WEBVTT - Jackson on Brink of History and Stunning Union Win 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloombird Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.280 --> 0:00:12.720 Judge Katangi Brown Jackson is on the brink of history, 0:00:13.520 --> 0:00:16.560 one step closer to being the first black woman to 0:00:16.640 --> 0:00:19.160 sit on the Supreme Court, and it's more than two 0:00:19.239 --> 0:00:23.560 hundred year history. This committee's action today is nothing less 0:00:23.600 --> 0:00:26.560 than making history. I'm honored to be part of it. 0:00:27.200 --> 0:00:31.480 I will strongly and proudly support Judge Jackson's nomination. That's 0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:35.080 Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Dick Durbin at the start of 0:00:35.159 --> 0:00:39.080 more than three hours of debate over Jackson's nomination today, 0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:42.600 three hours of basically the same arguments we heard during 0:00:42.640 --> 0:00:46.400 more than thirty hours of hearings and questioning last month. 0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:51.160 But Durbin did make one significant observation. We don't agree 0:00:51.200 --> 0:00:53.880 on much in the Senate, but not one senator on 0:00:53.920 --> 0:00:57.560 this committee is questioned that she is well qualified. The Committee, 0:00:57.560 --> 0:01:01.440 like the full Senate, is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, 0:01:01.800 --> 0:01:06.119 and as expected, they deadlocked on moving her nomination out 0:01:06.160 --> 0:01:10.039 of committee eleven to eleven, the first time that's happened 0:01:10.040 --> 0:01:13.840 in about three decades. Her nomination is still on track 0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:16.280 to be voted on by the full Senate before the 0:01:16.400 --> 0:01:19.240 end of the week joining us. Carl Tobias, a professor 0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:22.800 at the University of Richmond Law School, what did you 0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:27.679 hear from the senators? Well, each of them really it 0:01:27.840 --> 0:01:32.240 seemed like we're reviewing what they had already talked about 0:01:32.360 --> 0:01:36.000 and asked her about during the hearing, and so there 0:01:36.040 --> 0:01:40.680 was virtually no new information that was transmitted. I think 0:01:40.720 --> 0:01:44.200 there was pretty substantial agreement that the process is broken, 0:01:44.800 --> 0:01:47.960 but that wasn't why they were there. So the Republicans 0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:53.720 continued to criticize her the way they had before. They 0:01:53.840 --> 0:01:58.080 all were relatively careful to say that she is a 0:01:58.160 --> 0:02:01.320 very nice person, that they to her family, that she 0:02:01.520 --> 0:02:06.160 was well qualified, they didn't have questions about her qualifications, 0:02:06.160 --> 0:02:11.799 but that they disagreed with her on certain issues. A 0:02:11.919 --> 0:02:15.480 number of them criticized her as someone who would be 0:02:15.520 --> 0:02:18.880 an activist judge, though there isn't a lot of evidence 0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:22.160 of that on the lower courts where she served. But 0:02:22.560 --> 0:02:28.280 also they were concerned about these child pornography sentences and 0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:34.440 that she was below a certain level, though Democrats refuted that. 0:02:35.200 --> 0:02:40.160 And then there were some other minor criticisms of her, 0:02:40.919 --> 0:02:43.880 but pretty much in the same vein that she would 0:02:44.000 --> 0:02:48.400 be an activist judge, that she might be soft on crime, 0:02:48.639 --> 0:02:53.040 though that's hard to discern from her record, and that's 0:02:53.080 --> 0:02:57.200 what really Republicans were talking about. Democrats were saying she's 0:02:57.280 --> 0:03:01.560 extremely well qualified and reminding every one that this would 0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:05.440 be an historic appointment, and that she's clerked at all 0:03:05.520 --> 0:03:09.560 three levels of the federal judiciary, including for Justice Bryor. 0:03:10.160 --> 0:03:13.560 And that was all the ground that have already been 0:03:13.560 --> 0:03:18.120 plowed the Senate advice and consent. They all can side 0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:22.200 that Judge Jackson is well qualified. Is it up to 0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:25.960 them to decide whether they agree with her philosophy, which 0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:28.480 she says she doesn't have a judicial philosophy. Is it 0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:31.639 up to them to agree with stances she takes on 0:03:32.040 --> 0:03:37.960 different matters. No, No, But their varying views among senators 0:03:38.000 --> 0:03:42.280 historically and in the present about exactly what is entailed 0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:47.240 and advice consent some president senators and historically have deferred 0:03:47.280 --> 0:03:51.280 to the president, saying he's the person who's elected by 0:03:51.320 --> 0:03:56.720 the entire country and so can dominate and is entitled 0:03:56.720 --> 0:03:59.400 to some difference. On the other end of the spectrum, 0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:02.560 our numbers editors who feel that the hearings must be 0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:06.560 very rigorous and then they're entitled to ask any number 0:04:06.600 --> 0:04:10.200 of questions, especially about how the person would discharge the 0:04:10.280 --> 0:04:13.960 duties of justice on the Supreme Court. Advice and consent 0:04:14.280 --> 0:04:17.119 was put into the constitution just to be a check 0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:21.119 on the president in case the president sent someone who 0:04:21.160 --> 0:04:26.760 either was unqualified or worse, you know, had ethical problems 0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:29.480 or that type of thing. But I think the real 0:04:29.760 --> 0:04:33.839 focus of the debate today and probably since Robert bort In, 0:04:35.560 --> 0:04:40.960 is whether ideology of the nominee is a relevant consideration. 0:04:41.200 --> 0:04:44.040 And I think today everybody has sort of come around 0:04:44.040 --> 0:04:46.960 to the fact that, yes, that is relevant. You can't 0:04:47.200 --> 0:04:50.840 just ignore that, and so a lot of the back 0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:54.360 and forth today was about that, from both sides, taking 0:04:54.440 --> 0:04:57.880 Justice Kavanaugh's hearings out for a moment because there were 0:04:57.880 --> 0:05:02.279 specific charges made neutral arges during his hearings. But I 0:05:02.320 --> 0:05:08.040 don't recall the hearings for Justice Gorciss or Justice Cony 0:05:08.080 --> 0:05:12.080 Barrett being this personal, so many personal attacks. I don't 0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:15.880 recall that. I think that's right. I don't think there 0:05:15.880 --> 0:05:19.360 were personal attacks, and either one of those I suppose 0:05:19.440 --> 0:05:22.799 the Republicans who say they didn't think they were engaging 0:05:22.839 --> 0:05:27.040 in personal attacks, but I think Democrats felt that some 0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:32.320 of the questions were inappropriate or really reduced to personal 0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:36.760 attacks on an A nominee who's extremely well qualified. Taking 0:05:36.839 --> 0:05:40.840 Justice Kavanaugh's hearings out of the equation for a moment, 0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:46.640 because that was based on allegations of misconduct that were 0:05:46.680 --> 0:05:51.719 lodged during the hearings themselves. I don't recall the hearings 0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:58.440 for Justice gorciss or Justice Amy Coney Barrett being this personal, 0:05:58.520 --> 0:06:02.280 so many personal attacks. Oh, I think that's right. Um, 0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:05.159 I don't think there were personal attacks and either one 0:06:05.200 --> 0:06:09.240 of those and I suppose the Republicans would say they 0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:13.440 didn't think they were engaging in personal attacks, But I 0:06:13.480 --> 0:06:17.840 think Democrats felt that some of the questions were inappropriate 0:06:18.120 --> 0:06:22.560 or really reduced to personal attacks on an A nominee 0:06:22.560 --> 0:06:27.359 who's extremely well qualified. What I found curious is the 0:06:27.440 --> 0:06:32.200 about face of Senator Lindsey Graham, who supported her for 0:06:32.360 --> 0:06:34.040 the d C Circuit. And I know that doesn't mean 0:06:34.040 --> 0:06:36.599 you have to support a person for the Supreme Court, 0:06:36.640 --> 0:06:40.320 but he really made some personal attacks on her, and 0:06:40.400 --> 0:06:43.360 today he said that you know, if they were in charge, 0:06:43.560 --> 0:06:47.280 she wouldn't be up there. Well, we've heard those attacks, 0:06:47.480 --> 0:06:51.360 you know, those kinds of threats before. And that's what 0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:54.880 Mitch McConnell, as leader of his party in the Senate, 0:06:55.000 --> 0:06:58.680 has been doing for a long time now, ever since 0:06:58.720 --> 0:07:03.680 Obama became president two thousand nine, and certainly what we 0:07:03.720 --> 0:07:08.120 saw in seen with Marrik Garland and then in with 0:07:08.200 --> 0:07:12.880 Amy Tony Barrett. So I think the leader is leading 0:07:13.040 --> 0:07:16.640 the rest of them, um. And so that's what I 0:07:16.680 --> 0:07:20.160 think you heard Graham saying today, which is unfortunate because 0:07:20.160 --> 0:07:22.680 I think everybody on the committee pretty much agrees that 0:07:22.760 --> 0:07:26.240 the process is broken at the Supreme Court level, and 0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:29.240 now that's trickling down as well to the lower courts, 0:07:29.480 --> 0:07:32.720 all of which is unfortunate for the Judiciary, for the President, 0:07:32.840 --> 0:07:38.040 and for the Senate. Eleven to eleven. What happens now, well, 0:07:38.520 --> 0:07:41.800 when that happened, and the history is a little checkered 0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:46.320 because if you remember back fairly recently, both Bork and 0:07:46.360 --> 0:07:49.160 Clarence Thomas. I think Clarence Thomas had a tie vote 0:07:49.200 --> 0:07:53.040 in Judiciary Committee, and I think Bourke was voted down. 0:07:53.720 --> 0:07:57.320 But at that point the Democrats agreed, uh, I think 0:07:57.320 --> 0:07:59.679 they had the majority to send them to the floor 0:07:59.720 --> 0:08:02.720 any way and have a vote. And that is another 0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:07.720 sign that this is all changed because that's the relevant precedent, 0:08:07.840 --> 0:08:11.040 the most recent relevant precedent. So why not then go 0:08:11.160 --> 0:08:15.080 ahead and have the final vote. But I think because 0:08:15.120 --> 0:08:19.760 there's a tie and that custom has gone out the window, apparently, 0:08:20.240 --> 0:08:23.520 it means that you must discharge the person from committee. 0:08:24.000 --> 0:08:29.120 It really is just a procedural hurdle that will easily 0:08:29.320 --> 0:08:33.200 be resolved, but it just takes more time so that 0:08:33.280 --> 0:08:35.640 you have to have another vote on the floor to 0:08:35.760 --> 0:08:39.120 discharge her from committee, and you need a majority, and 0:08:39.400 --> 0:08:43.080 it's clear that she will have a majority. So Chuck 0:08:43.080 --> 0:08:49.320 Schumer has done this before during the Biden administration, Yes, exactly, 0:08:49.520 --> 0:08:52.559 with some lower court nominees, I believe one for the 0:08:52.679 --> 0:08:56.200 Ninth Circuit and a few others. And there are five 0:08:56.280 --> 0:08:59.200 or six lower court nominees on the floor who tied 0:08:59.240 --> 0:09:02.559 in committee, and so they would have to be discharged 0:09:02.559 --> 0:09:05.160 as well. But again it takes half an hour to 0:09:05.200 --> 0:09:07.640 do it. There's some paperwork, but they just have to 0:09:07.720 --> 0:09:11.000 vote on that, and then the person comes out of committee. 0:09:11.360 --> 0:09:13.840 Then there would be a cloture vote on the floor 0:09:13.960 --> 0:09:17.040 to cut off debate at some point, and then you 0:09:17.080 --> 0:09:20.679 would have the debate fifteen hours for each side, and 0:09:20.760 --> 0:09:25.600 then a confirmation vote. So there's debate before the debate. 