Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Judge Katangi Brown Jackson is on the brink of history,
Speaker 1: one step closer to being the first black woman to
Speaker 1: sit on the Supreme Court, and it's more than two
Speaker 1: hundred year history. This committee's action today is nothing less
Speaker 1: than making history. I'm honored to be part of it.
Speaker 1: I will strongly and proudly support Judge Jackson's nomination. That's
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Dick Durbin at the start of
Speaker 1: more than three hours of debate over Jackson's nomination today,
Speaker 1: three hours of basically the same arguments we heard during
Speaker 1: more than thirty hours of hearings and questioning last month.
Speaker 1: But Durbin did make one significant observation. We don't agree
Speaker 1: on much in the Senate, but not one senator on
Speaker 1: this committee is questioned that she is well qualified. The Committee,
Speaker 1: like the full Senate, is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans,
Speaker 1: and as expected, they deadlocked on moving her nomination out
Speaker 1: of committee eleven to eleven, the first time that's happened
Speaker 1: in about three decades. Her nomination is still on track
Speaker 1: to be voted on by the full Senate before the
Speaker 1: end of the week joining us. Carl Tobias, a professor
Speaker 1: at the University of Richmond Law School, what did you
Speaker 1: hear from the senators? Well, each of them really it
Speaker 1: seemed like we're reviewing what they had already talked about
Speaker 1: and asked her about during the hearing, and so there
Speaker 1: was virtually no new information that was transmitted. I think
Speaker 1: there was pretty substantial agreement that the process is broken,
Speaker 1: but that wasn't why they were there. So the Republicans
Speaker 1: continued to criticize her the way they had before. They
Speaker 1: all were relatively careful to say that she is a
Speaker 1: very nice person, that they to her family, that she
Speaker 1: was well qualified, they didn't have questions about her qualifications,
Speaker 1: but that they disagreed with her on certain issues. A
Speaker 1: number of them criticized her as someone who would be
Speaker 1: an activist judge, though there isn't a lot of evidence
Speaker 1: of that on the lower courts where she served. But
Speaker 1: also they were concerned about these child pornography sentences and
Speaker 1: that she was below a certain level, though Democrats refuted that.
Speaker 1: And then there were some other minor criticisms of her,
Speaker 1: but pretty much in the same vein that she would
Speaker 1: be an activist judge, that she might be soft on crime,
Speaker 1: though that's hard to discern from her record, and that's
Speaker 1: what really Republicans were talking about. Democrats were saying she's
Speaker 1: extremely well qualified and reminding every one that this would
Speaker 1: be an historic appointment, and that she's clerked at all
Speaker 1: three levels of the federal judiciary, including for Justice Bryor.
Speaker 1: And that was all the ground that have already been
Speaker 1: plowed the Senate advice and consent. They all can side
Speaker 1: that Judge Jackson is well qualified. Is it up to
Speaker 1: them to decide whether they agree with her philosophy, which
Speaker 1: she says she doesn't have a judicial philosophy. Is it
Speaker 1: up to them to agree with stances she takes on
Speaker 1: different matters. No, No, But their varying views among senators
Speaker 1: historically and in the present about exactly what is entailed
Speaker 1: and advice consent some president senators and historically have deferred
Speaker 1: to the president, saying he's the person who's elected by
Speaker 1: the entire country and so can dominate and is entitled
Speaker 1: to some difference. On the other end of the spectrum,
Speaker 1: our numbers editors who feel that the hearings must be
Speaker 1: very rigorous and then they're entitled to ask any number
Speaker 1: of questions, especially about how the person would discharge the
Speaker 1: duties of justice on the Supreme Court. Advice and consent
Speaker 1: was put into the constitution just to be a check
Speaker 1: on the president in case the president sent someone who
Speaker 1: either was unqualified or worse, you know, had ethical problems
Speaker 1: or that type of thing. But I think the real
Speaker 1: focus of the debate today and probably since Robert bort In,
Speaker 1: is whether ideology of the nominee is a relevant consideration.
