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

[dforant1]

Polygraph tests for all refs are the only way to clear the stench now but 
offer immunity to all guilty, then fired, loss of all benefits.  Anyone not 
willing should be fired.

DanF

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Snoopy the Celtics Beagle" <snoopy at celticsbeagle.net>
To: <Celticsstuffgroup at yahoogroups.com>; "The Boston Celtics Mailing List" 
<celtics at igtc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Celtics' Stuff ] Is the real problem that refs can't be fired?


>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
> _______________________________________________
> The Boston Celtics Mailing List
> celtics at igtc.com
> http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics