Heres the facts, companies no longer want to pay union workers of non union workers in our country
Um, Really?
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) — Volkswagen, the German automaker, picked
Chattanooga over rival sites in two other states for a new assembly
plant expected to create about 2,000 jobs.
PS, Volkswagen moved their North America headquarters FROM Detroit to......come on, you can guess.....VIRGINIA.
0
Heres the facts, companies no longer want to pay union workers of non union workers in our country
Um, Really?
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) — Volkswagen, the German automaker, picked
Chattanooga over rival sites in two other states for a new assembly
plant expected to create about 2,000 jobs.
PS, Volkswagen moved their North America headquarters FROM Detroit to......come on, you can guess.....VIRGINIA.
Unions were made originally because the private sector abused, underpaid and treated the worker like trash..
Now, because of the reversal of some unions (that some unions might be seen as abusing the employer) NOW the company has moved on to a new victim..third world countries where they can abuse minors, women and anyone with no regulation or requirements, disgusting work conditions (many times) and slave wages.
I try VERY hard not to purchase products from companies that I know are making excess profits off the back of those unprotected workers, but it is near impossible to find many products that arent made in slave labor camps and imported without taxes.
It is a sickening thought though..that to feed the corporate machine and our need for cheap products that we are rewarding corporations who abuse others..and we dont see the abuse so I guess it just isnt an issue.
Assume I open a running shoe factory in some third world shit hole.
On the day before I open my factory, and for that matter for every day before, all of my potential workers were; trying to find an animal to eat and/or avoid being eaten by an animal, defecating in their water supply, dieing from typhoid, or watching soccer.
Work in my factory is a CLEAR step up. If I were simply to offer exposure to the concept of work (with no pay) I should be viewed as a hero. Therefore, if I pay a penny a month, I am doing more than I need to to help them. If whatever I offer is unacceptable they can choose from their other aforementioned myriad of other options.
The Fact of the matter is, if they are willing to work for what I offer I am not exploiting them, on the contrary I am indeedhelping them.
How much, please be specific, should I pay them? I would also love it if you could explicitily detail the delusional fantasies you used to arrive at this figure.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Well to put it in simple terms..
Unions were made originally because the private sector abused, underpaid and treated the worker like trash..
Now, because of the reversal of some unions (that some unions might be seen as abusing the employer) NOW the company has moved on to a new victim..third world countries where they can abuse minors, women and anyone with no regulation or requirements, disgusting work conditions (many times) and slave wages.
I try VERY hard not to purchase products from companies that I know are making excess profits off the back of those unprotected workers, but it is near impossible to find many products that arent made in slave labor camps and imported without taxes.
It is a sickening thought though..that to feed the corporate machine and our need for cheap products that we are rewarding corporations who abuse others..and we dont see the abuse so I guess it just isnt an issue.
Assume I open a running shoe factory in some third world shit hole.
On the day before I open my factory, and for that matter for every day before, all of my potential workers were; trying to find an animal to eat and/or avoid being eaten by an animal, defecating in their water supply, dieing from typhoid, or watching soccer.
Work in my factory is a CLEAR step up. If I were simply to offer exposure to the concept of work (with no pay) I should be viewed as a hero. Therefore, if I pay a penny a month, I am doing more than I need to to help them. If whatever I offer is unacceptable they can choose from their other aforementioned myriad of other options.
The Fact of the matter is, if they are willing to work for what I offer I am not exploiting them, on the contrary I am indeedhelping them.
How much, please be specific, should I pay them? I would also love it if you could explicitily detail the delusional fantasies you used to arrive at this figure.
Unions were made originally because the private sector abused, underpaid and treated the worker like trash..
Now, because of the reversal of some unions (that some unions might be seen as abusing the employer) NOW the company has moved on to a new victim..third world countries where they can abuse minors, women and anyone with no regulation or requirements, disgusting work conditions (many times) and slave wages.
I try VERY hard not to purchase products from companies that I know are making excess profits off the back of those unprotected workers, but it is near impossible to find many products that arent made in slave labor camps and imported without taxes.
It is a sickening thought though..that to feed the corporate machine and our need for cheap products that we are rewarding corporations who abuse others..and we dont see the abuse so I guess it just isnt an issue.
you and me both
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Well to put it in simple terms..
Unions were made originally because the private sector abused, underpaid and treated the worker like trash..
