Would You Accept?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well just so you know, that is not a officiating politics issue, that is a worker, management issue. This would be the same case if this was a skilled worker or a teachers union in a strike or lockout of some kind. Heck I live in a heavily union state and any time non-union workers are hired in a building project there are union people that will make it known (They actually put a huge blowup rat that is probably about 20 feet tall in many cases) near the work site.

Peace

And such attitudes have sent many companies to other places....either to states with right to work laws or even to other countries. Most unions are outdated and no longer serve the purpose for which they were founded. They now walk a fine line between extortion and representing the workers' safety and fair treatment. Detroit is seeing the worst of the affects of unions where they held on so long that the US car makers just couldn't compete against global competition and have lost a enormous share of the world market as a result. Instead of making high wages as the unions have pushed for, now many of those union members are making no wages while someone in Korea has a job. Of course, they'll blame it on the business for being greedy....and then go buy their groceries at the store with the cheapest prices.

[Multiple Sports]

No way.......

I get the impression that there are a lot of D II and III officials on this site............... for those guys they are trying to get to the D I level. Why do they think they could go out and work in the NBA....

Wouldn't be fair to the players / coaches / or fans for me to try to work in the Association...

Also have too much respect for all the hard work those guys have put in to get to that level.......

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

....and then go buy their groceries at the store with the cheapest prices.

Does the name of the store start with a "W"? Maybe the nonunion employees of that store can only afford to buy their groceries there, kind of like the old "Company Store". To misquote Yogi Berra, "It's Catch 22 all over again".

[twocentsworth]

I would say "yes" in a New York "minute".....just tell me where and when the game is and I will be there!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by legend

If I were ready and got the call...for sure. One of the things that I despise about officiating is politics. I understand the officials are locked out, but why should they be mad at you/me for stepping in and trying to make better for ourselves in that situation. The whole "Lets stand together" deal just drives me crazy. I know that I'll get bashed for this but half of the guys in professional sports either knew someone or had some type of connection to HELP them get there. So if they would look down with anger at me for doing what was best for my family then shame on them.

You obviously never met Joe Forte.....LOL

[just another ref]

I have never understood the "Never, ever, cross a picket line. PERIOD!! " philosophy. The union wants a million dollars and says we get or we walk. Then management finds someone to work and do an acceptable job for $750,000.

This is not a tough decision.

[jTheUmp]

At my current place in my officiating career... no, I wouldn't accept a replacement NBA (or NFL, or MLB) gig.

However, if I was at a different point in my career (5ish years till I plan on retiring, knowing this would be my one shot for 15 minutes of fame, being able to make more money in 1 month of officiating then I'll make in 5 years, being ok with potentially being ostracized by the officiating world at large)... it would be a much tougher decision.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

Since we are in summer mode..thought I would throw this out

If like the NFL, the NBA officials were locked out, would you accept an assignment working NBA games? Why or Why Not?

Nope. You end up screwing yourself and others in the long run.

When I lived in GA from '96-00 some officiating groups worked together to get high schools to raise fees (at the time it was $35 for varsity). It was working well until other groups agreed to work for the going rate and then others agreed to work for $30 per game. Eventually we all lost out.

That being said I do look at the NFL situation differently from the other major sports because they aren't full-time employees of the league (similar to our situation). They have regular jobs and can earn a living. The league doesn't have quite as much leverage.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have never understood the "Never, ever, cross a picket line. PERIOD!! " philosophy. The union wants a million dollars and says we get or we walk. Then management finds someone to work and do an acceptable job for $750,000.

This is not a tough decision.

They are not going to fire the people they already have in place. The NFL replacements are used as a pawn. This would be like leaving your girlfriend for a fling and then when the fling is done with you, the girlfriend that loves you knows you cheated on her. Is it worth it for something that is not going to last. You can disagree, but those NFL replacements are not going to be treated well when they get back because they gave up something to do those games. Many might not work at all this year at the levels they gave up. And now many might not get their job back. If nothing else, the situation will always end and then what?

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

When I lived in GA from '96-00 some officiating groups worked together to get high schools to raise fees (at the time it was $35 for varsity). It was working well until other groups agreed to work for the going rate and then others agreed to work for $30 per game. Eventually we all lost out.

I believe that's called a free market. It's the same as Store A selling a widget for $10, and Store B selling it for $7. Store A can get as mad as they want, but the market is what it is.

To the OP's question, I lean toward "yes." I'm not a big fan of unions, typically due to the sense of entitlement they often emit. (See Camron's Detroit example, and I could cite other local ones that hurt businesses here.) When someone strikes, they simply choose not to work. If someone else wants to work in their place, the striker has no-one to blame but himself.

However, in many ways, our associations/boards are unions. They make the relationships with schools, get and assign the work, negotiate the fees, and train the officials (in varying degrees). They also forbid its members going to schools directly to get work and negotiate fees. That's what's needed for an any association to be effective. If the association is not getting work, though, then it's not being very effective.

If I found a league to be treating officials unacceptably, then of course I wouldn't work for it. It would have to be a damn good reason, though. Otherwise, I'm in. If you don't want to work, I'll gladly serve.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Most unions are outdated and no longer serve the purpose for which they were founded.

No hot dogs for you on Labor Day.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Yes I am a union man, I grew up in a union family and have been a member of three different unions during my adult life. That said, lets talk about the brother(and sister)hood of officiating.

Many here know my basketball officiating background and I can honestly say that if I were to retire today (and Mark, Jr., who has been officiating for five years now thought I stopped officiating six years ago) that I have had an officiating career that 90% of all basketball officials wish they could have had.

