[Celtics' Stuff ] Is the real problem that refs can't be fired?

[Snoopy the Celtics Beagle]

I realize I'm speaking generally here, with no specific knowledge of 
unions specific to the NBA, but having worked both in union and 
nonunion workplaces--and seen instances of people being put on the 
"firing line" in both, I can tell you that the union will first and 
foremost protect the union itself.  If the individual case merits 
strong union support, they get it.  Otherwise, they go through the 
motions before the inevitable outcome.

Part of it will almost certainly depend on the individual 
him/herself.  A well-liked person will get more sympathy/support 
simply because they ARE well-liked.  It's also a matter of the 
specific incident.  If you are caught stealing office supplies, it's 
different than getting busted for embezzling from the company retirement fund.

In Donaghy's case, there's clear indications that the union will be 
little to no help:

1) There's been ZERO statement of any kind from the ref's union, not 
even a peep of protest that Stern has dispensed with any notion of 
using the word "alleged" in what Donaghy is believed to have 
done.  Not even a pro forma statement that they'll work with him to 
the extent of their ability.  NOTHING.  That means that whatever 
goods Stern has on Donaghy, he's already shared them with the Ref's 
union, and there's no doubt in anyone's mind that even if he broke no 
law, or is unconvicted in a court, he's a dead duck, NBA-wise.

2) The recent disclosures about Donaghy's personal life, from Stern 
quoting his income, to other refs commenting about his questionable 
temper, to neighbors who CAN'T speak because they're in the middle of 
lawsuits against the guy.  He's being hung out to dry by everyone 
with any clout in the NBA.

3) Not one person associated with the NBA, not one neighbor, not one 
family member (we're talking family, not "La Familia") has defended 
him, or maintained his innocence.  Nobody.  That also says a lot.

To drag this back to topic, in one of the few definitive statements 
made by Colonel Klink...er, Commissioner Stern, He made it clear he 
would have terminated Donaghy last month but for the ongoing 
investigation, which might have raised suspicions.  As opposed, I 
guess, to Donaghy suddenly resigning less than 2 weeks ago, or little 
more than a week before the story broke in the press.

Normally, to summarily fire someone in a union, you have to go 
through a process, and normally, the union makes it tough--to prevent 
making it too easy to just fire anyone anytime.  As an attorney, 
Stern knows this.  To have said what he did--and coupled with the 
things I mentioned above, leads me to believe that whatever the legal 
situation may end up being, that Donaghy would have been immediately 
fired had it been possible to do so.

The only thing that probably prevents Stern from turning Donaghy's 
resignation into a retroactive firing NOW is the likely legal hoops 
he'd need to jump through.  It's worth coughing up Donaghy's 
retirement to have the guy out of the league now, as opposed to a 
protracted legal fight that couldn't even start before the potential 
criminal case is resolved--with the likely effect of the NBA being 
forced to let Donaghy officiate games in the meantime.

Not that someone won't be spitting curses every time they have to 
send him a check.

At 01:26 PM 7/24/2007, Phil Maymin wrote:

>With the referee's being unionized, I assume it is impossible to fire
>a referee on mere grounds of suspicion. Perhaps if they weren't
>unionized, Stern could have fired the guy a long time ago, not for
>cause, but just to minimize risk to the league, when he found out he
>was even mildly involved in gambling. But with a union standing ready
>to challenge such arbitrary dismissals, the hurdle has to be much
>higher, with evidence, intent, etc., not just proximity.

Snoopy the Celtics Beagle
Please visit the <http://www.celticsbeagle.net/>Celtics Beagle Website