Replacement Refs [merged x2]

[Pappy13]

Um, you most certainly can be locked out if you have a contract. 

I'm sorry you are correct, you can be locked out even if you have a contract, it's unusual today though. Had the referees signed a new CBA they would not have been locked out, that's the point I was trying to make, I just did a rather poor job of it.

That is exactly how lockouts work!  If the employees didn't have currently existing contracts, there would be no need to lock them out.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the referee's do NOT have a contract with the NFL at the moment. It's expired. And yet they DID call for a lockout so it's not necessary to HAVE a contract to call for a lockout either.

Are you somehow under the impression that every player in the NFL was scheduled to be a free agent at the conclusion of the 2010 season?  That LeBron James and Chris Bosh signed 1-year deals with the Heat?

I'm sorry, I should have made that more clear, I was talking about a CBA like the one that the NFL has with the players union and the one the NFL has with the referees, not an individual contract that a player can have with a team. Those are 2 seperate scenario's both of which can come into play.

The existence (or lack thereof) of a collective bargaining agreement does nothing to affect (or rather, nullify) the employment contracts that individual employees signed.

Agreed and vice versa.

Management can lock employees out in the middle of a CBA term, or at the end, or at the beginning, and labor can strike during the same.

You are correct, but it's unusual. Typically a lockout occurs to try to force a union into negotiating a new contract, however it is possible to call for a lockout even if there is a contract in place. I misspoke.

[Pappy13]

I love ya Pappy but I don't think you fully understand what a "lockout" is.

Look at the NHL for instance, they are gonna lockout the players and maybe cancel ANOTHER season like they did some 7 or 8 years ago. Those players have contracts!

There's a difference between a CBA between a league and a union and individual contracts with teams. I was referring to the CBA between a league and a union like the current lockout situation between the NFL and the referees. The refs do not have individual contracts with the teams. Regardless, I was wrong, you can still be locked out even if there's a CBA in place, but it's not typical.

[MikeO]

Just to put some "numbers" into this debate. Heard on SIRIUS NFL Radio today that it would cost each team $2mill over 7 years to get this deal done right now. Meaning if each team paid around $285,000 a year for 7 years this would probably end now. Which in this league is really chump change considering what each team gets from the TV deal alone. 

Those are the numbers I heard on SIRIUS NFL Radio, who knows if they are exact but I am sure they are probably ballpark since they are pretty good with this stuff and was pretty good with "legit info" during last years player lockout.

[Spider-Dan]

Pappy13, even at the collective level, a CBA is not the same thing as a contract of employment.  The CBA defines the terms under which new contract offers may be made (among other things), but it is not itself a contract of employment between the league and the referees.  It is more like an agreement that states that as long as employment contracts are made and signed under [these conditions], neither management nor the union will stand in the way.  (It also indemnifies the league from anti-trust action.) 

Even though the CBA between the owners and the NFLRA has expired, the referees are still employees.  Even if we presume that they were working under open-ended employment duration like everyday citizens (and not fixed-term contracts like players), they were not all simultaneously laid off/fired upon the expiration of the CBA.  The owners didn't terminate their employment... they locked the refs out.  That's the point.

And finally, it is not "unusual" for employees under contract (or, more broadly, under terms of employment) to be locked out; rather, it is a necessary condition.  Strictly speaking, you can't lock out someone that is not employed by you, for exactly the same reason that unemployed people can't strike.

[Pappy13]

And finally, it is not "unusual" for employees under contract (or, more broadly, under terms of employment) to be locked out; rather, it is a necessary condition.

Please explain to me then how it is that the NFL refs are locked out when they are not under contract currently? It is NOT a necessary condition for them to be under contract. I never said anything about being employed or not. My point was and still is that had they signed a new contract with the league they would NOT have been locked out. Do you deny this?

A lockout is nothing more than a tool that an employer can use to try to reach an agreement when they have a disagreement with their employees. It is EXACTLY the same as the tool that employee's can use to try to reach an agreement when they have a disagreement with their employers which is then called a strike. The only difference is which side is trying to pressure the other into reaching a new agreement. Individual employees do not strike, I've never heard of a strike of 1 employee. A GROUP of employees strike. Likewise a employer doesn't lockout 1 employee, they lockout a GROUP of employees. So it's pointless to talk about lockouts and strikes from an individual employee/employer relationship, this disagreement is between the GROUP of refs collectively known as the NFLRA and the NFL. The NFLRA does NOT have a contract currently with the NFL, so THEY have been locked out, the entire group, not individual employees. All of those employees are free to leave the union and enter into an individual agreement with the NFL to go back to work I do believe. Not sure the NFL would go for that, but I believe its an option.

[MikeO]

Please explain to me then how it is that the NFL refs are locked out when they are not under contract currently?

Pappy, do you understand what the NFL is doing? The NFL wants the refs to be full time employees at a 16% pay cut in salary (also meaning they must QUIT their other regular jobs) and they want to get rid of their pension. They are telling the refs you will make less money in your life, get no pension and you will like it. They didn't agree, so they got LOCKED OUT.

At less than 1% of the NFL's total revenue the NFL could hire all 119 refs full time if they wanted and pay them $250,000 a year and give them a full pension and this would be over with. Less than 1% of total NFL revenue (in 2011 the league was at 9.5 billion in total revenue)....the NFL won't do it!  If Goodell and the owners get their way on everything you know what the "big" savings are for each team in all of this??  $62,000/year! That's it. The NFL is fighting over 32 teams each saving $62,000/year!

The refs stance.....NFL refs essentially want status quo. They want the same raises that they agreed to in the 2006 deal. A whopping 2.8% per year. Nothing more or nothing outrageous. And considering the NFL is signing record TV deals and doing record business the fact they aren't asking for more says a lot!! The NFL also wants to add 28 more refs, which is a good thing. BUT they want to keep the "pie" the same size they pay the refs from. Meaning adding 28 new refs means EVERY REF gets a pay cut. Which would be fine....IF the NFL didn't want to also remove their pensions.

The NFL is so 100% wrong on this issue its not even funny.

[Pappy13]

Pappy, do you understand what the NFL is doing? The NFL wants the refs to be full time employees at a 16% pay cut in salary (also meaning they must QUIT their other regular jobs) and they want to get rid of their pension. They are telling the refs you will make less money in your life, get no pension and you will like it. They didn't agree, so they got LOCKED OUT.

Yes I am aware of this. You do understand that once a contract expires that neither side is obligated to continue with the existing conditions of that agreement in place. Either side is perfectly within their rights to negotiate a new agreement that they believe is fair. If they can't agree on a new agreement then the employer has every right to lock those employees out and bring in replacement employees to do their jobs. That is what they have done.

The refs had VERY cushy jobs. The NFL is also a very lucrative business, there's no question about that. So I'm not really on the SIDE of either of them, rather I think they both should be sitting in a room discussing a new contract so they can get back to work. The NFL is willing to do that, the REFS don't like what they are being offered. The refs have every right to reject the offers the NFL has made them, I don't disparage them that, but I also don't have 1 ounce of sympathy for them. They have been offered very reasonable terms for employment and they have chosen to NOT accept them. That's their right. It is NOT their right to go to work under the conditions that they WERE getting when they were under contract because they are no longer under contract. The choice to work for what the NFL is offering them OR NOT is totally theirs. If they decide NOT to take it that's fine, but there's NOTHING wrong with what the NFL is doing. The refs thought that the NFL wouldn't be willing to play the year with replacement refs. It appears they are wrong. Eventually this will get settled just like the NFL players union lockout was settled because the refs will eventually begin to miss their VERY cushy jobs that someone else now has and realize that they weren't quite as irreplaceable as they thought and will decide to take slightly less VERY cushy jobs because they are after all VERY CUSHY JOBS!

[Spider-Dan]

Please explain to me then how it is that the NFL refs are locked out when they are not under contract currently? It is NOT a necessary condition for them to be under contract.

How many times do I have to say this?

The contractual status of individual NFL referees has NOTHING to do with the status of the union's Collective Bargaining Agreement!  The CBA is not an employment contract!  It is an agreement between the union and the league as to the terms under which employment will be offered.

The NFL did not TERMINATE all the referees they employ.  They LOCKED THEM OUT.  Do you understand the difference?

If a lockout was the same thing as having no contract of employment, Adrian Peterson's agent could have had open bidding for his services right after the lockout ended.  He did not, because Peterson was still under contract.

[Pappy13]

^^Spider you are arguing the semantics of the word "contract" that I used and I'm not going to indulge you. You know that I'm talking about the CBA agreement which is often called a "contract" and not the individual employment contracts.

It was the refs choice to either accept or reject the NFL's agreement offer. If the NFLRA would have signed a new agreement or "contract" with the NFL the refs would not have been locked out. No they didn't lock themselves out but they did know that if they did not agree to a new "contract" before the old one expired they would be locked out and they chose to reject the offer. That's what I was pointing out to MikeO before we got off track. Do you mind if we please get back on track now?

Speaking for myself, I begrudge neither the owners' prerogative to lockout nor the unions' prerogative to strike; if it's in the game, it's in the game.

This is my position 100%.

[Spider-Dan]

Speaking for myself, I begrudge neither the owners' prerogative to lockout nor the unions' prerogative to strike; if it's in the game, it's in the game.

This is my position 100%.

If that is your position, why are you blaming the refs for "rejecting" the NFL's "very reasonable terms" to keep their "VERY CUSHY JOBS" (all your words)?

You claim that you don't begrudge the refs their right to bargain for what they believe to be fair compensation, yet every post you make is dripping with the sentiment that this is the NFLRA's fault.  Had they initiated a strike, I could understand that position... but they didn't.  The owners chose to lock them out.  And your insistence that by not accepting the NFL's terms, they "locked themselves out" is ridiculous.  Management initiates lockouts; labor initiates strikes.  Why do you refuse to assign proper credit/blame where it is due?

[Pappy13]

If that is your position, why are you blaming the refs for "rejecting" the NFL's "very reasonable terms" to keep their "VERY CUSHY JOBS" (all your words)?

All except the "blaming the refs", those words are all yours.

You claim that you don't begrudge the refs their right to bargain for what they believe to be fair compensation, yet every post you make is dripping with the sentiment that this is the NFLRA's fault.

Absolutly not. I'm not assigning fault to anyone. I simply said that I don't have any sympathy for the referee's position. I'm merely pointing out that they are in a VERY enviable position because they have had VERY CUSHY JOBS for several years now so it's hard for me to have any sympathy for them in a labor dispute. I would feel very differently if these were garbage collectors working for minimum pay simply wanting a pay raise and a 401(k) package, but that's NOT the case. It's a MILLION MILES from the case. That's why I don't side with them. I'm very sorry they don't like the fact that the NFL doesn't want to give them the pension package they want, but in all honesty I don't think they really deserve it anyway, they are afterall only NFL refs. They can be replaced.

Note that I'm not saying they don't deserve their VERY CUSHY JOBS. I'm sure they have worked hard for them and whatever they can get from the NFL is great for them, but if they don't get the pension package they want, I still think they will somehow figure out a way to feed their families.

Had they initiated a strike, I could understand that position...

Um, why is that? I thought you said that both sides had the right to call for a work stoppage?

The owners chose to lock them out. 

Exactly. My position wouldn't have changed in the least had the refs chose to strike.

And your insistence that by not accepting the NFL's terms, they "locked themselves out" is ridiculous.

Twisting my words, I never said that. I said that they chose not to accept the NFL's agreement knowing full well they would be locked out if they didn't have an agreement in place before the CBA expired. Their choice. Every right to make the decision they did. I don't even have a problem with that choice, I just don't sympathize that they have been replaced with replacement officials. They knew that when they made the choice, so why should I sympathize with them over that?

Management initiates lockouts; labor initiates strikes.  Why do you refuse to assign proper credit/blame where it is due?

You are contradicting yourself now. You said earlier that a strike or a lockout were the prerogatives of the 2 sides, no blame or credit should be assessed because of that. Do you believe that or don't you? Sounds like you really don't as where I really do.

[Spider-Dan]

All except the "blaming the refs", those words are ALL yours.

So why is it that the NFLRA has chosen to "reject" the league's "very reasonable offer" to keep their "VERY CUSHY JOBS," and not that the owners have chosen to "reject" the NFLRA's "very reasonable offer" to keep their existing pay structure, even when the league's revenue is hitting all-time highs?

I'm not assigning fault to anyone. I simply said that I don't have any sympathy for the referee's position. I'm merely pointing out that they are in a VERY enviable position because they have had VERY CUSHY JOBS for several years now so it's hard for me to have any sympathy for them in a labor dispute.

And you don't think that, after just having signed four multibillion dollar TV contracts last year, the league is in a "very enviable position"?  Didn't the referees play a part in creating the extremely valuable product that the NFL offers?  And immediately after the league reaps a windfall of huge TV contracts, their reward is... to lose their pensions?

That's the kind of action you would expect from a failing league, not one that's soaring mightily as the undisputed king of American sports.

I would feel very differently if these were garbage collectors working for minimum pay simply wanting a pay raise and a 401(k) package, but that's NOT the case. It's a MILLION MILES from the case. That's why I don't side with them. I'm very sorry they don't like the fact that the NFL doesn't want to give them the pension package they want, but in all honesty I don't think they really deserve it anyway, they are afterall only NFL refs.

So apparently, when it comes down to billionaire owners vs. upper-middle class referees, you think the owners deserve an even bigger piece of the pie?

The culture of wealth worship is alive and well.  When times are hard, the rank-and-file employees are expected to knuckle under and absorb tough cutbacks for the sake of the company.  And when times are better than ever... well, yeah, it's still time for tough cutbacks.

To be clear, let me be reemphasize this point: both sides have every right to do what they are doing.  But I have no interest in hearing about these greedy referees who won't accept the totally fair offer from the league.  If you want to cheer the idea that a referee should lose his pension so that a billionaire owner can have a few more bucks he won't live long enough to spend, you'll find no cohort here.

[re: the party that initiates the action is at fault]
Um, why is that? I thought you said that both sides had the right to call for a work stoppage?

I'm saying, I could understand if you blamed the party that initiated the action (be it lockout or strike).

Exactly. My position wouldn't have changed in the least had the refs chose to strike.

Somehow, I doubt that if it were an NFLRA strike, you would be expressing a lack of sympathy for the owners who rejected the refs' very reasonable demands.

[re: "the refs locked themselves out"]
Twisting my words, I never said that.

You're right; Fins4ever said it.  My mistake.

[Pappy13]

^^I'm not on the side of the NFL either, I just don't think it HAS to give the refs everything they want simply because the NFL is doing very well. I'm not really up on all what the NFL has offered and what the refs have countered with, I'm sure there are a few things that both sides could probably give in a little bit and get a deal done and I'm sure that it will happen pretty soon and everything will be right with the world again.

As for your other point, I don't give the refs much credit for the NFL being what it is today, that's mostly on the players and the game itself and I'd even give the owners a much larger piece of the credit than the refs if push came to shove. So I guess when you get right down to it, I think the refs are pretty damn lucky to have the jobs they have and should be able to find a way to get an agreement with the NFL they can live with. Yeah it kinda sucks that they should have to make any concessions when the NFL is booming, but hey that's life 101, deal with it. It could be worse, the NFL could just decide to stick with the replacement refs.

And finally I don't really buy into the whole premise that all these owners are billionaires because they own NFL teams. I'm pretty sure that Steven Ross would beg to differ. Now he is a billionaire, but it's NOT because he owns the Dolphins, rather he owns the Dolphins BECAUSE he's a billionaire and can afford to lose a few million on the Dolphins. Most of the money in the NFL goes to the players who then blow through that money like there's no tomorrow. The owners are the ones that actually do a really good job of making the money they do make from the NFL work for them.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Spider-Dan]

As for your other point, I don't give the refs much credit for the NFL being what it is today, that's mostly on the players and the game itself and I'd even give the owners a much larger piece of the credit than the refs if push came to shove.

To be fair, during the NFLPA lockout, you sided with the owners then, too:

In the gaming world we have a saying "Shut up and take my money" It refers to games that are so good that the developers can pretty much do and charge whatever they want and gamers will pay for it. Gamers know they are probably getting screwed, but hey it's the best thing out there, they'll take it. The NFL is kinda like that for players. The NFL is willing to pay you a LOT of money to play a game for a living. Shut up and take the money.

And finally I don't really buy into the whole premise that all these owners are billionaires because they own NFL teams.

My point was simply that they are billionaires; how they amassed their fortune is of no relevance.

[Fins4ever]

Pappy, do you understand what the NFL is doing? The NFL wants the refs to be full time employees at a 16% pay cut in salary (also meaning they must QUIT their other regular jobs) and they want to get rid of their pension. They are telling the refs you will make less money in your life, get no pension and you will like it. They didn't agree, so they got LOCKED OUT.

I admit I am not up on the issue. Where did you hear this? Do you have a link? Last I read the NFL had offered raises, depending on experience. The above does not sound reasonable. I have read that the NFL was toying with the idea of FT ref, but had not heard they were trying to force the issue.