The AMLU's Birmingham Folly

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

Tell me that baseball is not more rules intensive than basketball, and I will disagree respectfully with you.

Have you ever worked a college basketball game? Have you ever worked a game under NBA rules? If you had you might change your mind. To me it is not about how hard the rules. Learning the rules comes with time and experience on the field and court. It is about the amount of decisions you have to make when you blow the whistle and not blow the whistle. I can eliminate an entire section of the game of baseball or rules by just knowing the situation with how many runners are on base and just following the ball. You cannot do that in a basketball game.

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

The fact that baseball has a whole lot of standing around is precisely what makes it so hard to officiate. It's very hard , at least for me, to keep concentration up for 120 minutes of nothing special only to have a game-deciding, n*t cutting call at first in the bottom of the ninth. Have an off game in baseball, and you MIGHT be able to hide it. But if you are having an off game and the one "o-my-deity" call comes to you, you will be exposed.

Well the fact that I am standing is easy for me. I agree it can be hard to concentrate, but that is not that hard in my opinion. Also in basketball it is not a lot can happen in a very short period of time. You have to be on top of everything where in baseball nothing will be taking place for many minutes. For me working a baseball (especially on the bases) is a piece of cake. Also when I have talked to other officials that work multiple sports, not many put baseball as the hardest sport. I have been working football, basketball and baseball for the same amount of time. Baseball for me is by far the easiest and has been the easiest to move up and achieve in. Out of the 3 I did baseball last and I was surprised how easy it was to do and understand from the very beginning. I just read a couple of books and I had a very good understanding of what I need to do as an umpire. I have since changed some things like plate stances and some philosophies, but these are things that never were extremely difficult to understand and grasp.

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

And the point I was making in response to Just, who said it's "not rocket science." He was, in my judgment, disparaging the whole profession. Yes, for me, it's part time, but it is a profession. I don't know if he is a true demigod of baseball umpiring or just has a patholgical animosity toward AMLU. I don't care. They are professional, work hard and deserve better than to be treated the way PBUC is treating them.

We need to put this in perspective. Umpiring or any officiating is not rocket science. Not everyone can umpire/officiate effectively or very well either. But to make it seem like you need the same level of training to become a teacher or many other professions is not accurate either. Just look at most that decide to work at the pro level. Umpires do not have the same level of education or the same years of training to get to that point. Also that does not mean anyone can role out of bed and umpire at any level by any means. It also does not take a vast education to become a good ball player. It was a lot harder to get my college degree than it ever has been to become a successful umpire or official. All of this is a completely separate issue to what the union is doing and why they are striking. How hard it is to umpire and why the union wants to be paid more are not even in the same ballpark if you ask me. If anything we need to stop comparing our “day jobs” to this situation. They have nothing to do with each other and even the why people decide to umpire pro ball has nothing to do with how they come to a similar conclusion to work in other professions. These comparisons are just silly if you ask me and I can tell you that if you were required to travel at the same rate, most would be compensated enough to cover those expenses. This is an industry issue, not an issue for all unions and all pay scales across the economic board.

Peace

[Justme]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

What the hell did you do with Just? Get off his computer!

Strikes and outs!

I must have had a compassionate (weak) moment.....don't let my competitors know


BlueLawyer:

My statement was not disparaging to the whole profession of umpiring. It was a statement of fact! Look, if you want to give great importance to the profession of umpiring MiLB then by all means have at it. I believe that in comparison to some of the more highly technical professions umpiring just isn't on the same scale.

Now here's a totally absurd comparison for you.... Take a skilled surgeon and give him, let's say, 2 weeks umpiring training and then put them on the field to call a game. Then lets take a skilled umpire (from MLB), train him for two weeks to perform a heart bypass and then put them in the 'sterile' field of the OR. How do you think things would turn out? My bet is that the baseball game would survive better than the heart bypass patient. See, I told you it was absurd.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Justme

Now here's a totally absurd comparison for you.... Take a skilled surgeon and give him, let's say, 2 weeks umpiring training and then put them on the field to call a game. Then lets take a skilled umpire (from MLB), train him for two weeks to perform a heart bypass and then put them in the 'sterile' field of the OR. How do you think things would turn out? My bet is that the baseball game would survive better than the heart bypass patient. See, I told you it was absurd.

One more totally absurd comparison for...Take a man flipping burgers and give him, let's say, 1 hour of umpiring training, and then put him on the field to call a game. Then lets take a skilled umpire (from MiLB), train him for 1 hour to perform "burger flipping" and then put him in front of the McDonald's grill. How do you think things would turn out? My bet is that the baseball game would be in a lot more trouble than the McDonald's consumers. That is why MiLB umpires should be getting paid a livable salary (or getting paid more than just above minimum wage)...because they have a unique skill. While it is a skill not on the level of a doctor (or lawyer ), it is a skill that many people could never hope to attain. My comparison too was absurd.

