lawrence richards analyzes the opposition to unions in america. "washington journal" is next. .

: >> if you have called any c-span program in the last 30 days, give others a chance to call in. we'll get your calls momentarily. the detroit free press starts with a labor story on labor day about unions. organized labor today, u.a.w.'s, new direction inspires visions of hope and disaster. on this tkhraeub day with the world of the workers so changed, one might wonder what would walter reuther think. the union faced the

prospect of losing everything. instead the u.a.w. agreed to job cuts, plant closures and other changes carving out a new purpose for itself, one that if properly managed could serve the foundation of a brighter future. also from this article, while some say that reuther might be rolling in his grave over the givebacks, mike smith of wayne state university says he believes he would take a pragmatic view. some of the thoughts this morning from the "detroit free press" as we ask you the role of labor unions in the economy. first we have robert on our democrats line. good morning from milwaukee. go ahead. caller: good morning. the unions always helped our economy. the republicans and the right wingers and, i think back toward the reagan administration, destroyed the unions -- are

constantly destroying the unions. now, they like the rush the wizard limbaugh, they're going to destroy anything that's going to help the united states of america. >> it is written mr. obama delayed a push for the union's number one legislative priority, a measure to make it easier for workers to organize. he faces potential conflict with unions or trade and on how fast the push for immigration reform and on health care, friction between labor and the white house is suddenly spilling out into the open. in response, mr. obama is renewing his courtship of the labor movement whose members worked as foot soldiers in his campaign

and spent august defending his health plan at town hall-style meetings. today the president will speak at the afl-cio picnic in cincinnati. c-span will have coverage for you this afternoon. st. louis, good morning to harry on our democrats line. what do you think about unions and their role on the economy? help or hurt? caller: i think it hurts. one of my chief complaints is that unions today are functioning more as an administrative agency instead of representing the members that are in the union. and i think they lose credibility on that issue. basically my main objection. >> you say they act as administrative agents. explain that further. caller: i believe they are following the procedures, if you want to call it that, as an administrative agency as far as looking at the way things are to be instead of

representing the interest of their union. as of right now, that's the best way i can explain it. i think that really hurt the member, leadership, and they lose a lot of faith and confidence in the union. they are pretty much watching out for themselves instead of the membership itself. that's the best way i can explain it. i'm a typical joe blow who as a member of the union. >> do you mind telling us what union you belong to? caller: local 656 in st. louis. >> which union? caller: ufcw. >> alex on our republican line. caller: i think the unions are a dinosaur. they were good in their day, but they've outgrown their usefulness. there's a lot of jobs went overseas, a lot of factories went overseas because they pushed too much, for too much money,

everything. they didn't really, as i saw, give any help with the automakers during the -- and give no concessions during the bailout period. as far as i'm concerned, they're a dinosaur. >> this is a look inside "the washington post" on their fed page. labor day by the numbers is what this column will show us. americans celebrated their work since at least 1882 when 10,000 workers paraded through the streets of new york. president grover cleveland signed a bill in 1894 designating the first monday in september as the national labor day holiday. this year the nation's labor force includes at least 156 million people older than 16, according to to the most recent bureau of labor statistics, information released in may, there are 7.2 million teachers and 7 million --

1.7 million c.e.o.'s, 773,000 hairstylists and at least 234,000 roofers, according to the u.s. census bureau. a look at some of the interesting labor statistics, just a few of these from "the washington post" this morning. these statistics with the bureau of labor statistics. 83% of workers 18 to 64 are covered by health insurance or at least were covered by health insurance, some portion for all or part of 2007. 77% of private-sector employees who received a paid vacation as an employment benefit. 17 million is the number of commuters who leave work between the hours of midnight and 5:59 a.m., representing 13% of all commuters. there are 10.4 million people, according to the b.l.s., the number of self-employed workers, 7.7 million who hold more than one job.

they account for 5% of the work force. the number, median number of years workers have been with their current employer is four years. to gaithersburg, next up on our independents line. good morning, rafael. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to say unions are not just about the economy. unions are part of the democratic oppression of a free people. in a country where people did not have these rights. i'll give you an example. i'm originally from a small country in central africa. a week ago we had an election, and we voted for change against what? the son of the president who died a month ago. he declared himself the winner. people went out to the streets and guess what? they killed the people. unions are part of the democratic expression in a free country, and people should feel privileged to have that choice. host: did you vote in that election?

caller: we had a chance to vote at the embassy in washington, but they cheated the election. they kicked us out of the embassy. the fire department had to come in because somebody broke a gas pipe. host: you never got a chance to cast your vote there? caller: our vote didn't count. host: new york city, ted. good morning on our democrats' line. caller: thank you c-span. unions strengthen the middle class. that's the most important thing, is to have a strong, rich middle class. i don't mean rich, but successful middle class. as far as the u.a.w. is concerned, recently there was a statistic that there's $1,000 in medical costs in each auto, and $700 in steel. to health care costs weaken our industries across the board to be competitive in the world.

so, if you get health care costs under control, you're going to strengthen american industry, including the automobile industry, and the health care debate to get costs under control is vitally important to the nation's health. caller: caller: long island, new york. gi was listening to the previous caller. he was talking about how wonderful it is to have a choice between unions and nonunions. i want to let your listeners know i'm part of the 1199-scie health care workers union in the tristate area. they got done negotiating our contracts for the

upcoming five years. not only is long island the most speuf place to live -- expensive place to live and not only am i making not even $36,000 a year, they agreed not to give us cost of living increases for the next four years. not only that, all the executives in the 1199 that work for the 1199 front office are getting 3% increases. if you want to get a job here in long island, you have to prescribe to the 1199 union if you're a health care worker because you don't have any other choice because they control all of north shore, long island jewish health care workers. caller: the executives in the aoupb kwror are getting -- in the union are getting health care increases? caller: the executives in the union. there is an article in the "wall street journal" stating just that about how right before the vote on this new contract was due,

that it came to light that the executives of the aoupb john were all receiving their full benefits package and actually their pension benefits had not been -- they still had 115% benefits and ours went from 115% and inside of five years decreased to 78%, i believe, and nobody can explain why. now they want to take our pay raises and put them towards what they're saying -- putting them towards our pension benefits for the future. host: you'll go three years without a pay raise? caller: three years. then they're going to give us a one lump sum payment. then we won't get another raise for another year. after that we only get a 2.5% and then a 2%. host: what about job security? it's obvious in these days where state governments are having trouble funding initiatives, have you been given job security in the

health care field? caller: it depends on the amount of business we have. so far we haven't had any problems because we are with health care. if you look at the numbers, health care is constantly growing. we're constantly having doctors come in and do more and different procedures. there is always more coming our way. with the more work comes less help, though. host: back to your point about the officials, the executives in your kwraoupb i don't know, as a -- in your union, as a union member, what can you do to change that? is there dissent in the union to change that? caller: i work in bayshore. almost every person i've spoken to is unhappy with the contract but they don't have a choice. if you don't have a choice here on long island,

actually if you don't have two jobs here on long island so you're making about $70,000 to $80,000 a year, you're barely living. host: are you working two jobs? caller: not at the moment. i'm trying to get myself through school. host: we appreciate the input. to blares town, new jersey, mark on our independents line. caller: i think that unions are a big part of the problem today. you take a look at anything you would like to, you take education, manufacturing cars, it's another political wing of the democratic party. it's a bunch of garbage. these people talk about pride in america and manufacturing, you take the labor unions in the city and when you're working on instruction projects, they replace them with illegal aliens. if anybody complains about it, they're put out of a job. host: how can people that you term illegal aliens

become members of the union? caller: it happens all the time. it is a little secret nobody wants to talk about. they take the laborers, people who come in to do the cleanup or do the demolition, they take the illegal aliens and give them a job. it's real simple. they just pay them. it's another part of what's wrong with the system. host: another view on public unions, public employees union, an editorial from "the philadelphia enquirer""the unions must find a way to protect their members while keeping their employers financially healthy." they write when public sector unions try to avoid layoffs with proposals that may raise taxes, the public isn't buying. people are trying to make ends meet. add to the mix that the current budget woes at all levels of government exacerbated issues over unsustainable pensions and other benefits that states and cities such as philadelphia have grant to unionized workers. to oakland.

good morning on the republican line. what's your neighbor? welcome. caller: okay. we're missing the point. the rocket is passing by the moon fast. the republican and democrats are equally responsible for the demise of organized labor in a positive way. first of all, the republicans opened the trade to take manufacturing overseas. you can spend $130 for electric razor. one week after you start using it, it don't shave

you. coffee makers make noises like a locomotive engine and you don't know what. you do not have any serious inspection of hazards from what is coming from overseas. it could be toxic, and it is not -- it's not even half of the quality of what it used to be. so we're not saving money. we're not buying cheaper products. we're just buying cheaper-quality products. the republicans -- shame on the republican side is they always backing up businesses, corporations, powerful corporation that put money in their pocket for the campaign reelection. so that is not -- that is not even a democratic institution anymore.

caller: the comment i would like to make is the thing that hurt the economy is greed, simply greed. corporate greed, just greed, whatever you want to call it. i would say in terms of the union and the economy, my response would be the labor

union is what has pushed for us to have universal health care. another caller mentioned that it's the highest cost in making a car is for health care. and i would say to you that if we could get the cost of health care down, then we could tackle some of the concerns that we have. health care premiums rise 8% to 12% every year, so a business cannot figure out each year has to continually keep that cost raised and raised and raised. if we had a way to have a fixed cost, a business could then say, i know what my cost is for health care, and they could base their budget on that. but with the way the economy is now and what we have in health care, they can't do that. that begins to impact. you could talk to anybody across america who is at a negotiation table. the number-one concern is the continuous rising cost of health care. host: it sound like you have some familiarity about

that negotiating table. can you tell us a little more? caller: yes. i do work for a labor organization, and i also am a nurse by trade. yes, i do have some background on that. again, at every table, it's health care. in america, we've got to think about it in terms of from a moral perspective, like reid said in his book, this is a moral issue. we have to ask ourselves do we want to prevent death in this country? deaths that are preventible, just by giving people access to health care. i think that's what we should focus on. host: our caller from atlanta was referring to t.r. reid, our guest last night on "q & a." we'll take a view from twitter.com. don't bunch all unions together. we began a support staff union in our school so we would not lose our jobs to

outsourcing. meridian, connecticut. caller: i speak from having been a worker. a union steward and also a supervisor. i think the greatest function of the unions is the health and safety of the worker. that's greatly overlooked. you ask somebody in a mine workers union about health and safety of the worker, and the effect of the union also makes supervision better. p makes the corporate -- it makes the corporate system train their supervisors more to treat the workers properly and for them to be more knowledgeable about the productivity of workers. host: you've been on both sides. you've been a supervisor, you've been in the union.

