I see. So the individual referees may be out of Dodge, but it certainly won't be "oh well" for the associations. They will face fines for lack of performance on their contractual obligations. This probably ends with all the current associations having to dissolve in order to not pay thousands of dollars in damages to the state association (or whoever they contract with).

My point is this is not a real strike (as a real strike involves a union and an employer) and the associations do not enjoy the protections the law provides to striking unions.

And if the state has not met it's contractual obligations in regards to a pay raise, sue them, but defaulting on your contract is always going to end up biting you in the butt.

What our areas do is meaningless. It's what LA does that counts.

In the stories already posted, it was confirmed that no LA officials sign individual contracts and no LA officials are employed in any way by the LHSAA. Every LA official is an independant contractor and can turn down any game they choose to. The contract is between the LHSAA region and an individual officials association. And if that association can't supply officials because of a lack of sub-contractors willing to work for them, then that ain't the sub contractors problem.

Methinks the average official in LA is finally saying enough is enough.

I'm not a lawyer but I think a lot would depend on the nature of the contract signed. Unless one of those associations is completely clueless, they should have some rider in their contract re:availability of people willing to work at any specific time.

Nope, this isn't a strike of any kind. It's an uprising. :D

Seriously, neither the LHSAA or the various officials associations can force their members to work. That why somewhere along the line the LHSAA needs to sit down and straighten things out. Unless I'm reading all of those newspaper links wrong, the officials thought they had come to some kind of an agreement back in 2007.

That depends on how good their lawyers are. :D

And long overdue at that

That's true, but the courts can enforce contracts. What they may end up entailing I can't say for sure but it's not likely to be pleasant for the associations, especially if they are instructing officials not to work.

I agree that LHSAA needs to step up to their 2007 agreement and get with the program.

Don't forget to read Chapter 12: Tort Reform for tomorrow!
 

To elaborate on this point: The officials/sub contractors make up the Associations who contracted with the Schools.
So say for instance the "Bayou Officials Association" or BOA signs a contract to cover games for the "Riverboat District" games at such and such a rate and all that other fine stuff. (SIDEBAR: I can't BELIEVE there is no fine print detailing the fines and penalties of BOC by either party in the contracts) The BOA's obviously determines they have enough officials in their stable to meet the contract b4 signing.
Now if the BOA's officials get "Stripe Sickness" and don't work that would cause the BOA to be unable to cover the games they are contractually obligated to cover in the Riverboat District. It is the BOA who will take the heat not the officials.
HOWEVER, and this is "the rub", what happens if/when the labor dispute gets resolved? If the BOA is found in BOC with the Riverboat District, there will most likely be damages (def. compensatory and maybe punitive) awarded the Riverboat District that the BOA is responsible for paying. Now, the BOA is getting paid $75/game and all the officials are happy. Unfortunately for them, the BOA is still on the hook for the damages caused by the "sub contractors" which caused the BOA to be in BOC with the RD. (Say THAT 10xs fast!) What is the BOA to do? One option would be to raise whatever fees they charge their members/sub contractors to be members of the BOA. They could file bankruptcy, which then causes a whole BUNCH of issues. Or they could just dissolve the BOA. However, that would necessitate a new association being formed, and may cause angst with the Schools as they will now NOT be getting money from the "old" association and still having to pay higher rates to the "new" assocaition (Cue WHO song)
Now, if the "sub contractors" continued to work under the existing contract until it expires all of that is moot. When the schools come around with a "new" contract offer for a whopping $36.50 + a glass of water, the BOA can say thank you but no thank you to the schools. If EVERY association does this, the schools will then have to 1) SERIOUSLY negotiate a new deal with the association 2) Re Vamp how they obtain their officials. So instead of contracting with an association, they contract with individuals or 3) Have the players call their own! Finally, the BOA would not be on the hook for any damages caused the schools and the schools would NOT have a bargaining chip (fines, damages etc) they can use in contract negotiations with the BOA.

Yep, I still like JAR's thought process.

I guess if associations have contracts with certain schools or districts, that certain other associations shouldn't be poaching those contracts thinking that if they work those games they might get more contracts down the line. If they want to work their own games, that is one thing, but going to other areas is just plain wrong IMO.

Both parties need to come to some kind of an agreement that is acceptable to each other. And the officials don't need to kill themselves internally while an agreement is being reached either. Association vs. association in-fighting can't possibly do any good for any of the LA officials imo.

Do the math. Say a team plays 30 games a year...15 at home, 15 away. The raise was $3/official over 2 years based on a 3-man crew. That's $9/game X 15 games = $145 a year. I just can't believe that any high school is that hard pressed that it would have to drop a major varsity sport over $145/year.

100% agree. Although you would have to double that since there usually is a boys team as well.:D
Plus, have you seen the going rate of a Hot Dog or Nacho these days? Those boosters are out to get you!! Seriously!! What happened to $1 hot dogs $.50 popcorn and $1.50 nachos!!!

While I'd hope they would stick together, their right to pick up the games others are refusing is basic free trade and competition.

I doubt it would go that way. Associations, for the most part, are small non-profits will a very small bank account. The second they get sued (lacking any insurance that will step in), they dissolve. They just don't have the resources to involve lawyers. The schools will know that. And guess what, new associations will form with mostly the same people, and the schools will be in the same boat, except they will have spent the initial money on lawyers.

They signed those 'contracts' in good faith with the understanding fees were to be raised. They weren't, all bets are off.

Would also be interested in knowing how the teacher's union fared with their salary increase negotiations over the past years????

edit: Louisiana teacher salaries have risen 45.4% over the past ten years. Now I know why you're on the bottom of the totem pole boys

Well, the deal is apparently over, for now.State high school basketball officials agree to return to work - NOLA.com

Not sure exactly what a "promise to revisit the pay raise" means, but I doubt if any of us will get health insurance and a company car now.

I have contracts for all my games for this season, next season, and for a fair number of games in 2012-13. They specify how much we will be paid for those games and I have the choice whether to sign them or not sign them.

I worry what would happen here if schools and conferences would try to cut pay for officials. I think many officials would buy the party line of "the schools have no money" and would work for considerably less money. With no real organized associations (we have associations, but membership is voluntary and is only for training and networking purposes) the games would go on.

I was an assignor for an adult baseball league with 44 teams and a lot of attitude. The umpires were underpaid and took way too much abuse. When I tried to bridge the gap between the league and the assignors and get a fair raise for the umpires, I had *umpires* tell me to back off. Mainly cause they were the ones that had been around forever and were buddies with the teams and their management.

Me? I could work for $31, I guess, but I won't. I have told the occasional AD that I'd be willing to cut my pay from $60 to $45 to $50 for 2-3 years if there was a real effort to transition to 3-person officiating across the board. That would cut some of the effect on the schools while they try to figure out how to raise the additional funds down the road. Some have thought this was a good idea, but they're in the minority -- they're happy having to only pay 2 officials.

Probably would be a good idea to have the officials make a presentation prior to the vote. But, it doesn't seem much different than Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to me.