Was it too much?
 

I was scheduled to work a doubleheader on Sunday. It rained so hard that we only got in about 2 innings.

Today I received a check for both games. Is this the standard? I would have expected only payment for the one game.

Rita

Traditionaly you would only be paid for the game that you started. If they paid you for two you may want to check with whoever it was that paid you. They may have paid you for two games on purpose.

This happened to me a couple of times in the past when I was doing NCAA ball. We would receive the checks upfront at home plate.

I asked my assignor and was told that it was easier to take and cash the checks, then to try and get them redone in the system.

It kind of evened out on those bad weather days that took like 10 hrs to get a double header in. (That included travel time)

The baseball gods will punish you soon enough. They want the books to balance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure one of thsoe checks wasn't for Canadaump's rainout? ;)

R.O.T.F.L.


niiiiiiiiiiiiiice

Yes. It was "too much."

Personally, I would contact whoever issued the check prior to cashing it and inform them that you worked only one game. They will either re-issue a check or tell you to keep the one you have. Let them make the decision.

I wouldn't sweat it. Cash the check, pocket the money and not worry about it. Unless you know for sure how they pay the umpires, I'd assume that is their policy to pay you games you were scheduled, showed up for, but were rained out. Once you started the first game, I suppose they considered you were on the clock for the whole day. Different leagues, different policies. They could have been paying you out of courtesy. The people that write the checks should know both games didn't get played.

I suggest you do what makes you feel the best.

My .02
 

I'd make a call to the league and find out what the policy is.......I would attempt to return the one check.....if they dont accept it fine, but its an effort that will ensure good relationships....

This summer I had a game that we were paid in full and in advance of the first pitch......3 innings later we were rained out.....In this league we get $20for showing up and 3 an inning if not a complete game. My partner and I went to the official and gave back our $45 dollar fee to be exchanged for the $29 we were owed......

I dont umpire for free, but I dont take what I'm not due either.......

Thank you
 

I wanted to know the "industry standard" before contacting him. I had reported to him that day that I only did one game.

The check may have been made out in advance as he contacted me from Florida.

I have a double header scheduled for this coming Sunday. We can probably square it with the check from that game.

Rita

Rita for the most part our association does not have this problem because we are paid UP FRONT at the plate meeting. We had too many problems with the old adage "checks in the mail" so with the exception of some tournaments we do we get our money up front before one pitch is thrown. That way we do not have to "chase" the teams for money etc. especially if you make a controversial call or a call they do not like.

If we have a Double Dip we get paid the one game FEE first. If the game is cancelled due to whether we do not get paid for the second game, however, if the game gets cancelled because the team does not have enough players for the second game then we get paid a full game FEE.

"Mother Nature" is one thing a team not being able to field players is another.

I would contact my assignor FIRST if I got paid for a game I didn't do.

Pete Booth

How the Sam Heck do you know that "it's too much"? Itks not for us in the same sitch, we get pd by assignment not innings or good weathwer. Mebbe Rita belongs to a real ump org that demands as much from its membersas it gets for their umpires.

if you feel bad about keeping it, you can send the extra to me.

You are paid for the commitment, not the game itself. You have no control over the weather or other factors that might not complete the games. This is the way it should be done and the way it is done in many circles. This would be no different if you show up to the game and ejections take place because of some action by a team. You are not responsible for the result.

Peace

A contract is a contract. That being said this is a bad one. In my neck of the woods once one pitch is thrown and the heavens open up we get paid for the full game. Pitch not thrown and we are there we get a traveling fee typically $20 or $25. Your association needs to make some changes.

Similar to how we used to handle it. Pitch thrown, full fee. Short , incomplete, rain or extra innings, full fee.

If scheduled for a game and you don't receive a call and show up, full fee.

No pitch thrown, you get a travel fee.

All games were paid through the association, which made it easier to handle any money problems with a particular game or league.

