Interesting F*ing rant:

[billcoe]

I often don't give a whit for Michael Moore as he spends a lot of time being a blowhard reaching way out just to sell a marginal idea with some F*ed up premises. Truth be told, in this example Michael Moore dredges up, Rahm was summarizing: probably just like Glen Beck when he tripped on his dick and called Obama a racist. Beck later recanted that short version statement, and his entire layout was much more accurate and interested, saying that Obama “...is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology” and discussed in detail all that entails. Samesame here with Moore. I'm sure that it's the "F*ing" short version that Rahm pitched:-) LOL

 

Yet in Moores rant against Rahm Emmanuel, he speaks from the heart and hits it well. I think it's pretty good overall even if it has some deep logic holes, missing info and is but a single viewpoint. He doesn't go into many union things: John Lewis and the heroic coal miners who predated the 1937 strike he mentions and the health benefits that later came to that deadly industry as a starter, 20 pages more of the same. You can argue some specifics, to me he's off on a tangent in space on the "arrest the wall street guys" thing, but IMO the tone is pretty "F*ing" good.

 

Bon Appetit

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-07/michael-moore-to-rahm-emanuel-happy-fuckin-labor-day/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC4

 

"When Michael Moore heard that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had some choice words for the auto workers' union during Detroit's bailout crisis, he penned a scathing response."

 

Happy Fuckin' Labor Day! I read this week that—according to a new book by Steven Rattner, your administration's former "Car Czar"—during White House meetings about how to save the tens of thousands of jobs that would be lost if GM and Chrysler collapsed, your response was, "Fuck the UAW!"

 

Now, I can't believe you actually said that. Maybe Rattner got confused because you drop a lot of F-bombs, or maybe your assistant was trying to order lunch and you said (to Rattner)

 

Or maybe you did mean, "Fuck the UAW." If so, let me give you a little fucking lesson (a lesson I happen to know because my fucking uncle was in the sit-down strike that founded the fucking UAW.)

 

Before there were unions, there was no middle class. Working people didn't get to send their kids to college, few were able to own their own fucking home, nobody could take a fucking day off for a funeral or a sick day or they might lose their fucking job.

 

Then working people organized themselves into unions. The bosses and the companies fucking hated that. In fact, they were often overheard to say, "Fuck the UAW!!!" That's because the UAW had beaten one of the world's biggest industrial corporations when they won their battle on February 11, 1937, 44 days after they'd taken over the GM factories in Flint. Inspired by their victory, workers struck almost every other fucking industry, and union after union was born. Had World War II not begun and had FDR not died, there would have been an economic revolution that would have given everyone—everyone—a fucking decent life.

 

Nonetheless, labor unions did create a middle class for the majority (even companies that didn't have unions were forced to pay at or near union wages in order to attract a workforce), and that middle class built a great country and a good life. You see, Rahm, when people earn a fucking good wage, they spend it on stuff, which then creates more good-paying jobs, and then the middle class grows fucking big. Did you know that back when I was a kid if you had a parent making a union wage, only one parent had to work?! And they were home by 3 or 4 p.m., 5:30 at the latest! We had dinner together! Dad had four weeks paid vacation. We all had free health and dental care. And anyone with decent grades went to college and it didn't fucking bankrupt them. (And if you ever used the F-word, the nuns would straighten you out in ways that even you couldn't bear to hear about.)

 

Then a Republican fired all the air-traffic controllers, a Democrat gave us NAFTA, and millions of jobs were moved overseas. (Hey, didn't you work in that White House, too? "Fuck the UAW, baby!") Unions got scared and beaten down, a frat boy became president and, like a drunk out of control, spent all our fucking money and our children's money, too. Fuck.

 

You see, Rahm, when people earn a good wage, they spend it on stuff, which then creates more good-paying jobs.

 

And now your assistant's grandma has to work at fucking McDonald's. Ask her for pictures of what the middle-class life used to look like. It was effing cool! I'll bet grandma doesn't say "Fuck the UAW!"

