|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | Well, let's not say maim, but break something. That would be inconvenient but not crippling to most workplace jobs. But not so for a sporting job.
I note that some employers do run background checks and drug tests on normal employees. Does drink-driving get you sacked or suspended from, say, the police force?
I think my bigger reason for not really being persuaded by your and David's objections is that I see it as just part of the business agreement. If an employer offered me more money (on top of an already very healthy base) and in return imposed the sorts of restrictions placed on these kids, I'd accept without hesitation. The AFLPA negotiated all of this stuff with the AFL. |
I don’t think your last point works, because it is not a competitive market. You may go to another employer. The AFL is the industry. My objection, and Maybe David’s, is that these types of restrictions are prerequisite to the players plying their trade professionally at all _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
he can go to another employer, Coles always need trolley collectors or bathroom cleaners. maybe he could work on a brewery production line.
nothing wrong with those jobs, but im betting they dont pay 6 figures. _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mugwump wrote: | K wrote: | ...
I think my bigger reason for not really being persuaded by your and David's objections is that I see it as just part of the business agreement. If an employer offered me more money (on top of an already very healthy base) and in return imposed the sorts of restrictions placed on these kids, I'd accept without hesitation. The AFLPA negotiated all of this stuff with the AFL. |
I don’t think your last point works, because it is not a competitive market. You may go to another employer. The AFL is the industry. My objection, and Maybe David’s, is that these types of restrictions are prerequisite to the players plying their trade professionally at all |
Well, a monopoly is a potential problem. But I think your and David's concerns assume that the AFLPA is powerless. I'm assuming that's not the case. They have made veiled and unveiled threats in the past about strike action, for instance.
And certainly there are many clubs, some more permissive than others. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
But how do you know what “more” money is when there is no free market to set a benchmark for the job without the restriction ??
In any event, I just don’t think it is healthy or consistent with ordinary liberty for an employer to aim to control what happens outside the workplace, unless it bears on job performance in a very direct way (eg being drunk or stoned or otherwise unfit for work). _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Well, I think there's continual jousting between the AFL and the AFLPA about how much the players get paid (concretely, what percentage of the AFL revenue should go to the players). I think in these negotiations the AFLPA really does say, "We want it raised from x% of the revenue to y%." They will then quote figures from another sport where it's z% of the revenue, provided z is large and thus suits their argument. The AFL pushes back, of course, so they're playing this legal game. "According to [name of some useless management consultant company], your members' behaviour off-field is diminishing our revenue by w%," the AFL says. So in the end they agree to a modest increase in the slice of the pie the players get, in return for a modest increase in control over the players' off-field behaviour.
And, consequently, a player gets $200k a year, and the club can fine him $5k for drink-driving.
As it's said in The Godfather (surely David likes those movies!), it's not personal, no hard feelings, it's just business. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
its going to cost him a lot more than that! cant remember the last time i said this but Well Done Collingwood, you got this 100% right!
C'mon kid show us what your made of. Im excited! _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
$5k is the max for a first offence.
Now, we know it's $10k for a repeat offence.
And we know how in effect to bypass such limits. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I do think the onus is on the AFLPA (and unions in general) to make this case, but the trouble is that this encroachment into employees’ outside lives is not currently considered by many as a workplace rights issue (though I think that’s slowly beginning to change). I’m sure there are elements within the AFLPA who want to address this, but that it’s just seen as being in the too-hard-basket for now. Hopefully other industries will lead the way and start to push back, paving the way for others to follow.
Otherwise, I can’t put it better than this:
Mugwump wrote: | The link between sponsor’s wishes and a worker’s rights as a private citizen is not one of subordination. |
_________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
think positive wrote: | he can go to another employer, Coles always need trolley collectors or bathroom cleaners. maybe he could work on a brewery production line.
nothing wrong with those jobs, but im betting they dont pay 6 figures. |
The other option, of course, is to go and play Gaelic football. I'm confident he has what it takes to be a very good player there. And they probably have fewer restrictions on players' lifestyles (though I don't really know). But there are good reasons why the flow of players is in only one direction. Funny that, huh? Maybe he should have a word to Marty Clarke et al. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | I do think the onus is on the AFLPA (and unions in general) to make this case, but the trouble is that this encroachment into employees’ outside lives is not currently considered by many as a workplace rights issue (though I think that’s slowly beginning to change).
... |
David, I fear you will freak out when you see what restrictions are imposed in professional sports overseas. (See links & quotes in the relevant thread in the main forum.) |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ I’m well aware it’s a global issue. Still, the fact that something is the status quo doesn’t mean it’s right or that it can’t change. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Why isn't it right, though? This lad likely "earns" nearly 4 times the average Australian household income and it is fair to say that he's done little to justify that, so far. Having that sort of relatively unusual remuneration comes at a cost - people reasonably expect the recipient to do relatively unusual things for it.
I get paid much better than JDG. If I were to turn up to court drunk or to give bad advice because I hadn't worked hard enough on someone's problem, I would lose the gig. That's as it should be - the world doesn't owe me a living. It doesn't owe him one, either. If he wants to be paid a relatively high income as an elite professional sportsperson, it's incumbent upon him to do the things that will position him to succeed.
At the absolute minimum, it's incumbent upon JDG to avoid doing things that reduce the prospect that he may ever achieve his sporting potential. What might be in one's "spare time" as a telephone call-centre operative is not necessarily in one's "spare time" as a would-be elite professional athlete. I don't think that it's a denial of worker's rights to draw the line on people doing things that are destructive of their potential productive output when their remuneration assumes that their output is required to be delivered at an unusually high standard. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'd agree 100% if his drinking was getting in the way of his training or match-day performance. That would, indeed, be equivalent to you turning up to court drunk or not being able to do the work expected. But I don't see evidence of that actually being the case; what De Goey is accused of is doing other things that supposedly make his club look bad by association, something that I see as being dependent on the myth that football players ought to be shining lights in the community and that brands ought to be considered tarnished by their association with imperfect individuals. Needless to say, I see that as a much deeper issue than what happens to De Goey's football career, because I think it affects the broader public conception of work–life separation and the powers and responsibilities of employers – ultimately, I don't see it as being the employer's responsibility or right to sanction an employee for something that the legal system can adequately deal with. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
No, while the club's reputation may be part of the issue, it's not the only issue. I disagree with this belief that it's not affecting his training or performance or that of the team.
His teammates seem aggrieved, some of them to an extent I've never witnessed previously in their decade-long careers. I don't think this punishment is just something imposed by the suits above, with no input from the players and no support from the players. His behaviour is therefore having a strongly negative effect on the team.
On an individual level, there is no way that does not affect his training and performance. What night exactly was it? Saturday night? I assume there was no training the next day, but it still undermines his performance. And is he fully recovered from the operation? If not, it undermined the recovery as well. I don't know why so many think otherwise. That's not how athletic performance works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|