Now, because of the reversal of some unions (that some unions might be seen as abusing the employer) NOW the company has moved on to a new victim..third world countries where they can abuse minors, women and anyone with no regulation or requirements, disgusting work conditions (many times) and slave wages.
I try VERY hard not to purchase products from companies that I know are making excess profits off the back of those unprotected workers, but it is near impossible to find many products that arent made in slave labor camps and imported without taxes.
It is a sickening thought though..that to feed the corporate machine and our need for cheap products that we are rewarding corporations who abuse others..and we dont see the abuse so I guess it just isnt an issue.
Just one question .....Do you ever negotiate your commission? How often? Once per year on your review? When your cutting price? How often and when?.......
So if employees want to unite and collectively bargain their pay and benefits ....why is that akin to being lazy for you?
People want to get paid for doing their job not for kissing the bosses ass. And if the boss wants his/her ass sucked they can ask someone who works on merit. ...There are tons of people working on merit that would love to go home with a brown nose.
What you want borders on the feudal system that operated in the middle ages. Now go mind your own business and let people do as they need to improve their lot in life.
I have read this thread through and conclude that you must be a full time bull shitter. Your an Alcoa worker, a salesman and a conn artist too I'm sure.
I don't get to negotiate my commission % I am a broker that represent multiple companies. Some companies pay me 7% some pay me 10%
It figures that if you can't debate me on substance start calling me a liar. That is typical behavior from those that disagree. What incentive do I have to lie?
The working conditions that made it necessary for unions to be formed simply don't exist anymore. Surely there are pukes that like to stick their nose up the bosses ass. Thats never going to change.
Its a question of what system is better. Unions where there is no incentive for real production because you'll get paid the same no matter how hard you work. There's no incentive for individuals to go above and beyond because it makes your fellow members look bad. We see perfect examples of this when we go to the DMV.
On the other hand, merit based pay gives incentives for individuals to show what they are worth and inspires the rest of the coworkers to keep up. Merit based pay helps a small company compete with competitors. Whoever produces the best product for the lowest production cost ensures long term vitality.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mrbigstuff2466:
Just one question .....Do you ever negotiate your commission? How often? Once per year on your review? When your cutting price? How often and when?.......
So if employees want to unite and collectively bargain their pay and benefits ....why is that akin to being lazy for you?
People want to get paid for doing their job not for kissing the bosses ass. And if the boss wants his/her ass sucked they can ask someone who works on merit. ...There are tons of people working on merit that would love to go home with a brown nose.
What you want borders on the feudal system that operated in the middle ages. Now go mind your own business and let people do as they need to improve their lot in life.
I have read this thread through and conclude that you must be a full time bull shitter. Your an Alcoa worker, a salesman and a conn artist too I'm sure.
I don't get to negotiate my commission % I am a broker that represent multiple companies. Some companies pay me 7% some pay me 10%
It figures that if you can't debate me on substance start calling me a liar. That is typical behavior from those that disagree. What incentive do I have to lie?
The working conditions that made it necessary for unions to be formed simply don't exist anymore. Surely there are pukes that like to stick their nose up the bosses ass. Thats never going to change.
Its a question of what system is better. Unions where there is no incentive for real production because you'll get paid the same no matter how hard you work. There's no incentive for individuals to go above and beyond because it makes your fellow members look bad. We see perfect examples of this when we go to the DMV.
On the other hand, merit based pay gives incentives for individuals to show what they are worth and inspires the rest of the coworkers to keep up. Merit based pay helps a small company compete with competitors. Whoever produces the best product for the lowest production cost ensures long term vitality.
NFLPA.....NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION.
ASSOCIATION NOT A UNION. OR IS AN ASSOCIATION A UNION?
If the NFLPA is a union then the state doctors associations are unions as is the Bar for lawyers and many other associations.
Jemarcus Russells pay has more to do with the contract negotiated by his agent then the NFLPA. The role the NFLPA plays is in negotiated work conditions and minimum pay. Now the NFL wants the NFLPA to insert a wage scale for rookies amongst other things.
When the NFLPA de-certified their association the NFL went to court to challenge that de-certification so that it may continue to impose their lockout.
Again this is a very rudimentary argument on the subject but Stiln its intended to just broaden your mind because you are fixated on the concept of union=bad all the time. Just more proof that when a company gets to be big enough in many ways it is to the companies benefit to negotiate with a union or association, versus being left to operate with strictly open market forces.