 

Hey, don't get me wrong, Rahm. I fucking like you. You single-handedly got the House returned to the Dems in 2006. But you and your boss better do something fucking quick to put people back to work. How 'bout making it a crime to take an American job and move it out of the country? In other words, treat it as if it were a fucking national treasure like you would if someone stole the Declaration of Independence out of the National Archives or some poacher stole eggs out of the nest of an American bald eagle.

 

 

Or how about arresting some of those Wall Street guys who fucking stole our money, the money that ran the American economy. Now that would take some fucking guts. And maybe, just maybe, that one act of real guts might save your ass come November 2nd.

 

Oh, I can just hear you now: "Fuck Michael Moore!" No problem. But fuck the UAW? How 'bout if I just leave off the 'A' and the 'W'?

 

Yours,

Michael Moore

 

P.S. Here is what Robert Kennedy had to say on Labor Day, 42 years ago, via today's op-ed from Rep. Alan Grayson:

 

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that—counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.

 

"It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

 

"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

 

When Robert Kennedy said these words, the unemployment rate in America was 3.7 percent. Today, it is almost three times as high. Too many of our working brothers and sisters are out of work, thanks to more than a decade of economic mismanagement. Ten percent of us are unemployed, and the other 90 percent work like dogs to try to avoid joining them. Which is just what the bosses want.

 

But it doesn't have to be that way. I look forward to a Labor Day where every worker has a job, every worker has a pension, every worker has paid vacations, and every worker has the health care to enjoy life. Our Republican opponents call that France. I call it America, an America that is No. 1.

 

Not No. 1 in wasted military expenditures.

 

Not No. 1 in number of foreign countries occupied.

 

No. 1 in jobs. No. 1 in health. No. 1 in education. No. 1 in happiness.

 

As Robert Kennedy famously said, "I dream of things that never were, and ask, 'Why not?'" Why not? Let's make it happen.

 

And then all of us who are Americans, including the ones today who are jobless, homeless, sick and suffering, we all can then say, "I am proud to be an American."

 

Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike's Election Guide 2008.

[Off_White]

It's a pretty good rant, the more so because few enough today acknowledge what organized labor brought to all of us. Oh, I know, corruption follows money and the unions had their share of it, but Mr Moore is pretty spot on about the creation of the middle class.

 

Rahm Emmanuel is pretty much a bastard without a rudder, the Democrat's version of Karl Rove. Some will argue that you have to bring that kind of weapon to the fight, but I still think it tastes like shit on your toothbrush.

 

Those Wall Street guys? A lot of them did in fact steal a lot of money from average folks, and were dealt with much more gently than your average crook who boosts $67 from the corner mini market. They're lucky to live in a place that goes soft on white collar crime, but it definitely wouldn't be a better world if they were strung up from the streetlights.

[LostCamKenny]

michael moore is great at telling it like it is even if he doesn't offer solutions... he'd fit in great in spray!

[rob]

oh man, I'd love to see MM in spray.

[JayB]

It's a pretty good rant, the more so because few enough today acknowledge what organized labor brought to all of us. Oh, I know, corruption follows money and the unions had their share of it, but Mr Moore is pretty spot on about the creation of the middle class.

 

 

So - is the claim here that:

 

1) Unions are actually responsible for creating all of the scientific, technological, financial, and other knowledge and innovations that made it possible to make commodities, food, etc ("wealth") more efficiently?

 

2) Unions were able to use a combination of lobbying and direct coercion to temporarily secure a greater share of the wealth created by other processes than their skills, diligence, etc would otherwise warrant?

 

3) Both?

 

Story 1 is clearly false, and when stated clearly there's virtually no one who will try to defend it - because it's clearly false. No one with anything real at stake in the argument will try to defend the notion that we should attribute all of the additional wealth creation made possible by the advent of the integrated circuit, the laser, etc to the Teamsters.

 

I don't suspect that you believe that the value of the work that your workers perform would instantly become more valuable, or that their output would increase as a simple consequence of them using some mode of coercion to force you to increase their pay or reduce their hours. There would be a re-allocation of the total income generated by your enterprise that would reduce your share and increase theirs, but that's it.

 

Story 2 is more widely accepted, by people who both praise and condemn the unions for their successes in that regard.

 

I'd like to learn more about how people who believe the "unions created the middle class" story understand the claims that they're making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

So - is the claim here that:

 

1) Unions are actually responsible for creating all of the scientific, technological, financial, and other knowledge and innovations that made it possible to make commodities, food, etc ("wealth") more efficiently?

 

I'm fairly certain without the rise of the middle class, made possible in part by unions, a large number of the college educated Americans who made those break throughs wouldn't have been able to afford college and many of those things wouldn't have happened here.

 

 

Now shouldn't you be out in Central New York bitching that one forklift driver has the gall to accept $20/hr?

[Jim]

I think the thought - or I should say my opinion - is that Unions brought more of a balance to the table for negoiations. Without them the working stiff (like my Dad) had no recouse to the hardline, take it or leave, offerings from the management. Or if you were injured on the job they didn't just can your ass - it forced some corporate responsibility that would not be there otherwise.

 

I saw no one slouching in the factories where my Dad worked - and all they wanted was a fare wage, decent medical benifits for their family, and a few weeks off to do house repairs and sit in back yard with a beer and chat with their neighbors.

[JayB]

So - is the claim here that:

 

1) Unions are actually responsible for creating all of the scientific, technological, financial, and other knowledge and innovations that made it possible to make commodities, food, etc ("wealth") more efficiently?

 

I'm fairly certain without the rise of the middle class, made possible in part by unions, a large number of the college educated Americans who made those break throughs wouldn't have been able to afford college and many of those things wouldn't have happened here.

 

 

Now shouldn't you be out in Central New York bitching that one forklift driver has the gall to accept $20/hr?

 

Looks like a vote for story number one.

 

Even if one accepts the logic behind that story for the sake of argument, then there are some interesting correlates.

 

The first is that the historical record should show no increase in output, wealth, or real-incomes in the US for the entire historical period predating the rise of unions.

 

The second is that in occupational categories where unionization has been either nonexistent or inconsequential, such as accounting, translating, architecture, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc there should be no record of real-wage gains.

 

There are also quite a number of nations where virtually all industries have been 100% unionized - take any centrally planned economy of your choosing - and generalized prosperity never materialized for some reason or another. Hell - take most of South America - lots of heavily unionized industries organized into tidy cartels but strangely, no spontaneous emergence of a prosperous middle class thereafter.

 

 

[JayB]

I think the thought - or I should say my opinion - is that Unions brought more of a balance to the table for negoiations. Without them the working stiff (like my Dad) had no recouse to the hardline, take it or leave, offerings from the management. Or if you were injured on the job they didn't just can your ass - it forced some corporate responsibility that would not be there otherwise.

 

I saw no one slouching in the factories where my Dad worked - and all they wanted was a fare wage, decent medical benifits for their family, and a few weeks off to do house repairs and sit in back yard with a beer and chat with their neighbors.

 

Sounds like a vote for story number two.

 

[Hugh Conway]

There are also quite a number of nations where virtually all industries have been 100% unionized - take any centrally planned economy of your choosing - and generalized prosperity never materialized for some reason or another. Hell - take most of South America - lots of heavily unionized industries organized into tidy cartels but strangely, no spontaneous emergence of a prosperous middle class thereafter.

 

And then there's Germany, wealthy, prosperous, doing much better than the US.... and unionized

 

Interpreters have unions in the US Accountants don't produce anything, they mostly just lie

http://www.webcpa.com/news/Jailed-Russian-Oil-Execs-Point-Finger-at-PwC-55522-1.html

 

 

As for your assertion about growth prior to unions - the desire to unionize was contemporaneous with the industrial production techniques that encouraged workers to unionize. You'd have to be either

a) blind

b) dumb

c) a rigid ideologue

to somehow think that workers didn't wish to unionize prior

[ivan]

you will never succeed in convincing workers not to form unions, jay

 

wal-mart would love to put you on retainer for their friendly employee-training seminars however...

