Professional Referee Organization accused by refs union of violating CBA http://www.espnfc.us/major-league-s...iation-accused-by-refs-union-of-violating-cba <Mod Edit: Additional quote removed> http://www.proreferees.com/about-pro.php
Translation: "MLS is paying Allan Kelly too much. If you go around paying refs this well, foreign refs might . . . want to work in the league. And then where would we be?" I figure they must be pretty sure they're right about the CBA, because this isn't like the WNT lawsuit at all, they don't exactly win PR points with this one.
Technical, but important, point of clarification: PRO is bigger than and beyond MLS. We, perhaps, wouldn't be developing or cultivating or improving our own (top quality and top level) refs. A simple argument would be that we don't improve the overall domestic game by primarily (or only, not that you were suggesting that) importing foreign "talent." The next CBA will improve. The refs themselves will improve. And the administrators and refs will adhere to the CBA. It is a mutual process of growth for all. Fair points. (I'm not sure the PSRA were looking for "PR points" when they filed with the National Labor Relations Board in April of this year. They apparently just want their CBA adhered to.) And PRO/Walton don't win many PR points either, by negotiating outside of and beyond/against the CBA, even if they brought in and retained a ref and trainer in Kelly that some/most people seem to "like" -- if they are even at all aware of his work.
PRO more or less is MLS, though. It was founded so that the professional leagues (by which we mean essentially MLS) could get exert influence on refereeing that they could not before it was founded. That is, more or less, what they always say as a justification for protecting a cushy income stream. It might be one thing if there were a maximum, but it seems difficult to argue that allowing zero well-paid refs somehow helps ref development. In fact it seems like an active barrier to development, since it would put our refs in something like a bubble. Oh, I would say they do. Now they can say, apparently with a degree of honesty, "we're trying to compensate our refs better. . . and the union won't let us."
Kevin Stott. That's one example, but it is more than zero. The CBA allows for exceptions and side agreements, as long as they are collectively agreed to. The issues around Alan Kelly's extra income and benefits are that they were not properly negotiated or agreed to with PSRA's knowledge or approval. They can, and have done so, as the Stott example illustrates, work with the union within the scope and approval requirements of the CBA to reach additional and exceptional binding agreements.
Fair enough, but that's exactly one. At a fundamental level, a union is still going to look awkward arguing for a maximum salary for its members.
How is it (only) the ref's union and not also (or primarily) PRO arguing for or agreeing to this? It is what both sides agreed to within the CBA. And expections are allowed and permitted, as long as the CBA requirements are adhered to. And that is what the unfair labor practice filing is all about, that PRO is violating and independently negotiating beyond a CBA they themselves helped set and approve. If PRO was offering some higher max salary level, the PSRA would have taken it, yes? And there are set conditions, that both the PSRA and PRO apparently argued for and agreed to, that would allow for exceptions, given specific approval conditions, for "above-max" pay to create "Designated Refs" as it seems. There's a reason that things are collectively bargained. The PSRA gained a whole lot by being unionized and getting a CBA, even if that initial CBA did -- and likely at PRO's request/insistence -- include some "maximum salary" conditions for its member referees.
No "more or less" about it. The top heavy organization of PRO - they have three "sports scientists" and a nutritionist but only one Referee Manager on the payroll - is headquartered inside the MLS HQ on the seventh floor at 420 Fifth Avenue. They don't have a separate entrance.
It's obviously not. A union's not going to object to management going 'above and beyond' unless they, the union, wanted a maximum for a reason. That's exactly what you'd think, until you realize that this higher salary would open them up to new competition that they don't have now.
I think everyone misses the point here. The referees were not happy about PRO, bringing in a foreign guy in Walton to run it, and Kelly got off on the wrong foot when an interview he gave in Ireland suggested he'd be more than a training manager. Kelly's role was targeted by the union so you can be a refeer or a manager, not both. Jelly also crossed the line during the strike as a replacement referee.
Could you elaborate on this? Are you saying that the union would be open up to competition that they don't currently have? Who would that competition be?
And this "higher salary" would also open up PRO to increased operational costs. There are business pluses and minuses everywhere. "This higher salary" is only or possibly being offered and controlled by PRO, and in certain cases as defined and permitted by the CBA. Does PRO want new and foreign competition for their pool of unionized domestic refs? Again, it seems their "About" page is fairly informative and honest:
It was a lock-out in March of that year by PRO(/MLS), not a strike by the unionizing refs, prior to the PSRA's first CBA with PRO in 2014. Kelly was at the time apparently not going to be in the union, but once he officiated 4 MLS games, he automatically became an eligible member of the employee bargaining unit, and was thus subject to the terms of the CBA by mid-2014.
And I find it delightful that -- on the basis of anecdote only -- BigSoccer posters generally agreed that the replacement officials during the work stoppage at the beginning of (last?) season were not noticably poorer than the PRO guys once they got a contract in place.
Allan Kelly is the example. He was paid this price because at that price he was willing to ref in the US. At a lower price, he would not have been.
I used the wrong word and the union knew what it was doing when it added that to the CBA. He was a replacement and the union was never going to be ok with that.
Except that Kelly has been as good or better than the top segment of the MLS referee pool from his first match. He stuck for a reason.
It is a rather important distinction in the history of this employer/employee-group relationship. And PRO knew what it was doing when it signed the CBA as well. All sides negotiated and agreed to the terms of the CBA. This filing with the National Labor Relations Board and the accusation of unfair labor charges is a real and unfortunate development in the still relatively new history of this employer/employee-group relationship.
So you're saying that the members of the union want to be paid less because they are afraid that if they were paid more, PRO would just go out and import referees from overseas and put them out of work? I don't think that makes sense. I'm pretty sure it would be tough to do that wholesale with current immigration law. You can import an outside expert in a special role that you don't have anyone in-house qualified to perform, but you can't just replace your entire staff with refs from over-seas. I think it's much more likely that the union objected to a "secret" contract with Kelley because they (the union) would want to know how much PRO is willing to pay for someone like him. It would give them a lot more leverage in future negotiations. I also suspect that the principle of one ref working around the union for personal benefit would be seen as a threat to the solidarity of the union, and the beginning of an end to their usefulness.
<Mod Edit: Personal attack removed.>The basic point is that the referees were never fond of the idea of PRO, who was brought into run it, or the role Kelly was to fill. Thats why there was a union certified and an actual cba pursued. I'm adding context and you're too dense to even understand that I have no disagreement here. I get what PRO is trying to do, it has a very good referee it would like to keep, but it's also bound by an agreement it made with a union that didn't want Kelly here in the first place.
He also had another job at PRO, and that "blended work" also seems to be a concern within the filing with the National Labor Relations Board.
I was clarifying the "basic point" that it is beneficial to reference and discuss history and terms accurately, for the sake of a worthwhile discuss. This was not intended to be an argument, simply a clarification. I think their contention is that it didn't want him working as both a ref and an assistant training manager.