Long Service Leave for footballers?

[Guest]

Following the recent developments between Tony "thug of the century" Liberatore and the Western Bulldogs, what do u all think about long service leave being payed to AFL footballers?

[Charlie]

Says a lot about the man that Liberatore is. He's quite well off thanks to the Bulldogs, who gave him a career after being rejected by other clubs, and who kept him on the list when he wouldn't have survived anywhere else in the late '90s.

However, he's more than willing to try and squeeze 14 weeks of long service pay out of a club that certainly can't afford it.

Mongrel.

[desredandwhite]

The thing is though Charlie.. This is not JUST about Liberatore. Whether he was thrown a lifeline to extend his career is irrelevant. Whether the dogs can afford it or not is irrelevant. I guess the question is "should footballers receive long-service leave?"

I don't know the full facts, so I'm hesitant to give an answer myself...

In a way, I think the veterans' list allows for this already - it rewards players who stick with one club for a long time, and it rewards the club by making part of it outside the salary cap.

[NMWBloods]

No - I don't think they should get LSL. They don't want the time off, they just want the money, which is against the spirit of LSL.

[bricon]

AFL players are employees of their clubs with individual workplace agreements (ie player contracts). A workplace agreement can only alter long service leave provisions if those provisions are more favorable than those laid down in any relevant award OR if the Industrial Relations Commission has exempted a particular employer from the conditions of the Long Service Leave Act. A player or club cannot legally waive LSL provisions in a player contract; the LSL Act overrides any provisions that may be made in such contracts.

After an employee has worked for an employer for 5 years, the employer should make a provision for long service leave in the company?s accounts as a LSL payment may be payable after 5 years service, subject to certain conditions. It is irrelevant that an AFL player may have been highly paid during his career or that the club stood by him through thick and thin or that a particular player is a ?mongrel?, none of these matters are covered by the (LSL) law.

AFL players should receive LSL payments, the clubs should provide for them in their accounts and pay up if a player (or any other employee) is entitled to them. LSL payments form part of the total player payments and must be included in a club?s salary cap.

[CureTheSane]

They want long service leave?
Fine, then play football for 2 hours a week, and for the other 36 hours, either be training, studying opposition players, studying team game plans, and be getting paid a whole lot less.

Sure it's hard work, but they have a pretty easy life while they're playing I think.

For the record, IMO long service leave is a bit of a joke anyway.
If a company really wants their employees to stick with their company and show some loyalty, then they PAY THEM MORE.
Simple.

BUT, this is the 'modern era' of football, and I suppose it's inevitable to an extent.

[NMWBloods]

It is irrelevant that an AFL player may have been highly paid during his career or that the club stood by him through thick and thin or that a particular player is a ?mongrel?, none of these matters are covered by the (LSL) law.

AFL players should receive LSL payments, the clubs should provide for them in their accounts and pay up if a player (or any other employee) is entitled to them. LSL payments form part of the total player payments and must be included in a club?s salary cap.

Legally maybe they should, but I don't think that was the point of the question. I don't think they are entitled to them.

[Charlie]

I don't give a stuff what the law says. It shows incredibly disloyalty and bad faith in this instance.

I don't think footballers need them. They get other benefits. How many employers provide their most important employees with education schemes so their employees can get jobs when they leave the company? Footy players get that.

[Mike_B]

I'm another who thinks no....

Most workplaces you have to work for 10 years to even be eligible for LSL (even if after 5 they must start putting something aside in case you make it to 10). You could, if you were to work for the only company for your entire working life, be there for 35 years or more.

Footballers barely play more than 10 years now, and if they have been even a regular player in the seniors, they are set for life. Like Charlie said, they also receive so many other benefits provided to them during the course of their footballing lives. IMHO its just a grab for more from people who really don't need it.

[robbieando]

I think Yes. If you play 10 years for a club then your entitled to it, no matter what you get paid. Its only fair. But saying that cases like Libba's is not right. No agreement was in place for it and as such shouldn't be given. So what I'm saying in the next AFLPA collective bargining agreement a long service pay should be added and that way each play will know what they have owing.

[Cheer Cheer]

I'm totally with charlie on this one
He said what I wanted to say perfectly
Couldnt say it better myself

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by robbieando
I think Yes. If you play 10 years for a club then your entitled to it, no matter what you get paid. Its only fair. But saying that cases like Libba's is not right. No agreement was in place for it and as such shouldn't be given. So what I'm saying in the next AFLPA collective bargining agreement a long service pay should be added and that way each play will know what they have owing.

LSL isn't about getting more money, it's about having time off work for an extended period. Why do AFL footballers need that? When are they going to take it?

[Norris Lurker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
No - I don't think they should get LSL. They don't want the time off, they just want the money, which is against the spirit of LSL.

Any footballer who actually took their leave during a season would ...

It's a joke. What's next - penalty rates for working weekends?

[Grant]

Definately NO.If he was to be awarded it now,would he just drop everything he is doing at Box Hill Hawks,and let them carry on with there work without him,i think not.He is just trying to clutch at any last bit of money he can from the club he apparantly loved to death,but obviously doesn't care about their financial situation at the moment.It was not in his agreement with the club,end of story.

If players in the future are smart enough to put that in their contracts then good on them,but they definately do not need it.Ten years of AFL football would set any of us up for life anyway,and some of them will still be getting royalties for the rest of their lives anyway.

[j s]

Originally posted by bricon
AFL players are employees of their clubs with individual workplace agreements (ie player contracts). A workplace agreement can only alter long service leave provisions if those provisions are more favorable than those laid down in any relevant award OR if the Industrial Relations Commission has exempted a particular employer from the conditions of the Long Service Leave Act. A player or club cannot legally waive LSL provisions in a player contract; the LSL Act overrides any provisions that may be made in such contracts.

After an employee has worked for an employer for 5 years, the employer should make a provision for long service leave in the company?s accounts as a LSL payment may be payable after 5 years service, subject to certain conditions. It is irrelevant that an AFL player may have been highly paid during his career or that the club stood by him through thick and thin or that a particular player is a ?mongrel?, none of these matters are covered by the (LSL) law.

AFL players should receive LSL payments, the clubs should provide for them in their accounts and pay up if a player (or any other employee) is entitled to them. LSL payments form part of the total player payments and must be included in a club?s salary cap.

I guess that should also mean that redundancy provisions should apply and all the counselling etc requirements for poor performance before being sacked (delisted)