Psyber wrote:Adelaide Hawk wrote: ...That's a fair point, but I guess the obvious answer here would be that, as most people wouldn't know where you work, you are not bringing your employer into disrepute...
True, but there is my point that anyone who does these things makes it clear to his employer that he is irresponsible enough to drink drive and aggressive enough or impulsive enough to get into a fight, so the employer has to consider whether he can trust that employee to represent his company in case of future irresponsible or impulsive behaviour in some other situation that may damage the company. That is prudent business practice.
My point is taking a different tangent to yours. Of course employers want to believe their staff are responsible, that really goes without saying. What I am saying is if Sam Schwartz from Blacks Shoes is involved in a domestic incident, the public aren't likely to pick up the paper and ask, "What's going on down at Blacks Shoes? Their employees are a rabble".
However, when we see headlines of yet another incident involving an AFL player (and there have been far too many), people are asking what in hell is wrong with AFL footballers, etc. The AFL would not be pleased that embassadors to their game continue to let them down.
