Good thing the PSRA website is updated with the correct name for the top professional women's division in this country.
One can be respectful, professional and do nothing beyond the bare minimum to help someone else out who has hurt your own interests. Remember, referees (at least until you get to the PRO level) are indepedent contractors. Assignors are under no obligation to give a referee a game, or more importantly a game that is useful for them, although if you want 3 U-12 games next Tuesday in the snow, they are yours.... Assessors are obligated to give you a fair, accurate and useful assessment and feedback; although it is up to their judgement as to whether or not a match was rate-able so if it was a flip a coin decision a priori, it might not be depending on the person. An assessor who could maybe fit your game into his schedule after a 75 mile drive to get there might decide traffic conditions won't enable him to get to your game and turn down the assessment. A future mentor might decide that he really does not want to get invested in your career. All of these are voluntary actions and all can be professional decisions.
And if the reason the decisions go against a person is because that person took an assignment the assessor was unwilling to take, it's not a decision made for professional reasons but for personal animus. And, therefore, it is an unprofessional decision. What you are describing is the ugly side of unionism. The union forces you to join them or they will ruin your career or job prospects. And remember, this guy technically hasn't hurt the assessor's interests as the assessor has plainly said by not taking the assignment that the assignment wasn't in his interests to begin with.
I would argue that putting your own interests above others and doing the bare minimum in retaliation is selfish, petty, and unprofessional. No one gets to that level without a great deal of, often selfless and unconditional, support from senior referees and administrators. Referees are there to serve the game. It's a thankless task and something you really have to connect to, but at the end of the day, no one is there to see you. That doesn't mean that the referee doesn't matter and shouldn't be treated with respect, but I think humility and a desire to serve is something that we need from referees the higher they go. I want to see referees treated well, but I do not want them to be completely self interested and acting in a way that makes it even harder to work your way into that group. To me, that does not serve the game.
New update from Washington Post...seems unseemly if it's true for former high level referees now in adminstrative positions to act this way http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ion-claims-management-threatened-retribution/
That's definitely unfortunate and reprehensible, but that's also the same behavior that some here seemed to endorse towards referees who accepted hypothetical replacement assignments... Can't have it both ways.
Just to expand further on the article published by Steven Goff in the Washington Post, it is stated that (10) ten referees were approached at the referees training camp in Orlando earlier this month and were told that their continued support of the union would get them black listed from future MLS appointments.
Perhaps we should await more than anonymous allegations against unknown people before we pass judgment . . .
1. There's nothing alleged about this. It happened. 2. You don't file a complaint with the NLRB over alleged anything. 3. There's nothing to be gained from naming names.
1. And how do you know that?!?? I'm not saying it did or it didn't, but all I see is that someone claims it did. And I've been around far too much litigation to take anything that is said in such a case at face value. 2. YGTBSM. Incomplete and inaccurate allegations are made in all kinds of litigation. 3. The NLRB ain't doin' nuth'n without names being named. And maybe, just maybe, there's more to the story. Maybe not, but I'm at a loss to why you would accept the allegation at face value.
I think there's a bit of a difference, though, Bill. If the allegations are true, I could totally see the same person inside PRO telling potential replacement referees, "if you don't accept these assignments, you'll never work in MLS." My argument about the way referee development occurs and how some senior, MLS-level referees might look poorly upon replacements is only part of my overall arguments. Taken in whole, I think they are much different than what is being alleged by PSRA in the WaPo article.
1st, technically the PSRA submitted a "charge" against PRO for a unfair labor violation. It is technically not a "complaint" which is what the NLRB files IF they find sufficient probable cause and the parties have not worked out their differences. 2nd, all a "charge" is is an allegation. PSRA alleges that some of their members were threatened. We (the collective readers of this blog) have not heard who allegedly threatened them or who has allegedly been threatened. 3rd, filing charges is part and parcel of any labor negotiating strategy. According to NLRB, there are over 20k charges filed each year! The vast majority are dropped or dismissed or otherwise resolved between the parties, a little over 1,000 result in actual complaints being filed by NLRB. So, all WE know is that Steve Taylor has talked to the Washington Post and that PSRA has filed a second unfair labor practices charge alleging threats by someone tied to PRO.
From the NLRB website: "Charges alleging Unfair Labor Practices are filed by individuals, unions or employers at NLRB regional offices, prompting an investigation by regional field examiners and attorneys. More than half of all charges are withdrawn or dismissed. In cases where an investigation finds probable merit, the majority settle by agreements between the parties. If no settlement can be reached, the Regional Director issues a complaint detailing the alleged violations."
It's different in that PRO can just not hire you and PSRA can make it so you're not eligible to be hired. But it's the same in that it's denying someone a job for the sole reason of personal animus.
I understand that and if referees were to threatened on the replacement side, that would be awful as well. I just can't look favorably upon any behavior of that nature. A number of the guys at that level I came across were very generous with their time and support. I genuinely got a sense from a lot of them that they would be thrilled if their help got me to the same level. That should not stop, IMO, because it does not serve the game. I also think the idea that senior referees, who have a mentoring component as part of the selection process, withholding support and development from up and coming referees because they filled a gap during a labor dispute is a more onerous and selfish thing. If the PRSA creates a atmosphere where the guys at the top are more interested in protecting their own status than serving the game, then I think that would be unfortunate.
Three thoughts: - Culture clash? If PRO is coming at this from an "English slant", how do unions work in England (if they do)? - Union busting attempt? If so, good, unions have outlived their benefit. - Not true, or at least not as drastically bad when the full truth is known?
The unions are of a benefit for all parties at this level since individual agreements do not have to be made with all players. The basic compensation and benefits package is agreed to by the parties. It sets forth a minimum compensation package for the referees. I'm fine with this. In the case of VW they wanted to deal with a union because they felt it would be easier to deal with one single entity that represented all autoworkers. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-vw-usplant-idUSBREA1I0S820140219
Do you practice labor relations law? At any rate you certainly favor management in your numerous posts on this particular thread.
The VW example is interesting, but the real interest for VW is the works council and that could not be implemented without a union because of a strange, and perhaps antiquated, quirk in US law. PRO was able to negotiate agreements with 20+ referees absent a CBA.