MLS/PRO Lockout of PSRA

Thanks for clearing up the legal jargon. Here's your cookie.

Nothing about the post is materially changed.

And, to correct your post: it should read, "all YOU know..."

 

Excuse me? My numerous posts on this thread? I have made three posts, none of which could or should be construed as taking any side. Besides responding with a joke to MassRef's point about how PSRA still lists WPS, I had two back to back posts that simply pointed out that people should not jump to any conclusions based on one side of a story and pointing out that contrary to what theArbiter said, all we have are allegations.

 

Actually, it is the same thing both ways.

Threats from management and scab labor both interfere with the natural progression of the negotiations.

Decades of right wing propaganda* have damaged people's ability to see labor relations for what they really are these days, as almost always a carefully choreographed dance that leads to mostly predictable results in almost every case.

Things that harm the process are: strike mandate votes that are substantially less than unanimous (a symptom of an incompetent union), ready and willing groups of scabs willing to step in at the very beginning of the process, and anti-union True Believers on the management side.

*Some will complain "don't bring politics into this!", which is nonsense. Politics is already in this, and to ignore them is as political as to be honest about them.

 

@Alberto and @thearbiter: Don't let baka upset you. He just likes to show off his legal knowledge whenever he gets the chance, as in this thread and in the one about Alan Kelly. I guess it substitutes for soccer refereeing knowledge somehow.

PH

 

@andymoss is the most liberal person on this forum. Freakin Democrat!

No doubt. No matter how little it is relevant to the actual discussion he will somehow find a way to write a mini thesis that is ever so loosely related to the topic at hand. I'm not sure I've ever actually seen him post something that pertains to the art of refereeing.

 

Thanks P Head and GoDawgs for the thoughtful remarks which were so on point to the discussion at hand which is about a possible MLS strike.

The simple fact is words when used in specific contexts have specific meanings. As referees we know this as it pertains to the Laws of the Game, and the same is true with other laws. Using the right words helps provide the right context and understanding.

We are talking about the possibility of a strike which would disrupt the game we love, strain our relationships with other referees, and for some, impact the opportunities and growth that they hope to achieve. @socal lurker cautioned everyone to basically not blow something out of proportion and properly referred to it as an allegation, and I agree with him.

To @thearbiter's response, I am not saying that it didn't happen. All I am simply trying to do is to put the "charge" into context. Putting aside the political tone in @lemma 's post, he gets it. Labor negotiations are a "carefully choreographed dance," and if we are to understand the dance then it is helpful to understand the rules, the procedures and the language of the dance, especially considering the impact that all of this has on many referees.

Ultimately, most all of us don't know what was said or how it was said or who even said it, but we know that something was said. PSRA took issue with it (which is their right) and did what anyone who is involved in a labor negotiation should do, which is to file a "charge." Filing a charge is basically a procedural motion for PSRA to preserve their rights in the negotiations and in their interactions with PRO.

The next step is for the NLRB to investigate the charge - they can call PRO, PSRA, or others who may have knowledge and take statements. They could dismiss, they could tell the parties to work it out and settle their differences or they could bring a complaint against PRO. That is the process.

To provide a little more context to where this fits into the "dance," in 2012 63% of the 21,629 charges filed with the NLRB were dropped or dismissed. 31% were settled between the parties, and in 6% of the charges, the NLRB brought a complaint against one of the parties. Dropped or dismissed could be many things. Something could be dismissed because it didn't have merit, or a party could drop it because by filing it they preserved a right and got what they wanted. Complaints are the ones that go to a hearing because the NLRB finds that one side has sufficient merit, the other side contests it. The parties unable to settle proceed to an administrative type hearing with the NLRB, which can then be appealed to the full NLRB and then to Federal Court.

The truth is most of us - if we know anything - only know bits and pieces, and I am pretty sure that none of us are privy to the strategies of either PRO or PSRA's negotiators and lawyers, so let's try and act as referees or arbiters and do our best to make sense of it all without letting agendas, platitudes or our own preconceptions screw it all up.