Speaker 1: And I think today everybody has sort of come around
Speaker 1: to the fact that, yes, that is relevant. You can't
Speaker 1: just ignore that, and so a lot of the back
Speaker 1: and forth today was about that, from both sides, taking
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh's hearings out for a moment because there were
Speaker 1: specific charges made neutral arges during his hearings. But I
Speaker 1: don't recall the hearings for Justice Gorciss or Justice Cony
Speaker 1: Barrett being this personal, so many personal attacks. I don't
Speaker 1: recall that. I think that's right. I don't think there
Speaker 1: were personal attacks, and either one of those I suppose
Speaker 1: the Republicans who say they didn't think they were engaging
Speaker 1: in personal attacks, but I think Democrats felt that some
Speaker 1: of the questions were inappropriate or really reduced to personal
Speaker 1: attacks on an A nominee who's extremely well qualified. Taking
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh's hearings out of the equation for a moment,
Speaker 1: because that was based on allegations of misconduct that were
Speaker 1: lodged during the hearings themselves. I don't recall the hearings
Speaker 1: for Justice gorciss or Justice Amy Coney Barrett being this personal,
Speaker 1: so many personal attacks. Oh, I think that's right. Um,
Speaker 1: I don't think there were personal attacks and either one
Speaker 1: of those and I suppose the Republicans would say they
Speaker 1: didn't think they were engaging in personal attacks, But I
Speaker 1: think Democrats felt that some of the questions were inappropriate
Speaker 1: or really reduced to personal attacks on an A nominee
Speaker 1: who's extremely well qualified. What I found curious is the
Speaker 1: about face of Senator Lindsey Graham, who supported her for
Speaker 1: the d C Circuit. And I know that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you have to support a person for the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: but he really made some personal attacks on her, and
Speaker 1: today he said that you know, if they were in charge,
Speaker 1: she wouldn't be up there. Well, we've heard those attacks,
Speaker 1: you know, those kinds of threats before. And that's what
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, as leader of his party in the Senate,
Speaker 1: has been doing for a long time now, ever since
Speaker 1: Obama became president two thousand nine, and certainly what we
Speaker 1: saw in seen with Marrik Garland and then in with
Speaker 1: Amy Tony Barrett. So I think the leader is leading
Speaker 1: the rest of them, um. And so that's what I
Speaker 1: think you heard Graham saying today, which is unfortunate because
Speaker 1: I think everybody on the committee pretty much agrees that
Speaker 1: the process is broken at the Supreme Court level, and
Speaker 1: now that's trickling down as well to the lower courts,
Speaker 1: all of which is unfortunate for the Judiciary, for the President,
Speaker 1: and for the Senate. Eleven to eleven. What happens now, well,
Speaker 1: when that happened, and the history is a little checkered
Speaker 1: because if you remember back fairly recently, both Bork and
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas. I think Clarence Thomas had a tie vote
Speaker 1: in Judiciary Committee, and I think Bourke was voted down.
Speaker 1: But at that point the Democrats agreed, uh, I think
Speaker 1: they had the majority to send them to the floor
Speaker 1: any way and have a vote. And that is another
Speaker 1: sign that this is all changed because that's the relevant precedent,
Speaker 1: the most recent relevant precedent. So why not then go
Speaker 1: ahead and have the final vote. But I think because
Speaker 1: there's a tie and that custom has gone out the window, apparently,
Speaker 1: it means that you must discharge the person from committee.
Speaker 1: It really is just a procedural hurdle that will easily
Speaker 1: be resolved, but it just takes more time so that
Speaker 1: you have to have another vote on the floor to
Speaker 1: discharge her from committee, and you need a majority, and
Speaker 1: it's clear that she will have a majority. So Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer has done this before during the Biden administration, Yes, exactly,
Speaker 1: with some lower court nominees, I believe one for the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit and a few others. And there are five
Speaker 1: or six lower court nominees on the floor who tied
Speaker 1: in committee, and so they would have to be discharged
Speaker 1: as well. But again it takes half an hour to
Speaker 1: do it. There's some paperwork, but they just have to
Speaker 1: vote on that, and then the person comes out of committee.
Speaker 1: Then there would be a cloture vote on the floor
Speaker 1: to cut off debate at some point, and then you
Speaker 1: would have the debate fifteen hours for each side, and
Speaker 1: then a confirmation vote. So there's debate before the debate.
Speaker 1: What's the debate on before debate? There may be some
Speaker 1: debate starting in but but the rule in rule twenty
Speaker 1: two of the Center Rules, it talks about post cloture
Speaker 1: debate time and how much there is allotted for that,
Speaker 1: and so, um, you cannot have a vote until those
Speaker 1: thirty hours are used up or the Democrats will see
Speaker 1: most of their time. So effectively, you're talking about the
Speaker 1: fifteen hours of possible debate debate allowed for Republicans um,
Speaker 1: and then you have the final vote. I've read that
Speaker 1: the last time that so many questions were asked about
Speaker 1: criminal law, about crime was when Justice Thurgood Marshall was
Speaker 1: before the court, the first black justice. I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's because it's a dog whistle because he was
Speaker 1: black and because she's black, or if it's because they were,
Speaker 1: you know, defended criminals in the past, well alleged criminals.
