Dallas Cowboys considering making all player comply with "lockouts" on their cars.

[Anti Federalist]

Was only a matter of time.

Coming soon to your place of employment.

And let's not engage in some fantasy about how "you'll just have to get another job".

That's as ridiculous as saying you'll just not fly, in the face of TSA tyranny as it expands from the airports into everything.

Once one employer does this, it will only be matter of time before everyone does, or it becomes law.

Liability is just one reason why, this is why the airlines will never, ever, go back to running security, the lawyers would have a stroke at the liability they would take on by doing so.


Cowboys mull device to immobilize players' cars

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2012/12/09/dallas-cowboys-mull-safekey-josh-brent-jerry-brown-intoxication-manslaughter/1757019/

4:35PM EST December 9. 2012 - CINCINNATI -- What more can they do?

Calvin Hill asks himself that question repeatedly in his role as consultant for the Dallas Cowboys, with the responsibility of administering off-the-field support programs.

He is searching for more answers, in the wake of the single-car, alcohol-related crash early Saturday that cost the life of practice squad linebacker Jerry Brown and left defensive tackle Josh Brent facing intoxication manslaughter charges.

DETAILS EMERGE: Cop says Brent admitted drinking

EMOTIONAL WIN: Cowboys give game ball to Brown's mother

"Obviously, we do whatever we can do," Hill said somberly before Sunday's game at Paul Brown Stadium, alluding to the team's educational programs. "I don't know what more we can do. We're always examining and going over things."

Hill said the team could mandate that Cowboys players have electronic devices designed to immobilize vehicles when a driver is impaired. The device, SafeKey, includes a small fob that is attached to the key ring, which sends electronic signals to a complementary device that can prevent a vehicle from starting if a driver doesn't pass a test based on color-coded light emissions.

Said Hill, "We are considering that."

It is unclear whether the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) would sign off on allowing teams to mandate such a measure for players. NFLPA officials did not immediately respond to USA TODAY Sports on Sunday.

Nonetheless, Hill is willing to try to do more. He said he was struck by a statistic displayed on a highway billboard recently that said 2,700 people have died on Texas highways this year.

"You wonder how many of those have to do with alcohol?" he said.

Hill applauds the program set in place by the players union that provides rides for players who need transportation after becoming impaired. He said he is unsure what percentage of players use the service, given the confidentiality of the program.

"Everyone has free will and makes their own decisions," Hill said. "You try to make them aware that every decision has a consequence and they're responsible. You hope they consider the potential consequences."

The NFL has had a partnership with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which include the organization offering programs designed to reduce risks associated with drunk-driving. USA TODAY Sports revealed that while just two teams use MADD's program for players -- the Pittsburgh Steelers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- as the program is largely used by teams for strategies in addressing fans.

Asked if the Cowboys would consider using MADD's program, Hill said that it would duplicate existing programs.

"Obviously, I applaud what MADD does, but every team in the NFL has those type of programs," Hill said. "Every team presents the consequences."

As Hill spoke, he was accompanied by Jacqueline Stephens, the team's mental health specialist. Stephens and at least two other counselors have been available to the players.

"It's been in the minds of everyone," Hill said. "It's tough. For a lot of these guys, the football team is their other family."

[kathy88]

Here we go.

[KCIndy]

..... DAMN! :mad:

[TheTexan]

And let's not engage in some fantasy about how "you'll just have to get another job".

I know you're a strong advocate against private companies doing these kinds of things, as much as the government, but what's the alternative? Have a law enforcement department who's job it is to point guns at companies to make them not do these sorts of things?

It only stops when people take up for themselves.

For example, I have heard from office chatter that the new office we're moving into in a couple weeks may have cameras in it. I have already decided that if it does, I will ask my boss to turn them off, and if he does not, I will be quitting.

Not to be arrogant, but I consider myself a valuable asset to my company. I'm fairly sure that if I ask for the cameras to be turned off, my boss will do so. If not, I'm prepared to either work for myself, or I can very easily get a job elsewhere.

