NYT's Sorkin responds to criticism of his Morning Joe comment suggesting that there are no "successful unionized compan[ies]"
June 03, 2009 7:37 pm ET by Media Matters staff
From a prepared statement issued by New York Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin to TPM Media:
Boy did I touch the third rail! My off-handed comment was admittedly flip. I apologize for that. It was meant to provoke a conversation.
I did not mean to suggest that there are literally no successful companies that employ union workers. Of course there are! Your readers have provided a good list (though I might quibble with some of the names.)
I made the unscripted comment with my financial columnist hat on in the context of the problems at GM. That's what the discussion was about on the program. And when you look at some of the once great iconic American industries that have faltered -- automobiles, airlines, steel, apparel, etc -- there is a fair question worth asking about whether those industries were helped or hurt by their unions. But let's leave that debate for another day.
Previously:
Morning Joe journos can't name a successful unionized company, even though one signs their paychecks
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
If there had been no sweat shops, there would have never been any unions. If there had been no child labor there would have been no unions. If there had not been a systematic reduction of corporate work forces to a state of de facto slavery, there would have been no unions. If a corporation can look out for its own financial interest, why can't the workers do the same? No union ever sunk a business. Poor management sinks a business, and management is always looking for the convenient scapegoat of its workforce.
This guy’s response is as asinine as his original comment.
And if the comment was truly meant to "provoke conversation," then mission accomplished. Everyone is talking about how you have no idea what you're talking about.
No it wasn't-- it was vehemently anti-union. And a lie. Clearly the result of union animus and not objective journalism.
Ah, that's the hat you wear when you want to make claims that are grossly inaccurate and anti-union?
Glad to hear that financial columnists hold themselves to such standards. After all, it's not like they're writing about anything important that requires accuracy.
"...because if we debate it now, my assertion and the conclusions based on it will be instantly debunked, and the irrelevancy of my comments will be apparent."
As far as I can see, the only excuses that he didn't use was "playing devil's advocate" and "my dog ate it".
This guy is a hack if he thinks an ignorant "off-handed" comment like that can be used to generalized failed companies, let alone unionized companies. What a cop out and a coward to "leave the debate for another day." What an arrogant -- fill in the blank!
Yes the unions have done much good and were formed because of abuses of workers by big business, but there have also been instances of unons becoming too powerful and as a result brought negative results to the cities or companies they are connected with, look at the teachers union for example, bad teachers are very difficult to fire and that is a contributing factor in the failure of our educational system.
They do contribute but the failure of our educational system is largely due to attacks by republicans on the public education system. They don't want it to exist.
Not so-- it's very easy. I've seen it all the time. All tenure means is that the school districts have to use due process (progressive discipline)-- meaning preliminary warnings, formal charges, a hearing or two. Takes about a year.
What they cannot do is just fire somone one day-- but many companies don't do that either-- due process is the way to go and actually protects the employers from lawsuits.
Add to the list (if it hasn't already been added) of successful companies whose employees are organized, the New York Yankees... the players are organized that is, as the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA)... they have a minimum wage and benefits and pension plan, that make them one of the nation's most successful labor unions... yet it hasn't hurt the Yankees bottom line, as they rake in the bucks...
And this all is true, despite the fact that the owners once tried to lock the organized players out, and go with replacement strike players, and then tried to claim those replacement players (not members of the MLBPA) could be hired under a collective bargaining agreement formerly negotiated with the MLBPA...
But a U.S. District Court Judge in New York enjoined the baseball owners from breaking an otherwise legal and legally recognized labor union that way... and that Judge's decision was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court...
It seems that particular Judge's name is in the news presently for something or other, but that's not my point...
My point is that none of this has hurt the New York Yankees or Major League Baseball (MLB being a consortium of private companies, a union of sorts, the Yankees company being just one in that union of companies), they are all quite successful companies, employing players under a collective bargaining agreement as well negotiated and hard won as any labor union in America has.
And that U.S. Judge referred to, I'm sure I've read her name in the news of late, for something or other... what was it now?