Speaker 1: Well, joining me now is one of the most I
Speaker 1: think interesting people in American politics today. It's the head
Speaker 1: of the Teamsters Union and Sean O'Brien. Before we get
Speaker 1: started with sort of your life in the literally in
Speaker 1: the center lane of American politics these days, the Teamsters
Speaker 1: in general have a reputation, you know, my lifetime, of
Speaker 1: being the less partisan of the major unions that you know,
Speaker 1: while you know, when I was growing up, most of
Speaker 1: the labor movement was Democratic. But if there was a
Speaker 1: labor union that would be open to supporting Republicans, it
Speaker 1: was the Teamsters. Walk me through that. What is that relationship?
Speaker 1: Why is that What would you say explains that history?
Speaker 2: Well, I think what explains the histories. We are one
Speaker 2: of the lodgest We always have been one of the largest,
Speaker 2: I believe, most influential unions in the country. You know,
Speaker 2: we've been around since nineteen oh three. But we're very diverse.
Speaker 2: We're a very diverse union. We always have been and
Speaker 2: I think we always will be. And you know there's
Speaker 2: no secret that you know, we have endorsed Republican candidates prior,
Speaker 2: but historically we've always went with Democrats, and I think
Speaker 2: you know that I'm a lifelong Democrat, so I was
Speaker 2: brought up in a Democratic state, so you know, you
Speaker 2: always pulled that party line. But you know the history,
Speaker 2: if you look back in history, it wasn't always that
Speaker 2: way with the teams As union, you know, I think
Speaker 2: the philosophy has always been, let's try and work with
Speaker 2: the people that are going to work on behalf of
Speaker 2: the best interests of our members. And that's why we're
Speaker 2: a little bit different than most because we're a lot,
Speaker 2: we're transparent, we're inclusive, and we want to support people
Speaker 2: that are going to support our issues regardless of what
Speaker 2: their political affiliation has. And that's always been the case
Speaker 2: pretty much.
Speaker 1: Uh. The if I were to paint a picture of
Speaker 1: the average Teamsters member of a Teamsters union, it's a
Speaker 1: it's a truck driver. But that is I think being
Speaker 1: very myopic. Tell me, you're actually a very diverse set
Speaker 1: of workers, uh that are that are members of the
Speaker 1: Teamsters Union. Walk my listeners through that.
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 2: The easiest way to describe it, because it is a
Speaker 2: very complicated, uh description if you try to you know,
Speaker 2: sector bisector, so building trades or a company or electrician. Uh,
Speaker 2: you're a plumber, right. Everybody knows that's what you are.
Speaker 2: The teamster is the best way to say it, and
Speaker 2: I say it all the time. We represent everybody from
Speaker 2: airline pilots to zoom keepers and everybody in between.
Speaker 1: I remember, like you guys have been helping to organize
Speaker 1: Amazon worker we have.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we we've uh, we've actually taken that fight on.
Speaker 2: We joined forces with Amazon Labor Union, which success organized
Speaker 2: in New York. And you know, there's no secret that
Speaker 2: we have a longstanding relationship bargaining relationship with UPS, which
Speaker 2: is one of the was the largest UH package delivery companies,
Speaker 2: and so it was a natural fit for us to
Speaker 2: uh joined forces and women organizing uh the direct employees
Speaker 2: and also organizing the third party leasing arrangement, which is
Speaker 2: a scam and a shell game, which we all know about.
Speaker 2: So that's been our biggest focus. Amazon not just to
Speaker 2: the teams is Union, not just to you know, germane
Speaker 2: to us. But they're probably going to be the biggest
Speaker 2: threat to organize labor UH because they have their fingers
Speaker 2: in so many different industries and so many different uh
Speaker 2: you know, technologies that could affect us.
Speaker 1: So you know, let's talk about automated robotic. Look, Amazon
Speaker 1: is going hard at replacing the human being. They want
Speaker 1: to replace the human being as fast as possible. Amazon's
Speaker 1: not alone, They're just the largest entity with the resources
Speaker 1: to do it. You're try to protect human labor.
Speaker 2: Well, we have to protect human labor, because you know,
Speaker 2: without human labor, where are these folks gonna go. And
Speaker 2: that didn't get the opportunity to go to college, that
Speaker 2: didn't get the opportunity that that some people got, and look,
Speaker 2: you know, AI is probably the biggest threat to the
Speaker 2: human population. And I think, you know, and I've been
Speaker 2: focused on this meeting with people that I normally wouldn't
Speaker 2: even talk to because my concern is, like, what is
Speaker 2: what effect is AI? Because it's so it's so complicated.
Speaker 2: But I think what we're going to see with AI
Speaker 2: and this automation and all these corporations that are falling
Speaker 2: in love with it, you're going to see the the
Speaker 2: upper management of a lot of these corporations be affected
Speaker 2: by AI because they're not gonna need all these analysts,
Speaker 2: they're not gonna need all these white collar jobs. So
Speaker 2: you're going to see a further disparity once that middle
Speaker 2: layer management is you know, basically affected and they lose
Speaker 2: their jobs, You're going to see CEOs pay continue to
Speaker 2: grow because all the savings. My mission is to make
Speaker 2: sure that we capture capture that money for the folks
Speaker 2: that are still working these blue collar jobs and create
Speaker 2: hopefully opportunity for retraining in new jobs as a result
Speaker 2: of the implementation of technology. And Amazon, to your point,
Speaker 2: doesn't care about the humans. They care about they care
Speaker 2: about their brand, and they care about their profits, and
Speaker 2: that's it.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm pretty convinced that the issue of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight is going to be like, if you're a
Speaker 1: presidential candidate and you don't have a policy on AI
Speaker 1: job displacement, you shouldn't be running for president. No, it's
Speaker 1: probably going to be the table stakes, right, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, twenty twenty eight is going to be like, so,
Speaker 2: I just did some little bit of research on you
Speaker 2: because I'm a huge fan, but I'm a little bit
Speaker 2: more mature because I'm six days older than you. I
Speaker 2: was born Actril second, nineteen seventy two.
Speaker 1: No, kiddy, look at that, all right.
Speaker 2: But it's gonna be like twenty twenty eight has the
Speaker 2: potential to be like, do you remember WWF what was
Speaker 2: that big event they used to have every a summer.
Speaker 1: Slam, Summer Wrestlemanians, WrestleMania.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like WrestleMania, but ye you.
Speaker 1: Put the rumble at the end where there's a million
Speaker 1: people in the ring.
Speaker 2: But now, yeah, it's happening right now across the street
Speaker 2: from where I'm at. But no, I mean, look, this
Speaker 2: is a huge threat to the American workforce, and whether
Speaker 2: you're a Republican or Democrat, you have to have a
Speaker 2: solution in support network to support workers whose jobs are
Speaker 2: going to be at risk. Maybe even you know extinct
Speaker 2: and you're spawn on. I mean, everybody falls in love
Speaker 2: with convenience and technology. We're all guilty of it. You know,
Speaker 2: we own something online, we hit that button, we want
Speaker 2: it yesterday. But what cost does that come at? Right?
