Many employers limit personal freedoms as a stipulation for employment. For instance, you can be terminated for using drugs, even if it is after hours and doesn't affect your ability to work. A more extreme case is like mine, where I am not allowed to travel to certain countries and all my personal travel outside the US must be reported and is periodically monitored. This dress code is a condition of employment, and not an unreasonable one at that; if the players don't like it, they are certainly welcome to find other jobs.

Haven't you seen headlines like 'Police Officer convicted of beating wife' or 'Police officer convicted of taking bribes'? Their personal lives are out there, too for all of us to see.

Also, since basketball players are more public figures, it makes more sense to make them look better. If people already assume your average basketball player is an arrogant prick with a thuggish background, why enforce the stereotype by letting them look like thugs?

 

which brings me back to my comment I made to you previously "Everything you read in a book doesn't apply to real world situations as black and white as you may believe." Get your nose outta the books for a while and come join us in the real world and you'll get taught a lesson in reality and how it differs from theories in books.

 

Hahaha, what a lame excuse. That is such a cop out for people who are uneducated and don't realize they're spouting bullshit. Psychology is the study of what happens in teh real world, you lamer. I think most of us have tried to spell it out for you as simple as humanly possible, but you still think that its just boils down to better clothes = better attitudes.

 

Oh god, please don't get me started on the drug rule at work. Let's just say I don't agree with a positive weed test being grounds for termination when you performace is not affected. But back on subject, the dress code is being enforced as a means of cleaning up the image of the league, which unfortunately for the league, will not accomplish that goal for the many reasons I have already stated.

Joe Public makes the newspaper everyday for things like that, that's not saying anything. When's the last time you heard of helicopters full of paparazzi hovering over an officers wedding location to try to get an exclusive photo of the wedding party? When's the last time you heard of the media disclosing the gift an officer bought for his wife in his attempt to make peace with her after being named as the defendant in a sexual abuse case that didn't include her? When's the last time you heard of officers being forced to give interviews in the locker room while they're trying to get dressed after a tough day on the job? So yes, peace officers are public figures who's business can make headlines, just as any other citizen in the country. The difference is that NBA players are routinely subject to invasion of privacy. And it's this invasion that allows the media to gain far too much information on these guys and they don't stand a chance in hell of emerging unscathed under such scrutiny, unless you're a Magic Johnson type of guy.

Let's not provide an excuse for ignorance.

How many examples must be provided which discredit your crackhead theory? Enron, Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, George Bush, Ron Artest, Rae Carruth, the list can go on and on. When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken.

 

Employers look for certain personal characteristics in their employees, if they are doing drugs why not terminate them. Performance has nothing to do with personal characteristics some employers may see.

Why get in the limelight if you can't take the heat? Cops don't make millions.



It's not a theory it's proof, we are talking about IMAGES on how Joe Somebody may view a public figure not personal characters. What you are talking about is the personal characters of people, but if you think about it logically, how are you treated when you walk into a car dealership in shorts and a t-shirt compared to how you are treated walking into the same dealership in a suit. You are viewed differently, not like your character has changed but the assumptions made about your appearance differ.

 

What about the president (and don't turn this into a Bush is dumb thread)? Or members of Congress? Or CEO's of major companies? They make similar amounts of money and have similar exposure. Why should they dress well then?

Ignorance will always be there. Instead of standing back and acting like it's the public's fault, the league is being proactive about countering ignorance, even if it is in image only.

 

So because a few people are bad, that means that dressing nice doesn't accomplish anything? God damn you are starting to piss me off at how you're just not getting the point.


God seriously man, your uneducated ass needs to go back to school.

 

I have said all I am going to say about this subject. Thanks.

LOL, great comeback.



Since you missed it, I'll post it again

Image: The character projected to the public, as by a person or institution, especially as interpreted by the mass media.

Don't ask me, I didn't tell them they have to wear what they wear.


This is true. But if image is the projection of character, then character surely plays a role in the perception of his/her image, right?

:doh:

As it pertains to the image of the NBA and it's players, considering the immense scrutiny their every move/action/decision is under thanks to the media, dressing nicely won't accomplish the goal of cleaning up the image of the league.

 

I bet you would be fairly perturbed/amused if the President of the United States decided to give his inauguration speech in shorts and sandals.

Like you said, image is a PERCEPTION of character. Not necessarily of their true character. Sure, true character plays into it, especially when true character is known. But by making players wear suits, the NBA is trying to improve their image i.e. the public's perception of the players' characters, not necessarily their true characters.

 

That's the point, it's a step in the right direction. I don't see why you're arguing with this. It's been proven. Media has nothing to do with it.