Louisiana Officials Possible Strike?

[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.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.