1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,280 --> 00:00:12,720
Speaker 1: Judge Katangi Brown Jackson is on the brink of history,

3
00:00:13,520 --> 00:00:16,560
Speaker 1: one step closer to being the first black woman to

4
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:19,160
Speaker 1: sit on the Supreme Court, and it's more than two

5
00:00:19,239 --> 00:00:23,560
Speaker 1: hundred year history. This committee's action today is nothing less

6
00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:26,560
Speaker 1: than making history. I'm honored to be part of it.

7
00:00:27,200 --> 00:00:31,480
Speaker 1: I will strongly and proudly support Judge Jackson's nomination. That's

8
00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:35,080
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Dick Durbin at the start of

9
00:00:35,159 --> 00:00:39,080
Speaker 1: more than three hours of debate over Jackson's nomination today,

10
00:00:39,360 --> 00:00:42,600
Speaker 1: three hours of basically the same arguments we heard during

11
00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:46,400
Speaker 1: more than thirty hours of hearings and questioning last month.

12
00:00:47,080 --> 00:00:51,160
Speaker 1: But Durbin did make one significant observation. We don't agree

13
00:00:51,200 --> 00:00:53,880
Speaker 1: on much in the Senate, but not one senator on

14
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:57,560
Speaker 1: this committee is questioned that she is well qualified. The Committee,

15
00:00:57,560 --> 00:01:01,440
Speaker 1: like the full Senate, is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans,

16
00:01:01,800 --> 00:01:06,119
Speaker 1: and as expected, they deadlocked on moving her nomination out

17
00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:10,039
Speaker 1: of committee eleven to eleven, the first time that's happened

18
00:01:10,040 --> 00:01:13,840
Speaker 1: in about three decades. Her nomination is still on track

19
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:16,280
Speaker 1: to be voted on by the full Senate before the

20
00:01:16,400 --> 00:01:19,240
Speaker 1: end of the week joining us. Carl Tobias, a professor

21
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:22,800
Speaker 1: at the University of Richmond Law School, what did you

22
00:01:22,840 --> 00:01:27,679
Speaker 1: hear from the senators? Well, each of them really it

23
00:01:27,840 --> 00:01:32,240
Speaker 1: seemed like we're reviewing what they had already talked about

24
00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:36,000
Speaker 1: and asked her about during the hearing, and so there

25
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:40,680
Speaker 1: was virtually no new information that was transmitted. I think

26
00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:44,200
Speaker 1: there was pretty substantial agreement that the process is broken,

27
00:01:44,800 --> 00:01:47,960
Speaker 1: but that wasn't why they were there. So the Republicans

28
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:53,720
Speaker 1: continued to criticize her the way they had before. They

29
00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:58,080
Speaker 1: all were relatively careful to say that she is a

30
00:01:58,160 --> 00:02:01,320
Speaker 1: very nice person, that they to her family, that she

31
00:02:01,520 --> 00:02:06,160
Speaker 1: was well qualified, they didn't have questions about her qualifications,

32
00:02:06,160 --> 00:02:11,799
Speaker 1: but that they disagreed with her on certain issues. A

33
00:02:11,919 --> 00:02:15,480
Speaker 1: number of them criticized her as someone who would be

34
00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:18,880
Speaker 1: an activist judge, though there isn't a lot of evidence

35
00:02:18,880 --> 00:02:22,160
Speaker 1: of that on the lower courts where she served. But

36
00:02:22,560 --> 00:02:28,280
Speaker 1: also they were concerned about these child pornography sentences and

37
00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:34,440
Speaker 1: that she was below a certain level, though Democrats refuted that.

38
00:02:35,200 --> 00:02:40,160
Speaker 1: And then there were some other minor criticisms of her,

39
00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:43,880
Speaker 1: but pretty much in the same vein that she would

40
00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:48,400
Speaker 1: be an activist judge, that she might be soft on crime,

41
00:02:48,639 --> 00:02:53,040
Speaker 1: though that's hard to discern from her record, and that's

42
00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:57,200
Speaker 1: what really Republicans were talking about. Democrats were saying she's

43
00:02:57,280 --> 00:03:01,560
Speaker 1: extremely well qualified and reminding every one that this would

44
00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:05,440
Speaker 1: be an historic appointment, and that she's clerked at all

45
00:03:05,520 --> 00:03:09,560
Speaker 1: three levels of the federal judiciary, including for Justice Bryor.

46
00:03:10,160 --> 00:03:13,560
Speaker 1: And that was all the ground that have already been

47
00:03:13,560 --> 00:03:18,120
Speaker 1: plowed the Senate advice and consent. They all can side

48
00:03:18,240 --> 00:03:22,200
Speaker 1: that Judge Jackson is well qualified. Is it up to

49
00:03:22,240 --> 00:03:25,960
Speaker 1: them to decide whether they agree with her philosophy, which

50
00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:28,480
Speaker 1: she says she doesn't have a judicial philosophy. Is it

51
00:03:28,560 --> 00:03:31,639
Speaker 1: up to them to agree with stances she takes on

52
00:03:32,040 --> 00:03:37,960
Speaker 1: different matters. No, No, But their varying views among senators

53
00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:42,280
Speaker 1: historically and in the present about exactly what is entailed

54
00:03:42,280 --> 00:03:47,240
Speaker 1: and advice consent some president senators and historically have deferred

55
00:03:47,280 --> 00:03:51,280
Speaker 1: to the president, saying he's the person who's elected by

56
00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:56,720
Speaker 1: the entire country and so can dominate and is entitled

57
00:03:56,720 --> 00:03:59,400
Speaker 1: to some difference. On the other end of the spectrum,

58
00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:02,560
Speaker 1: our numbers editors who feel that the hearings must be

59
00:04:02,680 --> 00:04:06,560
Speaker 1: very rigorous and then they're entitled to ask any number

60
00:04:06,600 --> 00:04:10,200
Speaker 1: of questions, especially about how the person would discharge the

61
00:04:10,280 --> 00:04:13,960
Speaker 1: duties of justice on the Supreme Court. Advice and consent

62
00:04:14,280 --> 00:04:17,119
Speaker 1: was put into the constitution just to be a check

63
00:04:17,200 --> 00:04:21,119
Speaker 1: on the president in case the president sent someone who

64
00:04:21,160 --> 00:04:26,760
Speaker 1: either was unqualified or worse, you know, had ethical problems

65
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:29,480
Speaker 1: or that type of thing. But I think the real

66
00:04:29,760 --> 00:04:33,839
Speaker 1: focus of the debate today and probably since Robert bort In,

67
00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:40,960
Speaker 1: is whether ideology of the nominee is a relevant consideration.