Speaker 2: Does it comes at a cost of someone's job?
Speaker 1: What is your leverage? So let's take UPS UPS a
Speaker 1: big you know the UPS drivers, and UPS says hey man,
Speaker 1: we love these robot trucks and we're going to have
Speaker 1: these robot drivers. What's your leverage to protect your human.
Speaker 2: My leverage is the collective Bogging agreement we negotiated where
Speaker 2: we negotiated language that any technological change needs to be
Speaker 2: agreed upon. If there's a disagreement, it's subject to arbitration.
Speaker 2: But we also know we also negotiate provisions that UPS
Speaker 2: has to maintain a certain level of full time jobs
Speaker 2: and create full time jobs as a result of it.
Speaker 2: So you know, we're already in stages and it's been
Speaker 2: going off a ten of twelve years where UPS in
Speaker 2: the warehouses, where we have fifty four percent of our
Speaker 2: membership out of three hundred and forty thousand apart time
Speaker 2: is to get full time benefits, health and welfare, pension.
Speaker 2: So we're very, very sensitive to any type of job elimination.
Speaker 2: But we we're convinced and we have committees where because
Speaker 2: of our collective bogging agreement, we can identify opportunities to
Speaker 2: create new jobs as a result of technology being implemented.
Speaker 2: So that's the difference right now between an unionized company
Speaker 2: like UPS versus non union FedEx and or Amazon. We
Speaker 2: have the ability because we negotiated those terms and conditions.
Speaker 2: But you know, if you're a non union Amazon employee
Speaker 2: inside the warehouse, you know chances are at some point
Speaker 2: in time, if Amazon has the opportunity to replace you
Speaker 2: with a robot. They are going to do their best
Speaker 2: to do that. And I got to tell you, I
Speaker 2: think we all know technology it's not full growth and
Speaker 2: the best I always tell people, like when we're fighting
Speaker 2: about these autonomous vehicles, which is disturbing to me, you know,
Speaker 2: and I'm a Democrat. It's disturbing to me when you
Speaker 2: have governors in California, in Illinois and Colorado who say, hey,
Speaker 2: I want to support working people. I want to support
Speaker 2: you know, the creation of jobs. And when you work
Speaker 2: bipartisan on a state level and you have agreed to
Speaker 2: legislation that's going to mandate human operators and commercial vehicles
Speaker 2: and it gets to the governor's desk and they veto it,
Speaker 2: what does that signal this just happened.
Speaker 1: So you brought this up? You look you it's like
Speaker 1: you read my research on you, and but I was
Speaker 1: about this was very recent legislation. And these are three
Speaker 1: Democratic governors who all are all want labor support. I
Speaker 1: probably all believe, you know, would say they're very supportive
Speaker 1: of collective party. But Jared Poulos, Dab Pritzker, Gavin Newsom,
Speaker 1: what's their explanation for why they vetoed these bills.
Speaker 2: That is a great question. So what do they tell
Speaker 2: you? You're probably going to find this how to believe Newsom
Speaker 2: is not a big fan of Sean O'Brien. Have been
Speaker 2: critical of him because he's in love with big tech.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the bottom line, right.
Speaker 1: You see tech as adversarial.
Speaker 2: I see tech as adversarial because the script has been
Speaker 2: flipped right from where the report publicans were fifteen years ago.
Speaker 2: Now the Democrats seem to be holding their seats and
Speaker 2: falling in love. I call it like Stockholm syndrome. You know,
Speaker 2: some of these governors have fallen in love or some
Speaker 2: of the Democrats have fallen in love with their captor, right,
Speaker 2: and they don't know the result, the catastrophic result. I
Speaker 2: talked to the governor from Colorado, right, called him up
Speaker 2: before because we were getting word that. You know, he
Speaker 2: was on the fence whether he was going to veto
Speaker 2: it or sign it into legislation. No, I forget. I
Speaker 2: was in Times Square, I was at another event, and
Speaker 2: I called him. I said, look, this is going to
Speaker 2: be detrimental to working people. It's going to be detrimental
Speaker 2: to CBL license holders. It's not just a union issue.
Speaker 2: I go, there could be like two hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: thousand people affected by this. He's like, I love the team,
Speaker 2: says I go, okay, this is where I've always supported
Speaker 2: you and everything you've done. I don't know whether that's
Speaker 2: true or not. I'm saying to myself, he says, but
Speaker 2: I just can't be with you on this one. I said, really,
Speaker 2: this is the one that really matters. This is the
Speaker 2: only one that matter is. I said, where are you
Speaker 2: going to put those two hundred and fifty thousand well
Speaker 2: to why I'm going to set two hundred thousand, two
Speaker 2: unre fifty thousand people that lose their job? Where are
Speaker 2: they gonna go? I said? And furthermore, I drove a
Speaker 2: truck my whole life. I said, you know, the best
Speaker 2: technology and the best information is a human hot instinct
Speaker 2: in their brain. They can react quicker than any computer.
Speaker 2: What are you going to do when you're platooning a
Speaker 2: vehicle wearing two hundred forty thousand pounds and a malfunction
Speaker 2: kills a family of four? Are you gonna be okay
Speaker 2: with that? Because I certainly am not going to be
Speaker 2: okay with it? And he says, oh, you know what,
Speaker 2: don't worry about that stuff. It's ten to fifteen years
Speaker 2: down the road. I said, no, it's ten to fifteen
Speaker 2: minutes down the road. But that's the perplexing stuff for us.
Speaker 2: And that's where you know, I get criticized sometimes because
Speaker 2: they'll say, well, you're a labor leader and you're criticizing
Speaker 2: the Democrats. Well, I'm a label leader that criticizes the Republicans.
Speaker 2: I'm a labor leader criticizes the independence as well when
Speaker 2: you're not making reasonable decisions on how it's going to
Speaker 2: affect working people. More so, your constituents who if they
Speaker 2: don't have a job, where do they go? They want,
Speaker 2: they go, They go on the they go on the
Speaker 2: they go on the done.
Speaker 1: Look, I look at your job is to you have
Speaker 1: one job, right, You're there to protect your workers. You're
Speaker 1: there to do that. I get that. What is you
Speaker 1: also have to be responsive to technological change? What's your recipe?
Speaker 1: If you could go back to Polus, you could go
Speaker 1: back to pritzkerg and say, look, I get that. You
Speaker 1: want to you want to be able to innovate. You
Speaker 1: want to be able to to to allow automation to
Speaker 1: have a chance in some areas, where maybe automation will
Speaker 1: be better in certain in certain things. You know, you
Speaker 1: see things with microsurgeries, right that maybe having a robot
Speaker 1: do it is better than the human hand. I think
Speaker 1: we all accept that. Where's your line on this and
Speaker 1: where do you feel where do you feel like you
Speaker 1: have to show some flexibility?