it's your view that the unions abt as a check on -- act as a check on companies in areas like employee safety? caller: that's the biggest part of it. some of the workers will complain about everything and grieve about everything. but if they do it too often, even their own membership tries to console them. host: how did you make that bridge from being a union member to supervising union members? caller: when you become a supervisor, training is very important. also when you become a steward, you receive training. you can see both sides. the training opens your eyes and elucidates you to what the problem is. you get on-the-job practice about working on these problems to try and -- the

ultimate goal is the workers there to provide productivity. that's agreed by management and labor. you want to maximize production but you don't want to have draconian rules and powers which aren't productive. host: on a personal level, you never had that incident where union members would accuse you of turning to the other side or not being attuned to their concerns because now you're a member of -- quote -- "management." caller: even when i was a steward i got accused of that. you don't understand my plight, that would be the thing. i said, no, we can only work within the rules. we have a management-labor agreement. host: what kind of union was this? what kind of work? caller: government work. host: thanks for the call. boston is next. good morning to joan on our

democrats' line. caller: good morning. i just want to say that i think when the unions work, they work well. oftentimes they don't work the way that they should. my husband worked for an airline, and after 9/11 they had a contract in play, so they had no choice but to hopb more the contract -- but to honor the contract. about three months down the road they had them take a 26% pay cut when you factor in their holiday pay, sick pay, et cetera. the vice president that same year all took their bonuses. to this day these guys do not have a contract. and they do this funky little thing where they say it can expire on. they virtually can get away with never increasing your pay, never giving you back your benefits. when they're out sick the first day, they only get

paid for four hours. the second day -- this is even with a doctor's note. they only get pay for four hours. it is not until the third day that these gentlemen are out that they'll pay them for the full day. again, the vice presidents argued their bonuses, they all get paid their sick time. there are millions of people flying in the sky. i would think they would do their best to be at least considerate of that and would not want to encourage your employees to come in ill. how is that successful? host: was your husband a member of a pilots union? caller: he's not. he is in maintenance. directly responsible for making sure that those skies are quite friendly. this is no news flash. they tried to get another union voted in, and the union that he works for, they kind of changed the numbers and said we've got "x" amount of votes over

here, so they went to different people, what they called members at that point so that they couldn't be voted out. clearly the unions are in bed with the company. host: we want to remind our viewers that president obama is speaking to the union, the afl-cio picnic today in cincinnati. to middle town, new jersey. george, independent line. caller: good morning. i kind of have to view them as a necessary evil. as a union electrician, most of the time we fight for a fair salary to keep up with the cost of living which gets harder all the time. they raise the taxes, they raise tolls in my area. as things keep increasing, the powers that be want you to work for less and less money. one of the big fights, wal-mart is the biggest employer in the country, and look what they pay

their people as compared to when g.m. used to be the biggest employer. it also has to do with location, working over here in the northeast, it's a higher cost of living as opposed to certain areas. host: do you work for one specific employer or various? caller: we move around. certain individuals tend to stay with shops for longer period of time. for the most part it's -- it's as the jobs go, you work for a period of time until the job ends. then you have to go back to the hall. host: we appreciate your input. the front page of the "washington times" about labor unions. biggest goals met. obama democrats aim to reward backers, the nation's labor unions added 428,000 recruits to their ranks last year, used that

muscle to help get their candidate elected to the white house. the first labor day of the obama presidency arrived with the two great he was goals unmet. neither the employee free choice act nor health care reform bill passed congress. next up, pennsylvania, republican caller. this is dennis. caller: good morning. happy labor day. i speak to you as a former union member and as a retired professional. my experience is that fundamentally the people who are running the unions run them for their own personal benefit. essentially take advantage of the union members. i've been involved ph any number of -- i've been involved in any number of negotiations where essentially we were told you can write the work rules, but the health and

welfare payments are the only deal breaker for us. essentially what it was was the management always made out and the guys who were really the union members at the local level got whatever the employer was prepared to pay. sometimes there was some pushing and shoving, but essentially that's the way it worked. i can recall going to union meetings where when i walked in, the guys at the head table would start talking in italian. it was simply the average guy didn't have a shot. host: why did they do that? caller: they didn't want us to know what was going on. the other point that i would like to make is that unions comprise approximately 12% of the total labor force, yet they

drive the political agenda because they can aggregate money and put workers in the field for campaigns. i've been involved in political campaigns where people, even republicans, had campaign workers who were provided by unions. the point i would like to make is that i think the finance laws should be changed to limit campaign contributions to individuals. no corporations, no unions. and that only individuals residingment district of the person up for election should be allowed to contribute. i'll just point out in my area, philadelphia is about 50 miles north of us. it costs one-third more to build a square foot of construction in

philadelphia county than it does, say, in chester county, where i live. simply because it's unionized. host: solely because it's unionized? caller: yes. i've represented nonunion contractors who went into philadelphia county, started doing work and come back the next morning and the bulldozer was burned up. host: one more call. liz from new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think unions are a necessary evil. someone said that earlier. someone else brought up the fact that the unions are what drive up the cost of cars because of health benefits. i don't believe the unions are driving the cost of health benefits. something else is. i think it all returns to wall street. what unions do is react to increases in prices.

they try to negotiate the best benefits they can get for their members. they try to negotiate a nice livable wage for people. and they are not our problem. our problem is corporate greed. it always has been, it always will be. i think when they negotiate down contracts, it's because they are trying to retain jobs for their membership. they certainly don't want their membership to be reduced. and they're competing against a world market where there are no unions, where there are no safety factors built in to production. host: other countries do have trade unions and such, particularly european countries. caller: that's european countries. i would imagine their products are -- costs to purchase their products are similar to ours. i'm talking about outsourcing our jobs to countries such as china, such as vietnam, such

asthma lay shah where -- such as malaysia, where there are no unions, no quality assurance, no safety for employees nor the consumer. i don't believe unions are the problems. i think corporations are the problems. i think we need to regulate our corporations more and then we need to enforce our regulations, something that was dropped over the last eight years of republican leadership. host: thanks for checking in this morning. thanks for all your calls. more about labor unions coming up. we'll talk next about congress. congress returns tomorrow. the house and senate gavel in for the first time in a month. we'll talk with brian freel of the national journal. we'll be back with our conversation.

>> as the debate over health care continues, c-span's health care hub is a key resource. go on-line, follow the latest tweets, video ads and links. watch the latest events and share your thoughts on the issue with your own citizen video, including video from any town halls you've gone to. there's more. at c-span.org/health care. the supreme court has a special session hearing oral arguments on a finance case wednesday. it marks the first appearance on the bench for

justice sotomayor. here's chief justice roberts. >> to some extent it's unsettling. you quickly get to view the court as the court as composed of these members, and it becomes hard to think of it as involving anyone else. i suspect people look at their families, this is a family. how can it be different? but you get new arrivals in both of those situations. it's a tremendous sense of loss. justice white used to say when the court gets a new member, it changes everything. it changes everybody. simple changes. we move the seats around in the courtroom. the seats are by order the seniority. same in the conference room. more fundamentally, i think it can cause you to take a fresh look at how things are decided. the new members is -- the new member is going to have a particular view about how

issues should be addressed. it may be very different from what we've been follow for some time. it's an exciting part of life at the court. >> hear prosecute other justices -- hear from other justices during supreme court week starting october 4. host: congress returns tomorrow. we are joined this morning by brian free of the national journal and david hawkins, managing editor of c.q. weekly. move us forward in terms of what the procedure will be, where the health legislation stands now when congress comes back. what do they need to get to first? >> the first and the pivotal and also the first procedural moment is in the senate finance committee, which is the last of the committees that needs to act on this bill before -- it could go to the house

thaor right -- to the house floor right now. the house seems to be waiting patiently for the senate to decide the shape of its bill. that's the key place where that's going to come together is in the senate finance committee chaired by max baucus of montana. he's working with a so-called gang of six, five other senators -- two other democrats, two other republicans. he's been working with them to try to come up with a bipartisan bill. now he is suggesting that he knows he is out of time and that once the president speaks on wednesday night he will essentially get his marching order. >> that was the last piece of the puzzle. how will what the president says affect how congress proceed from there? guest: it's going to be very important because he's got some very difficult differences to deal with in the democratic party. in the house he's got about

57, 58 members who say they will not vote for a bill that has a public option, government-run insurance option for americans. and the senate, it's not totally clear that a plan with a public option could pass. president obama has to find a way to talk to both sides of that debate and spread the needle in a way that can get the bill to move forward in both chambers. host: you mentioned the liberal side of the house. maxine waters was on "this week" with george stephanopoulos and drew a line about what they could expect. take a look at this. >> we support what the president has said all along he'd like to see, and that is a robust public option. he campaigned on it. he continues to talk about support for it. we're going to stand behind him. nancy pelosi said nothing

is going to pass that floor without a public option. with all due respect to senator dole, the republicans are not going to support a credible health care reform bill led by the president or the democrats. we're not going to get their support. i appreciate the work that's been done by the president to try and get a bipartisan bill, but there will be no bipartisan bill. host: maxine waters there, david hawkings yesterday, talking about the support in the house and how a public option must be part of the bill. how much is president obama going to have to listen to that wing of the party, in particular on health care, but also on issues like the policy in afghanistan going forward? guest: i'm glad you asked because this is the topic of our cover story this week, so we've been thinking about this a lot at c.q. this is sort of the unheralded story at the moment which is that the president is starting to

not quite annoy, but certainly disappoint the liberal wing of the party. they felt as though they elected if not a dream candidate, but certainly their preferred candidate. and they have been expecting a little bit more from him than they have been getting. and they see this public option question, this notion that the government -- to a liberal the notion that the united states government, the federal government should help people by providing them with health care is sort of a no brainer for them, and they can't understand why the president, as he believes, as most democrats have, in a robust federal government, why he wouldn't stick with them on this. host: your wraoeurgt for c.q. writes it will also determine -- this health care debate will determine whether this extend beyond the issue of health care. this more than any other, whether obama and congressional democrats are making the most of the opportunity given to them

to pass a progressive agenda. guest: progressive agenda meaning everything from not only more federal involvement in health care, but an aggressive and strict cap and trade system on the environment, a more assertive reintroduction of investigating the bush administration abuses. gay rights is another issue. labor rights, on labor day we can't forget that one. host: what's the political down side for democrats? or is there a political down side steaming forward without republican support, particularly in the house? guest: the problem for the president is while there may be a big liberal wing of the party, there's also a pretty sizable moderate wing. the democrats have a 40-seat majority in the house. 49 of the staoets won by democrats -- 49 of the seats won were won by republican candidate john mccain. democrats in those districts are dealing with much different pressures than the more liberal

members of the party. they were hearing from their constituents this august that they're not, that the constituents are not that keen on any plan that can be seen as expansion of government. host: in the issue of "c.q. weekly" you do a piece on senator ted kennedy who died two weeks ago, liberal legislator. how much is he being missed in this debate going forward? guest: enormously. certainly on the democratic side. i think the republicans are happy. obviously they're not happy that he's gone but they're happy they don't have his legendary negotiating skill to deal with. having said that, there was the sentiment after senator kennedy died that this would be a big kick start for health care. do it for ted kennedy sentiment would help president obama really move things along. i think that is overstated. i think the types of people who would say let's do it for ted kennedy are

inclined to go with the president any way. along those lines, i think those democrats who are saying we won't support health care if there is no public option, it's a bit of a generalization, i think probably most of them will support it. host: we have two guests here to talk about congress. we talk a little bit about where the senate stands with health care. the house passed -- house committees passed separate versions of this. how does this get weaved together into one bill on the house side? guest: there is still a little bit of work to be done in the energy and commerce committee. they reached a deadline at the end of the july session, and still had a couple dozen amendment

pending. they put it off until now. that need to be worked out. basically the house leadership will take all three versions of the bill and combine it. they'll do that with an eye toward getting 218 votes in the house of representatives. and the back room wheeling and dealing that was necessary to get the bill through the energy and commerce committee. balancing the interest of those on the left of the party and those in the middle. host: you write a little bit about the august town hall meetings in your cover story for the national journal about writing that people want washington to act, but they don't see washington's past actions making much difference in their lives. they want washington to fix things, but they expect president obama and other leaders to overcome partisan differences. they don't trust government to do the right thing. public trust in government has been declining, and washington's intense intervention in the economy, beginning with the

bailout vote last fall, is -- this low trust in government has an impact on being able to do giant transformational highly disruptive things because there's not enough trust to enable a huge shift, according to to a quote by an economic analyst. when you're talking about something as personal as health care, people become very, very nervous about what they're getting. it sound like, she's saying these august meetings were more than just anger, that there was real concern out this going back to last year's passage of the economic bailouts and such. guest: look back at when congress passed medicare in 1965. at that time three-quarters of americans said they trusted the federal government to do the right thing most of the time. now that number is well below 50%. that's partly what you were seeing this summer.