My advice to avoid tyranny in the workplace:
1) Be good at what you do
2) Work in a small company
3) Don't get locked into a tiny niche industry where there is only a few employers
4) Ideally choose a career where you can work as an independent contractor if needed
5) Don't go into debt that will enslave you to your job
6) BE ASSERTIVE WITH YOUR RIGHTS

[specsaregood]

My advice to avoid tyranny in the workplace:
1) Be good at what you do
2) Work in a small company
3) Don't get locked into a tiny niche industry where there is only a few employers
4) Ideally choose a career where you can work as an independent contractor if needed
5) Don't go into debt that will enslave you to your job
6) BE ASSERTIVE WITH YOUR RIGHTS

Pretty close to the career choices I've taken in the past. You make yourself valuable and you can be assertive with your rights and wants.

[oyarde]

Pretty close to the career choices I've taken in the past. You make yourself valuable and you can be assertive with your rights and wants.

Yes, good advice. I may not get a raise every year :) , but can do what I want.

[oyarde]

They could replace me if they want , but they will not , they would have to hire three people , one around my salary.

[Cutlerzzz]

Get paid millions of dollars in exchange for that? All voluntary? Sounds like a deal to me.

[dillo]

Private league can do whatever they want.

[Anti Federalist]

I know you're a strong advocate against private companies doing these kinds of things, as much as the government, but what's the alternative? Have a law enforcement department who's job it is to point guns at companies to make them not do these sorts of things?

It only stops when people take up for themselves.

For example, I have heard from office chatter that the new office we're moving into in a couple weeks may have cameras in it. I have already decided that if it does, I will ask my boss to turn them off, and if he does not, I will be quitting.

Not to be arrogant, but I consider myself a valuable asset to my company. I'm fairly sure that if I ask for the cameras to be turned off, my boss will do so. If not, I'm prepared to either work for myself, or I can very easily get a job elsewhere.

My advice to avoid tyranny in the workplace:
1) Be good at what you do
2) Work in a small company
3) Don't get locked into a tiny niche industry where there is only a few employers
4) Ideally choose a career where you can work as an independent contractor if needed
5) Don't go into debt that will enslave you to your job
6) BE ASSERTIVE WITH YOUR RIGHTS

Good points, especially about debt.

But here's the rub, the very first time there is an "office shooting" that in any way shape or form could have been ameliorated by the presence of a surveillance camera, the company will be on the hook for millions of dollars in liability, and there will be no way around it.

To cover your own self, you will have to "surveil" yourself.

Tort reform is a solution. Some way to scale back these ridiculous claims of liability.

Sometimes I think there is no solution, the full time 24/7 surveillance grid is unstoppable.

Anybody got a cheap EMP device?

[KCIndy]

For example, I have heard from office chatter that the new office we're moving into in a couple weeks may have cameras in it. I have already decided that if it does, I will ask my boss to turn them off, and if he does not, I will be quitting.

Not to be arrogant, but I consider myself a valuable asset to my company. I'm fairly sure that if I ask for the cameras to be turned off, my boss will do so. If not, I'm prepared to either work for myself, or I can very easily get a job elsewhere.


The real problem come when your boss and the company you work for are given *no choice* but to comply, either by the government or their own insurance company.

At that point, whichever despicable Orwellian practice you dislike will have become an industry standard or requirement, and neither you nor your boss will have any say in the matter.

[James Madison]

Where's that little weasel Bob Costas about this case? Cars kill tens of thousands every year. Clearly, we have a 'car problem'. Young men can't be trusted with cars, or alcohol for that matter. Ban! Ban! Ban!

[thoughtomator]

Where's that little weasel Bob Costas about this case? Cars kill tens of thousands every year. Clearly, we have a 'car problem'. Young men can't be trusted with cars, or alcohol for that matter. Ban! Ban! Ban!

Gun companies don't advertise with the NFL. Car and alcohol companies do.

[James Madison]

Gun companies don't advertise with the NFL. Car and alcohol companies do.

He does work for NBC, though...

[paulbot24]

If this does get implemented, I hope they tell a sappy feel good story about how many potential lives they hope to save during a Budweiser halftime show.

[Professor8000]

I think what we are missing here is that if the Cowboys implement that kind of a program, they will seal their own fate and consign themselves to mediocrity because no self respecting player, who knows what they are worth, will sign with a team that requires them to install that kind of device in their vehicle.

[Professor8000]

A football team has to attract good players with incentives, it would be against their best interest to place restrictions like this on their players because it off-sets the incentives the team uses to attract the valuable talent. It's just bad business.