Speaker 1: And yes, she was a federal public defender for three years.
Speaker 1: But we know that people are entitled to representation after
Speaker 1: Gideon versus Wainwright n. Supreme Court case, and um, so
Speaker 1: you have both sides represented in criminal matters and it's
Speaker 1: a constitutional right, um and so UM and in a
Speaker 1: number of the GOP senators, to their credit, admitted today
Speaker 1: that that people are entitled to representation and they think
Speaker 1: that makes for a better system. And so Uh, I
Speaker 1: think this is unfortunately tied up with the soft on
Speaker 1: crime political agenda that one party has going into the
Speaker 1: mid terms, and we're just likely to see that come
Speaker 1: to the fore. And so there is a huge fight
Speaker 1: brewing over um, the question of whether Democrats are soft
Speaker 1: on crime and whether Republicans intend to use that in
Speaker 1: um to capture the Senate. And it's pretty obvious that
Speaker 1: that's what's going on in committee in this area of discussion.
Speaker 1: We know she's going to become the next Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 1: Does any of this tarnish her? You know, the hearings
Speaker 1: and the accusations may Does it tarnish her when she
Speaker 1: takes her place on the court, Well, hopefully not. Um.
Speaker 1: It will for some people who are extremely partisan, but
Speaker 1: I think most Americans uh, And I think the polling
Speaker 1: shows most people view her quite favorably coming into the hearings,
Speaker 1: and I think she uh comports herself in a very
Speaker 1: strong and h excellent way. And Um, I think even
Speaker 1: some Republicans may have admitted that her judicial temperament was
Speaker 1: clear in the hearings, that it was very balanced, and
Speaker 1: she's very fair minded. And so that's an important attribute
Speaker 1: on all the federal courts is to have balanced judicial temperament,
Speaker 1: and she displayed that over and over again. Thanks Carl.
Speaker 1: That's Professor Carl Tobias at the University of Richmond Law
Speaker 1: School History. Champagne corks popped in a historic win for
Speaker 1: organized labor. An upstart labor union pulled off a stunning
Speaker 1: upset and wontent of workers votes at the Staten Island
Speaker 1: warehouse of Amazon, a company that's managed to keep unions
Speaker 1: out of its US operations for more than a quarter
Speaker 1: of a century. Chris Small's, a fired employee who led
Speaker 1: the fledgling union to victory, said it's time for businesses
Speaker 1: to realize the power workers have. When they banned together.
Speaker 1: We we got the jugglin. We went for the jugglin,
Speaker 1: and we went for the top doll because we want
Speaker 1: every other industry have other business to know that dangs
Speaker 1: of teams. My guest is labor law expert Kate Andreas,
Speaker 1: a professor at Columbia Law School. This marks the first
Speaker 1: time a group of US workers have successfully voted a
Speaker 1: former union in Amazon's twenty seven year history, a company
Speaker 1: that seemed to be unbeatable. Would you say it's a
Speaker 1: watershed moment, a significant moment? How would you define it?
Speaker 1: My guest is Kate Andreas, a professor at Columbia Law School. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: this is an extraordinary victory by the workers at the
Speaker 1: Staten Island facility, and I would say it is a
Speaker 1: significant moment and could well represent a turning point for organizing,
Speaker 1: both for workers at Amazon and workers more generally. Although
Speaker 1: it's too early to say it's always an uphill battle
Speaker 1: to establish a union. Over the past few decades, efforts
Speaker 1: to unionize that the most prominent non union companies in
Speaker 1: America have almost always ended in failure. But was this
Speaker 1: even more uphill than usual or was it basically the
Speaker 1: same as trying to start a union elsewhere? Well? I
Speaker 1: think in some ways these workers had even a greater
Speaker 1: challenge than in many other contexts because Amazon had been
Speaker 1: so resolutely anti union and anti worker. Amazon has sent
Speaker 1: millions of dollars on anti union consultants and has consistently
Speaker 1: fought very hard against unionization, and so the workers had
Speaker 1: a significant uphill battle. On the other hand, we're now
Speaker 1: living in a time of a very tight labor market,
Speaker 1: and the workers recognized the power that they had, and
Speaker 1: we saw particularly effective leadership from workers within the facility
Speaker 1: in building this grassroots union. I mean, the law really
Speaker 1: stacked against workers, and it enables employers to campaign fairly
Speaker 1: viciously against union organizing and Amazon did that here. And
Speaker 1: that's why this victory is so stunning and so important.