Jamarcus Russells is outrageous. No way he should be paid 30 mill to be in the league 3 years. The NFL is trying to make sure this doesn't happen again and give more of the revenue to those that earn it.
The union is fighting them on it....because they want more stories like this? Why are they fighting that change?
0
Quote Originally Posted by mrbigstuff2466:
NFLPA.....NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION.
ASSOCIATION NOT A UNION. OR IS AN ASSOCIATION A UNION?
If the NFLPA is a union then the state doctors associations are unions as is the Bar for lawyers and many other associations.
Jemarcus Russells pay has more to do with the contract negotiated by his agent then the NFLPA. The role the NFLPA plays is in negotiated work conditions and minimum pay. Now the NFL wants the NFLPA to insert a wage scale for rookies amongst other things.
When the NFLPA de-certified their association the NFL went to court to challenge that de-certification so that it may continue to impose their lockout.
Again this is a very rudimentary argument on the subject but Stiln its intended to just broaden your mind because you are fixated on the concept of union=bad all the time. Just more proof that when a company gets to be big enough in many ways it is to the companies benefit to negotiate with a union or association, versus being left to operate with strictly open market forces.
Jamarcus Russells is outrageous. No way he should be paid 30 mill to be in the league 3 years. The NFL is trying to make sure this doesn't happen again and give more of the revenue to those that earn it.
The union is fighting them on it....because they want more stories like this? Why are they fighting that change?
I don't get to negotiate my commission % I am a broker that represent multiple companies. Some companies pay me 7% some pay me 10%
It figures that if you can't debate me on substance start calling me a liar. That is typical behavior from those that disagree. What incentive do I have to lie?
The working conditions that made it necessary for unions to be formed simply don't exist anymore. Surely there are pukes that like to stick their nose up the bosses ass. Thats never going to change.
Its a question of what system is better. Unions where there is no incentive for real production because you'll get paid the same no matter how hard you work. There's no incentive for individuals to go above and beyond because it makes your fellow members look bad. We see perfect examples of this when we go to the DMV.
On the other hand, merit based pay gives incentives for individuals to show what they are worth and inspires the rest of the coworkers to keep up. Merit based pay helps a small company compete with competitors. Whoever produces the best product for the lowest production cost ensures long term vitality.
So let me ask again....If you represent various companies at various commission rates.....Now do you guide prospective clients to where you earn the highest commission? If you have done this even once....That is a form of negotiation of commission. Or even if you shop around periodically to find insurance companies that pay a higher commission that is negotiating commission also.
So let those that unite as employees negotiate their pay and benefits periodically. If they negotiate a good deal dont begrudge what was gained by others.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
I don't get to negotiate my commission % I am a broker that represent multiple companies. Some companies pay me 7% some pay me 10%
It figures that if you can't debate me on substance start calling me a liar. That is typical behavior from those that disagree. What incentive do I have to lie?
The working conditions that made it necessary for unions to be formed simply don't exist anymore. Surely there are pukes that like to stick their nose up the bosses ass. Thats never going to change.
Its a question of what system is better. Unions where there is no incentive for real production because you'll get paid the same no matter how hard you work. There's no incentive for individuals to go above and beyond because it makes your fellow members look bad. We see perfect examples of this when we go to the DMV.
On the other hand, merit based pay gives incentives for individuals to show what they are worth and inspires the rest of the coworkers to keep up. Merit based pay helps a small company compete with competitors. Whoever produces the best product for the lowest production cost ensures long term vitality.
So let me ask again....If you represent various companies at various commission rates.....Now do you guide prospective clients to where you earn the highest commission? If you have done this even once....That is a form of negotiation of commission. Or even if you shop around periodically to find insurance companies that pay a higher commission that is negotiating commission also.
So let those that unite as employees negotiate their pay and benefits periodically. If they negotiate a good deal dont begrudge what was gained by others.
Jamarcus Russells is outrageous. No way he should be paid 30 mill to be in the league 3 years. The NFL is trying to make sure this doesn't happen again and give more of the revenue to those that earn it.
The union is fighting them on it....because they want more stories like this? Why are they fighting that change?
The Union is fighting this because periodically there are players like Matt Ryan in Atlanta or Peyton Manning in Indy that are chosen 1st overall and are actually worth more than a cap limit might pay them just because they are a rookie.
