NBA Ref's wife makes some good points.....

[PtldPlatypus]

With that said it seems to me like the Refs should be the last guys to get squeezed. It's the same reason I think we should pay our Representatives absurdly well. Corruption is easy with underpaid officials. If you don't pay your soldiers as Russia found out, eventually they stop guarding the Nukes, they start looking for someone to sell them too. Likewise, if the Refs are NOT well compensated...well Jimmy no-neck has a few points he'd like shaven.

Well said. If the refs' primary job is to make sure everyone is playing by the rules, they are essentially the guardians of the game's integrity. Definitely worth a significant investment.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Jeebus, we're an unsympathetic lot.

I actually agree with a lot of what she wrote. Yes, NBA refs make good money compared to most regular Joes, but they are the best in the world at what they do and posses a very unique skill. Good god, for all the bitching and moaning fans do about the quality of the officiating in the NBA you'd think the last thing they'd want would be a bunch of scab refs, or guys who are willing to do the job for less money.

And why are the refs being singled out for cuts in pay and benefits? Is anybody asking the office and clerical staff to take similar cuts? Are Stern and his cronies sacrificing their pay and benefits for the good of the league? Again, compared to Joe 6-pack the refs make a lot of money, but compared to the cost of putting on an NBA game and running the league (players salaries, coaches salaries, Stern, Jackson, etc, salaries, etc.) they make a pitance - yet the quality of their work has a huge impact on the game.

Whining aside, for me it's simple. If you want the best refs in the world, pay them accordingly. If you're willing to settle for 2nd rate officials, by all means cut their salaries and benefits and bring in the replacements. Yeah, that will improve the quality of your product.

Also, the refs jobs don't stop at calling the game. They are required to review film of every game and rate their performance. They also have to attend training sessions and league meetings. They teach clinics in the off season to train/recruit new refs, etc. The have no home games. In the NBA, a 5 or 6 game road trip is considered grueling. For a ref, their entire season is one long road trip. Again, I don't feel sorry for them as this is the profession they have chosen. I'm just trying to point out that there are demands on this job that make it unique and comparing it to a regular 9:00 - 5:00 office job is ridiculous.

BNM

 

[THE HCP]

I know that you ignore the low-quantity posters, but at least one person agreed with you...

Sorry brother, I just skimmed down the page. No disrespect to you.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Sorry brother, I just skimmed down the page. No disrespect to you.

I was just playin'; it takes a lot more than that to offend me. Not that that's an invitation or a challenge...

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Hey, my job has some shitty aspects to it as well. My boss is an complete dickhead. I have to put in long hours without anything in the way of thanks. The work I do can be boring as shit. Benefits are getting cut. Haven't gotten a raise in 2 years. The office environment itself is a shithole. My coworkers are a bunch of no-talent assclowns who fuck around all day and expect me to bail them out at the last minute.

But I chose the job. So I deal with the bad aspects. And there are some amazing parts of my job as well. Just as there are wonderful and horrible parts to being an NBA referee.

Fuck you referee's wife. If your husband hates his job so much, tell him to find a different line of work.

OK, I gotta ask- where do you work?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Wow--I can't believe how completely you all missed the point of the letter. Allow me to refresh your memories...



From what I can see, she's not complaining about the life--she's illustrating the vast gulf that exists between the life of a referee and that of ANY other employee of an NBA team. She's saying that while it's true that refs are currently paid more than office staff, they should be paid more.

And she's right.

So?

Being fairly compensated is being fairly compensated. They do their dream job, get well paid and then moan & groan during a depression when many people are losing their jobs (like my wife) and many others are losing salary and/or benefits (like me). It's hard to have sympathy.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Jeebus, we're an unsympathetic lot.

I actually agree with a lot of what she wrote. Yes, NBA refs make good money compared to most regular Joes, but they are the best in the world at what they do and posses a very unique skill. Good god, for all the bitching and moaning fans do about the quality of the officiating in the NBA you'd think the last thing they'd want would be a bunch of scab refs, or guys who are willing to do the job for less money.

And why are the refs being singled out for cuts in pay and benefits? Is anybody asking the office and clerical staff to take similar cuts? Are Stern and his cronies sacrificing their pay and benefits for the good of the league? Again, compared to Joe 6-pack the refs make a lot of money, but compared to the cost of putting on an NBA game and running the league (players salaries, coaches salaries, Stern, Jackson, etc, salaries, etc.) they make a pitance - yet the quality of their work has a huge impact on the game.

Whining aside, for me it's simple. If you want the best refs in the world, pay them accordingly. If you're willing to settle for 2nd rate officials, by all means cut their salaries and benefits and bring in the replacements. Yeah, that will improve the quality of your product.