Speaker 2: That's a great question. I don't think. I think people
Speaker 2: there's a perception out there when you speak against anything
Speaker 2: that has an effect on jobs, you have viewed as
Speaker 2: an impediment, right, and that impediment is what That impediment
Speaker 2: is the bottom line of a balance sheet and the
Speaker 2: profits of that company, int or technology. We do not
Speaker 2: want to be an impediment that is going to potentially
Speaker 2: maybe improve our members' jobs, improve productivity, improve work as safety.
Speaker 2: We are going to embrace technology because we have for
Speaker 2: since nineteen oh three. I mean, think about think about
Speaker 2: what's behind me two horse heads and carriages. Right. What
Speaker 2: technology that we had to deal with was a combustible
Speaker 2: engine that came and created vehicles that we got off
Speaker 2: of horses and got behind staring wilds and trucks. Right,
Speaker 2: So we're not trying to be an impediment. We know
Speaker 2: what's coming the problem is it's a difference between implementation
Speaker 2: versus conversation and input. So, in other words, there seems
Speaker 2: to be a disconnect where hey, we're just going to
Speaker 2: implement this technology without any consideration of having a conversation
Speaker 2: to say, hey, look this is what we're thinking of doing.
Speaker 2: This potential could be the effect. What do you think
Speaker 2: about this technology? It would say, great, However, where can
Speaker 2: we create jobs? How is this going to affect workers?
Speaker 2: Those conversations aren't happening. It's you know, we don't want
Speaker 2: to be an impediment, but we want to be part
Speaker 2: of the solution to a potential problem. As a result
Speaker 2: of it, we know it's coming. Just give us a
Speaker 2: seat at the table and hair our point of view.
Speaker 2: And like we're seeing the grocery warehouse industry, you know,
Speaker 2: there was a big push and there is a big
Speaker 2: push in these big grocery warehouses where we represent you know,
Speaker 2: thousands upon thousands of workers nationwide, the big grocery chains
Speaker 2: where they did implement robots to select orders that did jobs. However,
Speaker 2: we created jobs as a result of it. Who's going
Speaker 2: to program these robots, who's going to maintain these robots,
Speaker 2: who's going to do quality control. So we were able
Speaker 2: to create jobs because we had those conversations, and we
Speaker 2: maintain the workforce. We do not want to be impediment
Speaker 2: to anything that's going to potentially make life easier. But
Speaker 2: we can't embrace something where we don't have the knowledge
Speaker 2: and or a solution to the bigger problem, which where
Speaker 2: do you put these people to work.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to the nineties and NAFTA and what
Speaker 1: was in anticipation of what was going to be huge displacement,
Speaker 1: massive job shifting, outsourcing overseas. Some of it was just
Speaker 1: outsourcing from the north to the south, right to work
Speaker 1: states versus so called white to work states, et cetera.
Speaker 1: What were the mistakes that your predecessors in the labor
Speaker 1: leadership world made then that you don't want to repeat, Well,
Speaker 1: as we bring AI on board here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so again we took people for their word. I
Speaker 2: think back then, you know, think about it when when
Speaker 2: NAFTA came into effect, you know, Clinton introduced that. We
Speaker 2: were very supportive of Clinton in the ninety two election.
Speaker 2: All this isn't going to hurt, it's going to help.
Speaker 2: You know, There'll be a residual value as a result.
Speaker 2: Of these trade agreements, I think we trust Agay, you
Speaker 2: guys were the least.
Speaker 1: If I remember, the Teamsters were the most supportive of
Speaker 1: NAFTA compared to the other unions, right.
Speaker 2: Because it was well initially, yeah, initially we were very
Speaker 2: very well. After that, we were anything that was introduced.
Speaker 2: I think it was p and tr after that, Yeah,
Speaker 2: trying to trade Dale and I think KAFTA was after that.
Speaker 2: After getting burnt on NAFTA, you know, the skepticism was
Speaker 2: at an all time high. So I think to your question,
Speaker 2: what mistakes were made that I don't want to make
Speaker 2: that my predecess made. They trusted the people that we
Speaker 2: supported at that point in time, where I'm not suggest
Speaker 2: you shouldn't trust people. But just because someone has a
Speaker 2: d the name doesn't mean that making good policy behalf
Speaker 2: of American workers. And I don't think it was well
Speaker 2: thought out, uh and or explained. Well, maybe it wasn't
Speaker 2: explained to to with all the facts associated with it.
Speaker 2: So that's why we're being different. We're different nowadays under
Speaker 2: our leadership because I'm having those conversations with both sides.
Speaker 2: If the Republicans introduce something that it's good for us
Speaker 2: I'm gonna go to the Democrats and say, all right,
Speaker 2: the Republicans are telling us that this this is good
Speaker 2: for our members. Is it good in your opinion?
Speaker 3: Is it good?
Speaker 2: And if it is, why is it? If it's not,
Speaker 2: why is it not? So I don't think any of
Speaker 2: those discussions happened, and I think people just back then, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, took people for their word. I mean, I
Speaker 2: just I'm not gonna do that, you know. I want
Speaker 2: to know exactly what the effects are going to be.
Speaker 2: And look, hopefully they're going to be honest and open
Speaker 2: with us. If look, if I'm gonna if I'm gonna
Speaker 2: take a hit, tell me I'm gonna take a hit.
Speaker 2: That way, I can be prepared to defend it, you know.
Speaker 2: But if you're going to be, you know, less than
Speaker 2: honorable in telling us the effects and or your intentions,
Speaker 2: then that's a problem for the people that tell us.
Speaker 1: That there's a reason results matter more than promises, just
Speaker 1: like there's a reason. Morgan and Morgan is America's largest
Speaker 1: injury law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've
Speaker 1: recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half a
Speaker 1: million clients. It includes cases where insurance companies offered next
Speaker 1: to nothing, just hoping to get away with paying as
Speaker 1: little as possible. Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up
Speaker 1: winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded
Speaker 1: twenty six million dollars, which was a staggering forty times
Speaker 1: the amount that the insurance company originally offered. That original
Speaker 1: offer six hundred and fifty thousand dollars twenty six million,
Speaker 1: six hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So with more than
Speaker 1: one thousand lawyers across the country, they know how to
Speaker 1: deliver for everyday people. If you're injured, you need a lawyer.
Speaker 1: You need somebody to get your back. Check out for
Speaker 1: the People dot com, Slash podcast, Ordal Pound Law, Pound
Speaker 1: five two nine law on your cell phone. And remember
Speaker 1: all law firms are not the same. So check out
Speaker 1: Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free unless they win.
