NFL reaches agreement with refs union on backup crews
The NFL and NFLRA have reached an agreement on the use of backup officials. (Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
The NFL and NFL Referees Association have reached an agreement on the issue of backup crews, reports NFL.com.
The league compromised in putting 21 full-time officials in developmental program. The 21 officials (three crews of seven officials each) will not be part of a regular group of NFL officials. The regular officials are still locked out as retirement pension remains an issue.
The NFL and NFLRA negotiated past midnight on Tuesday, but are still far apart on various issues.
“When you take a group of officials who have a collective experience of 1,500 years off the field and you replace them with a group of replacements who don’t have that experience, our players know that the workplace today is less safe than it was with the real officials,” NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith said on “CBS This Morning”.
The officials had a defined-benefit pension plan and the NFL wants to eliminate that plan and switch the NFLRA over to a 401(k).
The idea that the NFL Officials have any affect on player safety is ludicrous. First, go back a few weeks and read all the articles about players with concussions. Talk to Jim McMahon and ask him how helpful the officials were at keeping him from being permanently brain-injured. Actually, you'll have to talk to his wife because Jim isn't all that articulate anymore. Does someone expect the officials to anticipate a helmet-to-helmet collision and intervene in time to stop it? The officials' job is to throw the flag after the infraction, not jump in front of someone to save them from a collision. To say that the replacement officials are not able to keep the players safe is monumentally stupid and only shows how low the officials' union will go to try to discredit the replacements. The regular officials have never been able to nor credited with keeping players safe.
It's great that the union has agreed to allow the NFL to control the quality of its employees by having backup crews in place to step in when one or more regular officials are not performing up to standard. Isn't that kind of how it works for the players? Not performing? You're on the bench. Now they just need to "get over it" when it comes to the pension and be glad, as part-timers, that they get any pension at all. I'm a part-timer and get absolutely no benefits. My former employer cancelled its retirement program and now everyone in the company gets only a 401k. That's the way it's going in corporate America...and what's more corporate America than the NFL??
@RonSchrein This is the best letter in this entire thread. Ron is right on. The fact that a 401K is inherently inferior to a defined-benefit plan is indisputable and you're not going to dress up that pig as a princess no matter what percentages you apply to it.. It is also indisputable that no employee wants to have ANY benefits reduced, including pensions, while employers with a profit motive having to deal with collective bargaining are always going to try to control their costs during negotiations. What is in dispute is what it's going to take to settle the matter. Fairness is not going to enter into it. It's a matter of leverage and who needs to settle first. My bet is, despite all the furor being heaped on the NFL right now, that the ref's cave. They're losing money every week. They've already caved on the back-up issue. I guess we'll see pretty soon.
I work for a large bank and the bank matches 100% of our contribution to the 401k. That's kind of nice. However, the thing is, it puts the onus on the employee to take a chunk of their paycheck and put it in a 401k every month. The difference with a pension (which we had until a couple years ago) is that it is strictly a percentage of your pay that the employer saves for you. I imagine with most of the refs having other jobs, that's not a huge deal, but depending on how a new retirement package is structured, it could have a pretty big impact on the total compensation that the refs actually see and have no doubt structured their lives around.
To me, I don't really think either a 401k or a pension has to intrinsically be "better", but I think it's unfair for an employer to unilaterally change the rules of the game simply to benefit their bottom line. What about the employees' bottom lines? Again, to me, that's more important. The NFL makes enough money that they should not be arguing on the basis of the need for austerity measures. Too many companies use their desire for increased market performance as a way to beat their employees into accepting less benefits, lower pay, longer hours, etc., etc. and that's just not how it should be. There should be a balance. Everyone should benefit from the excellent performance of their employer, especially the employees who make it happen every day. A company with billions in profits should never be talking about pay cuts or layoffs or trimming benefits to improve performance as the NFL is doing here.
In a 401K you can contribute up to $17K your self - the employer can match or otherwise contribute in any way up to $50K (or 100% of your salary if you make less than $50K.) So the NFL could give them a really great 401K. Don't believe those below who dispute this figure. I know it is accurate but it's also on the IRS site.
@Enthalpy Under the leagues proposal, an experienced ref can make up to $200,000 per year. Obviously, neither 50% nor 100% of that number is allowable under the law. That's a FACT. The question isn't whether or not the NFL could give the ref's a nice 401K plan. It's whether or not a nice 401K will approach the benefit provided by the current defined-benefit plan. That's a no brainer given the level of disagreement on the issue.
This whole situation is completely despicable. I can't believe the NFL has stooped to this level. Its even hiring the rejects from the lingerie league to referee these games! And now the NFL wants us to donate to get the refs back!