Also, the refs jobs don't stop at calling the game. They are required to review film of every game and rate their performance. They also have to attend training sessions and league meetings. They teach clinics in the off season to train/recruit new refs, etc. The have no home games. In the NBA, a 5 or 6 game road trip is considered grueling. For a ref, their entire season is one long road trip. Again, I don't feel sorry for them as this is the profession they have chosen. I'm just trying to point out that there are demands on this job that make it unique and comparing it to a regular 9:00 - 5:00 office job is ridiculous.

BNM

It's called The Economy- or lack thereof.

Well, hell, let's just give them $20,000,000 per year and call it good.

Compared to other professional refs/umps, they get their fair share. Sure, we'd all like to make more money, but Miss America ain't street walking in Portland at 2AM, either. I dunno, her whiny letter struck me wrong when I look at what so many people are going thru.

 

[Boob-No-More]

It's called The Economy- or lack thereof.

Well, hell, let's just give them $20,000,000 per year and call it good.

Compared to other professional refs/umps, they get their fair share. Sure, we'd all like to make more money, but Miss America ain't street walking in Portland at 2AM, either. I dunno, her whiny letter struck me wrong when I look at what so many people are going thru.

But, they aren't asking for more money. The NBA is asking them to take cuts in pay and benefits.

Sure, the NBA can save a little money (last I heard the league was still turning a profit) by locking out the refs and hiring lower cost replacement officials, but the quality of their product will suffer. In spite of the current economic climate, ticket prices are up. So, I am being asked to pay more for a lower quality product and that pisses me off a lot more than a whiny letter from somebody's wife.

BNM

 

[Chocolove]

I think once the season actually starts and a bunch of hastily trained refs are fucking your team over, a lot of you will come around.
The point is referees have a unique skill and they can/should leverage that skill to make as much as they can. Also I don't think she was complaining about those aspects of reffing but she was saying something more along the lines of getting compensated accurately for what you do.

 

[julius]

I think once the season actually starts and a bunch of hastily trained refs are fucking your team over, a lot of you will come around.

How will we be able to tell the difference?

signed

Sacramento, Utah and Blazer fans.


;')

 

[Ed O]

But, they aren't asking for more money. The NBA is asking them to take cuts in pay and benefits.

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.

 

[RW#30]

Hey, my job has some shitty aspects to it as well. My boss is an complete dickhead. I have to put in long hours without anything in the way of thanks. The work I do can be boring as shit. Benefits are getting cut. Haven't gotten a raise in 2 years. The office environment itself is a shithole. My coworkers are a bunch of no-talent assclowns who fuck around all day and expect me to bail them out at the last minute.

Come and see me in my office 9:00 am ( after my second Starbucks) DO NOT be late...

 

[Stevenson]

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.

 

[Draco]

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.

 

[Boob-No-More]

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.

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

 

[PapaG]

Wow--I can't believe how completely you all missed the point of the letter. Allow me to refresh your memories...



From what I can see, she's not complaining about the life--she's illustrating the vast gulf that exists between the life of a referee and that of ANY other employee of an NBA team. She's saying that while it's true that refs are currently paid more than office staff, they should be paid more.

And she's right.

Well, I didn't miss the point, as I posted at least three times in this thread.

 

[PapaG]

I know that you ignore the low-quantity posters, but at least one person agreed with you...

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.

 

[Luther]

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.

 

[Run BJM]

How will we be able to tell the difference?

signed

Fans of all teams except Lakers, Cavs, Celtics.


;')

Fixed.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

But, they aren't asking for more money. The NBA is asking them to take cuts in pay and benefits.

Sure, the NBA can save a little money (last I heard the league was still turning a profit) by locking out the refs and hiring lower cost replacement officials, but the quality of their product will suffer. In spite of the current economic climate, ticket prices are up. So, I am being asked to pay more for a lower quality product and that pisses me off a lot more than a whiny letter from somebody's wife.

BNM

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.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

teams are losing money and having to borrow from the league. That tells me the overall health of the NBA is very poor.

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...

 

[mook]

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.

 

[Mediocre Man]

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.

 

[crandc]

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?

 

[Boob-No-More]

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.

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

 

[Boob-No-More]

They are a union, and sometimes unions have to make sacrifices.

They already agreed to take a pay cut. Now the league is also "asking" them to give up benefits.

When the economic climate of the world changes they can fight for more in their next contract.

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?).

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.

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

 

[BBert]

The NBA refs are well compensated for what they do. If they don't like it, go do college ball.

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.

 

[RR7]

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?

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.

 

[Stevenson]

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.

 

[Mediocre Man]

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

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.