and so there was this social impact. .. so as i was beginning to look at the process that created us i reread dawkins self exchange, reread darwin and began to despair that perhaps we were selfish, short-sighted, ruthless

entities forged by an amoral and utterly cruel process, but it was this man here that really gave me hope that may not necessarily be the case. alfred russel wallace lived a full life dying at the age of 90. at the age of 80, he was still writing and in fact i would argue is most important work was published in 1904 in his eighth decade. that is the title page of it there, man split on the universe, the study of research in relation to the unity or plurality of worlds. a very strange title indeed. what this book really is a summary of wallace's understanding of what the evolutionary mechanism had created. he wasn't like darwin. he wasn't interested in drilling down with the reduction of science ever more finally in terms of understanding the evolutionary mechanism.

he had done that in 1958. what he wanted to know was what was created and being a holistic thinker, his field of endeavor was the entire planet. and this look is the foundations of the science of astrobiology. it compares worlds and he posits the theory that this planet is the only living planet, that the others wherever they be in the universe are all debt. it is also the full runner of james ludlow's work. he talks in the book about the atmosphere and why the atmosphere works, the way that does which is often created by living things, is important in regulating the earth's climate system. it is an extraordinary lucid, what do i say, prissy prescient work really bad many aspects of our current science particularly

holistic science and theory and so forth. what we learned from wall is and his work is that evolution's legacy is not nasty, brutish and short. it is not a survival of the fittest world. instead this mechanism has led to a world of extraordinary intricacy come interconnectedness and cooperation and i just want to run through a few examples of that cooperation. this slide just shows mitochondria, the small organelles that exists in all of ourselves and the power packs for ourselves. it has been realized in the last 30 years or so that this mitochondria actually have nothing to do with us in terms of their origin. they originated as free living back area over a billion years ago in ancient ocean and they came to cohabit the sales of our bodies much the way algae

co-habits with a coral reef. over a billion years they have become so closely tied in with ourselves and the symbiosis so intricate now that they can't exist for a second without the cells of our body and our bodily cells cannot survive without them. that is just the beginning really of the complexity of the thing we call a human being. >> can watch this and other programs on line at booktv.org. >> last up from freedomfest 2011 a discussion on unions. stephen moore co-author of "return to prosperity" and thea lee co-author of "the field guide to the global economy" the merits of public unions. this runs about an hour and 15 minutes. >> hear ye, hear ye, hear ye,

freedom pressed court is now in session for this important trial of our beliefs. judge jeffrey verdon is residing at this hearing. all rise for the judge. [applause] >> may be seated. ladies and gentlemen, members of the jury, we are gathered here in the great sovereign state of nevada to decide the fate of public unions in america. in this hearing, we hope to discover the benefits, the public and the taxpayers to have our civil servants and the federal state and municipal levels join a union. do unions serve the public interest or are they a new sense that we cannot afford and should be abolished? before this court, the prosecution will attempt to show the public sector unions in our schools, fire, police

departments, the post office, and other municipalities have become an unelected special interest group that are overpaid and abusing public retirement funds threatening strikes, slowdowns and even violence and through political lobbying, raising the burden of taxes and excessive spending under american public during times of economic stress and high unemployment. we have brought before this court thea lee, deputy chief of staff, policy director and chief international economist of the afl-cio, the premier organization representing labor groups both public and private throughout the united states. ms. lee, would you please stand? you and your union supporters have been accused of taking advantage of the public treasury, being paid too much, taking advantage of pension funds, threatening to disrupt the general welfare of the

country and through lobbying, raising the burden of taxes and public debt during a time when the american people are suffering from unemployment, heavy taxes and stress. how do you and your supporters plead? >> not guilty,, your honor. >> we will begin the proceeding with a five-minute opening statement first by the prosecuting attorney steve moore. mr. moore is a distant was member of "the wall street journal" editorial board and author of many books including how barack obama is bankrupting the u.s. economy and several co-authored with arthur laffer, the end of prosperity, return to prosperity, how america can reign in economic superpower status. he is a strong advocate of the flat tax, social security privatization, free trade. he is considered one of the premier supply-side economist in united states. now after opening statements each attorney will call to witnesses who will be subject to

cross-examination. then, each side will make closing statements and afterwards the jury will rule on the case. if the defendants are found guilty, i will impose the judgments. you will listen carefully to the opening statements and the witnesses and at the end of the hearing you will be required to determine whether there is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and that ms. lee and are union followers are responsible for public malfeasance. is that understand -- understood, jury? mr. moore you may begin your opening statement. >> thank you your honor. ladies and gentlemen of the audience and ladies and gentlemen of the jury thank you for being here. when i read the title of this trial, public unions, they good or bad for america, i thought this must be a trick question. i think there is no question you

will find that the evidence shows that public employee unions are very bad for the u.s. economy and i think that we will show you in the next 45 minutes to one hour that the unions are guilty. >> i'm going to have to ask you to step over here. thank you. can you hear me? can you hear me now? >> we will show the prosecution, the public employee unions are guilty of three charges. number one, public employee unions have become a scourge on our u.s. economy and are making us poorer as a result. number two, public employee unions are responsible for the bankrupting of virtually every state and local government in america. [applause] >> order in the court, please. >> number three, public employee

unions are guilty of causing one of the most -- greatest income inequalities injustices in american history. the injustice and inequality is the inequality of paid between what public employee unions receive an private-sector workers that are comparably skilled. we will provide evidence for you that shows that the average private sector worker in america receives only half of what a public sector employee union gets. we hear from liberals all the time that there is injustice and unfairness in america and i would make the case to you ladies and gentlemen and i think we will show you the evidence that the greatest injustice and the greatest unfairness is this disparity in incomes between what the public sector unions received and the private sector unions. that is something that is causing higher taxes on all of us. now, i had an article in "the wall street journal" about a month ago that was called makers versus takers and i think it really exemplifies what is wrong in america with the growth of the power and the size of the

