOR JUSTIFIED reasons is neither nice or not nice. It just is what it is.
They could have done the "neutral" thing which was
Kick him out (justified) and not give him a paycheck. (Since he didnt earn it)
Which is probably what every other company would do. They wouldnt even give him the time to explain his personal problem... they dont want to hear it.
Dennis Hallman deserved to go. How can you guys argue that kicking a guy who deserves to be kicked is "Not Nice"??? Its completely neutral. If a guy deserves to be let go then he deserves to be let go. Its not Nice or Not Nice.
But giving him money that he didnt earn to help him out on a reasonable level
Keeping him around would be "nice" also but it doesnt mean that not keeping him around is mean or something.