Have you ever been in the Packer's predicament?

[Patler]

I have been.

I once had an extremely valuable employee who was responsible for well over one-half of our total work output, and an even larger portion of the dollar-value. It was a very demanding job and one that she performed exceptionally well. She came to me and said she just couldn't do it anymore and needed a change. She had found a position outside of our company that she wanted to take, something different. We tried to make changes in her job but couldn't convince her to stay. She left, and her former assistant took her place.

Less than a year later she came back saying she had made a mistake and wanted to return. We would have liked to have her back in her former position; however, her replacement was doing well, although it put a burden on others to help her and we recognized that she would take several years of growth and may never be as good as the first person, but clearly would be as good as we really could expect in the position.

What did I do? We told the first employee that she could return but in another position that was open. It was a lower level position, but she accepted it. I couldn't justify removing her replacement who was not as good but was not a disappointment either. Ultimately, after some other things occurred, the first employee returned to her former position and the one who had replaced her moved into another position that she liked even better.

Not completely the same, but I can certainly understand the Packers predicament. Sometimes you simply can't roll back the clock even if you want to.

[Tarlam!]

Do wives/marriage break-ups count?

[Rastak]

Re: Have you ever been in the Packer's predicament?

I have been.

I once had an extremely valuable employee who was responsible for well over one-half of our total work output, and an even larger portion of the dollar-value. It was a very demanding job and one that she performed exceptionally well. She came to me and said she just couldn't do it anymore and needed a change. She had found a position outside of our company that she wanted to take, something different. We tried to make changes in her job but couldn't convince her to stay. She left, and her former assistant took her place.

Less than a year later she came back saying she had made a mistake and wanted to return. We would have liked to have her back in her former position; however, her replacement was doing well, although it put a burden on others to help her and we recognized that she would take several years of growth and may never be as good as the first person, but clearly would be as good as we really could expect in the position.

What did I do? We told the first employee that she could return but in another position that was open. It was a lower level position, but she accepted it. I couldn't justify removing her replacement who was not as good but was not a disappointment either. Ultimately, after some other things occurred, the first employee returned to her former position and the one who had replaced her moved into another position that she liked even better.

Not completely the same, but I can certainly understand the Packers predicament. Sometimes you simply can't roll back the clock even if you want to.

An interesting story. What if the replacement hadn't actually started working yet? Let's assume the replacement was on a two week vacation and when about to return the old employee calls and said "I made a mistake and would like to come back"?

Then what? Alienate the replacement? You are certain to lose productivity.

What if the employee coming back is 63 and heading for retirement in a couple years?
You might want to groom the assitant.

Lots of factors to consider.

[Patler]

Re: Have you ever been in the Packer's predicament?

An interesting story. What if the replacement hadn't actually started working yet? Let's assume the replacement was on a two week vacation and when about to return the old employee calls and said "I made a mistake and would like to come back"?

Then what? Alienate the replacement? You are certain to lose productivity.

What if the employee coming back is 63 and heading for retirement in a couple years?
You might want to groom the assitant.

Lots of factors to consider.

There was a big difference in age between the two employees, something like 20-25 years or so. The first was less than 10 years from expected retirement at the time.

The second was a very talented employee, too, and we certainly did not want to alienate her either. One of the difficulties we faced with her replacing the first was that it was a significant jump for her, but one that we felt she could handle and grow into over time.

Ultimately it came down to this for me in deciding: The situation was caused by the first employee deciding to leave. I felt it only fair that she be the one to make concessions if she were to return. The rest of us had "moved on", so to speak!

[LL2]

Patler...I think your situation is similar to what the Packers are going through and are handling it about the same. It's the real world and the way things turn out sometimes, but when it comes to sports and NFL Legends we tend to think it should be handled differently.

[The Leaper]

The situation is somewhat similar, but I also agree with Rastak's points. You had already installed another worker and gone through the transition process. The Packers have installed another person, but mainly in title only at this point...and the transition process is barely underway.

Besides, the NFL is a little more volatile in terms of employment all around than your regular company.