68
00:04:41,200 --> 00:04:44,040
Speaker 1: And I think today everybody has sort of come around

69
00:04:44,040 --> 00:04:46,960
Speaker 1: to the fact that, yes, that is relevant. You can't

70
00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:50,840
Speaker 1: just ignore that, and so a lot of the back

71
00:04:50,880 --> 00:04:54,360
Speaker 1: and forth today was about that, from both sides, taking

72
00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:57,880
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh's hearings out for a moment because there were

73
00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:02,279
Speaker 1: specific charges made neutral arges during his hearings. But I

74
00:05:02,320 --> 00:05:08,040
Speaker 1: don't recall the hearings for Justice Gorciss or Justice Cony

75
00:05:08,080 --> 00:05:12,080
Speaker 1: Barrett being this personal, so many personal attacks. I don't

76
00:05:12,120 --> 00:05:15,880
Speaker 1: recall that. I think that's right. I don't think there

77
00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:19,360
Speaker 1: were personal attacks, and either one of those I suppose

78
00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:22,799
Speaker 1: the Republicans who say they didn't think they were engaging

79
00:05:22,839 --> 00:05:27,040
Speaker 1: in personal attacks, but I think Democrats felt that some

80
00:05:27,120 --> 00:05:32,320
Speaker 1: of the questions were inappropriate or really reduced to personal

81
00:05:32,360 --> 00:05:36,760
Speaker 1: attacks on an A nominee who's extremely well qualified. Taking

82
00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:40,840
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh's hearings out of the equation for a moment,

83
00:05:40,880 --> 00:05:46,640
Speaker 1: because that was based on allegations of misconduct that were

84
00:05:46,680 --> 00:05:51,719
Speaker 1: lodged during the hearings themselves. I don't recall the hearings

85
00:05:51,839 --> 00:05:58,440
Speaker 1: for Justice gorciss or Justice Amy Coney Barrett being this personal,

86
00:05:58,520 --> 00:06:02,280
Speaker 1: so many personal attacks. Oh, I think that's right. Um,

87
00:06:02,320 --> 00:06:05,159
Speaker 1: I don't think there were personal attacks and either one

88
00:06:05,200 --> 00:06:09,240
Speaker 1: of those and I suppose the Republicans would say they

89
00:06:09,279 --> 00:06:13,440
Speaker 1: didn't think they were engaging in personal attacks, But I

90
00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:17,840
Speaker 1: think Democrats felt that some of the questions were inappropriate

91
00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:22,560
Speaker 1: or really reduced to personal attacks on an A nominee

92
00:06:22,560 --> 00:06:27,359
Speaker 1: who's extremely well qualified. What I found curious is the

93
00:06:27,440 --> 00:06:32,200
Speaker 1: about face of Senator Lindsey Graham, who supported her for

94
00:06:32,360 --> 00:06:34,040
Speaker 1: the d C Circuit. And I know that doesn't mean

95
00:06:34,040 --> 00:06:36,599
Speaker 1: you have to support a person for the Supreme Court,

96
00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:40,320
Speaker 1: but he really made some personal attacks on her, and

97
00:06:40,400 --> 00:06:43,360
Speaker 1: today he said that you know, if they were in charge,

98
00:06:43,560 --> 00:06:47,280
Speaker 1: she wouldn't be up there. Well, we've heard those attacks,

99
00:06:47,480 --> 00:06:51,360
Speaker 1: you know, those kinds of threats before. And that's what

100
00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:54,880
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, as leader of his party in the Senate,

101
00:06:55,000 --> 00:06:58,680
Speaker 1: has been doing for a long time now, ever since

102
00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:03,680
Speaker 1: Obama became president two thousand nine, and certainly what we

103
00:07:03,720 --> 00:07:08,120
Speaker 1: saw in seen with Marrik Garland and then in with

104
00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:12,880
Speaker 1: Amy Tony Barrett. So I think the leader is leading

105
00:07:13,040 --> 00:07:16,640
Speaker 1: the rest of them, um. And so that's what I

106
00:07:16,680 --> 00:07:20,160
Speaker 1: think you heard Graham saying today, which is unfortunate because

107
00:07:20,160 --> 00:07:22,680
Speaker 1: I think everybody on the committee pretty much agrees that

108
00:07:22,760 --> 00:07:26,240
Speaker 1: the process is broken at the Supreme Court level, and

109
00:07:26,320 --> 00:07:29,240
Speaker 1: now that's trickling down as well to the lower courts,

110
00:07:29,480 --> 00:07:32,720
Speaker 1: all of which is unfortunate for the Judiciary, for the President,

111
00:07:32,840 --> 00:07:38,040
Speaker 1: and for the Senate. Eleven to eleven. What happens now, well,

112
00:07:38,520 --> 00:07:41,800
Speaker 1: when that happened, and the history is a little checkered

113
00:07:41,840 --> 00:07:46,320
Speaker 1: because if you remember back fairly recently, both Bork and

114
00:07:46,360 --> 00:07:49,160
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas. I think Clarence Thomas had a tie vote

115
00:07:49,200 --> 00:07:53,040
Speaker 1: in Judiciary Committee, and I think Bourke was voted down.

