Riggleman Tells Nats To Take Their Option And Shove It

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Happens on campaigns occasionally as well... someone will come in and demand a raise... (campaign staff don't make shit, so it's not unusual for this to happen)

In my case it's about tone and appropriateness... In most cases the answer is "no - there's no budget for that" and that's that... they're disappointed but no biggie...

In other cases I've had organizers "demand" a raise or a promotion... get told no... and then quit, like a petulant child when they didn't get their way. I wouldn't fire them... not for that... unless they started fomenting discontent within the staff about it. Then they'd be unceremoniously shown the door.

Which is almost guaranteed to happen...

campaigns are a different animal in that regard. employees primary motivation very often isn't money... so very often the angry worker is ostracized by the rest of the staff when they complain. If you've done your job as a manager, and have sufficient espirit-de-corps... they'll be shut down... and they usually start looking for an exit...

[Rob Iola]

I don't care who it is. My employees do not, under any circumstances, get to decide when they get a raise, or how much that raise will be (that's about all I can equate it to, since we don't operate on a "contract" basis, per-se). If one DOES try, they're unceremoniously shown the door.

Happens on campaigns occasionally as well... someone will come in and demand a raise... (campaign staff don't make shit, so it's not unusual for this to happen)

In my case it's about tone and appropriateness... In most cases the answer is "no - there's no budget for that" and that's that... they're disappointed but no biggie...

In other cases I've had organizers "demand" a raise or a promotion... get told no... and then quit, like a petulant child when they didn't get their way. I wouldn't fire them... not for that... unless they started fomenting discontent within the staff about it. Then they'd be unceremoniously shown the door.

Or sometimes it's the candidate who's shown the door - see Gingrich, Newt...

[UNHWildCats]

They shoulda had the meeting, let Riggleman make his case, then nicely told him the team preferred to wait til the season ended before making a decision... simply refusing to meet with him was a wrong decision.

How is it wrong? The Nats were arguably looking to have Johnson take over next season (who was already on the payroll), and simply moved up the timetable - now they don't have to pay Riggleman's salary for the rest of the season.

Or is your concern here that they were being big meanies?

The guys livelihood was on the line here... if they had no intention of keeping him on next year then they should have accepted his request for a meeting and laid out their intentions with him... No reason to keep a guy hanging if a decision was already made.

[AZGrizFan]

How is it wrong? The Nats were arguably looking to have Johnson take over next season (who was already on the payroll), and simply moved up the timetable - now they don't have to pay Riggleman's salary for the rest of the season.

Or is your concern here that they were being big meanies?

The guys livelihood was on the line here... if they had no intention of keeping him on next year then they should have accepted his request for a meeting and laid out their intentions with him... No reason to keep a guy hanging if a decision was already made.

Oh, please. The guy was under contract.