In the end there is a salary cap in the NFL and the players can only make a certain percentage of the revenues. Let management decide how they spend their money.Al Davis spent it on Jamarcus Russell I say blame the Raiders for drafting a dud not the dud for taking what was offered to him.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Jamarcus Russells is outrageous. No way he should be paid 30 mill to be in the league 3 years. The NFL is trying to make sure this doesn't happen again and give more of the revenue to those that earn it.
The union is fighting them on it....because they want more stories like this? Why are they fighting that change?
The Union is fighting this because periodically there are players like Matt Ryan in Atlanta or Peyton Manning in Indy that are chosen 1st overall and are actually worth more than a cap limit might pay them just because they are a rookie.
In the end there is a salary cap in the NFL and the players can only make a certain percentage of the revenues. Let management decide how they spend their money.Al Davis spent it on Jamarcus Russell I say blame the Raiders for drafting a dud not the dud for taking what was offered to him.
In my view, the flaw in the typical union mindset is that people should be paid what they're worth, as opposed to what the job is worth. Remember the Delphi bankruptcy, the president of Delphi stated, "We can not afford to pay a man $60 an hour to sweep the floor".
I would further argue this approach endangers our very economic well-being, as young, relatively uneducated people get high paying, but mindless jobs. This completely distorts the concept of "bettering oneself", and imbues an attitude of entitlement.
There is a theme song among the union folks that minimum wage should be able to support of family of four. Entry level jobs are not meant to support families. They are starting points for people coming into the workforce. If you stay forever in an entry level job, your ambition, skill, interest or demeanor are the issue, not the entry level job.
I believe that the current union model is flawed. It is built on a notion of an unregulated industrial society. We no longer have that anywhere. Government at all levels regulates the employer/employee relationship concerning safety, fairness, work environment, ethics, etc. Some of this gets out of hand, but most of it is intuitive – decent employers have been acting this way forever. Particularly in small businesses, the relationship between the workers and the managers is not a hostile one – which the union model presupposes. A unity of purpose and sense of teamwork are essential to the success of most small businesses. Some bosses are jerks and have to walk a careful line to avoid hostile work environment claims. Some employees are jerks and have to be gotten rid of.
The union model seems to be built to punish the former and protect the latter.
The bottom line is if people aren't getting paid well....Who is buying the goods? Answer: people in other countries.
American corporations are making products in China and India to sell to people living in China India Brazil etc. They no longer think about the American market, so they are leaving the American people to fend for themselves because they no longer serve a purpose. So the bottom line is this........
Either Americans spend time to educate themselves and become relevant or we are in for a very rude awakening in the years to come.
Bottom line is the USA and life as Americans are accustomed to living is under attack.
If the word patriot ever meant anything Americans need to become patriotic and take care of their own first and foremost. This will become the responsibility of both the American government and American Corporations. The undertaking is huge but the cost of doing nothing is unthinkable.
Believe me unions are all for productivity and competition in the 2000s. To put the plight of the American worker on the unions is very narrow minded and does nothing to improve life for Americans.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MeMyselfandEye:
In my view, the flaw in the typical union mindset is that people should be paid what they're worth, as opposed to what the job is worth. Remember the Delphi bankruptcy, the president of Delphi stated, "We can not afford to pay a man $60 an hour to sweep the floor".
I would further argue this approach endangers our very economic well-being, as young, relatively uneducated people get high paying, but mindless jobs. This completely distorts the concept of "bettering oneself", and imbues an attitude of entitlement.
There is a theme song among the union folks that minimum wage should be able to support of family of four. Entry level jobs are not meant to support families. They are starting points for people coming into the workforce. If you stay forever in an entry level job, your ambition, skill, interest or demeanor are the issue, not the entry level job.
I believe that the current union model is flawed. It is built on a notion of an unregulated industrial society. We no longer have that anywhere. Government at all levels regulates the employer/employee relationship concerning safety, fairness, work environment, ethics, etc. Some of this gets out of hand, but most of it is intuitive – decent employers have been acting this way forever. Particularly in small businesses, the relationship between the workers and the managers is not a hostile one – which the union model presupposes. A unity of purpose and sense of teamwork are essential to the success of most small businesses. Some bosses are jerks and have to walk a careful line to avoid hostile work environment claims. Some employees are jerks and have to be gotten rid of.
The union model seems to be built to punish the former and protect the latter.
The bottom line is if people aren't getting paid well....Who is buying the goods? Answer: people in other countries.
