I will agree with you that is a point that can be debated. And to be honest I am about 50-50 on it. Do you fill in when others fail to do what they are contracted to do? Or do you just let both parties sink or swim? I can see both sides of that argument. 1) We will fill in for the "good of the game" or 2) I am only doing what I am contractually obligated to do and no more. IMO, either way is fine b/c the rubber doesn't hit the road until the new contract and/or the next season.

I see one reason as damage control. Unless something changes, when the "tweaked" proposal comes to a vote again, it will not separate who honored the previous agreement and who didn't. The longer the delay, the more trouble it would have been for the other side, the more potential bad blood, the more chance they would vote against the raise next time.

So now it has dissolved into "I have more stuff than you have." Very nice. Kinda like arguing with a 6 year old, except the 6 year old could type his messages better.:rolleyes:

Man, they really have you scared, don't they? If all the LA officials were like you, it would be another 21 years before they'd even ask for a raise.

I sincerely hope that your association...and yourself.....aren't two-faced enough to accept a raise if one is given by the LHSSAA. Stick to your principles and refuse those ill-gotten gains made by others that you're so dead against. After all, it's not like you've risked one damn thing to make things better for officials in LA, is it?

What did I have to risk?

"Ill gotten gains"? Seriously? Since when is a negotiated contract ill gotten?

Which is being two face:
a) Agreeing to a contract and then before the contract expires, saying that the contract is insufficient and fail to live up to your end of the bargain
or
b) Fulfilling your contract and negtiating for a better one when the current one expires?

If enough officials decide not to work for those new wages, does that make those who do evil? If someone is willing to work for the wages being offered why demonize them?

The best thing that could happen long-term would be that the raise gets voted down and everyone walks next season. Then when you go work anyway, I'm sure you'd have a "good" reason. Otherwise I'd expect that everyone will get $2 or some ridiculous amount and the principals will act like they're being generous.

Lot of difference between "everyone" walking and what we had here. What if one crew in our association had decided not to work on Tuesday, should the rest of us have refused to take their game?

It's one thing to fill in for a neighboring association when they simply get overwhelmed with games. But that's not what happened here. This is one group essentially telling the schools not to worry about this little dispute because they'll step up and fill in the gap.
Again, if they actually get a raise, it'll be in spite of the sh1tty behavior of jar's association. If they don't get a raise, it'll be largely because of the guys who didn't think it was important enough to take a small risk.

I just don't see the risk, personally. In that position, I'd not work, I'm sure of it. What is there to lose, $31 a game? And for those who say, "think of the children," that just presupposes that those of us that officiate do it for the children. Big assumption to make.

I enjoy officiating, but I'd never cross this line. I'd pack the stuff up for the year and enjoy a few more nights at home with the family.

What was the vote in your association? If mre than 50% decided to walk, then all should walk. Did your group even take a vote?

no

I can see that argument. But, and this is a point made by both JAR and RICH, how many people ACTUALLY left. I am assuming there are more than 7 assocations in LA ( I could be wrong) and only 4 walked. so since less than 1/2 of the associations walked, the 'majority' didn't support that action.
If the schools come up with a low offer and the majority of the associations decide NOT to sign on, and someone crosses, then I have an issue. Again, I think the Associations hold most of the cards here, but for the next contract, not this one.

Really? Interesting.

4 out of 14