116
00:07:53,720 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 1: But at that point the Democrats agreed, uh, I think

117
00:07:57,320 --> 00:07:59,679
Speaker 1: they had the majority to send them to the floor

118
00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:02,720
Speaker 1: any way and have a vote. And that is another

119
00:08:02,760 --> 00:08:07,720
Speaker 1: sign that this is all changed because that's the relevant precedent,

120
00:08:07,840 --> 00:08:11,040
Speaker 1: the most recent relevant precedent. So why not then go

121
00:08:11,160 --> 00:08:15,080
Speaker 1: ahead and have the final vote. But I think because

122
00:08:15,120 --> 00:08:19,760
Speaker 1: there's a tie and that custom has gone out the window, apparently,

123
00:08:20,240 --> 00:08:23,520
Speaker 1: it means that you must discharge the person from committee.

124
00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:29,120
Speaker 1: It really is just a procedural hurdle that will easily

125
00:08:29,320 --> 00:08:33,200
Speaker 1: be resolved, but it just takes more time so that

126
00:08:33,280 --> 00:08:35,640
Speaker 1: you have to have another vote on the floor to

127
00:08:35,760 --> 00:08:39,120
Speaker 1: discharge her from committee, and you need a majority, and

128
00:08:39,400 --> 00:08:43,080
Speaker 1: it's clear that she will have a majority. So Chuck

129
00:08:43,080 --> 00:08:49,320
Speaker 1: Schumer has done this before during the Biden administration, Yes, exactly,

130
00:08:49,520 --> 00:08:52,559
Speaker 1: with some lower court nominees, I believe one for the

131
00:08:52,679 --> 00:08:56,200
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit and a few others. And there are five

132
00:08:56,280 --> 00:08:59,200
Speaker 1: or six lower court nominees on the floor who tied

133
00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:02,559
Speaker 1: in committee, and so they would have to be discharged

134
00:09:02,559 --> 00:09:05,160
Speaker 1: as well. But again it takes half an hour to

135
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:07,640
Speaker 1: do it. There's some paperwork, but they just have to

136
00:09:07,720 --> 00:09:11,000
Speaker 1: vote on that, and then the person comes out of committee.

137
00:09:11,360 --> 00:09:13,840
Speaker 1: Then there would be a cloture vote on the floor

138
00:09:13,960 --> 00:09:17,040
Speaker 1: to cut off debate at some point, and then you

139
00:09:17,080 --> 00:09:20,679
Speaker 1: would have the debate fifteen hours for each side, and

140
00:09:20,760 --> 00:09:25,600
Speaker 1: then a confirmation vote. So there's debate before the debate.

141
00:09:26,080 --> 00:09:30,120
Speaker 1: What's the debate on before debate? There may be some

142
00:09:30,240 --> 00:09:35,480
Speaker 1: debate starting in but but the rule in rule twenty

143
00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:39,960
Speaker 1: two of the Center Rules, it talks about post cloture

144
00:09:40,040 --> 00:09:44,040
Speaker 1: debate time and how much there is allotted for that,

145
00:09:44,679 --> 00:09:50,640
Speaker 1: and so, um, you cannot have a vote until those

146
00:09:50,679 --> 00:09:54,160
Speaker 1: thirty hours are used up or the Democrats will see

147
00:09:54,240 --> 00:09:57,200
Speaker 1: most of their time. So effectively, you're talking about the

148
00:09:57,360 --> 00:10:02,920
Speaker 1: fifteen hours of possible debate debate allowed for Republicans um,

149
00:10:03,760 --> 00:10:08,559
Speaker 1: and then you have the final vote. I've read that

150
00:10:08,800 --> 00:10:12,640
Speaker 1: the last time that so many questions were asked about

151
00:10:12,800 --> 00:10:18,760
Speaker 1: criminal law, about crime was when Justice Thurgood Marshall was

152
00:10:18,840 --> 00:10:21,600
Speaker 1: before the court, the first black justice. I don't know

153
00:10:21,640 --> 00:10:25,840
Speaker 1: if that's because it's a dog whistle because he was

154
00:10:25,880 --> 00:10:29,320
Speaker 1: black and because she's black, or if it's because they were,

155
00:10:29,640 --> 00:10:34,520
Speaker 1: you know, defended criminals in the past, well alleged criminals.

156
00:10:36,679 --> 00:10:40,439
Speaker 1: And yes, she was a federal public defender for three years.

157
00:10:40,480 --> 00:10:45,440
Speaker 1: But we know that people are entitled to representation after

158
00:10:45,480 --> 00:10:51,160
Speaker 1: Gideon versus Wainwright n. Supreme Court case, and um, so

159
00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:54,679
Speaker 1: you have both sides represented in criminal matters and it's

160
00:10:54,720 --> 00:11:01,559
Speaker 1: a constitutional right, um and so UM and in a

161
00:11:01,640 --> 00:11:04,840
Speaker 1: number of the GOP senators, to their credit, admitted today

162
00:11:04,920 --> 00:11:07,800
Speaker 1: that that people are entitled to representation and they think

163
00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:12,520
Speaker 1: that makes for a better system. And so Uh, I

164
00:11:12,559 --> 00:11:17,080
Speaker 1: think this is unfortunately tied up with the soft on

165
00:11:17,240 --> 00:11:22,480
Speaker 1: crime political agenda that one party has going into the

166
00:11:23,280 --> 00:11:27,760
Speaker 1: mid terms, and we're just likely to see that come

167
00:11:27,800 --> 00:11:31,120
Speaker 1: to the fore. And so there is a huge fight

168
00:11:31,760 --> 00:11:36,520
Speaker 1: brewing over um, the question of whether Democrats are soft

169
00:11:36,559 --> 00:11:40,560
Speaker 1: on crime and whether Republicans intend to use that in

170
00:11:42,480 --> 00:11:46,640
Speaker 1: um to capture the Senate. And it's pretty obvious that

171
00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:51,000
Speaker 1: that's what's going on in committee in this area of discussion.

172
00:11:51,400 --> 00:11:54,520
Speaker 1: We know she's going to become the next Supreme Court justice.

173
00:11:55,120 --> 00:11:58,480
Speaker 1: Does any of this tarnish her? You know, the hearings

174
00:11:58,520 --> 00:12:02,320
Speaker 1: and the accusations may Does it tarnish her when she

175
00:12:02,400 --> 00:12:07,720
Speaker 1: takes her place on the court, Well, hopefully not. Um.