unions in america. let me just give you one statistic that documents how the public-sector employee unions are taking over america. if you go back to 1965 ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will find in america there were twice as many manufacturing workers in america as they were public-sector unions employees in the united states. by 1995, there were exactly the same number of public employee unions members as there were manufactures. today in america, this is a sad commentary of what is happened to our economy -- there are twice as many government workers today as there are manufacturers. there are twice as many takers from the american economy as makers and ladies and gentlemen that is a trend that is simply unsustainable in america today. [applause] one last point i would like to make is that we have not talked yet about the real evil empire of the u.s. economy and i think you all know who i'm talking

about. the teachers unions in america are ruining our schools. they are bankrupting our schools and we have got to do something about freeing the kids from the public teachers unions in america. one example of the injustice that the public teachers unions imposed on our economy -- today in states like ohio, just to take one example, they have a policy called retire every higher. a teacher at the age of 53 or 5455 can earn a salary of $100,000 in retire from that job with 100,000-dollar a year pension and then ladies and gentlemen get rehired for that same job at the old salary taking home $200,000. nobody in the private sector get the kind of deal and that is the kind of thing that is taking away money from the classroom so we have better schools in america. so i think in some ladies and gentlemen you will find by the end of this hour that the

public-sector employees are guilty as charged and the american economy and every state and local government in the federal government would be much more fiscally healthy if we did not have public employee unions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you consular. please know a plus. there'll be order in this court. this is a courtroom. and i expect to have order in my courtroom. now, thank you consular. we will now hear from thea lee. she is the deputy chief of staff policy director and chief international economist at the afl-cio. she earned her bachelor's degree from smith college and a master's degree in economics from the university of michigan. ms. lee is co-author of a field guide to the global economy. she is an expert on the north american free trade agreement, international trade, wage inequality and the steel and textile industries.

she has appeared on numerous national television and radio shows. she has also on the board of directors of worker rights consortium, united for the fair economy and the national bureau of economic research. ms. lee will you give your opening statement please? >> thank you your honor. good evening ladies and gentlemen of the jury. i submit to you the charges against my client, the public unions of america and the hard-working men and women who belong to them are utterly baseless and should be thrown out of this court. the prosecution's case is founded on shoddy statistics, isolated nonrepresentative anecdotal evidence of a false premise. moreover, i will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that my client has been unfairly scapegoated and is being blamed for crimes that were in fact committed by another party entirely. the prosecution is well aware of this fact and i submit to you that the prosecution has

unseemly and i might say intimate relationship with the true culprit. the entire case against my client is a smokescreen to divert attention to the true perpetrator of the crime at issue today, the clash of the u.s. economy and the destruction of the american middle class and the state budget shortfall. my client could not be present in the courtroom this evening but if they were here, i have no doubt it would be an extremely sympathetic group. they are your neighbors, your family, your friends. they teach her children. they care for your elderly parents. they keep your local library open and they pick up your garbage. they are the ones who walk back into the burning building on 9/11. they are the ones who threw their bodies in front of the violent criminals. many of them literally risked their lives every single day to keep you and your family safe. the question in front of us

tonight is, do these hard-working americans deserve to exercise their faith in human freedom to form a union if they so choose and to bargain collectively with their employer for decent wages and benefits, dignified secure retirement and a safe working place. my case and i press on three key points. furs, it is a basic human freedom for workers to join together at their workplace and to have a voice on the job. the government is not denying workers this freedom and every season democratic government recognizes the right of workers to form unions and it is totalitarian dictatorships that are afraid of workers having a voice on the job. the second come it is good for the u.s. economy and essential to the survival of the american middle class that the public-sector workers have decent wages and decent benefits. there is overwhelming and empirical evidence the public-sector workers are not overcompensated compared to their counterparts in the

private sector. one should take into account the different levels of education, of skills and years of experience. in fact, many, many studies show that public-sector workers are underpaid relative to private sector workers by at least 4%. third, the public-sector workers unions are not to blame for the fiscal troubles the state and local government nor for the under -- there is no correlation between those states were public-sector workers have collective bargaining rights and strong unions and state difficult troubles. in fact, states that allow public-sector collective-bargaining recently had 14% deficits relative to their budget compared to those days where public-sector collective bargaining was not allowed and they had a 15.5% budget deficit on average. many of the states of the biggest problems with their pensions and the biggest problems with their deficits don't allow public-sector

collective-bargaining like texas north carolina and nevada. what then accounts for the ballooning state budget deficit? any reputable economist can tell you the deep recession. >> list -- ms. lee you are making a speech. i needed to make an opening statement. >> the recession began in 2008 stock market crash collapse of the housing market were to blame or they troubles state budgets are having not the workers and their unions. rising health care costs again not the fault of the union. infecting and can deliver not just tobenefits their members but to their communities and the economy overall. teachers bargain for smaller class sizes and kids can learn. nurses bargain for a reasonable and responsible patient load so their patients can get the care they deserved. deserve. firefighters and police provide the protections for the committees. richard or the martin prosperity institute at the university of

business school found that union density is in fact if you look state-by-state based on the higher density have higher incomes, more education and more creative work. not the opposite. and internationally that holds up as well in countries with the highest unionization have higher productivity less than a quality and lower unemployment. public-sector workers have been dragged through the mud to distract the youth, the american people from the truly guilty party and the economic problems we are facing today. wall street, big business, multinational corporations, gambled with their future, turned our economy into a giant casino, spend a -- center jobs offshore and now they want to blame hard-working nurses, teachers, firefighters and police officers for the damages they rots. this is what america is all about. you have worked hard all your life. you have played by the rules. you take care of your neighbors

and your community. you take pride in your work. you deserve decent schools for your kids, safe neighborhood and a dignified retirement. my client is not guilty of all charges. instead of putting these hard-working people on trial, we should be thanking them for the hard work they do and for the modest pay. we should redirect our justified anger to the collapse of the u.s. economy toward the truly big business. that ladies and gentlemen of the jury is who should be going to jail. thank you. [applause] >> thank you ms. lee. mr. moore please call your first witness. >> thank you your honor. i'd like to call to the witness stand mr. john mackey. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please no applause. this is a courtroom.

