Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

You got to go in the field, pay your dues, and earn your way up.

“Well, I’ve done exactly that. Here’s my resumé. I’ve spent the last five years on Capitol Hill in Washington working in nonpartisan legislative positions, and…”

Kid – I mean literally pay your dues.

“Pardon?”

The dues that count. Union dues. Why don’t you march yourself over to Local 1033 of the Laborer’s International Union. They represent 900 municipal workers in Providence. If you play ball, they could find a little something for you and in a few years, you can come back here and say the three magic words for getting hired.

“Which words?”

I know people.

“Jeez. Who am I supposed to see at 1033?”

You have to ask? Don Iannazzi of course. Business manager. He does pretty good for himself. He made $212,658 salary in 2009 plus $53,212 in additional compensation.

“You’re joking. A union guy takes dues from working stiffs who probably make $40,000 and gets almost $300,000?”

It’s a beautiful system, isn’t it? That’s how things work here. Take Dominick Ruggerio, our Senate majority leader. His day-job is administrator of the local Laborers International Union. Their dues last year paid him $190,246. Not bad coin off the backs of laborers –– right?

“That’s crazy.”

Crazy, beautiful. And here’s how it all ties together, kid. Pay attention. Iannazzi’s 25-year-old son Stephen is now the $88,112-a-year special assistant to Majority Leader Ruggerio. Meanwhile, Ruggerio’s 30-year-old lawyer son, Charles Ruggerio, works for Iannazzi at Local 1033. See how Rhode Island works?

“Did you say a 25-year-old State House assistant makes $88,112 in taxpayer’s money?”

It’s better than that. The young Iannazzi was making $37,986 a year as a State House policy researcher last July, left briefly, got hired back in December at $85,546, and just got another raise to $88,112.

“In this economy? With almost 12-percent unemployment? You’re asking people being crushed by taxes to pay that salary to some young kid because he’s got union connections?”

Beautiful, right? Like I said, that’s how we do business here. Don’t you want to be part of that?

“To be honest…”

Great. Look, before I send you to 1033 to get to know people, what are your policy goals?

“Oh, the obvious, of course. The state is facing billions in unfunded pension liabilities so Job One is to rein that in with public employee givebacks.”

Is this supposed to be your little joke?

“Not to mention that runaway public employee costs are burying the state in…”

You see the letters on that door under “Democratic Leadership”?

“Um — I do now. PEUSP. But I’m not sure what it means.”

What do you think, pal? We’re Rhode Island Democrats. We have one purpose. We’re the Public Employee Union Support Party.”

“My philosophy is that the public should come before public unions.”

You know what? I’m afraid we can’t use you. Thanks for coming by.

kalm wrote:A conversation overheard between Goldman Sach's CEO Lloyd Blankfein and AZGrizFan...

Z: Can you believe these union thug leaders making all that bank while their foot soldiers are barely able to remain in the middle class?

LB: Yeah, isn't it hilarious? Good for them.

Z: Watcha mean?

LB: They're just looking out for themselves while legally operating within the system they helped create. It's brilliant really, and the best part is it serves as a nice distraction for the GOP base from what we do.

Z: I'm not catching your drift.

LB: It's simple Z, risk taking producers like you and I have spent the last 15 years pumping billions into bank lobbying to deregulate our sector. Sure it cost a lot up front, but the payoff has been outstanding with hundreds of millions in bonuses in an almost consequence free environment. God I love the free market!

Z: But I only make $250,000 a year.

LB: Dude, that's why you've got to get on board with us. Last year, Jamie Dimon made $20,874,213.17 in bonuses, BofA chief Bryan Moynihan pulled in $9,456,389.17, and I bought my 6th mansion

Z: That puts you one behind McCain

LB: He made money the moderately old fashioned way. I earned mine.

Z: But don't you feel at least a little guilty about socializing your risk?

LB: It's a beautiful system isn't it?

Z: But what about union support for the Democratic Party?