176
00:12:07,760 --> 00:12:11,560
Speaker 1: It will for some people who are extremely partisan, but

177
00:12:12,160 --> 00:12:16,280
Speaker 1: I think most Americans uh, And I think the polling

178
00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:20,920
Speaker 1: shows most people view her quite favorably coming into the hearings,

179
00:12:21,520 --> 00:12:26,480
Speaker 1: and I think she uh comports herself in a very

180
00:12:26,559 --> 00:12:31,839
Speaker 1: strong and h excellent way. And Um, I think even

181
00:12:31,880 --> 00:12:36,880
Speaker 1: some Republicans may have admitted that her judicial temperament was

182
00:12:37,920 --> 00:12:41,280
Speaker 1: clear in the hearings, that it was very balanced, and

183
00:12:41,480 --> 00:12:46,480
Speaker 1: she's very fair minded. And so that's an important attribute

184
00:12:47,240 --> 00:12:51,880
Speaker 1: on all the federal courts is to have balanced judicial temperament,

185
00:12:51,960 --> 00:12:54,760
Speaker 1: and she displayed that over and over again. Thanks Carl.

186
00:12:54,920 --> 00:12:58,080
Speaker 1: That's Professor Carl Tobias at the University of Richmond Law

187
00:12:58,120 --> 00:13:10,560
Speaker 1: School History. Champagne corks popped in a historic win for

188
00:13:10,760 --> 00:13:15,080
Speaker 1: organized labor. An upstart labor union pulled off a stunning

189
00:13:15,160 --> 00:13:19,720
Speaker 1: upset and wontent of workers votes at the Staten Island

190
00:13:19,760 --> 00:13:23,640
Speaker 1: warehouse of Amazon, a company that's managed to keep unions

191
00:13:23,800 --> 00:13:26,480
Speaker 1: out of its US operations for more than a quarter

192
00:13:26,480 --> 00:13:30,200
Speaker 1: of a century. Chris Small's, a fired employee who led

193
00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:33,679
Speaker 1: the fledgling union to victory, said it's time for businesses

194
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:37,360
Speaker 1: to realize the power workers have. When they banned together.

195
00:13:38,000 --> 00:13:40,160
Speaker 1: We we got the jugglin. We went for the jugglin,

196
00:13:40,880 --> 00:13:43,080
Speaker 1: and we went for the top doll because we want

197
00:13:43,120 --> 00:13:47,880
Speaker 1: every other industry have other business to know that dangs

198
00:13:47,880 --> 00:13:51,559
Speaker 1: of teams. My guest is labor law expert Kate Andreas,

199
00:13:51,600 --> 00:13:55,160
Speaker 1: a professor at Columbia Law School. This marks the first

200
00:13:55,200 --> 00:13:58,840
Speaker 1: time a group of US workers have successfully voted a

201
00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:03,480
Speaker 1: former union in Amazon's twenty seven year history, a company

202
00:14:03,480 --> 00:14:06,920
Speaker 1: that seemed to be unbeatable. Would you say it's a

203
00:14:06,920 --> 00:14:10,400
Speaker 1: watershed moment, a significant moment? How would you define it?

204
00:14:10,920 --> 00:14:15,839
Speaker 1: My guest is Kate Andreas, a professor at Columbia Law School. Absolutely,

205
00:14:15,880 --> 00:14:19,560
Speaker 1: this is an extraordinary victory by the workers at the

206
00:14:19,600 --> 00:14:22,200
Speaker 1: Staten Island facility, and I would say it is a

207
00:14:22,360 --> 00:14:27,160
Speaker 1: significant moment and could well represent a turning point for organizing,

208
00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:30,520
Speaker 1: both for workers at Amazon and workers more generally. Although

209
00:14:30,520 --> 00:14:33,880
Speaker 1: it's too early to say it's always an uphill battle

210
00:14:33,920 --> 00:14:37,640
Speaker 1: to establish a union. Over the past few decades, efforts

211
00:14:37,680 --> 00:14:41,120
Speaker 1: to unionize that the most prominent non union companies in

212
00:14:41,120 --> 00:14:45,680
Speaker 1: America have almost always ended in failure. But was this

213
00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:50,040
Speaker 1: even more uphill than usual or was it basically the

214
00:14:50,080 --> 00:14:53,400
Speaker 1: same as trying to start a union elsewhere? Well? I

215
00:14:53,400 --> 00:14:57,080
Speaker 1: think in some ways these workers had even a greater

216
00:14:57,240 --> 00:15:00,400
Speaker 1: challenge than in many other contexts because Amazon had been

217
00:15:00,520 --> 00:15:05,000
Speaker 1: so resolutely anti union and anti worker. Amazon has sent

218
00:15:05,200 --> 00:15:09,000
Speaker 1: millions of dollars on anti union consultants and has consistently

219
00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:12,680
Speaker 1: fought very hard against unionization, and so the workers had

220
00:15:12,680 --> 00:15:16,560
Speaker 1: a significant uphill battle. On the other hand, we're now

221
00:15:16,800 --> 00:15:18,960
Speaker 1: living in a time of a very tight labor market,

222
00:15:19,400 --> 00:15:22,840
Speaker 1: and the workers recognized the power that they had, and

223
00:15:22,880 --> 00:15:27,160
Speaker 1: we saw particularly effective leadership from workers within the facility

224
00:15:27,240 --> 00:15:30,880
Speaker 1: in building this grassroots union. I mean, the law really

225
00:15:31,320 --> 00:15:35,200
Speaker 1: stacked against workers, and it enables employers to campaign fairly

226
00:15:35,280 --> 00:15:39,160
Speaker 1: viciously against union organizing and Amazon did that here. And

227
00:15:39,200 --> 00:15:42,560
Speaker 1: that's why this victory is so stunning and so important.

228
00:15:42,640 --> 00:15:45,520
Speaker 1: The fact that the workers were able to overcome really

229
00:15:45,560 --> 00:15:50,280
Speaker 1: intense anti union campaigning, including firing workers who supported the union,

230
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:56,360
Speaker 1: many many mandatory meetings at which Amazon offered anti union propaganda,

231
00:15:56,600 --> 00:15:59,560
Speaker 1: and much of that is legal, and to the extent

232
00:15:59,640 --> 00:16:03,080
Speaker 1: Amazon on potentially violating the laws of remedies are very limited.

233
00:16:03,160 --> 00:16:05,920
Speaker 1: So historically it's been very hard for workers to overcome

234
00:16:06,000 --> 00:16:08,680
Speaker 1: the fact of the laws stacked against workers right to organize,

235
00:16:08,680 --> 00:16:10,440
Speaker 1: but here they were able to do so. It's really

236
00:16:10,560 --> 00:16:15,200
Speaker 1: very important the a l You, the Amazon Labor Union

237
00:16:15,720 --> 00:16:19,560
Speaker 1: is an upstart union. It's not aligned with an established

238
00:16:19,640 --> 00:16:22,280
Speaker 1: labor union. Yet it beat one of the world's most

239
00:16:22,320 --> 00:16:26,160
Speaker 1: powerful companies with not that much help from organized labor

240
00:16:26,640 --> 00:16:30,480
Speaker 1: and with limited funds. How did it do that? The

241
00:16:30,560 --> 00:16:34,080
Speaker 1: workers here wanted to change their conditions, and they built

242
00:16:34,120 --> 00:16:37,840
Speaker 1: a very strong organization among themselves. And in some sense

243
00:16:37,880 --> 00:16:40,680
Speaker 1: that's always what makes union succeed. So whether there's a

244
00:16:41,080 --> 00:16:44,040
Speaker 1: well funded national union or whether it's an upstart union,

245
00:16:44,360 --> 00:16:47,840
Speaker 1: what's critical to success as when workers themselves are involved

246
00:16:47,880 --> 00:16:51,080
Speaker 1: in building an organization to change their conditions. So they

247
00:16:51,080 --> 00:16:54,760
Speaker 1: did it here through very effective organizing, through building connections

248
00:16:54,800 --> 00:16:59,840
Speaker 1: across racial and gender and ethnic device, organizing multiple languages,

249
00:17:00,000 --> 00:17:02,880
Speaker 1: and through effective use of social media, but also through

250
00:17:02,920 --> 00:17:05,240
Speaker 1: just talking about the problems that work and committing to

251
00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:07,600
Speaker 1: one another that they wanted to build an organization to

252
00:17:07,760 --> 00:17:11,040
Speaker 1: change them. You know, we hear a lot about the organizer,

253
00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:14,879
Speaker 1: the top organizer. How much of this is due to

254
00:17:15,000 --> 00:17:18,680
Speaker 1: his push and his personality. It's hard for me to say,

255
00:17:18,840 --> 00:17:22,360
Speaker 1: but I would say that union organizing always involved more

256
00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:24,560
Speaker 1: than just one leader. So he was clearly a very

257
00:17:24,920 --> 00:17:27,640
Speaker 1: powerful leader, but there were many other workers who are

258
00:17:27,680 --> 00:17:30,040
Speaker 1: involved as well. I'm just wondering, and I don't know

259
00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:32,280
Speaker 1: if if there's an answer to this, but is it

260
00:17:32,320 --> 00:17:35,480
Speaker 1: better to have an upstart union or to have a

261
00:17:35,720 --> 00:17:39,800
Speaker 1: union with the backing of organized labor. Well, I think

262
00:17:39,840 --> 00:17:43,040
Speaker 1: that whether if there's a national union involved or an

263
00:17:43,119 --> 00:17:46,160
Speaker 1: upstart union with critical is that workers themselves are involved

264
00:17:46,200 --> 00:17:48,560
Speaker 1: in the fight and their solidarity among the workers. And

265
00:17:48,560 --> 00:17:51,480
Speaker 1: we've seen that plenty of times with national unions as well.

266
00:17:51,560 --> 00:17:53,520
Speaker 1: So there are some lots of examples, for examples, the

267
00:17:53,600 --> 00:17:57,280
Speaker 1: Justice for Janitor's campaign or the successful organizing of healthcare

268
00:17:57,320 --> 00:18:00,159
Speaker 1: workers around the country with national unions. The key is

269
00:18:00,200 --> 00:18:03,680
Speaker 1: that workers are involved in building their own organization, and

270
00:18:03,960 --> 00:18:06,520
Speaker 1: there are advantages to being with a larger organization in

271
00:18:06,520 --> 00:18:09,080
Speaker 1: the sense that there's more resources that can be brought

272
00:18:09,119 --> 00:18:11,479
Speaker 1: to bear on contract fights. But this also shows that

273
00:18:11,520 --> 00:18:14,720
Speaker 1: what is critical is that workers themselves are involved in

274
00:18:14,760 --> 00:18:17,880
Speaker 1: building the organization, and sometimes that happens through these more

275
00:18:17,920 --> 00:18:20,840
Speaker 1: grassroots endeavors. I'm just wondering, and I don't know if

276
00:18:20,880 --> 00:18:23,200
Speaker 1: if there's an answer to this, but is it better

277
00:18:23,280 --> 00:18:26,639
Speaker 1: to have an upstart union or to have a union?

278
00:18:27,200 --> 00:18:30,960
Speaker 1: You know? With organized labor? Well, I think that whether

279
00:18:31,040 --> 00:18:34,200
Speaker 1: if there's a national union involved or an upstart union

280
00:18:34,200 --> 00:18:36,879
Speaker 1: with critical is that workers themselves are involved in the

281
00:18:36,920 --> 00:18:39,480
Speaker 1: fight and their solidarity among the workers, and we've seen

282
00:18:39,520 --> 00:18:42,080
Speaker 1: that plenty of times with national unions as well, so

283
00:18:42,160 --> 00:18:45,119
Speaker 1: there's lots of examples. For examples, the Justice for Janitors

284
00:18:45,160 --> 00:18:48,439
Speaker 1: campaign or the successful organizing of healthcare workers around the

285
00:18:48,440 --> 00:18:51,280
Speaker 1: country with national unions. The key is that workers are

286
00:18:51,280 --> 00:18:55,440
Speaker 1: involved in building their own organization, and there are advantages

287
00:18:55,480 --> 00:18:57,439
Speaker 1: to being with a larger organization in the sense that

288
00:18:57,440 --> 00:19:00,840
Speaker 1: there's more resources that can be brought to bear contract fights.

289
00:19:00,880 --> 00:19:03,560
Speaker 1: But this also shows that what is critical is that

290
00:19:03,600 --> 00:19:07,000
Speaker 1: workers themselves are involved in building the organization, and sometimes

291
00:19:07,040 --> 00:19:11,280
Speaker 1: that happens through these more grassroots endeavors. A key part

292
00:19:11,480 --> 00:19:15,560
Speaker 1: of a LU strategy was to request and and all

293
00:19:15,720 --> 00:19:19,320
Speaker 1: or b vote as soon as a competition signatures from

294
00:19:19,359 --> 00:19:24,560
Speaker 1: the bare minimum of the workforce, and you need to win.

295
00:19:24,840 --> 00:19:27,680
Speaker 1: What do you think of that strategy? Yeah, I mean

296
00:19:27,720 --> 00:19:30,720
Speaker 1: it's fairly unusual, and the past, unions have typically sought

297
00:19:30,800 --> 00:19:34,639
Speaker 1: to get about sevent of workers signed out before filing

298
00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:38,480
Speaker 1: for an election because historically the effect of an anti

299
00:19:38,600 --> 00:19:41,520
Speaker 1: union campaign by an employer was to erode union support.

300
00:19:41,760 --> 00:19:45,200
Speaker 1: So this suggests that maybe the dynamics are different now

301
00:19:45,240 --> 00:19:49,360
Speaker 1: that there's much more public support for unionization and workers

302
00:19:49,359 --> 00:19:51,879
Speaker 1: also have a sense of their labor market power, and

303
00:19:51,960 --> 00:19:55,359
Speaker 1: so it could well be that it's now possible to

304
00:19:55,560 --> 00:20:00,280
Speaker 1: win union elections even with hostile anti union campaign by

305
00:20:00,320 --> 00:20:05,120
Speaker 1: employers with a lower kind of threshold of support, because

306
00:20:05,320 --> 00:20:08,800
Speaker 1: workers are less likely to become scare given their increased

307
00:20:08,840 --> 00:20:12,919
Speaker 1: labor market power and all the growing recognition that workers

308
00:20:12,920 --> 00:20:16,480
Speaker 1: can win unions and can make changes at work. You

309
00:20:16,520 --> 00:20:19,640
Speaker 1: refer to this federal chair your own power recently called

310
00:20:19,680 --> 00:20:23,280
Speaker 1: the labor market tight to an unhealthy level. Does that

311
00:20:23,359 --> 00:20:27,959
Speaker 1: give fresh power to a new push for unions? It

312
00:20:28,000 --> 00:20:31,359
Speaker 1: does because workers have an understanding that that they can't

313
00:20:31,400 --> 00:20:34,440
Speaker 1: just be easily replaced, and that they have more bargaining

314
00:20:34,480 --> 00:20:37,960
Speaker 1: power to demand better conditions and higher wages, safe for

315
00:20:38,080 --> 00:20:41,639
Speaker 1: working conditions, and more dignity at work when it's harder

316
00:20:41,640 --> 00:20:45,200
Speaker 1: to find workers. So would you say this will galvanize

317
00:20:45,480 --> 00:20:51,360
Speaker 1: labor activists and workers beyond Amazon to unionize. I think

318
00:20:51,400 --> 00:20:54,240
Speaker 1: it is likely to have that effect, particularly when combined

319
00:20:54,280 --> 00:20:57,320
Speaker 1: with the recent victories of workers at Starbucks, as well

320
00:20:57,320 --> 00:21:01,359
Speaker 1: as the increased union activity amongst journalists, among teachers, among

321
00:21:01,600 --> 00:21:04,160
Speaker 1: all sorts of different workers. But it's a little too

322
00:21:04,160 --> 00:21:06,800
Speaker 1: early to say whether this will really mark a turning

323
00:21:06,840 --> 00:21:09,919
Speaker 1: point for labor in the United States, And tell us

324
00:21:10,160 --> 00:21:13,640
Speaker 1: what's been happening with labor in the United States, Let's

325
00:21:13,680 --> 00:21:16,040
Speaker 1: say the past decade, because there have been a lot

326
00:21:16,080 --> 00:21:19,919
Speaker 1: of Supreme Court cases that have cut down the power

327
00:21:19,960 --> 00:21:24,760
Speaker 1: of labor unions. Just give us a general kind of overview. Yeah, so,

328
00:21:24,880 --> 00:21:27,919
Speaker 1: unions once represented about a third of the labor market,

329
00:21:28,080 --> 00:21:30,680
Speaker 1: and during that period there was a great deal more

330
00:21:30,680 --> 00:21:33,719
Speaker 1: equality in the United States. Unions were effective at raising

331
00:21:33,720 --> 00:21:37,000
Speaker 1: wages for workers um and also for giving workers more

332
00:21:37,000 --> 00:21:40,120
Speaker 1: of a voice in the political system. But since early

333
00:21:40,200 --> 00:21:44,000
Speaker 1: since the nineteen seventies, unions have declined, and there have

334
00:21:44,080 --> 00:21:47,679
Speaker 1: been a series of hostile anti worker decisions by the

335
00:21:47,720 --> 00:21:51,879
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, particularly in recent years, making it harder for

336
00:21:51,960 --> 00:21:55,159
Speaker 1: workers to organize unions and making it easier for employers

337
00:21:55,200 --> 00:21:57,680
Speaker 1: to weakend unions. And the results of the the kline

338
00:21:57,680 --> 00:22:00,679
Speaker 1: of unions has been in part growing inequality be and

339
00:22:01,240 --> 00:22:06,320
Speaker 1: a decrease of political power for working people generally. Let's

340
00:22:06,320 --> 00:22:10,560
Speaker 1: talk about what happens next at this Amazon in Staten Island.