0:09:26.080 --> 0:09:30.120 What's the debate on before debate? There may be some 0:09:30.240 --> 0:09:35.480 debate starting in but but the rule in rule twenty 0:09:35.480 --> 0:09:39.960 two of the Center Rules, it talks about post cloture 0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:44.040 debate time and how much there is allotted for that, 0:09:44.679 --> 0:09:50.640 and so, um, you cannot have a vote until those 0:09:50.679 --> 0:09:54.160 thirty hours are used up or the Democrats will see 0:09:54.240 --> 0:09:57.200 most of their time. So effectively, you're talking about the 0:09:57.360 --> 0:10:02.920 fifteen hours of possible debate debate allowed for Republicans um, 0:10:03.760 --> 0:10:08.559 and then you have the final vote. I've read that 0:10:08.800 --> 0:10:12.640 the last time that so many questions were asked about 0:10:12.800 --> 0:10:18.760 criminal law, about crime was when Justice Thurgood Marshall was 0:10:18.840 --> 0:10:21.600 before the court, the first black justice. I don't know 0:10:21.640 --> 0:10:25.840 if that's because it's a dog whistle because he was 0:10:25.880 --> 0:10:29.320 black and because she's black, or if it's because they were, 0:10:29.640 --> 0:10:34.520 you know, defended criminals in the past, well alleged criminals. 0:10:36.679 --> 0:10:40.439 And yes, she was a federal public defender for three years. 0:10:40.480 --> 0:10:45.440 But we know that people are entitled to representation after 0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:51.160 Gideon versus Wainwright n. Supreme Court case, and um, so 0:10:51.240 --> 0:10:54.679 you have both sides represented in criminal matters and it's 0:10:54.720 --> 0:11:01.559 a constitutional right, um and so UM and in a 0:11:01.640 --> 0:11:04.840 number of the GOP senators, to their credit, admitted today 0:11:04.920 --> 0:11:07.800 that that people are entitled to representation and they think 0:11:07.840 --> 0:11:12.520 that makes for a better system. And so Uh, I 0:11:12.559 --> 0:11:17.080 think this is unfortunately tied up with the soft on 0:11:17.240 --> 0:11:22.480 crime political agenda that one party has going into the 0:11:23.280 --> 0:11:27.760 mid terms, and we're just likely to see that come 0:11:27.800 --> 0:11:31.120 to the fore. And so there is a huge fight 0:11:31.760 --> 0:11:36.520 brewing over um, the question of whether Democrats are soft 0:11:36.559 --> 0:11:40.560 on crime and whether Republicans intend to use that in 0:11:42.480 --> 0:11:46.640 um to capture the Senate. And it's pretty obvious that 0:11:46.640 --> 0:11:51.000 that's what's going on in committee in this area of discussion. 0:11:51.400 --> 0:11:54.520 We know she's going to become the next Supreme Court justice. 0:11:55.120 --> 0:11:58.480 Does any of this tarnish her? You know, the hearings 0:11:58.520 --> 0:12:02.320 and the accusations may Does it tarnish her when she 0:12:02.400 --> 0:12:07.720 takes her place on the court, Well, hopefully not. Um. 0:12:07.760 --> 0:12:11.560 It will for some people who are extremely partisan, but 0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:16.280 I think most Americans uh, And I think the polling 0:12:16.360 --> 0:12:20.920 shows most people view her quite favorably coming into the hearings, 0:12:21.520 --> 0:12:26.480 and I think she uh comports herself in a very 0:12:26.559 --> 0:12:31.839 strong and h excellent way. And Um, I think even 0:12:31.880 --> 0:12:36.880 some Republicans may have admitted that her judicial temperament was 0:12:37.920 --> 0:12:41.280 clear in the hearings, that it was very balanced, and 0:12:41.480 --> 0:12:46.480 she's very fair minded. And so that's an important attribute 0:12:47.240 --> 0:12:51.880 on all the federal courts is to have balanced judicial temperament, 0:12:51.960 --> 0:12:54.760 and she displayed that over and over again. Thanks Carl. 0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:58.080 That's Professor Carl Tobias at the University of Richmond Law 0:12:58.120 --> 0:13:10.560 School History. Champagne corks popped in a historic win for 0:13:10.760 --> 0:13:15.080 organized labor. An upstart labor union pulled off a stunning 0:13:15.160 --> 0:13:19.720 upset and wontent of workers votes at the Staten Island 0:13:19.760 --> 0:13:23.640 warehouse of Amazon, a company that's managed to keep unions 0:13:23.800 --> 0:13:26.480 out of its US operations for more than a quarter 0:13:26.480 --> 0:13:30.200 of a century. Chris Small's, a fired employee who led 0:13:30.240 --> 0:13:33.679 the fledgling union to victory, said it's time for businesses 0:13:33.720 --> 0:13:37.360 to realize the power workers have. When they banned together. 