this general distrust but also a lot of concern about the big numbers people are seeing. $700 billion in the financial bailout, all the money that went to the automakers, the $787 billion economic stimulus package and $1.3 trillion deficits. host: david hawkings, you haven't had a chance to read his article yet, but he writes about last year when the economic rescue came out, the financial bailout came out, how that failed initially in the house and some of the reaction to it passing. you draw an analogy between then and now. that was september of last year. in other words, a fairly high legislative hurdle to pass but it can be done? guest: i haven't read my story yet. it can be done, although my memory of what happened last fall was there was a sense of doom and immediacy

in the financial markets last fall that essentially held a political gun to the head of congress. secretary paulson, the treasury secretary at the time, was visibly anxious and verbally anxious on the phone with lawmakers. i talked to lawmakers who said you can hear his voice quivering and members will say will this work? he said i'm not sure but if we don't do it things will go off the cliff. host: let's hear what viewers have to say. birmingham, alabama. david, go ahead. caller: good morning. what i want to say is the fact that government has to step up. that's why we elect people. government has to step up and face situations and do certain things. i think it has worked because if they hadn't passed the stimulus bill, we don't know what this

country would be and how it would look right now. second of all, it's not so much the article that you just read that the young lady wrote, is that the right-wing part of the republican party, they are trying to tear president obama's administration down. they're doing everything they can -- let me finish my point. they're doing everything they can to tear his administration down. they are putting out certain things making the government look bad. it's time that the government has to step in, and it's time for president obama -- i voted for him. i'm an african-american, i'm getting very upset with him. president obama get with it. do like george bush. whatever we need to pass, we need to get the job done. host: thank you, david. guest: i think that's the president's face on the line. you can hear he's getting a little frustrated. i feel supported in our cover story that there's angst on the left. the president is between a

rock and a hard place, one of the oldest cliches around. every time he takes a big-government approach, the republicans are going to spurn him more. we heard maxine waters say on that clip that she is suspicious and many democrats are suspicious that no amount of compromise will be good enough to draw republican votes. the republicans are out to vote "no." they're going to oppose him every step of the way. host: she said that on yesterday's program. i want to show a response to what maxine waters had to say and what he says republicans are looking for in the health care bill. >> republicans are ready to work for comprehensive health care reform. when i went home and did town hall meetings across the state of indiana, i heard people say we need health care reform. we need something to do lower the cost of health care insurance for families

and small businesses and lower the cost of health care. i also heard people say they don't want a tkpoft-run plan that's -- they don't want a government-run plan that is going to lead to a tpoft takeoveagovernment takeover. >> how is that a government-run plan? it is a fair question. i saw robert gibbs on the show say a public option introduced would not affect people in any way, shape or form. the american people know better. host: maxine waters outside of that clip said to mike pence where's your plan? republicans haven't offered any health care plan. guest: if you look at the lessons each party learned from the last elections, democrats felt it was a repudiation of the bush years and a conservative view. republicans did not view it that way. they viewed it as the

conservative program not being implemented by the bush administration, that there was too much spending, that the party strayed from its ideals. since then the party has coalesced around this idea of smaller government in the same way that it has in the past. you're not going to find republicans coming on board, a plan that even smells a little bit like big government. that poses a problem for the president because if maxine waters and other heub rals hold firm -- liberals hold firm on the idea they won't support anything without a public option, that would force the president to compromise with republicans and get much less than most democrats would want. host: let's hear from a republican caller. this is paul on our republican line from hartford, connecticut. good morning. guest: good morning, guys. just a few points about how

i feel health care could be aided. toward reform, giving the states back the power to do -- instead of giving the money to the federal government, the federal government giving back less, the states should all have health care control. another thing is like with cable, you have to buy a box set. cable would be cheap if you only had to buy three channels that you use every night. it would be very cheap. but the insurance companies have set it up where we have to buy benefits for viagra, for end of life health care. if you're 18 years old. if you only had to pick pharmaceutical, hospitalization, doctor visits, it would be very cheap to get health care. also ted kennedy was the one that got us the insurance companies with the h.m.o.'s, thank you. host: david hawkings. guest: the caller suggests something along

the lines republicans would propose. if they were in charge right now, if they were running the congress and had the obligation to be proactive as well as reactive, they would propose change to the tax code, incentives to business to provide people more insurance. i would say the only big government intervention they might go along with is an expansion of medicaid, which is the federal, state health insurance program for the poor. right now it's only open to people essentially a little bit below the poverty level. they might consider raising eligibility to get more of the working poor involved. as is much of a business-oriented free-market approach to health care expansion. guest: on this first football weekend, the basement played out in the opposing field at an away game with all these town hall meetings comes to home turf for the president where he's comfortable before a joint session of

congress. does he still have a fairly -- even though his poll numbers nationally have been slipping particularly on health care, does he still have a fairly good reception on capitol hill with republican members? guest: yes, i would say they are -- he hapbt done anything to -- he hasn't done anything to really annoy him. i think they feel he's been a relatively straight shooter with congress so far. there's no sense of annoyance with him. of course when he speaks to congress on wednesday night, the audience, as we all know, not in that room but on tv. guest: congressman gerry connolly was on this program a week ago. he wanted to see president obama act more like president johnson and twist a few arms. is that needed on capitol hill? guest: so far he's avoided doing that. it's a direct response to lessons democrats learned in 1993 and 1994 with president clinton's health care debate where lawmakers felt the white house was too much in the weeds and

too involved in pushing specific proposals in congress. the white house has stepped back and let democratic lawmakers work their will themselves. host: let's go to cape cod. independent line, you're on. caller: two things. one thing is i believe the reason why the health care is stalling is because the corporations are putting undue influence on all the legislators. and i believe that they should -- one of the things they could do is change the definition from a corporation to being a person to a person has to be a human being. because corporations obviously lack a heart and a soul. so if any human being who is also a person lacked a heart and a soul, they'd be probably in prison for life or in texas, probably already be killed with the death penalty. the other thing i was going

to say is i think they should leave it up to the states. i'm in massachusetts, and they don't have a perfect system here, but it's better than it was. i think that if they can just agree on some minimum parameters and say the states have to do something, then some states will get it right and everybody can eventually imitate it. host: i'll let you guys respond. robert gibbs, the president's spokeman, was on yesterday on "meet the press." discuss me on "this week with george stephanopoulos." he talked about the public option. here's what he had to say. >> i think if viewers for abc and everybody else tune in to hear the president at 8:00 on wednesday night, they'll leave that speech knowing exactly where the president stand, exactly what he thinks we have to do to get health care done. health care reform done this year. >> and what he won't accept as well? >> we'd prefer to outline

the positive rather than the negative. i'm sure he will draw some lines in the sand. how how but this request -- how about this question on legislation. there has been talk that the president will draft legislative language. is that what's happening now? >> you have several different proposals in the house and the senate that made their way through the committee process. obviously the senate finance committee continues to work. you're going to have ideas that come at this from a couple different directions and the president has to take all the strand and pull them together. >> he will do that and put his ideas on the table? >> people will leave that speech knowing where he stands. if it takes doing whatever to get health care done, the president's ready, willing and able to go do that. host: it would seem according to robert gibbs, the president would have to come back and be specific in terms of specific language legislatively that not only congress can understand but folks watching the speech wednesday night can

understand. tkpwoeupb brian talked about leaving it -- guest: brian talked about leaving it in congress's hands and that has not work. the president is doing what he is known for doing best, which is soaring elevated rhetoric. it is time for him to put that aside. it's not just about wednesday night's speech but about poll numbers that follow and building consensus for what he wants to get done. guest: there was an interesting shift in message in july. the white house and democrats started talking about this not as health care reform but health insurance reform and emphasizing the fact that -- sort of making the insurance companies the enemy in this debate. it will be interesting to see if president obama continues that tact. insurance companies argue they have been cooperative all along, much more cooperative than they were in 1993 and 1994 and the

only thing they feel strongly against is the public option. host: the administration has been able to work pharmaceutical companies as well in putting this together. guest: cut a deal described as a back room deal with the pharmaceutical companies to limit exposure in this bill. opponents of the pharmaceutical companies are saying the president is letting them off too easy, another example of the left being annoyed. guest: we've got another half-hour with our guests talking about health care and a number of other issues that congress will face when they come back. so we can broad it out beyond health care including the mundane issues of the annual spending bills. we appreciate c.q.'s tracking of where the spending bills are in congress. how does debate over health care impact the ability of congress to get spending bills done on time which they're aiming to do this year? guest: it does somewhat because viewers and listen

toers this program get annoyed when i say things like this. but congress, even though it is 535 people, they have a limited attention span and limited energy level. and health care which would be by far and away the biggest thing congress is doing right now, is eating up a lot of the attention. fortunately for congress and for the president, with a democrat in the white house and democrats running the spending process, this process is running more smoothly than it has in recent years. host: they'll be on time? guest: relatively on time. they're coming back tomorrow. that leaves them three weeks to go in september. without looking at the chart, i can't remember. there are 12 bills. i believe 4 #-r ready to be conference -- i believe 4 are ready to be conferenced between the house and the senate. that's a lot of work to do. i'll predict they'll be three weeks late.

:

he and senator mccain were hoping george w. bush would essentially take this off their agenda. >> host: fort wayne indiana. good morning. >> caller: good morning. correct me if i'm wrong. if you leave your place of employment and go to a different place of work that you are not allowed to buy private insurance anymore, that is where you will fall into the government system and eventually this private insurance will dry up and go away. am i right or wrong, sir? >> guest: under the proposal put forth so far? >> caller: yes, sir. >> guest: my understanding of the way the house bill works, that you would go into what is

called the exchange, rather than necessarily into the public option. so you would have a choice among different private plans, as well as if there is a government plan, the government plan. >> host: orlando, florida, good morning to jeff on the independent line. >> caller: good morning. my question is regarding autism and the reform. one bill has an autism amendment attached to it. i would like to find out what the panel thinks of the chances of that surviving is. many states are passing autism insurance reform, those laws are very restrictive as to who they cover. for example, florida passed one and it only covers 14% of autistic children. if you work for a business with less than 50 employees, the law doesn't apply to you. if you get insurance through your employer and it it is self-funded, you're not covered

by that law. there are two bills, one in the house hr2413 and sa19, that would correct that self-insured loophole. i wonder what the panel thinks of those passing? thank you. >> host: either of you know about that? >> guest: i don't know about the specific provision. i do know that the democratic congress, the congress generally, republicans and democrats alike, are more uncliened than not to support autistic people. >> guest: there is so much in these bills. these are giant bills. you know, one thing in the -- in both bills is a public health fund that in the house there is $10 billion a year for improving the public health infrastructure in the country. there are autism provisions and the public health infrastructure

that haven't gotten a lot of attention so far, but as the president moves the debate into the details of the legislation, probably will come up and especially with the swine flu issue up all fall i expect the public health aspect of this to gain prominence. >> host: robert payer report necessary terms of funding, writes about a new idea being floated by the new fee on health insurance companies proposed to expand coverage. he writes people familiar with the plan say it was calculated to appeal to senator snow, republican in maine. they say it appears unlikely the proposal account win support from other republicans on the panel, the group of six, you talked about. this is is a new wrinkle ahead of the president's speech. >> guest: that is right. there is senator balkus, sort of his last, really last politically viable effort to shape the debate in advance of

of the president's speech and they are trying to pick off one republican senator at a time. they are very eager still to pick up senator snow, the most moderate republican in the senate and if it it doesn't work, you will quickly see by the end of the week, get a sense this will be an all democratic effort or not. >> host: charlotte, north carolina, michael a republican caller. >> caller: good morning. i would like to think outside the box. most insurance companies function on a state by state basis so you have multiple blue cross/blue shields operating. wouldn't it be easier if you had agreement by the 50 health insurance commissioners or insurance commissioners whereby you had a standard policy that would be nationwide and have these companies, such as blue cross/blue shield of each state function as a national insurance company that would enable portability, enable people to keep their insurance as they

change their jobs and move from state to state and it would also eliminate a great deal of duplication of the management structure of of each of the state operations. north carolina, as i understand it, the c.e.o. here made $17 million last year. you have multiple structures that could reduce the cost of delivery, maintain privacy of the insurance and still have regulated statewide. another point i would make is, i don't understand why you have non-profit insurance companies such as blue cross/blue shield and insurance companies that are profit making and maybe everybody could be profit making and those profits would be taxed and may be redirected back into the healthcare system and the held insurance system. couple ideas and i'd like to listen to your comments. >> host: thank you. >> guest: the idea of control comes up in several places. one is a public option.