[BlueLawyer]

Ask any doctor (my aunt comes to mind) you happen to meet, he/she will tell you- not much perserverence or skill is required to become a lawyer. We often have that conversation over a bottle of wine. Fortunately for me, I am trained in argument.

Strikes and outs!

[lawump]

I have often said that doctors often can give one life, but lawyers make that life worth living. (Yes, I'm proud of my profession and the accomplishments of its members throughout our nation's history).

[Justme]

[QUOTE=lawump]One more totally absurd comparison for...Take a man flipping burgers and give him, let's say, 1 hour of umpiring training, and then put him on the field to call a game. Then lets take a skilled umpire (from MiLB), train him for 1 hour to perform "burger flipping" and then put him in front of the McDonald's grill. How do you think things would turn out? My bet is that the baseball game would be in a lot more trouble than the McDonald's consumers. That is why MiLB umpires should be getting paid a livable salary (or getting paid more than just above minimum wage)...because they have a unique skill. While it is a skill not on the level of a doctor (or lawyer ), it is a skill that many people could never hope to attain. My comparison too was absurd.[/QUOTE

So how much do you feel that these highly skilled MiLB umpires should be paid for their valuable service to all of mankind?

Follow on question:
How do convince the people that really matter, MiLB, that they are worth the extra money? Obviously the strike hasn't worked too well.

[BlueLawyer]

[/QUOTE So how much do you feel that these highly skilled MiLB umpires should be paid for their valuable service to all of mankind?

Follow on question:
How do convince the people that really matter, MiLB, that they are worth the extra money? Obviously the strike hasn't worked too well.[/QUOTE]

I don't have a rational answer to the first question, and I don't care to try to guess. I have an emotional answer, and I don't care to post it because it's emotional. I can't tell you what firemen, cops, soldiers, teachers, nurses, etc. are worth either. The market is dynamic.

I disagree with the premise of the second question- they are a month into the strike. Despite what our instant-gratification society teaches us, some things take time. The strike may be one of those situations.

Strikes and outs!

[BlueLawyer]

Originally Posted by lawump

I have often said that doctors often can give one life, but lawyers make that life worth living. (Yes, I'm proud of my profession and the accomplishments of its members throughout our nation's history).

I'm proud to be a lawyer, too. Pleasure to meet a fellow barrister who also umpires online. There are more of us than you might think. Ed Hochuli is a lawyer in Phoenix, as I understand it.

Strikes and outs!

[Kaliix]

While it does matter how much training one has to receive in order to do a job, the laws of supply and demand still prevail. If there are many people available and willing to do a job, the job won't pay well. If the skills required to do a job are in short supply, the market will pay a premium for those skills.

AFAIK, the two umpire schools are filled to capacity each year. There is no shortage of umpires. Umpires are all too willing to make sacrifices for the a shot at "the show".

Until the quality of available umpires is poor enough to warrant a monetary incentive to ensure higher quality, the wages aren't likely to change significantly.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

There are more of us than you might think.

This fact disturbs more than a few

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Justme

So how much do you feel that these highly skilled MiLB umpires should be paid for their valuable service to all of mankind?

Follow on question:
How do convince the people that really matter, MiLB, that they are worth the extra money? Obviously the strike hasn't worked too well.

Question #2 first:

I don't agree with your assumption that the strike hasn't worked too well. We live in such a (what I call) "instant" society. We want everything and we want it now. News is regularly broadcast "instantly" with minimal filtering by producers/editors. We eat "instant" meals, so that we can have more time at work. Etc.

I think this culture leads some to conclude that because the strike wasn't resolved in a week or two that it "hasn't worked too well."

I'll stand by what I have posted all along: (1) This strike would not be short (or if it was short, the AMLU would likely be on the short end of the stick). (2) And that AMLU would "win" significant concessions if the strike lasted long.

What did I base this on? (1) Many previous umpire strikes (MLB umpires) have not been short. (2) The MLB umpires "won" every strike they ever went on.

(And for the record: 1999 was not a strike. They were legally barred from striking...they signed their right to strike away in the CBA...so they "quit" instead. Why did they do this suicidal move? In my opinion, they did this because their lawyer had an ego the size of Texas. Why did he have a large ego? Because he had been kicking MLB around for two decades. Everyone remembers the 1999 disaster and many think the AMLU is following this same path. Few, however, remember that MLB umps went from making $10 to $30k in 1979 to where they are now ($100k to $350k) because of all those successful strikes).

I believe that this strike is much more similar to 1979 than 1999. That MLB strike lasted 6 full weeks. It involved picketing at stadiums, press releases and press conferences. In many ways, the umpires in 1979 were worse off than today's MiLB umpires. In 1979 many were on the verge of going on food stamps, etc. The MiLB umpires are younger and can easily get work paying more than what they make on the field. (Many have kept their off-season jobs).

