The NFL will have its regular officials back on the field tonight, as the owners ended their lockout of the referees, reaching a tentative agreement. The referees union must vote to approve the contract, but the NFL was holding up the return to play for the officials by locking them out, so their lifting that allowed the officials to go back to work.
Officials will receive a solid raise throughout the eight-year deal, and here is the information on their pensions, which was the main bone of contention:
Under the proposal, the current defined benefit pension plan will remain in place for current officials through the 2016 season or until the official earns 20 years of service. The defined benefit plan will then be frozen.
Retirement benefits will be provided for new hires and for all officials beginning in 2017, through a defined contribution arrangement. The annual league contribution made on behalf of each game official will begin with an average of more than $18,000 per official and increase to more than $23,000 per official in 2019.
So they saved their defined benefit pension for five years, and get a fairly hefty defined contribution thereafter. In one of the other major sticking points, the league will be able to hire an indeterminate number of officials full-time, and have more officials available than the current staff of 121. This is certainly a better contract than the owners wanted to give; they wanted to end the defined benefit pension immediately.
Referees are well-paid, just like everyone associated with the lucrative business of professional football. But we saw over the last few weeks that they are paid at a level commensurate with their skills. And in a rare set of circumstances, the entire nation got a chance to see in real time the documented value of skilled labor over scab labor. It has relevance for a host of labor fights, and hopefully can be used as an object lesson. More on this from the New York Times.
I imagine that tonight in Baltimore, you will see a rare sight – a big round of applause for the referees.
…the league referees hold and retain that set of skills because they work at it, internally, through their union:
Even before the regular season began, referee Ed Hochuli became an self-styled headmaster of officiating boot camp during the lockout, circulating five-hour tests on rules among the 121 officials, conducting weekly conference calls to discuss rules and sending around hours of tape every week so that officials will be prepared to step in.
That’s completely voluntary, by the way, but 95% of all referees showed up on the conference calls each week.




36 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I really dislike the idea of killing the defined benefit plan. The new plan will shift the risk of loss to the employees. And we know, or should know by now, there are regular and recurring bubbles and crisis in a capitalist society. The league is in a much better postion to absorb those losses. Let’s hope the contributions from the league are enough to offset the inevitable market busts and that they do not simply reduce it first chance they get. Oh and let’s all hope those Dodd-Frank regulations are top notch. But I am glad to see the trained refs are coming back.
How quickly you forget the anonymous poor person that makes $7.25 an hour to serve beer or hawk peanuts…
A bunch of spoiled millionaires. Bread and circuses, only the bread is $6.95.
Well, really, at the end of the day, a big fat old WIN for the 1%, who’ll boo hoo whine & cry at every opportunity over the defined benefit plan that’s in place for a while longer. And who’s to say that the 1% won’t find some way to game the benefit plan later on??
Bastards.
It is partially true that they saved the defined benefit for five years. They did not save it for new employees. New employees get a 401k from the start. The younger generation is used to getting screwed, but I hate to add to the insult by pretending that they do not exist. I really do not know why they should fight to save Social Security when they know for a fact that the older generation will sell them out to protect their own benefits.
Paying people commensurate with their skills is no different than rewarding something for having been born into wealth. In both cases, a lottery was won — in the former case, genetic, and in the latter case, parental.
Seriously, how can the left complain about people about people being born on third base as unjust, but then argue that people born genetically on third base is somehow fair? It’s not, but the left likes it because it’s for the most made up of people who have done well in the genetic lottery and would benefit from a system wherein remuneration were not for owning property, but rather for output.
The only moral norm for remuneration is effort and sacrifice, a central tenet of participatory economics.
Wow, did you come up with that nonsense all by yourself, or did you crib it from an Objectivist website? This makes Senior’s “Last Hour” look positively sane in comparison.
So being parked on your butt in the same Board of Directors’ chair your great-grandpa held is exactly the same as being the scholarship-winning 4.0 GPA child of a coal miner in terms of effort?
Huh? I could be wrong here but are you John Galt or Ayn Rand? Hard to know for sure.
I must agree that this is still a long term loss for reversing inequality. Any loss of a defined benefit plan for a defined contribution plan is a step backward. And
Satin wound is correct, why should the younger generation trust anyone whenno one will fight for their future.