American corporations are making products in China and India to sell to people living in China India Brazil etc. They no longer think about the American market, so they are leaving the American people to fend for themselves because they no longer serve a purpose. So the bottom line is this........
Either Americans spend time to educate themselves and become relevant or we are in for a very rude awakening in the years to come.
Bottom line is the USA and life as Americans are accustomed to living is under attack.
If the word patriot ever meant anything Americans need to become patriotic and take care of their own first and foremost. This will become the responsibility of both the American government and American Corporations. The undertaking is huge but the cost of doing nothing is unthinkable.
Believe me unions are all for productivity and competition in the 2000s. To put the plight of the American worker on the unions is very narrow minded and does nothing to improve life for Americans.
The union runs its business primarily with its own interests in the forefront, just like any other business. The problem is that its business is to force itself on other businesses to control some of the internal workings of those businesses.
If it truly represented the employees’ best interests, there would be substantial unity of purpose between management and employees. But the unions have much broader purposes than any individual business and are willing to put a few out of business to make its point.
0
The union runs its business primarily with its own interests in the forefront, just like any other business. The problem is that its business is to force itself on other businesses to control some of the internal workings of those businesses.
If it truly represented the employees’ best interests, there would be substantial unity of purpose between management and employees. But the unions have much broader purposes than any individual business and are willing to put a few out of business to make its point.
Jamarcus Russells is outrageous. No way he should be paid 30 mill to be in the league 3 years. The NFL is trying to make sure this doesn't happen again and give more of the revenue to those that earn it.
The union is fighting them on it....because they want more stories like this? Why are they fighting that change?
I think Al davis' incompetence and in the inability to oust a leader with such poor leadership qualities then effects the whole league...
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Jamarcus Russells is outrageous. No way he should be paid 30 mill to be in the league 3 years. The NFL is trying to make sure this doesn't happen again and give more of the revenue to those that earn it.
The union is fighting them on it....because they want more stories like this? Why are they fighting that change?
I think Al davis' incompetence and in the inability to oust a leader with such poor leadership qualities then effects the whole league...
I think Al davis' incompetence and in the inability to oust a leader with such poor leadership qualities then effects the whole league...
In the case of first rounders...Al Davis just paid what the market is for that draft position. There were more than one expert that considered JaMarcus to be a solid player.
I agree with the NFL's position to try to defer that money that now goes toward 'Potential' to go toward "EARNED".
What is wrong with that logic?
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
I think Al davis' incompetence and in the inability to oust a leader with such poor leadership qualities then effects the whole league...
In the case of first rounders...Al Davis just paid what the market is for that draft position. There were more than one expert that considered JaMarcus to be a solid player.
I agree with the NFL's position to try to defer that money that now goes toward 'Potential' to go toward "EARNED".
So let me ask again....If you represent various companies at various commission rates.....Now do you guide prospective clients to where you earn the highest commission? If you have done this even once....That is a form of negotiation of commission. Or even if you shop around periodically to find insurance companies that pay a higher commission that is negotiating commission also.
So let those that unite as employees negotiate their pay and benefits periodically. If they negotiate a good deal dont begrudge what was gained by others.
Very often I write with the company that offers the lowest commission %. I have great incentive (renewals) to get my clients the best 'Value' for their money. I would much rather have the best rates for them and keep them for a longer period of time then get paid an extra $10 or $20 to write them and possibly lose them.
If I do switch them to a different company in the office....it is ONLY to get them a better rate. I switched a high dollar client last week from a better commission % to a lower % because the lower % company didn't consider a 30 mph+ ticket to be a major incident and thus had a much better rate for him.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mrbigstuff2466:
So let me ask again....If you represent various companies at various commission rates.....Now do you guide prospective clients to where you earn the highest commission? If you have done this even once....That is a form of negotiation of commission. Or even if you shop around periodically to find insurance companies that pay a higher commission that is negotiating commission also.
So let those that unite as employees negotiate their pay and benefits periodically. If they negotiate a good deal dont begrudge what was gained by others.
Very often I write with the company that offers the lowest commission %. I have great incentive (renewals) to get my clients the best 'Value' for their money. I would much rather have the best rates for them and keep them for a longer period of time then get paid an extra $10 or $20 to write them and possibly lose them.
If I do switch them to a different company in the office....it is ONLY to get them a better rate. I switched a high dollar client last week from a better commission % to a lower % because the lower % company didn't consider a 30 mph+ ticket to be a major incident and thus had a much better rate for him.