 

Yeah, because you know, no union has ever engaged in anything untruthful or underhanded or ever falsely claimed anything .

 

<***This post has been censored by the NSA by Executive Order of the President Of The United States***>

 

Wrong again.

 

About what?

 

Yes, the PSRA reported it on the Facebook page too.

 

Received this at the RTS this weekend. Looks like Brian changed his opinion of pay increases.


http://fortheintegrityofsoccer.blogs.com/artandscienceofrefereeing/2005/12/referees_rebell.html
An excerpt from the piece from Ed Bellion - former FIFA Referee who clearly shows the referees tried to do something similar in the 70's/80's and it didn't work:
But to all those referees who preserved the solidarity of action by their colleagues, I will say this: Stand firm; you have the support of fair-minded individuals everywhere. Don’t break ranks until an agreement is reached. More than twenty years ago, we tried to reach some important agreements with powers-that-be, and we failed because there were always weak sisters who would not support our requests to limit the number of foreign officials in the NASL, or to be allowed to form a national referees’ association. Personal ambition trumped the common good.
A comment in the blog from Brian Hall:
Dear Referee Family,
The work that has been done has required much sacrifice from the International Panel as well as National Referees. The focus is on establishing a process for the referees of TODAY and TOMORROW. Since US Soccer (Dan Flynn and Tom King) contacted us, they have been POSITIVE and PROACTIVE. To date, they have been as eager as we are to come to a satisfactory resolution and we are certain that our joint efforts will result in a solution that is fair and equitable for all involved.
Happy New Year!
Brian Hall

 

This may not be popular and I intentionally do not discuss this stuff with people I know in those circles because I do not referee anymore and as a season ticket holder, I don't want to make things weird for the guys working the league. If this is mainly about pay, then I can have more sympathy. There are a couple of things that give me pause, however.

First, there were contracts signed and whatever was offered was enough to get almost all of the whistles to leave their regular careers. I also know the pay for the USOC and the international games can be poor and should be improved. Travel and accommodations, I'm sure, can be improved as well. I think it would be useful for PRO and the PRSA to look for sponsorship opportunities in this venue. It will be important, however, to keep in mind that in MLS and the lower leagues, there are players who are not making a great deal of money. Money for referees is going to take something from the players, particularly outside of MLS, though the top league isn't exactly rolling in money either.

Second, I am concerned that this is really about job scarcity and security. I've watched a lot of MLS from day one and that has ramped up over the last five years. The standard of referees needs to improve. There are a handful of top referees, though of couple of guys who were at the top fell spectacularly and very quickly, the middle and lower groups of referees are largely interchangeable. I think a major problem with the referee program over the years was that it replaced guys too fast, but I also do not want a union to cause this to swing back too far the other way. There should be pressure to perform and there should be others coming up pushing you to be better. I am not looking forward to a deal that makes it harder to replace Terry Vaughn and for some new guy to earn that spot.

 

Let me tell you a story about a colleague of mine who was working on his 5. He had a drop-dead date of getting it done for mid-July as his company was shipping him overseas for five months. He had his AR assessment and one center assessment passed. He had aced his fitness test and nailed the written test. He just needed his last assessment. During the month of June, he had scheduled four appropriate games for assessment. One flooded out, and three were non-competetive . He was running out of time to finish up his assessments. He gets a Thursday night game scheduled for five days before he flies out. Monsoon ensues, and field is closed. Assisnor helps him out with a 9:00 AM game on Saturday morning between two teams that are great for assessments (high skill, high physicality, a couple of knuckleheads, and a guarantee that each will bring 13.) The problem now is finding an assessor available. An APB is put out -- an an assessor says he can do it IF they move the game to 8:30 -- teams agree-- as he has his daughter's wedding that afternoon... and he has a 80 mile drive to the field and then another 60 miles to get to the church for 1:00pm. It was a great game, and my colleague was very good in the middle as he passed his assessment and got the upgrade. He flew out on Monday morning for the next five months.

Now if the assessor believed that my colleague was taking money out of his pocket, would he be under any professional obligation to assess that game on the day of his daughter's wedding? I think not. That is what I mean when the tipping point of normal professional obligation and courtesy and self-interest come into play.

Furthermore, your last line rankles me. You are using a single decision point (take assignment/not take assignment) to make a statement of definative interest. Analytically, I think this is naive and wrong.

In most private labor market labor disputes, there is a significant disagreement on the value of particular labor. If there is a dispute that rises to the potential of strike, the individual or the union believes that the work that they perform is difficult to replace and should be better compensated while management often believes that the skill level is fairly low/generic and that there is sufficiently large labor pool meeting minimal standards available as near substitutes. Strikes and lock-outs are often a means of defining exactly how replicable a given standard of quality/performance is, and therefore its value. In a multi-iteration game, sacrificing an assignment or two can be in the long term interests of individuals IF they believe that their skill sets are very difficult to replace and therefore should be better compensated.

 

Right, the union decides taking that game isn't in their interests because the business needs to learn how much more valuable they are than the next best replacement. And yet, they get mad at the person who dares to do the work at what the person feels is a reasonable compensation/conditions/etc.

So why should a union extort non-union workers into not working? The answer can only be that they don't actually think they provide the value they claim. Otherwise, they should be glad to see the lesser skilled worker take their place as it would prove their point.

At any rate, it's the "I'm taking the ball and going home" attitude that's the problem. You went on strike. You don't want that job (right now anyways). So don't be mad when someone else wants it.

 

What you classify as how people "should" react is at odds with how people do react here in the real world when strikes take place. By the time people actually strike (and a strike vote is not quite there, but getting closer) emotions are extremely high and people are taking a drastic step that affects their livliehood. (And you oversimplify when you say its because they don't think they provide the value they are claiming -- strikers want the strike over ASAP; even if the replacements are demonstribly inferior, they tend to make the strike take longer to resolve.) Those who fill in (and are called "scabs" by the union folk) are despised -- and that emotion tends to stay around for a very long time.

 

You're absolutely right. That doesn't stop such an attitude from being unprofessional, which was the point being made.

 

Then don't be mad when people whose livelihoods are being impacted don't go out of their way to lower their standards of living by helping out scabs.

 

First of all, "scabs" is a disgusting term to use towards a human being. Its use really shouldn't be tolerated.

Second, if you've accepted the position of of assessor, you have a professional duty to do that job as well as you can. If you can't do that because you're upset that someone was willing to do a job for less money than you, you need to resign rather than retaliate. That's unprofessional (and unethical) conduct.

The replacement worker isn't impacting anyone's livelihood but their one. If you don't want your livelihood affected, don't go on strike. If you want the benefits of striking, don't complain about the drawbacks.

 

That doesn't make any sense of course it's impacting other peoples livelihood. This argument is how the working class cuts it's own throat and people start racing to the bottom to see who can rent themselves at the lowest level possible.

 

I don't think that's a bit much.

 

Likewise, those scabs' livelihoods will be positively impacted by accepting higher paying games that they are not regularly assigned. Even if the strike lasts only a few weeks, the incentive for the scabs is to take the games and the higher game fees for those few weeks. Economics of a scab = take the game, especially if they will probably not be assigned such a game in the future.

Frankly, the pool of MLS referees is too limited now and has been for the last several years. I would love to see who else USSF has to offer for the first month or two of the season. Minimally, it will be comedic. Hopefully, however, MLS finds 3-4 new referees who they can add to the MLS pool, or at least several more referees who can show that they are on the heels of the current MLS guys. Healthy competition goes a long way in improving quality. I have seen multiple MLS referees f-up college games on simple calls that other college referees correctly make. For example, Hilario G. in the College Cup this year. Terps fans will know what I am talking about! Let's see the new refs!