And I don't get this at all.
One of the fundamental principles of our justice system is that when you are found guilty of an offence, a court punishes you, you complete that punishment, and that is the end of the matter. Your employer doesn't, as long as the offence isn't committed at work, and as long as your record now doesn't prevent you from carrying out your job, get to punish you as well.
Would the TAC get away with giving extra fines to all its employees every time they're caught breaking the road law? If employers are going to add various levels of penalties to offenders on a whim, how can the courts suitably assess the sentences they give to maintain some consistency of treatment?
Peter of Glutbusters argues:
I don't see it like that. I think the penalties for drink driving, while adequate for your garden variety punter, don't even go near making the point to a footballer that what they have done is not merely broken the law, they have set an appalling example to the thousands of kids who see them as a role model.
I suppose you could think of it as two offences:
1. Drink driving - punishable by the state.
2. Gross dereliction of the duty to set a good example that is part of being a footballer, whether you like it or not - punishable by the AFL/club.
Because sometimes, the law doesn't do its job.
I have to say, I'm not particularly thrilled by the principle that employers can punish people for "not setting a good example" in their daily lives. That seems a bit Big Brotherish for me. (The Orwellian kind.) There should be one authority which maintains the power to fine and punish us for breaking the law, and that would be the democratically-elected State. Not whichever employer for which I happen to end up working.
It's fundamentally unfair, as well. It means that workers in certain categories can be at risk of bizarre and capricious extra punishments, whilst those who are self-employed, for example, can't.
In this case there's also the issue that the maximum the employment contract between Morrison and Collingwood allowed his club to fine him for a first offence was apparently $5000 - and this was four times that, because of the corporate relationship between Collingwood and the TAC. Anyone else like the idea that an employer's business relationship with other companies can justify extra penalties for its workers?
No, I'm in favour of the "you do your punishment and that's the end of it" school of thought. There's a criminal law in place to punish these sorts of offences. And I trust the courts a hell of a lot more with that power than I would just any random employer. Wouldn't you?