LB: That's what's so cute about the unions, they think the DNC actually gives a shit. If they really wanted to make some serious bank the unions would wise up and play both sides of the fence like we do.

Z: In this economy, with almost 12-percent unemployment you’re expecting people being crushed by taxes to secure your salary because you've got political connections? I was against the bailouts and I just don't think I can justify screwing over the tax payers so I can make a little more dough.

LB: Pussy.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:A conversation overheard between Goldman Sach's CEO Lloyd Blankfein and AZGrizFan...

Z: Can you believe these union thug leaders making all that bank while their foot soldiers are barely able to remain in the middle class?

LB: Yeah, isn't it hilarious? Good for them.

Z: Watcha mean?

LB: They're just looking out for themselves while legally operating within the system they helped create. It's brilliant really, and the best part is it serves as a nice distraction for the GOP base from what we do.

Z: I'm not catching your drift.

LB: It's simple Z, risk taking producers like you and I have spent the last 15 years pumping billions into bank lobbying to deregulate our sector. Sure it cost a lot up front, but the payoff has been outstanding with hundreds of millions in bonuses in an almost consequence free environment. God I love the free market!

Z: But I only make $250,000 a year.

LB: Dude, that's why you've got to get on board with us. Last year, Jamie Dimon made $20,874,213.17 in bonuses, BofA chief Bryan Moynihan pulled in $9,456,389.17, and I bought my 6th mansion

Z: That puts you one behind McCain

LB: He made money the moderately old fashioned way. I earned mine.

Z: But don't you feel at least a little guilty about socializing your risk?

LB: It's a beautiful system isn't it?

Z: But what about union support for the Democratic Party?

LB: That's what's so cute about the unions, they think the DNC actually gives a shit. If they really wanted to make some serious bank the unions would wise up and play both sides of the fence like we do.

Z: In this economy, with almost 12-percent unemployment you’re expecting people being crushed by taxes to secure your salary because you've got political connections? I was against the bailouts and I just don't think I can justify screwing over the tax payers so I can make a little more dough.

LB: Pussy.

kalm wrote:A conversation overheard between Goldman Sach's CEO Lloyd Blankfein and AZGrizFan...

Z: Can you believe these union thug leaders making all that bank while their foot soldiers are barely able to remain in the middle class?

LB: Yeah, isn't it hilarious? Good for them.

Z: Watcha mean?

LB: They're just looking out for themselves while legally operating within the system they helped create. It's brilliant really, and the best part is it serves as a nice distraction for the GOP base from what we do.

Z: I'm not catching your drift.

LB: It's simple Z, risk taking producers like you and I have spent the last 15 years pumping billions into bank lobbying to deregulate our sector. Sure it cost a lot up front, but the payoff has been outstanding with hundreds of millions in bonuses in an almost consequence free environment. God I love the free market!

Z: But I only make $250,000 a year.

LB: Dude, that's why you've got to get on board with us. Last year, Jamie Dimon made $20,874,213.17 in bonuses, BofA chief Bryan Moynihan pulled in $9,456,389.17, and I bought my 6th mansion

Z: That puts you one behind McCain

LB: He made money the moderately old fashioned way. I earned mine.

Z: But don't you feel at least a little guilty about socializing your risk?

LB: It's a beautiful system isn't it?

Z: But what about union support for the Democratic Party?

LB: That's what's so cute about the unions, they think the DNC actually gives a shit. If they really wanted to make some serious bank the unions would wise up and play both sides of the fence like we do.

Z: In this economy, with almost 12-percent unemployment you’re expecting people being crushed by taxes to secure your salary because you've got political connections? I was against the bailouts and I just don't think I can justify screwing over the tax payers so I can make a little more dough.

LB: Pussy.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:A conversation overheard between Goldman Sach's CEO Lloyd Blankfein and AZGrizFan...

Z: Can you believe these union thug leaders making all that bank while their foot soldiers are barely able to remain in the middle class?

LB: Yeah, isn't it hilarious? Good for them.