[laughter] >> mr. mackey, will you swear on this whole foods -- whole foods apple to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> how do i know that is really a whole foods apple? >> because dr. skousen went to whole foods and told me he bought it. we will stipulate that is a whole foods apple. >> i do. >> mr. mackey, thank you. thank you for being here. let me start by asking you this question. you are the ceo and president of whole foods. how many employees do you have around the country? >> i think about 61,000. >> 61,000? of the 61,000 would you say that you are an employer that provides your employees with a fair wage and a fair benefit? could you describe a little bit the wages and benefits that you provide for your workers?

>> the average wage -- $16.50 an hour. the benefits are extensive, fully provided health care, food discounts, retirement benefits. it is a very generous -- we have been named one of the 100 hundredth escott panisse to work for by "fortune" magazine for 15 consecutive year's. >> how many of your employees are a member of the union? >> on that i've moyer of. >> you are nicely unionize shop and let me ask you this question, sir. why don't you have a union? >> because, the team members haven't felt that they needed union representation. >> so you believe that the performance of the company would suffer. what do you think a union would do for the workers? do you think they would benefit from that or do you think they would be harmed? >> i do not think they would be benefited by it, no. >> let me ask you this question. if a union were forced upon you,

if whole foods had to have unionize workers, what do you think that would do to your competitiveness in the class structure as a company in a very competitive industry? >> i think it would be harmful competitively. i mean, every industry that i'm aware of that has been heavily unionize begins to decline in its competitiveness. we feast upon our unionize competitors as a general rule. they don't have as good a service, they don't have as good quality and they don't seem to work as hard so it is a competitive disadvantage to be unionized. >> have your workers ever attempted to human eyes? >> is, madison wisconsin store unionize for one year and then they decertify the union a year later. >> what happened in that instance? >> the workers voted for union representation and then they change their mind's. >> said the reason you are not unionized is not because you don't want a union that your workers have chosen not to have

a union. is that correct? >> it is illegal in the united states to prevent unionization. if they wish to have a union they would be free to elect one, but so far they haven't chosen to do so. >> let me ask you one more question, sir. given the studies are showing that public sector employee unions are paid substantially higher than what a comparable private-sector worker receives and most will provide evidence of that in a few minutes but given that, you have this premium in wages and benefits paid to public employee unions, do you think that is fair that one of your workers who is paid 16 or 18 or $20 an hour should have to pay higher taxes to pay for benefits and salaries that are much more generous at them comparably skilled workers in the public-sector? >> i don't think in my opinion -- i don't think in the private sector where you have competition unions can serve a

useful purpose sometimes, but in the public-sector, where government is a monopoly, the public service unions i think don't have that competition to keep them in check and as a result i think it has done great damage. so i don't think the public service union should be legal. >> thank you, sir. >> alright ms. lee, your witness. >> i call mr. shoemaker. >> that will be fine. please proceed. >> mr. mackey, my name is karl schoomaker. i made professor of history at the university of -- in wisconsin. [laughter] mr. moore brought out an example of the impressive job you have done and it is quite commendable.

why would i would like to do is ask you a couple of hypothetical and how you would assess these kinds of situations. i want you to imagine for a a moment that you today issued a directive to your company and said from this day forward no employee of whole foods will ever get a raise higher than the cost of living allowed and will tag it to the consumer price index and no one will get a raise above that. can you tell me in your expert opinion what that would do to your competitiveness? >> that would be very harmful to our competitiveness. >> i imagine that it would. i would like to imagine another hypothetical situation, something i know you would never engage in but let's imagine you have entered into a contract in a range of things, compensation health care benefits all the things he said you provide. imagine at the end of the year,

due to a contraction in the economy, some unforeseen capital expenditures you decided you were not going to make the contractually agreed-upon contradiction to say a pension and he decided not to do it. you explain the circumstances to your employees under which you had to make that decision and you don't make that contribution. >> it would be bad from her i'll. >> not only that it could implicate legal problems. >> could possibly billy illegal and therefore we might be sued and there might be negative consequences. >> could incur legal obligations, that's right. would it surprise you if i told you that all the scenarios i just described while a legal in the private sector, whether unionized or not are actually permissible under law for public employees? >> been nothing you could tell me regarding what goes on with the government would surprise me. [laughter] [applause]

>> very well put, very well put. and given precisely that uncertainty which you just described, given precisely the unpredictability of government and the dangers it can impose on certain circumstances, why would you take away from public employers the right to unionize to protect themselves against exactly those kinds of arbitrary approaches? >> the reason why would take it away is because there is essentially no competition. a company is in a sense -- the unions compete for the hearts and minds of the workers in the private sector and if you don't do a good job of taking care of your employees, you run the risk of unionization. on the other hand, a check on the unions has come petition. if the unions ask for too much, then you will be at a competitive disadvantage. the public sector does not have that competitive disadvantage because they can continue to go back to the taxpayers for more money. that is exactly what we have seen happening.

[applause] >> no further questions, your honor. [laughter] >> you may step down mr. mackey. [applause] alright, let's call her next witness. for my next witness i would like to call mr. stephen greenhut. [applause] please ladies and gentlemen, please. mr. greenhut, do you swear on this copy of "the wall street journal" to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> gnawed on their international editorials. [laughter] >> this is going to be a long night. i can see it now.

mr. greenhut would you please state your name and occupation? >> sorry, sorry, the bailiff made a mistake here. rusty is on vacation. >> stephen greenhut editor of calwatchdog. i watch the train wreck in sacramento and author of a book subtly titled plunder about public employee unions. [laughter] >> alright, let's talk a little bit about the economic and fiscal crisis in california. you are an expert on this subject. to what degree would you say that public employee unions are responsible or the 20 billion-dollar hole in the sacramento budget? >> will the unions will tell you there is only a small percentage of the state budget that is attributable to the unfunded pension liability but they have been hiding the amount of the impacts on the state by jet. it is a pretty large effect but at the local level it is enormous. we have local -- we have cities that spend 80% of their budget

on police and fire services most of which go to salaries and benefits and the state has a half trillion dollar unfunded pension liability, real dad, half a trillion. that is big even by california standards, right. the unions say it is not a real debt because of the web is funded so i suggest maybe we don't pay up if they don't like that idea. >> how many cities in california in your estimation and you are an expert on fiscal issues in the state of california -- how many cities do you think if the fiscal path continues and the kinds of wages and benefits that are provided to public employee unions continue, how many cities would you think in the next 10 or 20 years might have to declare bankruptcy because of these union contracts? >> i don't know the number that are going to declare bankruptcy but there was just a business insider the 14 were cities that are being plundered -- i love that term -- by the public employee unions and five of them

san diego officials have used the b word and l.a. officials have used the b wear. valeo went bankrupt. when you pay police captains $300,000 a year. >> say that again. >> their police captain turned $300,000 a year. their average firefighter salary is $175,000 a year. we have lifeguards in orange county earning well over $100,000 a year. >> mr. greenhut. >> m-i doing a diatribe? >> have you taken evidence and law school? because i haven't heard any objections and you may want to raise a few. [laughter] i am trying to be impartial there but -- it it is on objectionable. there is maybe some evidence she would like to object to. >> is it true. >> proceed, perceive. >> sir can i please get back to my question? >> yes, you can. i'm just trying to be fair. >> is a true mr. greenhut that

there are many public employee union retirees that receive pensions of over $100,000 a year? >> yes there is a 100,000-dollar pension club, 15,000 members and rowing by 40 to 60% a year because of pension benefits have gotten. >> these are six-figure pensions for the rest of their lives? >> cost of living adjusted bless the best health care in the world and that doesn't count the many disability pensions. i have yet to meet a chief of police who has not retired on disability. >> sorry to interrupt but is that common in the private sector to receive a 100,000-dollar a year pension? >> i am still waiting -- outside of the ceo level i don't know. >> basically virtually only ceos are the upper top management of a company that would receive a 100,000-dollar pension whereas in the public sector unions can be fairly routine in california? >> oh it is very retain. >> is a just california?

>> the's other states too that california is the leading edge of all trends good or bad. [laughter] >> are you familiar sir with a policy called retire and rehire? >> well, i've heard of that and we have things called drop roque rams where essentially they are -- there a double dipping schemes. give a drop program or a rehire and retire whatever, vice versa, it shows as a matter of fact that their retirements are too rich because the employee wants to keep working. the agency wants the employee to keep working but the retirement is so rich in california we have 3% of 50 and you are retiring with 90% of the final year's pay and that includes things like milk inspectors and billboard inspectors. so if they are older than 50 they're essentially working for free. >> sir, the defense has asserted his afternoon that public employee unions are not overpaid and the workers are not overpaid and in fact i think we heard the defense make the case that in fact they are paid less than a

comparable at the least skilled private worker and if you are an expert on the subject and you look at the data throughout the country, can you tell us what your research has found in this area? >> our public employee unions gave his. >> no, are they paid? public employees are paid more. it used to be the old deal, they got a little bit less pay. they got less bay and slightly better benefits and extra days off and all that. now they get paid more mostly. there is some categories where they don't. >> how much more? >> that is a hard number to parse, but you had mentioned in some cases it is double on the retirement and the retirement benefits can be triple. the average. >> rejection your honor. >> let me rule on the objection mr. greenhut. sustain. >> alright, to the extent you have done research on the

subject and look at the disparity in the public and private sector pay and benefits, what would you say on average if you would, sir, what would you say is the premium that is paid for public-sector workers today in your best judgment? >> what i see for instance, the unions will talk about on retirement that the average government retiree gets about $27,000 a year and they say that as evidence is evidence that these are not outrageous pensions. these averages include people who have retired -- and they include people who are short timers are going to private sector that number is about 9000 so even if that 27,000-dollar number is still triple just on a pension but if you are looking at people who are retiring in the last couple of years coming california the averages about $66,000. >> mr. greenhut i think you have major.. we have to move bond so any further questions? >> may i ask one?

the size nationally of the public-sector employee unfunded liability in a pension and health care benefits and could you provide the jury with what the best estimate is for that number? how much money is owed by states and cities to cover these enormous pensions and health care cost? bic numbers ranging from 1.5 trillion to 3 trillion. i'm a journalist so i don't understand numbers so 1.5 trillion versus 3 trillion. what do we know about --'s what do we know about. >> how high is the entire amount of the state and local budgets today? >> counselor that is to questions. >> that is right and it is incredible amount of money. it must be repaid by law and must be repaid so thank you. >> that will cause an enormous problem. >> thank you mr. greenhut. counselor, please be seated. i won't ask you again.

ms. lee. >> thank you. mr. greenhut who funds the research institute? >> i am sure there are some of those. >> you made. >> can i ask who funds the public employee's? >> their members. >> way, i'm sorry. i know you are asking the question. [laughter] i just wasn't sure whether taxpayers funded a. you said that 15,000 public-sector workers in california kern over $100,000. what percentage of fault public sector work is that? >> i don't know what the percentages but it is a large and growing number. >> it is less than 2%. >> you know the average, when you are looking at an average what we have the soaring number and it is growing. >> less than 2% and also, how many are under collective bargaining agreements when they got those pensions, can you tell

me that? >> i don't know the percentage but virtually. >> i do, less than half of them are though most of those folks are management or elected officials. >> you know managers are in associations but those are essentially. >> counselor, counselor you can't answer the question that you ask. [laughter] it is the same thing as the union. >> it is not the same thing. >> it is too. >> counselor, please. >> i'm sorry, it is an association where they collectively bargained. >> they don't collectively bargained. they do not collectively bargained. >> the collective bargaining by the other unions have created a ratchet effect. >> you talked about on -- unfunded pension liability. >> i think it is something we are talking about. you don't think it is a problem and? >> is that generally the problem of unions? are those decisions about how

much money goes into the pension fund what the actuarial assumptions are? is that something that unions generally do or management? >> you are trying to make a huge distinction between public-sector management and. >> mr. greenhut answer the question. >> i don't even understand the question. it was a little too convoluted. >> there is a union which we are talking about and then there is management. >> i fail to make a distinction between management associations. where worked at the or county register 90% of the people in the county of management and rank-and-file were in either an association or a union. only about 500 employees from the very top level, and they enjoy all the pensions benefits at the rank-and-file are able to. >> the trial tonight is not about government. is our public-sector unions. >> right but the unions of the elect boss is. >> let's move on. >> i want to move onto mac.

>> ms. lee save your closing statements for closing statements. >> what do weakening unions have to do with solving budget problems? >> i used to say the unions on the legislature but that is not true. they are the legislature. [applause] the assembly speaker is a united food and parcel workers union organizer. the senate pro tiem is a former seiu attorney. if i were you in the afl-cio a lot of the private sector union guys are furious too. i wouldn't be defending those people. and a good progressive. >> thank you for the answer. mr. greenhut i'm the judge here and you will listen to what i suggest. stick to the question and answer the question. people have dinner reservations. [laughter] >> mr. greenhut do you believe in a. >> that is a really ridiculous question. >> yes or no. >> that is like asking if i beat

my wife. yes i believe in democracy, yes i do. stand union members have a right to run for public office just like anybody else? >> do they have a right to take money without asking their members? >> final question. >> , so in a democracy people can run for office and they receive campaign contributions and they receive support from various corporations, from unions and individuals and so on. is it your belief that an elected official has no free will and is incapable of representing his or her constituents given a campaign contributions that are out there? >> well, you know i have not known a lot of elected officials and i would not give them much credit for anything, but i do know that they are deathly afraid of the public employee unions and this is republicans as well as democrats because republicans they loved the public safety unions. they want to pose next to the firetrucks and a police officer so i'm not sure what your question was and i don't know

what my answer was. [laughter] >> okay one last question for you, sir. if we were to do what you are suggesting. >> what am i suggesting? i haven't suggested anything. >> let her ask the question. >> she is asking me to respond on something. >> if you would allow me to finish my question. always a good practice. if we weaken the public-sector unions and take away their collective bargaining rights, slash their pensions and their pay and health care, do you think that we will attract a more or a less qualified set of applicants in the future? >> you know what, i have never seen -- there were 22,000 applicants for a firefighter job in southern california. they had to open the stadium so i'm not really worried about getting an applicant problem for a 175,000-dollar job where you are paid over time. >> thank you ms. lee. >> is that true for teachers and

nurses as well? >> they do not get as generous of a pension that they get generous pensions. >> thank you ms. lee. >> no further questions. >> do you have any other witnesses to call? you may be dismissed mr. greenhut. >> your honor the prosecution rests in this very strong case. >> thank you. alright ms. lee. please call your first witness. >> i would like to call to the stand dr. karl schoomaker, professor of law at the university of wisconsin-madison. >> this is a little unusual but i will allow it. >> you did not have to move very far. will use where on this copy of the national labor relations board manual to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do.

>> dr. shoemake are, tell me a little about your education and your relevant work experience. i hold a law degree from a law school in birmingham alabama and a ph.d. from the university of california-berkeley and have briefly practiced law in the state of alabama and it still a member of the bar there. i've been active politically in my younger years and was active in the republican party and in recent months i've been paying attention to two events just outside my door in madison wisconsin. >> the court was to delay that he is smart. [laughter] >> thank you your honor. dr. shoemaker, and your expert opinion, what were the primary reasons for opposition to public unions in the first half of of the 20th century? >> there were three rogue reasons for opposition to public unionism and one was the concern the granting union rights to public records would allow them a legal avenue for striking and striking with the major issue leading to violent confrontations in the early 20th century. the two other reasons are really

legal doctrinal issues. one was a doctrine of sovereign immunity, the notion that the state government and federal government could not be held to legal obligations that they created and the fear was that force them to honor contracts in situations where state specifically did not want to be bound by law and in some states north carolina's example, there is actually dr. and that the extra duty of loyalty to the state, not to the communities that they work for but actually the state government itself. those were the factors that were the real reasons for opposition to public unions. >> are those concerns still valid today? had they been alleviated after many states began to recognize public unions and collective bargaining rights? >> the great bargain that was struck in exchange for the opportunity to form collective bargaining units at the state level was to give up to the the right to strike and impact the law prohibits strikes by public unions almost uniformly and in most cases impose a strict penalties to it and since the

1960s there has been a radical decline in the number of public sector strikes. in more normal budgetary times -- the doctrines of sovereign immunity have tended to be relaxed as more democratic sensibilities have taken hold and states have been understood to be accountable. >> and public unions are granted the right to argun over conditions of employment wages. what about pension benefits? >> most benefits are set by the -- and not collective bargaining at all. >> and when states began to allow public-sector workers to unionize and to bargain collectively, how did that turn out? was very real -- could you trace a trend of increases in strife and so on? >> no, to the contrary. there has been a demonstrable decline in that. there was early opposition between some states because of what's i'm times we called the spoils system. collective bargaining and hoblick sector unions stood in no way of the old way of

appointing one's cronyism and political supporters into all kinds of public positions from high-ranking positions to teachers in public unionism actually was a very effective way of stopping this kind of cronyism and what we call political spoils. >> thank you and what about the role of mediation and arbitration with respect to public-sector unions? how does that compare in states with those union rights compared to states that don't have rights for collective bargaining for public sector workers? >> there is actually not much difference in terms of compensation levels between states in which there is a ride in states which there is not. >> do you find overall public-sector workers are overcompensated compared to private sector workers? >> no there are reliable studies that show there are anywhere from a four to 8% penalty for the public-sector and that gap actually widens with education and qualifications. >> so the highest level of education for example like a cancer research or the national national institute of health or

a legal scholar, there is even a bigger gap for public-sector workers? >> for economists were example it approaches 20%. >> how you explain the disparity in the figures the prosecution has use? >> they are interested in using inflammatory rhetoric rather than paying attention to the data. >> what is the difference between the studies? the studies that find public-sector workers are not overpaid. are they careful empirical studies? what are they take into account that the other studies to not? >> they compare levels of education, pay, levels of responsibility. the studies that show overcompensation tends to be comparing fire chiefs to mcdonald's employees and this is something not of a meaningful comparison. >> thank you. no further questions. >> mr. moore your witness. >> professor shoemaker let me get the facts straight about your background. you ui professor and that history and legal studies. is that correct?

at the university of wisconsin, madison? does that make you about the most liberal person in america? [laughter] >> is there someone more liberal than a person on the campus in the liberal arts school? let me ask you about. >> it is excellent not a liberal arts college. >> let me ask about the disgrace of what happened over the winter. we there to observe the goings on? >> yes. >> let me ask you this question. according to news reports that are very credible, the schools throughout the state of wisconsin, especially in the walkie, had to be shut down by several days because the teachers were protesting in madison. can i ask you this question? how is that putting children first? >> as far as i understand it, in some school districts in milwaukee and what is and there were schools closed for as many as two or three days. >> so basically these teachers

were putting their union ahead of the kids? >> no, actually they were taking great risks for themselves professionally since there have been some repercussions for those who did, but they were doing it because they really believed in the quality of education currently offered in wisconsin and they are desperate to hold onto it. >> you don't think the kids were harmed by the fact that they didn't have school those days? >> the kids were probably delighted. >> let me ask you this question then. you have been a big defender of collective bargaining, is that right? that was one of the major issues of contention in the protest about whether public employee union should have collective bargaining. let me ask you this question. if you have a situation where you have a democratic mayor or a democratic city council that was essentially elected with predominantly public employee union money, and that mayor or city councilmember is sitting at the negotiating table across the table from a public-sector employee union representative,

do you think -- can you honestly say that you think that elected official is going to act on behalf of the teachers -- i mean the public employee unions are the taxpayers who pay the salaries? what is your honest opinion? remembers her, you aren't under -- you are under oath. >> well i believe that all human institutions whether private or public are susceptible to all kinds of -- and i believe people tried to rise to their duties. >> let me ask the question differently. in a kind of situation who at the bargaining table is representing the interests of the taxpayer, not the union's? >> what is being bargain for? >> when you have a democratically elected public official who is elected with public employee union member money, he'll win at the negotiation on the salaries and benefits of those union workers, who is representing the taxpayers interest? >> as opposed to those representatives or there? >> you can have a negotiation --

by point is you can't have a negotiation of both sides are on the side of the union. isn't that the point that rep. >> would you like the question readback? [laughter] >> i think i understand what he is so inartfully trying to ask. [laughing] >> professor you need to answer the question. >> let me ask you another question because there is much i want to put you under the microscope on. i want to ask you this question. are you familiar with the fact the last year when they had a budget crunch in the city of milwaukee, that what had to happen was that the city had to fire, because of union work rules, the city had to fire the teacher of the year? what private sector institution would ever, ever, ever fire their best work or? [laughter] you don't have to answer the question. don't you think his silence is

deafening on that question? let me ask you one last thing. >> one last question. >> as everyone knows especially the members of the jury, the members of the legislature, a number, 10 or 11 members of the state senate and wisconsin walked out and fled to illinois? are you proud of those actions? >> the numbers 14. >> i knew you would know the number. do you think that was a justifiable justifiable action tediously this data not add -- to do their job and act as a representative of the state? >> i look forward to when the voters in their districts either affirm what they did or complain, but i suspect what i know of the landscape there they are getting a lot of support from their constituents. >> that is what it has come to that the democratic herd is so beholden now. >> save those comments for your closing our grand. >> tour falls, the democrats are

now sobel holden to the public employee unions that they simply walk out on their job's? >> that is false. >> thank you professor. you may be excused. [applause] do you have any more witnesses, counselor? >> i called dr. spencer back to the stand. >> dr. dr. pak will use where in the copy of "the new york times" to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i don't think i can swear on "the new york times." i'm sorry, cannot do that. >> just on your own goodwill. the court will stipulate he will tell the truth. >> dr. pat, state your name and

occupation. i am spencer pack professor of economics at connecticut college in new london connecticut. >> what are your educational credentials and relevant work experience in the trial today? >> i have a b.a. in social vary from the college in new hampshire, masters and clinical the university of toronto, ph.d. in economics mathematical economics and political economy from the university of new hampshire. >> in your view dr. pack as an economist, can you tell me what would be the impact on economic growth if tomorrow the unilaterally eliminated all public-sector unions collective bargaining rights and health care obligations for public -- what would be the impact on the u.s. economy? >> it would demoralize people at this time because i would think denying the freedom of workers, public workers to join unions. it would be incredibly demoralizing.