Speaker 1: When we look at you, know you've pointed out how
Speaker 1: close an age we are. And in some ways, when
Speaker 1: you and I were growing up, Democrats were the party
Speaker 1: of labor. Republicans were to party of business. As you
Speaker 1: and I became adults, the Democrats started to become basically
Speaker 1: the Clinton wing of the party became the party of
Speaker 1: business also, So then all of a sudden and there
Speaker 1: was this moment where it looked like labor was shrinking
Speaker 1: and shrinking and shrinking. Then then I think that the
Speaker 1: Great Recession sort of awoken to people, right, and suddenly
Speaker 1: there was people realized, oh, job protections, Maybe I can't
Speaker 1: trust these entities. Where would you see? Was was the
Speaker 1: setup a mistake back when we were kids that labor
Speaker 1: shouldn't have been tied to one party and frankly business
Speaker 1: shouldn't have been tied to one party.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think if we all had a
Speaker 2: duel of us, so to speak, no, we know now,
Speaker 2: I think most of us would adopt the philosophy that
Speaker 2: we're trying to adopt now. From my union, I can
Speaker 2: only speak for my union.
Speaker 1: Being Teamster's transactional rather than D and R.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, right, It's just what's who is going to bet?
Speaker 2: Who is going to you know, make decisions that are
Speaker 2: going to support working people. I mean, that's it's It's
Speaker 2: not hard, it's pretty simple, and I think oftentimes we
Speaker 2: complicate too many things. But I think if we had
Speaker 2: a do over, it wouldn't be just you know, embracing
Speaker 2: one party versus the other. And conversely, you know, one
Speaker 2: party shouldn't embrace big business versus working people either. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think both sides are guilty of that, right and
Speaker 2: who's paying the consequence as far right now, I mean,
Speaker 2: you think about these trade deals, these trade deals right now,
Speaker 2: if you go back and you look at footage of
Speaker 2: you know, and again I don't want to seem like
Speaker 2: I'm picking on the guy Chuck Schumer. In nineteen ninety six,
Speaker 2: he's given a speech on the Senate floor, I believe,
Speaker 2: or maybe the House floor saying how bad the Chinadale
Speaker 2: is and how we need to these tariffs and all
Speaker 2: this other stuff. And then two thousand and seven, two
Speaker 2: thousand and eight, Hillary Clinton's you know, explaining to her
Speaker 2: policy and immigration. Now fast forward, you know, the same
Speaker 2: positions that these folks were taking, you know, fifteen twenty
Speaker 2: years ago, is the same policy is basically implemented under
Speaker 2: this administration, although the immigration policy has been a little
Speaker 2: bit more aggressive than probably people thought, which you know,
Speaker 2: again that's another debate for another conversation, but it's like
Speaker 2: contradicting it best. So for me and you, we've been
Speaker 2: fortunate enough to look at what the the argument was
Speaker 2: from the Dems then to what it is now, what
Speaker 2: the arguments from the Republicans were then, and where we
Speaker 2: are now. It's like it's so contradicting, Like who do
Speaker 2: you believe?
Speaker 1: Well, that's quite curious, you know, I've watched Marco Rubio
Speaker 1: as a senator started to do this transition, right, the
Speaker 1: guy who ran in twenty ten, in twenty sixteen versus
Speaker 1: the guy you saw run for reelection in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: Do you believe him?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 2: I don't know him that well, okay, but if you.
Speaker 1: Don't want to pay I'm not picking on him. He's
Speaker 1: an example of somebody that has shifted to being a
Speaker 1: bit more friendly to your positions. But the question is
Speaker 1: whether how do you get trusted? Is it just rhetorical?
Speaker 1: Is he only there for the voters? You know?
Speaker 2: No, So I agree with you he has he has
Speaker 2: gotten a lot more sympathetic to our issues. I had
Speaker 2: a conversation with him, and again I met a lot
Speaker 2: of these folks at the r n c H when
Speaker 2: I went there, But I had a conversation about a
Speaker 2: month ago at the White House, and he probably didn't
Speaker 2: know me from a hole in the wall prior to
Speaker 2: the r n C. But he came right up to
Speaker 2: me and he gave me his whole history of his
Speaker 2: dad being a hotel worker, losing his job, they went
Speaker 2: on strike, and he said all the right things, and
Speaker 2: he's like, look, I like I embraced unions. It helped
Speaker 2: me through my whole you know, childhood. We led a
Speaker 2: good middle class life. So he's saying all the right things,
Speaker 2: and the dealings that we've had to deal with them
Speaker 2: on he's been fair, you know. Now, whether that's you know,
Speaker 2: sincerity or politically motivated, the truth always comes out. I mean,
Speaker 2: so if you had to ask me out, how's Macromobile?
Speaker 2: Nice guy, great conversations with him, says all the right things.
Speaker 1: When you what do you make of of of this
Speaker 1: shift in the Republican Party over the last ten years?
Speaker 1: Is it how much of it's been just rhetorical and
Speaker 1: how much of it have you actually seen in policy?
Speaker 2: So I'll tell you I can probably go a little
Speaker 2: bit more. I can probably give a better better description
Speaker 2: over the last three and a half years and ten
Speaker 2: years because I come from Massachusetts, right and in Massachusetts,
Speaker 2: as you know, especially Boston, That's where I'm from.
Speaker 1: You know, I never would I never would have guessed yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: this southern accent.
Speaker 2: And cowboy boots on two. But uh, you know, we
Speaker 2: never looked at it as Dems are Republicans because how
Speaker 2: I looked at it, and this philosophy is unqualified opinion.
Speaker 2: I always looked at people are only a certain party
Speaker 2: affiliation because of the zip code where they lived. Right,
Speaker 2: nine out of ten times. There was bipartisanship on many
Speaker 2: and most issues. So when I came to the SEE
Speaker 2: three and a half years ago, and we had a
Speaker 2: lot of success working with the legislation. I did twenty
Speaker 2: years as a head of a local twenty five in Boston,
Speaker 2: the one of the biggest locals, and I had a
Speaker 2: great relationships with both Democrats and Republicans. We got a
Speaker 2: lot of good work down.
Speaker 4: We've got autism autism legislation past mandating private insurance companies
Speaker 4: to provide services for families with autism.
Speaker 2: We passed movie tax and centers into perpetuity. That's going
Speaker 2: to support an industry, and that was all bipartisan did
Speaker 2: a lot of great work, brought casinos to Boston. So
Speaker 2: when I came here. I'm like, you know, I'll take
Speaker 2: the JV and I don't mean that disrespectful, the junior
Speaker 2: varsity template, and we're going to bring into the varsity game.
Speaker 2: And we started reaching out across the aisle, talking new
Speaker 2: people like our age demographic, jade, like Josh Hawley, jd Vance,
Speaker 2: Roger Marshall, a lot of folks that we had a
Speaker 2: lot in common with, may not agreed on everything. And
Speaker 2: that's how last three and a half years, I think
Speaker 2: the one thing that we've we've done well, which is
Speaker 2: always room for employment, is reached across the island. Had conversations. So,
Speaker 2: for instance, Josh Howley, when I first met with him,
Speaker 2: we talked about a lot of issues, told him how
Speaker 2: many members we had in the state, and we said,
Speaker 2: you know, we don't support national right to work. We
Speaker 2: don't support right to work, and he said why I
Speaker 2: support right to work. I'm like, well, tell me why.