Z: Watcha mean?

LB: They're just looking out for themselves while legally operating within the system they helped create. It's brilliant really, and the best part is it serves as a nice distraction for the GOP base from what we do.

Z: I'm not catching your drift.

LB: It's simple Z, risk taking producers like you and I have spent the last 15 years pumping billions into bank lobbying to deregulate our sector. Sure it cost a lot up front, but the payoff has been outstanding with hundreds of millions in bonuses in an almost consequence free environment. God I love the free market!

Z: But I only make $250,000 a year.

LB: Dude, that's why you've got to get on board with us. Last year, Jamie Dimon made $20,874,213.17 in bonuses, BofA chief Bryan Moynihan pulled in $9,456,389.17, and I bought my 6th mansion

Z: That puts you one behind McCain

LB: He made money the moderately old fashioned way. I earned mine.

Z: But don't you feel at least a little guilty about socializing your risk?

LB: It's a beautiful system isn't it?

Z: But what about union support for the Democratic Party?

LB: That's what's so cute about the unions, they think the DNC actually gives a shit. If they really wanted to make some serious bank the unions would wise up and play both sides of the fence like we do.

Z: In this economy, with almost 12-percent unemployment you’re expecting people being crushed by taxes to secure your salary because you've got political connections? I was against the bailouts and I just don't think I can justify screwing over the tax payers so I can make a little more dough.

LB: Pussy.

i like it - glad you can make things up out of thin air too Kalmy

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:A conversation overheard between Goldman Sach's CEO Lloyd Blankfein and AZGrizFan...

Z: Can you believe these union thug leaders making all that bank while their foot soldiers are barely able to remain in the middle class?

LB: Yeah, isn't it hilarious? Good for them.

Z: Watcha mean?

LB: They're just looking out for themselves while legally operating within the system they helped create. It's brilliant really, and the best part is it serves as a nice distraction for the GOP base from what we do.

Z: I'm not catching your drift.

LB: It's simple Z, risk taking producers like you and I have spent the last 15 years pumping billions into bank lobbying to deregulate our sector. Sure it cost a lot up front, but the payoff has been outstanding with hundreds of millions in bonuses in an almost consequence free environment. God I love the free market!

Z: But I only make $250,000 a year.

LB: Dude, that's why you've got to get on board with us. Last year, Jamie Dimon made $20,874,213.17 in bonuses, BofA chief Bryan Moynihan pulled in $9,456,389.17, and I bought my 6th mansion

Z: That puts you one behind McCain

LB: He made money the moderately old fashioned way. I earned mine.

Z: But don't you feel at least a little guilty about socializing your risk?

LB: It's a beautiful system isn't it?

Z: But what about union support for the Democratic Party?

LB: That's what's so cute about the unions, they think the DNC actually gives a shit. If they really wanted to make some serious bank the unions would wise up and play both sides of the fence like we do.

Z: In this economy, with almost 12-percent unemployment you’re expecting people being crushed by taxes to secure your salary because you've got political connections? I was against the bailouts and I just don't think I can justify screwing over the tax payers so I can make a little more dough.

LB: Pussy.

i like it - glad you can make things up out of thin air too Kalmy

93henfan wrote:There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unions and Republican corporation fanboys who want to crush the American worker. Neither seem to care about regular Joes very much.

native wrote:

93henfan wrote:There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unions and Republican corporation fanboys who want to crush the American worker. Neither seem to care about regular Joes very much.

Nobody wants to "crush the American worker."

93henfan wrote:

native wrote:
Nobody wants to "crush the American worker."

Mmmmkay. Maybe I should have said "set the quality of life of the American worker back about 125 years". My bad.

Vidav wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Mmmmkay. Maybe I should have said "set the quality of life of the American worker back about 125 years". My bad.

Seriously. Why can't you get it right the first time?

93henfan wrote:

Vidav wrote:
Seriously. Why can't you get it right the first time?

Somebody broke out the Blackberry while waiting in line for toilet paper and other basic necessities, didn't they?

