Louisiana Officials Possible Strike?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's fine if he wants to keep his association's bargain -- that's a personal choice. What's slimy is that their association doesn't even hesitate in keeping OTHER association's bargains even though they have no reason to do so.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

[Judtech]

"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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Did your group even take a vote?

no

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

no

Really? Interesting.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

no

And that just confirms what I think of you and your ethics. And the fact that your biggest booster is somebody like Judtech is pretty telling also.

JAR, I sureashell wouldn't dream of ever turning my back on either of you.

[26 Year Gap]

Wonder how large the 4 associations are with respect to the whole? Do they represent a third of the total? Two-thirds? I have to guess that they were not 4 tiny associations with minimal impact.

A quick look at maxpreps.com indicates there are about 400 schools in LA. Some 80 games were called off. So, 160 schools were affected. Others covered by those associations may not have been scheduled. And some games may have been covered by officials outside of the associations that normally work those games. I'm gonna venture a guess that these 4 assns represent more than 28.6% of the officials and schools covered.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And that just confirms what I think of you and your ethics. And the fact that your biggest booster is somebody like Judtech is pretty telling also.

JAR, I sureashell wouldn't dream of ever turning my back on either of you.

The fact that I was not asked my opinion is a reflection of my ethics??

wow

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And that just confirms what I think of you and your ethics. And the fact that your biggest booster is somebody like Judtech is pretty telling also.

JAR, I sureashell wouldn't dream of ever turning my back on either of you.

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

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)

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Berkut

I cannot possibly agree with your conclusion that the work stoppage could result in "the more chance they would vote against it next year".

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.