PIAA & Insurance

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Because I have happily agreed to pay for the schools and the programs they offer. I have not agreed to pay for a frivolous lawsuit by people that likely knew they'd be unsuccessful but want to see if they could get a free lunch. If there were a way to charge them with the expenses, they should do that but that is likely to end up being more expensive and more difficult than cutting some expenses.

That would be a valid argument if the lawsuit were truly frivolous? But the officials (complainants) won the initial court case. And as has been pointed out, the PIAA has a history of less than scrupulous business practices.

[LRZ]

Just to clarify: the initial "case" was not a law suit, but a complaint filed with the NLRB. After the NLRB ruled in the officials' favor, finding them (us) employees, not independent contractors, PIAA appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which hears administrative agency appeals. That court decided, 3-0, we are not employees but independent contractors.*

After the NLRB decision, there was a parallel class action law suit filed by several officials, claiming PIAA was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for not paying minimum wage. That was recently settled for a $260,000 award to the plaintiffs. I assume the plaintiff lawyers will get their cut, then the remainder will be divided among the officials who opted in to the class action.

Regardless of the merits of the two legal actions, regardless of who pays how much in taxes, and regardless of the value of PIAA membership, there remains the propriety of PIAA's timing, announcing the end of our insurance with little time for officials to scout out meaningful alternatives.

*Like issues in sports, where the rules don't specifically apply to novel situations, the traditional test for employee status does not really address the conditions under which we work in PA. We must be PIAA-certified to work school games, we're assigned by assigners who contract with leagues to provide officials, we're paid by the individual schools, all of which is governed by PIAA rules. PIAA also controls the rules, mechanics and even our uniforms--that is, the terms and conditions of employment. (Think of it this way: a labor union--say, carpenters--decrees that all union carpenters must wear blue pants, red shirts with the union logo, and black shoes. Appropriate?) The original argument before the NLRB was novel and unusual, not frivolous.

[SC Official]

Well, all I know is this. The "independent contractor" argument is complete hogwash in many instances. Just because you are called one in form doesn't mean you are in substance.

Assigners and state associations use this copout when it's convenient for them while exercising a level of control on officials that, more often than not, can be construed as one of an employee/employer relationship.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Well, all I know is this. The "independent contractor" argument is complete hogwash in many instances. Just because you are called one in form doesn't mean you are in substance.

Assigners and state associations use this copout when it's convenient for them while exercising a level of control on officials that, more often than not, can be construed as one of an employee/employer relationship.

And the NLRB agreed with you. The federal Court of Appeals disagreed. We used to say about judges, "Often wrong, but never in doubt."

What I was trying to point out is that our relationship with PIAA is, imo, neither that of employment nor independent contractor, but a hybrid.

[Player989random]

I'm curious if this will impact the college game. I know that for the Patriot/Ivy contracts, those refs weren't allowed to officiate HS basketball. I'm not sure how well a non-compete clause will read under the general idea of an IC. All but one of my assignors requires attendance at "summer/staff training camps", where they are just cashing in on my legs. Uniform requirements, numerous e-mails on how to adjudicate plays, reports that must be filed, etc.

Sure the NCAA has insulated themselves from this, but conference guys? That'd be fun to see.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Player989random

I'm curious if this will impact the college game. I know that for the Patriot/Ivy contracts, those refs weren't allowed to officiate HS basketball. I'm not sure how well a non-compete clause will read under the general idea of an IC. All but one of my assignors requires attendance at "summer/staff training camps", where they are just cashing in on my legs. Uniform requirements, numerous e-mails on how to adjudicate plays, reports that must be filed, etc.

Sure the NCAA has insulated themselves from this, but conference guys? That'd be fun to see.

It will have zero impact on the Patriot/Ivy or any college conferences.

No official who has any desire to advance and/or remain college basketball is going to challenge the legality of an assigner's policies to his face, and certainly is not going to bring a lawsuit. Career suicide.

There is no shortage of officials who will diligently adhere to assigners' rules and "non-compete agreements."

[Player989random]

Full disclosure, I'm in no way associated with Patriot/Ivy. It's simply something I've heard from every one of those guys I worked with. I guess it was a gentlemen's agreement. I'd still call it a non-compete clause since you were barred from working other amateur athletic events.

Originally Posted by SC Official

It will have zero impact on the Patriot/Ivy or any college conferences.

No official who has any desire to advance and/or remain college basketball is going to challenge the legality of an assigner's policies to his face, and certainly is not going to bring a lawsuit. Career suicide.

There is no shortage of officials who will diligently adhere to assigners' rules and "non-compete agreements."

But assume (and I'm of the same mind, I don't expect anyone to ever try it), someone did try and unionize college refs. Could this case be used as precedence? And like someone else said, this avocation is full of dudes who will work for peanuts if it means they get games.

And we have a certain Mid-Atlantic guy that gets pissed if you work for a JuCo guy. We got a memo stating that if you couldn't open up dates from that one guy, just go ahead and quit. Real IC, there.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Player989random

I'm curious if this will impact the college game. I know that for the Patriot/Ivy contracts, those refs weren't allowed to officiate HS basketball.....

Was it actually written into the contract, or was it a gentlemen's agreement? Was it a supervisor requirement or was it a requirement of the Patriot/Ivy consortium?

And to be clear, it was not a "non-compete" clause. Patriot/Ivy officials work(ed) in many other college conferences.

Non-compete clauses are what we have at the HS level, where some assignors/commissioners attempt to prevent their officials from working with other associations, especially associations who won contract bids over said association.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Was it actually written into the contract, or was it a gentlemen's agreement? I have 2 good friends on the Patriot/Ivy staff who continued to do some HS. Was it a supervisor (supervisor was let go) requirement or was it a requirement of the Patriot/Ivy consortium?

And to be clear, it was not a "non-compete" clause. Patriot/Ivy officials work(ed) in many other college conferences.

Non-compete clauses are what we have at the HS level, where some assignors/commissioners attempt to prevent their officials from working with other associations, especially associations who won contract bids over said association.

You're not wrong about high school, but that crap happens in college too (less the associations). Not saying it does in the Patriot/Ivy at all, but it happens.

There's a D2 supervisor in the Southeast who pretty much blacklists officials that work for a certain JuCo guy (as you know).