NFL's First Female Official - Chargers vs Pack, 9 Aug

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

This and more extreme philosophies have been espoused at various blogs and message boards. I understand all of that. I am not a union member and live in a right to work state but I understand the good unions do and the flaws that they have. I also understand the current business climate in this country.

At some point, the planet Vulcan philosophy of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" evaporates into the American principle of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Each official must weigh for themselves the risk and benefit to accept employment under the present circumstances. Unless presented with the opportunity, none of us can say with 100% accuracy what we would do.

Gotta walk a mile in the other dude/dudette's shoes.

I will speak for myself. If offered a replacement job in the NFL, I would not take it. I personally know 4 NFL guys (2 who have retired) and I would not take their jobs. Simple as that.

[MD Longhorn]

These referees will show us A) DIII officials are not ready for prime-time; and B) NFL referees are better than the general public thinks.

I just hope that the debacle that will unfold tomorrow and over the next few weeks will not be laid at the feet of the female official alone. She's going to blow one - but so will everyone else being moved up WAY above their current talent level, and likely multiple times.

[HLin NC]

But you are not taking "their job". They are locked out. Management can replace them and have opted to do so. The bargaining process willm be used insure they return to "their job".

The replacement official loses "their job" when it is over. Whether they are hired back in the future or are dumped back in to the job market is not under their control or the unions.

It is easy to say "I'll never do that" until actually faced with the decision. Be it based on low ethics or high desire to achieve, each individual makes their own choice at the crucial time

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

But you are not taking "their job". They are locked out. Management can replace them and have opted to do so. The bargaining process willm be used insure they return to "their job".

The replacement official loses "their job" when it is over. Whether they are hired back in the future or are dumped back in to the job market is not under their control or the unions.

It is easy to say "I'll never do that" until actually faced with the decision. Be it based on low ethics or high desire to achieve, each individual makes their own choice at the crucial time

You can say it anyway you want, but it is their job you are taking. If it was not their job then the NFL would have fired all the guys they locked out. They have not done that and when this situation is resolved most of those will be back. I know if I was asked to be a replacement I would not do this at all. I have goals to work college and even higher if that ever would be an opportunity and that would be completely dashed if I made this decision. It is one thing to work in the NFL, but I would rather get there the best way everyone else could. I know the Referee personally that was being talked about in an article and I would not trade places with him at all. Even things he has accomplished he is being used to prove a point and what did he really get out of this experience? It is one thing to work a game, it is another when the national media is saying you do not know what you are doing and saying your background is not accurate. I could have seen that coming on some level. Sorry, I would not have wanted to be apart of that if I had the opportunity.

Peace

[HLin NC]

Does a substitute teacher take the job of a teacher out sick, in a conference, on strike? Of course not. The replacement refs are no more taking the regular officials job than that. When the bargaining process is completed, all will return to normal.

Unless of course the NFL says "to hell with it" and dumps them all and starts over. Possible, but hard to believe. Welcome to unionization vs. the free market.

The NFLRA should not over believe their inability to be replaced. They're good, great even, but they are also expendable just like the players that get cut.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Does a substitute teacher take the job of a teacher out sick, in a conference, on strike? Of course not. The replacement refs are no more taking the regular officials job than that.

they may not be "taking their jobs" but by taking these games it potentially weakens the bargaing power of the nflra....if no one had taken these jobs then it probably would have been settled by now...if were settled by now the regular guys would be working...so yes they DID take their jobs...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by cmathews

they may not be "taking their jobs" but by taking these games it potentially weakens the bargaing power of the nflra....if no one had taken these jobs then it probably would have been settled by now...if were settled by now the regular guys would be working...so yes they DID take their jobs...

Ah, but perhaps the replacements are in cahoots with the NFLRA! Perhaps they're being paid to do a crappy job in order to STRENGTHEN the position of the NFLRA! HA HA!

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by cmathews

they may not be "taking their jobs" but by taking these games it potentially weakens the bargaing power of the nflra....if no one had taken these jobs then it probably would have been settled by now...if were settled by now the regular guys would be working...so yes they DID take their jobs...

The bargaining power of any union is always proportional to the degree of skill and the quality of work that it can provide compared to any replacements. That is why, for example, auto and mechanics, police and firefighters unions are traditionally very strong, while unions for jobs that can be easily replaced such as janitors and unskilled line workers are comparatively weak.
When "replacements" are adequately skilled off the street to perform similar work with less training than the cost of negotiating, then the union really has no choice but to capitulate, and the members must accept that they either need to develop greater skill to justify increased wages* or accept that they can be replaced quickly. Fortunately, in many ways, this is an individual choice. But when the union can prove that it promotes the skills and quality of work that the owners need in order to succeed, then it can frequently win enormous concessions, and secure a healthy relationship that benefits all the parties (workers, owners, stakeholders and customers).
The union vs. scab debate has long been filled with the "always-or-never" narrow-minded mentality ideologies that is currently ripping our country apart in every other politically related discussion. If the officials are indeed much more skilled than the replacements then it can do nothing but help the NFLRA. If they find that the replacements can handle the game, then at least the truth has come out and everyone can re-assess the value that they provide. But to not take a look at the skill of those who would take the field in their stead is to be complacent with the status quo. And if there is anything that I've learned from war, it's that complacency kills.

*Working conditions must always be up to standard. Non-union employees who don't take the time to learn the rules for occupational safety are inviting their own hazards. Most industrial machines will kill you if given the chance, and the government has plenty of avenues for redress. Not taking them up on those opportunities when necessary is being complacent with your own life, and manifest stupidity.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Does a substitute teacher take the job of a teacher out sick, in a conference

Of course not - teachers are allowed time off for sick, conference, whatever, and that's what substitutes are in existence for in the first place...

on strike?

COMPLETELY different, see my other post.

When the bargaining process is completed, all will return to normal.

Here is exactly what you're missing... the fact that some will "substitute" weakens the bargaining position of the locked out individuals.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Does a substitute teacher take the job of a teacher out sick, in a conference, on strike? Of course not. The replacement refs are no more taking the regular officials job than that. When the bargaining process is completed, all will return to normal.

Unless of course the NFL says "to hell with it" and dumps them all and starts over. Possible, but hard to believe. Welcome to unionization vs. the free market.

The NFLRA should not over believe their inability to be replaced. They're good, great even, but they are also expendable just like the players that get cut.

They are expendable to a certain extent. Most rookie official are going to work with guys that are also rookies. Most NFL rookie officials are going to be on crews with several multiple year officials with 10 or more years of NFL experience. The NFL official I know said he when he came in the league everyone had 10 or 15 years on the crew they put him on and he was the only rookie. Well we have referees that have never done that position. Not that the referee is the only one that should know the rules, but there was a 7 minute discussion about a penalty enforcement which was basic if you know NFL rules in the game on Sunday and that would not have likely happen with an experienced crew. So the NFL is going to take a PR hit if these kinds of basic things happen.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

But you are not taking "their job". They are locked out. Management can replace them and have opted to do so. The bargaining process willm be used insure they return to "their job".

The replacement official loses "their job" when it is over. Whether they are hired back in the future or are dumped back in to the job market is not under their control or the unions.

It is easy to say "I'll never do that" until actually faced with the decision. Be it based on low ethics or high desire to achieve, each individual makes their own choice at the crucial time

While there is a small difference between a strike and a lockout here, the idea that you're not taking "their job" is false. By working for someone who is locking out people that you supposedly align with and aspire to be, you facilitate that company being able to continue operations while they prevent your ally from working. If NO ONE would work, the company could not continue to make money while preventing the locked out individuals from working.

I think it says volumes regarding the solidarity of GOOD officials that the NFL was unable to persuade ANY D1 officials to work during this lockout. The fact that they had to go all the way to D3 / High School officials means MOST profession-respecting officials are not scabbing.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

While there is a small difference between a strike and a lockout here, the idea that you're not taking "their job" is false. By working for someone who is locking out people that you supposedly align with and aspire to be, you facilitate that company being able to continue operations while they prevent your ally from working. If NO ONE would work, the company could not continue to make money while preventing the locked out individuals from working.

I think it says volumes regarding the solidarity of GOOD officials that the NFL was unable to persuade ANY D1 officials to work during this lockout. The fact that they had to go all the way to D3 / High School officials means MOST profession-respecting officials are not scabbing.

The jobs don't belong to the referees. They belong to the NFL. The referee's own their labor. What we have is a disagreement over the value of that labor.

The NFLRA think their labor is significantly better than the alternative and so they've set a high price. The NFL doesn't agree and is willing to try the alternative. The new referees will turn out to be better, as good, or worse than the old referees. (I think we'll all agree on worse.) When that happens, the NFL will decide if they can live with the new referees' performance (The fans won't let them.)

Ultimately, the new referees are doing the old referees a favor as the NFLRA is going to be in the position of power when it becomes clear just how much better they are the the new guys.

[HLin NC]

solidarity of GOOD officials that the NFL was unable to persuade ANY D1 officials

Solidarity or arm-twisting?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Solidarity or arm-twisting?

I think it's called extortion.

"Nice career you have here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I think it's called extortion.

"Nice career you have here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

It is not even close to extortion. We all have choices and if you make the wrong one it could affect your career.

Just like I am seeing a story about a former Miami (that "U") player that was dismissed from the team and is filing an injunction to get back onto the team this season. That could affect his career too. It is not extortion to tell him this and that maybe a lawsuit is not in his best interest if he wants to get drafted or drafted high in the NFL.

Well if you want to work at the NFL level you have to leave something behind to make that move. No one is obligated to give you a job you resign from during or before the season.

Peace