0:13:38.000 --> 0:13:40.160 We we got the jugglin. We went for the jugglin, 0:13:40.880 --> 0:13:43.080 and we went for the top doll because we want 0:13:43.120 --> 0:13:47.880 every other industry have other business to know that dangs 0:13:47.880 --> 0:13:51.559 of teams. My guest is labor law expert Kate Andreas, 0:13:51.600 --> 0:13:55.160 a professor at Columbia Law School. This marks the first 0:13:55.200 --> 0:13:58.840 time a group of US workers have successfully voted a 0:13:58.880 --> 0:14:03.480 former union in Amazon's twenty seven year history, a company 0:14:03.480 --> 0:14:06.920 that seemed to be unbeatable. Would you say it's a 0:14:06.920 --> 0:14:10.400 watershed moment, a significant moment? How would you define it? 0:14:10.920 --> 0:14:15.839 My guest is Kate Andreas, a professor at Columbia Law School. Absolutely, 0:14:15.880 --> 0:14:19.560 this is an extraordinary victory by the workers at the 0:14:19.600 --> 0:14:22.200 Staten Island facility, and I would say it is a 0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:27.160 significant moment and could well represent a turning point for organizing, 0:14:27.200 --> 0:14:30.520 both for workers at Amazon and workers more generally. Although 0:14:30.520 --> 0:14:33.880 it's too early to say it's always an uphill battle 0:14:33.920 --> 0:14:37.640 to establish a union. Over the past few decades, efforts 0:14:37.680 --> 0:14:41.120 to unionize that the most prominent non union companies in 0:14:41.120 --> 0:14:45.680 America have almost always ended in failure. But was this 0:14:45.840 --> 0:14:50.040 even more uphill than usual or was it basically the 0:14:50.080 --> 0:14:53.400 same as trying to start a union elsewhere? Well? I 0:14:53.400 --> 0:14:57.080 think in some ways these workers had even a greater 0:14:57.240 --> 0:15:00.400 challenge than in many other contexts because Amazon had been 0:15:00.520 --> 0:15:05.000 so resolutely anti union and anti worker. Amazon has sent 0:15:05.200 --> 0:15:09.000 millions of dollars on anti union consultants and has consistently 0:15:09.040 --> 0:15:12.680 fought very hard against unionization, and so the workers had 0:15:12.680 --> 0:15:16.560 a significant uphill battle. On the other hand, we're now 0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:18.960 living in a time of a very tight labor market, 0:15:19.400 --> 0:15:22.840 and the workers recognized the power that they had, and 0:15:22.880 --> 0:15:27.160 we saw particularly effective leadership from workers within the facility 0:15:27.240 --> 0:15:30.880 in building this grassroots union. I mean, the law really 0:15:31.320 --> 0:15:35.200 stacked against workers, and it enables employers to campaign fairly 0:15:35.280 --> 0:15:39.160 viciously against union organizing and Amazon did that here. And 0:15:39.200 --> 0:15:42.560 that's why this victory is so stunning and so important. 0:15:42.640 --> 0:15:45.520 The fact that the workers were able to overcome really 0:15:45.560 --> 0:15:50.280 intense anti union campaigning, including firing workers who supported the union, 0:15:50.920 --> 0:15:56.360 many many mandatory meetings at which Amazon offered anti union propaganda, 0:15:56.600 --> 0:15:59.560 and much of that is legal, and to the extent 0:15:59.640 --> 0:16:03.080 Amazon on potentially violating the laws of remedies are very limited. 0:16:03.160 --> 0:16:05.920 So historically it's been very hard for workers to overcome 0:16:06.000 --> 0:16:08.680 the fact of the laws stacked against workers right to organize, 0:16:08.680 --> 0:16:10.440 but here they were able to do so. It's really 0:16:10.560 --> 0:16:15.200 very important the a l You, the Amazon Labor Union 0:16:15.720 --> 0:16:19.560 is an upstart union. It's not aligned with an established 0:16:19.640 --> 0:16:22.280 labor union. Yet it beat one of the world's most 0:16:22.320 --> 0:16:26.160 powerful companies with not that much help from organized labor 0:16:26.640 --> 0:16:30.480 and with limited funds. How did it do that? The 0:16:30.560 --> 0:16:34.080 workers here wanted to change their conditions, and they built 0:16:34.120 --> 0:16:37.840 a very strong organization among themselves. And in some sense 0:16:37.880 --> 0:16:40.680 that's always what makes union succeed. So whether there's a 0:16:41.080 --> 0:16:44.040 well funded national union or whether it's an upstart union, 0:16:44.360 --> 0:16:47.840 what's critical to success as when workers themselves are