Was it too much?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Pete asked:

"Tee is your association going to lose officials over this new legislation?

"Also, will the Fees increase to compensate the officials for the increase in tax?"

What a great question and I do not know how to answer it . . . yet.

First:

There will be no increase of a game fee to cover these costs. The school districts feel that what happens to individual umpires is that person responsibility and not theirs.

The schools in Oregon turned down umpire based requests for an additional $5.00 per game added to our new increase (which is the largest in Oregon history) in an attempt to even our fees to non-school based games. We will make slighly over $50 per game this year for our largest sized schools.

And fees from the state will be deduction to this already too low price.

Second:

We will certainly lose umpires. We fight every year to break even with umpires that leave the area, decide to not umpire and even die . . . this will cripple us yet again.

The basic rule we find in recruiting is that is the economy is good in an area then it is very difficult to get new officials. In areas where an economy hiccoughs we find there to be more bodies looking to officiate.

In closing:

The Oregon State Department of Employment gave the following test to determine if the officials in Oregon are employees:

1- Do you have to pay a fee to work for this association (company)?

2- Does that association (company) train you to perform your task?

3- Does that association (company) write you a paycheck for doing that task?

4- Does that association (company) have a singular contact with the clients you serve.

So in Oregon:

We pay fees for our NFHS packet and a fee to join the association. So we are a company on point one according to the OSDE.

We train all our umpires extensively on rules and mechanics . . . we even train them in game management. So we are a company on point two according to the OSDE.

As explained earlier our association receives payment for all schools before we see a pitch. We are then paid about 4 or 5 times a season by a check drawn on the account of the Portland Baseball Umpires Association (this is how all associations in the state do it). We receive a check from our employer. So we are a company on point three according to the OSDE.

In Oregon the ONLY way you can get an assignment for a varsity baseball game is to be assigned by an association. (I leave wiggle room here for sub-varsity games that are at times officiated by non-NFHS certified officials because there is a shortage of umpires). The associations have exclusive contact with schools in term of assignment of game officials. So we are a company on point four according to the OSDE.

Just as information: The PBUA does have a legally binding sub-contractor agreement that is required from each umpire that works in our association.

Regards,

Sounds like it's time for umpires to take a season off of school ball until the compensation is evened out. Nobody should take a pay cut over something like this.

And I'm thankful again that I'm a true IC in every sense of the word where I live.

[Publius]

It's easy to get (or keep) officials classified as ICs without any new statutes. All the associations need to do is stop trying to excercise so much control over the officials.

"You must attend 'N' meetings to work. You must wear 'X' brand of shoes/slacks. You must use the 'Z' mechanics. You may only wear 'B' color shirts. You may not take games from any other association/assignor. You may not subcontract this game to another official."

The one in Spokane appears to be going about it properly. Even at that, southern Wisconsin sounds like a lot better place to work baseball, businesswise.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Publius

It's easy to get (or keep) officials classified as ICs without any new statutes. All the associations need to do is stop trying to excercise so much control over the officials.

"You must attend 'N' meetings to work. You must wear 'X' brand of shoes/slacks. You must use the 'Z' mechanics. You may only wear 'B' color shirts. You may not take games from any other association/assignor. You may not subcontract this game to another official."

The one in Spokane appears to be going about it properly. Even at that, southern Wisconsin sounds like a lot better place to work baseball, businesswise.

I believe most State Chapters dictate the number of meetings that are necessary for officials to officiate NFHS ball. Along with jersey and slack colors. Summer ball was less restrictive for us.

We always wanted our members to attend so that they would learn something, which the majority seemed very willing to do. As an incentive we set the dues at $50.00 per year with a $5 rebate for each meeting attended , up to 5 meetings. Dues could end up being $25.00.

There were choices for jersey colors but hats were required with our logo on.
Even then it was tough getting some people to buy a new one when they turned, faded pink. In fact we had an agreement with a local sporting goods shop where the officials could charge their new equipment and the association would pay. It would then be deducted from there final check. It really helped getting grey slacks on the officials instead of faded pink.

You could work for any association you wanted however once you stiff our association to work a higher price game for someone else then you were allowed to continue working for someone else indefinitely. The association signed contracts based upon officials availability, if the officials screw us why should we allow him to be a member in good standing?

Are assignments were handed out based upon availibity, ability and longevity in the assoc. When an official dumps (subcontracts) a game then we no longer had control of the officials we sent to games. ALL games had to be returned to the assignor.

I state all this because it seems as though you have some problems with your association being a little to dictorial OR you just want to do whatever YOU want. I am not sure however, I believe that some organizations are run like prisons but as an exboard member, president, evaulator, assignor, interpretor and floorsweeper, I wanted to give you some insight from helping run the Assoc. and know it is not easy to please everyone and run a good one.

[Publius]

I don't have any problem with any association dictating anything. I'm just saying if that's what floats its boat, it should be prepared to eventually have to answer as to whether the members are really ICs, or if it's a de facto employer.

My "problem" (if you can call it that) is associations that act like employers in every sense of the governing statutes and guidelines, but don't want to take on the administrative and legal responsibilities that go with it.

You're absolutely right that if I am classified as an IC with the attendant risks and liabilities that go with it, I want to do things the way I want. That is the very essence of the difference between being an employee and an IC. If the association wants to dictate things, great. Let them assume those risks and liabilities.

[GarthB]

Getting IRS to recognize an independent contractor status is not difficult and does not involve some of the nonsense posted in this thread. We chose to contact the local IRS office and have an agent speak with our board. I would recommend that route.

In the meantime, this publication may help some:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1779.pdf

The number one indicator for IRS, as we were told by the field agent, is that the "company" may only dictate and direct the results of the independent contractor's work, not his methods. We no longer offer "training". We now require (legally) that those who wish to contract with us demonstrate their competence prior to agreeing to contract for their services.

State issues like Tee's group has run into are a different matter, and ones which Washington association may also encounter as a result of a lawsuit filed against WOA.

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by Publius

I don't have any problem with any association dictating anything. I'm just saying if that's what floats its boat, it should be prepared to eventually have to answer as to whether the members are really ICs, or if it's a de facto employer.

My "problem" (if you can call it that) is associations that act like employers in every sense of the governing statutes and guidelines, but don't want to take on the administrative and legal responsibilities that go with it.

You're absolutely right that if I am classified as an IC with the attendant risks and liabilities that go with it, I want to do things the way I want. That is the very essence of the difference between being an employee and an IC. If the association wants to dictate things, great. Let them assume those risks and liabilities.

Great post, Publius!

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Getting IRS to recognize an independent contractor status is not difficult and does not involve some of the nonsense posted in this thread. We chose to contact the local IRS office and have an agent speak with our board. I would recommend that route.

In the meantime, this publication may help some:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1779.pdf

The number one indicator for IRS, as we were told by the field agent, is that the "company" may only dictate and direct the results of the independent contractor's work, not his methods.

Seriously consider getting an attorney/accountant help (one of each) with a dedication to IC IRS matters. Taking a simplistic approach will be to your organizations potential demise.

We no longer offer "training". We now require (legally) that those who wish to contract with us demonstrate their competence prior to agreeing to contract for their services.

No training?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Getting IRS to recognize an independent contractor status is not difficult and does not involve some of the nonsense posted in this thread. We chose to contact the local IRS office and have an agent speak with our board. I would recommend that route.

In the meantime, this publication may help some:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1779.pdf

The number one indicator for IRS, as we were told by the field agent, is that the "company" may only dictate and direct the results of the independent contractor's work, not his methods. We no longer offer "training". We now require (legally) that those who wish to contract with us demonstrate their competence prior to agreeing to contract for their services.

State issues like Tee's group has run into are a different matter, and ones which Washington association may also encounter as a result of a lawsuit filed against WOA.

I think (but IANAL) that you can also help by separating the "association" from the "assigning." The association exists to help train / mentor, etc. the officials. No work, therefor, no employee relationship. The assignor gives games, but, as Garth points out, dictates only the results of the work.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think (but IANAL) that you can also help by separating the "association" from the "assigning." The association exists to help train / mentor, etc. the officials. No work, therefor, no employee relationship. The assignor gives games, but, as Garth points out, dictates only the results of the work.

We are doing something similar, Bob. The umpires will secure training from a separate group. We hold "evaluation sessions" to confirm the competency of our independent contractors. Quality control is still allowed with independent contractors.

We are being very careful and diligent. The attorney advising us has IRS experience, and the IRS agent assisting us is a former basketgall official.

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think (but IANAL) that you can also help by separating the "association" from the "assigning." The association exists to help train / mentor, etc. the officials. No work, therefor, no employee relationship. The assignor gives games, but, as Garth points out, dictates only the results of the work.

One thing is for certain. The IRS can disallow a IC-Contractor relationship and you are left wih having to prove one in Tax Court which can be a difficult, expensive and inconclusive process. Your best protections are not "field agents" with opinions that are neither qualified or stated as official by the IRS itself.