Speaker 2: And we had this conversation. I told him why we didn't,
Speaker 2: and we put out some you know, facts and figures.
Speaker 2: Do you know he flipped his narrative right away and said,
Speaker 2: you know, I no longer support right to work. This
Speaker 2: is not getting my constituents. So think about if we
Speaker 2: didn't have those conversations, and look, not all of them
Speaker 2: in the success story that you know, look.
Speaker 1: I look holly to me, you know, I look I
Speaker 1: am not. I am more and more convinced that it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter who you elected, It matters what your incentives are.
Speaker 2: Right, right.
Speaker 1: He lives in a state. You just it's a union state.
Speaker 1: It's a conservative state culturally, right, but it's a union state,
Speaker 1: always has been, and which is why I think that
Speaker 1: whole you know, Missouri, the Democrats hung on longer there
Speaker 1: than because of the fight over right to work.
Speaker 2: Now you look at you look at do you look
Speaker 2: at Ohio for instance?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: That used to be completely blue, right right? Pretty much
Speaker 2: a lot of industry Ohio was crushed with these bad
Speaker 2: trade deals. I mean when you really think about it.
Speaker 2: So what we've focused on is and then this is
Speaker 2: the example of you know, my unqualified opinion in the
Speaker 2: last three and a half years is you get Senator
Speaker 2: Bernie Marino, Republican. I mean, he's embracing, he's embracing, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, a lot of policies, pushing forward a lot
Speaker 2: of our agenda because he represents those people that were
Speaker 2: affected in Ohio and as a result, I mean he
Speaker 2: first hand witnessed, you know, the demonization of industry in
Speaker 2: Ohio as a result of these bad trade deals. He's
Speaker 2: been another breath of fresh air. There were working with
Speaker 2: Senator Eustead as well, who came in, you know, filling
Speaker 2: Vice President Vance's seat, has also started to come to
Speaker 2: that philosophy. Plus it's an election, yeah.
Speaker 1: Right, any space and a guy like Shared Brown, who
Speaker 1: I'm sure you do have a relationship with.
Speaker 2: We do. And Sharon Brown wasn't happy that I went
Speaker 2: and spoke at the r n c R and I said, look,
Speaker 2: I would have gave that same speech had I been
Speaker 2: invited to the DNC. And you know, it's funny in politics.
Speaker 2: And you know, still.
Speaker 1: Trying to understand why you weren't invited to the dancing.
Speaker 1: I don't know you have a good explanation.
Speaker 2: I no, I wish I did. I wish I did.
Speaker 2: But you know, I listen, I tell people all the
Speaker 2: time when I at my age, when I don't get
Speaker 2: invited to weddings, I'm okay because I'll just send a check.
Speaker 2: I don't need to go.
Speaker 1: But it's so funny, you say that right. You know,
Speaker 1: my wife and I joke about this all the time.
Speaker 1: You hit a certain age. First, you're younger, you're like,
Speaker 1: how come I didn't get invited to this? You're older,
Speaker 1: You're like, God, why did I get invited to this?
Speaker 2: So I tell people all the time, Look, don't invite me.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna send a check anyways, it's a fundraiser. Just
Speaker 2: don't invite me. Know that I'm thinking of you. I'll
Speaker 2: send the donation, right, But no, I mean it's our
Speaker 2: I mean, it's it's there. There's some good Republicans coming
Speaker 2: along that way having dialogue with now there's something that
Speaker 2: no matter what dialogue we have and or case we make,
Speaker 2: they're just rigid. They're rigid and not going to move.
Speaker 2: And that's okay too. But you know, I think the
Speaker 2: last three and a half years, the conversations UH have
Speaker 2: been have been very positive. UH in continuing even if
Speaker 2: we agree to disagree on issues, my goal, and I
Speaker 2: think I think I would love it to be everybody's goal,
Speaker 2: especially now. I mean, this is such an awful, hostile,
Speaker 2: gross time in the United States when you fail to
Speaker 2: keep communicating regardlessl of talks are going good or bad.
Speaker 2: You're failing your job, You're failing your constituents.
Speaker 1: What could Kamala Harris have done differently to earn a
Speaker 1: even co endorsement from you?
Speaker 2: Not run for president? No, it was just never gonna Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's just it wasn't gonna happen for us. I'm members
Speaker 2: we we did some significant pulling. I'm not suggest I'm
Speaker 2: not getting personal, but uh, let me let me back
Speaker 2: up for a second. Joe Biden was was was great
Speaker 2: to unions as a president. I'm never going to take
Speaker 2: that away from him.
Speaker 1: When he came, he was probably the most pro union
Speaker 1: president he was you have ever had, We've had since FDR.
Speaker 2: There's no doubt. There was no doubt. And again, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, people always remind you of what they've done
Speaker 2: for you in the past, not what they're going to
Speaker 2: do for you in the future. And Joe Biden came
Speaker 2: and met with us, and I got to tell you, like,
Speaker 2: I felt bad. I really did, because you know, I
Speaker 2: was brought up to be always respectful of people that
Speaker 2: are older than your be just always respect the position,
Speaker 2: respect the person. And you know, he lost his fastball
Speaker 2: and it was like, you know, part of it for
Speaker 2: me personally, was like, it just looks like someone's being
Speaker 2: propped up and then not looking out for his best interest,
Speaker 2: in looking out for their own personal interest. And then
Speaker 2: when you know, he dropped out of the race and
Speaker 2: Kamala came in, it kind of gave the sense of
Speaker 2: it was like a birthright for her to be the candidate.
Speaker 2: And you know, that was a big, big mistake I
Speaker 2: think on the Democratic Party. This should have been a
Speaker 2: continguency plan two years prior to the election, and that
Speaker 2: wasn't there. And you know, you hear all these stories
Speaker 2: living in DC. You know that he was going to
Speaker 2: be a transitional president. There was a meeting and you know,
Speaker 2: he got pushed back from a lot of staff people
Speaker 2: that whose jobs could have been in jeopardy, all this
Speaker 2: other stuff. I mean, I think, you know, hey, she
Speaker 2: ran for the president. She lost. You can't recreate history.
Speaker 2: But I don't think she was the best candidate. You know,
Speaker 2: if I really had to think about, there were a
Speaker 2: lot more candidates out there and it probably would have
Speaker 2: gave Trump a run for his money.
Speaker 1: Would you describe your membership as pretty fifty to fifty.