Whether one officiates only jr. high school and freshmen games or officiates in the NBA we are all basketball officials and we should not be doing anything that hurts our fellow brother and sister officials. Personally, I never had the desire to officiate in the NBA (maybe the WNBA) because I felt that the college level was the highest level that suited my temperament as a basketball official. That does that mean that I would have turned down an chance to officiate in the NBA if I had been offered a chance? Absolutely not, as long as it was as a member of the staff and not as a scab (yes, I used the word scab).

NBA officials are officials just like every other basketball official that officiates in this country, Canada, and else where in the world, and I am not about to take a job away from one of them just to feed my ego while they are trying to maintain or improve their working conditions.

Let me tell a true story:

A few years ago I assigned the officials for a men's 30 and over (with well over half the players being over 40) recreational league (all of the officials that I assigned were over 40 except Junior). As men's recreational leagues go, this one was fairly laid back. That is not to say that there weren't TF's called from time to time but there were never hard feelings by the players because they knew that we were there to maintain order.
At the end of the season the league had a tournament that took three weeks to crown a champion (the tournament was single elimination but only played once a week). During the first week of the tournament an official who posts in this forum (and no it was not me) tossed the League Director from the game after the LD chest bumped the official after receiving a TF from the official. The game was the last game of the night and the LD's team ended up losing the game by forfeit.
The LD called me that night screaming about being tossed from the game and the game being forfeited and that he was not going to pay the officials for the games that they had officiated that night. (The officials were paid by check every week by the school district that leased the gym to the league, it was the weirdest setup that I had ever seen but the checks always arrived in the mail on time and never bounced.)
And that since I was scheduled to officiate the next week he did not me to officiate because I was the one who had assigned the official who tossed him. I told him that I would gladly replace myself as long as I got paid and the officials for his game of the evening were paid too. He told me to go to heck. And I told him that he wasn't going to have any officials for the rest of the tournament.
I sent an email to all of the officials on my list informing them of what had happened. The LD called all of them on my list to have them finish the tournament, none of them (and there were 20 officials on the list) would take the games except two officials. Eighteen officials felt that it was more important to stand together against a LD that thought it was okay to make physical contact with a game official than it was to make a game fee which was $27 per game. I don't have any respect for the two official who put money before their fellow officials and when I am asked to assign officials for anything those two officials are not on my list.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Yes I am a union man, I grew up in a union family and have been a member of three different unions during my adult life. That said, lets talk about the brother(and sister)hood of officiating.

....

NBA officials are officials just like every other basketball official that officiates in this country, Canada, and else where in the world, and I am not about to take a job away from one of them just to feed my ego while they are trying to maintain or improve their working conditions.

Let me tell a true story:

...

MTD, Sr.

Great story, and a great example of when to stick together. But that one had a good reason to boycott/strike that tournament.

Not all situations have such good reasons. I prefer to judge each situation than blindly follow just because of a membership to a certain group. There are plenty of examples of union leaders effectively killing a company's ability to remain competitive and ultimately causing them to either lose business since they can't compete on product price or to take their business elsewhere (or close completely) leaving all those workers who got a little more money without a job at all. Holding a company hostage until they pay more may be called collective bargaining but in reality, it is not much more than extortion.

There were some recent teacher's strikes out here. I had zero sympathy for them and anyone else striking when our economy is in such horrible shape with so many people out of work. What ultimately happened is the teachers got their raise and, to make the budget balance since there was no new money, they laid off a number of newer teachers (which are usually the good ones that still actually teach). Great plan! Those teachers all sacrificed a few of their own for a few more bucks.

As for your assertion that officials shouldn't do something that hurts other officials....good luck with that one. It happens everywhere all the time as people try to climb the ladder. I've been thrown under the bus by more people (at every level I've worked) than I care to count.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Union leaders effectively killing a company's ability to remain competitive and ultimately causing them to either lose business since they can't compete on product price or to take their business elsewhere (or close completely) leaving all those workers who got a little more money without a job at all. Holding a company hostage until they pay more may be called collective bargaining but in reality, it is not much more than extortion.

I hesitate to post on this issue because it's way above my pay grade, and way above my intelligence quotient. However, as the song says, "fools rush in where wise men fear to tread".

Full disclosure: I worked as part of a union, and I've worked with no union. Right now, no union, I'm an "at will" employee.

To add to Camron's well written, rational, and intelligent, statement above, companies can always "bust" the union and hire new permanent employees, employees that would be relatively easy to find with unemployment as it is today. Also, at some point the union leadership, as well as the rank and file membership, must realize that companies do have a breaking point, and demand, or ask, for just what they need, or deserve, without breaking the company, which would be like not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The pendulum swings both ways. Back in the nineteenth century, before unions became popular in the United States, there was no middle class. You made a ton of money if you owned the company, or were in management, or you worked for the company and made little money. Back then, in "Company Store" times, working conditions were horrible, but the workers had no other choices if they wanted to feed their families.

Then two things happened, unions, and government regulations. The coal mine strikes, and the factory strikes, of the early twentieth century all helped the workers get a foot into the middle class door. Child labor laws, workmen's compensation, unemployment benefits, minimum wage laws, OSHA, etc., all certainly helped the labor movement.

And then, maybe back in the 1960's, or 1970's, the labor unions got just a little bit too aggressive, causing many companies to struggle under union contracts.

Now, it may be time for the pendulum to swing back the other way. And don't think that government regulations alone can replace unions. Studies have shown that government regulations alone do not work, that companies will try to get away with any loophole that they can find in government regulations. There is a place for unions in the modern working environment, it's just time for them to dial it back just a little bit.

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No, I believe in unions and believe that it would hurt other chances. More trouble than it is worth.

Peace

There is nothing lower than a scab.