You may be facing legal problems by having your games paid by your association. We had legal advice that such a procedure would open us up to tax problems.

Tax problems are usually the result of people trying to skirt tax laws. Which is probably a thread that could be discussed forever here. But that was not a problem we had.

It would make it more likely that you would be considered employees of the association, and not independent contractors. (It's just one of several criteria used to help decide the employment status.) This affects worker's comp claims, and tax withholdings.

Your right Bob, and each state has different interpretations of this from what I have found out. I say this because I have been involved with associations in two different states and found it to be different in each, and different for different associations within each state.

Hmmm,
 

The State of Oregon Employment Department is currently outlining legislation that officials in the State of Oregon ARE employees of the Association.

Currently Oregon has viewed sport officials are "independent subcontractors" and have allowed them to be exempt from workmen's compensation fees.

The new ruling will cause multiple challenges:

1) All State Association's will be charged payroll tax.

2) All Officials will be taxed for workman's compensation, state withholding taxes and any other taxes that a local government has voted into place.

3) All officials game checks will also be taxed for the state unemployment claims fund.

At the legislative level we have been fighting this change for two years.

It appears that we are losing.

Why is this happening?

A single basketball referee in Southwestern Oregon lost his job. When he went for unemployment benefits he lists "Sports Official" as a source of income. This set off an alarm within the employment system.

Is there another way to end this?

Sure, we could go back to the way we did it for decades. We are paid now from out local association. All schools send in their fees for the entire year before a pitch is thrown. We have about 5 paydays spread out over the school season. Prior to this system we got a check from the school for each game.

The name on the check was usually: Pay to Salem Baseball Officials Association.

We all would find "special places" that would cash the check when we signed:

"Pay to Salem Baseball Officials Association."

Our school system has noted that they would be required to write as many as 500,000 checks to cover all games fees at all schools levels and they will refuse to add this cost to their accounting budgets.

The State of Oregon has noted that since we receive 1099's at year's end from our "employer" we are, in fact, employees.

Regards,

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

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.

It doesn't sound like your legal advice came from the IRS or a tax attorney. The IRS has told us that has very little to do with the determination as to whether or not an employee/employer relationship exists. Many manufacturer reps who are independent contractors get their checks from one source and it does not infer such a relationship.

Due to a lawsuit against the local basketball association, we conferred with the IRS about our status. We will be making a fewchanges, including having all umpires sign an independent contractor agreement, disavowing any prohibition against working for other associations or directly for leagues and not providing any benefits to the contractors other than available work for a mutually agreed upon compensation. We've been told by the IRS and and our tax attorney that we're good to go.

Garth, thank you for your input. The Internal Revenue Service has consistently defined single source income as one of the delimiters for self-employment.

I find it hard to believe the IRS granted your organization umpires independent contractor status when you did not have the simplest of compliances - the IC Agreement.

Great luck for you and your organization. !

It's worth observing that, based on Tee's account, the situation in Oregon is unusual, and that it is the result of state legislation, not IRS policy. In other words, Oregon seems to be legislating that the official/assignor is de jure an employee/employer relationship for state tax purposes. This would affect only state income tax, workers comp, and other state and local tax programs.

Although this development does not in itself affect the IRS or its code, legislators at every level always seek new forms of "revenue enhancement" that are difficult to label "tax increases." We should not expect that developments in Oregon will go unnoticed, either by other states or by the IRS.

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

In other words lets assume a $50.00 (under the table) Game Fee. With the new legislation this $50.00 will now be taxed, so will the FEES increase so that the net return to the official remains the same.

Thanks

Pete Booth

IRS/Department of Employment
 

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,

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1779.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15a.pdf
http://www.naso.org/rprt/SpecReptIndCont.pdf
http://www.edd.ca.gov/taxrep/de231aa.pdf

To make officials legally IC's without the hassle of recurring questions, an exception statute will probably be needed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Great post, Publius!

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. :(

No training?

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.

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.