Speaker 2: No, sixty, It was sixty five thirty five when we
Speaker 2: did a polling, we did significant polling. We actually rump
Speaker 2: sixty five for Trump Republican. Yes, so we did so,
Speaker 2: I'll tell you it was interesting. We've never done this
Speaker 2: before as an organization. But you know, we're out in
Speaker 2: the field every single day and we're talking to our
Speaker 2: members social media. There's so much communication and some of
Speaker 2: it's not credible, but you could just see members gravitating
Speaker 2: towards the Republicans. And I don't think it was just
Speaker 2: because it was Trump. I think it's just, you know,
Speaker 2: the Democrats weren't controlled the last sixteen out of twenty years,
Speaker 2: and what really have we got done? What really Democrats
Speaker 2: do for us? Under Obama we had a Democratic House, Senate,
Speaker 2: and president. And our biggest issue back then was the
Speaker 2: Employee Free Choice Act should have been a layout right,
Speaker 2: which was basically the pro Act right that didn't happen.
Speaker 2: And then under Biden this was.
Speaker 1: The basically the ability to ask for collective bargaining right.
Speaker 2: The ability of an employer to once there was a
Speaker 2: majority status, to recognize and sit down and bargain and
Speaker 2: you know, come to a collective bargain agreement. And it
Speaker 2: should have been a layup. But it again, that's part
Speaker 2: of the reason why our members started defecting. They was
Speaker 2: seeing time and time again that you know, the working
Speaker 2: people's agendas weren't being put forward. I mean, you think
Speaker 2: about bankruptcy. Bankruptcy laws in this country are antiquated, and
Speaker 2: we deal with it all the time when companies go bankrupt.
Speaker 1: This is an Elizabeth Warren obsession, right to the bankruptcy
Speaker 1: legislation right.
Speaker 2: When companies go bankrupt, and we've seen it, you know,
Speaker 2: everybody gets this, right. We had a last line of creditors.
Speaker 2: Uh in the line they're not even treated as creditors. No,
Speaker 2: we're treated as qumodity commodity right, like we'll throw them
Speaker 2: three cents on the dollar and tell them that's not
Speaker 2: we can do. So, you know, the whole system has
Speaker 2: failed us. And even when there were times like under
Speaker 2: strong democratic leadership, you know, our issues weren't taken in consideration. Now,
Speaker 2: one thing that Biden did unbelievable for us on is
Speaker 2: you know, funding these pension funds so that they didn't collapse.
Speaker 2: And I say that all the time, and that got
Speaker 2: thrown in my face when I spoke at the RNC
Speaker 2: right after it. You know a lot of Democrats, like
Speaker 2: Sherrid Brown was not happy that I spoke there. He
Speaker 2: came to my office and he said, you know, I
Speaker 2: help with that legislation. Butch lewis no doubt you helped
Speaker 2: us with that legislation. We are grateful we got pensions.
Speaker 2: They're going to be solving till twenty fifty one. People
Speaker 2: aren't going to have to worry about. That was the
Speaker 2: right thing to do. However, who broke them? Who broke
Speaker 2: these pensions? What do you mean? And I had the
Speaker 2: same conversation with a lot of other Democratic senators. I said,
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty, Ted Kennery from Massachusetts pass legislation deregulation
Speaker 2: the trucking industry. The Teams to union lost four hundred
Speaker 2: thousand trucking jobs, and that deregulation started filtering into other industries.
Speaker 2: If you lose four hundred thousand jobs, that's four hundred
Speaker 2: thousand contributions times forty hours a week, times you know,
Speaker 2: fifty two weeks a year. That is a significant drain
Speaker 2: on these funds. You know, each year it goes on.
Speaker 2: And then take into consideration a lot of these companies,
Speaker 2: good companies were forced into bankruptcy where none of these
Speaker 2: monies were captured because the bankruptcy laws did pax. And
Speaker 2: I said, look, I'm very grateful you fixed the problem
Speaker 2: that you helped create. And I use this analogy. I'm
Speaker 2: playing street arc in my neighborhood nineteen eighty' you know,
Speaker 2: eight years old, right, I break my mother's window. Forty
Speaker 2: years later, I say, I'm going to fix that window.
Speaker 2: Should I look for accolades from my mother for fixing
Speaker 2: a problem that I helped create? And Joe Biden was
Speaker 2: the center. He signed off on the legislation of deregulation,
Speaker 2: and that was when Reagan was a president, who by
Speaker 2: the way, we endorsed Reagan as well. So it's you know.
Speaker 1: Everybody lets you down on that one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, But my point is, you know, once you
Speaker 2: took a position like we did, because the polling we did,
Speaker 2: and we did three intense poems, we did a straw
Speaker 2: pole in the Union Halls where we could have tipped
Speaker 2: it should have been tipped like eighty twenty to Biden,
Speaker 2: and it was like, you know, thirty five percent Biden,
Speaker 2: thirty percent Trump, and then independent factored in as well.
Speaker 2: We're like, all right, this isn't a good gauge. So
Speaker 2: then we do a publication every month, every quarter, I
Speaker 2: believe every month it's one. It goes to one point
Speaker 2: six million people. And we got record participation with a
Speaker 2: with a code, a QR code, and Harris was in
Speaker 2: the race with Waltz at this point in time, and
Speaker 2: it went sixty five thirty five Republican, and like, all right,
Speaker 2: let's do one more poll. So we utilize the impolster
Speaker 2: that the Harris Waltz campaign utilized and it was the
Speaker 2: same result as we got from the QR code of
Speaker 2: our members. So we were like, all right, we've got
Speaker 2: to represent sixty five percent of our members. We also
Speaker 2: have to represent the thirty five percent. You know, this
Speaker 2: is too close. We're gonna we're going to take a pass.
Speaker 2: We're going to not make an endorsement. Local unions, joint consuls,
Speaker 2: they're autonomous. You do what you want to do in
Speaker 2: this one.
Speaker 1: And they kind of did, if I'm not mistakes, they did.
Speaker 2: But you know, the majority of them, I mean, California
Speaker 2: was probably the most outgoing for Harris and Wallas, and
Speaker 2: there were some other uh maybe maybe Illinois, but most people,
Speaker 2: you know, chose to take a step back as well,
Speaker 2: because again, now members of their constituents.
Speaker 1: What's your relationship these days with the rest of the
Speaker 1: labor movement, right, it's it's sometimes with the collective of
Speaker 1: the afl CIO and all of that. And they've been
Speaker 1: they've been back and forth overtime, and you know, to me,
Speaker 1: there's the Teamsters, then there's the afl CIO. Is that
Speaker 1: that's still that's still the pecking order in your in
Speaker 1: your mind.
Speaker 2: You're not a member of yeah c IO, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: well not a member of the fl CIO. I mean,
Speaker 2: they do good work, there's no doubt about it. We
Speaker 2: definitely represent different interests with our members versus you know there.
Speaker 1: Why aren't you a part of a fl CIA.
Speaker 2: You know what happened when probably about I think twenty
Speaker 2: years ago when you know, there was there was a
Speaker 2: riff between I think President trumpker at that point in
Speaker 2: time and some of the other labor unions I think
Speaker 2: the Laborers, the Compenters, the Teamsters, uh, and there are
Speaker 2: a couple other affiliates. I think s c IU formed
Speaker 2: their own change to Win coalition.
Speaker 1: Well I remember that that really blew things up and with.
Speaker 2: Drew withdrew UH the international unions, but you know, a
Speaker 2: lot of the affiliates and that was one of them.
Speaker 2: In Boston, we stayed. We stayed with the fl CIO
Speaker 2: locally for some time and that's still that's still the practice.
Speaker 2: That's the encouragement from us. We just you know, we
Speaker 2: do our own thing. We've got our own staff, we've
Speaker 2: got our owner ability to lobby, We've got our own ability.
Speaker 2: I mean there are times we work on projects together.
Speaker 2: I think, to your question, I'm gonna answer it honestly.
Speaker 2: I think, Uh, you know this this some ill will
Speaker 2: from other unions on us non endorsing UH Vice President Harris.
Speaker 2: But you know, at the end of the day, Chuck,
Speaker 2: I will help any union. I will help any affiliate,
Speaker 2: even if we do have a difference of opinions. But
Speaker 2: you know, there is I've heard some chatter now again
Speaker 2: when you see them, everybody is your best friend, right,
Speaker 2: but you know, you go online and you see everything.
Speaker 2: I don't take it personally, I get it. My whole
Speaker 2: focus and goal is I've got to serve the people
Speaker 2: that I'm elected to serve, and I got to make
Speaker 2: decisions and recommend decisions. H and the best interests in
Speaker 2: And you know, I believed at the time, and I
Speaker 2: still believe that we made the best decision possible. And look,
Speaker 2: we're in a good spot. I mean, some of these
Speaker 2: unions that criticized me, uh with help broker meetings with
Speaker 2: with with the White House, you know, to you know,
Speaker 2: stop any kind of attack on a certain industry, or
Speaker 2: to help facilitate a relationship. So look, I'm sure there's
Speaker 2: some hurt feelings, but even if we did endorse in
Speaker 2: the selection, it wouldn't have moved the needle. You know,
Speaker 2: we did what was the best interesting. Look, we pulled
Speaker 2: our members, and you know, I think we made the
Speaker 2: right decision.
Speaker 1: So if Andy Basheer, Wes Moore, I'll throw I'll throw
Speaker 1: a Gretchen Whitmer.
Speaker 2: We forget, don't forget Josh Shapiro.
Speaker 1: Josh Shapiro, the four of them come to you and say,
Speaker 1: what do I do to make sure I'm not at
Speaker 1: the thirty five of a sixty five thirty five split
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2: I want to tell them, what do you tell them?
Speaker 2: Go out talk to your constituents, our members. Remember to member,
Speaker 2: have face to face conversations. Ask their opinions, don't dictate
Speaker 2: what they should.
Speaker 3: Be doing for you.
Speaker 2: You work for them. You need to win the trust
Speaker 2: back over.
Speaker 3: I was part of the problem.
Speaker 1: Give me an example of something. I mean, I've heard
Speaker 1: a similar look. You know, there's sort of this stereotype
Speaker 1: of that I joke these days of Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 1: Republicans go out of their way to agree with the voter.
Speaker 1: Democrats go out of their way to convince the voter
Speaker 1: that they're right, and it's it's sort of a you
Speaker 1: know which, which is actually a much harder thing to do.
Speaker 2: I'm going to get your true testimonial.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I was speaking at an International Union's convention, uh probably
Speaker 2: about a month ago in Hawaii, and I was explaining
Speaker 2: just what I explained to you, the polling and everything
Speaker 2: else and after the whole and it was like in
Speaker 2: front of about five thousand people walking out, and a
Speaker 2: lady approaches me, and I can see it coming and
Speaker 2: you just see the body language. And she walked right
Speaker 2: up to me and pointed her finger and said, what
Speaker 2: are you doing to educate those sixty five percent of
Speaker 2: the numbers? I said, I'm not doing anything to educate them.
Speaker 2: I said, what are the Democrats doing to find out
Speaker 2: why sixty sixty five percent of our members didn't support them.
Speaker 2: That's not up to me, that's up to the members.
Speaker 2: I said, that's the problem here. It's my job to
Speaker 2: educate someone who made a choice based upon you know,
Speaker 2: personal and or maybe validated concerns with the party. What
Speaker 2: do you want me to do? Is educating me telling
Speaker 2: what to do? Because that's not what we're going to do.
Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting, It's a dilemma. I know some
Speaker 1: unions have a similar split, particularly the Trades, where a
Speaker 1: majority of their members are Trump, but the leadership all
Speaker 1: went to the Democrats, right, and they do try to
Speaker 1: quote educate their members. Look, we know you may not
Speaker 1: like these issues, but do you know Speaker Pelosi is
Speaker 1: what got this done and you may not like her,
Speaker 1: but here's why we're siding with her. Is that on
Speaker 1: a labor leader to explain or not?
Speaker 2: Oh, you have to. I think you have to in
Speaker 2: that scenario. Like I've been critical of both Republican and Democrats,
Speaker 2: However I always acknowledge what they've done for us or
Speaker 2: haven't done for us. So you know, Chuck Schumer, you
Speaker 2: know reminds me every time he sees me that you know,
Speaker 2: he fixed our pensions. Well he didn't do it alone, right,
Speaker 2: And I'll tell people, Look, Joe Biden was the most
Speaker 2: pro union president. He actually signed the legislation I fixed
Speaker 2: out pensions, and then I'll give the story on why
Speaker 2: these pensions were broke. Like I said to you, So, yeah,
Speaker 2: it is up to us to give the tale of
Speaker 2: the table on both sides as far as yeah, they
Speaker 2: did this over here, but I could also point to
Speaker 2: three or four different things that they haven't done either,
Speaker 2: Like I've had situations where saying, hey, you know, Josh
Speaker 2: Hally isn't for working people, or Roger Marshall's for working people.
Speaker 2: Oh really, I said, they signed on to support letters
Speaker 2: for our members, though we're potentially going to strike at ups.
Speaker 2: They signed on to help our rail workers who didn't
Speaker 2: have a contract for four years. Yeah, although so and
Speaker 2: so a Democrat might have, you know, said, taken credit
Speaker 2: for something, they didn't sign onto this legislation, as signed
Speaker 2: on to the support of this legislation. They didn't sign
Speaker 2: on to support Amazon workers. So we can always point
Speaker 2: and I think to your point, Yeah, we're going to
Speaker 2: point out what people have done for us, but we're
Speaker 2: also going to point out what they haven't done for us.
Speaker 1: We've spent a lot of time noting where Democrats have
Speaker 1: let you down. Why do you trust the these? Uh,
Speaker 1: the the your new allies, some of your new allies.
Speaker 2: Listen, I'm a Democrat, always going to be a Democrat.
Speaker 2: I don't trust anybody. Okay, I want to see when
Speaker 2: people say something looking And I was brought up and
Speaker 2: you know, I was brought up by a very very
Speaker 2: strong Irish woman and my very strong Irish father who's
Speaker 2: no longer with us. But the one thing they always said,
Speaker 2: with all you have left in your life is your
Speaker 2: reputation and your work. And the Republicans have a great
Speaker 2: opportunity right now because the Democratic parties fraction. They're portraying
Speaker 2: themselves as wanting to be the party of working people,
Speaker 2: and the Democrats have to win the trust and support
Speaker 2: back of working people. And I'm leveraging both of those narratives. Hey,
Speaker 2: you said when you were running, you want to you
Speaker 2: want to you want to be the party working people. Well,
Speaker 2: why aren't you jumping on board support? And you know,
Speaker 2: the Faster Labor Contracts Act as Republicans. Because we've got
Speaker 2: bipartisans support and growing in that, that's an opportunity for
Speaker 2: Republicans to actually say well or to demonstrate, hey, we
Speaker 2: do support we do support working people. And also if
Speaker 2: they do that, the Democrats going to come home and
Speaker 2: criticize that. No, they can't. But but if the Republicans
Speaker 2: say I'm not supporting it or we don't get Republican support,
Speaker 2: they're just allowing the Democrats to weaponize that issue. And
Speaker 2: maybe that's the Maybe that's the UH strategy. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Let me get you out of here. In two things
Speaker 1: one twenty twenty six is is this a low I
Speaker 1: saw for instance, in Michigan, various teamsters, you know, the
Speaker 1: state went one way, a couple of locals went another.
Speaker 1: Is that mostly how teamsters endorsements work into in a
Speaker 1: midterm year or will the National Will year office sort
Speaker 1: of way in uncertain Senate races, certain House races.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to We're going to weigh in on
Speaker 2: certain Senate races, especially the senators and House members that
Speaker 2: support us, whether you have a D n R or nine.
Speaker 2: You know, the beauty of the teams to's union. We
Speaker 2: have three hundred and nineteen local unions in thirty I
Speaker 2: believe thirty something, joint councils, regional councils. You know, everybody's
Speaker 2: they like their pride of autonomy, and we give them that. However,
Speaker 2: if we are working on legislation like fastera Labor Contracts
Speaker 2: Act or warehouse protection, and we're getting support from from
Speaker 2: people that are currently in office that might have a
Speaker 2: dn R, we're gonna we're going to weigh in and say, look,
Speaker 2: this is what these people have done for us. But
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, it's usually left up
Speaker 2: to the local unions and the joint consuls.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna paint a scenario for you. Uh, the athletes
Speaker 1: of the Big ten decide they're going to organize. I
Speaker 1: think it's coming, frankly, collective bargaining in college sports. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of money at state. There's frankly no protections
Speaker 1: for these athletes right now in various ways. Is do
Speaker 1: you do the teamsters want? You know, would would athletes
Speaker 1: who got a collective you know, we're able to sort
Speaker 1: of get a collective be recognized as a union. Would
Speaker 1: you want them as Teamsters members? Or is that too far.
Speaker 1: Is that too far? There's no there's no union out there. Okay,
Speaker 1: well explain why, explain why teamsters, we'll be able to
Speaker 1: help the big ten football players.
Speaker 2: I play college football one semester. Right. It's a full
Speaker 2: time job, a lot of demands. Uh, and there's no guarantees.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Do you want to go put sports aside? Do you
Speaker 2: want to go work for an employer whether there's a
Speaker 2: lot of demand and no return. No, you don't, so
Speaker 2: that that's right in our whalehouse. As far as repers,
Speaker 2: I will represent anybody you know we were accused of.
Speaker 2: If a fire hydrant wanted to negotiate a contract, the
Speaker 2: teams would represent them. Right, No, we would love to
Speaker 2: because you don't think about it. You are don't you
Speaker 2: believe that's coming? I think it's coming. Look a good
Speaker 2: friend of mine, I know you're a you're a huge
Speaker 2: University of Miami. Gino Torrett is a very good friend
Speaker 2: of mine. Oh you know he and our Yeah, way
Speaker 2: back when I mean he was saying, you know, this
Speaker 2: is a full time job, like it was forty plus
Speaker 2: hours per week, and the demands that are put on you,
Speaker 2: like you don't have you don't have the ability to
Speaker 2: say no to these college coaches or these even the administration.
Speaker 2: So it's like, you know, there's no rights of these
Speaker 2: call they owned you, and no one should be owned.
Speaker 2: No one should be mandated what to say and what
Speaker 2: to do. And let's let's face it, I mean college sports,
Speaker 2: the NCAA, you know this nil money. I mean, I
Speaker 2: think you're one hundred percent right, it's coming and.
Speaker 1: No, I mean, yeah, we just.
Speaker 2: Don't want to be the union that represents them. You know,
Speaker 2: my son plays college hockey and you know, he's forty
Speaker 2: hours a week, you know, up in the morning training practice,
Speaker 2: and then classes are like you know, eight seven, eight
Speaker 2: o'clock at night. There's twelve thirteen hour days. But the
Speaker 2: majority of the time during the season is focused on
Speaker 2: the season.
Speaker 1: Now, and with all this, I mean when you're talking
Speaker 1: multi billion dollar TV contracts now for these conferences. So
Speaker 1: I think the only way this works is if it's
Speaker 1: a players union by conference, but who knows, I mean yeah,
Speaker 1: or maybe it's by region or something like that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it'd be nice if our conferences were by region, but
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't it. Yeah, we got that maybe BC would be
Speaker 2: a competitor.
Speaker 1: Were you a BC player? Where'd you play?
Speaker 2: I went to the University of Mass Mass You Mass, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Trying hard to be an FBS I love.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah yeah. So I went to the U Mass
Speaker 2: Boston campus. I went to University of New Haven first
Speaker 2: and then went to you Mass. No.
Speaker 1: Well, by the time this airs will know whether the
Speaker 1: Red Sox have beaten the Yankees or not.
Speaker 2: But it's gonna be a tough one. Huh yeah, it's
Speaker 2: gonna be.
Speaker 1: How great two of three between old rivals like this.
Speaker 2: I mean, no matter what, we hate to see someone
Speaker 2: losing that in that situation, you know.
Speaker 1: Get out of here. I got a Red Sox fan.
Speaker 1: What do you mean you hate to see someone lose?
Speaker 2: Well, you do because I mean, look, they're playing that
Speaker 2: high n right. They hate each other.
Speaker 1: Your your empathy, You're filled with empathy. Where's the where's
Speaker 1: the Boston hate? Man?
Speaker 2: Listen, Let's talk hockey. Let's talk football like there's no
Speaker 2: other team than Boston Bruins and the New England Patriots.
Speaker 1: You know, So that's where you that's that's where they
Speaker 1: come at.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Baseball's baseball, you know, Baseball great American sport. We
Speaker 2: used to say my neighbor. But yeah, the kids that
Speaker 2: can't skate end up playing baseball. Oh wow, I know
Speaker 2: exactly where you grew up.
Speaker 1: Hey, shot up bright. This is great man. I appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Appreciate you, my friend. This is all right,