See who is already coming to #socialrecruiting summit in November!

Blog Network

Quest For The Best

Quest for the Best? The very best employees. Corporate recruiter, third party recruiter or direct hiring authority, we are all about finding our companies and clients the very best employees.

Quest for the Best? Best practices. What can we do as recruiters to consult in this all important function?

Quest for the Best? The goal? Dialog that will improve us all.

The Philadelphia Eagles Hired Michael Vick. Would You? follow this blog post

posted by on Aug. 17, 2009

The Philadelphia Eagles have set off a fire storm by hiring Michael Vick as a back-up quarterback.  You remember him, right?  Former Atlanta Falcon Quarterback convicted of running illegal dog fighting and gambling operations?  Admittedly involved in extreme cases of animal abuse?

If you were in need of a quarterback, and Michael Vick was the most qualified applicant, would you hire him?  Look at the pros and cons:

Pros:

  • Vick was taken as the #1 pick in the 2001 NFL draft.
  • He became the first quarterback in NFL history to earn more than four career 100-yard rushing games. He now has eight.
  • Vick's 1,039 rushing yards and 8.4 average yards per carry in 2006 marked NFL records for a quarterback in a single season.
  • Vick ranks third among quarterbacks for most rushing yards in NFL history

Cons:

  • Vick agreed to plea bargains for federal and state felony charges involving illegal dog fighting, execution and gambling operations. He served 18 months in Leavenworth Federal Prison.
  • The NFL suspended him because of his violation of the NFL's "Personal Conduct Policy." He admitted his conduct was not only illegal but also cruel and reprehensible.
  • His income dropped from $25.4 million in salary and endorsements to $1 a day - his earned wages in prison demonstrating the evaporation of commercial and corporate support and endorsements.
  • Loss of social equity.  No longer a role model for his sport and the community.

The media and fans are going wild.  Will this be successful - or will the Eagles suffer a backlash?  Has Vick paid his debt to society?  Is he worthy of leading a team and being a role-model? Is he truly remorseful for committing his indiscretions? Is he rehabilitated? 

Would you support the Eagles and their decision?  If it was your choice, would you hire him?

ethics hiring social equity
| 30 comments | flag

30 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Hey Pot! this is Kettle...

     

    In not so distant US history the son of a wealthy leader of an organized multi-national prohibition bootlegging ring left a young girl strapped in the seat of a car he had just driven off of a bridge into a lake.  10 hours later the authorities were notified.  This person while driving on a suspended license in the state of Massachusettes was one of the 2 sitting US Senators for that state at the time he did this!

    We continued to employ him as a Senator for the rest of his life!  Our tax dollars have gone to supporting his lifestyle, healthcare, expensive suits, transportation and even his haircuts for his entire life.  We could have saved a lot of money and put him in prison for murder and conspiracy to defraud the American public; but instead we recently held a national day of mourning and buried him as a hero in Arlington where our tax dollars will continue to support what remains of him.

    Let Vick play ball.  At least his income will be directly proportional to the desire of people to watch him play and his retirement will be based upon his own investment ability and his healthcare will be provided by his own income.  If we keep him from working he will simply be a leach on society until the day he dies.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Thomas - Your comment tips us to the hire side.  No matter how you feel about the senator, your example was stunning and thought provoking.  Thanks.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    As long as my comments only provoke thought and remind us that we are all human then they have come across as they were meant to be.

    Weather one person pays the debt to society or not and weather or not the debt payed satisfies the damage done will remain as timeless questions.

    It is often hard to separate our personal debt from our professional lives but without the professional life that personal debt might never be satisfied.

    Obviously the people of Massachusetts thought highly enough of the Senator to keep him there.  If the people feel highly enough of the quarterback to continue to watch him play then the endorsements will come and the show will go on.

    You may not be in public office but you have an opportunity to lose your the vote daily.  Your constituants are your fans, candidates, clients and family.  Do your best to give them what they seek and they will return to you in your own little election every time.

    Thank you Sue for asking such a thought provoking question.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Results:  7 for "Hire", 7 for "No Hire," 4 for "On the fence."  Entertainment Tonight (An unquestionably credible source) did this same poll on Wednesday and found the same thing.  An exact 50/50 split.

    @Sylvia - Yeah.  Let's find him something more appropriate.  The Delaware Humane Society's statement was that they wouldn't allow him to clean cages.

    @Mary - Thanks, Mary.  If hired, are we waiting for a time bomb to explode?  Your hiring managers won't face that dilemma.

    @Jim - Let's reconnect after the season and see how it comes out.

    @Ernest - Thanks for commenting.  Interesting how point of view influences interpretation of vote count. I will concede - some are difficult to categorize and open to interpretation. See mine above.

    @Bill - Thanks for letting Skippy weigh in. (And don't forget the bacon snacks.)

    @Skippy - Talk about a subject matter expert!  Good boy!  Here's a virtual bacon snack!

    @Dave - What if it works? Good points about the potential wins.

    @Kati - We all have a personal limit and yours was obviously reached.  Thanks for voicing your vote.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    I disagree with ANYONE saying that Vick is "talking the talk" it is not him talking, he is being coached on what to say and how to say it. 

    Think of it this way....if he had not been caught, would he still be doing it?  100% YES. His only regret is that he got caught, not that dogs were killed while he watched.  The Eagles made a huge mistake, they will pay for it, give them time.

    I believe in second chances, but not for something as cruel and sad as this.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    I have no opinion on the subject but out of curiosity,asked my dog skippy. The body of his email reply follows:

    As a Yorkshire Terrier, I can only say that he should have gotten the death penalty.Can you bring home some of those bacon bits?

     

    Your Friend,

    Skippy

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Too funny...

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    By my count: 11 For Hiring him  2 for Not Hitting, couple maybes.  If its not OK for him to work in the NFL, where can he work?

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Having spent a good portion of my career as an RN working in healthcare (and later, recruiting for same) I have to ask: How many of you realize the number of ex-drug abusers and alcoholics who are taking care of you and your loved ones all over the US on a daily basis? Are we making mistakes hiring them?

    After having fired more than one repeat offender, should I have adopted the policy of never giving any more of them a "second chance" in the first place? After all, patients are human beings, and they were - and continue to be - at risk in every healthcare facility I know of.

    While the killing and torture of dogs is disgusting, reprehensible, and abhorrent to me, how many dogs do you find on an NFL football field?

    Hire Vick to play football? You bet I would. Zero risk with a massive potential financial return for the Humane Society and hopefully (here's our moral part folks) a massive and public lesson-learned for Vick. Fire his ass in a heartbeat if he looked at an animal cross-eyed? Damn straight.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    PERSONAL DISCLAIMER...I think Vick is a disgusting human being, and I would not go across the street to meet him.

    Having said that, hiring him was at least a bold move, and may turn out to be a great move. Sometimes, the acquisition of a special level of talent or skill is so critical to the future success of an organization that personal situations have to be weighed, rather than used as a knock-out punch.

    Let's say you were a CEO of a medical science research organization, and you had a critical project that nobody in your company was qualified to run. Might you overlook some pretty serious issues if you could get a researcher for your project who is truly brilliant? Another consideration is that you would know in advance what trouble you may be buying, as opposed to thinking the candidate is a clean sheet.

    The Atlanta Falcons are the deserved losers in this case.  Many of them knew what Vick was up to, and did nothing about it. When he was caught and convicted, they dropped him, citing moral judgment and criminal conviction. Where was their own moral judgment when he was doing what he was doing? The NFL should have hit the Falcons with a serious fine for allowing such criminal activity to continue after they knew about it.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    I've read your post a few times, so maybe I'm over-dissecting it, but if I'm the CEO of this medical research org, the brilliance of a candidate wouldn't be the only issue I'd consider. If the candidate was so repugnant, it wouldn't matter how brilliant they were. I hate to sound like a wide-eyed idealist, but are you saying that the criticality of the project and the potential for profit are all that matters?

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Todd,

    You might want to re-read it yet again. I intentionally did not qualify the hypothetical "personal issue", nor did I indicate in any way that profit-motive was the sole driver in the decision.  Nor did I say that the brilliance of the candidate trumps everything else. I merely stated a hypothetical situation to illustrate that there may be times when personal issues must be weighed, along with business issues.

    thanks for the rebut...it is always beneficial to see how others view something you thought was pretty clear, but obviously was not.

    Jim

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Here's what I see so far:

    4 Hire, 3 Don't Hire, 3 "Wait and see"

    @Karen - Hard for a leopard to change his spots.  Thanks!

    @Alan - Yeah!  Where is Jeff Skilling/Bernie Madoff when you'd like an apology!

    @Ryan - OMG.  You certainly struck an emotional chord. Don't even get me started on animal abuse.

    @Heidi - If he does his job, it will be interesting to see Philadelphia's reaction to him at the end of the season.  Thanks, Heidi.

    @Phil - I hope that you are on my parole board. 

    @Liv - Let's wait until he's too old and infirm to play.  I like it.

    @Catherine- Thanks for your input.  Time will tell.

    @Sarah - I'd have the same problem.  Especially after I lost my cherished, canine son last month.

    @Todd - Thanks, Todd.  I might suggest a few appropriate positions for him.

    @Maureen - True, Maureen.  I'm not admitting what my dirt is.

     

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Tough call...and I am an Eagles fan! So many interesting thoughts here. The focus on penance seems to prevail in the comments listed. When I think about this as a hiring decision, I tend to revert back to the behavioral side of interviewing and selection. While we can teach and train technical skills or hire for technical abilities, the behaviors and behavioral experience a candidate brings to the job can be more difficult to modify/change. This creates a greater deal of risk in the decision to hire. Behaviors of the past indicate behaviors of the future...can a fine, time in jail and volunteer work really change a person's beliefs, moral ethics and behavior? I do believe the Humane Society is doing a smart thing but leveraging the visibility of this to educate a positive change on the public about prevention of animal abuse and educate others, but to whole heartedly believe that Vick himself will ultimately believe something different (or change is moral feelings) about his initial behaviors and actions...it will take more to convince me.  I give the Eagles Organization credit...this was a risky investment! I wish them the best.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    I agree with the "It depends on him walking the talk." We have all come across candidates, and people, that have done something in life that wrankled someone else. Most of these are very minor, and are learning experiences. 

    You have to as least give credit where it is due. At least Vick is gettting out there and talking the talk. Only time will tell if he is really walking it.

    I would fall over and pass out if I heard one of the bank or car company execs that destroyed tens of thousands of lives, careers..etc... get up and apologize. Many of them got paid a lot more than Vick, did a lot more damage to a lot more people, and not one has stepped up.

    If Vick ends up walking the talk, he will be a good example to many and a source of hope for others that have erred.

     

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Ryan,

    I respect your point of view and I'll admit that as I read your description of this crime it sadden me and it broke my heart.

    I also think about those individuals who have made mistakes in the past and I ask "should we hold their mistakes against them for the rest of their lives?"  If we say yes then a lot of people should be denied opportunities and this is my concern.  Where do you draw the line?  There are a lot of opinions out there and that's why we have laws. Ultimately it is up to the hiring manager to make the final decision. My role is to paint a clear picture of the individual and make a recommendation based upon the facts.

    It is my belief that when you make a hiring recommendation you must focus on the facts by evaluating the job requirements, the person's experience, past performance on the job, references, bkg checks... and ask can this person perform the job?  Again you must use wisdom, common sense and abide by the law on these issues. This is what fair hiring practices are all about. 

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    This debate invariably comes down to a couple philosophical/moral issues.

    "Vick has admitted his mistakes, is making amends, and should be forgiven."

    We have a culture of forgiveness in this country, which IMO, is generally a good thing. However, is every "sin" equal and truly forgivable? He and his co-conspirators did not "just kill dogs", they systematically tortured and abused them, in addition to killing them in some very inhumane manners (repeatedly picking up a dog and throwing s/he down on a concrete floor until it dies, electrocution, "blooding" the fighting dogs by either adopting or stealing pet dogs that cannot begin to defend themselves and taping their mouths shut to make SURE the fighting dog has no chance, strapping resistant female pit bull dogs into a "rape stand" for breeding purposes - all the while Vick watching, and in the words of witnesses ENJOYING the scenes, laughing at them and participating in them). In my book, that is hard to look past. Can one reasonable qualify these actions as simple "mistakes" or slight moral slip ups? Again, I say absolutely not.

