Louisiana Officials Possible Strike?

[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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by LouisianaDave

The attitudes of JAR is the reason that Louisiana is so cheaply paid. I work for the Baton Rouge association and we held a special meeting and the members voted to be unavailable. All this talk of contracts is irrelevant. The way the association works, the principals enter into an agreement with an officials association to use their officials. Then the association must use the an assignor paid for and hired by the principals. On Feb 1, all except for 3 officials were unavailable to work and therefore games had to be postponed. As independent contractors we have the right to be available or unavailable.

As JAR state principals voted down the pay raise due to the threat of a strike. The principals figured there wasnt enough unity amongst officials to actually follow through on the walkout, but when the games got postponed the officials showed the principals there are more guys willing to stay home(me) than guys who were working (JAR). Even though 4 associations sat that is a misleading quote. There were 4 association who were done for the season. For one Tuesday night the officials of the following cities sat Shreveport, Monroe, Hammond, Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Thibidoux and a majority of New Orleans. Lafayette didnt vote and worked and Lake Charles worked.

So by uniting as one, we showed the principals we were a force to be reckoned with. Even though I dont make a lot of money officiating HS, there are some really good officials in this state and we have quite a few collegiate refs out there.

Thanks for the info, Dave. It sure is a little bit different than some of the things we've been told. Keep on fighting the good fight. if you don't, they'll still be trying to pay you $36/game twenty years from now.

The sad part is that the JAR's of the world will get the increase too even though they did everything they could to maintain the status quo.

The concept of having an assignor whose best interests obviously lie contrary to the officials that he's assigning is just plain ridiculous imo. There's nothing to stop that assignor from punishing officials for their work refusal by withholding future game assignments from them.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Like I said, I would've put my bags away for the year before I would've stepped in and worked other association's games.

So all this is hypothetical for me, but I have worked in an association system before and I can't imagine such a scenario happening and not have the chance to vote on whether the association wants to join the others. You mean *nobody* in your group asked that question? Do you guys not meet?

Part of the agreement that we have with all of our neighboring associations is that we will never send officials into each other's area without the approval of that area's association. The last thing that any of us want is to get into official vs. official warfare. Our local constitution also is specifically written so that the members make ALL major decisions by majority vote. And with e-mail, etc., you can have a vote immediately on just about anything.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Part of the agreement that we have with all of our neighboring associations is that we will never send officials into each other's area without the approval of that area's association.

Once upon a time, in the Land of Steady Habits, Connecticut was a 98% IAABO state. The only exception was a very small non-IAABO association that was a vestige of what used to be an association that only worked girls games, before local Connecticut IAABO boards started working girls games about thirty years ago.

Over the years, more and more schools wanted their girls games worked by the same board (IAABO) that worked their boys games, in most cases to make the paperwork more convenient for athletic directors. As IAABO, now both boys and girls, got larger, the "girls" association got smaller. Near the end, the "girls" association was only covering less than a dozen schools.

That's when it started getting nasty. If a coach, or athletic director, that used the "girls" officials didn't like the way that their girls games were being called, they switched over to IAABO. If a coach, or athletic director, that used the IAABO officials didn't like the way that their girls games were being called, they switched over to the "girls" association. In a few cases, when athletic directors, or coaches, really got pissed, they used the "girls" officials to work their boys games. This went on for several years.

Eventually, the "girls" association only had about two dozen officials, and was only covering about a half dozen schools, getting, for the most part, only girls games. Finally about four years ago, the "girls" association offered to merge with our local IAABO board. Some of our guys didn't want to merge, but wanted to exterminate the other association. However, reasonable minds took over, and now we're all just one big happy family, and we're going to live happily ever after. Don't you just love monopolies?

[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!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by LouisianaDave

The attitudes of JAR is the reason that Louisiana is so cheaply paid. I work for the Baton Rouge association and we held a special meeting and the members voted to be unavailable. All this talk of contracts is irrelevant. The way the association works, the principals enter into an agreement with an officials association to use their officials. Then the association must use the an assignor paid for and hired by the principals. On Feb 1, all except for 3 officials were unavailable to work and therefore games had to be postponed. As independent contractors we have the right to be available or unavailable.

As JAR state principals voted down the pay raise due to the threat of a strike. The principals figured there wasnt enough unity amongst officials to actually follow through on the walkout, but when the games got postponed the officials showed the principals there are more guys willing to stay home(me) than guys who were working (JAR). Even though 4 associations sat that is a misleading quote. There were 4 association who were done for the season. For one Tuesday night the officials of the following cities sat Shreveport, Monroe, Hammond, Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Thibidoux and a majority of New Orleans. Lafayette didnt vote and worked and Lake Charles worked.

So why did you not have a special meeting before this current contract was signed and demand a raise then? And how is the contract irrelevant, whether you like the way the system is structured or not? As you point out, we, as individuals are not contracted and have the right to sit out at any time. But you think it's okay to desert your assignor in the middle of the season? Also, if you were done for the season, what changed? All we have is a promise to reconsider the proposal, or a similar proposal. This promise, in and of itself, seems to me to mean very little.

[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!!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

The thing is, they were working this year with the understanding that a pay raise had already been negotiated for next year. Once that deal was broken, I see three appropriate times to walk.

1. Immediately
2. After the regular season, in the playoffs. (Seems a lot more harsh, to me.)
3. Next season (do we really think they would have scheduled a re-vote without the walkout?).

[LouisianaDave]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So why did you not have a special meeting before this current contract was signed and demand a raise then? And how is the contract irrelevant, whether you like the way the system is structured or not? As you point out, we, as individuals are not contracted and have the right to sit out at any time. But you think it's okay to desert your assignor in the middle of the season? Also, if you were done for the season, what changed? All we have is a promise to reconsider the proposal, or a similar proposal. This promise, in and of itself, seems to me to mean very little.

The contracts are signed in Aug by the assocations president, schools and assignors. The raise proposal is was on the convention floor to be voted on the last weekend in January. It would be hard to have a meeting to work/not work in August when the vote isnt for another 5/6months.

Sitting out that day I feel made more of a point to show the principals that you reneged on your promise, and that we are taking a stand. There is only so much loyolty I will show an assignor, I felt this was bigger than what was being called deserting him. Its not like he hires and fires me like a collegiate assignor can, all he can do send me to worse games and I felt the juice was worth the squeeze.

The Baton Rouge association was not done for the season. The associations who were done for the season revoted after the emergency meeting to go back to work. Even though its all a promise and they could vote down the raise again, we officials are working in good faith. The publicity generated is enough to show that if they do vote down the raise in June for the next year, then when enough football officials strike and there is no football in Louisiana then the principals will be shown publicly that they cant be trusted. In this instance the media helped bring to light the reason why Louisiana is paid so poorly and its because of the principals.

[azbigdawg]

When I read this... I realize how good we have it here in AZ. ONE office assigns the games.... no (very little) backstabbing... No (very little) elitism... you work what you earn... the control some AD's and principals have is mind blowing and puzzling... .they should have NO say in who officiates their games...