341
00:22:10,600 --> 00:22:12,959
Speaker 1: Because there are a long way away from a contract.

342
00:22:13,359 --> 00:22:16,600
Speaker 1: The company has until April eighth to dispute the results,

343
00:22:16,840 --> 00:22:21,359
Speaker 1: and in an emailed statement, Amazon signaled a long legal

344
00:22:21,600 --> 00:22:24,840
Speaker 1: battle could lie ahead. It said it was evaluating our options,

345
00:22:24,960 --> 00:22:29,840
Speaker 1: including objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence by

346
00:22:29,880 --> 00:22:33,440
Speaker 1: the n l RB. So what do you read into

347
00:22:33,480 --> 00:22:37,040
Speaker 1: that and what can Amazon do at this point? I mean,

348
00:22:37,080 --> 00:22:40,159
Speaker 1: that's suggests that Amazon intend to continue to fight the

349
00:22:40,400 --> 00:22:44,280
Speaker 1: organizing effort and not to comply with its duty under

350
00:22:44,320 --> 00:22:47,160
Speaker 1: the law to bargaining good faith. It is obligated under

351
00:22:47,200 --> 00:22:49,520
Speaker 1: the law to sit down and bargain with these workers

352
00:22:49,560 --> 00:22:51,960
Speaker 1: and to do so in good faith. But that suggested

353
00:22:52,040 --> 00:22:55,480
Speaker 1: me that they will file multiple legal challenges and attempt

354
00:22:55,520 --> 00:22:59,600
Speaker 1: to delay and postpone their obligation to bargain. The notion

355
00:22:59,680 --> 00:23:04,920
Speaker 1: that the NLRV was inappropriately interfering in the election by

356
00:23:05,080 --> 00:23:08,960
Speaker 1: enforcing the law and filing a suit against what the

357
00:23:09,040 --> 00:23:12,560
Speaker 1: n llr B believes to be an illegal firing is

358
00:23:12,600 --> 00:23:16,199
Speaker 1: really a novel and questionable argument, and I don't expect

359
00:23:16,280 --> 00:23:19,359
Speaker 1: that Amazon will prevail if it decides to bring that

360
00:23:19,520 --> 00:23:23,200
Speaker 1: argument forward, but it could very well use those legal

361
00:23:23,280 --> 00:23:26,959
Speaker 1: challenges to delay, and in that case, workers will need

362
00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:29,960
Speaker 1: to continue to organize and to put community pressure and

363
00:23:30,000 --> 00:23:32,919
Speaker 1: public pressure on Amazon to urge it to comply with

364
00:23:32,960 --> 00:23:35,000
Speaker 1: the law and sit down and bargain and good faith.

365
00:23:35,440 --> 00:23:38,280
Speaker 1: Is there a time limit for you know, the workers

366
00:23:38,520 --> 00:23:42,160
Speaker 1: organizing efforts. So the law obligates Amazon to sit down

367
00:23:42,160 --> 00:23:45,840
Speaker 1: and bargain and to do so in a timely manner. However,

368
00:23:46,119 --> 00:23:48,920
Speaker 1: it is not at all uncommon for employers to refuse

369
00:23:49,000 --> 00:23:52,399
Speaker 1: to do so while they litigate a case, and so

370
00:23:52,480 --> 00:23:55,720
Speaker 1: it could be quite a lengthy process during which Amazon

371
00:23:55,760 --> 00:23:59,359
Speaker 1: refuses to bargain while it pursues legal challenges. But the

372
00:23:59,480 --> 00:24:02,600
Speaker 1: union does lose its status during that period is it

373
00:24:02,680 --> 00:24:07,040
Speaker 1: more than a year usually in negotiations with employer. So

374
00:24:07,200 --> 00:24:10,720
Speaker 1: typically once they're going to established union, employers and unions

375
00:24:10,720 --> 00:24:13,399
Speaker 1: sit down and negotiate regularly, as we've seen with the

376
00:24:13,440 --> 00:24:16,080
Speaker 1: baseball players, and we've seen with GM, and we see

377
00:24:16,080 --> 00:24:18,480
Speaker 1: with Forward and it's it's actually quite can often be

378
00:24:18,600 --> 00:24:22,600
Speaker 1: mutually beneficial. But frequently with first contracts, and particularly with

379
00:24:22,640 --> 00:24:26,080
Speaker 1: a company like Amazon that has so staked its efforts

380
00:24:26,160 --> 00:24:29,600
Speaker 1: on preventing unionization, in those contacts of the first contract,

381
00:24:29,640 --> 00:24:34,159
Speaker 1: we often do see very lengthy delays. And although again

382
00:24:34,240 --> 00:24:38,120
Speaker 1: the law obligates Amazon to bargain and to bargaining good faith,

383
00:24:38,240 --> 00:24:41,960
Speaker 1: it doesn't obligate them to agree to a particular contract.

384
00:24:42,000 --> 00:24:45,200
Speaker 1: And it doesn't give the board, the National Labor Relations Board,

385
00:24:45,440 --> 00:24:48,440
Speaker 1: the right to come in and impose a contract. Instead,

386
00:24:48,680 --> 00:24:51,639
Speaker 1: it just obligates bargaining, and so in order to force

387
00:24:51,720 --> 00:24:56,000
Speaker 1: that bargaining to occur, if Amazon continues to be intransigent,

388
00:24:56,040 --> 00:25:00,000
Speaker 1: the workers will really need to use their collective power protests,

389
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:03,720
Speaker 1: potentially a strike, and bringing to bear public pressure on

390
00:25:03,800 --> 00:25:06,240
Speaker 1: the company to urge it to comply with the law

391
00:25:06,280 --> 00:25:08,359
Speaker 1: and do the right thing and negotiate a fair contract.

392
00:25:08,920 --> 00:25:15,800
Speaker 1: Would you say a contract is certainty? Certainty very hard

393
00:25:15,840 --> 00:25:17,680
Speaker 1: to predict. I think it will depend on whether the

394
00:25:17,760 --> 00:25:22,240
Speaker 1: workers are able to continue to maintain their collective organization.