It is a tough decision for both sides...which is why I think both sides have made mistakes that have led to this debacle.

[oregonpackfan]

I haven't been in the Packers' management position but in the "players" position.

When I approached age 55 as a teacher, I grew drained with the 60-70 hour workweeks, the de-evolution of eduction priorities("teaching to the test" to meet the skewed demands of Leave No Child Behind Act), putting family needs a distant second to the needs of my job, inability to pursue hobbies or outside interests, etc.

I considered taking early retirement.

Despite several teaching awards, favorable reviews and many parent recommendations, the administration was very willing to accept my early retirement. In today's belt-tightening economy, they could hire a brand-new, inexperienced teacher at literally half my salary. It would be a big financial savings to them to hire an inexperienced teacher(which they did.)

Keep in mind that 40% of all teachers leave the field in the first 5 years of teaching. They don't realize how challenging the teaching profession can be.

Unlike Favre, I did not waffle in my decision. Once I made my decision in April of the school year, I stuck to it. I donated all my books and educational materials to other teachers and gracefully left.

Unlike some retired teachers who continually "hang around" their old school and almost become a nuisance, I only returned when invited for special events.

Satchel Paige, the great Negro(as African-Americans were called in his day) baseball pitcher once said, "Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you."

I try to look forward and enjoy this new stage of my life.

[Patler]

The situation is somewhat similar, but I also agree with Rastak's points. You had already installed another worker and gone through the transition process. The Packers have installed another person, but mainly in title only at this point...and the transition process is barely underway.

Besides, the NFL is a little more volatile in terms of employment all around than your regular company.

It is a tough decision for both sides...which is why I think both sides have made mistakes that have led to this debacle.

While both sides may have made mistakes, I tend to look at it more as a situation in which you really can't blame the Packers for doing what they're doing.

Rastak's question about what we would have done if the replacement had been on vacation but was given the job before leaving, and the other changed her mind in the mean time, is a very difficult one. Probably a more accurate similarity would be if it had been after a few weeks or so later. After it had been announced to all, and she had "assumed" the position of sorts, without fully taking over. After all, Rodgers has assumed the position with respect to the team, the media, etc. He has begun functioning in the role in minicamps, etc. even though he has not taken over completely.

I'm not sure that I would have reacted much differently. I tend to approach problems from a going forward analysis. After changes have been made, you can never truly go back. Trying to recapture something from the past is generally a waste of time.

[Patler]

Unlike some retired teachers who continually "hang around" their old school and almost become a nuisance, I only returned when invited for special events.

I have seen that in others who retired. We had one who would come back so frequently that we finally had to tell him he couldn't keep dropping in the way he was and staying as long as he did. It simply interrupted things too much. He was welcome to drop in occasionally, but it had seemingly turned into a weekly schedule for him to do so. A very difficult conversation with a former long-time employee.

This may be something that Favre is going through right now. Some find it very difficult to see another taking over their job. They simply can't let go. Not unlike the spurned boyfriend being jealous of the new suitor for "his" girlfriend.

[The Leaper]

While both sides may have made mistakes, I tend to look at it more as a situation in which you really can't blame the Packers for doing what they're doing.

I agree...but I think the same can be said for Favre. It isn't honest for him to claim 100% commmitment in March...and getting a call EVERY WEEK from McCarthy searching for an answer has to get on your nerves.

He needed time to make a decision, and the Packers had the ability to wait. I'm not sure why the Packers were so eager for a decision, or why Favre was so eager to make it...but it has led to a bad situation where neither side wins.

[Patler]

I agree...but I think the same can be said for Favre. It isn't honest for him to claim 100% commmitment in March...and getting a call EVERY WEEK from McCarthy searching for an answer has to get on your nerves.

He needed time to make a decision, and the Packers had the ability to wait. I'm not sure why the Packers were so eager for a decision, or why Favre was so eager to make it...but it has led to a bad situation where neither side wins.

I blame Favre for the way he or his group have handled the last couple weeks. Upon deciding to come back, he should have handled things much differently. But, we all know about hindsight.......