involved 0:16:47.880 --> 0:16:51.080 in building an organization to change their conditions. So they 0:16:51.080 --> 0:16:54.760 did it here through very effective organizing, through building connections 0:16:54.800 --> 0:16:59.840 across racial and gender and ethnic device, organizing multiple languages, 0:17:00.000 --> 0:17:02.880 and through effective use of social media, but also through 0:17:02.920 --> 0:17:05.240 just talking about the problems that work and committing to 0:17:05.280 --> 0:17:07.600 one another that they wanted to build an organization to 0:17:07.760 --> 0:17:11.040 change them. You know, we hear a lot about the organizer, 0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:14.879 the top organizer. How much of this is due to 0:17:15.000 --> 0:17:18.680 his push and his personality. It's hard for me to say, 0:17:18.840 --> 0:17:22.360 but I would say that union organizing always involved more 0:17:22.400 --> 0:17:24.560 than just one leader. So he was clearly a very 0:17:24.920 --> 0:17:27.640 powerful leader, but there were many other workers who are 0:17:27.680 --> 0:17:30.040 involved as well. I'm just wondering, and I don't know 0:17:30.080 --> 0:17:32.280 if if there's an answer to this, but is it 0:17:32.320 --> 0:17:35.480 better to have an upstart union or to have a 0:17:35.720 --> 0:17:39.800 union with the backing of organized labor. Well, I think 0:17:39.840 --> 0:17:43.040 that whether if there's a national union involved or an 0:17:43.119 --> 0:17:46.160 upstart union with critical is that workers themselves are involved 0:17:46.200 --> 0:17:48.560 in the fight and their solidarity among the workers. And 0:17:48.560 --> 0:17:51.480 we've seen that plenty of times with national unions as well. 0:17:51.560 --> 0:17:53.520 So there are some lots of examples, for examples, the 0:17:53.600 --> 0:17:57.280 Justice for Janitor's campaign or the successful organizing of healthcare 0:17:57.320 --> 0:18:00.159 workers around the country with national unions. The key is 0:18:00.200 --> 0:18:03.680 that workers are involved in building their own organization, and 0:18:03.960 --> 0:18:06.520 there are advantages to being with a larger organization in 0:18:06.520 --> 0:18:09.080 the sense that there's more resources that can be brought 0:18:09.119 --> 0:18:11.479 to bear on contract fights. But this also shows that 0:18:11.520 --> 0:18:14.720 what is critical is that workers themselves are involved in 0:18:14.760 --> 0:18:17.880 building the organization, and sometimes that happens through these more 0:18:17.920 --> 0:18:20.840 grassroots endeavors. I'm just wondering, and I don't know if 0:18:20.880 --> 0:18:23.200 if there's an answer to this, but is it better 0:18:23.280 --> 0:18:26.639 to have an upstart union or to have a union? 0:18:27.200 --> 0:18:30.960 You know? With organized labor? Well, I think that whether 0:18:31.040 --> 0:18:34.200 if there's a national union involved or an upstart union 0:18:34.200 --> 0:18:36.879 with critical is that workers themselves are involved in the 0:18:36.920 --> 0:18:39.480 fight and their solidarity among the workers, and we've seen 0:18:39.520 --> 0:18:42.080 that plenty of times with national unions as well, so 0:18:42.160 --> 0:18:45.119 there's lots of examples. For examples, the Justice for Janitors 0:18:45.160 --> 0:18:48.439 campaign or the successful organizing of healthcare workers around the 0:18:48.440 --> 0:18:51.280 country with national unions. The key is that workers are 0:18:51.280 --> 0:18:55.440 involved in building their own organization, and there are advantages 0:18:55.480 --> 0:18:57.439 to being with a larger organization in the sense that 0:18:57.440 --> 0:19:00.840 there's more resources that can be brought to bear contract fights. 0:19:00.880 --> 0:19:03.560 But this also shows that what is critical is that 0:19:03.600 --> 0:19:07.000 workers themselves are involved in building the organization, and sometimes 0:19:07.040 --> 0:19:11.280 that happens through these more grassroots endeavors. A key part 0:19:11.480 --> 0:19:15.560 of a LU strategy was to request and and all 0:19:15.720 --> 0:19:19.320 or b vote as soon as a competition signatures from 0:19:19.359 --> 0:19:24.560 the bare minimum of the workforce, and you need to win. 0:19:24.840 --> 0:19:27.680 What do you think of that strategy? Yeah, I mean 0:19:27.720 --> 0:19:30.720 it's fairly unusual, and the past, unions have typically sought 0:19:30.800 --> 0:19:34.639 to get about sevent of workers signed out before filing 0:19:34.880 --> 0:19:38.480 for an election because historically the effect of an anti 0:19:38.600 --> 0:19:41.520 union campaign by an employer was to erode union support. 