No vodka for you!

Vidav wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Somebody broke out the Blackberry while waiting in line for toilet paper and other basic necessities, didn't they?

No vodka for you!

During high school and college I worked at a grocery store in Missoula and that shit used to happen all the time with the Russians and foodstamps. They would be talking on their cell phones wearing their nice clothes and using an EBT card to buy cart loads of groceries. Assholes. They ate better than I did.

93henfan wrote:

native wrote:
Nobody wants to "crush the American worker."

Mmmmkay. Maybe I should have said "set the quality of life of the American worker back about 125 years". My bad.

native wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Mmmmkay. Maybe I should have said "set the quality of life of the American worker back about 125 years". My bad.

Scratching the balls of the union bosses and paying a good wage with ridiculous work rules for a tiny fraction of the work force while destroying entire industries and ten times as many jobs as are "saved or created" is a step backwards, not forwards.

Grizalltheway wrote:

native wrote:
Scratching the balls of the union bosses and paying a good wage with ridiculous work rules for a tiny fraction of the work force while destroying entire industries and ten times as many jobs as are "saved or created" is a step backwards, not forwards.

Somehow, Germany manages to have a much stronger union presence and still be the world's second-leading exporter. Maybe the destruction of "entire industries" has more to do with the mindset of our corporate management than you care to admit.

Grizalltheway wrote:

native wrote:
Scratching the balls of the union bosses and paying a good wage with ridiculous work rules for a tiny fraction of the work force while destroying entire industries and ten times as many jobs as are "saved or created" is a step backwards, not forwards.

Somehow, Germany manages to have a much stronger union presence and still be the world's second-leading exporter. Maybe the destruction of "entire industries" has more to do with the mindset of our corporate management than you care to admit.

citdog wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:

Somehow, Germany manages to have a much stronger union presence and still be the world's second-leading exporter. Maybe the destruction of "entire industries" has more to do with the mindset of our corporate management than you care to admit.

These guys LOVE German labor!

93henfan wrote:

citdog wrote:
These guys LOVE German labor!

Man, I could stand to lose some weight. What's their secret?

houndawg wrote:If only we could get rid of the 10% of the workforce that is unionized. The nation's problems would be solved.

Highlights from the 2010 data:

--The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was
substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent).
(See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest
unionization rate at 37.1 percent. (See table 3.)

--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian,
or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

--Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent)
and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). (See table 5.)

Industry and Occupation of Union Members

In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union, compared with 7.1million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 42.3 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. Private sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and utilities (21.8 percent), telecommunications (15.8 percent), and construction (13.1
percent). In 2010, low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.6 percent) and in financial activities (2.0 percent).

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:If only we could get rid of the 10% of the workforce that is unionized. The nation's problems would be solved.

Hey, numbnuts: It's not HOW MANY, it's WHO is unionized that's killing this country:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Highlights from the 2010 data:

--The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was
substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent).
(See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest
unionization rate at 37.1 percent. (See table 3.)

--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian,
or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

--Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent)
and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). (See table 5.)

Industry and Occupation of Union Members

In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union, compared with 7.1million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 42.3 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. Private sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and utilities (21.8 percent), telecommunications (15.8 percent), and construction (13.1
percent). In 2010, low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.6 percent) and in financial activities (2.0 percent).

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:If only we could get rid of the 10% of the workforce that is unionized. The nation's problems would be solved.

Hey, numbnuts: It's not HOW MANY, it's WHO is unionized that's killing this country:

Baldy wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Hey, numbnuts: It's not HOW MANY, it's WHO is unionized that's killing this country:

...and probably more importantly (not to step too hard on your toes AZ) the massive amounts of confiscated money the thug union bosses dole out to the Donk politicians (about 95% of "dues") to purchase votes.

Oh, and before you Donk mouthbreathers say anything about Citizens United, do a little research and see just how close corporate donations are to a 50/50 split before you start your whining and bitching.