Speaker 1: The fact that the workers were able to overcome really
Speaker 1: intense anti union campaigning, including firing workers who supported the union,
Speaker 1: many many mandatory meetings at which Amazon offered anti union propaganda,
Speaker 1: and much of that is legal, and to the extent
Speaker 1: Amazon on potentially violating the laws of remedies are very limited.
Speaker 1: So historically it's been very hard for workers to overcome
Speaker 1: the fact of the laws stacked against workers right to organize,
Speaker 1: but here they were able to do so. It's really
Speaker 1: very important the a l You, the Amazon Labor Union
Speaker 1: is an upstart union. It's not aligned with an established
Speaker 1: labor union. Yet it beat one of the world's most
Speaker 1: powerful companies with not that much help from organized labor
Speaker 1: and with limited funds. How did it do that? The
Speaker 1: workers here wanted to change their conditions, and they built
Speaker 1: a very strong organization among themselves. And in some sense
Speaker 1: that's always what makes union succeed. So whether there's a
Speaker 1: well funded national union or whether it's an upstart union,
Speaker 1: what's critical to success as when workers themselves are involved
Speaker 1: in building an organization to change their conditions. So they
Speaker 1: did it here through very effective organizing, through building connections
Speaker 1: across racial and gender and ethnic device, organizing multiple languages,
Speaker 1: and through effective use of social media, but also through
Speaker 1: just talking about the problems that work and committing to
Speaker 1: one another that they wanted to build an organization to
Speaker 1: change them. You know, we hear a lot about the organizer,
Speaker 1: the top organizer. How much of this is due to
Speaker 1: his push and his personality. It's hard for me to say,
Speaker 1: but I would say that union organizing always involved more
Speaker 1: than just one leader. So he was clearly a very
Speaker 1: powerful leader, but there were many other workers who are
Speaker 1: involved as well. I'm just wondering, and I don't know
Speaker 1: if if there's an answer to this, but is it
Speaker 1: better to have an upstart union or to have a
Speaker 1: union with the backing of organized labor. Well, I think
Speaker 1: that whether if there's a national union involved or an
Speaker 1: upstart union with critical is that workers themselves are involved
Speaker 1: in the fight and their solidarity among the workers. And
Speaker 1: we've seen that plenty of times with national unions as well.
Speaker 1: So there are some lots of examples, for examples, the
Speaker 1: Justice for Janitor's campaign or the successful organizing of healthcare
Speaker 1: workers around the country with national unions. The key is
Speaker 1: that workers are involved in building their own organization, and
Speaker 1: there are advantages to being with a larger organization in
Speaker 1: the sense that there's more resources that can be brought
Speaker 1: to bear on contract fights. But this also shows that
Speaker 1: what is critical is that workers themselves are involved in
Speaker 1: building the organization, and sometimes that happens through these more
Speaker 1: grassroots endeavors. I'm just wondering, and I don't know if
Speaker 1: if there's an answer to this, but is it better
Speaker 1: to have an upstart union or to have a union?
Speaker 1: You know? With organized labor? Well, I think that whether
Speaker 1: if there's a national union involved or an upstart union
Speaker 1: with critical is that workers themselves are involved in the
Speaker 1: fight and their solidarity among the workers, and we've seen
Speaker 1: that plenty of times with national unions as well, so
Speaker 1: there's lots of examples. For examples, the Justice for Janitors
Speaker 1: campaign or the successful organizing of healthcare workers around the
Speaker 1: country with national unions. The key is that workers are
Speaker 1: involved in building their own organization, and there are advantages
Speaker 1: to being with a larger organization in the sense that
Speaker 1: there's more resources that can be brought to bear contract fights.
Speaker 1: But this also shows that what is critical is that
Speaker 1: workers themselves are involved in building the organization, and sometimes
Speaker 1: that happens through these more grassroots endeavors. A key part
Speaker 1: of a LU strategy was to request and and all
Speaker 1: or b vote as soon as a competition signatures from
Speaker 1: the bare minimum of the workforce, and you need to win.
Speaker 1: What do you think of that strategy? Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: it's fairly unusual, and the past, unions have typically sought
Speaker 1: to get about sevent of workers signed out before filing
Speaker 1: for an election because historically the effect of an anti
Speaker 1: union campaign by an employer was to erode union support.