0:19:41.760 --> 0:19:45.200 So this suggests that maybe the dynamics are different now 0:19:45.240 --> 0:19:49.360 that there's much more public support for unionization and workers 0:19:49.359 --> 0:19:51.879 also have a sense of their labor market power, and 0:19:51.960 --> 0:19:55.359 so it could well be that it's now possible to 0:19:55.560 --> 0:20:00.280 win union elections even with hostile anti union campaign by 0:20:00.320 --> 0:20:05.120 employers with a lower kind of threshold of support, because 0:20:05.320 --> 0:20:08.800 workers are less likely to become scare given their increased 0:20:08.840 --> 0:20:12.919 labor market power and all the growing recognition that workers 0:20:12.920 --> 0:20:16.480 can win unions and can make changes at work. You 0:20:16.520 --> 0:20:19.640 refer to this federal chair your own power recently called 0:20:19.680 --> 0:20:23.280 the labor market tight to an unhealthy level. Does that 0:20:23.359 --> 0:20:27.959 give fresh power to a new push for unions? It 0:20:28.000 --> 0:20:31.359 does because workers have an understanding that that they can't 0:20:31.400 --> 0:20:34.440 just be easily replaced, and that they have more bargaining 0:20:34.480 --> 0:20:37.960 power to demand better conditions and higher wages, safe for 0:20:38.080 --> 0:20:41.639 working conditions, and more dignity at work when it's harder 0:20:41.640 --> 0:20:45.200 to find workers. So would you say this will galvanize 0:20:45.480 --> 0:20:51.360 labor activists and workers beyond Amazon to unionize. I think 0:20:51.400 --> 0:20:54.240 it is likely to have that effect, particularly when combined 0:20:54.280 --> 0:20:57.320 with the recent victories of workers at Starbucks, as well 0:20:57.320 --> 0:21:01.359 as the increased union activity amongst journalists, among teachers, among 0:21:01.600 --> 0:21:04.160 all sorts of different workers. But it's a little too 0:21:04.160 --> 0:21:06.800 early to say whether this will really mark a turning 0:21:06.840 --> 0:21:09.919 point for labor in the United States, And tell us 0:21:10.160 --> 0:21:13.640 what's been happening with labor in the United States, Let's 0:21:13.680 --> 0:21:16.040 say the past decade, because there have been a lot 0:21:16.080 --> 0:21:19.919 of Supreme Court cases that have cut down the power 0:21:19.960 --> 0:21:24.760 of labor unions. Just give us a general kind of overview. Yeah, so, 0:21:24.880 --> 0:21:27.919 unions once represented about a third of the labor market, 0:21:28.080 --> 0:21:30.680 and during that period there was a great deal more 0:21:30.680 --> 0:21:33.719 equality in the United States. Unions were effective at raising 0:21:33.720 --> 0:21:37.000 wages for workers um and also for giving workers more 0:21:37.000 --> 0:21:40.120 of a voice in the political system. But since early 0:21:40.200 --> 0:21:44.000 since the nineteen seventies, unions have declined, and there have 0:21:44.080 --> 0:21:47.679 been a series of hostile anti worker decisions by the 0:21:47.720 --> 0:21:51.879 Supreme Court, particularly in recent years, making it harder for 0:21:51.960 --> 0:21:55.159 workers to organize unions and making it easier for employers 0:21:55.200 --> 0:21:57.680 to weakend unions. And the results of the the kline 0:21:57.680 --> 0:22:00.679 of unions has been in part growing inequality be and 0:22:01.240 --> 0:22:06.320 a decrease of political power for working people generally. Let's 0:22:06.320 --> 0:22:10.560 talk about what happens next at this Amazon in Staten Island. 0:22:10.600 --> 0:22:12.959 Because there are a long way away from a contract. 