firing people in times of massive unemployment would be a terrific mistake. and the third place it a global economy that we have now, where we need more teachers and more education to be firing teachers and wrecking the educational system more would be a terrible mistake. >> would that close state and local budget gaps do you think if we were to fire a lot of public-sector workers and reduce their pensions and health care unilaterally? >> no, the problem with the deficit is the recession. bad has been going on for years. we have 9.2% official unemployment rate. many more people are underemployed or discouraged. when you have this kind of unemployment, government revenues will go down to the extent that the safety net to help the common people on main street, expenditures will go up. that is what caused the deficit. we we we will have the deficits as long as we have 9.1% or more

unemployment. that is not going away under these policies. >> last question ms. lee. >> dr. pack can the u.s. compete internationally in the 21st century and the global economy without an infrastructure education and the skills of our workforce? >> obviously not and even with that comment is hard to see how we are going to be able to compete internationally when there is a low-wage economy coming onto the market and we have a bipartisan consensus mac -- consensus to have outsourcing, free trade, wage arbitrage, wage arbitrage means when the wages are higher in one country such as the united states and lower in other countries such as india and china, the tendency for the wages in the united states is to go down. that is where we are looking at. >> thank you dr. pack. no further questions at this

time. >> surged your contention by the way you are professor at what school? >> connecticut college in new london, connecticut. >> you may be more liberal than this gentleman here. [laughter] >> i think i'm probably the most liberal person in this room. >> i am glad that we. >> and i want to say how i was invited here on the one hand is a mystery to me and on the other hand i would like to thank. >> we are very pleased that you are here. >> this line of questioning is not pertinent. >> is it your contention that to be a good teacher you have to be a member of the public employee union? >> it is my contention that in america a free country, people if they want to form unions, they should have the freedom to do it. this is not 1975. this is not santiago chile. this is not tina chez.

these are people in favor of freedom. .. >> was that these high salaries for these teachers and these high benefits are to the benefit of the school system and the kids, and my question to you is why is it in the private sector and the catholic schools the teachers are paid significantly lower, and yet the test results,

the graduation results are significantly higher in private schools -- >> i don't think any teachers are highly paid. [laughter] i don't think any teachers are highly paid. >> professors are -- >> -- are on wall street. those are the people that are highly paid. >> answer the question. >> not main street. wall street. >> let me ask you another question because you brought up a very important principle. i think you said that freedom, right? that teachers and firefighters and policemen and women should have the right to form a union if they want, is that a fair summation of what you said? >> in the land of america, in the -- >> yes or no, professor. >> -- equality for -- [inaudible] >> so you do think that they should have the right to choose this union if they want to have a union, is that your point? >> my point is if they want to be in a union, they have the -- >> let me ask you this question, sir. does that mean you would support what many republican golfs around the country -- governors

around the country want to do so that every single worker in america has the right to join a union or not join a union? isn't that a basic right of any civil worker? >> the question here -- >> mr. moore, mr. moore, save your speeches for closing. please ask the -- >> the question is do people who join unions go to jail? >> no, it's not. >> professor, professor, please. [inaudible conversations] >> if i want to work for the police department in my local government, or i want to become a teacher in the public schools, should i be forced to join a union and pay those union dues? >> [inaudible] >> overruled. counselor, final question. >> should i be required -- >> you are not required. >> don't you think it's a basic civil right of mine of having the fundamental right of joining that union or not joining that union? >> i think workers in america should have the fundamental right to join a union if they

want to. >> or not to. >> wouldn't they want to or not -- whether or not they want to or not as far as a free right to work state, each state should be able to dads on its own. -- decide that on its own. new hampshire would decide one way, other states -- >> but you agree that there are hundreds of thousands of workers in america who are forced to join a union -- >> okay, objection. objection. >> even though they don't want to. >> objection. nobody in america is forced to join a union. >> yes, they are -- how could they not be forced to -- >> order in the court, please. >> i'll save that for my full -- >> now. we're going to skip cross or rebuttal and go right into our closing statements because we're running out of time in this wonderful situation of jurisprudence. now, we will conclude the court proceedings with the closing statements to the jury. [applause] mr. moore. and then second, defense. i understand professor shoe maker will also be making a closing statement, is that right?