So what happened in 1979? Eventually the umpiring product on the field caused others in baseball to put pressure on the Leagues to settle and get the "regular guys" back on the field. It took awhile for the press to start paying attention...but they did. Did some of the "replacements" do an adequate job on the field. Sure...many had (or are in the middle of) long MLB careers.

So what's going on in 2006? Are some "replacements" doing an adequate job? Sure. Are some over-their-heads at this level. Many are. Are more and more stories about the umpiring situation being reported? In my opinion, yes. (I use Yahoo every day to search for any news story containing the word "umpire"). Has the majority of editorials (and I admit their is not a ton) been pro-AMLU? I would say the vast majority that I have read have been. Does their appear to be more and more stories coming out about managers, GM's and minor league directors being upset about the replacement umps? Yes, (again based upon my Yahoo search), whether the criticism is justified or not.

Do I think incidents like the Young incident at Pawtucket and the Southern League forfeit have more and more minor league people talking about the situation? Yes. (For the record, IMHO, the Young incident would have happened with or without the AMLU guys working the game. However, I don't share the same opinion about the forfeit.)

I personally think the strike is going well, and the AMLU is just beginning to get some momentum. I personally thought it would take longer than the 6-week MLB strike because it would take the AMLU longer to get the media to pay attention because this involves MiLB rather than MLB.

So, to conclude, I disagree with your assessment of the current strike's success.

Of course, the final judgment as to the success of the strike will be when a CBA is signed.

As to your first question...My first job after leaving the minor leagues (and before going to law school) was as a Sports Information Director at an NCAA Division 2 school. I made $30k. I provided as much of a service to society as an MiLB umpire does. That salary (combined with my wife's slightly less salary at that time) allowed me to pay my bills and buy my first (albeit modest) house. In this position I had minimal duties from mid-may to mid-August (not quite as long of an "off-season" as AMLU members).

I think that salary (which is double a "AAA") salary is justifiable. For the record, that is what I think they should make...not what I'm predicting they will make after this strike. I don't want someone coming back and posting a month down the road that I claimed that a "AAA" ump would make $30k after the strike. I just think (1) that is what they should make IMHO (2) MiLB and MLB have both seen record growth over the last six years and as a result there is more than enough money to easily fund this salary level.

You have asked me what I think they should make, and that is my answer.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by lawump

Question #2 first:

I don't agree with your assumption that the strike hasn't worked too well. We live in such a (what I call) "instant" society. We want everything and we want it now. News is regularly broadcast "instantly" with minimal filtering by producers/editors. We eat "instant" meals, so that we can have more time at work. Etc.

I think this culture leads some to conclude that because the strike wasn't resolved in a week or two that it "hasn't worked too well."

I'll stand by what I have posted all along: (1) This strike would not be short (or if it was short, the AMLU would likely be on the short end of the stick). (2) And that AMLU would "win" significant concessions if the strike lasted long.

What did I base this on? (1) Many previous umpire strikes (MLB umpires) have not been short. (2) The MLB umpires "won" every strike they ever went on.

(And for the record: 1999 was not a strike. They were legally barred from striking...they signed their right to strike away in the CBA...so they "quit" instead. Why did they do this suicidal move? In my opinion, they did this because their lawyer had an ego the size of Texas. Why did he have a large ego? Because he had been kicking MLB around for two decades. Everyone remembers the 1999 disaster and many think the AMLU is following this same path. Few, however, remember that MLB umps went from making $10 to $30k in 1979 to where they are now ($100k to $350k) because of all those successful strikes).

I believe that this strike is much more similar to 1979 than 1999. That MLB strike lasted 6 full weeks. It involved picketing at stadiums, press releases and press conferences. In many ways, the umpires in 1979 were worse off than today's MiLB umpires. In 1979 many were on the verge of going on food stamps, etc. The MiLB umpires are younger and can easily get work paying more than what they make on the field. (Many have kept their off-season jobs).

So what happened in 1979? Eventually the umpiring product on the field caused others in baseball to put pressure on the Leagues to settle and get the "regular guys" back on the field. It took awhile for the press to start paying attention...but they did. Did some of the "replacements" do an adequate job on the field. Sure...many had (or are in the middle of) long MLB careers.

So what's going on in 2006? Are some "replacements" doing an adequate job? Sure. Are some over-their-heads at this level. Many are. Are more and more stories about the umpiring situation being reported? In my opinion, yes. (I use Yahoo every day to search for any news story containing the word "umpire"). Has the majority of editorials (and I admit their is not a ton) been pro-AMLU? I would say the vast majority that I have read have been. Does their appear to be more and more stories coming out about managers, GM's and minor league directors being upset about the replacement umps? Yes, (again based upon my Yahoo search), whether the criticism is justified or not.

Do I think incidents like the Young incident at Pawtucket and the Southern League forfeit have more and more minor league people talking about the situation? Yes. (For the record, IMHO, the Young incident would have happened with or without the AMLU guys working the game. However, I don't share the same opinion about the forfeit.)

I personally think the strike is going well, and the AMLU is just beginning to get some momentum. I personally thought it would take longer than the 6-week MLB strike because it would take the AMLU longer to get the media to pay attention because this involves MiLB rather than MLB.

So, to conclude, I disagree with your assessment of the current strike's success.

Of course, the final judgment as to the success of the strike will be when a CBA is signed.

As to your first question...My first job after leaving the minor leagues (and before going to law school) was as a Sports Information Director at an NCAA Division 2 school. I made $30k. I provided as much of a service to society as an MiLB umpire does. That salary (combined with my wife's slightly less salary at that time) allowed me to pay my bills and buy my first (albeit modest) house. In this position I had minimal duties from mid-may to mid-August (not quite as long of an "off-season" as AMLU members).

I think that salary (which is double a "AAA") salary is justifiable. For the record, that is what I think they should make...not what I'm predicting they will make after this strike. I don't want someone coming back and posting a month down the road that I claimed that a "AAA" ump would make $30k after the strike. I just think (1) that is what they should make IMHO (2) MiLB and MLB have both seen record growth over the last six years and as a result there is more than enough money to easily fund this salary level.

You have asked me what I think they should make, and that is my answer.

Okay, $30k for AAA sounds fair to me.....where do I vote?

[SAump]

[/QUOTE]
So how much do you feel that these highly skilled MiLB umpires should be paid for their valuable service to all of mankind?

Follow on question:
How do convince the people that really matter, MiLB, that they are worth the extra money? Obviously the strike hasn't worked too well.[/QUOTE]

Question Number 1 has already been explained in the thread "Any Comments" started by JIGGY. My imaginary analysis, using some info provided in the thread "How much do you get paid?" originally posted by Stripes1950, attempts to rationally answer Question Number 1 by proposing a very viable payscale for MiLB umpires. This analysis concluded that 9 innings of pro ball deserves at least the same amount of money or more than 7 innings of high school ball and more money than 9 innings of amateaur baseball. It should also be noted that an NCAA 3-game series pays substantially higher than this proposed minor league pay scale.

I was surprised to learn that Single A and Double A umpires were only paid $66 and $75 per 9 inning game. One member stated that he was only asking for a new contract which paid $86 per game. Remember, no pay raises have been granted over the last 10 years. My fantasy proposal now called for higher pay scales to be established over the next 6 years, at the very minimum $90 or BUST.

Rookie and Short A BAll: $90 per game 6 years from now
Single A: $100 per game 6 years from now
Double A: $120 per game 6 years from now
Triple A: $150 per game 6 years from now

Question Number 2 is now the major sticking point. As Brian Curtain stated, the suits have the money, but they will not be talked into giving it away. The PBUC position on the table at the moment is "NO PAY RAISES." Some will argue that they did offer $500 more, but many know that was a joke to offset higher insurance premiums. I find it very interesting that PBUC is now PAYING SCABS $90 per ball game.

How do you end the STALEMATE? The federal mediator must bring PBUC and the AMLU together and mandate that they reach an agreement. The federal mediator must recognize past proposals and MEDIATE an acceptable positon for both parties. For example, I keep reading that the AMLU turned down a 12% pay raise and PBUC refuses to adopt a 15% pay raise demand. Why can't both parties reach a 1 year contract calling for a 12% pay raise this year with an additional 1% pay raise every other year? It seems simple enough.

[bobbybanaduck]

SA,

Since you seem to enjoy working with numbers, could you see if you can figure out where the 12% comes from? Other than being conjured from thin air, I can't think of ANY way they could say there is a 12% raise being proposed.

starting salary = $1,800/month under expired CBA.
starting salary = $1,900/month in proposal.

that's about 5.3%

as you go up, the increase % decreases in proportion to the already existing salary. for example:

AA salary under expried CBA = $2,500/mo
AA salary in proposed CBA = $2,600/mo

about 4%.

actually, i think i may have figured out the 12%...

AAA salary or $3,400 goes up to $3,500...about 3%.

5.3% + 4% + 3% = 12.3%.

it would appear to me that instead of adding up these percentages and dividing by the three levels...they simply left out the division part and published the 12% figure.

check me if i'm wrong, sandy, but if i kill all the golfers they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key...

[bobbybanaduck]

SA,

Since you seem to enjoy working with numbers, could you see if you can figure out where the 12% comes from? Other than being conjured from thin air, I can't think of ANY way they could say there is a 12% raise being proposed.

$1,800 x 12% = $216, not $100
$2,500 x 12% = $300, not $100
$3,500 x 12% = $408, not $100