Nothing like this ever came up before since I've been around, but the annual negotiations of subvarsity rates and travel pay are handled by some combination of the 2 assignors, and 1 or 2 other senior members. Had I not wanted to work, I suppose I had the option to turn my game back.

Gee, Rut, everybody knows you don't live here. And everybody knows you work more than HS ball. But everybody except you, apparently, knows that those were the two things we were talking about. Everybody also knows that you have a habit of ducking things when you have no suitable answer.

I'll spell it out.

If you did live here, when it comes to high school ball, you would accept the current terms or quit.

OR?

Where I live is irrelevant to this discussion. I would not tolerate that anywhere. ANYWHERE!!!!

You are still trying to deflect issue I see. This is not about me where I live. This is about the pay that you accept is unacceptable. And to go and work those games in their place or to advocate such a thing is why you are getting paid less than many officials around the country.

Peace

I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that you should honor the contract.

But here is the thing - they've been doing that for 21 years, and what have they gotten out of it? The lowest pay in the country, right?

I cannot possibly agree with your conclusion that the work stoppage could result in "the more chance they would vote against it next year". Seems to me that the last 21 years made it pretty clear that if things just go on as normal, there is basically zero change of it being passed "next time". After all, the last 20 "next times" saw no votes every time - why would you assume that the next "next time" would be different from the previous ones, as long as everyone just did the exact same thing?

Doing the same thing while expecting different results is not generally consider the mark of rational thinking.

I don't like the idea of people not honoring their contracts - on the other hand, desperate times and all that. It seems to me that it was pretty clear that if the officials did nothing, then they would have another year being paid a pittance, and the principals would laugh while they voted down yet another raise.

If in fact you get a raise this year, you have to assume that it came about as a result of the work stoppage, or at least the media attention it caused. After all, there was no work stoppage for 20 years, and they never gave you a raise.

And again, no answer.

If you were in my place, what, specifically, would you do?

Move. ;)

The conclusion was based on the fact that it was printed (I've read so much on this subject, that I don't remember where) that some principals who had stated intentions to vote for the raise, when they heard threats of a walkout, changed their votes. Hard to imagine that an actual walkout would change the votes back. All this occurred, of course, under an existing contract. Refusal to accept the renewal of this contract without a raise, should be easy for all parties to understand, and easy to support.

I did not realize you needed an answer to a silly question.

I would not do what you are doing. I would not take games to help the schools out when another association is making a stand for all of us. I would not talk to a principal and undermine the position of getting higher pay. I would not take games at that rate and act like I do not have a choice (which you always have a choice). And most of all I would not work in that system and sit back and do nothing. And I certainly would not be talking about what others think when there has been no vote to find out what the other associations actually. About the only thing I would be doing that you will do is take the raise when it comes to me.

Peace

Why didn't these principals vote for the raise last year then, when there was no walkout? Sounds a bit fishy to me, the idea that they were so going to vote for a raise finally, and now they are NOT going to, because a minority f officials walked out?

How do they justify that, btw? Surely the decision about how to pay someone is important enough that they would not let the actions of a minority effect their decision making process....right? Why, that would not be very professional on their part.

What people say to the media does not often have much to do with how they actually feel though, as opposed to what they think will have the effect they wish to create.

And like I said - they didn't vote for a raise for 21 straight years. Seems to me like it was time to start doing *something* different, since taking it with a smile every year apparently wasn't working.

I know almost nothing about the proposal for a raise is made or when it normally comes up, if there is a normal time for such matters. The last raise, in spite of publications to the contrary, was not 21 years ago, but was in 2007, when our game fees actually doubled. That's right. In 2006 we got 18 bucks a game.

Silly statements provoke silly questions. You say you would not do what I do. I said you would do it or quit. You said you wouldn't quit. I said, what would you do then? And you cleared it up nicely by giving this solution. Very helpful.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

There were people who accepted $18 for a varsity game in 2006? Are you kidding me? You're basically paying the teams to officiate at that point. People aren't kidding when they say Louisiana basketball officiating is behind the times.

For one I do not live in your system type. We do not get games by association and think that those that do are one of the problems of these types of situation. I like the model we live under where just like the NCAA, if the assignor of the conference likes you, they hire you. If they do not like you, they do not hire you. And if I do not want to work for someone, I don't. And it appears that you think that you cannot on some level reject games or you must work no matter what other things you have going on in your life. This entire discussion you have tried to make this sound like you have no choices in this situation. Are you telling me that if you have a date you do not want work you must work because the association tells you to? You even said if I was in your area I would have to do what you do…….Really? I would have to? I have no choice when or how to work at all? So if I have another activity I must work the amount of days you do? I guess many of you guys do not have families, jobs or other activities if you cannot decide when or how often you want to officiate.

Peace

Steady, Rut. Try one more time to concentrate. This is not about rejecting individual games. I can do that, no problem. Check the first statement above again. You say something like that, then when called on it, you write a whole paragraph which addresses everything but that. I should be used to it by now.

Can you spell Vaseline? As that is what you need as that is what the Principals should be using on you as they take complete advantage of your time and your services.

Peace

another non-answer

I detect a pattern.

again

I do not need to deflect anything, I do not have to work for less than $30 a game like you do unless it is summer ball. What the heck do you mean what I would do? I would not be working games to undercut my fellow officials I can afford the nights off.

Peace

Varsity rate is actually $36 two man.

You said you would not work at this rate.

I said if you lived here you would or you would quit.

You said you would not quit.

You wouldn't work at this rate and you wouldn't quit.

What would you do then?

What part of this do you not understand?

I make double that for most games. If that does not tell you something, I do not know what would.

I worked a shootout this weekend and worked two games. The pay in that particular shootout was less than most from a per game fee standpoint and you would have to work 3 games just to make what I did on Saturday.

Nope.

I do not just work HS ball and HS ball is not the only level someone can work in this country. ;)

It seems you are having the problem understanding. Everything I just stated (above) was not the first time I said those things in this thread. :rolleyes:

Peace

It tells me that you shoot your mouth off about things, paint yourself into a corner, and then either ignore direct questions until the other person grows weary, or disappear from the thread. I've grown weary. You win.

How did I paint myself into a corner?

For one nothing we are talking about is going to change my officiating life. I have answered your little silly hypothetical and told you how I feel.

You damn right I win, you would have to work two games to make close to what I make for a single game. How do you like them apples? ;)

Peace

Or you can do something about it like the guys who refused games and put their azzes on the line so that you could get a pay raise next year. Instead of backing them, you back-stabbed them.

Sorry, JAR, but there it is.

Well said. Doing nothing gets you nothing.

Like I said, I would've put my bags away for the year before I would've stepped in and worked other association's games.

I don't have that system here. I get offered games, I get a contract to sign, and I can choose whether to accept games or not accept games. One factor for me is the pay and whether those schools pay travel. For example, in baseball I only work 4 conferences because the games start at 4:45PM or 5PM. And I wouldn't drive more than 50 miles or so from Madison if the conference didn't pay for travel.

So all this is hypothetical for me, but I have worked in an association system before and I can't imagine such a scenario happening and not have the chance to vote on whether the association wants to join the others. You mean *nobody* in your group asked that question? Do you guys not meet?

+1

The attitudes of JAR is the reason that Louisiana is so cheaply paid. I work for the Baton Rouge association and we held a special meeting and the members voted to be unavailable. All this talk of contracts is irrelevant. The way the association works, the principals enter into an agreement with an officials association to use their officials. Then the association must use the an assignor paid for and hired by the principals. On Feb 1, all except for 3 officials were unavailable to work and therefore games had to be postponed. As independent contractors we have the right to be available or unavailable.

As JAR state principals voted down the pay raise due to the threat of a strike. The principals figured there wasnt enough unity amongst officials to actually follow through on the walkout, but when the games got postponed the officials showed the principals there are more guys willing to stay home(me) than guys who were working (JAR). Even though 4 associations sat that is a misleading quote. There were 4 association who were done for the season. For one Tuesday night the officials of the following cities sat Shreveport, Monroe, Hammond, Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Thibidoux and a majority of New Orleans. Lafayette didnt vote and worked and Lake Charles worked.

So by uniting as one, we showed the principals we were a force to be reckoned with. Even though I dont make a lot of money officiating HS, there are some really good officials in this state and we have quite a few collegiate refs out there.

Interesting. Could it be that JAR's assignor's little conflict-of-interest kept his association from coming together and voting on this? Or do the officials operate separately from the assignor?

When I worked in NO (for one season only), we had an older gentleman who assigned by having everyone stand around him and throw up their hands for games for the next few weeks. Weird, weird system. Don't remember how much we got paid then -- I was just happy to get out and work a few games a week, then. Of course, I was a young kid then, and had little other demands on my free time.

When it comes to the assignors, its definitely a weird situation. Every association must have a president and a board. But the assignors have all the power, because our assignor tried to implore us before we voted to think about the kids, etc. So there is definitely a conflict of interest. We use the arbiter but there is no public ratings you just get an email saying you have games then you go on the arbiter and see what you get, sort of like christmas every wednesday morning, lol

I would not work HS ball in Louisiana at those rates. I would work AAU, military intra-murals and inter-base games, and whatever college schedule I got.

And the assignors work for the principals? Yeah, no conflict of interest there. :rolleyes:

I would not work at those rates just on principle alone.

Would it remind you of your first nite in D block?:rolleyes:

That is the best you can come up with? More personal attacks? WHAT is involved not WHO is involved should be the only arbiter of what is right. The fact that you continue to make it personal shows that you are having difficulty defending your stance with facts.
Again, I will posit this question: Why is it acceptable to vilify someone who is keeping their word? When did honoring ones agreements, regardless action of others, become a bad character trait?

No one is saying that the LA officials are underpaid and need raise. The argument becomes HOW to accomplish this. Should the officials work the remaining agreeed upon contract or should they walk away before the contract expires. Since there are not many answers out there to JAR's "What would YOU do questions" let me throw my .02 in the mix.
1. I would work the rest of the year under the current contract.
2. I'm not so sure I would cover another associations games who chose to walk. That is the responsibilities of the parties involved. HOWEVER, I would not casitgate anyone who did.
3. I would not work HS next year unless:
a. We got a SIGNIFICANT raise
b. Association assignors were hired internally by the Association. There is a complete conflict of interest in the current set up
4. I would like to see 3 person crews but it wouldn't be a deal breaker.

It would become a sticky wicket if my association agreed to work under a new contract but over half decided not to. I would be inclined NOT to work until a majority of officials/association agreed. In short, my POV is that the time to exert pressure is when I have completed my part of a contract and the other party is looking for a new deal. I am not sure how this is back stabbing and evil to anyone but godless pinko commies!! (I kid I kid)

Jutech,

Sorry, when someone takes their words or their position and makes an evaluation on them, that is not a personal attack. JAR said what he would do and said what he has done. And then said what he felt of those that did not work the games during the "walk out." All of that is fair game when you say it here. And I think it is shady for someone to do some of the things when they are working for everyone. Again we all have choices; we just choose what we are going to do. If you do not want folks to comment on what you say, then do not say them. I know my words in this have been used to say things about me. You cannot have it both ways.

Peace

Thanks for the info, Dave. It sure is a little bit different than some of the things we've been told. Keep on fighting the good fight. if you don't, they'll still be trying to pay you $36/game twenty years from now.

The sad part is that the JAR's of the world will get the increase too even though they did everything they could to maintain the status quo.

The concept of having an assignor whose best interests obviously lie contrary to the officials that he's assigning is just plain ridiculous imo. There's nothing to stop that assignor from punishing officials for their work refusal by withholding future game assignments from them.

Part of the agreement that we have with all of our neighboring associations is that we will never send officials into each other's area without the approval of that area's association. The last thing that any of us want is to get into official vs. official warfare. Our local constitution also is specifically written so that the members make ALL major decisions by majority vote. And with e-mail, etc., you can have a vote immediately on just about anything.

JRUT, I agree but think you misread my post. I was referring the Jurassic claiming that the reason JAR's point was invalid was b/c I was one of his biggest supporters.

My disagreement is that, in the case where a raise was agreed-upon and later rescinded, the schools have already violated the agreement. The time to respond is immediately, IMO. I understand that's personal preference.

I also understand the raise was for next year, but the fact is they are working this year with the understanding that the raise is coming next year.

I would go with the majority of my association, while personally voting to walk. I would not look kindly on officials or associations that decided to fill in for us if we walked.

Now We Start Meetings By Singing Kumbaya ...
 

Once upon a time, in the Land of Steady Habits, Connecticut was a 98% IAABO state. The only exception was a very small non-IAABO association that was a vestige of what used to be an association that only worked girls games, before local Connecticut IAABO boards started working girls games about thirty years ago.

Over the years, more and more schools wanted their girls games worked by the same board (IAABO) that worked their boys games, in most cases to make the paperwork more convenient for athletic directors. As IAABO, now both boys and girls, got larger, the "girls" association got smaller. Near the end, the "girls" association was only covering less than a dozen schools.

That's when it started getting nasty. If a coach, or athletic director, that used the "girls" officials didn't like the way that their girls games were being called, they switched over to IAABO. If a coach, or athletic director, that used the IAABO officials didn't like the way that their girls games were being called, they switched over to the "girls" association. In a few cases, when athletic directors, or coaches, really got pissed, they used the "girls" officials to work their boys games. This went on for several years.

Eventually, the "girls" association only had about two dozen officials, and was only covering about a half dozen schools, getting, for the most part, only girls games. Finally about four years ago, the "girls" association offered to merge with our local IAABO board. Some of our guys didn't want to merge, but wanted to exterminate the other association. However, reasonable minds took over, and now we're all just one big happy family, and we're going to live happily ever after. Don't you just love monopolies?

Agree 100% with your first point. Especially the word IMMEDIATELY. In my understanding of what was posted here, the "immediately' part hasn't happened. If they worked this year after the pay raise was rescinded, then, IMO, the officials have an obligation to keep their word THIS year. But again, that is just me and the value I place on my word. Can walking away LATER be rationalized? Absolutely, but I choose not to.
If a MINORITY of associations filled in for the MAJORITY of associations, then I would have a dim view of those in that association. However, in this case the MAJORITY of associations filled in for the MINORITY of associations.
To me the real test will come next year. The Associations know already that the LHSAA can't be trusted very far. If the LHSAA doesn't pony up, then the associations should call their bluff. At that point anyone or any association that chose to "cross the line" would be viewed in a very dim light. Heck, I might see about scheduling a game down there and be an AC from HELL just to show em!!;) I've been told I can be quite a handful!

So why did you not have a special meeting before this current contract was signed and demand a raise then? And how is the contract irrelevant, whether you like the way the system is structured or not? As you point out, we, as individuals are not contracted and have the right to sit out at any time. But you think it's okay to desert your assignor in the middle of the season? Also, if you were done for the season, what changed? All we have is a promise to reconsider the proposal, or a similar proposal. This promise, in and of itself, seems to me to mean very little.

Immediately, IMV, would have been after the principals' vote. That is what happened from how I read it.

As for the majority issue, if I was told a majority voted against walking, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. However, since at least one of the remaining 10 didn't vote at all, and 4 were done anyway, now we're down to 4 out of 9 rather than 4 out of 14. Whether the remaining 5 even voted isn't known. The real question is, what percentage of officials (not associations) overall who were given the chance to vote opted to walk? I don't think an association of 50 officials should be given the same weight as an association of 300. One official, one vote.

Also, don't underestimate JR's point about the assigners working for the schools and pressuring the officials either to vote to work or not to hold a vote at all.

If the leadership wanted to work, but knew the rank and file would vote to walk; do you think there would have been a vote at all? I doubt it.

What was the context of this, Snaqs? I read so much on the subject, it's hard to keep it all straight. There was something about when the last raise passed in '07 subsequent small raises were to follow, but I'm not sure how solid that ever was. Apparently not very.

SNAQ - Re read 3-b in my "What I would do" post and you would see we are agreed on assignors. (Which according to some makes the point invalid b/c of my agreement with it!:cool:)
Again, my understanding was that the pay for THIS year wasn't affected at the time of the vote but the pay for NEXT year was the issue. If I was getting 36/game and they came back and said "yeah, we are going to have to pay you 34/game" THAT is where I would immediately say "good luck with that". I think we agree on that as well. However, since the current pay wasn't affected then I would stay.
And where are you getting all these numbers? Waaayyyyy to much math to be done, good thing it is a slow day!!!

The thing is, they were working this year with the understanding that a pay raise had already been negotiated for next year. Once that deal was broken, I see three appropriate times to walk.

1. Immediately
2. After the regular season, in the playoffs. (Seems a lot more harsh, to me.)
3. Next season (do we really think they would have scheduled a re-vote without the walkout?).

The contracts are signed in Aug by the assocations president, schools and assignors. The raise proposal is was on the convention floor to be voted on the last weekend in January. It would be hard to have a meeting to work/not work in August when the vote isnt for another 5/6months.

Sitting out that day I feel made more of a point to show the principals that you reneged on your promise, and that we are taking a stand. There is only so much loyolty I will show an assignor, I felt this was bigger than what was being called deserting him. Its not like he hires and fires me like a collegiate assignor can, all he can do send me to worse games and I felt the juice was worth the squeeze.

The Baton Rouge association was not done for the season. The associations who were done for the season revoted after the emergency meeting to go back to work. Even though its all a promise and they could vote down the raise again, we officials are working in good faith. The publicity generated is enough to show that if they do vote down the raise in June for the next year, then when enough football officials strike and there is no football in Louisiana then the principals will be shown publicly that they cant be trusted. In this instance the media helped bring to light the reason why Louisiana is paid so poorly and its because of the principals.

When I read this... I realize how good we have it here in AZ. ONE office assigns the games.... no (very little) backstabbing... No (very little) elitism... you work what you earn... the control some AD's and principals have is mind blowing and puzzling... .they should have NO say in who officiates their games...