lomackman Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Oh and here is a link just to prove what I stated about unions being hit hardest by the recession. I found it just for you. http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/heavily-unionized-states-hit-hardest-recesssi-04222309 Who was in the party in charge of the states though? And where did their jobs go? Overseas to increase the income for the top 1% who you seem to highly enjoy giving your money to. Your webiste link holds no water. Do you enjoy the fact that GE pays no taxes and even gets billions from the government in tax credits? As unions have lost their power, thanks to people like you who vote against their own self interests which low and behold the people of Wisconsin now realize, what has happened to wages in this country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsowe Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I was in a union and now I am not and the union did nothing for me except take my money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coach daddy Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I was in a union and now I am not and the union did nothing for me except take my money. If you were in a union in ND, that's probably true. Unions in this state have never been granted a lot of leverage when it comes to bargaining so their impact on members lives is probably minimal. The one issue I have with the negativity directed at unions is that they only took the benefits offered to them. When states like Wisconsin negotiated and agreed to pay 95% of each member's family health insurance plan or pay both sides of the retirement plan, what were the union leaders supposed to do, not take it? Negotiations have always been about asking for a lot and then, usually, meeting in the middle. Someone on the negotiating team for the state made the offer and the union leaders took it. They should have. Lets also not forget that the union in Wisconsin agreed to increases on their side for both health insurance and retirement benefits before Gov. Walker decided that wasn't good enough and went after the dismantling of the union. If anyone likes the way the whole process was handled in Wisconsin, you and I have completely different definitions of fairness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonh8er Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Who was in the party in charge of the states though? And where did their jobs go? Overseas to increase the income for the top 1% who you seem to highly enjoy giving your money to. Your webiste link holds no water. Do you enjoy the fact that GE pays no taxes and even gets billions from the government in tax credits? As unions have lost their power, thanks to people like you who vote against their own self interests which low and behold the people of Wisconsin now realize, what has happened to wages in this country? Obviously you are totally ignorant upon the subject you speak of. Try signing up for an economics course and learn something. Until then nothing you say holds any weight. Why do they ship jobs overseas? Mabey because businesses cannot afford to pay 300,000 auto union workers full pensions and uber high wages. I'm not gonna find the article but you can search for it. A New York Times article stated that auto workers in the big 3 average making $70 an hour if you include benefits and pension. Thats $20 less that Japanese auto unions make (Toyota). Unions suck businesses dry and increase cost of products for everyone else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxYFqmIU2U http://www.ceojobexpert.com/why-unionization-is-bad-for-america http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/03/08/5_reasons_unions_are_bad_for_america I can play this game all day and I guarantee you won't win. The numbers don't lie and the numbers show unions stiffle growth, protect incompetant employees, hurt the economy, only benefit a small few, are corrupt, and are more concerned with politics that benefit their own interest over the best interest of the country. They get huge pensions and sometimes up to 80% of their base pay after they retired but then bitch about not receiving social security. Sounds like they are trying to double dip to me. Unions are fading and are being less and less supported by the general public. People are starting to wake up and understand that business cannot be competitive because of the high demands of unions. Think what you want its a free country but the number do and always will back what I'm saying up. Sorry to rain on your parade. I had like 4 more videos talking about it but the site said I couldnt post that many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rik Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Someone put this thread back on topic or lock it If you want to argue about unions, start another thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomackman Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Obviously you are totally ignorant upon the subject you speak of. Try signing up for an economics course and learn something. Until then nothing you say holds any weight. Why do they ship jobs overseas? Mabey because businesses cannot afford to pay 300,000 auto union workers full pensions and uber high wages. I'm not gonna find the article but you can search for it. A New York Times article stated that auto workers in the big 3 average making $70 an hour if you include benefits and pension. Thats $20 less that Japanese auto unions make (Toyota). Unions suck businesses dry and increase cost of products for everyone else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxYFqmIU2U http://www.ceojobexpert.com/why-unionization-is-bad-for-america