They're asking for more money than the NBA is offering them. And that's their right, just like it's the letter-writer's right to plead her case. But the NBA has the power and the refs should take what they can and be glad they get to keep their jobs. NO ONE watches the NBA for their refs, and most fans seem to think they do a lousy job, anyway. Having a rotating cast of referees from year-to-year would introduce inconsistency, but it wouldn't introduce UNFAIRNESS, and that's really the most important thing from refs as far as I am concerned. Ed O.
What a bunch of callous guys. She makes many valid points. I think the NBA is playing hardball with the refs because of Tim Donaghy - as a way to get back at them.
I don't think NBA refs are much better than college refs. I'd actually enjoy seeing replacements just to see if there is a noticeable difference.
Yeah, because we all know that paying them less and taking away their benefits will make them less likely to take money on the side for shaving points by deliberately botching calls. Seriously, Stern called Donaghy a "rogue, isolated criminal". If he really believes that, he has no reason to punish the other refs for Donaghy's behavior. If he really is punishing the other refs, it would imply that the corruption was not isolated to the "rogue" Donaghy. I think Stern is smarter than that. This is all about money and power. Stern has the power and controls the money. He'll pay the refs whatever he damn well pleases, but in the end, I think it's shortsighted to short change the guys who officiate the games. BNM
I'm guessing that was a slap in the face to me, although I actually argued the point fairly well and have never insulted you. Edit - I read low quality, not quantity. I'm high quantity, low quality, or so I'm told.
Not sure if anyone already posted this...What the refs are mad about is the benefits. I'm not 100% sure what the specifics are but I know the referees were willing to take a 2-3 million dollar cut (in salary) over the next few years. I really don't understand what the big hold up is, while the players can simply not play, referees are replaceable and it's been made public there will be no problem doing so. Take your money, tone down your lifestyle some and live your lives. While I completely understand where the refs and their families are coming from. It's time to accept Stern is going to have his way and ultimately it's either work for X amount or find another job.
Your points are well taken, but teams are losing money and having to borrow from the league. That tells me the overall health of the NBA is very poor. If they have to take a small cut in pay or benefits, well join the rest of us. These are just the economic times we live in. Things will bounce back for them eventually.
Red Herring. Cutting the amount paid to the refs will have absolutely no effect on whether or not individual teams are losing money. If individual teams each had their own staff of refs, those individual teams could help their profitability by cutting their refs pay but as individual teams do not pay the refs, cutting the refs salary has no effect on the individual teams. It is possible that by locking out refs, you could further threaten the profitability of individual teams as the product (NBA Basketball) may be perceived by some as an inferior product (poor reffing) without an associated lower cost and thus result in fewer people coming to see games. It won't affect hard-core fans (who will come no matter what), but the casual or borderline fan may then choose to spend their money elsewhere putting further strain on the individual teams. Gramps...
I'd have more sympathy if these refs weren't playing along with a big con game called "the superstar system." It's fundamentally dishonest and against the idea of competitive sports to call more fouls on one person over another just because of a guy's popularity among fans. I realize it's a system NBA management fosters, but the refs do play along with it. As Ed says, scabs will introduce more inconsistency to the game. But is that such a bad thing, given how crookedly the game is reffed now? Wouldn't it be kind of nice for Dwyane Wade to have kicking around in the back of his head the idea that he might actually foul out if he charges yet again into somebody? Right now he can consistently rely on refs bailing him out.
Again, no one is saying that they shouldn't be compensated more than an employee that works 9-5 and is home every night, but they all CHOSE to be refs. If they don't like the new compensation plan, they can CHOOSE to do something else. They are a union, and sometimes unions have to make sacrifices. My brother in law still talks about the $2.00 an hour pay cut his union took in the 80's under Reagan. They should just be thankful that a Democrat is in office. When the economic climate of the world changes they can fight for more in their next contract. David Stern also has to show he is strong when the players contract is ready to be negotiated. He can't give in to what the refs want and then ask the players to take a cut as well. A lot of people are thinking about that. It's not just the ref's union against the NBA, it's the NBA having to negotiate now with the players in mind two years from now. HCP. You are right, you did choose your job. You love your job, and like every job, there are good and bad things about it. But I would think that if being home with your family more, and being able to have a more normal lifestyle was important to you, you would take a job in the same field where you didn't travel as much, but made less. All of these refs are at the top of their profession, so they could probably get jobs pretty easily with the NCAA close to their home. They would travel two days a week, for a shorter period of time. Make a litle less, but have more of the family life some seem to be missing.
I see a ton of sexism (how dare a woman speak?), resentment (but don't they make more money than I do) and misunderstanding (the ref chose his job; his family lives with it). And a lot of nastiness. And once again, the "good guys" are the employers? I mean, why don't we all just settle for minimum wage and no benefits so they can get richer? Isn't that what "values" is all about?
As has been pointed out, the individual teams don't pay the refs, the league does and the league is making money. The fact that the league has a enough cash on hand to offer to loan it to the struggling teams should tell you the league is in a financially sound state. The teams that are struggling financially are generally small market teams with marginal owners and a crappy product. I'm don't see how cutting the pay and benefits of the referees will help these teams' bottom lines. Anyone know how long this contract will last? 5 years, 6 years? The refs will be locked into any concessions they make now for the length of the contract. So, it's not like they will get that pay and benefits back a year or two down the road when the economy recovers. They have already agreed to the salary cuts the league requested, and now the league wants them to also give up benefits. It seems like the refs were willing to compromise (give up pay to keep benefits), but the league doesn't seem willing to meet them half way. The league wants it all - pay cuts and benefit cuts. Doesn't really seem like much of a negotiation to me. More like "this is what you get, take it our we'll lock you out and bring in replacements". BNM
They already agreed to take a pay cut. Now the league is also "asking" them to give up benefits. When will that be? 5 or 6 years down the road? What about the refs who retire between now and then. They have already agreed to take less pay and now the league wants them to give up retirement benefits, too. Seems like a lose:lose for refs nearing retirement age (and do we really want Dick Bavetta hanging around long enough to fight to recover his lost wages/benefits in their next contract?). But he is not "negotiating". He's showing he is inflexible and unwilling to compromise. Locking out the refs is one thing, but do we really want a strike/lock out shortened season like we had in 99? If that happens, everybody loses - the fans, the players, the owners, the league, the TV networks, etc. Rather than showing how he can be an inflexible, power hungry prick (don't we already KNOW that), perhaps Stern should be sending the message to the players that he is reasonable and willing to compromise for the mutual benefit of everyone. Negotiating in good faith is not a sign of weakness. It's much better to compromise and keep the dollars flowing than to stubbornly stick to your guns and cut off all your revenue streams just so you can say, "I won!". BNM
From my perspective, I think they are well compensated. I'm not supporting the editorial or arguing with you but I think the point is they are about to be less well compensated, perhaps they feel to the point of no longer being well compensated at all. When they made the decision to become NBA refs they did so whle considering the current compensation package not a lower one. I think any of us would like to keep our current pay rather than take a pay cut, and would be prepared to argue the point too, no matter if the average Walmart employee might decide we are already 'well compensated' compared to them.
Your criticism of men complaining about a woman speaking(must be sexism, they can't just disagree with her) is an awful lot like anyone screaming racist when someone criticizes Obama. For some, it may be the case, but I am willing to bet the majority disagree, regardless of whether she is a male, female, or both. And most have criticized refs in their responses more so than criticizing her. I have not seen any sexist comments in the thread, yet you see a TON of it? Gimme a break. And no, my criticism of you isn't sexist, it's a general annoyance with you finding sexism in every male versus female opportunity.
They couldn't pay me enough to do that job, given what the wife says. I travel a fair amount in my business, but that is insane. They chose it, I know, all I am saying is that it sounds like a crap job.
He is absolutely negotiating. Stern is doing exactly what he should be doing. Where I work, they cut benefits and froze salaries to salaried employees. They did this because they could. It's not like we can say "Fuck you, I am out of here" because there aren't a lot of places to go. Stern sees things the same way. Attendance is down, teams are losing money, the league office laid off 80 people. What the ref's union should be doing is getting as much support from the players union and hope that the NBA blinks. If the players union tells their players not to cross the picket lines, then Stern will need to pony up. The players union won't do that however because public perception is that all of them make too much money, for a job most would kill for.
