defense foundation. then, service employees international union president will talk about the top issue facing labor unions and the workers they represent. ♪ as president obama look to congress on syria, lindsey graham was invited to the white house. the hill newspaper reporting that the white house is invited the chairman and ranking members of six national security committees to meet with president obama on tuesday. this as the administration makes the case to congress, seeking a not thrice asian vote for any action to take in syria. the first -- and authorization vote for any action to take in syria. here is how you can give your

thoughts this morning, for our democrats, 202-585-3880. 3881.epublicans, 202-585- 202-585-endents, 3882. mails,n always send us e- journal@c-span.org. what would you tell your present live or senator -- your representative or senator about what to do in syria? on obamas reflecting looking to congress. the stories in the papers today, here is "the new york times" --

that is the new york times. the washington post picks up this morning by adding this in their story --

how would you tell your legislator or your senator, europe's tentative, to vote on syria? here is your chance to tell us what you think. we divided the lines -- we will hear from secretary of state john kerry yesterday. chicago, illinois. go ahead. he left us. to shingletown, california. this is david. how are you? caller: fine. host: what would you tell your legislator? i would tellller:

them the exit strategy is not to going to syria. we cannot afford any wars. i noticed they were beating the war drums. they are only concerned about money. by killing more people, it makes no sense. loading up the place, killing more innocent civilians -- blowing up the place, killing more innocent civilians is not the answer to chemicals. i don't believe the syrian government used the chemicals. host: even by the information put out by secretary kerry? caller: did not convince me. i don't believe them. they are beating the war drums for war. they are bought by the corporations. host: jackie from plymouth, michigan. caller: good morning. nobody is talking about israel. unitedaid that if the states doesn't get in there,

israel is going to take charge. host: what would you tell your legislator in michigan? caller: better do something and do it fast. host: as far as taking action? caller: yes. host: what should the action look like? whart are you going to do? bomb the germ warfare areas and catastrophe? i don't know what they can do. it's a crisis. you better believe israel is going to come in there. richard, weall is are asking you what you think should be done when it comes to syria, specifically what you

would say to your legislator? legislator'sled my office on friday and told a representative there that i was 2004, whenn up until i got tired of the militarism of the bush administration, and i became a registered democrat. obama did not go to the congress noteek ap -- if obama did ress to seek approval, i would stay home and and notould stay home vote. i'm happy he decided to go to congress. i will go along with whatever they decide to do, i guess. i do not like it and i do not approve it, and i do not think it is necessary. i do not hide this stuff about -- buyg -- by this stuff this stuff about gas.

only real weapon of mass distraction in japan. host: who is the legislator you called? caller: frankel. host: did you get any response the? their: i spoke to one of representatives and i felt they were sympathetic to my feelings. they have been getting other calls. i suspect so many other constituents have called their representatives that this had an influence on obama's decision. weighsthe iron patriot" in with this -- next call comes from charlie in

coatesville, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i'm on. can you hear me? host: please go ahead. caller: my name is charlie, i of philadelphia. i am a registered republican. my congressman is joe pitts. resolution,r of the after careful thought. nonetheless, i do follow the evidence on the use of serengeti's. -- of sarin gas. i think it is important for us to do a putative strike. from's charlie

coatesville, pennsylvania. he is calling on our republican line. if you want to give us a call, then umber's will be on your screen. -- the numbers will be on your screen -- the caller mentioned serengeti. that enter the discussions yesterday at secretary kerry was on the morning talk shows. they are looking to support from congress. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> this case is getting stronger. today, i am at liberty to tell you that we now have samples responders int east damascus. those samples of hair and blood havebeen tested and they reported positive for signatures of sarin. we are now getting a stronger case each day. i think that makes it even more compelling that the congress in

the united states be counted with the president in this israel, jordan, lebanon, turkey, all of our friends and allies in the unitedwill know that states is acting in concert that sends a powerful message about our credibility, our intentions to uphold international norms, and that will have an impact on other decisions down the road. i am very explicit about it. ty of the united states is on the line here. i believe the congress will do the right thing. host: that a secretary kerry from yesterday. the washington post has a breakdown of some of the blocks they described when it comes to future votes on syria. just to give you the highlights of their story --

your thoughts on what you tell your legislator about what to do on syria? this is the president looking to congress for action. tim is up next, and he joins us from california on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. next ushijack.com for the

step of this israel war agenda. john kerry supported the war against iraq for israel pretty is now pushing in other war for israel against syria. how many more americans have to die for israel and the middle east? we are broke. it americans have to rise up against this war agenda. brenda from florida, democrats line. caller: i would tell my ,"presentative to vote "no because two wars are already going on. i am tired of soldiers coming home all rogue up -- all broke up. host: define the tell him via call or e-mail? -- do you plan to tell him via call or e-mail? caller: i have called him already. my representative is buchanan

and my senator is nelson. response?you get a caller: not yet. host: jim says -- timothy up next from michigan on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am an old country boy from michigan. when we start shooting these missiles off, we always have collateral damage. we always kill some children or some women. we always miss targets. when this happens, up pops those pictures on al jazeera and every arab channel there is, saying with what america has done. k at what america has done.

you cannot just shoot in their indiscriminately and miss your target. it just doesn't make any sense. host: d plan to weigh in on these thoughts with your legislator? -- do you plan to weigh in on be stop with your legislator? caller: i am just one guy. when we summed -- when we send a gosile in, who we kill you -- should we kill? host: did you talk to the staff? caller: i have been calling for the past six months, talking about different things. i like to take a conservative stance. you need to think things through before you do these things. host: what response did you get from the office? they know my name so they passed it on to him. we got a lot of gridlock in our government right now. i love my country but i fear my government. host: let's hear from donald in

golden valley, arizona on the democrats line. have artie called my recent it is yesterday and left a message. -- already called my representatives yesterday and left a message. i am sick of these wars. i think it is going to do more harm than good. that is just the way me and my wife feel. you tell him yet but did you tell him that? caller: i am telling him what i told you right now. we cannot afford it. host: one of the people weighing in on the talk shows was senator rand paul on "meet the press." he talked about the u.s. involvement in american interest. [video clip] bombing begin a campaign, it accelerates the mystery -- accelerates the misery.

if our weapons get involved and more people will die. i think the war will escalate out of control and then we have to ask ourselves who is on america's side over there you go if the rebels when will they be american allies? their? if the rebels when will they be american allies? >> i think the line in the sand should be when american interest it's reckoned. i see a sod, who has protected christians for a number of assad, who has protected christians for a number of decades, i see al see itn one side, and i to be murky. i do not see a clear american interest. i don't see either party is victorious.

host: off of twitter -- catherine from new york is joining us on our independent line. hello. caller: i am so against this war. blaming israel. he should look to turkey. never mind israel. they have more interest. do you plan to talk your legislator about this? what are you going to say? stop and go to watch youtube. anybody sod the -- what word are they getting into? -- what kind of world are they kidding into?

-- are they getting into? there is going to be nothing in the end. host: an analysis from "the new york times" -- several legislators meeting for briefings this week, congress returning next week, september 9, to take of the issues and other things as well.

stay close to our website for the latest information. not only for statements that were made, the videos we're showing you today, and other issues as well. c-span.org is were you can find that this morning. the information was initially put out by secretary state carey, including the four-page assessment of what they found, also maps were included. you can find that all on the website. we go to carl in virginia, republican line. agree with the president on this. i would like to tell my democrat , if you vote to allow if itesident to do this, goes bad to not do what you did against george bush. do not tell people that the president lied to me. everybody lied to me. be au are going to

hypocrite about it later if things turn bad, do not do it. said, i think saddam hussein used gas on his people over there. we went in and took him out. will do the same with syria. "the washington post" story --

kathleen is up next on the democrats line. love president obama and i hate the way the republicans have been doing him. this is one time i cannot stand with my president. it is time to quit going into other peoples countries, trying to clean them up. these people will be fighting, they have been fighting thousands of years. they say we do not have any money here to take care of this country, it cannot even feed senior citizens. war? wewe starting a are going to spend billions of dollars and still when we leave this man is going to go right back to doing the atrocities to his people. president obama, please stay out of this. host: "the chicago tribune" says --

that is reflected in some of the blocks played out in "the washington post" story this morning. ,ou can contribute from twitter facebook, and regis on e-mail. and reach us on e- mail. bill king decided to reach out to us and said -- just one of the ways you can participate. how should your member or senator vote on syria? we go to texas on the independent line. i don't think we have would aska yet so i my representative, kenny machen,

to investigate more. some investigation from russian sources that said -- we do not have enough information. host: what more information is needed, then? caller: what the united states is saying is not validated by the u.n.. i would like the u.n. inspectors to put their reports out. the u.s. is trying to circumvent the u.n.. i would wait for the u.n. to come out and say what happened and who did it. terry joins us from ohio on the republican line. it is idiocy going into syria and bombing syria because the united states have not been attacked. i called my congressman did tell him i was against it. the president is talking about a limited strike.

that is kind of like tapping the hornets nest. the syrians are liable to do a somewhere andck then we are in a full-scale war. the best case scenario would be if a sod -- if a sod was knocked out. if the best case and area -- if out. gets knocked one of the folks weighing in yesterday was her preservative sander levin. many members making their thoughts known -- he is a ranking member of the ways and means and talked about his vote, which would be a yes vote. [video clip] >> let me just read from the unclassified, the u.s. government assesses with high confidence that the syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the

damascus suburbs on august when he won. the briefing here spells that out. it comes from multiple sources. essentially the syrian government engaged and crossed a red line. it is a red line that began to be drawn 100 years ago. it is not only a red line the president has drawn, but more and less our society has drawn. be a focused response. if we do not respond there will be an incentive for him to do it again. >> do you believe enough of your colleagues agree with you? pass.hink it will want to see those interviews you can go to our website. we have made them available to