In the case of first rounders...Al Davis just paid what the market is for that draft position. There were more than one expert that considered JaMarcus to be a solid player.
I agree with the NFL's position to try to defer that money that now goes toward 'Potential' to go toward "EARNED".
What is wrong with that logic?
Why would you even care how much Davis spends and how much a particular player earns. In the end there is a cap and teams can only spend according to the cap rules.
There is either good management or poor management. Seems to me good management drafts well but more than that develops talent better than the teams that are not successful. If you ask me its hard to pick a bigger loser between Jamarcus Russell and Al Davis. And now both of them are stacked full of cash!!!
AS for your comment. Remember the average career in the NFL is less than 4 years/
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
In the case of first rounders...Al Davis just paid what the market is for that draft position. There were more than one expert that considered JaMarcus to be a solid player.
I agree with the NFL's position to try to defer that money that now goes toward 'Potential' to go toward "EARNED".
What is wrong with that logic?
Why would you even care how much Davis spends and how much a particular player earns. In the end there is a cap and teams can only spend according to the cap rules.
There is either good management or poor management. Seems to me good management drafts well but more than that develops talent better than the teams that are not successful. If you ask me its hard to pick a bigger loser between Jamarcus Russell and Al Davis. And now both of them are stacked full of cash!!!
AS for your comment. Remember the average career in the NFL is less than 4 years/
Why would you even care how much Davis spends and how much a particular player earns. In the end there is a cap and teams can only spend according to the cap rules.
There is either good management or poor management. Seems to me good management drafts well but more than that develops talent better than the teams that are not successful. If you ask me its hard to pick a bigger loser between Jamarcus Russell and Al Davis. And now both of them are stacked full of cash!!!
AS for your comment. Remember the average career in the NFL is less than 4 years/
Ever see the movie "The Man from Snowy River"?
One of my all time favorites.
I agree with the mountain men that came to Jim after his father died and told him he had to earn his right to live in the high country. They didn't have ANY intentions of taking his land or anything for personal gain. They just wanted him to earn it.
The reason I care about JaMarcus Russell is because I don't like to see lazy people get rewarded for that behavior. I would much rather see that money go towards players that earn that kind of money. It doesnt make sense for the NFLPA to fight for people like Andre Ware or JaMarcus Russell. As a matter of fact, that reward gives very little incentive to be a producer. Much like Most unions.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mrbigstuff2466:
Why would you even care how much Davis spends and how much a particular player earns. In the end there is a cap and teams can only spend according to the cap rules.
There is either good management or poor management. Seems to me good management drafts well but more than that develops talent better than the teams that are not successful. If you ask me its hard to pick a bigger loser between Jamarcus Russell and Al Davis. And now both of them are stacked full of cash!!!
AS for your comment. Remember the average career in the NFL is less than 4 years/
Ever see the movie "The Man from Snowy River"?
One of my all time favorites.
I agree with the mountain men that came to Jim after his father died and told him he had to earn his right to live in the high country. They didn't have ANY intentions of taking his land or anything for personal gain. They just wanted him to earn it.
The reason I care about JaMarcus Russell is because I don't like to see lazy people get rewarded for that behavior. I would much rather see that money go towards players that earn that kind of money. It doesnt make sense for the NFLPA to fight for people like Andre Ware or JaMarcus Russell. As a matter of fact, that reward gives very little incentive to be a producer. Much like Most unions.
I agree with the mountain men that came to Jim after his father died and told him he had to earn his right to live in the high country. They didn't have ANY intentions of taking his land or anything for personal gain. They just wanted him to earn it.
The reason I care about JaMarcus Russell is because I don't like to see lazy people get rewarded for that behavior. I would much rather see that money go towards players that earn that kind of money. It doesnt make sense for the NFLPA to fight for people like Andre Ware or JaMarcus Russell. As a matter of fact, that reward gives very little incentive to be a producer. Much like Most unions.
. ...Jamarcus Russell in fact earned his first contract. He performed in college at the combine etc. and so forth was drafted 1st overall and was paid the going rate and he failed. Whats the big deal. By the same token.... Jamarcus Russell did not earn a 2nd contract. So the system is not broken.
If Al Davis didn't want to take the chance he should have traded the pick. You're fixation on how much everyone else earns and how they get their money is a bit unnerving. Who made you judge of how much one should earn and how hard they should work for their money? To some it comes easy, to others, they have to work very hard. Thats life my friend.