0:22:13.359 --> 0:22:16.600 The company has until April eighth to dispute the results, 0:22:16.840 --> 0:22:21.359 and in an emailed statement, Amazon signaled a long legal 0:22:21.600 --> 0:22:24.840 battle could lie ahead. It said it was evaluating our options, 0:22:24.960 --> 0:22:29.840 including objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence by 0:22:29.880 --> 0:22:33.440 the n l RB. So what do you read into 0:22:33.480 --> 0:22:37.040 that and what can Amazon do at this point? I mean, 0:22:37.080 --> 0:22:40.159 that's suggests that Amazon intend to continue to fight the 0:22:40.400 --> 0:22:44.280 organizing effort and not to comply with its duty under 0:22:44.320 --> 0:22:47.160 the law to bargaining good faith. It is obligated under 0:22:47.200 --> 0:22:49.520 the law to sit down and bargain with these workers 0:22:49.560 --> 0:22:51.960 and to do so in good faith. But that suggested 0:22:52.040 --> 0:22:55.480 me that they will file multiple legal challenges and attempt 0:22:55.520 --> 0:22:59.600 to delay and postpone their obligation to bargain. The notion 0:22:59.680 --> 0:23:04.920 that the NLRV was inappropriately interfering in the election by 0:23:05.080 --> 0:23:08.960 enforcing the law and filing a suit against what the 0:23:09.040 --> 0:23:12.560 n llr B believes to be an illegal firing is 0:23:12.600 --> 0:23:16.199 really a novel and questionable argument, and I don't expect 0:23:16.280 --> 0:23:19.359 that Amazon will prevail if it decides to bring that 0:23:19.520 --> 0:23:23.200 argument forward, but it could very well use those legal 0:23:23.280 --> 0:23:26.959 challenges to delay, and in that case, workers will need 0:23:27.000 --> 0:23:29.960 to continue to organize and to put community pressure and 0:23:30.000 --> 0:23:32.919 public pressure on Amazon to urge it to comply with 0:23:32.960 --> 0:23:35.000 the law and sit down and bargain and good faith. 0:23:35.440 --> 0:23:38.280 Is there a time limit for you know, the workers 0:23:38.520 --> 0:23:42.160 organizing efforts. So the law obligates Amazon to sit down 0:23:42.160 --> 0:23:45.840 and bargain and to do so in a timely manner. However, 0:23:46.119 --> 0:23:48.920 it is not at all uncommon for employers to refuse 0:23:49.000 --> 0:23:52.399 to do so while they litigate a case, and so 0:23:52.480 --> 0:23:55.720 it could be quite a lengthy process during which Amazon 0:23:55.760 --> 0:23:59.359 refuses to bargain while it pursues legal challenges. But the 0:23:59.480 --> 0:24:02.600 union does lose its status during that period is it 0:24:02.680 --> 0:24:07.040 more than a year usually in negotiations with employer. So 0:24:07.200 --> 0:24:10.720 typically once they're going to established union, employers and unions 0:24:10.720 --> 0:24:13.399 sit down and negotiate regularly, as we've seen with the 0:24:13.440 --> 0:24:16.080 baseball players, and we've seen with GM, and we see 0:24:16.080 --> 0:24:18.480 with Forward and it's it's actually quite can often be 0:24:18.600 --> 0:24:22.600 mutually beneficial. But frequently with first contracts, and particularly with 0:24:22.640 --> 0:24:26.080 a company like Amazon that has so staked its efforts 0:24:26.160 --> 0:24:29.600 on preventing unionization, in those contacts of the first contract, 0:24:29.640 --> 0:24:34.159 we often do see very lengthy delays. And although again 0:24:34.240 --> 0:24:38.120 the law obligates Amazon to bargain and to bargaining good faith, 0:24:38.240 --> 0:24:41.960 it doesn't obligate them to agree to a particular contract. 0:24:42.000 --> 0:24:45.200 And it doesn't give the board, the National Labor Relations Board, 0:24:45.440 --> 0:24:48.440 the right to come in and impose a contract. Instead, 0:24:48.680 --> 0:24:51.639 it just obligates bargaining, and so in order to force 0:24:51.720 --> 0:24:56.000 that bargaining to occur, if Amazon continues to be intransigent, 0:24:56.040 --> 0:25:00.000 the workers will really need to use their collective power protests, 0:25:00.000 --> 0:25:03.720 potentially a strike, and bringing to bear public pressure on 0:25:03.800 --> 0:25:06.240 the company to urge it to comply with the law 0:25:06.280 --> 0:25:08.359 and do the right thing and negotiate a fair contract. 0:25:08.920 --> 0:25:15.800 Would you say a contract is certainty? Certainty very hard 0:25:15.840 --> 0:25:17.680 to predict. I think it will depend on whether the 0:25:17.760 --> 0:25:22.240 workers are able to continue to maintain their collective organization. 0:25:22.480 --> 0:25:26.159 And also the more they're able to win elections at 0:25:26.200 --> 0:25:29.240 other warehouses, the more power they will have in bringing 0:25:29.280 --> 0:25:32.760 Amazon to the bargaining table. And there are additional elections scheduled. 0:25:33.560 --> 0:25:36.800 Do you think our country will ever go back to 0:25:36.880 --> 0:25:41.480 the time when unions were such a dominant force again, 0:25:41.560 --> 0:25:43.320 I think it's really hard to predict. But I do 0:25:43.400 --> 0:25:46.440