Louisiana Officials Possible Strike?

[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)

[JRutledge]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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)

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.