    "Vick has done his time/ has paid his debt to society, so why shouldn't he be allowed to work again and move on with his life."

    Vick went to prison for being involved in a trans-state criminal conspiracy, a FEDERAL offense, he served his time in a federal facility in Leavenworth, KS. Dog fighting is not a federal offense, so he didn't do a single day for it. I wish the state of VA had exercised their right to bring charges for the animal cruelty against him when he got out of Leavenworth, because he deserves to be in jail for that now. He has NOT "done his time" for all of his crimes, not even close.

    As this is ultimately a moral issue, I doubt these debates will actually change peoples' mind either way on the issue, but I think it is always constructive to discuss the issue of animal cruelty. It is a serious issue that rarely gets the exposure it deserves.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Double standards here?

    Because Vick would be seen as a more "public" figure, is it all right to prevent him from getting a job in his chosen profession?

    It appears that we easily accept that it's all right for a businessman to destroy tens of thousands of lives, jobs and businesses through malfeasance, chicanery and greed -- and get away with it. Past CEO's of Home Depot, Enron, Tyco, AGI and others paid relatively small prices for their deeds. Some went on to other firms where they continued their mis-managing ways. Many retired in luxury that few of us will ever experience.

    So, what about Vick? Doesn't he deserve the chance to redeem his stupidity, cruelty and arrogance? Doesn't he deserve the chance to entertain us again with his physical skills on the playing field?

    Life is about second chances. It's what you do with them that counts. While I can never condone what Vick did, I can see that he has paid a price for his actions. While he may have a long, hard road to regain whatever respect I might once have had for him, I'm willing to give him that one chance to prove that he's learned from his experience and become a better person for it.

    Of course, if he blows the one chance, I'm all for locking him up at Gitmo for the rest of his life.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Let's take look this scenario out of a sports context. Suppose you are the VP of HR, and you are on the hiring team trying to decided whether or not to hire a superstar sales manager with a troubled past. You interview the man and he sounds contrite, has paid his debt to society, and will work cheap for an opportunity to get back in the field.

    You get his background check and you find he has been convicted of funding and personally taking part extremely violent crimes towards animal, running an illegal gambling operation out of his house, etc. Would you be comfortable recommending this candidate for a position with your company? Would you be ok employing a person with a violent past to work along side your other valuable employees? Could you trust this sort of person to represent you company well, lead other people, etc.?  

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    I definitely agree that everyone deserves second chances...but what have you done to DESERVE a second chance? So far from Vick, not much. But I hope he puts all his new money where his mouth is...the test is within his new found freedom and new career with the Eagles. Will he really work with animal groups and the humane society? Will he talk with kids to make sure they don't follow his example? We will see...

    I am sorry to be cynical, but I'm just sick of the greed out there by the NFL. Would Vick had gotten a new contract if he was just a mediocre player? They probably wouldn't have touched him with a ten foot pole. I'm also sick of society's disrespect for animals, thinking it is not a "big deal".

    Of course no one is perfect. I'm certainly not, but I have not killed hundreds of lives through torture just for money and fun. But as I mentioned, unfortunately in this society an animal's life just isn't that important. As Sarah said, these people need to watch "Dogtown - Saving the Michael Vick Dogs" and see if they can stomache their way through it.

    With all this said, would I hire Vick? Yes...BUT only after a length of time where I would feel he has TRULY paid for his crime and debt to society, and made good on his promises. There is no "set time" for this. Just like a candidate, this would show me that he is truly committed to the job and improving himself and that he can rise above a challenge.

     

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    You apologized for being cynical, but you weren't cynical. You said you'd like to see if he puts his money where his mouth is, or whether it's just talk. That's not too much to ask.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    The only other thing to consider here is the clock is running for Vick.  While he probably has some good years left, he can't play football forever.  His most productive years start now.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    I would not hire this guy for anything.  (Have you guys seen the episode of Dogtown where they attempt to rehab the dogs taken from the Vick compound?)

    Yes, I can see why someone else would hire him: the potential ROI is strong, and there's a case to be made for the fact that according to the laws of the land, he's paid his debt to society.  And if we leave him jobless, aren't we just condemning him to a life of more bad judgements? Whereas if we give him a job like this, he'll be in the public eye and more likely to stay on the straight and narrow. 

    But I wouldn't hire him, mostly because I wouldn't be able to be in the same room with him without behaving inappropriately.

     

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Two thoughts.

    My first thought is that because we all have different values, therefore whether we'd hire Vick depends to a great deal on how severe we view this crime. In other words: some people think evading the draft is worse than extreme animal abuse, and others don't. Some think driving drunk is worse, while others don't. If we all ranked 100 crimes and which we think are more egregious, I suspect we'd have quite different responses.

    The second thing: the Eagles' QB job is different than a typical job. It's a very public way of sending the message that (whether or not they were thinking it; perhaps they were mainly thinking of touchdowns) "we think this fellow is sufficiently contrite or healed and has paid a sufficient price that he deserves another chance at being a role model for children." Personally, I don't think he does. Kids look up to athletes too much. I think he deserves a job, but not that job. I'd hire him, but not if I was hiring for the Eagles' QB job. It's too important.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    I'm agreeing w/Todd 100%  - yes Vick deserves a second chance, but not in a position where children look up to him & he's revered as a superstar.

    It disgusts me that young people have role models & "heros" like this heartless creep, and IMHO he does not deserve a 7-figure salary nor half the media exposure his damage-controlling spin-meisters are putting out there.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    We oughtta' make a list of 100 crimes committed on behalf of companies by their henchmen and  mark them for egegregiousness.  That would while away an afternoon or two.

    ;)

    Recently, while stabbing into a company for some toehold names on a search I stumbled into a conference call amongst some of the engring design managers talking about some products they were designing for nuclear power plants in India.

    "Uhhhh, I hate to be the wet blanket here, but doesn't the government FORBID us to sell to India?" one of the guys sheepishly ventured.

    "Ahhhh, don't worry about it - we'll send them the design, they'll wave a magic wand over it, and all will be right with the world," one of the others said to raucous laughter from the others.

    Everyone's hands are dirty of something.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Maureen and Todd:

    I loved your response!  I don't condone what Michael Vicks did as right however; he paid his time for the crime.  I am a firm believer in giving people fair opportunities even if they've made mistakes (nobody is perfect). Now if he is incapable of doing the job or fails to meet the requirements as the JD requires, that's another story.  Of course you must use wisdom when making decisions. 

    Self righteous people will always stand in judgment of others but yet, often they fail to live up to their own standards. Finally, I wonder how many individuals in the lime light who failed to live up to a "standard" were not given further opportunities because of their crimes,  would be left standing....?

  • 0 points 3 months ago

    Personally, I am appalled and extremely disappointed that Mr. Vick was rehired after committing such vicious and morally reprehensible crimes against living creatures.  He may be well qualified for the job, and some may say he deserves a second chance, but clearly he has not paid for his crimes.   His situation does not even remotely compare to any information I have discovered in a background check for a candidate; hiring someone with a similar known background for a public position would not be an option for my current employer, nor any of my previous employers.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

     

    Sure, give him a job with the Eagles.  He can sell popcorn, peanuts and hotdogs to the fans.  I'm sure his arm is still good and he'll be able to make that 30 yard peanut throw to the fans.

    Of course, we probably work side by side with people in the workplace with checkered criminal pasts, but you don't often find them in quite the same circumstances of being in the public limelight as Michael Vick. 

    But as vile as Vick's actions towards animals was (is?), he is a valuable commodity as a football player and it seems the NFL has, over the years, become less of a morally conscience employer, and more of a "what's my ROI in hiring you" type of employer.

    I wonder if he will be able to play a leadership role on the field. I can guarantee you, if he starts winning games that will be enough for many to jump on the "he deserves a 2nd chance" bandwagon.  He loses and the shift in opinion, "who allowed him back in the NFL" will be heard around the country.

    Sadly, I believe that it will depend on how well he plays this year that will determine the opinion and possible change in opinion as to whether or not he should have been reinstated in the NFL and hired by the Eagles. Like the shifting winds, opinions will change drastically depending on whether he wins or loses.