[The Leaper]

I blame Favre for the way he or his group have handled the last couple weeks. Upon deciding to come back, he should have handled things much differently. But, we all know about hindsight.......

I agree on the handling part.

However, when the team you are fiercely loyal to tells you that you are no longer welcome there...it has to hurt. A lot.

I don't blame Favre for feeling sore. I think he could've handled things better, but I don't blame him for feeling like a castoff or cornered animal.

[Patler]

I blame Favre for the way he or his group have handled the last couple weeks. Upon deciding to come back, he should have handled things much differently. But, we all know about hindsight.......

I agree on the handling part.

However, when the team you are fiercely loyal to tells you that you are no longer welcome there...it has to hurt. A lot.

I don't blame Favre for feeling sore. I think he could've handled things better, but I don't blame him for feeling like a castoff or cornered animal.

I can certainly understand that he feels hurt, and don't blame him for feeling that way. I would, too. However, I'm not sure what kind of response he expected in the way this has occurred. I'm also not sure what good he thinks will come from the VanSustern thing. It seemingly can only do more harm, certainly no good.

Favre needed to decide what he wanted to do, then get his butt up to GB and sit down with TT and MM face-to-face, saying "I can't stand not playing. I intend to apply for reinstatement. How are WE going to handle that?"

[Carolina_Packer]

I think that's a good comparison. Boyfriend/Fiancee calls it off because he can't be 100 percent committed, girl moves on, rekindles relationship she had with someone she already knew, the get heavily involved and become a couple, then fiancee reconsiders and wants her back.

The difference is, this is clearly a marriage between Favre and the Packers/fans. The Packers/fans have given him a lot, and he has given a lot. We love each other, even though we both might have some annoying little habits like leaving the retirement seat up. Taking each other for granted, etc.

The spotlight shines really brightly on this situation. The big picture is the All-time great, future HOF'er in waiting being able to have more leeway. He's built his own reputation, mostly good, some bad, but overall loved very much. Most of us don't have the kind of work legacy and organizational legacy because well, nobody outside the worker and come co-workers, customers ultimately cares about the retirement of one person. It's just the way it works. We love sports/celebrity and have been fortunate to have such a good face/guy at the helm for so long. It's gone way beyond images of his play.

Sometimes you have to do things that may be against your own plans or system because of the gravity and nature of the situation, like being a storied franchise with an incredible fan-base that live/breath their team with a QB who has earned a lot of respect through his tough play, but also his good ol' boy, common guy nature, and his love for the Packers/community. If you want to protect a legacy, protect team's and Brett's and have him back as the starter, and look past what has transpired. There are a lot more tentacles to this one than just honoring someone who took over and asking the productive one who left to take another role.

I suspect your company did not go under Patler because of what went down, but the Packers as a name, and brand could take a hit if they hitch their star to Rodgers and he really struggles and if we could have just buried the hatchet and forgiven Brett whatever bad situation he might have caused. Also, it's not like we're trotting a guy back out just to be nice and won't the fans love seeing him play one more time. The guy can still play and likely better than A-Rod. Protect the legacy of all involved, patch things up, explain things to A-Rod that this is bigger than any one person, and you think Brett can still win and that's the decision. He's still being paid too. If Brett plays one more year and finally does ride into the sunset, the A-Rod i playing out a contract to see if he's got it. Not ideal, but all legacies here are bigger/badder and more important than A-Rod's. Sorry kid.

[The Leaper]

Favre needed to decide what he wanted to do, then get his butt up to GB and sit down with TT and MM face-to-face, saying "I can't stand not playing. I intend to apply for reinstatement. How are WE going to handle that?"

I have no disagreement there.

At the same time, the Packers could do the same thing right now. This is a huge distraction...and they have every right to do the same thing. Stop talking about how you want to preserve Favre's legacy and actually do something about it. If you truly have "moved on" and believe Rodgers is the future and a better choice than Favre now, then release Favre and let him do what he wants. He's earned that level of respect from Green Bay.

The blame is on both sides. I don't get why people are so adamant that one side or the other is fully to blame in this.