[Hugh Conway]

Hey, his ilk have had good luck in convincing poor and middle class Americans to vote for a political party who's major goal is to raise the tax burden on poor and middle class Americans.

[rob]

Hey, his ilk have had good luck in convincing poor and middle class Americans to vote for a political party who's major goal is to raise the tax burden on poor and middle class Americans.

 

that never ceases to amaze me.

[JayB]

There are also quite a number of nations where virtually all industries have been 100% unionized - take any centrally planned economy of your choosing - and generalized prosperity never materialized for some reason or another. Hell - take most of South America - lots of heavily unionized industries organized into tidy cartels but strangely, no spontaneous emergence of a prosperous middle class thereafter.

 

And then there's Germany, wealthy, prosperous, doing much better than the US.... and unionized

 

Interpreters have unions in the US Accountants don't produce anything, they mostly just lie

http://www.webcpa.com/news/Jailed-Russian-Oil-Execs-Point-Finger-at-PwC-55522-1.html

 

 

As for your assertion about growth prior to unions - the desire to unionize was contemporaneous with the industrial production techniques that encouraged workers to unionize. You'd have to be either

a) blind

b) dumb

c) a rigid ideologue

to somehow think that workers didn't wish to unionize prior

 

Hmmm. Wouldn't the claim you're making that unions are the cause of rising economic output, rather than an effect of it, be stronger without counterexamples like, say, Greece?

 

Seems like it'd also require the trend economic performance of the said country to be stronger than the US for the entire period, and for the gap between the two to have successively widened as the percentage of the private workforce employed by unions in the US steadily decreased?

 

As long as we're on this story - if unions were responsible for gains in efficiency, output, etc, etc, etc, for which we owe the wealth necessary to sustain the middle class - it would follow that savvy factory owners would be *mandating* that their workers unionize, since they'd instantly see increases in output without improving their production processes, equipment, marketing, etc, etc. They'd have an instant advantage over their un-unionized competition, no? Before too long, the competitive advantage would shift to a situation where every industry was 100% unionized, and those that failed to do so would have been driven out of business by their failure to do so.

 

How does one who believes the "we owe our prosperity to unions" story reconcile the logical implications inherent in such a claim with the empirical record here in the US? Or in the relative prosperity of Germany vs Greece?

[Hugh Conway]

There are also quite a number of nations where virtually all industries have been 100% unionized - take any centrally planned economy of your choosing - and generalized prosperity never materialized for some reason or another. Hell - take most of South America - lots of heavily unionized industries organized into tidy cartels but strangely, no spontaneous emergence of a prosperous middle class thereafter.

 

And then there's Germany, wealthy, prosperous, doing much better than the US.... and unionized

 

Interpreters have unions in the US Accountants don't produce anything, they mostly just lie

http://www.webcpa.com/news/Jailed-Russian-Oil-Execs-Point-Finger-at-PwC-55522-1.html

 

 

As for your assertion about growth prior to unions - the desire to unionize was contemporaneous with the industrial production techniques that encouraged workers to unionize. You'd have to be either

a) blind

b) dumb

c) a rigid ideologue

to somehow think that workers didn't wish to unionize prior

 

Hmmm. Wouldn't the claim you're making that unions are the cause of rising economic output, rather than an effect of it, be stronger without counterexamples like, say, Greece?

 

Seems like it'd also require the trend economic performance of the said country to be stronger than the US for the entire period, and for the gap between the two to have successively widened as the percentage of the private workforce employed by unions in the US steadily decreased?

 

As long as we're on this story - if unions were responsible for gains in efficiency, output, etc, etc, etc, for which we owe the wealth necessary to sustain the middle class - it would follow that savvy factory owners would be *mandating* that their workers unionize, since they'd instantly see increases in output without improving their production processes, equipment, marketing, etc, etc. They'd have an instant advantage over their un-unionized competition, no? Before too long, the competitive advantage would shift to a situation where every industry was 100% unionized, and those that failed to do so would have been driven out of business by their failure to do so.

 

How does one who believes the "we owe our prosperity to unions" story reconcile the logical implications inherent in such a claim with the empirical record here in the US? Or in the relative prosperity of Germany vs Greece?

 

I said

I'm fairly certain without the rise of the middle class, made possible in part by unions, a large number of the college educated Americans who made those break throughs wouldn't have been able to afford college and many of those things wouldn't have happened here.

 

whatever the fuck you want to rant on about feel free; if you were intellectually honest you'd look at German GDP growth 1945-2010 and marvel. Same for that matter for Greece, Italy or Japan

[Hugh Conway]

Hey, his ilk have had good luck in convincing poor and middle class Americans to vote for a political party who's major goal is to raise the tax burden on poor and middle class Americans.

 

that never ceases to amaze me.

 

Hey the benefits will trickle down, I think they mean a shower of gold? Or a Golden Shower from the rich?

[JayB]

you will never succeed in convincing workers not to form unions, jay

 

wal-mart would love to put you on retainer for their friendly employee-training seminars however...

 

I think that the real value here for me - other than alienating and garnering the hostility of folks on a message board rather than the bulk of our friends and acquaintances who hold religious and/or political views that are in synch with the overall vibe of the places we've lived - is in sharpening my capacity to defend my own convictions.

 

I still believe that the liberal (in the classical sense) education I got, both in the classroom and through the informal mechanisms of of-topic debates and late-night bull sessions was vastly superior to what anyone who came into my college as a self-identified "progressive" could have possibly obtained.

 

A virtual bull-session that doesn't leave your host so pissed off that there not only cutting through the steak but deep into the cutting board beneath it is a fantastic innovation.

[JayB]

There are also quite a number of nations where virtually all industries have been 100% unionized - take any centrally planned economy of your choosing - and generalized prosperity never materialized for some reason or another. Hell - take most of South America - lots of heavily unionized industries organized into tidy cartels but strangely, no spontaneous emergence of a prosperous middle class thereafter.

 

And then there's Germany, wealthy, prosperous, doing much better than the US.... and unionized

 

Interpreters have unions in the US Accountants don't produce anything, they mostly just lie

http://www.webcpa.com/news/Jailed-Russian-Oil-Execs-Point-Finger-at-PwC-55522-1.html

 

 

As for your assertion about growth prior to unions - the desire to unionize was contemporaneous with the industrial production techniques that encouraged workers to unionize. You'd have to be either

a) blind

b) dumb

c) a rigid ideologue

to somehow think that workers didn't wish to unionize prior

 

Hmmm. Wouldn't the claim you're making that unions are the cause of rising economic output, rather than an effect of it, be stronger without counterexamples like, say, Greece?

 

Seems like it'd also require the trend economic performance of the said country to be stronger than the US for the entire period, and for the gap between the two to have successively widened as the percentage of the private workforce employed by unions in the US steadily decreased?

 

As long as we're on this story - if unions were responsible for gains in efficiency, output, etc, etc, etc, for which we owe the wealth necessary to sustain the middle class - it would follow that savvy factory owners would be *mandating* that their workers unionize, since they'd instantly see increases in output without improving their production processes, equipment, marketing, etc, etc. They'd have an instant advantage over their un-unionized competition, no? Before too long, the competitive advantage would shift to a situation where every industry was 100% unionized, and those that failed to do so would have been driven out of business by their failure to do so.

 

How does one who believes the "we owe our prosperity to unions" story reconcile the logical implications inherent in such a claim with the empirical record here in the US? Or in the relative prosperity of Germany vs Greece?

 

I said

I'm fairly certain without the rise of the middle class, made possible in part by unions, a large number of the college educated Americans who made those break throughs wouldn't have been able to afford college and many of those things wouldn't have happened here.

 

whatever the fuck you want to rant on about feel free; if you were intellectually honest you'd look at German GDP growth 1945-2010 and marvel. Same for that matter for Greece, Italy or Japan

 

It is a marvel. Couldn't agree more! It's a glorious development.

 

There just isn't any credible evidence that unions are responsible for generating the wealth that made the said marvels possible.

 

Just so you know, I'm not *totally* against confusing correlation and causation when it suits my purposes. I have serious doubts about whether or not there's really a causal mechanism behind the supposed health effects of moderate alcohol consumption, but as long as the literature supports it I'll gladly knock back my two beers a day and claim that it's a healthy thing to do.

[rob]

Gay and lesbians should unionize. Then they can become middle-class and get married.

[Hugh Conway]

I think that the real value here for me - other than alienating and garnering the hostility of folks on a message board rather than the bulk of our friends and acquaintances who hold religious and/or political views that are in synch with the overall vibe of the places we've lived - is in sharpening my capacity to defend my own convictions.

 

I still believe that the liberal (in the classical sense) education I got, both in the classroom and through the informal mechanisms of of-topic debates and late-night bull sessions was vastly superior to what anyone who came into my college as a self-identified "progressive" could have possibly obtained.

 

A virtual bull-session that doesn't leave your host so pissed off that there not only cutting through the steak but deep into the cutting board beneath it is a fantastic innovation.

 

So the purpose is, as averred earlier, yet another part of the 8 year long free market religious diatribe. as doctrinaire as any "progressive"

 

I'm not sure, at all, how you can complain about Unions costing businesses and dispute a linkage between that cost and the attendant rise in spending power of the Union member absent the usual Friedman transubstantiation.

[ivan]

A virtual bull-session that doesn't leave your host so pissed off that there not only cutting through the steak but deep into the cutting board beneath it is a fantastic innovation.

indeed, though sadly the virtual form of political conversation makes it harder to seduce and hate-fuck your female opponents at the end of the evening when the booze is all drunk...

 

i have great faith in yer intellect jay - yer clearly well-read and have no problem puttin a bunch of facts together into a well reason-agrument - i have no faith however in The Boss taking good care of me so long as i keep quiet

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

See Ivan - that's the kind of serfdom with a whole bunch of crap unlike that socialist serfdom where they don't have any crap.

[Jim]

If the benevolent hand of the marketplace was on shakey ground before the financial collapse that fairytale has been flushed, except for the true believers. It's quite like religion with its soothsayers on FOX spilling out the truths to the faithful, despite the facts - and easily attainable cause/effect processes.

 

That somehow a corporation, especially these days, is interested in anything but its stock price is pure fantasy. Sure, they should be interested in employee health and well-being because that leads to long-term success rather than chasing the quarterly bonus. Sure, there's likely some Union abuse, but it pales in comparison to the wall-streeters and insurance company folks who laughed all the way to the bank with tax-payer bailouts and bonuses.

[Hugh Conway]

If they were interested in their stock price - and ergo the value produced for their owners it'd be something.

 

Too often now management treats the stockholders, customers and non-C-street employees with contempt and run the corp for their own benefit. Current US regulation does little to preclude this. Given the majority of Wall Street and the financial sector have not the intellect to evaluate anything themselves and voila! jackshit happens!

[billcoe]

I think through some sophistry you introduced some things to the discussion which were not there Jay. Who said Unions increase efficiency? We can spread out the credit to lots of places, and although a case might be made that the Unions helped in a minor way to achieve increased production, they are small in comparison to increased mechanization, industrialization, and capitol/resource exploitation and investment.

 

What the unions did was spread the wealth, like Moore says here: "Working people didn't get to send their kids to college, few were able to own their own fucking home, nobody could take a fucking day off for a funeral or a sick day or they might lose their fucking job." Furthermore, they, the unionized workers, more than any other entity, brought safety to many very harsh working environments where before there was unregulated greed and injured, maimed or killed workers tossed aside like a used Kleenex. One side of my family comes from coal miners. I could go on this subject for quite sometime.

 

So - is the claim here that:

 

1) Unions are actually responsible for creating all of the scientific, technological, financial, and other knowledge and innovations that made it possible to make commodities, food, etc ("wealth") more efficiently?

 

No, that was introduced by you, we are on another subject altogether.

 

Warm regards sir!