Speaker 1: So this suggests that maybe the dynamics are different now
Speaker 1: that there's much more public support for unionization and workers
Speaker 1: also have a sense of their labor market power, and
Speaker 1: so it could well be that it's now possible to
Speaker 1: win union elections even with hostile anti union campaign by
Speaker 1: employers with a lower kind of threshold of support, because
Speaker 1: workers are less likely to become scare given their increased
Speaker 1: labor market power and all the growing recognition that workers
Speaker 1: can win unions and can make changes at work. You
Speaker 1: refer to this federal chair your own power recently called
Speaker 1: the labor market tight to an unhealthy level. Does that
Speaker 1: give fresh power to a new push for unions? It
Speaker 1: does because workers have an understanding that that they can't
Speaker 1: just be easily replaced, and that they have more bargaining
Speaker 1: power to demand better conditions and higher wages, safe for
Speaker 1: working conditions, and more dignity at work when it's harder
Speaker 1: to find workers. So would you say this will galvanize
Speaker 1: labor activists and workers beyond Amazon to unionize. I think
Speaker 1: it is likely to have that effect, particularly when combined
Speaker 1: with the recent victories of workers at Starbucks, as well
Speaker 1: as the increased union activity amongst journalists, among teachers, among
Speaker 1: all sorts of different workers. But it's a little too
Speaker 1: early to say whether this will really mark a turning
Speaker 1: point for labor in the United States, And tell us
Speaker 1: what's been happening with labor in the United States, Let's
Speaker 1: say the past decade, because there have been a lot
Speaker 1: of Supreme Court cases that have cut down the power
Speaker 1: of labor unions. Just give us a general kind of overview. Yeah, so,
Speaker 1: unions once represented about a third of the labor market,
Speaker 1: and during that period there was a great deal more
Speaker 1: equality in the United States. Unions were effective at raising
Speaker 1: wages for workers um and also for giving workers more
Speaker 1: of a voice in the political system. But since early
Speaker 1: since the nineteen seventies, unions have declined, and there have
Speaker 1: been a series of hostile anti worker decisions by the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, particularly in recent years, making it harder for
Speaker 1: workers to organize unions and making it easier for employers
Speaker 1: to weakend unions. And the results of the the kline
Speaker 1: of unions has been in part growing inequality be and
Speaker 1: a decrease of political power for working people generally. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about what happens next at this Amazon in Staten Island.
Speaker 1: Because there are a long way away from a contract.
Speaker 1: The company has until April eighth to dispute the results,
Speaker 1: and in an emailed statement, Amazon signaled a long legal
Speaker 1: battle could lie ahead. It said it was evaluating our options,
Speaker 1: including objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence by
Speaker 1: the n l RB. So what do you read into
Speaker 1: that and what can Amazon do at this point? I mean,
Speaker 1: that's suggests that Amazon intend to continue to fight the
Speaker 1: organizing effort and not to comply with its duty under
Speaker 1: the law to bargaining good faith. It is obligated under
Speaker 1: the law to sit down and bargain with these workers
Speaker 1: and to do so in good faith. But that suggested
Speaker 1: me that they will file multiple legal challenges and attempt
Speaker 1: to delay and postpone their obligation to bargain. The notion
Speaker 1: that the NLRV was inappropriately interfering in the election by
Speaker 1: enforcing the law and filing a suit against what the
Speaker 1: n llr B believes to be an illegal firing is
Speaker 1: really a novel and questionable argument, and I don't expect
Speaker 1: that Amazon will prevail if it decides to bring that
Speaker 1: argument forward, but it could very well use those legal
Speaker 1: challenges to delay, and in that case, workers will need
Speaker 1: to continue to organize and to put community pressure and
Speaker 1: public pressure on Amazon to urge it to comply with
Speaker 1: the law and sit down and bargain and good faith.
Speaker 1: Is there a time limit for you know, the workers
Speaker 1: organizing efforts. So the law obligates Amazon to sit down
Speaker 1: and bargain and to do so in a timely manner. However,
Speaker 1: it is not at all uncommon for employers to refuse
Speaker 1: to do so while they litigate a case, and so
Speaker 1: it could be quite a lengthy process during which Amazon
Speaker 1: refuses to bargain while it pursues legal challenges. But the
Speaker 1: union does lose its status during that period is it
Speaker 1: more than a year usually in negotiations with employer. So
Speaker 1: typically once they're going to established union, employers and unions
Speaker 1: sit down and negotiate regularly, as we've seen with the
Speaker 1: baseball players, and we've seen with GM, and we see
Speaker 1: with Forward and it's it's actually quite can often be
Speaker 1: mutually beneficial. But frequently with first contracts, and particularly with
Speaker 1: a company like Amazon that has so staked its efforts
Speaker 1: on preventing unionization, in those contacts of the first contract,
Speaker 1: we often do see very lengthy delays. And although again
Speaker 1: the law obligates Amazon to bargain and to bargaining good faith,
Speaker 1: it doesn't obligate them to agree to a particular contract.
Speaker 1: And it doesn't give the board, the National Labor Relations Board,
Speaker 1: the right to come in and impose a contract. Instead,
Speaker 1: it just obligates bargaining, and so in order to force
Speaker 1: that bargaining to occur, if Amazon continues to be intransigent,
Speaker 1: the workers will really need to use their collective power protests,
Speaker 1: potentially a strike, and bringing to bear public pressure on
Speaker 1: the company to urge it to comply with the law
Speaker 1: and do the right thing and negotiate a fair contract.
Speaker 1: Would you say a contract is certainty? Certainty very hard
Speaker 1: to predict. I think it will depend on whether the
Speaker 1: workers are able to continue to maintain their collective organization.
Speaker 1: And also the more they're able to win elections at
Speaker 1: other warehouses, the more power they will have in bringing
Speaker 1: Amazon to the bargaining table. And there are additional elections scheduled.
Speaker 1: Do you think our country will ever go back to
Speaker 1: the time when unions were such a dominant force again,
Speaker 1: I think it's really hard to predict. But I do
Speaker 1: think that workers in the United States want a better life.
Speaker 1: Um they want more dignity on the job, more rights
Speaker 1: on the jobs. They want to be paid enough to
Speaker 1: have a decent life for themselves and their children. So
Speaker 1: I think there's widespread interest in having organization among workers,
Speaker 1: that workers have of us on the job. Whether or
Speaker 1: not they'll be able to achieve it, I think it
Speaker 1: is still an open question. The Supreme Court is it
Speaker 1: twice in two opinions of the Supreme Court has cut
Speaker 1: back on union rights in recent years. I would say
Speaker 1: there are three important opinions in recent years that have
Speaker 1: cut back on workers collective action rights. One was the
Speaker 1: Janice case where the Supreme Court said that all public
Speaker 1: sector workers have to be right to work, meaning that
Speaker 1: workers who are covered by a union contract can't be
Speaker 1: required to pay fees, even sees that UM cover just
Speaker 1: the cost of the contracts and the cost of the
Speaker 1: representation that they received. So basically, the Supreme Court transformed
Speaker 1: all public sector workers unions into open shop unions, which
Speaker 1: creates a free rider problem because it means that workers
Speaker 1: can receive the benefits of the union contract but without
Speaker 1: paying for the cost. And the Supreme Court did that
Speaker 1: by employing a very novel and aggressive theory of the
Speaker 1: First Amendment UM. A second important case with the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court held that employers can force workers to waive their
Speaker 1: right to proceed through class actions or collective legal actions
Speaker 1: and instead to arbitrate their claims individually. So that was
Speaker 1: basically saying that the n l r A, which protects
Speaker 1: workers right to engage in collective action, that that right
Speaker 1: can be waged through mandatory arbitration agreements. So that's related
Speaker 1: to unionization, but it's really more about collective organizing rights.
Speaker 1: And then just this past term, the Supreme Court said
Speaker 1: that the state of California could not require employers to
Speaker 1: give access to farm workers organizers to farms in order
Speaker 1: to talk to workers um without compensating employers. That that's
Speaker 1: basically requiring access and are enable workers to organize the
Speaker 1: union violated employer's property right. So what's Congress doing? So
Speaker 1: there's a bill in Congress called the Proact that would
Speaker 1: reform labor law and make it significant easier for workers
Speaker 1: to organize unions and critically for them to win first contracts.
Speaker 1: It has passed the House, it has not yet passed
Speaker 1: the Senate, but it would significantly alter the landscape so
Speaker 1: that many more workers could successfully organize unions when they
Speaker 1: want to do so. Thanks Kate. That's Professor Kate Andreas
Speaker 1: of Columbia Law School and that's it for this edition
Speaker 1: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www
Speaker 1: dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law. I'm June
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg