Has the time finally come?
A new topic seems to have arisen in the past few weeks--and its not one that is welcomed in many circles other than those who make money off of tournaments--and that is the issue of paying new officials less than experienced officials. While this has been a topic since the beginning of time, it seems that there are now committee meetings at the USTA level to discuss the issue. Many of us officials have been opposed to having an OFFICIALS UNION but perhaps it is time to seriously rethink that issue...
This editor is diametrically and forever more opposed to the idea of less pay for newer officials because of numerous ramifications--but in order to be "diverse" and "sensitive", here are some thoughts to ponder in the discussion.
* What possible criteria would be used to determine the pay scale. Do you base it on years of experience or levels of certification.
* Do you pay less for an official that is obviously inept in their job performance?
* Remember that rates are set by local associations and referees and not by USTA committees.
* Always remember that officials are "independent contractors" and thus can set their own rates. The policy in the Metroplex is that the Metroplex Tennis Officials Association will not issue paychecks for those who pay less than our established minimums.
* If the issue is that new officials don't do as good a job as experienced officials then do we deduct pay from those who don't do a good job?
* Whatever happened to the truth that "if you don't like an official or are dissatisfied with their job performance--then don't hire them"?
I might be open to a discussion of this topic if the following steps are taken:
* The tournament directors would publish accurate accounts of the finances from their tournament and then base the pay scale on these figures. A tournament director could not pay the officials less than an established minimum but could always pay more for good service.
* Have a minimum base pay for new officials and do not permit tournament directors to go below that rate.
* Make a firm determination of what constitutes a "new official." It could be based on years of service or number of tournaments worked or some other valid criteria.
* Base the officials' pay on the amount of the entry fee for the tournament and the pay could never be less than the established minimum.
* Base the officials' pay on the number of entries in a tournament and not to be less than the established minimum.
* Establish a minimum pay for all officials and then add to the base pay for years of service, level of certification, and amount of training.
Here are some examples to consider:
ZAT TOURNAMENT:
Minimum pay for officials with less than 2 years experience: $16/hour w/8 hour minimum.
Minimum pay for officials with more than 2 years experience: $18/hour w/8 hour minimum.
$1/hour added for those officials who are referee or ITA certified.
$1/hour added for those officials who do pro lines.
CHAMPS & SUPER CHAMPS & ADULT TOURNAMENTS:
Minimum pay for officials with less than 2 years experience: $18/hour w/8 hour minimum.
Minimum pay for officials with more than 2 years experience: $20/hour w/8 hour minimum.
$1/hour added for those officials who are referee or ITA certified.
$1/hour added for those officials who do pro lines.
Note: And just to excite those who hate eating, meals would be included in all fees and if not provided, then $12/meal would be added to each paycheck.
That means that officials who have over 2 years experience and are referee and ITA certified and do pro lines will be making $22/hour w/8 hour minimum.
I'm ready for a union and changes to our pay...
