Louisiana Officials Possible Strike?

[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

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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!

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Judtech]

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!)
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!!!