401(K)’s beggar the future. They are a loss of wealth for the future 99%, ok maybe the 98%. But once more it is a transfer upward from the middle class, or upper middle class to the billionaire.
We should not celebrate pyrrhic victories in the way we celebrate real ones. A real one would have been keeping defined benefits for everyone.
I put in 25 years at an airline. In the mid 90′s (and I still believe this was a trial run of the Shock Doctrine to come)they froze the DB plan and went to a defined contribution (401k) plan. The company made a barely reasonable contribution.
Six years later, they drove the company (the rest of the industry had years of profitability under their belts) into BK to break labor and vendor contracts (theoretically against the law, but this is one more case of the Bush/Gore election having consequences). The frozen plan went to PBGC, which caps at about 40k. Our pilots, many retired for over a decade at between 75 and 100K (and if you think that is overgenerous – I respond with two words: Chesley Sullenberger. All of my old-time guys could have done that – I’ve seen airmanship in my time that was just stunning).
Those guys are SOL. And that barely reasonable 401k match went to non-existent for a while, and as I understand it, is now a joke. So the new guys are SOL too.
All because the Democratic Party does not support labor. As a former legislatvie rep for our union and a former Democratic Party chair, I am both witness to and victim of their mendacity.
…and now another episode of Let’s Screw People Because We Can…
I like that the refs are allowed back to work…still hate the owners, NFL, and football in general.
Excellent. I fully agree. More should hear what the fuckers did to the CP.
Presumably, the left wants a society free of racism and sexism. Does the left also want a society free of classism?
If you’d add “poverty, hunger, homelessness, unmet health care needs” to your little list “a society free of racism and sexism” you might be getting warm.
Is that a yes or a no?
That would depend on how we arrive at our classes.
If we differentiate economic outcomes by having equitable (not equal) access to opportunity (basically, starting at roughly the same starting line)working hard and playing by the rules,then I am content with different outcomes. I would predict a bell-shaped distriubution, indicating the aforementioned conditions that would create a healthy middle class.
If, on the other hand I am going to be lectured to by born-on-third-basers to sacrifice, and witness fraud rewarded (I’m looking at you, Wall Street), then bring on class warfare. What that world yields is a Darwinian apologia for Pareto. Is the modern right sure they want that reassociation?
There are plenty of other choices. A Theory of Justice by John Rawls offers a justification for some of the differential rewards to lottery winners in certain circumstances.
47% nuff said.
Fans celebrate, knowing they’ll be able to scream obscenities at Professional Refs, instead of Scabs this weekend …
Which goes back to my original point. Paris Hilton won a parent lottery. By virtue of having a deed in her pocket, she will be drenched in continually regenerated opulence for all her days, no matter what she does.
On the other hand, if everyone shares a “starting line,” then those who have won a genetic lottery granting them things like superior intellect, a gifted singing voice, superior athletic ability, or what have you, will do better.
But whether we’re talking about a parent lottery or a genetic lottery, it’s still luck that’s being rewarded.
Marx was right about owners and workers being two classes in the economy. But there’s a third class: people like doctors, lawyers, managers, engineers, professors — the coordinator class. Or, to use a slavery analogy, there aren’t just slaves and plantation owners — there are overseers as well.
The left is the overseers. They want the slaves to help them, the overseers, overthrow the plantation owner, but then they want the slaves to remain in the fields picking the cotton while they, the overseers, move into the plantation house and take over the cotton-growing operation.
The left is opposed to Paris Hilton enjoying her ownership privileges, but sees no issue with, say, world-class violinists or college professors who enjoy theirs. Because the left is a coordinator-class left, not a working-class one. Indeed, the left is actually quite hostile to the idea of working-class liberation.
That’s why the left is not for an end to classism. It just wants said classism to take a different form — one where coordinators, and not capitalists, rule.
It’s also why lefties are unable to answer the question, “Do we want a classism-free society?” with a simple yes or no. Because they don’t want such a society. And then they wonder why working people don’t join their movements.
I don’t usually support scabs, but I’m going to miss those replacement refs. They added an exciting wildcard element to the outcome of games.
Nonsense. Just in case it didn’t register. The fact Romney figures he is not concerned about the 47% suggests he is already into the class warfare thing.
Do you want a society free of classism? A yes or no will suffice.
Does anyone have a valid link for NFL referee salaries?
Ie. Starting, average, and so on.
Google gives all sorts of ranges – 50k to 150k.
Thanks in advance.
Either way, I am thankful that American greed won again when the “established” referees got what they wanted and the “new” guys were totally shafted. Ya, another win … for greed.
And of course the working poor who do get paid minimum wage are shafted. Nothing new there. Loved that story about how the working poor have to give a cut of their tips to the owners/1%ers as well. Now that’s a good racket.
Thank you NFL referees and Chicago teachers for proving once again what country we live in – this is America, and greed is good.
It’s only greed when the money doesn’t all go to billionaires, right?
Apparently the “established” referees PROVED they were worth whatever they are getting, but you can’t see that.
your queation is idiotic. you might as well ask if people wish they could fly.
Except for those few who wish for an impossible to reach utopia all liberals i know want:
Something that strives for fairness in the workplace. Not a perpetually predatory plantation capitalism.Peolpe want a fair chance for themselves and more importantly their kids.
They expect the elites to earn their money,act as stewards leaving something for the next generation.
Why do you think your single class/classless society question has any utility? Seems like a straw man set up
That can just as easily be turned around. The right says they are all for competition, yet see no problem with a third rater like GWB ascending to the presidency. In what world did Shrub compete?
With regards to business, big business historically abhors competition – “the public be damned” and all that. Monopoly abuses of the public trust eventually ended laisseze faire in this country.
To accuse the titular left of being inconstant is no heavy lift. To ignore the right’s inconsistency doesn’t improve the situation. Both the titular left and right are overseers for the owners.
With regards to a classless society, that is akin to Miss America’s wish for whirled peas.Impractical.
More practical is a discussion about how we create our classes, and GWB is the latest argument against neo-aristocracy. At least Clinton and Obama, with all of their flaws, pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. Such an ascent was never within GWB’s abilities.
If the distribution of wealth is bell shaped, the Paris Hiltons are thankfully few, and the ones who do not squander their good fortune will lose it to competition. When we approach inequity (and you cannot arrive at inequity without gross exploitation)you create a permanent Paris Hilton class that does not need to compete to retain their wealth.
Workers can either deal with that now, or deal with it at greater cost later.
Is a society free of sexism also impractical? Is asking such a question idiotic?
You know folks we just have to stop feeding the trolls. The arguments are never ending. Kinda deliberate me thinks. Maybe they are paid by the word count? Inquiring minds want to know.
What a bunch of crap and who the heck are you pontificating on the “unequal starting lines” of people? WTF do you think “equality of opportunity” means? Oh, mebbe you don’t believe in that either.
If discussion of a classless society turns your crank, have at it. With someone else. IMV, a classless society infers equal outcomes. Nobody I know, lefties included, thinks that is possible or desireable.
Accusing lefties of believing that is a straw horse the right likes to ride. Classic misdirection from the fact we have moved from a three-class to a two-tiered society.
No, I do not believe in equality of opportunity. I believe in remuneration for effort and sacrifice.
I’ve also said nothing about equality of outcome. Though I would prefer that to the coordinator-dominated world the left latently envisions.
Still, left-wing hostility to workers and working-class liberation is nothing new, and I expected no less this time.
I said something about equal outcomes, and I am curious.
Please define a classless society that does not have equal outcomes. If you have different economic outcomes, you have different classes.
It is widely held that America has the rich, a middle class and the poor. Those classifications are largely tied to amount of wealth. It is also a fact a middle class is a rare thing in historic terms, and it is an important avenue (I’d say the only) for liberty and prosperity to be more broadly shared. The value of a middle class is why we lefties fight for it. One candidate for higher office recently wrote a significant portion of them off.
Please help me out with this classless society, and how you get there.
I’ve never given it a moment’s thought before today.
First, no offense to you. I just see it from a different perspective.
But isn’t this the same logic that the 1% and corporate CEOs use? They are just referees for a football game. They should of course get paid appropriately and I believe they should get a piece of a pie. But if they’re getting 150k a year, then isn’t that exorbitant for what they do?
This is a serious question. Please consider it.