Actually, I strongly suspect that Joe himself belongs to at least one union - gotta get those residuals...

Um, I think EVERYONE on camera is a member of AFTRA.

Damn unionized labor to hell for making us have a 40 hour work week and for not allowing children to participate in sweatshops. I mean if it wasn't for that, think how much more productive the nation would be.

Sorkin is a hard-core corporatist shill. Kramer? The record speaks for itself. Scarborough was, and remains, a junior Gingrichite.

I've only seen two or three minutes here and there on those rare occasions I turn the TV on in the early morning, so I have nothing to say about Mika Brezinski, but is she supposed to be some kind of 'liberal' counterweight to Scarborough? My understanding was she was a newsreader/sidekick, following the morning DJ/shockjock model the show was based on.

i wonder if joe would know a reasonably hard day's work if it hit him in the face.

Sorkin is a hard-core corporatist shill. Kramer? The record speaks for itself. Scarborough was, and remains, a junior Gingrichite.

perhaps, but i'd bet he's also a union member.

Wonder if anyone on the crew wanted to run on the set and point out that nearly everyone on the set was part of a union. Why don't they just merge with Fox?

My husband and I watched this this morning as we were getting ready for work (5am our time). Honest to Pete it's better than caffeine! They were not only playing the 'which company with unionized labor' argument BUT we bashing the unions having a say in GM restructuring. I was SCREAMING at the TV...and who the HELL do you think the UNION is? It's the WORKER BEES! The ones that know HOW to build a car, HOW to run a factory. The bashers have gotten so caught up in the big bad UNION that they fail to see that it is the workers...

At TPM they're collecting a list of successful (i.e., profitable) unionized companies. Includes UPS, Southwest Airlines, all major Hollywood studios, etc.

Let me add to the mix: Major League Baseball and the National Football League.

>"Name a successful unionized company"

Er... how about UPS?

The other part of this, of course, is that even if one were to concede the incredibly incorrect premise, "success" is not a particularly meaningful standard if the workers in said successful corporations are not being well compensated. Walmart is, of course, a very successful company in the context of these earnings. Why should this be meaningful to anyone but its shareholders when its workers are being paid minimum wage and the workers who produce the products it sells are being paid even less? What value is there in that "success" for anyone but a very small group of investors?

From the perspective of a real Republican American, Joe Scarborough is correct. He did not ask about profitable corporations, he asked about successful.

In following the tradition established by Ronald Reagan in destroying the Air Traffic Controllers union, everyone knows that being a successful corporation means that they have busted unions and has nothing to do with profitability.

Real men don't need unions -- they just stare the corporation down until they're offered the working conditions, salary and benefits they want, simply because of their superior will.

If you join a union, your dick will actually fall off -- maybe not right away, but eventually.

A lot of folks don't know that, but it's true.

I'll give you another successful unionized company. COSTCO and despite paying higher vages than Walmart or Sam's Club it offers competitive pricing.

And all the big three automakers were quite successful for decades years through all the way into the 70s despite being unionized that entire time.

The huge 'legacy costs' of retirement and healtcare were not caused by unions (Japan and Germany have unionized labor forces) but by the lack of government sponsered healtcare and retirement which both Japan and Gernmany enjoy thus freeing business from bearing those costs directly.

Sorkin is the genius who brought us the fantasy of UAW members earning $70 per hour.

Now, my first response was to wonder whether the folks behind the cameras, filming the media personalities, are union members. And the employees who installed and operate the on-set lights. And the folks who built the "Morning Joe" set.

Yes. But is this any different from the jackass who rants about blacks, hispanics, women, gays even though some or all of the above work with him?

Does Joe Scarborough think NBC and GE are not "successful" companies?

Well, they did hire Schmoe.

They were not only playing the 'which company with unionized labor' argument BUT we bashing the unions having a say in GM restructuring. I

Thanks for the context, actually confirmation. I didn't see the show, but took it as a given that this grew out of the premise that the UAW drove GM into bankruptcy. Andrew Ross Sorkin was one of the major pimps for the "70/hr" story from last winter.

i wonder if joe would know a reasonably hard day's work if it hit him in the face.

I don't know about Scarborough, but if Sorkin's hardest day of work didn't come during the summer he caddied (Dude, one day I had to carry Mr. AND Mrs Havercamp's bags for the whole eighteen!) at this daddy's country club, I'll eat my proverbial hat.

Maybe Morning "I am nothing more than a CORPORATE HEMMOROID" Scarfuck could explain why 'super' capitalism is so fucking great when shit paper like him can make 2 million a year for 'catapulting' the corporate propaganda and the teachers of our children, for god's sake, make about $30,000 a year ...... want to try to justify that scarfuck ?

These hosts could have named a dozen companies. They didn't want to. They wanted to make a point, and they didnt give a damn if they had to lie to do so.

Okay, so the converse question:

"Name a successful non-unionized company. Think. you're going to go to break before you come up with one. And that's the problem."

Indeed, I think the failure of someone to come up with an answer to EITHER question on the spot speaks more to a lack of visibility of "unionized" companies versus non-unionized than to the viability of unionized companies. It also speaks to the efficiency of the right-wing echo chamber that the first companies which come to mind when many people think "union" are the failing businesses.

Fact is, a huge number of businesses, successful and failing, are unionized. You don't hear about successful businesses very often, and when you do the credit for that success will undoubtedly be placed on either the management, the innate talents of its employees, or historical fluke. Unions, while a major force in attracting talented employees and keeping them happy, never get that credit. When you hear about a failing business, you can be 100% guaranteed that every analyst who has ever had a beef with a union will point his finger and say that the union caused the failure. I mean, at the end of the day, a failing business fails because costs exceed revenues, and as labor is a cost, and unions are the stand-in for the individual negotiators keeping that particular cost from diminishing to zero, they are de facto "to blame" for those costs not being able to reduce sufficiently to eke out a few more months of life of the failing business.

In other words, as is so often the case with the "Moning Joe" ilk, the question is the wrong one, and it says far more about the one who asked it than it does about the one who can not answer it.

Sorkin is the genius who brought us the fantasy of UAW members earning $70 per hour.

There was a funny and telling exchange between Scarborough and Sorkin this morning. Joe is explaining that given the price of oil now, "he'll have less leverage than the last visit by a US President." To which Sorkin replied, "yes, President Obama will have little leverage...." before Joe cut him off and explained that he meant King Abdullah will have less leverage because oil is still less than half its peak. Sorkin did a 180 and agreed, saying, yes, the King will have less leverage. Idiot.

don't forget AT&T and all the other enormously profitable companies and subsidiaries in partnership with the communication workers of america.

To the list of successful companies (other blogs please copy) add such Southern California market chains as Vons, Albertsons, Ralphs, and Slater Bros., all unionized by the Retail Clerks Union.

Then, of course, the film studios are heavily unionized.

And those corporate farms that signed with the Farm Workers' Union.

And the list goes on.

Ed

The hypocrisy of millionaires whining about unions is beyond ridiculous. Of course Joe hates Unions, they might take away from his golden cow.

Unions built this country, from the buildings to the railroads, to the the war machinery of the world wars, to the very people that educate us and keep us safe from the bad guys.

Jamison Foser wrote: "GE is one of the world's largest companies; in 2006, its revenues were greater than the gross domestic products of 80 percent of UN nations. The company made more than $18 billion in 2008 -- again, billion with a b, and again, those are profits, not revenue. All that despite (or, perhaps, because of) the fact that 13 different unions represent GE workers."

But GE doesn't use the powerful mass-media networks that it owns and controls to propagandize the American people on behalf of the union workers who make GE's huge profits possible.

No, like the handful of other giant corporations that own and control virtually all of the mass media in the USA, GE uses its media networks to propagandize the American people in furtherance of the ruthless, relentless, rapacious class warfare of the ultra-rich corporate oligarchy against everyone else.

If you watch or listen to the corporate-owned media, you will see and hear corporate propaganda.

If you expect anything else -- for example, if you expect that the handful of giant corporations that enjoy near-totalitarian control of most information that reaches most Americans will use that power to impartially inform and educate the American people as a public service, out of the goodness of their hearts and their idealistic commitment to high-minded journalistic standards -- then you are either an idiot, or a "sensible liberal" blogger.

Mika Brzezinski, who has clearly been influenced a little too much by Joe Scarborough, added, "[Unions] cripple the system that makes a company work."

Where's her AFTRA rep?

I'd say most unionized companies are successful at approximately the same rate as non-unionized ones. But I would say that most unsuccessful businesses don't exist, since they would be failing in their essential purpose.

I would say that GM and Ford were probably pretty heavily unionized during their periods of highest profitability.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say this:

What if the whole economic downturn, off-shoring of American labor, rise in gas prices, etc. was just a corporatist GOP plan to kill off all the unions? The neo-con meme was that sending blue-collar jobs overseas opened up the market for knowledge and creative work in America. That's how they sold it. They said we'd actually have more jobs by getting rid of most of them [which is a lot like paying for our stratospheric budget overages with a tax cut].

What they were really doing is hiring the lowest bidder [sending jobs overseas] knowing that eventually American workers would literally be so hungry that they'd tear up their union cards.

i wonder if joe would know a reasonably hard day's work if it hit him in the face.

mudwall, that actually sounds like a fascinating experiment: "testing things Joe would know if they hit him in the face." Before we try "a hard day's work" we'll need some comparitors. Tomatoes? A 2x4? A pie? Some offended union guy's elbow?

Nice pick up Rolla. And just think, while discussing oil, neither one of these numbnuts thought that maybe, just maybe, the workers for Exxon and the other oil companies belong to a union. I could be wrong, but it appears that the United Steel Workers Union represents workers at nearly half of oil refinery in the U.S. Last I checked, they were reaping "windfall profits".