395
00:25:22,480 --> 00:25:26,159
Speaker 1: And also the more they're able to win elections at

396
00:25:26,200 --> 00:25:29,240
Speaker 1: other warehouses, the more power they will have in bringing

397
00:25:29,280 --> 00:25:32,760
Speaker 1: Amazon to the bargaining table. And there are additional elections scheduled.

398
00:25:33,560 --> 00:25:36,800
Speaker 1: Do you think our country will ever go back to

399
00:25:36,880 --> 00:25:41,480
Speaker 1: the time when unions were such a dominant force again,

400
00:25:41,560 --> 00:25:43,320
Speaker 1: I think it's really hard to predict. But I do

401
00:25:43,400 --> 00:25:46,440
Speaker 1: think that workers in the United States want a better life.

402
00:25:46,720 --> 00:25:49,879
Speaker 1: Um they want more dignity on the job, more rights

403
00:25:49,920 --> 00:25:52,040
Speaker 1: on the jobs. They want to be paid enough to

404
00:25:52,160 --> 00:25:54,800
Speaker 1: have a decent life for themselves and their children. So

405
00:25:54,840 --> 00:25:58,959
Speaker 1: I think there's widespread interest in having organization among workers,

406
00:25:59,080 --> 00:26:01,600
Speaker 1: that workers have of us on the job. Whether or

407
00:26:01,640 --> 00:26:03,720
Speaker 1: not they'll be able to achieve it, I think it

408
00:26:03,760 --> 00:26:07,520
Speaker 1: is still an open question. The Supreme Court is it

409
00:26:07,600 --> 00:26:10,200
Speaker 1: twice in two opinions of the Supreme Court has cut

410
00:26:10,200 --> 00:26:13,720
Speaker 1: back on union rights in recent years. I would say

411
00:26:13,760 --> 00:26:16,159
Speaker 1: there are three important opinions in recent years that have

412
00:26:16,240 --> 00:26:19,480
Speaker 1: cut back on workers collective action rights. One was the

413
00:26:19,640 --> 00:26:24,800
Speaker 1: Janice case where the Supreme Court said that all public

414
00:26:24,840 --> 00:26:27,960
Speaker 1: sector workers have to be right to work, meaning that

415
00:26:28,640 --> 00:26:31,520
Speaker 1: workers who are covered by a union contract can't be

416
00:26:31,640 --> 00:26:36,119
Speaker 1: required to pay fees, even sees that UM cover just

417
00:26:36,200 --> 00:26:38,040
Speaker 1: the cost of the contracts and the cost of the

418
00:26:38,080 --> 00:26:42,560
Speaker 1: representation that they received. So basically, the Supreme Court transformed

419
00:26:42,600 --> 00:26:46,359
Speaker 1: all public sector workers unions into open shop unions, which

420
00:26:46,400 --> 00:26:48,880
Speaker 1: creates a free rider problem because it means that workers

421
00:26:48,880 --> 00:26:51,879
Speaker 1: can receive the benefits of the union contract but without

422
00:26:51,920 --> 00:26:54,400
Speaker 1: paying for the cost. And the Supreme Court did that

423
00:26:54,840 --> 00:26:57,840
Speaker 1: by employing a very novel and aggressive theory of the

424
00:26:57,880 --> 00:27:02,440
Speaker 1: First Amendment UM. A second important case with the Supreme

425
00:27:02,480 --> 00:27:07,080
Speaker 1: Court held that employers can force workers to waive their

426
00:27:07,200 --> 00:27:12,240
Speaker 1: right to proceed through class actions or collective legal actions

427
00:27:12,240 --> 00:27:15,800
Speaker 1: and instead to arbitrate their claims individually. So that was

428
00:27:15,880 --> 00:27:19,080
Speaker 1: basically saying that the n l r A, which protects

429
00:27:19,080 --> 00:27:22,280
Speaker 1: workers right to engage in collective action, that that right

430
00:27:22,359 --> 00:27:26,080
Speaker 1: can be waged through mandatory arbitration agreements. So that's related

431
00:27:26,080 --> 00:27:28,960
Speaker 1: to unionization, but it's really more about collective organizing rights.

432
00:27:29,000 --> 00:27:32,439
Speaker 1: And then just this past term, the Supreme Court said

433
00:27:32,880 --> 00:27:37,119
Speaker 1: that the state of California could not require employers to

434
00:27:37,640 --> 00:27:42,320
Speaker 1: give access to farm workers organizers to farms in order

435
00:27:42,359 --> 00:27:46,360
Speaker 1: to talk to workers um without compensating employers. That that's

436
00:27:46,359 --> 00:27:50,280
Speaker 1: basically requiring access and are enable workers to organize the

437
00:27:50,400 --> 00:27:54,919
Speaker 1: union violated employer's property right. So what's Congress doing? So

438
00:27:54,960 --> 00:27:57,640
Speaker 1: there's a bill in Congress called the Proact that would

439
00:27:57,720 --> 00:28:01,119
Speaker 1: reform labor law and make it significant easier for workers

440
00:28:01,119 --> 00:28:04,600
Speaker 1: to organize unions and critically for them to win first contracts.

441
00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:07,080
Speaker 1: It has passed the House, it has not yet passed

442
00:28:07,080 --> 00:28:11,439
Speaker 1: the Senate, but it would significantly alter the landscape so

443
00:28:11,520 --> 00:28:14,760
Speaker 1: that many more workers could successfully organize unions when they

444
00:28:14,760 --> 00:28:18,680
Speaker 1: want to do so. Thanks Kate. That's Professor Kate Andreas

445
00:28:18,720 --> 00:28:21,320
Speaker 1: of Columbia Law School and that's it for this edition

446
00:28:21,320 --> 00:28:24,000
Speaker 1: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

447
00:28:24,000 --> 00:28:27,159
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You

448
00:28:27,200 --> 00:28:31,280
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

449
00:28:31,440 --> 00:28:35,680
Speaker 1: dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law. I'm June

450
00:28:35,680 --> 00:28:37,879
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg