Was it too much?

[jicecone]

I guess the answer is for each association to hire an accountant, add another $15.00 per game on their fees, increase the school sports budgets which increases the tax levy, which pisses off the locales, who again blame the sports officials for srewing things up.

Then we will have to bid for the contracts and low bidder will send the best officials to the games (SURE) and we will then be subject to terrible officiating comments and the cycle continues.

And there are still officials that say they do this for fun ???????????????

Crazy world

[Publius]

Good for the State of Oregon.

Associations nationwide have long been able to have their cake and eat it, too. Dictating not just who works, but whether they even have an opportunity to work (by controlling who gets offered games) flies in the face of "independent contractor".

Dictating what uniforms one wears, how soon before game time one must show up, what mechanics one must use, mandatory attendance at training sessions; all are antithetical to the concept of "independence".

I'm not saying those requirements are bad, only that they go a long way toward making you an employer if you penalize people (by denying them work) for not obeying them. If you want to control officials, you should be prepared for the administrative burden that goes with that control. If you don't want the burden, then you should live with true "independent contractors".

Independent contractors aren't independent if they have to depend on the benevolence and, sometimes, capriciousness of a broker in order to work.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Publius

Good for the State of Oregon.

Associations nationwide have long been able to have their cake and eat it, too. Dictating not just who works, but whether they even have an opportunity to work (by controlling who gets offered games) flies in the face of "independent contractor".

Dictating what uniforms one wears, how soon before game time one must show up, what mechanics one must use, mandatory attendance at training sessions; all are antithetical to the concept of "independence".

I'm not saying those requirements are bad, only that they go a long way toward making you an employer if you penalize people (by denying them work) for not obeying them. If you want to control officials, you should be prepared for the administrative burden that goes with that control. If you don't want the burden, then you should live with true "independent contractors".

Independent contractors aren't independent if they have to depend on the benevolence and, sometimes, capriciousness of a broker in order to work.

I can't tell you how things are where you work but in the associations I belonged to if you did not like what was going on you had the right to vote those people out and do it another way.

But I have also seen some very shady things done also and I have seen some people that never want to do ANYTHING than complain about what everyone else does.

They call it America my friend.