Jamarcus' agent negotiated in good faith unfortunately when put under the bright lights and the NFL pass rush the man was not capable of reproducing what he did in college or the combine. Caveat emptor. Not every venture in society proves fruitful and believe me the owners know that better than the players. Thats why their is a cap and the spending is limited to 56% of revenues for salaries.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Ever see the movie "The Man from Snowy River"?
One of my all time favorites.
I agree with the mountain men that came to Jim after his father died and told him he had to earn his right to live in the high country. They didn't have ANY intentions of taking his land or anything for personal gain. They just wanted him to earn it.
The reason I care about JaMarcus Russell is because I don't like to see lazy people get rewarded for that behavior. I would much rather see that money go towards players that earn that kind of money. It doesnt make sense for the NFLPA to fight for people like Andre Ware or JaMarcus Russell. As a matter of fact, that reward gives very little incentive to be a producer. Much like Most unions.
. ...Jamarcus Russell in fact earned his first contract. He performed in college at the combine etc. and so forth was drafted 1st overall and was paid the going rate and he failed. Whats the big deal. By the same token.... Jamarcus Russell did not earn a 2nd contract. So the system is not broken.
If Al Davis didn't want to take the chance he should have traded the pick. You're fixation on how much everyone else earns and how they get their money is a bit unnerving. Who made you judge of how much one should earn and how hard they should work for their money? To some it comes easy, to others, they have to work very hard. Thats life my friend.
Jamarcus' agent negotiated in good faith unfortunately when put under the bright lights and the NFL pass rush the man was not capable of reproducing what he did in college or the combine. Caveat emptor. Not every venture in society proves fruitful and believe me the owners know that better than the players. Thats why their is a cap and the spending is limited to 56% of revenues for salaries.
. ...Jamarcus Russell in fact earned his first contract. He performed in college at the combine etc. and so forth was drafted 1st overall and was paid the going rate and he failed. Whats the big deal. By the same token.... Jamarcus Russell did not earn a 2nd contract. So the system is not broken.
If Al Davis didn't want to take the chance he should have traded the pick. You're fixation on how much everyone else earns and how they get their money is a bit unnerving. Who made you judge of how much one should earn and how hard they should work for their money? To some it comes easy, to others, they have to work very hard. Thats life my friend.
Jamarcus' agent negotiated in good faith unfortunately when put under the bright lights and the NFL pass rush the man was not capable of reproducing what he did in college or the combine. Caveat emptor. Not every venture in society proves fruitful and believe me the owners know that better than the players. Thats why their is a cap and the spending is limited to 56% of revenues for salaries.
JaMarcus Earned 30 million? Really? How many kids will never have the chance to attend an NFL game because ticket prices are so high? 10 mil per year is outrageous for a guy that throws 12 feet over everybodys head with no pass rush.
I care because it is a problem with the system that allows youngsters to see that you can profit from laziness. We don't need to send out that message in this day and age where obese 5 year olds are abundant.
NBA has a rookie salary cap. NFL should have the same for rookies.
You should notice that I've never complained about Tom Brady's or Peyton Mannings contract.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mrbigstuff2466:
. ...Jamarcus Russell in fact earned his first contract. He performed in college at the combine etc. and so forth was drafted 1st overall and was paid the going rate and he failed. Whats the big deal. By the same token.... Jamarcus Russell did not earn a 2nd contract. So the system is not broken.
If Al Davis didn't want to take the chance he should have traded the pick. You're fixation on how much everyone else earns and how they get their money is a bit unnerving. Who made you judge of how much one should earn and how hard they should work for their money? To some it comes easy, to others, they have to work very hard. Thats life my friend.
Jamarcus' agent negotiated in good faith unfortunately when put under the bright lights and the NFL pass rush the man was not capable of reproducing what he did in college or the combine. Caveat emptor. Not every venture in society proves fruitful and believe me the owners know that better than the players. Thats why their is a cap and the spending is limited to 56% of revenues for salaries.
JaMarcus Earned 30 million? Really? How many kids will never have the chance to attend an NFL game because ticket prices are so high? 10 mil per year is outrageous for a guy that throws 12 feet over everybodys head with no pass rush.
I care because it is a problem with the system that allows youngsters to see that you can profit from laziness. We don't need to send out that message in this day and age where obese 5 year olds are abundant.
NBA has a rookie salary cap. NFL should have the same for rookies.
You should notice that I've never complained about Tom Brady's or Peyton Mannings contract.
JaMarcus Earned 30 million? Really? How many kids will never have the chance to attend an NFL game because ticket prices are so high? 10 mil per year is outrageous for a guy that throws 12 feet over everybodys head with no pass rush.
I care because it is a problem with the system that allows youngsters to see that you can profit from laziness. We don't need to send out that message in this day and age where obese 5 year olds are abundant.
NBA has a rookie salary cap. NFL should have the same for rookies.
You should notice that I've never complained about Tom Brady's or Peyton Mannings contract.
Yep he really earned his first contract. He unfortunately didn't earn a 2nd contract.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
JaMarcus Earned 30 million? Really? How many kids will never have the chance to attend an NFL game because ticket prices are so high? 10 mil per year is outrageous for a guy that throws 12 feet over everybodys head with no pass rush.
I care because it is a problem with the system that allows youngsters to see that you can profit from laziness. We don't need to send out that message in this day and age where obese 5 year olds are abundant.
NBA has a rookie salary cap. NFL should have the same for rookies.
You should notice that I've never complained about Tom Brady's or Peyton Mannings contract.
Yep he really earned his first contract. He unfortunately didn't earn a 2nd contract.
Yep he really earned his first contract. He unfortunately didn't earn a 2nd contract.
Funny, you speak of the avg player. JaMarcus's contract is worth 15 avg players contract. He did not earn 30 million. They gave him that but he didn't earn it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mrbigstuff2466:
Yep he really earned his first contract. He unfortunately didn't earn a 2nd contract.
Funny, you speak of the avg player. JaMarcus's contract is worth 15 avg players contract. He did not earn 30 million. They gave him that but he didn't earn it.
Funny, you speak of the avg player. JaMarcus's contract is worth 15 avg players contract. He did not earn 30 million. They gave him that but he didn't earn it.
How many of those 15 average players were drafted 1st overall?
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Funny, you speak of the avg player. JaMarcus's contract is worth 15 avg players contract. He did not earn 30 million. They gave him that but he didn't earn it.
How many of those 15 average players were drafted 1st overall?
Not that I don't enjoy debating with you and stiln...yawn regarding stiln. My next statement should end this arguement and point out the hypocracy of your viewpoint once and for all.
In your view, Jamarcus Russell earned his 30 million and if they offered him 500 million that wouldnt matter, But the Auto makers top brass is getting paid too much and didn't earn their cheddar
That approach you voluntarily took seems like it is heavily laden with hypocracy. Please explain to me how I am wrong!
0
Quote Originally Posted by mrbigstuff2466:
l
Not that I don't enjoy debating with you and stiln...yawn regarding stiln. My next statement should end this arguement and point out the hypocracy of your viewpoint once and for all.
In your view, Jamarcus Russell earned his 30 million and if they offered him 500 million that wouldnt matter, But the Auto makers top brass is getting paid too much and didn't earn their cheddar
That approach you voluntarily took seems like it is heavily laden with hypocracy. Please explain to me how I am wrong!
Funny, you speak of the avg player. JaMarcus's contract is worth 15 avg players contract. He did not earn 30 million. They gave him that but he didn't earn it.
Explain how he didn't earn the 30 million...
He dominated in college and was a bust in the NFL...... Therefore he did not earn a 2nd contract. How stupid are you..? There have been countless busts in the NFL, MLB, and NBA...
What concept or point are you not grasping...
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Funny, you speak of the avg player. JaMarcus's contract is worth 15 avg players contract. He did not earn 30 million. They gave him that but he didn't earn it.
Explain how he didn't earn the 30 million...
He dominated in college and was a bust in the NFL...... Therefore he did not earn a 2nd contract. How stupid are you..? There have been countless busts in the NFL, MLB, and NBA...
He dominated in college and was a bust in the NFL...... Therefore he did not earn a 2nd contract. How stupid are you..? There have been countless busts in the NFL, MLB, and NBA...
What concept or point are you not grasping...
You explain how the automakers' brass didnt earn their money first?
What part of that don't you understand?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
Explain how he didn't earn the 30 million...
He dominated in college and was a bust in the NFL...... Therefore he did not earn a 2nd contract. How stupid are you..? There have been countless busts in the NFL, MLB, and NBA...
What concept or point are you not grasping...
You explain how the automakers' brass didnt earn their money first?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