house democrats who support a public option say it it needs to be national in scope so it it can achieve the savings that will be used to expand coverage and do other things in healthcare. in the senate, the idea there is an idea of instead of public option creating cooperative to compete with private company, blue cross/blue shield is sort of an example of that kind of thing. and in the senate there's more of an interest in doing this sort of state by state, sort of natural thing. senators represent all states as house members represent individual districts. that debate will continue to play out and if a coo-op idea survives in some form that will be a central issue of how it will be structured. >> host: just in terms of covering this debate, you are the managing editior of cq weekly.

you are looking at the democratic party and you have five different committees managing healthcare and dealing with healthcare legislation. it seems rather to get as a journalistic operation to get your arms around it and help your readers get your head around it. >> guest: it is indeed. we have i would say four very good reporters on this story. that is just people who are experts in healthcare. cq has healthcare electronic news letter, four people full time on that. the magazine in our daily publication have two other reporters and then there are a leadership team and it is fascinating to watch them all drill in with their sources and see how you can sort of of really see having them drill in six different places everyday to come back and start piecing together the elephant which changes shape almost everyday. they come back and they see a

very complicated story emerging. >> host: both of you are asked to follow the story and come on programs like this and disemanate what you know. how challenging is that? >> guest: it is hard. those of us that come from the print world,y are not trained in television and broadcast. you know, in a journal story, i have 2500 words to talk about something and it is obviously more -- >> host: you have to maintain that and bring it to places like this. >> guest: reporters tend to drill down relatively deeply into this fee that balkus is talking about. you come on a program like this and people want a more elevated approach and sometimes a more narrow approach, like the caller about autism. great story and we will get on that autism story. >> host: tony on the independent line line. go ahead, tony, you are on the

air. >> caller: yeah, i have a question. i believe the times and post, i think they ought to put big pictures all the way across -- how many are actually in the pocket of healthcare system who actually get money. i ran a company for 25 years, ran my own one for 15 and i'm also a vet of the nam war from '55 to '56. competition, right now there is no competition in healthcare. if you read one plan, it is the same as the other plan. i don't understand. i'd like to see the democrats and the republicans and see how much money they're accepting from the medical people and see what their votes are. i guarantee the more the money, the less their voting for a government plan to help bring the president without going, this is $100 and somebody else

going, i'll do it for $50, it will always be $100. >> host: has national journal looked at this debate? >> guest: sure. a huge amount of money is donated to campaigns by these companies, particularly to the members of the committees that have jurisdiction over the issues. it can come back to haunt people. chris dodd, the chairman of the senate banking committee, and also playing a big role and filling in on the health committee in the senate, you know, is in trouble, most endangered incumbent in the senate and it is partly because he's seen as too close to the industries he oversees on the banking committee, which includes a mortgage lender that gave him pref rential treatment. he says he didn't know about it, but it still feeds into a perception many people have that members of of congress are in the pockets of big corporations. >> host: what about labor money and progressive cause money or

interest group money in terms of lobbying for healthcare? >> guest: there is plenty of that, too. my favorite statistic from bloomberg news, looked at the lobby registration and how lobbyists have registered in healthcare and i believe they found 3000 lobbyists registered on healthcare, essentially means six lobbyists for every member of congress, which is sort of an easy -- >> host: just on healthcare? >> guest: just on healthcare. >> host: scott good morning on the democrat line. scott, hi. >> caller: good morning. >> host: hi there. >> caller: massachusetts was mentioned earlier and i would like to flesh out a few more details about the plan. since we had to experience it it here firsthand as self-employed people. there aren't enough facts and figures out there. what this means is that if you are over 43,700 a year, you don't kwaul for any subsidy

whatsoever. for a working class couple, 50 years old, that will mean that you are forced by the state to handle close to $7000 a year to the insurance company for a policy that is virtually full of holes that no one would find acceptable on your panel today. on the other hand, if you'd like to get a real policy, one that has no giant deductibles and so on and so forth, something comparable to what everyone enjoy necessary canada and every other industrialized nation in the world, actually has to pay $20,000 a year for that policy. it's incredible. >> host: scott, before you go, i'll get our guest response, but you're calling from massachusetts. your coverage this week will make efforts to change the system of getting a new senator in the wake of of the death of

senator kennedy. what are your feelings on that? >> caller: it all depends on whether or not they will make a statement saying that whoever is going to be replacing senator kennedy will be 100% onboard for a powerful public option because this is bankrupting the individuals of this. these are available straight from the state health connector website right there is available, just go there and shop for insurance and you see what you actually have to fork over. it is incredible. >> host: okay, we'll hear what our guests have to say. >> guest: the massachusetts plan is one members of congress are looking at and looking at for lesson necessary setting up a national plan. and key problem that the massachusetts program is facing is that despite the limitations that the caller describes, the cost of that system are growing rapidly and the state is struggling to keep up with the

rising costs. when -- as congress tack on, lawmakers have to be careful not to have the same thing where they put up all the benefits up front, but all the costs later on and the benefits, the cost of the benefits greatly exceed the way they plan to pay for it it. >> host: in any states, they go this is working this, state health plan is working. >> guest: some people point to massachusetts and say that it is great. other people talk about cooperative insurance efforts in oregon and elsewhere in the northwest. massachusetts is definitely the one that comes up the most as an exampl example. >> host: peggy, republican caller. >> caller: the stimulus bill, there has been provision to create electronic data collection. along with that is compared to the resurgence, i've gone into

the white paper and the effectiveness of the treatment and cost control. it is difficult to have -- be a slave to two master's. won't that turn into basically just cost control? my second question is there are 416 people for every doctor in the united states. if they add 47 more million people that will increase to 15.7 people that will be added to the insured. it takes 12 doctors to create a general practitioner and 16 to create a pediatrician. if if we started creating doctors today, they would be junior necessary college. where are we going to get those doctors from and are there any educational initiatives to produce the doctors or possibly excuse -- give them loan forgiveness to create a great pool of doctors? otherwise i see rationing. comment on those two questions. thank you. >> guest: there is a doctor shortage.

the caller is fascinating, it goes back to the incredible breadth and complexity of the story. i want to say that. this is not my beat full time, but i do know there is -- the caller is correct, there is a big doctor shortage coming and there is going to be probably some need to be some incentive, not just to train people to go into medicine, but steer them in different fields and we won't have too many dermatologist and not enough anesthesiologist. >> host: she mentioned there had been talk prior to the august recess of the necessity about second stimulus, is that talk still out there? >> guest: that seems to have been set aside for now. there is no -- the current view is that the stimulus is showing signs of working. >> host: to tennessee, excuse me, indian, go ahead, dale, independent caller. >> caller: i have a question for

both, but particularly the cq editor. like mike in indiana, he says the free enterprise system, let the marketplace and competition determine the price of healthcare. let's say since 1993, '94, when healthcare was shot down in the clinton administration the price of healthcare has certainly went way beyond what inflation has. so why do they keep saying free pri enterprise is the best way, but in 15 years the cost of healthcare has gone way out of control? i'd like to hear the comments on that. >> host: that is a good question. >> guest: it clearly has worked for mr. pence, my memory is he was elected to the house, the district was previously held by

a democrat and one reason he was able to take it it over was because of of disdain in that part of indiana for the democratic approach, the clinton care and in the 1990s. it works for him politically and certainlyide logically. mr. pein, ce has been a free market republican for a long time. >> host: we have 10 more minutes and will touch on a couple other issues certain to come up. in the "new york times," the energy bill natural gas hits a roadblock in the energy bill. where do things stand on energy legislation? >> guest: the house passed a bill in june, set up a cap and rate system for energy in this country. in the senate, the environmental and public works committee is working on it it along with several other committees and the environmental public works committee, barbara boxer would like to get a bailout this fall.

the action will be in the senate and it is a tough haul and seems unlikely to get through the senate this year because healthcare is taking up most of of the time. >> host: do you think the debate on healthcare and how the various votes go will give us a clue on the energy debate? is a lot looking with an eye toward 2010? >> guest: sure. the degree to which the next congressional election is already lapping at the feet of those in congress, you know, can't be underestimated. it is only a year away, 13 months away now. the notion the very simple dynamic here is if the republicans feel as though they have stopped president obama on healthcare, they will dig in their heels even more emphatically on other issues such as climate change and democrats themselves will get

more anxious and seem as though the president, the simple sense is the president's agenda will be stalled out. should hasten that in one sentence and the same thing was said of bill clinton in the 1990s. sure enough the republicans took over control of of the house in 1994 after he had been president, but he was reelected two years after that. >> host: you said he could empower republicans in saying we stopped president obama. could passage of other legislation empower those legislators in district when is they go back in 2010 and said, we can work with the president and get his agenda passed? >> guest: it could. it seems as though at this juncture and the dynamic can change, that if the president gets healthcare it will be with only a handful of republican votes and the republican leadership and mainstream will still be resisting him. >> host: glen gardner, new

jersey, democratic caller. >> caller: thank you. i want to comment i appreciate c-span covered medicare part a, b, c and d and it was informative to us out here. just a comment on my own personal situation. i left my employer about three years ago and had to take out private health insurance. expensive in this state. i startd and i'm going to figures, started $420 and i'm up to $643 a month. >> host: that is private insurance? >> caller: private insurance. >> host: clonot cobra? >> caller: my company gave me a year of healthcarefree, but i had to go out on my own policy. i am 55 and no pre-existing conditions. those who say the insurance companies automatically reform themselves, i don't think it is going to happen. my premiums have gone up 50%.

i want to make the comment that i really think that public opinion could be swayed back to healthcare reform. what happened at town hall meetings and republicans and democrats are good at doing this. there are scare tactics and misinformation that was out there and i think you guys, the media, have done a good job of kind of getting around some of of this. general observation to town hall meetings, i work in a blue collar situation and i see the people i work with and there is just a lot of dislike for obama and i think that you look at some of the people at town hall meetings and they will not be swayed one way or the other. they don't like the gentleman, they don't like the man. i don't think some is of of them know what they are talking about, but some do. i'm getting off on a tangent here. my final observation and this would be a question for you guys. do you think that this debate can still be turned around for

obama, through persuasion can he still turn around the public? being democrat, i think the public is misinformod a lot of points. reid let brian start on that. look at the cover of the national journal, "not buying it" is the headline. >> guest: this is why president obama is speaking to the nation on wednesday. he's trying to recapture the debate and persuade people that it's -- healthcare reform is the right thing to do. what he needs to tell people is what is in it for them. generally when you talk to people they say, yes, healthcare needs to be changed. everyone has a specific situation like you and other self-insured. they want to know, is my premium going down from $643 to something more affordable? that is the kind of thing that the president needs to get into in order to get people back on board. the big group he needs to address is seniors.

a lot of seniors are very concerned that when they hear the words "cost control," that means cutting medicare benefits. he needs to really address that in his speech. >> host: couple more calls. greenville, south carolina, cliff, hi. >> caller: good morning. how are you guys? quick question and analogy n. this country, we spend more on education than any other developed nation in the world and cost keep increasing, yet the democrats claim we don't spend enough on education. governor controls most of the education, too. now they tell us we spend too much on healthcare and want to take over the other 50% to control cost and increase union coverage. which really unions create a deficit in our educational system and diminishing the quality and wanting to decrease who can go out and go into the private sector in the competition. my point is if they think educational problem deserves

spending more money and tossing more money at it it all the time. healthcare is important. we spend too much on it and we ought to cut it. the two seem totally in opposite of each other and i think what we will end up with is clear in rationing. >> host: david hawkings? >> guest: it it is interesting, the caller represents minority view that most americans think there is a lot of unnecessary spending in their own healthcare and their children are not enough is being spent to educate children. interesting, but minority view. >> guest: one more call. >> host: stephanie independent caller. >> caller: one of the things that makes public option only for those persons who have been turned down or screwed by the insurance companies. i don't think they put it in this respect, how can the

insurance companies cry about that when they have turned these people down? secondly, i am in the federal employee health benefit program. i didn't know until i read the "u.s.a. today" article about how much the person pays and how much the government pays for my insurance and let me tell the people as an individual person, i pay $100 and therefore the government must pay $200 because it's a one-third, two-third split. that means my individual policy cost the government $300. let me tell you something, it is blue cross/blue shield and it's nobody turns it down. it's a wonderful policy. and the -- so i know that the individual federal employees subsidize the family federal employees. the family might be double that.

>> host: stephanie, thank you for your call. she talks about federal employees and a number of taun halls, that issue of of the what members of congress get was brought up quite a lot. what sort of policy do they get? what are they entitled to? >> guest: they are entitled to what all federal employees are entitled to. i'm married to a former federal employee. we were insured that way. let caller is correct, it is a darn good insurance policy from blue cross/blue shield as the option we chose and it is considered eye high-end standard. i think politically many members of congress, this is the line they use. no person should have a lesser insurance than members get. >> host: we spent the last hour talking mainly about healthcare. congress comes back outside of healthcare what are you looking at as most important or interesting story that your publication will cover?

>> guest: certainly climate change and the budget process. on labor day we shouldn't go without mentioning the labor bill. that is an interesting story. i would go back to sort of how hard the democrats, democratic left will push the president this fall. reid a >> and brian. >> guest: congress will be watching closely how the stimulus bill gets spent out. the money will kick into serious overdrive in october, $500 billion of of the $787 billion is set to spend out over the last year. the other issue is -- the president set a deadline for closing by this coming january and got pushed back in congress and that will be pretty heated. >> host: will congress have something to say about that? >> guest: they already said they don't want money spent until the president produces a plan. hoeblth in one bill they put through already? >> guest: right. and when that plan is produced,

congress is going to have to decide whether to accept it or continue to deny funding. >> host: brian and -- thank you for taking time out on labor day to join us. we will talk about labor day on this monday, the first labor day of the monday, monday the 7th of october. when we come back, we'll talk about job issues and take your phone calls. we'll be right back.

involving anyone else. i suspect it is the way people look at their families. how could it be different? you get new arrivals in both of those situations. it's a tremendous sense of loss, justice white used to say when the court gets a new member it changes everything, changes everybody. simple changes. we move the seats around in the

courtroom. their seats are by order of senority. there will be a shift there. same in the conference room. more fundamentally it can cause you to take a fresh look at how things are decided. the new member will have a particular view about how issues should be addressed. it may be different from what we've been following for sometime. it's an exciting part of life at the court. >> hear from other justices during supreme court week as c-span looks at the home to america's highest court. starting october 4th. >> "washington journal" continues. >> host: spend the next half-hour asking about your job situation on this labor day. are you working, looking for work, unemployed and how long? here is the number to call if you want to weigh in on the topic.

we will take your tweets and e-mails and get to those momentarily. the front page of the atlanta journal constitution on monday, labor day. jobless benefits starting to dry up. 13,000 in georgia face the loss of checks this month. they write about the unemployment situation. if hiring doesn't pick up soon and there will be a few signs it it will, a growing wave of georgians will stop getting unemployment benefits in the next few months. a person can receive 79 weeks of checks, but many workers are not finding jobs during that time. barbara estimates she has applied for 300 jobs since being laid off in 2007. she's gone through the initial 26 weeks of state benefits, two federal extensions and another state federal program. she will draw her final check in a few days, "when that happens, we will be struggling," she

says, "like we have been." this is labor day. boston globe yesterday in their opinion page on labor day. the truth about labor day behind this weekend's holiday lies a strange civil war. russell was writing an opinion piece in the boston globe on sunday and wrote: in 1894, when labor day became a national holiday, he and sponsors intended it not as a celebration, but leisure and promotion of the great american work ethic. work they believed was the highest calling in life and labor day was a reminder to get back to it. it was placed at end of the summer to declare indo lens and distance it it from may day, the spring event that was a symbol of the radical labor movement. the day was a day to urge americans to work more, not

less. going first to new orleans on the democrat line. hi. >> caller: good morning. i want to say that i am working and have been and the only thing that has happened recently is the job that i have, everyone had to take a 2% pay cut. >> host: what kind of work is that? >> caller: i work for the blue cross. >> host: how long will that last? >> caller: they don't know. they're trying to ride out the economic situation. i'm fine with that, i'm lucky to have a job. i'd also like to say, i am behind everything that president obama is doing and i support him 100%. >> host: next up new york city, shawn, on the republican line. what is your work situation? >> caller: my work situation, i was fortunate to be hired in the end of may of this past year. i was out of work for eight months and i had to relocate in

order to work from orlando, florida. my primary residence is there with my fiance. it is a strain to be able to be working so far away from my home. >> host: is she going to join you in new york city? >> caller: no, she's staying in orlando, that is our home. unfortunately, because of the negative impact happening due to the housing situation down there, my mortgage is upside down and the bank won't give me relief because i work in new york, instead of orlando. >> host: boston on the independent line, dennis, good morning. >> caller: hi, how you doing. yeah, the situation is horrible because a lot of companies are taking advantage of of the fact that hey, we're going to maximize profit. we are not in a downturn and the government should impose plans where they look at companies taking advantage of the economic situation right now. >> host: what is your economic

situation, particularly your job situation? are you working? >> caller: i'm working and i'm somewhat okay, but i have a lot of friends who have lost jobs due to outsourcing. a friend of ours lost a job and went on unemployment and they put in an individual from india, flew him in and paid him a hotel to do his job. >> host: what kind of of job? >> caller: computer engineering. >> host: we are talking about your work situation on this labor day. what is jour job situation like? this is from yesterday's nation section of the "wall street journal." jobless, sleepless, hopeless. statistics in a study by rutgers university about the impact of losing a job. 60% of of unemployed got no notice when they were let go on the spot. they write on money, 84% got no severance pay and moving across to coping, how people are dealing with unemployment.

77% are stressed. 68% say they are depressed. in the future, how people think about the future of their employment future, 82% say they don't think they will have a new job in the next couple of months and also 86% do not believe they have a good chance to get their old job back. boston is next. dennis, we go to hyde park, massachusetts and laura on the democrat line. >> caller: good morning. i am employed and i work for the state and my health insurance premiums has gone up 5%. my prescriptions have gone up and the co-pay has gone up and i don't know how people that aren't working would survive any of of that. i'm barely surviving that in my

family and i just think it it is a shame that we can't get healthcare reform in the country when many other countries -- >> host: what kind of work did you do? >> caller: i work for u mass medical and they provide vaccin vaccines. >> caller: you are no longer working with them? >> caller: i do work. we got a 2.5% increase in our pay, which doesn't cover the increases. and i'm just amazed that there are so many people in the same situation. everybody knows health insurance is bankrupting families and i don't understand why people are so opposed to helping their own situation. >> host: boston globe writes about unemployment. millions remain at six months prestaging a hard u.s. recovery.

the headline in this morning's boston globe. the other headline, about the end of the summer swimming season. their headline, "the warmest swimming ever" and they report on a figure by the particularly in new england, it is the warmest on record for this past summer and a look at the front page of the boston globe. paul in florida. go ahead. republican caller. >> caller: yes, i used to sell real estate, which i still do, but i picked up two part-time jobs and looking forward to the market to come back. so you are still doing the real estate and two part-time jobs, you said? >> caller: that is correct. >> host: washington, d.c., up next is malcolm, independent

caller g. ahead. >> caller: i work in the washington, d.c. area and basically when the agricultural, farmers are feeling the pinch, we feel it, as well, because we are funded by farmers. we have had to cut back on cost, had to cut back on, you know, we won't be getting increases for the next couple years and basically feeling what farmers are feeling around the country. right now texas is going through a huge drought right now and california dealing with the fires or whatever. so not only are we impacted by the economy as a whole, but being impacted by climate issues that is directly impacting food cost and so on. >> host: you are with agricultural lobby, but you are still working v. they laid off some staff already or what? >> caller: yes. yes, they have.

>> host: what kind of work do you do for the organization? >> caller: i'm an office manager. >> host: thanks for the call, buffalo. next up is is delia, from buffalo g. ahead on the democrat line. >> caller: make a couple comments. it is hard for me to get through, it it takes forever. i'm retired person and i'm worried, i'm just turning 65 this week and i'm wondering with all these people seniors screaming at these places, if they will mess it up for seniors. they keep saying the government, they don't want a government health plan. i do. i have medicare, but it doesn't do a thing for your teeth or eyes. they have to stop because the republicans, people like coburn and omni, have said, they want to terminate medicare and social security. what are we old people going to do if they take it away?

i get about $1400 a month from social security and that is not enough. i really could use $2000, but i know that is no way, no chance of that. you say you are retired, as well? >> caller: yes, i'm retired. i used to be an r.n., i have a hard time working. review something with insurances. these old people say they don't want it, the minute republicans get it back in power, they will give them exactly no >> host: i'm kind of losing you. the front page of the ""washington post,"" and they are looking at the last unofficial day of summer here on labor day. below that, a story about the mortgage market, down by major

u.s. role. classes of of borrowers cannot find loans as debt mounts. here is the story. in the go-go years of the u.s. housing boom, virtually anybody could get a few hundred thousand dollars to buy a home and private lenders flooded the market pursuing borrowers, no matter their means of financial history. now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. one lender of consequence remains, the federal government, which undertook dramatic rescue of the financial crisis by seizing control a year ago of the two major mortgage finance companies in the world. fannie mae and freddie mac. the story also reports that nearly one-third of those in

this story, nearly one-third of of the existing home loans during the boom of 2005 and 2006 couldn't get a loan today. according to one industry analyst. front page of the "washington post." nashville, good morning to dave on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. this is short history lesson n. 2006 when the democrats took over control of the congress, there is actually in the "new york times," unemployment rate was 4.4. i think the most current statistics are it it is now 9.7. i own my own small business, got four employees, we're barely hanging in there. we were off in sales by 50% in june and 30% in july and august. >> host: what kind of firm is it, dave? >> caller: we do fireside equipment and gas grills. pretty much run of the mill retail. i can honestly say we're doing better with those reductions than a whole bunch of of the other retailers around us. i'm trying to keep the employees i've got. i sure can't hire new ones and

i'm not so sure given our current economic client, giving the democrats control of congress. given the huge tax increase that we can do it. in started the whole thing. energy cost doubled in less than a year and that is when the mortgage crisis started. energy started it. they do this cap and tax thing and you will see unemployment in the cart erra numbers. >> host: how big is your firm? >> caller: we have four employees, not that big a company. but we're a viable part of our city and our community and we're got a lot of people, nice mix of people, older people and younger people, but i'm telling you, at the retail level right now, it's pretty grim. >> host: 15 more minutes of your calls on what your job situation is like. are you working, unemployed,

looking for work? couple similar stories on the front page stories. this one is out of work and too down to search on. millions of americans left off the job roles. a story about a number of folks looking for work and giving up the search for work. also want to show you the front page of of the philadelphia enquirer. long road back for unpaid workers. this is the front-page story in philadelphia. perry, florida. good morning, darren, independent line. hi. >> caller: good morning, c-span. i have been unemployed since july 1, and i guess i'm one of the unlucky ones because my employer is fighting the unemployment ruling. so now have to go to court and struggle through all this just to get our money. >> host: were you laid off as part of a group layoff, individually fired, how did that

work? >> caller: i was employed by a small business, they have approximately five employees. you know, it was like 10:46 on a wednesday morning. it was no notice, no anything. so -- but it's not really set up in florida for the employee to have help. we got the make homes affordable program through president obama and they're helping that way. we haven't lost our house, but we're barely hanging on. >> host: darren, thanks for weighing in this morning. back to the front page of the philadelphia enquirer. long road back for laid off workers. just a bit of of the story. every morning about 5:00, former equity analyst bob nemeyer,

backs out of his driveway and begins his morning commute, working hours before the store opens he hangs out for sale signs in the men's wear department in macy's in exton. macy's promoted him to a full-time job. he earns $8.50 an hour. three years ago he was bringing home roughly $100,000 a year from his job as analyst at glendale trust company. then in june 2006 he was laid off for the second time in nine years. since then the most he earned was $21 at a temporary job f. histories any guide, writes the story, histories any guide the 15 million people unemployed will never recover along with the economy. their loss of earning power is permanent according to studys that have examined work histories over decades. 20 years out they will be earning 15 to 20% less than they valid earned had they stayed in the same job advancing along with their colleagues.

baltimore is next up, crystal, what is your job situation? >> caller: right now i'm unemployment as of last year. >> host: what had you been doing? >> caller: assistant broofrn manager for a credit union in maryland. >> host: go ahead with your comment. >> caller: well, i currently have insurance through my husband since i'm not working right now. i really honestly feel that we do need to pass healthcare reform and i honestly feel it is soy important that we have the public option. a lot of people are struggling and having hard times and they really need help. it is empathetic for people to not have sympathy for the less fortunate. >> host: how long have you been out of work? >> caller: since last year, 2008. >> host: thanks for the call. mississippi, sheila, good morning on the republican line.

>> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i'm mainly concerned about the people that have lost their jobs and they're having to live off their 401(k) plans. are any of the retirement they received at this time. any time the government in my opinion gets involved, sometimes they're giving things away. and it leads to and when they get their tax return, they will pay extra 10% penalty for having to live on that income. they are losing their houses. the bottom has fell out there will not be anything to bail those people out. when i first started preparing tax returns it was well over 30 years ago. the earned income credit was about $400. it is now over the thousands. you just have to earn little bit

of income. it breeds fraud because people make up the gentleman from canada on your program, about their program, which was funded by income tax. if our government tofs cut out all the free giveaways and make people go out and work, then -- because there are some people that honestly do not, you know, they are going to get more if they don't work fthey are not married. they combine their incomes and don't get anything as a married couple. i think that if we cut all that out and cut out the fraud in the income tax system, possibly our healthcare plan could be supported by income tax. >> host: five more minutes of your comments on your job situation, whether you are working or unemployed. hear from robert gutner, a

posting on huffington post, who writes about the labor market. he writes: there are three parts to the woes of the american workers, falling wages, rising unemployment and also insecurity about the future and that is robert cutner on the huffington post this morning. brooklyn next up, independent line, ian, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i graduated in may of 2008 with my undergraduate degree. >> host: what kind of degree, ian? >> caller: degree in philosophy with minor in political science. i was lucky enough to have had a job that i was going back to in new york. i was lucky enough to be able to keep that and i was lucky enough to find an internship with i have been applying for two or three jobs a week for the last

15 months. it is really hard out there. >> host: have you applied outside of of the new york area? >> caller: i've been applying in new york and d.c. mostly. i've applied to a few places back down in new orleans where i started, but it is pretty much no real opportunities anywhere. >> host: next up is california, james on the republican line. your work situation, tell us about it. >> caller: well, seven others by myself laid off in the cut back and we were all white or ispanics and they left people from 3g in pakistan and pumjab on the payroll. >> host: what kind of work, jay? >> caller: security guard. the thing is i'm 83 years old and when i got terminated, there is no chance of me finding another job. i've even got a job injury that was made worse when they sent me

to physical therapy, so i'm essentially handicapped. i'm going to move out on the street and will live out of my car when my unemployment runs out. >> host: couple more minutes on this labor day. a story in the san francisco chronicle about the resignation of van jones. you can read this online. middle of the night resignation of long-time bay area activist left many progressives angry at the obama administration for buckling to conservative criticism of jones' controversial past comments and actions. they write this year "time" magazine named van jones one of the most influential people in the world. pelosi said his best-selling book, "green collar" showcased his deep empathy, but a few stepped up to protect jones during the past few weeks. "he was swift voted," according

to madea at code pink. and a san francisco citizen spoke to him recently and said he was conflicted about whether to resign his resignation was announced late on saturday night, early sunday morning. from new york, next up, this is ben on the independence line. >> caller: i just want to say look out for yourself. hello. >> host: we are here, hello. in it terms of your work situation, give us more information. >> caller: i retired eight years ago when i was 58 years old. i down sized my home to where i knew i could afford the taxes and i've paid for it. i live modestly and you've got to prepare yourself for times like this. the other thing i want to say real quick. i'm old enough to remember when my father came home from work

one day and they were just starting the sales tax in new york state and the politicians all promised us there would be no more school taxes in a few years, that it would pay for everything. the schools would be wonderful. and nothing is for free. the money has to come from some place. if you are unemployed now and you are paying $2 a gallon for gas, what are you going to do when it is $6 or $7 a gallon. xrat taxes go for medicare, the medical program. take care of yourself, look to the future. my children, i have taught them the same thing. >> host: thank you, ben. del bert in columbus, ohio. good morning, you are next. this is linda, in laurel, mississippi g. ahead on the republican line. >> caller: yes, i was just going to say i work at our local hospital in laurel and we just received a 2% pay increase.

>> host: how does that compare to previous years? >> caller: well, our hiring had been -- hiring and our increase had been frozen because of generally speaking people are really looking up, especially around our city. nice place to live. >> host: one more call from columbus, ohio. this is delbert on the independent line, democrats line. hi. >> caller: good morning. apparently i'm working, but for an independent company. they don't carry any insurance. so i'm of the opinion if we had a nationalized healthcare small businesses could keep good employers because they wouldn't have to provide them with health insurance and a lot of small businesses lose good employees because good employees in the

past were looking for healthcare. that is something everybody needs. i think this thing actually started with the gas crisis when gas went up to $5 a gallon it kind of hit the poor people and really just threw them into a slump. after the gas surge, we come up with the housing crisis. it has been one thing after another. all these stimulus packages put out there have done nothing for the really low part of the todem pole, even with the cash for clunkers. if you are out of of work and didn't have good credit, you couldn't get the $4500 and you were just left there to fund for yourself. nothing in any of of these packages that grabs people to give them a hand. >> host: thank you for all the calls this half-hour. more coming up as we turn our focus to labor unions. different viewos labor unions by two different authors.

>> as the debate over health care continues, our health care hud is a key resource. go on line to watch the latest events, including town hall meetings. share your thoughts with your own citizen video, including video from any town hall meetings that you have gone too. >> the supreme court has a rare special session on wednesday. they will hear oral arguments on

a campaign finance case. it also marks the first appearance on the bench for justice sonia sotomayor. tomorrow, her formal investiture ceremony takes place in the afternoon. here is chief roberts on what it is like for a new justice. >> it is unsettling. you quickly get to view the court imposed of its members. it is hard to think of it as involving and one else. it is the way that people look at their families. this is the family. how can it be different? you do get new arrivals in both of those situations. it is a tremendous sense of loss. justice white used to always say that when the court it's a new member, it changes everything. it changes anybody. simple changes. we move the seats around in a courtroom. they are in order of seniority. there will be a shift there. is the same thing in the conference room. more fundamental, it can cause

you to take a look at how things are decided. the new member will have a particular view about how issues should be addressed. it may be very different from what we have been falling for some time. it is an exciting part of life at the court. >> you can hear from other justices during supreme court wheat as c-span looks at the home to america's highest court starting october 4. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a mediant is with us. she is the author of this book. -- amy dean is with us. how would you like to change the relationship between employers and employees? guest: we need a more fair relationship. when i checked into my hotel, there was a welcome from the

chamber of commerce and not from the afclo. i think we've seen a decline in the quality of employment for the american people. host: what got you involved in the field of labor relations? guest: the labor movement was important to me as a young person. it was family and faith that guided my actions. when i was a student at the university of illinois, i found the intellectual underpinnings to support what was in my heart and what i believe in. i think my belief in labor was an expression of faith. it is an outward expression of jewish dahlias for me. it is very much -- and faith and fairness. -- it is now or expression of jewish values for me. it is very much about face and fairness. they came here with the hope to build a better society. along with schools, they also built trade unions. host: there was an article this

morning about what the founder of united auto workers went think about where the auto unions are today, but what with the labor leaders then think about the labor situation in america now? guest: is a great question. i think he would be disappointed. his vision for the movement was well beyond the interests of unions. walter spoke for all working people. he was the kind of labor leader that was respected by all sorts of people. i right in my book about how when you enter the home of my grandparents, there was a picture of him. they were not autoworkers, but they believed in him and others because they spoke for all working people, not simply unions. working people in that era saw that when the union's on won, ty

did, too. there are changes taking place at the regional and state level. community groups are sowing the seeds of a new new deal. that means that labor and community groups are coming together and beginning to impact major economic development decisions at the local and state level. on any day of the week, hundreds of decisions are made about what jobs will be subsidized by government, what land use policies will go to create jobs. the labor movement of the local and state level the same that labor must get in and advocate that dollars are spent to ensure good jobs with their wages that include health care. the jobs will allow for workers to organize if they choose to to negotiate or bargain collectively with their

employers. host: why were the unions not able to do that in the past? they were much stronger in the 1940's and 1950's. guest: the labor movement is evolving. there has always been a debate in the movement. should we it simply be about the institutional interests of our membership or should we be brought advocates for social change in america? that debate is all. it has been going on for decades. it continues to this day. we believe that if it is going to change its fortunes, it must speak on behalf of all working people. it must build a strong infrastructure in the communities across the country where people can feel and touch the labor movement. what happens in washington is irrelevant for so many people who live in communities. labor has to rebuild the infrastructure in the communities and states. that is where the action and innovation is taking place

today. host: are other industries that labor has not been able to touch or break into that are important for them to be part of? guest: let me give you examples of the way that people are changing the face of labor. the atlanta labor council in collaboration with community leaders has insured that when city officials from an urban line around the city, what ever gets developed within that line has job standards, affordable housing standards, and all sorts of equity proposals. it is not just for an elite few within the city of the atlanta, but those that are cleaning, working, and serving food in that greenbelt. yale university takes over more and more land use. it dominates land use policy. there are organizations like the connecticut center for a new economy. if there are benefits, from tax

expenditures, the community should get good jobs and affordable housing. when we give public expenditures to the private sector that happens almost every day of the week, there should be a dual bottom line. they should ensure competitiveness and community well-being and return to the community and taxpayers on those investments. host: we have callers lined up. jake is on the democrats' line. caller: i cannot wait to buy your book. you are right on it. this is exactly why we have a slumping in our wages and our standard of living. it is because we have not had that protection. it is easy for it to become a political debate between democrats and republicans. you saw them bringing down the unions in the 1980's. with that in a slump in wages.

-- with that came a slump in wages. the middle class jobs have gone overseas. it was that erosion that has gotten us to the situation we're in right now. democrats are often pegged as being spenders in terms of giving tax expenditures to the private sector. if the government is giving money to the private sector, there should be a response that gives good jobs. you are right. unfortunately, the argument becomes that the liberals are increasing taxes and so forth. we must get back to that situation where there are quality health care and quality jobs. there has to be some protection for workers. guest: you are calling from chicago?

i want to make a quick statement about chicago with regards to the conversation we're having. in chicago should get the olympics, we must make sure that when the public dollars are spent to create the land of opportunities in chicago that working families are not pushed out of the city. we should benefit as much as the city officials and the gymnasts in the whole corporate structure. we must insist that there be a good jobs, for a housing -- did jobs and affordable housing for the people in chicago. i hope that the community groups will come together to make that a reality. host: do those groups get around the table in that discussion? guest: these are public dollars the city will spend. it must be overseen by the public. labor unions and organizations must put together strong grass- roots coalitions with technical

research and economic policy capacity so that when these dollars are spent, we demand to be at the table and insurer that there be equitable distribution of those dollars. host: the morning, jacki, from corpus christi, texas. caller: labor is pushing texas into the 10th amendment. it is sad what labor is doing. we have oil and everything in texas. we're ok on certain points. obama is kind of missing of everything. nafta, clinton, michelle madden has a book. labor kind of misses everything up. they are good, but they have messed up things, too. guest: i would rather look at it

this way. there has been 30 years of political neglect on social issues in america. administrations and refused to deal with the toughest issues before us. issues like, who is going to share the cost of health care, pensions, and benefits? we have neglected public policy questions for 30 years. as a result of that neglect, we are seeing it come home to roost. i want to make the case that no one president, congress, or union on its own conflicts these problems. we need major collaboration and a push from labor to put this on the front burner of political discourse. host: you talk about the model for regional power building.

the sale involves deep coalitions, policy work, and aggressive coalitions. guest: for too long, the policymakers, research analysts, and economic development strategies were developed in washington. you have community groups all across the country trying to make things happen. groups in washington create a report and held the activists catch it and run with it. the days of when you bifurcate those capacities between organizations are over with if you want to be successful. that means that organizations like labor and community of the regional level must build capacity is under one roof. you can do both the heavy lifting and the heavy thinking. that means we have to go to elected leaders and say to them that we know he wants to do the heavy lifting, put out the yard

signs, and make the telephone calls on your behalf. but that is not where our relationship ends. that is where our relationship begins. we're not just here to the heavy lifters. we're here to be the heavy thinkers. these groups that we talk about in our books from very diverse places across the country, these groups are all building political capacity that says we are not going away after we get you elected. the expectation is to be part of the thinking and policy development once you are elected. host: we talked about this article earlier. what are the unions not doing right? are they doing things right in terms of the relationship with the new president that they helped to elect?

guest: what the local groups are doing across the country. before people get elected, before labor offers its endorsement, you go through an educational process with the union's understanding of our issues and how they impact the economy. rather than making endorsements based on the guy who shows up and gets the crowd went up, we'd spend time educating the elected leaders on what is most important to us. we then talked to candidates about how they will be effective in passing issues that are important to us. we want to talk about how you will be successful and what you will need from us to be successful in passing legislation that is important to us like living wages, health care, and affordable housing. the national labor movement can take a page out of the playbook of the local communities. let me say this about a national movement.

every time we have waited for a president to work on our behalf, we are either rolled or disappointed. the movement has to be bold and speed beyond the interests of unions to all working people. it is not the job the president to do our job. that is to advocate boldly for fair, just, and compassionate america when it comes to working people. we still have between 16,000,020 million members. that is the largest organization in america representing working people. the american labor union remains the single most important institution for working people. that is not to say that there is not the need for massive reform. host: the next call is from buffalo, new york. caller: would you classify

yourself as a communist? guest: absolutely not. caller: what about a socialist? guest: i believe it is legitimate for organizations and the government to intervene in the marketplace to achieve social values and outcomes. for example, if during economic prosperity the wealth is not trickling down to working people as we have been told that it would, the human heart and hand must intervene to assure that the wealth is shared. otherwise, it is the disappointing situation whether it is a prosperous time or one of economic decline. working people do not share the wealth. for the health of civil society in america, we cannot allow the splintering of the haves and have-nots. we have been talking about this question for decades. it is reaching alarming proportions. i do not believe i am a

socialist in the sense that i fundamentally believe in competition i believe the government should be allowed to compete on matters around health care. i fundamentally believe that competition is a good thing. when working people do not benefit as a result of strong markets, a human heart and hand must intervene. host: do you have a follow-up question? caller: can you explain president obama attitude? is he going to change naphthfta? thought that was going to be one of the first things he would do. guest: he has so many things on his list. there has been 30 years of neglect on social matters in america. there is no way he can be expected to take everything on in his first term and hope to be a second term president. the question of fair trade in america is a fundamental one.

the way our opponents have framed it over the years is false. they say on the one hand, we have free trade. anyone who does not want to accept that is a neanderthal trying to stop progress. the question is not whether we should or should not have free trade in america. of course we have to have free trade. the question is under what terms and conditions. if we can intervene in trade policies and protect patents, software, all sorts of intellectual property and we have no trouble as a country intervening to protect those interests, and we ought to be able to protect the interests of working people and the environment just the same as we're able to protect capital and intellectual property. i believe there is a big conversation to be had in america under this president and congress. let me make one other quick point. in the 1980's when labor came

forward and said that we want to share the markets domestically and not give all of the markets overseas. the democratic congress people said that if we lose manufacturing jobs, it is ok because folks will be able to take the new high-tech information economy jobs. the 1990's came. we debated nafta and started losing a lot of those jobs. we said there would be other jobs for people. now we know that there is virtually no job that cannot be sent to india. now we hear this crazy thing from the business community that we will hold on to creating jobs. i do not know what that means. here is what i do know. unless we figure out how we will retain certain jobs in america and how we're going to ensure the workers around the globe have the right to bargain with their employers, at least the right to bargain with their

employers, if we cannot take that question fall on and asked the democrats in this country to stand up around the question of giving the same rights to people as we give to property, then we will have a continued race to the bottom with america becoming more polarized in terms of wealth. it poses a very dangerous situation for civil society in america. host: is tampa, florida. sonya is on our democrats line. caller: i am from florida. florida is an at will to work state. a lot of things are geared for corporations. they give the laws to attract a larger companies instead of them going to the larger states. our laws are more favorable for the employer. even the unemployment process is more favorable for the employer.

it is a frustrating process. the rules are not accessible. the rules and regulations are not clear and precise for an employee to understand how to get the unemployment. how can someone get this back to the table? do you see these rules changing? how can we get it back in our state to review this and make it more favorable for the employees here? they can just fired you for any reason as long as it does not violate the department of labour. guest: it is amazing to me that as we are looking at labor day 2009 that we have a lack of parity in rules across this country. when we look to the south, it still looks like the industrial dark ages. it lags behind the north in terms of labor protections.

i would argue that the labor movement is not going to fix this in washington. the labor movement will fix this in parity between rights and responsibilities between the north and south by building local and state organizations that are prepared to engage elected leaders, members around organizing. without being bold and expecting more from elected officials, we will not change the scenario. we have to build strong organizations on the ground. look at all the people that labor endorses in florida. if those folks cannot be in favor of collective bargaining and fair policies for working people, we should not support them. we should reconsider where we put our political dollars. host: here is houston, texas. we welcome john on the republican line.

caller: my father and grandfather were union. i worked union shops going through school. i have chosen now not to be union. you sit there and say you want to represent all workers. what gives you the right to speak for me? i have chosen to have you not speak for me. that was my choice. guest: you continue to have that choice. i do not think any changes in labor laws or anything we have discussed would force you to belong to a union. we simply want to enable those that want to be part of unions to join to improve their life and work conditions. there is nothing to coerce you into making the choices you make. host: it is broader than just unions. you're right about organized labor a leading progressive revitalization. -- you write about organized

labor leading progressive revitalization. host: don't members and unions have varied interests and views in terms of getting a common purpose of cited just benefits and pay on social issues as well? guest: of course they do. when we began our work in silicon valley in the early 1990's, we went to the members and asked what was most important. they said things like education for our children, affordable transportation, affordable public housing, safe neighborhoods, open space. when we asked our members to what extent you think the union is an effective advocate on behalf of those issues, they said there was no connection. we set out to position the labor

movement to be able to be involved in just about every major economic development decision in the region. why not? we cannot cede the territory to local commerce to be the only players involved to decide where our tax dollars should go, how they should be used, to the extent of workers benefit. in silicon valley, if elected up to the manufacturing group in silicon valley, their concern would be providing transportation for workers to and from their jobs. that would be for the workers for the i.t. cos. our concern is for the people who are in seeing the trash in making the buildings safe every day. we want to make sure that when the government invests in affordable housing, they are

then fisheries as well as the knowledge workers. i think the point is simple. look at the president's stimulus package. in order to make sure that those dollars get used to create real jobs, real green jobs that have living wages connected to them, that have health care connected to them, they give people the chance to choose whether they want a union or not, those dollars come down. there is no local infrastructure to make sure that they get used for the intent of the president. there is a need to build organizations on the ground. there's a need for labor to be involved in every decision around economic developer. host: the next call is from gene in wisconsin. caller: i have been a union member of my life.

machinist, aflcio, and meat packing. you have all of these visas and people coming in and taking the technical and other jobs. including the illegal immigrants. they're supposed to be 15 million. i know they are not all working. they say they're supposed to be doing things that the black man, the white man, or the asian man does not want to do. that is baloney. that is just a bunch of rhetoric for the congressmen to make it look better. i think if they are. a lot of the illegals in these pievisas, there are over 1 million of them handed out every year.

guest: the future of the labor union lies with the growing number of immigrants in this country. it started with my grandparents and came to this country and wanted to build a better world for their family. just like the immigrants and my grandparents, while the faces are different today, they come with the same aspirations to create a better life for themselves and their children. i have yet to meet someone who comes from another part of the world does not work home and have the hopes and dreams to create for their children a better life in the left behind. i would say that we welcome the newly arrived people to our country. it is our tradition. the future of the labor movement is very much contingent on the success of immigrant labor. host: here is pete from lakeland, fla. caller: i kind of feel a punked

by the labor movement as a democrat. this is bipartisanship with newt gingrich. why isn't mr. obama looking at these trade agreements? the jobs are flooding out of the united states. 1000 whirlpool jobs are going to mexico for less than a dollar an hour. that is what is happening. unless the labor union makes the democrats feel the pain of the working people, we are being punked by our own democrats that we worked for and supported. not one of them is trying to renegotiate nafta with china. host: this is her new book. thank you for joining us this morning. we're joined next by lawrence

richards. his new book is called "yean- free -- union-free america." thank you for being with us this morning. we had a couple of callers earlier reflecting some ambivalence or antipathy towards unions. your book looks a whole broader history of how workers feel about unions. what did you find out? guest: you heard some of the things said earlier. it is bad for american competitiveness. factories shut down because of this. there is a generalized cultural view of unions, but is that separate from what workers feel about themselves joining a union? you have to separate that out. part of the book deals with the general cultural view. part of the book deals with

actual workers having to face an organizing drive. some things do not sync up. a cultural view of unions is that they raise wages and cause inflation. but when it comes to an actual work for considering whether to join a union, the often consider joining because they want to raise wages. they do not always sink ynch up. host: is the climate any different now with a democratic president who would be more friendly to unions? does your book address that? guest: the book focuses in on the 1970's and 1980's. during that time, the polling done show that twice as many workers said that they would not vote for union then would. about 66% of workers said they would not vote. 33% of workers said they would vote. that has changed since the

1980's. it is now about 55% of workers that said that they would vote for a union. the reason it has changed is not because of the political dynamics as much as what has happened in the economy. the economy seems to be stagnant. you hear people talking about companies shipping jobs overseas. that seems to be what is driving more sympathy towards unions now than we saw back in the 1970's and 1980's. it is not a political environment. host: lawrence richard joins us from cincinnati on his book " union-free america."

our previous guest talked about the failure of union management in the 1970's and 1980's leading to the situation today. guest: ok. i think that has changed as well. in the 1970's and 1980's you heard all this rhetoric. you can still hear it today about a high paid union workers. the unions do not seem to be looking out for the little guy anymore. that was the appearance. i think that is changing. use of the ups strike in the 1990's. ups, the teamsters, were on strike for the benefit of contingent workers. -- use of the ups strike in the 1990's. you saw the union living wage

campaign. there were talking about a low- paid workers and how they wanted to do that. over and over again, it seems that people want the labor yet movement to take the role of a political party. they wanted to look out for all workers, but they do not get paid to look out for all workers. they get paid to look out for their workers. their democratically run organizations by their workers. if they're not looking out for their workers, the guys in charge would get voted out. there is this tension. we want unions to look out for all workers and the broader social interest. yet that is really the role of a political party. unions really have to look out for their members. in the process, a think most leaders of labor now have a broader social vision of the world.

it is hard to implement when you are a union and not a political party. host: in the movement as many workers experienced wage increases and other benefits, how difficult was it for unions to make a case about their viability and necessity? guest: we have seen a shift in the structure of jobs for manufacturing to service industries. the problem has been the service industry people redid that service industry people or white collar workers have had an aversion to unions. they feel like they can get ahead on their own. generally, wages have been stagnant since the 1970's. they really have not been going up for most americans.

certainly since 2000, they have not been going up. it is not so much that wages are going up or down that affects attitudes towards union. i think there is a broader cultural thing. for instance, what could help the union's right now? unions have their greatest growth in the time of economic depression in the 1930's. there was a lot of competition for jobs. workers were willing to go join a union because they had the backing of the government. that provided cultural backing. i think it is broader than what is going on with wages and so forth. many studies have shown that in times of improving wages back in the early 20th century, it was

the highest paid blue-collar workers that formed and joined unions. i do not think wage levels have much to do with whether unions are going to succeed or not. host: lawrence richards is a visiting professor at the university of miami. he is the author of this book. the telephone lines are open for your thoughts and comments. mr. richards is with us until 10:00 eastern. you wrote this. has that changed any?

guest: no, probably not. when you see the president of the aflcio that hardly changes until he retires. you see the leaders of a particular office stay in office for a long time. it undermines the idea of democracy. at one level that may change. as far as someone considering joining a union for the first time who has never been in the union, they will focus on what they know. what they know is the top people and not what happens at the local level. host: good morning to paul on the republican line. caller: i agree wholeheartedly with your best as far as anti- unions.

-- i agree wholeheartedly with your guest as far as indo- unions. i have worked in different shops where they keep interior workers. i have never been hired by a poor man. if you restrain businesses with unions. general motors had to buy a spark plug for $3. paying union workers. it is kicked back up to the top. people are basically running the show, collecting the dues, and not really protecting the american worker. i think when the businesses better non-union, you can get a lot of stuff from the company because they want to keep employees happy. the employee is going to work hard. everybody is going to wash each other's back. i see the unions as a power play for the left-wing of the country. now you will vote for obama and

follow the leader. it is basically just a big power play in this country that has nothing to do with protecting the american worker. host: thank you. let's hear what our guest has to say. guest: this is a common thing that i talked about in my book. is a common sentiment. the unions were organized to protect lazy workers and that this is like a corruption kind of thing for the leaders, that they all benefit from this. what is interesting about that idea is that you never hear it applied to management. management is in it to enrich themselves. in the last 20 or 30 years, they have really been enriching themselves in a big way. you do not hear that kind of thing very often. lately, we've been hearing more about it. there has been a lot of anger about the bailouts and so forth.

people thought that as long as everything was going ahead, business owners deserved to get rich. union leaders on the other hand whenever supposed to make a lot of money. they do not make generally as much money as wall street people or ceos of the companies that their unions represent. yet there is the idea of somehow that they are the ones behind expenses and all of that and not management. that seems to really taken hold in our culture. i am not sure what it would take to break that. right now, more than half of americans think that they would want to join a union. in general, that attitude is not going to affect whether a worker wants to join a union.

a worker is going to be considering his own circumstances. he may think he does not want to join the union because the dues are going to organization. he is also going to think about his situation and if it will benefit him. i did find in many cases that i studied that a lot of workers had no problem with management making a lot of money because they felt like they were part of that. you do find that sentiment. host: when the workers did not have a problem with management making money, was it because they were making decent money under that contract? guest: no, i'm actually talking about non-union shops. frank dix and company went out of business in virginia.

the workers were textile workers in the south. they were not paid very well. a lot of the workers resented the union for its charges against the management. these were people that they work with every day. they felt like they were being mean to the people they worked with and white. i am unskilled and i recognize maybe i should not be making as much as management because they have all of these skills. there is an inherent acceptance of hierarchical, undemocratic use of what the workplace should be a large number of those workers. host: we have about 15 more minutes of calls. stephanie is on the democrats' line. caller: i want to disagree with

your besguest. the last 30 years have been republican rule. things have been passed in congress that affect our economy. i believe education is very important. when you go to a job, it is better to go in as a group to get a raise for everyone instead you just going into your boss's office and thinking you have power. i also want to say that i think that people need to reevaluate their positions. the policies of the republican party since the 1970's does affect us. trickle-down economics does not work. thank you. host: any thoughts on that

comment? guest: as far as political policy decisions being made, there can be no doubt about that. the richest 1% of the country has gotten very much richer since the 1970's. there is no way you could say that was not totally unrelated to policy. policy has certainly played a role in how that has turned out. i could not disagree with that at all. that seems perfectly legitimate. there are other factors as well. in the 1950's and 1960's, things were great in this country. the workers were getting ahead and everything was wonderful. we did not have any foreign competition then. we managed to fly and our big competitor, japan and germany,

in a war. -- we had managed to flatten our big competitors, japan and germany, in a war. that was bound to change. unfortunately, the process hurt a lot of workers who were in that manufacturing sector. there is no question that policy has had a huge impact in the less equal country we live in now than the one we live in 30 years ago. host: the next call is from georgia on the independence line. caller: i grew up in grambling. i am originally from wisconsin. we have about 200 years

seniority in a particular union. the trouble i had with the union was that in the early 1980's, president reagan hamstringed the unions with the air traffic controllers' strike. after that, they thought they took the upper hand. with the trade agreements we made over the 1980's and 1990's, it left the unions in a pretty bad situation for bargaining. the last contract my father took part in just before he passed away, the unions were pretty much forced into a two-tier pay structure. it created animosity between the union workers themselves as the

newer workers came on board. i feel the unions need to represent everybody equally regardless of seniority. if they want to favor the senior employees, they should look at at a standard seniority raises that they could tie to a contract. i believe companies and unions need to come together. i have seen production drop from older workers. not just the older workers. it is because they knew that the union was there to protect them. the union was going to protect the lazy workers more than a strong workers. the strong workers did not need it. they were protecting themselves. guest: does that resonate with any research you looked at? -- host: does that resonate with

any research you looked up? guest: he talked about the strike in 1981 as being the signal to employers to crack down on unions. i think that is right in that it sends a cultural message. in the 1930's, president roosevelt supposedly wanted people to join a union. the president signed the wagner act in 1935. you got this large upsurge in unions. they did not even have to go to the government. those companies caved. gm at the flint, mich., a strike caved.

u.s. steel saw the writing on the wall. they caved. lots of companies caved because it was clear the government was on the side of unions. in 1946, the government passed the taft-hartley act. the kind of the clear that they were neutral in this whole thing between unions and employers. it's kind of plateaued. membership started to decline. there were lots of reasons for that. there were demographic changes. there were more women in the workforce. there were more service sector jobs. when reagan came in and did the patco strike, that was a cultural signal that unions were not big. by then, union membership had been declining substantially.

you cannot see a break at that point in the amount of union decline. it does set the tone out there when people are discussing unions about the political leadership is talking about it. host: let's here from detroit on the republican line. caller: i am a third generation uaw worker. we have 96 years between us. i do not like your book. i like the union. it has protected us from environmental troubles and saved a lot of lives. my problem with the unions is how they have sold out. we bring part-time workers and and take union dues from them. we do not represent them. it is against the law. i was laid off from metro

airport one time. they did the same thing. the union came in with a group and threatened him. they shot him up. he was going to file a suit because it was illegal for them to take union dues. i in recent retiree. i would rather be aligned with the recent steelworkers who have lost their pensions. my union paid out more money. we got to keep our pension while our brothers and sisters lost theirs. let's not forget the women's garment union. what was that about? that was about helping our women work and survive in this culture where only the strong survive. host: thank you for your comments. i want to tie that in with a quote from your book.

it sounded like bill from detroit had similar mixed views about his own union. guest: it is interesting. people tend to support their own unions but they do not like the labor movement in general. i guess that is similar to the way people often feel about their congressman. they like their congressman, but they do not like congress. the caller did express some problems with his own particular union in feeling like they sold out and do not represent all of the workers that they are supposed to represent. they're just taking the union dues and they're not caring about them.

that is quite a common sentiment that too. out there. -- that is quite a common sentiment that you do hear out there. host: could be argued that some of the union leaders do what they have to do in terms of their relationship with management in order for the union as a whole to survive? guest: if they say we are not going to take it and go on a strike, they will be blamed for that. if they do make concessions, the workers will blame them for that. they may get praised by it other people for being reasonable, but the workers who work there think it is not right. why are you conceding to these guys and we are taking pay cuts? it is kind of the damned if you

do and damned if you do not kind of situation. you either say we have to do this to keep the company going or go on strike. people will blame you for that. they will say that high union wages are the cause of companies going out of business. the real reason is that they did not make very good cars. host: i want to play the television advertisement for you in terms of the pending possible legislation in congress on unions and the pending bill. >> we are not ceos making millions. >> we do not have golden parachutes. >> we have our hands, our hearts, and our work ethic. >> we are the men and women who keep the economy going. all we ask for is a level playing field. >> the employee free choice act will let workers choose to join a union to get better pay,

benefits, and job security. it is time the economy worked for everyone again. host: to be clear, that is from american rights at work. what did you hear that may have resonated with some of the research you have done in terms of the views on unions? guest: it is trying to play up the idea that unions look out for the common guy and we are looking out for the greater good that you often hear from unions. the response is what you have heard today over and over again, that unions do not really look out for the common guy. they actually look out for their leadership and all they really care about is dues and that is in it. i have met lots of union leaders. almost every one of them has a view of a more economically just

society and reform ideas of higher wages for low-paid people and more protections. yet they are constrained in what they can accomplish because they represent particular workers. they are not the policy makers. they are very constrained in what they can accomplish. host: the next call is from kentucky on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to comment on the anti-union. i have been a union member. my father and his father before that. they were coal miners. if they are so bad, i would like to see these people crawl on their knees to get coal out of the mines. they were killed and crashed and there was nothing for their families. my father was one of them. people forget what