Maybe Joe should boycott all unionized companies. Have fun walking to work.

Joe, a brain is a terrible thing to waste!

Without an agreed-upon definition of "successful", the entire discussion would have been worthless. Had the panel challenged Sorkin, he would have responded by moving the goalposts. You don't learn much from the TV these days...

Mika may have started as a "liberal" counter to Joe, but, she has become a female and much better looking "Gabby Hayes" to Roy, er Joe. I love it when she says "Durn tootin', Joe" and spits.

Plus, Joe, this morning, was sooooo full of himself for repeating his line about how Lenin would love the budgets of our President.

From the desk of Joe Scabborough:

The insults directed at me by this web site are insidious. You continue to forget that "I am not owned by Republicans. I am not owned by Democrats." I am owned by GE!

As a loyal American from North Florida, I realize that it is my best interest to promote real 'GE' American values. Those values include promoting the wealthy who are the only true creators of jobs. Those values include attacking unions who are destroyers of jobs.

As part of the loyal opposition to The Chosen One, let me part by reminding you that as all good white Americans know "Race would not have been an issue in last year's election if Obama were white!"

Joe is in fact owned by the Sheinhardt Wig Company

We will become wiser when we unplug our TV devices between the hours of 6:00am and 1:00pm, for that seems to be the time of day most misinformation, propaganda and smear-related reporting goes on! -Kevo

Those Southern California food chains may be profitable with unionized labor, but, much of it is due to the unions bailing out in the last strike. When Safeway and other chain employees went on strike over the word that medical benefits would be cut, there was little coordination with other unions to force the companies to negotiate. In the end, the unions caved. The older workers kept their medicals, but, they did so by allowing the companies to be able to hire new employees at lower rates and make it much more difficult for them to obtain medical coverage. Since then, it has been a matter of attrition to rid the companies of older workers.

At first Mika stood up to Joe. I believe she has had a lobotomy now though. All she does is sit there and pose and nod.

Kevo- maybe it's because I am at work during those hours I miss all this? Who the heck watches all this, is what I want to know. I thought all the 'real Americans' in the heartland who rlove this stuff were too hard working to be watching daytime television?

24-7 news serves two functions, and two functions only: for emergencies/crises. When war breaks out, CNN is a good thing. When you work odd hours and want to catch the news on your own schedule, ditto. But 24 'analysis' is just absurd. We're really talking about shows that, if they are really, really successful, are watched by a million people. Out of 300 million. Yawn.

The NYT's Andrew Sorkin challenged the panel, "Name a successful unionized company. "

OK: Ferrari

They're pretty successful.

Let's hope that the unionized "go-fer" who fetches Scarborough's coffee can muster a "lugie" for some payback.

Sorkin is a reporter for the NYTimes, isn't he? So doesn't he belong to a union?

And really, I don't think we can blame the problems of the newspaper industry on unions. Well, maybe Sorkin and Morning Joe can. And I'd really be interested in seeing them quit their own unions and give up all their benefits.

Look, seriously...I just looked up Sorkin on wikipedia. He's been "mergers and acquisitions" reporting for NYT starting when he was in college. He does not seem to have an advanced degree. Neither do I, and I haven't spent ten years full time reporting about corporations either. He is however lots younger and cuter than I am. But obviously what he said was knee jerk right wing stupid. Seeing him eleven times on Charlie Rose and lots of times on PBS news, plus being on the NYT, I assumed he was a real expert. But it turns out that corporate shilling has leaked into his pretty head and that's all there is. Wierd. Is he unaware that Canada and Europe are mostly unionised and full of apparently successful companies? Did the entire unionized studio crew come up and dope slap him after the show?

Sorkin is a reporter for the NYTimes, isn't he? So doesn't he belong to a union? -- oeta, @18:01

Are you suggesting that NYT is a successful company?

Unions are so yesterday. GM.

Globalization is JUST BEGINNING.

If unions are so good for companies, why isn't EVERY company unionized? Companies should be trying like crazy to start unions if they actually help drive "success."

Instead, union jobs have been on the decline for decades. Perhaps workers and management know something we don't?....

I've seen the list of "successful" companies... UPS, railroads, professional sports leagues. All have one of three things in common - - they compete with the government, have government subsidies or anti-trust exemptions. My little 5-man company could be "successful" with a union if I had subsidies, anti-trust exemptions and crappy competitors.

Sikorsky has a successful union. They even pay for workers' college tuition. Would the place be better off without a union. Go walk around there and ask the average worker that question. If you don't work with your hands, you are more prone to be against unions. I don't get it.

Actually I think people only judge things by their world experience--hey, I made into the white collar world, why can't you? When you see things from your own narrow scope, you sometimes forget things, like perhaps an uncle of yours, who is now retired, had a good middle class life because of the union.