Marc, it's even worse than you indicate in your post.

Not only does Ianazzi make $265,000 a year off of union dues, but he employs the son of 1033 executive, Dominic Ruggerio.

If that's not enough, Dominic Ruggerio now employs the son of Ianazzi.

Hey, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

What incestuous scumbags.

Animal Farm - Final Chapter

"Gentlemen," concluded Napoleon, "I will give you the same toast as before, but in a different form. Fill your glasses to the brim. Gentlemen, here is my toast: To the prosperity of The Manor Farm! "

There was the same hearty cheering as before, and the mugs were emptied to the dregs. But as the animals outside gazed at the scene, it seemed to them that some strange thing was happening. What was it that had altered in the faces of the pigs? Clover's old dim eyes flitted from one face to another. Some of them had five chins, some had four, some had three...

No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

The pigs always end up in the farmhouse with the farmers, drinking their alcohol and sleeping in beds with sheets.

All union members are equal, but some union members (Walsh, Crowley, Ianazzi, Ruggerio, etc.) are more equal than others.

Er, Patrick...

"Meanwhile, he got his kid a cushy $88,112 job working for a buddy and he employs his buddy's kid."

Oh boy. Sorry Marc. Not sure how I missed that in a 5 sentence post.

Is this really back scratching...or is it something else being touched?

Yo! It's do as I say, not as I do!
You gotta problem wit dat?

The most comical aspect of Rhode Island political culture (or the most sad, if you are stupid or crazy enough to still live there), is that these types of characters and their compensation antics are actually considered normal and accepted by the population. Union leaders earning $265,000? Ho-hum. Patronage job trading? Whaddaya expect? Corruption on every level? Always been that way, always will be. What're ya gonna do?

In Rhode Island, all that matters is who and how much. Who you know and how much you have done for them lately. At no point is merit even a consideration in hiring.

Would that you folks actually cared about CEO pay relative to the salary of average workers.

Assuming Local 1033 members actually worked for Iannazzi, which of course they don't, let's say for the sake of argument that the average union worker makes $40k. Based on that Iannazzi makes 5x the average employee salary.

The outrage! Who can even think a single CEO with such a ridiculous disparity!

Thank you for addressing Mr. Ianozzi as a CEO as opposed to the usual "union thug" designation. Perhaps this is the beginning of a period of mutual respect and cooperation between labor and management.

I don't pay Iannazzi's salary, so I don't care how much he makes. He can make $10M for all I care. I just think it's ironic that so many union people rail on about how unfair it is that people on Wall Street make all this money and CEOs make a lot of money and they even yell and scream when they are asked to cut back yet the management makes a lot of money. However it's ok for their own to make a quarter of a million dollars a year?

Now that sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Meanwhile back on planet Earth...

Goldman Sachs CEO's pay nearly doubles despite slump in profits
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/02/lloyd-blankfein-executive-pay-bonuses

Yes, that's more per week than the number above.

--------------

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Thanks and lotsa love,

Your Teapublican Overlords.

Marc,

If this CEO had founded the business, and incurred those presumably significant risks, would you still complain? Without the CEO, the employees might not have jobs at all.

Stated another way, how many of those employees would be willing to take the substantial risk of starting a business?

Except that Ianazzi is a public union leader, so yes, Patrick, you do in effect pay his salary, and no, Russ, it is not comparable to a private company CEO.

Bill - he isn't actually a CEO, he is a union leader. It is a metaphor illustrating the hypocrisy of public sector unions who rail against corporate salaries.

...how many of those employees would be willing to take the substantial risk of starting a business?

Perhaps quite a few if we ensure that anyone who works an honest day earns enough money to support their family and maybe even a bit extra to put away to one day bootstrap their big idea.

Too bad it's no one's job to make sure that's the case!

"Patrick, you do in effect pay his salary, and no, Russ, it is not comparable to a private company CEO."

Not directly. My tax money goes to the employees who then pay Iannazzi with their union dues.

We could probably find some path where just about anyone is indirectly paid with my tax dollars.

"Not directly. My tax money goes to the employees who then pay Iannazzi with their union dues.

We could probably find some path where just about anyone is indirectly paid with my tax dollars."

Except that this situation is a direct path, where "direct" means that there is no individual discretion involved as to how the money is spent, unlike with private CEOs.

You are required by state law to pay teachers. A portion of that payment is required by state law to go to Ianazzi. The intermediate additional step is therefore irrelevant, and you are in effect paying his salary.

The irony in Russ's comment is that Goldman is the most extremely Democrat-affiliated firm in all of Wall Street, going back to the days of Robert Rubin (Clinton administration) and John Corzine (extreme Leftist Dem governor of New Jersey, drove the state to the brink of bankruptcy). Their revolving-door executives and multi-million-dollar contributions made overwhelmingly to the Democrats completely undermine Russ's position.

Bob, Goldmans is the most "affiliated with those in power" firm. Their former exectutives ran the treasury under W. as well...

Bill,
I think we can all agree that (with some notable exceptions) by and large most of this countrys CEO's didnt have much to do with founding the companies from which they now plunder.

Furthermore, I think someone making 250k is commensurate with running a 900 person organization.

What is most often riled against is the CEO's taking salaries in the 10's to hundreds of MILLIONS by offshoring, shuttering pension plans and flatlining the salaries and benefits of their worker bee's.

While Henry "Shifty" Paulson was Bush's Treasury secretary for a time, the firm's Democrat affiliation had already been well established by Rubin and Corzine. Look at the campaign contributions of the firm and its executives - it's extremely biased towards the Dems. Blankfein & Co. are deeply in bed with the Obamunists.

"Blankfein & Co. are deeply in bed with the Obamunists."

But don't they have to be in order to avoid a 90% income tax on bonuses? That's what many were clamoring for. So doesn't it make sense for the Wall Street heads to simply cozy up to whichever party is in power? Right now it's Obama, so heavily donate there. Once there is a Republican in the WH again or a Republican full Congress, then the donations start pouring in that direction.

These guys donate to both sides of the aisle, but they know where their bread is buttered too, and that's by whoever is in power.