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/09/26/nfl-asks-fans-donate-bring-refs-fund/
This is outrageous. Don't you all agree? How can this be happening in America?
The NFL football product can't take many more hits on the fairness of the calls made by the refs. It is a classic loser/loser situation. The experienced refs want more, the decent college and university level refs don't want to run the risks of being a csab and being overlooked for future promotions. The little, less eperienced guy is now in over his head. No one wins and we all lose.
BS on the pension program! These guys work 7 months a year and have other regular jobs, many where they make even more money and have pensions! I work for 30+ years at a major company and had my pension taken away years ago. A 401K with standard matching..like 10%...is all most of us get. 'TheChad'...really...50% match???? I'm for getting the refs back, but all of this cost will be passed down to the paying fan and the freakin refs will still make mistakes week after week with no real threat of losing their jobs or pensions. The rich just keep getting richer.
All these comments on how much the owners should match are apparently not aware of the limitations that the IRS places on employer matches into a 401K plan. There are maximum limits, catch-up limits and limits based on maximum income subject to a percentage match. A match of 50% or 100% wouldn't be allowed by law. These limits make 401K plan costs much more predictable which is attractive to employers. Costs for defined-benefit plans are based on actuarial requirements and can go through the roof.
You're mixing regs there pal. The limits are on your contribution ($17K) then you put in "catch up" which is for an IRA! The employer can match up to 100% of your salary (not your match your salary) or $50K which ever is lower! That's a FACT - look it up - I'm an employer that matches 100% of my employees contribution!!!
Under the leagues proposal, an experienced ref can make up to $200,000 per year. Obviously, neither 50% nor 100% of that number is allowable under the law. That's a FACT.
Actually, you prove my point. There are limitations such as the $50K max. This is a significant reduction from the defined-benefit plan the refs currently have which have no contribution limits.
I understand that the NFL wants to protect it profits by backing out of a pension plan because those plans are not tied to economic performance, and a 401k seems reasonable, but they should provide a generous matching program around 50% up to a certain cap
The refs union not allowing additional refs to be hired should have been a non starter but the Refs have now givin in on that one so now I am on their side and the NFL needs to step up. Switching to a 401K (which is what every state should do for their employees) is the right thing to do but the NFL should make it very attractive with a huge match - like 100% match of every $.
@Enthalpy I think a defined benefit plan, if that's what the refs were promised in the past, shouldn't be taken away. The NFL can certainly afford it.
Progress is good, now we need more. Journalists, we fans would like to know exactly which owners are stonewalling this.
It seems to me that the refs are the ones stonewalling. Geez, just get a 401K like the rest of us. Everyone knows pension plans are unsustainable.
@paul25 Yes, the refs are also sticking to their position. However, I think reality is saying that these refs do indeed add great value to the NFL and are therefore worth paying what they are asking. I would like to know which owners think that the current level of officiating is "good enough"to prolong for as long as it takes ... I think that would tell fans quite a lot, actually.
paul,
Your first point is a given in any negotiation mid stream, no one moves until they do. lodi was attempting to break open one side's "wall" by breaking the members into individuals: "exactly which owners." Do you want to know the names of "exactly" which union members are standing fast? At least the would make some sense.
Second, "the rest of us" do NOT have 401k plans. They are popular. "Many of us..," or "most of us" at least might make some sense.
Third, if "everyone knows" something why bother stating it?
Fourth the only "pension plans (that) are unsustainable" are the ones that are not funded or invested properly. (Many Muni plans fall into this category.) I belong to a pension plan that is properly funded and adminstered by the individuals who draw benefits from it (no public dollars). We actually are a bit over-funded right now.
Their situatuation is MUCH different. it doesn't need to be sustainable.
The ref's funding would a) only be needed for a finite time (they want some 50 year old guys to be grandfathered) and b) be funded from a 9 billion dollar industry for that short time.
@paul25 Well run pension plans, properly funded, and not looted by greedy politicians are a far superior option to 401K's. They are not subject to market manipulation and "adviser" scams.
@paul25 not true. pensions for public servants and government workers are unstable because we have a trillion dollar deficit. The NFLRA pension plan is funded by the NFL itself which is a multi-billion corporation. Those benefits are rock solid. Ole Roger boy wants to stop that and go to the 401(k) which will i nthe long run result in less money for the officials
And worse - if you leave early you get almost nothing (leaving could be fired, died, got better gig.) The 401K is your money or your dependents - most pensions take a serious financial hit if you want the option to leave it to spouse or dependants. Pensions trap people and habe little flexibilty - and that's if they stay solvent!