- 在線時間
- 428 小時
- 最後登錄
- 20-11-6
- 國民生產力
- 3
- 附加生產力
- 3457
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 10-9-13
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 1104
- 主題
- 36
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 4564
- UID
- 658837
 
|
OKmom 發表於 12-3-18 09:18 
回復 bobbycheung 的帖子
I didn't mean you made me tired in my previous post, I meant I had been spe ... So our difference has now been narrowed down to this. You are happy to rely on the CEO's promise that appropriate action will be taken etc. On the other hand, I want them to tell us what their finding is regarding the coach and what action, if any, will be taken against him. If the CEO is not going to tell us their finding, could they have come to the conclusion that the coach did nothing wrong? If so, we need the know the reason for this conclusion. If they also take the view that the coach is wrong, the CEO should demonstrate to us that they take this seriously and tell us what action has been taken against the coach. Again, if the CEO says nothing, could it be that her idea of appropriate action is just simply to tell the coach not to commmit this same mistake again? I am anxious to know because I think the coach's mistake was even more serious than that of the ESF boy. If the coach had talked to his players asking them to calm down and not to play so agrressively during the match, the incident could have been avoided completely. Now the CEO only mentioned about the ESF boy's mistake and has said nothing about the coach, this is to me clearly not enough. By the way, appropriate action also means that the action should be taken timely. If there is a delay without good reason, the action could not be said as appropriate. |
|