Rich's area - Is it time to drop the 3-man officiating crew?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

(or strike)

Off topic. Over the years we have occasionally discussed not working games for certain schools (payment issues, safety issues, security issues, fan control, unsporting issues, etc.) but have been told by attorneys that this would break our contract with the CIAC, and put us in serious legal jeopardy.

[LRZ]

The legal issue would be: who breached the contract first? Did CIAC breach first by not meeting its contractual obligations to provide safety and security, payment, etc.?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

The legal issue would be: who breached the contract first? Did CIAC breach first by not meeting its contractual obligations to provide safety and security, payment, etc.?

The most common problem is timely payment. We complain to the CIAC, they put pressure on the school, it gets better for a year, or so, and then the problem resurfaces. Rinse and repeat.

I once received a check in July after I made several complaints to both the school and my assigner, for a game worked in January. I can almost guarantee that if I didn't squeak the wheel, I would never have received payment for that game.

Almost all of our payment issues come from one school system (several high schools). Pay vouchers move from school site directors, to a system wide athletic director, to city hall, where the check is processed and mailed. Too many middlemen, too much of a paper trail. If this one school system moved to Arbiter Pay, most of our payment problems would be resolved.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Off topic. Over the years we have occasionally discussed not working games for certain schools (payment issues, safety issues, security issues, fan control, unsporting issues, etc.) but have been told by attorneys that this would break our contract with the CIAC, and put us in serious legal jeopardy.

That's one thing I like about the assigning structure here. We are all ICs and associations have no official role in assigning games. If we want to come together and not accept games in a particular conference, we can do that without any issues.

Now, there will be officials who will crawl over our backs to take those slots and the conferemce will nees to decide if the quality of those people are OK with them long-term.

At some point we need to stop with the "for the kids" bullshit and ask ourselves if the lack of increases we have accepted would've been acceptable to teachers, principals, and superintendents. In my area some conferences have raised pay about 10% over 20 years. How many teachers, principals, and superintendents would accept that cause it's "for the kids?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

... ask ourselves if the lack of increases we have accepted would've been acceptable to teachers, principals, and superintendents. In my area some conferences have raised pay about 10% over 20 years. How many teachers, principals, and superintendents would accept that ...

Problem solved in Connecticut (Varsity Fee: $97.17; Sub Varsity Fee: $63.05).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No fee negotiations, our annual fee increase is the same as the average annual increase in teacher's salaries across the entire state. No more annual negotiations in smoke filled back rooms.

[ilyazhito]

Why do schools cry poor about 3-person then? If they can afford to pay 2 officials over 90 dollars each, there is no reason that they cannot pay 60 dollars each to a 3-person crew. $65 would be around the median of the varsity scale, assuming that there would be regular raises (The equivalent pay for 3-person JV crews would be $41). Thus, there is no reason for schools to cry poor, if they just divide the money 3 ways rather than 2.

In MA, 3-person crews are allowed to be paid up to 85% of the 2-person rate. In FL, 3-person crews are paid $5 less per official than 2 person, but the overall rate is lower (55 for 2-person varsity, 50 for 3-person varsity). Maybe the CIAC and the officials can find a compromise approach that allows the officials to put the best possible product on the court (3-person crews) at a rate that is affordable to everyone

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Why do schools cry poor about 3-person then? If they can afford to pay 2 officials over 90 dollars each, there is no reason that they cannot pay 60 dollars each to a 3-person crew. $62 would be on the lower range of the varsity scale, but still an acceptable rate of pay for officials, assuming that there would be regular raises (The equivalent pay for 3-person JV crews would be $41). Thus, there is no reason for schools to cry poor, if they just divide the money 3 ways rather than 2.

No, no, 100 times no.

Officials shouldn't pay for adding a third official. That's just a terrible, umsustainable idea.

When my conference that I hire went to 3-person a few years ago, we paid the officials the exact same amount the 2 officials got the year before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, no, 100 times no.

Officials shouldn't pay for adding a third official. That's just a terrible, umsustainable idea.

When my conference that I hire went to 3-person a few years ago, we paid the officials the exact same amount the 2 officials got the year before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Absolutely agree with this. There MUST be premium attached to getting a 3 man varsity officiating crew at the varsity level. IMO, that value/cost should be MORE than a Fr/So/JV crew. That way, the expectations and level of commitment/accountability continue to be in place for all involved, and, as a result, the overall level of officiating and decorum is noticeably higher across the board.

In my area, Fr/So/JV games pay 2 man crew members between 45-55 per game. 3 man varsity crews (I don't know any schools in the metro and outlying areas that use 2 man), in the same area/conference, are paid between 60-80 per game.

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, no, 100 times no.

Officials shouldn't pay for adding a third official. That's just a terrible, umsustainable idea.

When my conference that I hire went to 3-person a few years ago, we paid the officials the exact same amount the 2 officials got the year before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

While I agree with you I don't know how you got this to fly with the schools. Our schools were and still are resistant to 3-man officiating simply due to the cost. We have some of the lowest fees in the country at $52 for a varsity 3-man game. $60 for varsity 2-man. There have been talks of strikes or flu days but nothing has come to fruition. I'm not sure what the solution is but there is a lot of frustration around fees in our state and association.

This maybe getting OT would be happy to start a new thread.

[LRZ]

Around the league where I work most of my games, we are 3-ref for varsity, and 2-ref for every level below. I've asked why we don't go to 3-ref for jv games, which are typically fast and furious, and we have enough officials to cover these games. Revenue isn't there, I've been told.

In recent years, there has been number of new, enormous buildings and facility upgrades throughout the league. It seems like every school district has to have two or three turf fields, including turf practice fields, and stadiums (with lights and new locker rooms), costing millions of dollars. Another $1-1.5K for third jv officials (we get $61 a game) would break the budget, apparently.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

While I agree with you I don't know how you got this to fly with the schools. Our schools were and still are resistant to 3-man officiating simply due to the cost. We have some of the lowest fees in the country at $52 for a varsity 3-man game. $60 for varsity 2-man. There have been talks of strikes or flu days but nothing has come to fruition. I'm not sure what the solution is but there is a lot of frustration around fees in our state and association.



This maybe getting OT would be happy to start a new thread.

It's because someone made a case that movng to 3-person was important and that we needed to be competitive with fees.

We're paying $66 this year, which is by no means great, but it's that amount if it's 2-person or 3-person.

There was a vocal minority of officials who said we should stay 2 and pay $90 or so each - now we know that the check is more important to them than anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Why do schools cry poor about 3-person then?

Here in Connecticut, they don't, the main problem in Connecticut is that coaches individually, and collectively, do not want three officials. If they did then there may be some financial issues down the line to deal with, but we'll never get to that point until coaches want a three person game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Off topic. Over the years we have occasionally discussed not working games for certain schools (payment issues, safety issues, security issues, fan control, unsporting issues, etc.) but have been told by attorneys that this would break our contract with the CIAC, and put us in serious legal jeopardy.

It is clear your area does not have a true Independent Contractor relationship. If you did they cannot make any official work any game they do not wish to work.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is clear your area does not have a true Independent Contractor relationship. If you did they cannot make any official work any game they do not wish to work.

I was speaking collectively, "We're (my board) not assigning officials to your school (school system) if your don't start paying us in a more timely manner", but I still see your point.

While I fully agree with you regarding my independent contractor status, we can still block out specific sites, schools, teams, genders, and levels, on Arbiter (with some limitations), and also blanket gender "block" with an email to our assigner. We can also block out any dates and times that we do not want to be available (although we're later fined if we don't block and we're assigned and don't accept).

While I'm fairly certain that many Forum members are actually true independent contractors, I'm also pretty sure that some just toss the word around willy-nilly without fully understanding all the labor and tax implications. I once spent considerable time on IRS websites and labor websites trying to figure out exactly what it means to be an independent contractor, and unless one is a tax attorney, or a labor attorney, the qualifications are often difficult to understand, especially since the laws often vary state by state.

[JRutledge]

I will just say it this way. If we in Illinois had an association do all our assigning for all games and levels, that could violate state law being an independent contractor and those associations would have to start likely paying some form of workman's comp. So no organization really has that kind of "official" relationship to assignor or only hire those from one organization. And certainly, these organizations are in no way paying the officials directly through any bank account. It might be a little more complicated than that, but I can tell you that every association I am a member of changed their constitutions to reflect that they do not assign any games. The assignors that belong to our associations have no obligation to the association, but to assign who for their respective conferences that hire them. And I know all assignors hire people outside of their main or primary association.

Peace