http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/03/08/5_reasons_unions_are_bad_for_america I can play this game all day and I guarantee you won't win. The numbers don't lie and the numbers show unions stiffle growth, protect incompetant employees, hurt the economy, only benefit a small few, are corrupt, and are more concerned with politics that benefit their own interest over the best interest of the country. They get huge pensions and sometimes up to 80% of their base pay after they retired but then bitch about not receiving social security. Sounds like they are trying to double dip to me. Unions are fading and are being less and less supported by the general public. People are starting to wake up and understand that business cannot be competitive because of the high demands of unions. Think what you want its a free country but the number do and always will back what I'm saying up. Sorry to rain on your parade. I had like 4 more videos talking about it but the site said I couldnt post that many. Expalin how the economic model worked so well until the shift in wages went only to the top 1%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Some letter that Frank wrote, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoHawks! Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Some letter that Frank wrote, huh? Indeed, and some don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomackman Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Expalin how the economic model worked so well until the shift in wages went only to the top 1%? The standard of living that the midlle-class had before their jobs were sent to China and India. Keep giving your tax dollars to the wealthy if you like but do not expect the rest of us to enjoy the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coach daddy Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Some letter that Frank wrote, huh? That Frank, what a nut!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 If you were in a union in ND, that's probably true. Unions in this state have never been granted a lot of leverage when it comes to bargaining so their impact on members lives is probably minimal. The one issue I have with the negativity directed at unions is that they only took the benefits offered to them. When states like Wisconsin negotiated and agreed to pay 95% of each member's family health insurance plan or pay both sides of the retirement plan, what were the union leaders supposed to do, not take it? Negotiations have always been about asking for a lot and then, usually, meeting in the middle. Someone on the negotiating team for the state made the offer and the union leaders took it. They should have. Lets also not forget that the union in Wisconsin agreed to increases on their side for both health insurance and retirement benefits before Gov. Walker decided that wasn't good enough and went after the dismantling of the union. If anyone likes the way the whole process was handled in Wisconsin, you and I have completely different definitions of fairness. Famous lib's like FDR and others have said that Public unions shouldn't have the right of collective bargining. For this very reason: Public unions collect dues that go to people that are running for the legislature that agree with them. Once elected they proceed to agree on any public union demand. That's why the states like CA, NY, NJ etc are in trouble. It's easy spending other peoples money. Gov. Walker said that the cuts the unions agreed to would just be collective bargained back again the next contract. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Frank wrote a letter that went 'viral' because he made it so. I'm certain that many other alumni wrote letters to Faison, etc, that expressed the same sentiments. I think it's great that Capt. Burggraf wrorte that letter. I believe testimony given by Spirit Lake NA, UND alumni who are proud of the name and logo carry's more weight than his letter, at least it should. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate his letter and believe everyone who has a strong opinion about the issue should bbe heard INCLUDING the people of the Standing Rock reservation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 My link That's an amazing interpretation of the available information. I posted a link to the original story for anyone who's still interested. No where in it will you find a direct quote from Douple indicating anything close to what you are claiming. You will get verbiage from Kolpack stating that Kelley asked Douple to "publicly come out against accepting the Fighting Sioux as members until the controversial nickname and log issue was resolved." But you won't find a single quote to directly backing it up. My perception is that Kolpack is asserting that Kelley asked Douple to go public with the league's concerns about the nickname -- as first verbalized by AC athletic director Gene Taylor and Douple many months prior -- so the SBoHE and alumni wouild be aware of it. But who the hell can say for sure? The truth is Kolpack's original story was a mess -- poorly worded, difficult to follow and backed up by VERY few direct quotes from Douple. Yet you continue to present as fact your interpretation of this story based on the writer's murky interpretation of comments from a rejected suitor who's hardly quoted at all. In another post here you claim "evidence indicates that Kelly spent his time allowing or convincing one or more Summit League presidents to come out with a anti-Sioux resolution prior to membership" How is it even possible that Kelly "allowed" Summit presidents to formulate a resolution of any type? I've never heard your claim anywhere and I'd challenge you to provide any proof of your allegation. It's unfortunate we have to continually revisit some of these old issues. It's unfortunate you continue to present as fact your attacks that appear to be largely distortions or out-and-out fabrications. I enjoy your posts on Division 1 developments, etc., but I think these kinds of statements really add nothing useful to the discussion. Had intended to respond to this earlier. Honestly, by you defending Kelley, that is an indicment of Kelley's competence. Please answer these questions and observations, and then state that Kelley and the SBoHE had no part in attempting to finish the Sioux name, by using the Summit and Douple as an excuse. 1. When Douple came out with the decree stating the Summit League wouldn't accept UND, why did Kelley just throw up his hands and begin his lobbying to drop the name? Never once did Kelley publicly request Douple to come to UND and discuss the situation. Never once did Kelley state that he was petitioning Summit League presidents and asking them to more closely review the situation. Grant Shaft stated in a radio interview that Kelley had been lobbying the SBoHE to drop the nickname. Never has it ever been revealed that Kelley was lobbying the Summit League to drop their nickname stance. Instead, Kelley just blindly accepts the Summit decree. Why? What would it have hurt for Kelley to lobby the Summit League presidents to allow UND and the SBoHE to continue the nickname process? 2. Why did the SBoHE never direct the Summit nickname question to Chapman or NDSU: when Chapman had to have been part of the original decree? The SBoHE always directed their questions to Douple, with a couple of the SBoHE personnel traveling to Chicago to talk with Douple directly. Are SBoHE personnel really so naive as to not understand that the Presidents of the Summit League are the ones that make expansion decisions? Either the SBoHE is extremely incompetent by not understanding league procedures or some of them were involved in a charade. Douple does not have the power to add a school: only the Presidents do. The SBoHE was either covering for Chapman's original actions, or the SBoHE was incompetent. There's no other answers. 3. When Douple said to the press that he was withholding UND's application from the President's, why didn't the media call that total bull$%!#. Conference commissioners don't have that power: only presidents do. A Summit President is the leader of an expansion committee. The Summit President who was in charge of "evaluating" UND was never ever revealed. Who was that President? Never been answered in the media. Again, the lack of sophistication by the local media was glaring. Douple never had the power to withhold UND's application: only Summit League Presidents. The media just accepted Douple's statements at par value, when they were actually total lies. Somehow, the local media gave Douple all kinds of reverence, when all he was was a blowhard of the worst kind. 4. When the PAC10 accepted Utah, why didn't the media's eyes become open? Utah is the one school other than UND to have issues within a tribe that could render their nickname on the NCAA's list. Yet, the PAC10, with schools like UC-Berkeley, Stanford, and Washington - liberal bastions that they are - had no issue (none was ever reported in the press) about the Utah Utes's nickname. As a result of moving to the PAC10, Utah would receiver more than n$10 million extra a year in comparison with the MWC. If there was ever a time that the PAC10 could make a demand, it was prior to acceptance. Yet Utah had no issue with the PAC10, even though the Uintah reservation has reservations about the name. And yet the Summit League had an "issue" with the Sioux nickname. Absolutely total B.S. that liberal campuses in the Summit League have issues with the Sioux name if the name would have received tribal blessings. The Utah Utes will be routinely playing at the Stanford Cardinal. Hello out there media!! Buy a clue!! 5. When Gene Taylor was on Fargo radio and spouted off about the Summit League having a policy that prevented them from scheduling UND because of the nickname, where did Taylor get that information? It wasn't the Summit League, because Douple at first stated they had no such policy, and then later changed his stance to say they needed to consider it. Where did Taylor hear that policy? From Chapman? 6. When UND took the Big Sky offer, the Summit went into a panic mode. The Summit somehow always thought it had UND as a partner. The whole fiasco with UNO - where UNO was wined and dined at the Summit tournament, then had to suddenly drop wrestling and football on short notice - shows how the Summit had to radically change course in short order in order to compensate for the loss of UND. Kelley most likely had a deal with the Summit (Summit takes blame for the nickname loss, and Kelley/SBoHE get no blame and a home for athletics), and because the Summit couldn't come up with a football home, Kelley went with the Big Sky. Douple, enraged that Kelley broke their gentleman's agreement, went public about the Sioux nickname farce. Don't get me wrong: we are extremely fortunate in how events transpired. But that is in spite of our leadership, not because of our leadership. Kelley didn't even believe we could get in the Big Sky until the last second. Kelley never believed the nickname could be saved and there is no shred of evidence anywhere that he wanted it saved. We are blessed as fans, as a school, and have a blessed future: in spite of our leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonh8er Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 You sir, are an intelligent man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 You sir, are an intelligent man. Star for President!!! 'of UND' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.