is. >> yes. >> all right. members of the jury, members of the audience, i think that what we have here is what we call a slam dunk case for the prosecution. [laughter] and let's just review some of the evidence that we've heard. we've heard the evidence that public sector employee unions are paid a very large premium for being members of that union, that those premiums can be 30%, 50%, in some cases 1200% -- 100% higher than what a private sector worker receives. and there is a basic unfairness here. liberals love to talk about the concept of fairness. how is it fair that the janitor or the plumber or the roofer in america who lives down the street from a public employee union has to pay taxes and earns less money and has to pay taxes to pay for these inflated salaries, benefits, health benefits and so on that that worker does not get themselves? i would make the case to you that that is unfair, and that's hurting the economy. second of all, you heard evidence that these states and municipal governments' unions

have created a situation now through collective bargaining where states and municipalities are facing a $1.5 to $3 trillion unfunded liability. and i would ask this question when you deliberate on this, where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for those exorbitant unfunded liabilities? i will tell you the answer. two sources, either one, radically cut the kinds of public services that we all care about, it means we're going to have to cut school funding, it means we're going to have to cut our police and parks and firefighters, and we'll have to close the prisons, and we'll have to do that because of these exorbitant kinds of employee benefits, retirement benefits that are simply unaffordable, and they're a direct result of no, sirred unionism in the -- forced unionism in the public sector. we've also heard evidence that teachers walk out on their

students, is that putting children first? i would make the case to you that it is not. we cannot go forward in america with public employee unions bankrupting every city and state in america. you heard the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, about what is happening in california. i would make the case to you that the fiscal problems in california are the canary in the coal mine. unless we do something about these enormous benefits that are paid to public employee unions in america, we are going to see the kind of california fiscal crisis hit maine, hit new hampshire, hit florida, hit texas, hit nevada. every state and city in america is not going to be able to pay their bills, and the very important public services we rely on are going to be put in jeopardy or else the alternative to that, and i think this is the alternative to public sector unions, is to double and in some cases triple the taxes on american workers to pay for these benefits. ladies and gentlemen, the sham has got to come to an end, and i

urge you to come back with a guilty verdict. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. moore. professor hsu maker? >> gold-plaited benefits, the new haves, we hear all this rhetoric, but the numbers simply don't back it up. one u.s. senator has twice claimed that the average salary of a public schoolteacher is $89,000. he was off by $40,000. it's only $49,000 a year. to listen to the rhetoric, one would imagine that throughout wisconsin and other states there's altars set up on which taxpayers are sacrificed, and ungrateful public employees lap up the flowing blood. this simply isn't the case. on average 3% of state and local budgets are obligated towards pensions. that's on the high end. in wisconsin it's 1.5%.

wisconsin's pension fund is fully funded to 99.7%. there is no gaping crisis of pension fulfillment in wisconsin or in many other states. and as you heard in the testimony, the budget deficits are hitting state that is tonight even have collective bargaining agreements, even states that prohibit collective bargaining have deficits and in some cases even the ones -- greater than the ones that allow collective bargaining for employees. it's true as one of the witnesses said that the employment relationship is a little different than, say, whole foods that has competition from other grocery stores. but why is it then without that competition that the numbers show that the salary, these so-called gold-plaited benefits simply aren't that high? the average pension in wisconsin, the average pension in wisconsin per year is $21,000. there are watches in this room that cost more than that. in california it's $27,000 a

year. 75%, 75% of the pensioners in california under the state system get less than $36,000 a year. got-plaited, indeed. as we said in the opening, much of this prosecution has been aimed at enflaming rhetoric, enflaming outrage, gratifying outrage that's simply not grounded in the facts. it's also been an attempt to distract from the real cause of the problem. the state budget shortfalls were not caused by public employees or their unions, they were not caused by collective bargaining. they were caused by a crater anything the economy and particularly in the stock market that was the result of irresponsible policies and runaway greed on wall street. [laughter] thank you, your honor. [laughter] if amount collected in state

pension funds right now had simply been invested at the rate of return in a t-bill, simply with that return it would have generated just under $1 trillion. these are manageable problems. again, at the high end 3% of state and local budgets are going to pensions. that's at the high end. that's in california. there are problems. states can pass laws to prohibit double dipping. states can and most have passed laws to exclude from collective bargain agreements, things like pensions. in fact, in most states collective bargaining does not accept them. the unions do not control them, our elected legislators do. there will need to be some innovative solutions to solve the problems that we face, but abolishing collective bar gain canning -- bargaining, as some states are now trying to do, or putting the blame precisely on the workers who teach our keep -- >> professor, you might want to

address the jury, not the audience. [laughter] >> pardon me. >> very good. >> putting the blame on them isn't responsible. it won't help solve the problem, and none of the solutions that have been offered be not improve the plight of private sector workers. what we have before us, then, is a smoke screen. you've been asked to find whether it's beyond a reasonable doubt the prosecution has made their case, and i think, clearly, they have not. fortunately, in this setting we can rise above the sort of outrage and calculated rhetoric that we read in the opinion pages or that we hear on tv from the talking heads, and we can think clearly, we can look at the figures that we've been given, and we can make a decision that not only preserves the right of those who choose to organize in a collective way, to bargain against their employer -- a fairly powerful

employer, the government. active unionization has helped to reduce cronyism and has resulted in the last 40 years in a radical decrease in work stoppages and strikes in the public sector. collective bargaining's been incredibly successful in that regard. to dismantle it now is just a raw part of the politics and is not good for our policy or our communities. thank you very much. >> thank you, professor. all right. [applause] all right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. now it's your time. thank you for your patient, thank you for -- patience, thank you for serving. you've heard the expert witnesses, you've heard statements from both the prosecution, and you've heard them from the defense. it's now up to you to decide the guilt or innocence of ms. lee and professor carl shoemaker and the supporters of public unions in america. now, the way this is going to work is the foreman is going to tally the votes and announce the verdict. the decision will be read by the jury, or the jury will will hav-

it will be a unanimous vote. it will be a majority vote, excuse me, not a unanimous vote is what i'm trying to say. is that clear? majority, not unanimous. very well. all right. members of the jury, please, begin your deliberation. >> [inaudible] >> you have two minutes to deliberate. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> your honor? >> yes. do you have a question? >> [inaudible] federal and state. >> can i repeat the charges, and are they federal and state? just a moment. the charges are -- where are the charges? is. [laughter] well, are unions good or bad for america? >> public sector. >> public sector unions good or bad for america. [inaudible conversations]