.ou when it comes to the briefing they received, you can see examples of their reaction on c- span.org. arizona, democrats line. what would you tell your senator? caller: that the red line the chemicalse of weapons, that was a redline drawn a long time ago. the mistake in the previous policies of the united stats has bests been to do what's for big companies. i think i am interpreting what they are doing, our policies should be guided by principle. outside the country,

one of my best friends was born -- the thing that the united states has stood for to them in the past is sensible that is sensible. principle.ast is obama because he is a constitutional attorney. he really understands separation of powers between the court, and thee administration. he understands what he can do and what he can't do. policy, starting with the corruption of violence at the eruption of violence last within egypt -- starting the eruption of violence last year in egypt, is determining

what form of government they should have. we should not interfere with that even if we disagree with it. we stand for some principles and one of them is not using chemical weapons on civilians. apparently they have a huge .tockpile of chemical weapons i have heard it said that it is the largest in the world. it probably is. we have the best intelligence, probably, in the world, even whath it is been guided by the big companies want. host: have you made plans to reach out to your legislator? caller: i plan to one some of the stuff becomes public. probablyrt of this is top-secret. i have some faith that if we have the best intelligence in the world, we have the best

computer capability in the world , i am confident that we probably have the right information and the right information says it was used to by the government in syria. front page of "the los angeles times" has this piece

austin, massachusetts, this is antonio on the independent line. -- of boston, massachusetts, this is antonio on the independent line. caller: i am against the war in every way. i did not believe one word john kerry said the other day. i have been in this country for 47 years and i never believe what john kerry said. even if george bush is the loser, stay away from syria. we havee of the problem in this beautiful country first and then we go someplace else. god bless america, have a good day. senatornator mccain and graham to visit the white house

today. they put out a joint statement on the 31st, saying madisonville, kentucky, republican line. morning, thanks for taking my call. for anybody listening on radio and tv, i have some things to say.

ahead -- do what they got to do. they are making chemical weapons. to takedo have anybody over, they should have a draft. there in order to take them out. i agree 100% with these people. we should be scared. they burn our flags over there. if we just go to war and take them out, we ain't got to worry about it no more. they can't make no more chemical --pons area did i agree with chemical weapons. i agree with barack obama. we should be scared about it. host: another legislator weighing in, senator scott from republican on the armed services committee. he talks about a no vote. [video clip]

i am a no based on the information i have right now, not with respect to the evidence that the assad regime committed the atrocity. i know, because of the clarity where all this goes, the definition that we have accomplished a mission, that is still unclear to me. i fully acknowledge that the president is faced with a series of imperfect alternatives. i know he is wrestling with this. i know the 435 members of the house, the senators, he was right to bring this decision to congress. i am convinced that this was the only right constitutional correct path he could have or should have taken. i respect his decision, it did not show weakness in my view. host: from wisconsin, this is not on our democrats line. the thing that bothers

me is we do not have a dog in the fight. each cruise missile we lob in their costs $1.4 million. he have 68,000 bridges that are structurally deficient. lobbing 100 cruise missiles is not going to change anything. why don't we fix 100 prisoners -- 100 ridges? -- 100 bridges? florida, this is john on our independent line. caller: i would tell my representative that we have the uninformed and informed. the informed get their information from alternative uninformed get their information from tvs. if you go to alternative media you will find the exact reason

we are going into syria. most of the soldiers on those ships are the ones that are to follow orders to -- they are out there to be exterminated. russia and china are going to attack us, we are going to have martial law, there will be no constitution anymore. this is the big one. anybody who wants to learn anymore can go to alternative media sources, like steve quayle. you trust them over other sources of media? caller: they have insiders call --m and give tverified verified insiders call to whistleblow. they have whistleblowers,

everything they say they can document. you can google it. the whistleblowers to call the big new stations, they do not say anything because they are controlled by the globalist.s. from orlando,john florida. we have 10 minutes left. if you are joining us late, we nowasking you about syria that president obama has turned to congress for a vote on what to do with syria. yourould you inform member, your senator about what you can send us a tweet or e-mail. here in washington dc, steps are being taken as far security measures are concerned. this is "the washington times" this morning, saying --

that report is made available on our website. not only the four-page document that was put out but also a map that was released from the white house that highlights the damascus areas, the influence and areas reportedly affected by the chemical attack that took place on august 21. you can find it on our c-span website. republican line -- caller: i don't trust john

kerry. put anythink we should troops out. host: what would you tell your legislator? caller: don't go. colin powell went before the he was a i feel coward because he cost so many american lives. i say "no." i'm calling to my senator and congressman tomorrow. i feel we should not be there at all. cheryl off of facebook says --

you can make your thoughts known there as well as twitter and keep that conversation going, even if we moved to other topics. roswell, new mexico, democrat's line. good morning. what would you tell your legislator? caller: i would tell them absolutely not. have we not learned anything from our past wars in iraq and afghanistan and all of these other middle eastern countries? i would think about the facts first. you don't go into a sovereign country without gathering all the facts and being absolutely sure that you are not being baited and leeward and -- and leeward in -- and lured in. the cost of doing nothing is nothing. the cost of doing something is millions.

jobs the you and posture and the.n.'s job millions of dollars we put in there to do the investigations. they should be the force that should be going in, it should not be the united states. like in world war ii when germany started taking over europe, other countries do not get involved until we had all the fact. assad should be checked globally. is it al qaeda on the ground, is it the muslim brotherhood? why do we send our war machine into this economy e we need to take care of ourselves. -- in this economy? we need to take care of ourselves. we have been using uranium loaded weapons, there are all kinds of things. we need to step back and really

-- we need to have -- "the guardian" newspaper this morning -- they also talk about the passing of sir david frost. you may remember he came to fame because of interviews he conducted with president nixon over watergate. in "the washington post" this morning --

you should know he appeared on this network 14 times in a variety of ways. if you want to see him talking about the interviews that he conducted with presidents nixon and other things, you can go to our c-span website, c-span.org. he passed on saturday at the age of 74. would a look at what you tell your legislator, your congressperson, your senator about what to do on syria. linda from michigan, republican line. i would like to say a

couple of things very briefly. do we have a dog in this fight? absolutely not. they kill each other for thousands of years, they're not going to stop. if you insist we go, then i insist that we be done with it. i am the mother of two marines. i have absolutely no interest in my children going to where we do not belong again. a every time they come home from deployment i cannot even tell you, it is like giving birth all over again. they talk about the people killed with the gas, every single person killed is somebody's child. they keep saying this many children -- every single person is somebody's child. no matter their age, they're just as important. that is all i would like to say.

we just need to stay the hell out of this. this is bob younger writing in "the washington post" out of seattle --

another post story to talk to you about or at least show you -- this is about gets -- about gets received from dignitaries -- it also adds --

one more call on this topic. this is out of new jersey on our independent line. how would you tell your legislator as far as serious concerned? -- as far as syria is concerned? voted georgethey bush to go to war, he named five countries. syria was one of them. we need to take it out. last call we the will take. we will continue on the topic of syria and specifically the powers the president has to declare military conflict. ayering me will be jeremy m

of george mason university. the next segment will be dedicated to labor issues. 20 states have laws known as right to work laws. mark mix of the national right to work legal foundation will join us. ♪ >> the media is clearly an increasingly dominant criteria on every first lady. in the end they are the endless

stories,cal human which is not limited to the 19th century or 20th century. it is how these people and/or -- people endure and prevail in the very rough world of politics. >> historian richard norton smith previews season two of c- span's original series "first ladies: influence and image." at the private lives and public roles. tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. bring a look we affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional things, ande conferences, and offer gavel-to- gavel coverage of the house, all as a public service of private

industry. we are created by the cable industry 34 years ago and funded cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in high death. -- in hd. >> i just gave a talk to a bunch of people creating products for parents and kids, mostly stuff for young kids. i showed them that if they went by the data, parents say they want products that will keep their kids smart and educated. parents say they want to keep their kids safe. no parent has ever used the safety features of the programs they are buying for their kids. if you take the data and just act on the data, you are going to be in big trouble. lie.e and as steve jobs said, people do not want -- do not know what they want until they see it. it ask them a million questions and then give them an ipad. there were no focus groups in

the building of the ipad. it was all in here. the discussion on the digital revolution is one of our featured programs. later presidential debates. history and0, the look ahead at the next digital revolution. the international festival of arts and ideas, a look at a race in america, 2050. >> "washington journal" continues. >> joining us now is jeremy mayer, an associate professor for george mason university. what have we learned about the president's ability to declare military action? what is extraordinary is the choice obama has made. he decided to go to this congress when i cannot think of

a modern president who would have made the same decision. he did not have to do it. the 1940s havee the assumed power to take these type of limited and short military actions without advanced congressional approval. host: that is the war powers act? guest: it begins before that. the war powers act was made to stop these presidential actions and did not succeed, so even , presidentst engaged in short bombing raids or military expeditions and did not ask for congress to approve before or even after. host: take us to what the president had an power and what it means for the modern-day. isst: it shows that america working under the oldest constitution still in effect. almost every other country you can find, except for the tiny

principalities of san marino, is working under a modern written document. who has the power to declare and who has the power to initiate war is very unclear because the founders wrote their document at would send ahey letter to france and meet him in six feel -- and meet them six weeks later in a field. oldave this extraordinary document that is very vague as to how a small military engagements are to be conducted. is required if the president decides to act? act,: under the war powers which is a 1973 law, the president has 60 days to introduce troops or use force. in those 60 days, congress must approve the use of force by majority vote. if they do not, the president only has the days to withdraw

the troops from harm's way. that is the way it is supposed to work. it has never worked that way in practice. congress tends not to challenge a president when they do use force outside the bounds of the war power act. when this president was bombing libya, he did not act -- he did .ot ask congress's permission when the bombing went on beyond that time. , nothing happened -- went beyond that time period, nothing happened. [indiscernible] this is from the clerk of the house, the constitutional powers of the president as commander in chief --

guest: certainly no one can argue that the use of chemical damascus is a national emergency for the united states. host: you talked a little bit about the constitutionality of it and he suspected it might not even be constitutional, why is that? it intrudes upon the assumed powers of the presidency. the power of the president to our national security interests as commander in chief. there are people in congress who hassaying that what obama done is weekend the presidency ned the presidency.

you can ask him questions on one of three lines this morning. he is jeremy mayer from george mason university. if you want to give us a call -- if you want to send us a tweet, it is @cspanwj. you also weighed in on what the president can do in these kind of situations. we have a little bit of tape of what he had to say. i want you to take a listen to it and get your response. [video clip] >> the president has absolute constitution eric power to take military action.

resident reagan and president clinton all took it in the war powers act. if he said this issue is as important as it is and sending so many mixed signals over the last 10 days, this is a clear .ailure of leadership if he does not want to take the action himself he should call us back into session tomorrow. we cannot be waiting 10 days and allowing syria to prepare for this, sending mixed signals. syria on thestop red line with the chemical weapons, how can anyone expect us to stop iran with the red line on nuclear weapons? host: jeremy mayer? guest: president obama is losing friends even those with -- even with those who agree with his position. obama was building all of this pr campaign toward an attack and everyone in this town was assuming that he would not go to congress for authorization.

and he would simply take the action and accept how it came out and accept the criticism. alone among the people who could be sitting in the white house, all of the major contenders in office in 2008, made the decision to go to congress. it is fascinating what is going to happen. i believe congress is going to say no. weaken obama.to --t obama has done is mates is make a statement about principle. he believes congress should be involved in these foreign-policy decisions. that has been a belief on many -- a belief of many on the left. happyobama is actually with an outcome where he is told not to go to syria. host: he could still act. guest: i doubt he would. he obviously could.

to order an attack now after chuck -- after congress has said andould be unprecedented politically unwise. calling theeople war powers act a resolution. what was important about that date? >> it was the aftermath of vietnam. and was never out a declaration of war. the right-wing would accuse them of being traitors. in the aftermath of vietnam and the aftermath of watergate, if congress wanted to reassert its traditional role as the decider of war and peace, which is what james madison and the others wanted the congress to have.

on twitter -- no, the war powers act wasn't a law. it required a presidential signature or override. the war powers act is a law. host: as far as how others have treated the act, you talked about iraq and vietnam. any other significant moments for this act has been challenged? have many examples when the president has used this power. people say this was an illegal war during the iraq war, even though it had a use of force resolution in advance. you still have people say at the end of that, the use of force

resolution is over now that saddam hussein is to needed. you'd never guess a majority in either house, which is what you need to have standing to challenge the president's war powers -- we could have had that if obama had done this without congressional approval because the house republicans, if they held together, they would have the majority of the house to challenge this act by the president, but we are not going to get that.

host: katy good morning. caller: i wanted to say i think that president obama if he decided to go ahead without congress' approval, they have knocked him down for it. now he decided to get their approval, they're going to mock him down -- knock him down for it. it doesn't matter which way he went, they're going to disagree. they're leak a couple 4-year-olds as far as i'm concerned. i think he was wise to do what he did that way there's no one to come back and say we told you so. guest: what katy is saying what is a lot of truth to it. critics are going to say in the larger sense perhaps the presidency would have shrunk at

the end of obama's term he would have the children of congress to be the deciders of when the united states act. in the "new york times," there was a meditation of what this all mean for israel. israel is looking at america and looking at obama this morning saying, this president is so weak, can we really trust him to take actions on our behalf in regards to iran. host: the war powers act, with u.s. forces under fire, congress isn't likely to stop funding. guest: this had been a common criticism of the war powers act since it was first written. even the people on the far left some of those who are involved in writing the 1973 act, they recognize sometimes president have to act faster than congress would allow. which will be a swiftly emerging situation where america power must be deployed. the authors of the war power act

tried to balance those needs. caller: are we the policeman of the world? this situation in syria regarding the use of poisonous gases is something that affects not only the united states but the world. if the world doesn't want to act, why should the united states have to sacrifice its troops to support the world? one other thing i want to take issue with is the fact that after president barack obama gave his conference where he was asking congress to take some part in this notion over this period of trying to figure out what to do about syria, he went and played golf. how many things does he have on his plate? if he's going to stop living because he has big issues in front of him, you may as well give up his life.

guest: well, what the caller is saying, emblematic of what obama is facing in congress. the people are oppose actions here is not just conservative republicans, there's isolation republicans and there's liberal democrats who say what the college does, why does the united states have to be the policeman of the world? why can't we we stay out of military conflicts overseas and keep our boys and women at home? this is why when it comes up for a vote in the house, i think it will lose. host: this is gary. one of the things he makes the point, he hopes to blame congress for inaction. guest: that may well happen. you may well get a press conference where he say i wish i could help the syrian people but congress tied my hand.

would that be a victory politically for obama? i don't see how that works out. he will look weak domestically and internationally. host: have other presidents gone back with that type of rhetoric? guest: other presidents have been in that situation. the best example is haiti in 1994, president clinton wanted to use military force and bring back the legitimate leader of haiti. he knew with the newly empowered, newly energized opposition in congress, the republicans would have won a vote against the use the force. plus the american public was opposed to it. he couldn't do it but he didn't hold a press conference assay, i wish i could send troops to haiti but congress wouldn't let me. host: are there lessons that we can learn from what the president decided as far as his role going to congress and what we learned from david cameron

with parliament? guest: yes it's a remarkable lesson because cameron didn't have to go to house of commons. he would have used force without that. he felt politically he needed to do that. obama may have taken a lesson from this because if he lost votes after the syria action, he might be more politically damaged. host: tony join us from capital heights maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. this is once again, these actions that you're talking about are against international law. what these warmongers that you have coming from congress and academic and the media are committing international crimes. the bush administration and obama already been defined by

war crimes in the international court. these people can't go around threatening war against other countries. it's against international law. we should have trials in our country of treason of pushing these illegal invasion. what really happen. those chemical weapons came from saudi arabia. it was given to the human rebels that are over there. they are mishandled and they went off. everybody gets on the tv and try to blame the regime. all you will do, they will regroup and try to come up with another illegal invasion and mass a war. we need to have people tried for treason in this country. guest: what the caller is talking about is a good point

about international law. there is almost no international law basis for the bombing of syria under these conditions. at the same time, it is clear to most observers that president assad ordered the use of sarin gas on his own people. the chemical weapons treaty does not allow you as another nation to immediately attack any user of chemical weapons. so international law is very complicated and it is very involved in this decision. host: you hear the phrase international norms instead of law? guest: international law is becoming international norm but a norm doesn't have the force of law. so it is wrong to say international law doesn't matter but it is also wrong to say international law controls the actions of nations. it is somewhere in the mid point where it is becoming more of a

norm. host: jeremy mayer from the george mason university talking about the powers of military. taking your calls as well until 8:30. up next, democrats line hi. caller: you have four questions. i really believe no matter what president obama had done, we would have found him somewhat wrong. i think -- why haven't we thought of to be a strategy that he's using to gather time to get more data, to decide what he want to do. also to have a strategy to have an in and out plan if we were to go to war and have a time frame. why haven't we thought of those factors? guest: well, this may well be one of the advantages that the obama see he has chosen. that he does get time. it's going to be september 9th before congress does come back. he's gained more time to rally international support.

i think the president had a good point that whether this is a week or month, if the united states act, there will be severe consequences for the use chemical weapons. he maybe playing the fox. he maybe gaining time through this strategy. if he ends up on television after losing a vote in the house of representatives for use of force, i just don't see how that outfoxes his critics. host: what do you think about the strategy the white house is putting out there flooding the zone? guest: it's impressive. having the secretary of state go on five sunday talk shows to talk about sarin gas, it's impressive rollouts. rooms me the months of advance work the bush administration did for the war on iraq. several of your callers brought up in different ways that we've heard this movie before.

obama has a precedent that he's dealing with which is the lies that the bush administration used to get us into the war in iraq. host: if i was going to ask if there was parallel in information that secretary kerry put out and secretary powell put out. guest: what we know about what powell said was some of it was based on torture. a lot of the intelligence that powell used turned out to be pad and was known to be bad by people in the intelligence community. i like to think that what secretary kerry said is more grounded. i have to believe that its not based on torture at the very least. in my opinion, the recent use of chemical weapons by president assad is a much more firmly established fact than much the

case. host: adding sarin to the mix yesterday. guest: it's a very impress every array of intel. i was an academic in 2003 watching secretary powell give that presentation. i was pretty impressed by that too. i was never supporter for that war. i thought it was a well done presentation as secretary powell usually does. i think kerry's case is much stronger. host: at least adding to the mix, youtube video -- guest: president assad has shown no he -- shown no hesitation. whatever happens bombing him is some mash of moral act because of his grave violations of law and humanity. host: here's tom from illinois, republican line good morning.

caller: good morning. mr.mayer, i would challenge you on one point if president obama is acting on principle, he gone to congress at the outset. i think what is being forgotten in this discussion is that we are in this mess due to somewhat of a disjointed policy toward syria and the middle east. we called for assad's removal two years ago. one year ago the president drew a red line and now he punts in the 11th hour because he doesn't want to take the responsibility. the repetitive pattern developing here. with all that said, i believe congress needs to vote to support a strike and support the president because i would not want to be a citizen in taiwan, south korea, israel. i wouldn't want to be a christian in the middle east right now watching our country

flare in the wind trying to make a decision to protect what is right. guest: that is essentially the peter king point that obama has no policy and that this has been indecision all throughout the last two years with regards to syria. i think as tom made, its a pretty strong case to make. but the counter argument is, we aren't the world's policeman. we don't want to get involved. i think americans almost unanimously opposed any new large scale war in the middle east. yet the use of force is an unpredictable thing for any president. you can say it's a limited bombing campaign. it's a limited use of force. that's what the gulf of tonken was in vietnam. small actions with very small number of american troops can lead to large war that's lead to places no one can predict.

host: the atlantic writes this paradox showed that american intervention in syria is legal as well as military. it may be a problem with no good solution to the legal aspect. does the president required under the powers he has to present a legal case. we've heard evidence but is there a requirement that a legal case has to be made? guest: there isn't a requirement that he do so. in fact, the legal argument that presented by some presidents, in the case of clinton to justify to obama campaign has been laughable. his own lawyers couldn't do it with a straight face. but, politically, he has to make a legal argument. he has to say i am acting pursuant to this constitutional norm and under international law, the use of chemical weapons is so grave a violation that other states must take action. particularly that second point would not hold up to 10 minutes

of scrutiny by first year law student in an international law class. host: from connecticut, here's cathleen on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to say a couple things. first i don't believe the intelligence. i don't think most americans should believe the intelligence. it was interesting that you just referenced the gulf of tonken. three years plus -- or the story that got us into vietnam. all of that intelligence is completely under question. lot of people think it didn't even happen. it's more background stories that were led to believe that we understand. we should be very skeptical. as far as the president looking weak, i think -- at the end of the day i don't think it show assigns of weakness that the president goes to congress. it might be a brilliant move on

his part. when we look at a president in terms of strength or weakness, based simply on things is congress doing what he wants or exertly executive power, we need a far more mature view of what strength is and lot of times that includes opening up the conversation, taking in more opinions. it's not just an ego driven i look strong type of thing. guest: i couldn't agree with cathleen more? is she still on the line? i was going to ask her the question we come backing to, how will obama look if the house of representatives at least votes down this use the force? i don't think he will politically be able to do it bomb syria after that. he clearly expressed that he wanted to bomb syria.

coth -- cathleen makes two good points. you should be skeptical when government claims reasons to go to war. like gulf of tonken. if you listen on the johnson tapes, it might have been wales. the second point she makes about he should take a nuance view about strength. there were moments in president lincoln where he looked weak. but the long view may have a very different perspective or different weight from a different historical perspective. so it is possible that some day we'll look back on this decision by obama as the moment in which congress was reintroduced to true decision-making power in these decisions about war in

peace. which they haven't really been involved in except when it's been a large scale long attempted ground troop invasion. not even all of those as in panama when president george herbert walker bush decided to invade panama. host: sam, princeton, illinois, republican line. caller: i think the biggest kid in washington is president obama. he constantly jumps from conflict to conflict. he pulls out the race card all the time. we got $3 loads of bread, $4 of gas and no jobs. this guy does pitiful jobs. he does not need congress rope to talk us to war.

does he not have to have congress' approval to go to war? yes or no. guest: the caller is correct. the constitution doesn't have a dam word about the president's ability to use force without congressional approval. at the same time, going back to the founders, there has been times when president used force without congressional approval. sometimes they write a letter to congress afterwards and say is it okay. sometimes they send a message to congress in advance saying this happens, i might have to use force, which is what jefferson did. this may be the kind of thing that fueled obama's decision to go to congress. there's so much hatred towards

obama, if he done a bombing campaign of syria, in the middle of that campaign could not the majority of house of representatives tried to use force resolution rules to bring down his presidency. putting obama in a situation where if he continue the bombing campaign, he would face articles of impeachment in the house. that may have played a role in obama's surprise decision to go to congress in advance. host: could this whole event foster a conversation amongst congress about the powers that a president has or revisiting the act itself? guest: i think it could. although congress has so much on its plate now. i do believe they are squabbling children and we are at a period of record dysfunction in congress. we never seen this type of gridlock in the history of the republic. to add to that the idea they're going to says the constitution -- revise the constitution or the war act is a fantasy.

host: angel joining us from maryland independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. how you doing? i'm worried about this congress and the president not acting on this because there was 426 children killed. i love my children and i don't see how the united states can act on this resolution about going to war with this country that's killing children. it's a shame that the united states is acting like this and people don't realize, it could be our own children. when the world trade center came down, so many people died but we wept to war. we didn't care nothing about -- the point was we didn't care. guest: there are bad governments on every continent. with that exception, there are children being killed in myanmar

right now by buddhist, moms. there's children being killed by the thousands over the last 10 years in the congo. wherever you look, you're going to see children being killed. do we have me must intervene policy whenever children being killed? caller: i'm talking about when you use chemical weapons like the nazi did that's when you should intervene. anybody is susceptible to that. guest: this is the point the president is trying to make that the use of chemical weapon is a special act. different from all other ways of dying. under international law, he's right but again, does that mean that it is the u.s.'s job to act? the last major use of chemical weapons did not elicit this type of response.

it was by sadaam hussein in the 1980's. when he did that, we didn't contemplate intervention. our government was giving targeted information to the iraqi military so they know where the iranians were. we have a very checkered past when it comes to high moral standard on chemical weapons. host: we've heard some of the arguments, other countries are watching us in how we respond to it. how do you think the president looks in all of this depending on what happens? guest: i think it's significant that south korea and israel are so concerned about this because they look at rogue nations like north korea and iran and say if syria gets the message that the u.s. is weak and that it will not respond, then it will embolden those nations. at the same time, this is one of the arguments about vietnam that

our credibility was at stake and other communist nations will take note of our weakness. we know how that movie ended. these are very complicated arguments. host: here's john from new jersey, democrats line. caller: good morning. first, i like to say god bless the people of great britain who in their wisdom have rejected threats of violence against another country in the middle east. the important point here is, mr. obama and the warmongers like john mccain, deliberately making a misleading moral argument and here is why. it's deceptive. there are two sides to this civil war. no one including most of the media, except for c-span and others will mention the fact the other side that assad is fighting. these rebel al qaeda terrorists are killing, committing the

moral atrocities of killing christian syrians, beheading syrian priests and also killing innocent men and women and children. are their lives less valuable than the lives those who are killed? i'm not condoning with chemical weapons. this is the crux. they are deceptively using a misleading argument by ignoring the other side of this civil war. syria has done nothing. it's no threat to america. guest: what is amazing about this issue the way it's breaking through the hyper polarization of politics. we had a republican call in said i think congress vote on his side. we had a democratic caller saying obama is a warmonger like john mccain. unprintable alliances are

emerging. what the caller said is unquestionably true. there are elements of al qaeda and other radical that's are allied are main part of the fighting forces of the syrian rebels. they are committing horrible atrocities against syrian officials or anything they think is supporting the assad regime. they are blood thirsty. they are vicious and the longer they go on, the fewer restraints about civilian casualties appear. host: you talk about congress. this is the washington post prints out some of the block that's are forming now within congress. be happy to debate the issue. the military action block, the do it now block and the bigger military action block. all of things working at once

towards a decision in congress. guest: if you add up all of those actions in house, i don't see obama getting to a majority. he's got some days and he can be amazingly persuasive. rally the democratic base and say this is a vote about my presidency. he'll go to the congressional black caucus, which is very against new foreign wars and get their support. go to the liberals and say, this will be very restrained. this will be very little use of force. it's about chemical weapons and international law. then go to republicans like frank wolf. go to moderate conservative republicans and beg and say, look, we need to support the anti-international -- we need to support the presidency at this moment and -- host: this is part of his

legacy. guest: it's part of the precedence of future presidents. will presidents be able to take these type of actions. if he does that he could win a very narrow majority. right now, i don't count the votes in congress for him. host: one more call, this is doug. new york, republican line. caller: one problem here is this is sort of late in the game gamble. the president hasn't provided the leadership on advocating a policy in syria. today's "washington journal" had a good article on leading from behind. we haven't had this type of argument on what our policy should be from the white house

for white a while. this is sort of a last minute argument here that their making. it's a good argument on chemical weapon that it should have been on a larger policy on syria. guest: i think the reason that you did not see obama leading from the front on syria is that he correctly judged that america simply would not tolerate it. there is among republicans and democrats and independents if you look at polls, if there's one thing americans don't want, it's another war in the middle east. so as syria descended into a nightmare of civil war, obama kept us out and did not lead on this issue in the way that the caller judges. but that's obama being the president that america wanted. host: you talked about what happens if the president couldn't get the votes. what's the best case scenario?

guest: the best case scenario for obama is they do a short bombing campaign. it will be very effective and chastening assad. then there's some sort of political solution. that's a pipe dream. if you did get a peace treaty or some sort of assad agrees to leave and the rebels agree not to slaughter and you have a coalition government emerge in syria, then that's the best case scenario. host: jeremy mayer from george mason university. associate professor from the school of public policy talking about role president and war powers act. thank you. coming up, we are going for our next two segment. take a look at labor issues on this labor day. we'll learn about the right to work laws across the united states with mark mix. we'll get the union perspective from mary kay henry of the service employees international union. we'll take up all of those

segment.s. first we get updates from c-span radio. >> there's more on syria this hour. reuters reports that syria's u.n. envoy in a letter to u.n. chief ki-moon is calling on the council to maintain its role to prevent absurd use of force. the united states should play its role as a peace sponsor and as a partner to russia in preparation for the international conference on syria. not as a state that uses force against whoever opposes its policies. syria denies using chemical weapons and is accusing rebel groups of using the banned weapons. meanwhile a top united nation official saying international aid to civil war is a droop in the sea.

estimated 5 million syrians have been displaced inside the country. in addition two million syrians have fled to neighboring countries. the total of about 7 million amounts to nearly one third of syria's population. china is urging united states not to take unilateral action against syria in response to last month's attack. chinese foreign ministry spokesman hong lee said washington briefed beijing over the matter and china is concerned about the use of chemical weapons. china joined russia in blocking united states action. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i think you have to applaud it. it good to be analogued some of the time. it's very hard. i think one of the unintended fortunate consequences of texting and instant messaging and social networking and e-mail

is that it's very hard to be off the grid out of touch and sometimes that means it's hard to find a big enough chunk of time to just think or just relax. all of those things i think are important for your health and the quality of your work. i think it's up to people to try to figure out a way to unplug or mostly unplug at least for periods of time. >> for two of our conversations with the wall street journal more about the future of personal technology. tonight on the communicators at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. host: as promised, issues dealing with labor on this labor day. our first guest is mark mix, he is the president of national right to work legal defense

foundation. mr.mix welcome. guest: pedro good to be with you. host: tell us about your organization. guest: it was founded in 1968. we provide free legal services to employees who had their rights violated. we've been to the u.s. supreme court 15 times. we've got our 16th case pending in the october term. all of this litigation on behalf of employees who either been fired or had their rights violated because they are forced pay dues or fees to a union to keep a job. the litigation goes on. we have about 240 cases. we have about 211. we're representing 10s of thousands of employees across america from the u.s. supreme court, the appellate court the national labor relations board. host: taking from your name, what are right-to-work laws? guest: they are laws in 24 states that protect the workers right to work free of paying fees to a union.

back in 1935 under the wagner act, union officials were granted the power to compel someone to pay them. over the course from 1935 to today, labor law has developed to a point where we can't force them to be members of the a union. right-to-work claws comes in and fight that injustice. host: what are some states and notable ones? guest: the notable ones on december 11, 2014 michigan became the 24th right-to-work state. back in 2001 oklahoma passed right to work law and idaho. we've got the rocky mountain region, midwest and the south now almost half the states are enjoying right-to-work freedom. governor walker passed

right-to-work law for the government employee in conference. host: as far as the laws past in other states this will include both sides. as far as with us a state passes these laws, what happens to a state once they do that? some things i read, economically there could be concerns at least from those who impress labor opinion -- express labor opinions. guest: the first thing that happens individual workers now can hold union officials accountable for the work they do. they can vote with their pocketbooks. secondly what happens, we will certainly have a debate about this, the economic of it are in great in favor of those states that provide freedom to the workers. if you look at in 2009, manufacturing it's outstanding what the change has been. first and foremost the issue is freedom and the workers get the

choice. workers and right-to-work states join unions. there are a couple right-to-work that have higher union density that don't have right-to-work laws. union officials don't lake that. they like the privilege of forcing workers to pay them a fee. host: labor unions aren't forbidden to practice or at least conduct business? guest: absolutely not. under federal law, everyone has the right to organize and bargain collectively. the question is, do you force someone never wanted, never voted or or never asked for union and force them to pay dues or keep their jobs. there are philosophical reasons. there are perhaps economic reasons, religious reasons. it's not for us to ask that question. we shouldn't have to have a litmus test for someone say you have to give up your political rights to maintain your workplace rights or religious rights or conscious issues in order to protect your right to work. it's not for us to ask those questions. people have reasons of their

own. host: our guest joining us until 95: 9:00 -- 9:15 to talk about issues when it comes to labor. he's mark mix with the national right to work legal defense foundation. the calls come in at 202-585-3880 line for democrats, 202-585-3881 line for republicans and 202-585-3882, line for independents. this was from the seiu's jerry hudson. it talked specifically about right to work laws. he said the law quote, have intent to cripple unions. by allowing employees to benefit from collective bargaining

agreements. guest: let me unpack that. first and foremost, you'll see his argument is red indicated -- predicated on attacking workers. somehow there are some workers out there that you would gladly accept union dues in their in situations. he's saying somehow workers will choose not to support them. it's not an argument against labor or management. secondly i would say in right to work states there are vibrant union movement. what happens in those states, unions are much more accountable. they have to be tuned in to what happened on the shop floor as opposed to what's happening here in washington or the state capital where their power is derived from government action. they created this problem back in 1935 and thousand they're -- now they're living with it. what they did, they came here to washington under the roosevelt

administration, they got a federal labor policy that gave them tremendous power over workers and now they're complaining because the government is reacting and workers are actually voting with their pocketbooks. host: some of the states listed work laws, they are listed in blue on this map that we're showing you. those with union laws or at least allow union are in yellow. what's the trend. are more states becoming right to work states? guest: ultimately all 50 state will enjoy the freedom and protection of a right to work law. hopefully we'll pass it here and amend the federal labor policy. that's where it can be solved. senator rand paul has a bill in u.s. senate that is one page bill. it repeals the provision that authorize union officials to have workers fired. host: first call from you is from diana from new jersey on the democrats line. caller: i was wondering if your

caller could address how they don't enforce the prevail wage rate. i don't understand people backlash to union because it provided middle class for america with a decent wage and allows middle class to raise their money and not be stuck in poverty. my husband complains there's no one, he's a union workers he sees people coming here and no one is enforcing the prevailing rate. they're hiring illegal immigrants because the construction industry has been decimated. just want to know who is in charge of enforcing the laws. guest: diana thank you for your interest and passion there. diana speaks about the prevailing wage law which is a wage mechanism in the construction industry provided by the federal government and the state government. on at federal construction job the prevailing wage law is enforced by labor. i what she mentions here, in a

construction industry, they set a wage that is prevailing in that particular area on a construction job funded with government money. the interesting part about that the origins of the prevailing law are not something we like to talk about in america. it was designed to keep black construction workers out of the north. enforcements are pretty important thing obviously the government is responsible for that. union officials leak the prevailing wage law in their case they can use it to elevate local wages to a point nonunion and union free construction companies can't compete because the labor line item is really the one area where there's some latitude if you will. so it's important element but it's something many states are addressing for taxpayers . host: independent line is next. caller: i want to make a

comment to the c-span commentators. they do a lot of talking and sometimes it's 15 minutes before a call gets in. we want to hit these guys with hard hitting questions. this guy come on and pretend he's on workers rights. it's all about driving down wages. that's why a lot of companies went to the south because they have react to work laws. you can hire people at lower wages. more profits for the employer. this guy telling employers, employers are more concerned about making more money. often times these workers, if they're not in the union, they benefit from the union agreement but they don't have to pay the union dues. this is all about driving down wages just like these free trade agreements. these guy pretend he's for

working people and represent the employers. like obama said one time, the right to work for less. that's what these right to work laws are for. host: monty adds on twitter asked about organization if it'sed financed by corporations fighting unions? guest: thanks for your passion. sorry we don't get a chance to know each other. you made assumptions based on what my passion is. i came from a union household. my stepfather was a 32 member of the international machinist. my mother worked at school lunchroom washing dishes. my brother has to pay union dues in order to teach students in the fourth grade. don't come off telling me that you know what my motivations are. the right to associate presumes the right not to associate ed. you shouldn't question anyone's right not to associate and what they're rationale maybe.

getting back to his question about us and who we are. i spoke already about the litigation. we're representing employees. we're suing employers and unions alike. we have plenty of laws against employer who are conspiring to convenient workers rights as well we're bringing a gentlemen here from the u.s. supreme court on november 13th to argue his case when the employer and union got together and conspired to force him into a union he never wanted to be in. saying somehow corporate america is on our side is wrong. do you think gm supports right to work, you think chrysler does or pepsi or coca-cola. they're interested sitting down once every three years or five years with one part and negotiating a blanket contract for everyone. no matter how poorly that person does that job. if workers want to do that, they have a right to do that and we protect that right under the right to work law.

host: if i may ask who finance your organization? guest: we have a very aggressive high volume and low volume program. i travel recruiting support. our average contribution for the committee is $55. annual contribution for the foundation is about $74. host: corporate donations part of that? guest: primarily corporate organizations do not support the right-to-work. we find a lot of small business people. about a third of our membership are retired and current union members. who want us to help them and be their voice in the marketplace. they know if they speak up, bad things can happen. host: the supreme court case you mentioned what's the ultimate question for the justices? guest: the ultimate question is whether or not a union and an employer can exchange valuable things as it related to

unionizing workforce. the question in this case, engages and involves situation where a union was helpful to a gambling operation that allows them to get a slot machine on their premises. in return for that activity, the employer agreed to allow the union to get the name and addresses of all the employees at the workplace. they allowed them access to the property p these are things they asked for, to talk with the workers. then they asked for, card check unionization drive where employers have no chance to go behind a curtain to say yes or no. they wouldn't allow them to do that. we have contended in series of cases, several of them have moved out. in this case, we have argued that these are valuable things. that's a violation of section

302 act. in this particular case, the employer decided not execute the contract and the union sued them in state court for executing this contract. saying these things are extremely valuable to them. it has a potential major impact on how unions organize. they may have to go back out to convince workers to vote for them behind the ballot as opposed organizing an campaign against the employer and getting employer to agree to accept them without a secret ballot vote. host: when is that hearing set? guest: that will be set for november 15. host: thomas is up on the democrats line. caller: i want to make a comment . i lived in two different right to work states. kansas and north carolina. in a few months, i will be

moving to a democratically controlled state. i worked for a company called a scientific corporation. about seven or eight years ago there was about 250 employees at that company that trying to get the union in there. now, once the company -- host: caller, you're breaking up a little bit. go ahead. caller: yes. they grabbed all the names of the individual that will vote. they were in the paper here in north carolina in statesville that on the front page, they fired every single one of these individuals because they were going to vote in a union. then the company put up a fence around the property to keep anybody off the property that doesn't work there so the

workers can't form or fight for equal rights or good pay or what have you. i don't like this right to work, it benefits corporations and one for. -- percent. for you to say it doesn't, this is something people need to put out there now. you're all bunch of liars. guest: thank you thomas. happy labor day to you too. i think we have a different view on this. it sounds to me what the company has done a violation of labor law. there is a very well implemented rules and regulations about how a company can treat employees. i would encourage you to follow up on that and make sure the employees have done that. there's obviously a place for someone to look at that behavior

of the company. host: gallop puts out a poll and take a look at approval of unions in the united states. about 54% showing approval of union. got to know that trend has been dropping since 2001. guest: public opinion of unions and the right for workers to join and bargain is something americans see as part of this process. the one part they don't see though is compulsion and when they actually understand that a worker with lose their job for simply failing to pay dues or fees, they begin to push back against col pulsery unions. the card check debate. when you come here to washington, you say you don't want to give workers the right to vote behind a curtain yes or no, the public responds to that. may be in a macro perspective and may be not in the micro perspective. but those types of stands really just resonate in a negative way

with people across america. when you talk about labor unions and their history and what they can do, pedro, there's a placed organized labor in the past and there's a place for them today and there's a place for them in the future. until they allowen the united states government and get back into the business of representing workers, then, we'll see what unions can do. that will be the voice that workers will want. host: your organization is about col pulling -- compulsion and dues. guest: there are issue there is that are problematic as it relates to state rights. the history of labor policy in america is really a fascinating history for those that jump into it. the idea of compulsion that a private organization has the ability to have you fired for failing to pay 38 bucks a month

because you disagree for whatever reason. according to the seiu it's because you're you want to benefit. host: people will have a legal case saying they were fired undully. wouldn't they have a legal case because they doesn't want to join a union? guest: i don't believe -- right now under current law they cannot be fired for joining a union. your question was, if they don't pay dues, if we get to the point where there is no compulsion, they could be fired. host: fired because of that but not for job performance. wouldn't they have a legal case saying i'm fired? guest: that's the beauty of the tragedy of this issue. you have no recourse. what will happen in a union situation, if you don't tend to

your dues, the union will write a letter to the employer, saying pedro has not paid his dues. if you don't pay and you don't forward his dues or whatever the clause says, the employer is required to fire you from your job. you have no recourse. it is perfectly legal to have you fired for not tendering dues and fees to a union. host: melissa is up next from a republican -- lewis you're on the line go ahead. lewis one more time, hello. let's go on to lance. lance is from huntsville, texas, independent line. caller: my question for the guest is, with union membership at a 100 year low, we know unions are funded by working class individuals. these organizations that are attacking unions and coming up with these right to work laws, who are they being funded by?

guest: lang, pedro and i had that discussion earlier. we provide voluntary contributions. we have to go out and convince people to support us. as i mentioned earlier, our average contribution is about $55. the average contribution to our foundation is about $74. we mail and aggressively talk about right to work to a very large audience. we have a very large component of individuals who support us financially who are labor union members, retired members who are interested in having a voice that's beyond their voice in the workplace as it relates to ending force unions in america. host: viewers talked about the state of union as far as membership. in 2012 about seven million members of a union. that's shown some decreases since early 1970's. guest: back in october 2009, we crossed a line where there's

more government union members in america than there are private sector unions. the aflcio indicate they represent 14.5 million people in there. they represent those workers. not all of them are members of the union. the numbers there, i think is a response to where organized laub is going. they are getting more militant in the political process. they're relying more on government for their pour. -- power. this is a function of them losing sight what the real -- host: next call is from howard. howard join us from new jersey. on the democratic line. thanks for holding on. go ahead. caller: good morning. just like to say to the gentleman, he speaks very well and makes a very good argument. i'm 72 plus years and i'm a new york city police officer. i remember my folks when they

first came to new york, difficulty. my father being able to obtain a job. unions do have their problems, there's no doubt and he makes a very good argument but nevertheless. there are arguments about affirmative action but by the same token it was one of the things greatest things that happened in the police department. unions leveled the playing field. if a individual does not have any representation or any power where he can speak to an employer without a union, if you don't have a union in place to listen to you or not fire you when he wants to, he can send you home when he wants to. there's no guarantee. there's no seniority that you can count on. someone coming along in 10 days, you can get laid off and that person will take your position. the unions and the rules and

regulations affiliated with it allows individuals to have some seniority counts. host: caller thank you. guest: sounds like a good argument for join the union. the right to join a union is undisputed. the issue is really clearly and you make a good point about why someone who want to join a union. it they do those things and if they provide those services, i would suggest people join the union voluntarily and be willing to do that. when union officials over lay that fabric of compulsion that you must join. when they say you're forced pay dues or fees in order to keep a job. why do they need compulsion if they're doing all of these great things for workers. why do unions rely on

compulsion? you're saying we can solve all the problems in the country by forcing everyone to pay dues to a labor union. i disagree. host: a viewer asked, what is a closed shop? guest: closed shop was a creation of the wagner act. the idea that the definition of the closed shop was reformed back in 1963 in a supreme court case, we can't force you to be a formal member of the union. the closed shop was, you had to be a union member, you had to be a part of the union, you had to pay dues in order to keep your job. now you don't have to be a formal member of the union but you still center to pay up to one hundred percent of unions to keep your job. union security clause is negotiated by the union. they want the ability to force everyone to pay fees and they want the employer to take the dues out of the paycheck of the employers first.

then they start negotiating. the union security clause say you got to pay fees in order to keep your job. host: what about the dues? guest: the union spend about billions of dollars on lobbies and politics. they got to be involved in politics. they are a big player in politics. host: what is suppose to be done with the dues? guest: we think the dues should be enhanced the worker experience and right for workers expanding that. when you rely on government for your power, you got to be playing in government. that's one of the problems union officials have. he knew that once the union officials started relying on government for their move, they will lose sight of what their mission was for the workers. as i said already, he said the workers for america is here to

volunteer institution. host: scranton, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: thank you for taking the call. mark, you're doing a great job. i greatly appreciate you getting out there. i myself testified on this issue. it's not just compulsion payment, it's for teachers and other workers automatically deducted from the paycheck. they don't have a say if they pay dues or not. you bring up a great point about how they're using this political power. we're seeing a pension crisis across our country. help those employees and workers with only of that dues and give them part of their pension if they were really up for the employees. thank you so much and god bless you. host: what type of money are we talking when you're talking dues? how much do you have to pay?

caller: i am not a union member. i read the contracts through the teachers in our area. i was shocked to find out that they automatically deduct that dues from the paychecks. that's right in their contract. i do not believe that should be happening. guest: union dues, we're estimating they are about $800,000 a year. union dues is usually a percentage of a pay rate. every time the pay rate is raised, the union dues goes up. we find union dues vary anywhere from $600 to airline pilots and other pay a percentage of their salary. host: according to you, most of that comes off automatically even before the rest of the check comes to the employee?

guest: very common negotiating tool is to get what's called a checkoff. this that is -- that is automatic payroll deduction. they have to go to each person and say you owe us $35, the collection mechanism will be very problematic for them. they're fiending that case up in wisconsin, governor walker formed the bargaining system. what he did, they passed a right to work law for employees and the government up there. about 60% showed the employees union no longer forward those dues to the union. i think the union has to actually collect those dues now because the payroll deduction system has been taken away. they are really struggling. now they got to convince you like a bill, they got to provide a good product. then you got to pay them. that check off mechanism is very critical in making sure that they get that dues money. organized labor is a $20 billion

a year business according to the department of labor statistics filings they put in each year. that's not even every union america. it's big business. host: there's a story out of michigan saying union there, the uaw, said it will appeal, saying michigan right to work laws state employee. uaw local 6000 is the largest union represented state employee with about 17,000 members. state employees are covered by this law passed in december. guest: one of the biggest local union in america is government employees. which kind of a trend we spoke about earlier. the question is, whether or not the private sector and public sector work to law. the question does the public sector right to work law cover employees in government. there are some nuances in

michigan law, you know there's question about pension money. there was a contention that the vote and legislature could not control labor management relations. i they the court said we disagree. the legislature said this is going to cover those employees. the employer of these people. they're the ones that provide appropriations and money for the government to function. therefore they are in a position to make a determination about what the workplace rights are going to be for employees. there's no surprise the union will appeal that. host: ed in line up -- independent line up next. caller: happy labor day. before we go on, i have a question for you pedro, after this guy is on will which a representative to talk about what's good for union? host: yes the head of seiu will be on. caller: i want to address

mr. mark. my name is mark as well. he keeps talking about why compulsory withholding of dues is such a bad thing. it's not really compulsory. if you don't want to take that job, which where the various benefits have been gained by unions, if you don't want that salary, retirement fund or health insurance that union got for them, then don't go to work there and then you don't have to pay those union fees. the reason that has to be done is, there's easy for someone to come in after all the wonderful things the union got. i don't want to pay the fees but i still want those benefits. why should someone come in on a free ride and not pay to the union and belong to the union when the union is what made that job as good as it could be. you know they had a fight to get

those bents. guest: thank you mark. great question. i think the answer is real simple. mark's argument is predicated somehow the workers claim they want to represent. i will leave it in the hands of the worker about what choice they make. the second issue there is the issue of benefit. there's assumption that everything the union does benefits the workplace. i don't think that's true. i guess if we take mark's statement to a logical conclusion, what he's saying is, you can quit your job and you don't get an opportunity to work there because this is in place. i don't necessarily agree with that. i guess that's a decision someone has to make. it's amazing we put workers in a place on one hand, in order to protect their political rights for example. we had a union member who found out that his dues money was

being used for political cause he opposed. he ended up filing a lawsuit, you can't use that money for politics or issues i oz. the supreme court in 1988 said you're right harry back, you one. unions now have been able to take political money and use for politics until 1988 said they couldn't do that anymore. in order to exercise that right to protect their political views, they have to give up their workplace rights. they can't vote on the union contracts. they can't vote in union elections. they can't participate in any workplace kest -- committees or anything the union controls. in order to protect their workplace rights, they give up their individual political rights or religious rights. that's a choice that a worker should never have to make. host: in about 10 minutes, we will be joined by mary kay henry, she's president of service employees international

union. our next call, florida, democrats line, paul hello. caller: how you doing. i'm listening to mark here. he selling snake oil to people already hurting and making low wages. it seems like he's attacking government workers, anybody that wants to organize for better wages. i hear you saying that someone doesn't pay their union dues, that they are going to be fired. that's a lie. i'm worker and have been for the last 13 years. that has never happened. you coming from a family of union people, you know how tough it was. you know how tough a struggle is. i don't understand why you would say that we're getting our money from government, government backed. i'm sure that the people you

represent, your organization get backing from these big corporations, wal-mart, mcdonalds and all of these other company that's drive the wages down and that don't pay workers anything. you never explain how come they sending jobs overseas. you know why, they want low skilled workers and they want to dumb down the people and keep them at poverty level where they can't have benefits. i don't hear you saying that about your organization. guest: thanks for participating today and your passion to response here. i'm sorry we disagree with the issue. to say that workers aren't fired for failure to pay dues and fees, it's there. i would encourage to you look at your contract and look for a clause that says union security. read through that paragraph and you will find, unfortunately, i believe that probably 80% or 90%

of these contract have that in there. will you find a clause saying if you don't tend your fees, the union can request your employee to have you fired. that's a fact. any union official wants to dispute that is really being -- you will find it is a requirement to be a member of good standing in this union. member in good standing according to a supreme court case, doesn't mean you have to be a member of the union, it means you have to pay the dues and fees in order to keep your job. if it's not in your long contract, congratulations to you. that's a good thing. but it is in contract after contract across america and it says if you don't tend to your dues or fees, you are fired from your job. host: what do you make about the arc we heard from the fast

strike last week about a living wage? guest: that's interesting. i think it's important issue. the idea of people coming together voluntarily, standing up and having their voices heard. that's the freedom of assembly in america. there's nothing wrong with that. the issue is, they want to find a way what the seiu say, a fair way to unionize these workers. who's funding t who's promoting, who is out there pushing these people along. you'll find out the service employees international union is behind that. i think the president will be on after this. host: madison, wisconsin, independent line. caller: thank you. i find it interesting on labor day, a benefit from a union,

that a person who supports right to work states, would pity the opportunity on labor day to attack unions. that's my first question. the second question i will have to ask is, he talks about the unions being political. yet in all of these react to work states, we have republican governors, how political is that? my question then is, can you give me, sir, a break down as to the wages in these right to work states? the other states lack support unions. if you can explain to the audience which states pay a better wage, a liveable wage. which states offer a better wage? guest: thanks for participating today. i will be glad to answer that question. i think from a stand point of labor day, this is a good time it talk about issues related to

labor laws, labor unions. i'm glad c-span decided to inject this issue into the debate on labor day. it's a worthy discussion. to your issue about wages, that is an interesting question. it's a very prominent argument in organized labor discussion against right to work. the fact of the matter is, american federation of teachers, which is affiliate of aflcio did a study of teacher salary using wages. researchers there weren't tuned into the strategy. they adjusted cost of living. when the american federation of teachers adjusted cost of living, they found out that teachers were better off in right to work stateses than non react to -- right to work

states. host: mark mix president of the national right to work legal defense foundation. mr.mix, that can. guest: thank you. host: coming up next, mary kay henry, the president of the service employees international union to talk about her take on labor issues. we'll have that conversation as far as we get update from c-span radio. >> u.s. base in afghanistan near the border of pakistan was attacked today bring militants. they set off bombs and shut down a key road used by nato supply trucks. throw insurgents were killed in the attack. it's the latest in the surge of attacks in afghanistan as u.s. reduce their presence leading to full withdrawal by next year. egypt's state news agency saying country's top prosecutor is referring out to islamist

mohammed morsi to trial. millions took to the streets demanding he step down. he will be tried along with 14 members of his muslim brotherhood. update on syria from nato chief anders rasmussen. saying i have been presented with concrete information and without going into details, i can tell you that personally i am convinced not only a chemical attack has taken place but i am also convinced that the syrian regime is responsible. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> it's one of the iconic recognizable symbols of maryland state house. it is not actually the first dome to cover this building. when the building is completed in 1779, it's topped by a under

sized coupela. in 1785, less than two years after congress in annapolis, construction begins on the new dome to the state house. they have to dismantle the original one and it takes them about 12 years to complete it. it was completed about 1797. it's the largest all wooden dome in the united states and it's benefit entirely without structural analysis. it's held together with elaborate iron strapping. it's truly a architectural masterpiece. in the 19th century during the war of 1912, the state house dome is used as a look house.

we have tremendous documentation of william barney, son of maryland's joshua barney, using what we called excellent glass on the way back and forth. >> more about maryland state house as book tv look at the history and literary house of annapolis. host: as promised, mary kay henry of the service employees international union. on this labor day, there's a chart that was put out by according to the bureau of labor statistics talked about the current state of labor, about 7 million people in the private sector labor union and 7.3 million people in the public sector union. does that concern you? guest: very much. if you over

lay it with the income gap, the decline the union is directly matched by the growing gap between rich and poor in this nation. it's a concern for every american that we are not going to be able to rebuild the american middle class unless we support workers like the fast food workers and wal-mart workers that are joining together to bring wages up again in this nation. host: would that be intent of yours. guest: our intent really is to shine a light on this growth in equality in the economy and to look at what one in three jobs, low wage jobs, it's going to one in two by 2020. we want to support work with our faith community and community allies to say, listen, we can do better as a nation. multinational corporations are recording profits. mcdonald and wal-mart are the

third and most largest around the globe. those companies can afford for worker to be paid enough. host: if you double the wages, they will past the cost on to customers. which will ultimately affect the bottom line. guest: i think that's worth a debate. because the question i have is why does the price -- why does the consumer have to absorb the whole amount when record profits are being earned? it used to be in your a country where there was a agreement between management and labor that when workers did better, corporations did better. i actually think the fast food workers and wal-mart workers are opening up a great debate in our nation about how multinationals invest again in american workers so that we can get the economy going again from the middle out. unless workers have money in their pockets there's no way for goods and officers to be bought and when people can spend money, more jobs can be created in our

great nation. host: how does seiu position you'res in that debate? guest: we think that every worker needs to have a living wage. while we fight for the minimum wage being raised, we also think that workers ought to be able to get the $15 an hour demand. in fast food respect nurses and janitors and some of who not gotten it. that ought to be a way for everybody to work hard and feed their families. host: would you like to unionize fast food workers? guest: we support them going together. whether they become members of the union is not our concern now. what they have done for all of us is shift the debate from, are you kidding $15 to why not $15? they done that in just a year. you can feel people beginning to have a real conversation about how mcdonalds, and wendy's reinvest in workers. in addition to may be consumers

paying 5 or 25 cents more. host: back to question of decline of those joining workers. what do you think is the reasons why those numbers are declining? guest: i think there's been a sustained attack on workers organization for the last 40 years. when there was a trickle down economic agenda which said, johns -- jobs are going to get created magically by things trickling down. people thought, why do auto workers need to earn a middle class standard of living. by joining together, they established that. i think what fast food and wal-mart workers are saying in a service economy, those jobs are no longer starter jobs that high school students do. those are the only jobs in many communities of color and in white rural area that's people can get. people want to work hard for a living in our nation and they deserve to be able to feed their families when they go to work.

host: if you want to talk to our guest it's 202-585-3880 for democrats, 202-585-3881 for republicans and for independents, 202-585-3882. if you're a union employee, feel free to call in as well. as far as the declines are concerned, right to work policy which we heard from our last guest, those numbers going down? guest: hugely. that has been a concerted attack by republican governors. we saw schneider in michigan do it and before indiana. i think it's huge hit on the american economy when workers are not able to join together and drive wages up any longer. it isn't just for union members that helps, wages were rising for everyone. we think we all as a nation should be concerned about

policies that make that possible in a service economy. host: you talked about compulsory due and what they are used for. they are used for political purposes. guest: that's not correct. what we use our member dues for is to represent their interest. our members voluntarily giving political money by checking off saying i will give $10 a month. we have 300,000 seiu members that do that every month. they do that voluntarily. that's just an attack on unions and i think we need to be seen as the last line of defense against corporate power in our democracy. the question is whether we're going to have a democracy that everybody can participate in not just the will of the corporations. host: slight edging out for those part of unions in the public sector. because they're in public environment, does that represent different challenges for those

than in priority companies? guest: when you look at the history, it was private sector workers in the industrial economy that created the ability for public sector workers to form unions. at late at the 1960's and 1970's it was illegal for public service workers to form unions. now the attack on public workers comes after the damaging of private sector organizations. i think what we have to do as a nation is ask ourselves, do we want to be a country of the very rich and the very poor. that's what we're headed. without the ability of workers to join together, we are not going to create good jobs in this economy without that ability. host: our guest with us until the end of our program. she's mary kay henry. first call is from james chicago, illinois, democrats

line. caller: hello. ms.henry. i've been a member for seiu local 1 here in chicago since 2000. i work as a security officer. i was working as a security officer back in 2011. i was fired for misjudgment on the part of the management that secure. i went to seiu local 1 for help. i wasn't able to get it. the person that was suppose to take my case had not. i'm here and retired. he was a dinosaur fossil. i guess he didn't feel like it at the time. i was ask him to try to take my case and look into it. i've been getting calls and they had someone come from detroit, i think her name was erica. guest: james, it will be great

for you and i talk offline on your issue. you come from one of our proudest local, it's the founding local of our union. the unions formed an organization in spite of ridicule. it's the same debate we're having today, people thought in chicago in the 1920s, why would flat janitors be able to form a union. they were ridiculed. when they finally formed a union, the organizers was asked what are you proudest of, the wage increase you got or the health benefits. he said no it was my dignity. being able to form a organization and be recognized by their employer, finally had the community understand the work they do as important for the people that they served in their apartment buildings. important story. host: from alabama, this is danny independent line.

caller: hello. my name is benny. i'm a retiree from the seiu union. i have to say that the benefits that i had, me and my family, me being a member -- great health insurance and on and on. i cannot understand why any member benefiting from the union or nonmember, don't want to pay union dues. i was talking to a young lady that worked for mcdonald three days ago. she told me she had been working for mcdonald for seven years. she only makes $7.44 an hour. this is ridiculous. i think the public needs to put some input into supporting these workers, speaking out. may be getting in line with them

to get a union in there. guest: danny you're making an incredibly important point which is that we are calling on elected officials at the city, state and federal level to support these workers. we agree with you that what they are trying to do by taking the $7.44 an hour job and make it $15, isn't just for themselves and their families but for their entire community. thank you for your support of that worker. host: facts about living wage. it will raise the minimum hour raise a level sufficient for workers. employers signed contracts with government agencies received the subsidies and subsidies from them must agree to pay a living wage. in 2011, 125 local governments had living wage clause. ultimately there is a cost. something would have to give as far as their expenses. guest: the way to think about it is it's a good investment.

workers productivity is at all time high. it's way in which corporations can invest in our economy and get the economic engine of our nation going at a pace that no government intervention can do by itself. it's a way to help increase profits. host: up next is tim from wood stock, georgia, republican like for our -- line for our guest. caller: good morning. my name is tim. i had been working in public utilities sense age 19. one of the companies i worked for was for florida power and light. even though work conditions have gotten better since the industrial revolution, i do think there's a need for unions. one reason is because in the south, the wages are much lower, unfair wages and we're not

getting paid what we should be getting paid for the hard work we're doing. also employee abuse. i don't feel an employee should be able to go to work, work hard and then a manager decides one day, well, we don't need you anymore because you're getting paid too much and we'll just fire you and hire somebody for a lower wage. i think that's unfair. these things are not being looked at. that's what that gentlemen that was speaking before prior to you ma'am. i didn't mention any of these things. i seen firsthand the abuse that i went through and i like to know also, is it possible for employees -- if we wanted to unionize, how can we do that? guest: there's people in that community that can answer that question. you can go to our website,

seiu.org. we will connect you with the right union. tim i want to thank you for making the case about how important it is to support workers who are trying to join together and make sure that we reward work again in this nation. you just described what millions of workers feel as we enter this labor day that we're working harder and harder and barely able to get by much less get ahead. host: who do you represent? guest: we represent healthcare workers, public service workers at the city, state and county level, family child care providers and janitors and security officers. host: we have a viewer who asked why do public sector need unions. guest: for the same reason that all workers need unions. which is that it is not people have to be able to join together and think about their economic conditions but also be able to participate in the political process by having a community that thinks about what are the

interest of working people in this country so that we can begin to insist on a government that is proworker instead of procorporation. host: how do wage and benefits to public workers? guest: because of the attack on unions and private sector over the last 40 decades. in many communities public service workers are earning about the same in wages. because of healthcare and pension benefits that they've won over the last two decades, they're probably 10% higher than private sector worker. host: kristina is from new york on our independent line. caller: good morning. this may not be mary kay's area of specialty. i have two questions for her. how can you -- with the w.t.o. and nafta and globalization, how can we actually protect american lifestyle unions and the rest of

the world is basically -- not the whole rest of the world, but large portion of the world and jobs are being outsourced left and right. the second part of my question is, my son is an electrical engineer, but he will be if he can get a job. many of the jobs goes to visas, people from other countries that, employed for lesser amounts. since seventh grade he decided he wanted to be an engineer. now there's just 10s of thousands of unemployed people with the higher skills. they might as well been born in india because they aren't going to get a job here. guest: kristina what we need to do is get involved and get

organized. we have thousands of our members were involved in the august recess in insisting on common sense imimmigration reform so that 11 million workers can come out of the shadows and into the full light of citizenship in this nation. we can have even handed treatment of workers across the country. i think we need to support the fast food workers, wal-mart workers, warehouse workers, janitors, security officers. there's millions of workers trying to join together and lift their wages and create good jobs in the service sector of the u.s. economy. i think we need to support that. we also need to get involved in our political process and insist elected officials stand with working people's ability to form unions but also to have a tax policy that allows for investment in our communities, a good public education system. those are the three concrete things i can think of to respond to your question. host: as far as proposals for immigration, what do you think what's been rolled out as far as

the white house approach and how does that affect your industry? guest: our members have been totally supportive of president's position on common sense immigration reform. we have made it our number one priority. we have hundreds of members working on thousands of august recess action. we're proud that 25 house republicans declared their support a pathway to citizenship over the course of august. we've come back into september and look forward to the house having a robust debate and passing common sense immigration reform. we are completely focused and fierce to make sure that the momentum that that was created this august, that we get the house leadership to call for a vote in the house this fall. host: from westburg, connecticut, edward, democrats line. caller: listen, i support the young lady speaking.

she's done a terrific job. guest: i appreciate you considering me young brother. thank you. caller: you look young. my reasoning for calling i totally support her position. i live in rather high income area but this country can only prosper if the lower wage people can actually earn decent living. they are the ones who buy the refrigerators, the washing machines. people in my area, buy one washing machine and one refrigerator. but the masses of people also need to buy things. if they can afford it, the economy will therefore prosper. i'm in favor of the president's immigration policy. these visas that bring in people in order to lower the wages is not exactly a good thing. i would caution the government

to be careful about this. it can cause severe disparity of income. we have to have people well educated, they spend a lot of money, student loan debt is extraordinarily high and they have to be rewarded with good jobs and we must expand our economy. guest: great. i agree with the caller. the one thing i would say on the visa program, that we need to think about how we are educating american workers and making it possible for our country to generate as many engineers as india and china are generating. they've had government policy that supports public education and encouraging young people into that profession. we need to muscle up as a nation and do the same. host: wal-mart, there's a bill

from the council saying that wal-mart have to pay at least $12.50 an hour. wal-mart said themselves, -- guest: we see this as a great example of corporation bullying a community by not agreeing to a standard of living. that is not about getting ahead pedro. it's about workers being able to get by and make it possible to do housing and food in the same month instead of having to trade off one against the other. i applaud the d.c. city council's effort. i am totally disgusted by wal-mart's bullying tactics and threatening not building that store because of the living wage. host: this story said the mayor expressed, because the legislation affect on economic development. guest: that's a totally legitimate response of mayor being concerned about a community that needs jobs badly.

that's why i think it's so bad for us as a nation to allow corporations to dictate what the wages are and why we need to support workers making a very legitimate demand. that not all the profits just a piece of the profits get reinvested in workers so that they aren't relying on food stamps and subsidized housing and medicaid in order to make ends meet. that's the situation more many low wage workers. with corporations that are earning record profits. host: here's decatur, georgia, john on our republican line. caller: good morning. i may live in atlanta. i make less than $10 an hour. i take don't any benefit or food stamps. i make a living. just an anecdotal story, i had an interesting conversation with a guy .

he been here for three years. he had two full time, he work almost 40 hours a week and 30 hours a week at wendy's and he has another part time job. three jobs and he's been working for three years. i said you don't have any time to spend your money. he said i saved $15,000 in three years. it's extraordinary. then he made the comment when he came to america, he didn't believe all the free jobs. this guy, his attitude and perspective was an inspiration to me. when it comes to -- it's kind of subjective thing. i lived all over this country, worked in many different jobs and many different places. i'll tell you one thing, the last guest is right, the right to work state and cost of living is much cheaper . here in atlanta, i see people all the

time coming here from new york because they can't afford to live in new york. that's just one example. guest: i just think what you are doing this labor day is honoring the incredible initiative of both immigrant workers in our nation but also e of ake who like you have made a decision to take as much work as you can to make ends meet. i honor that. i think what we also want to do is pose a question about is it enough in a nation that has the wealth and resource that we have that there are a growing number of people working poverty wage jobs who can't save enough money to put their kids in college. are looking at a future where their children are going to be worse off than we are. i just think that sort of breaks a basic american value this labor day. that i salute the fast food workers for calling the question on us all and saying we can do better as a nation.

host: steven moore from the "washington journal." we quoted the federal earned income tax credit that supplement the full time minimum wage salary, by almost 68 hub -- $6800 a year. guest: i heard this arc. it's wonderful to think about the earned income tax credit but really, why do we have to subsidize corporations who can reinvest in their workers? if it was a service core where we were putting people back to work to clean up our communities or rebuild our bridges, i can understand using the eitc. i think that the basic question that we're asking needs to get answered. why can't workers go to work and expect to make their basic needs get met by their wage? that's what fast food and wal-mart workers and all kinds of service workers are asking

this labor day. host: judy up next from new york. independent line. caller: i want to ask mary kay what salary she gets of the union. i worked for the state of no, -- new york, they took out my union. i was against the union and they took it out anyway and they put the money towards a democratic water and elected obama and other places. she's saying it didn't happen. it did happen. if you go to mcdonalds she wants this big wage, do you think what the poor people will be paying for a hamburger? guest: the question we need to ask mcdonalds why does all of the cost of a new wage have to get passed on to the consumer and why can't just a piece of their profits get reinvested in the ability for workers to have a decent standard of living where they can pay for housing, food and transportation in one month rather than having to give up one to do the other month by

month. that's what i think the fast food workers are asking us this labor day. host: hemlock, michigan is next, paul. caller: i want to ask ms. henry, everybody is complaining about the wage increase for the working person, nobody seems to be bothered by the fact that ceo's and corporations are making so many millions and billions of dollars. they're not looking out for the welfare of this country. the education of our children. it's always me and me and not us. guest: i think that you're calling the right question. i think what we saw in the fast food strikes last thursday and with the celebration of the march on washington is that as a nation, we really have to address this economic inequality and ask the question you're asking. which is how can profits get

reinvested in american workers and not that corporations shouldn't earn profits, i think that's right. the question is how do we grow this economy from the middle out by getting good jobs back in this nation both through government investment, corporate investment but also in getting low wage service jobs to be good jobs that people can support their family. host: we have a viewer off of twitter who said it was unions. seeking inceptions on the affordable care act to cadillac insurance plan that's unions fought for over the years. what's the concern? guest: the concern we have is making sure the affordable care act gets implemented. we've already seen as a nation how people have benefited from no preexisting conditions. if insurance companies spend more than 80%, 20% on the administrative fees, 37 million people gotten a refund. there's been amazing benefits

already. our concern is that the act get implemented. the cadillac aspect of the act doesn't get addressed until 2018. it's our deep desire that we're going to drive down healthcare cost to a point where that will get worked out through the reduction in cost in healthcare. host: just for explanation. what is the cadillac tax? guest: there was an amount set by congress when the debate happen. i can't remember for the moment. it's a amount per year over that amount. there was going to be a tax on the amount beyond to -- $20,000 a year. he's concerned, i assume, he's part of cadillac plan now. but the great thing about the way that was sorted out was we pushed out the time for implementation. i think we're confident if we include more americans in healthcare insurance, we're going to bring down the over all cost of the nation. host: are those type of

insurance plans seen in the public and private unions equally? guest: i think it's present in both but more and more of those plans workers are paying a share of the health insurance as the cost have been increasing. employers wanted to shift cost to individual employees. host: have your organization take a specific plan on this issue? or a specific point on this issue? guest: we worked hard for 60 years to pass the affordable care act. we were very involved in the negotiation around the legislation. we did not want the tax imposed because it punishes plans that try and do the best for workers. we understood it's a way to cover 30 million more people. there had to be some give and take. we are trying to make everyone understand. we have a million healthcare workers that are at county fairs trying to educate people about the benefits of this act. we're going to have hundreds of our members helping to sign up

newly eligible people beginning october 1st. host: paul from spanaway, washington, republican line. caller: typically i agree on the management level of you're talking about mcdonalds and wal-mart and etcetera. then you get into a typical mcdonalds or what not and most of the fast food workers are juniors and seniors in high school. if they're not trying to take care of a family and they're trying to get work experience and again, they don't have -- they haven't completed their high school education. how can you tell the typical worker who has their bachelors that the kid working at mcdonalds is going to make $15 an hour? guest: i don't know what community you live in. i have to tell you that the workforce has totally changed in the last 10 years. since the recession, the average

age of this workforce is 28. 30% of this workforce have children they trying to support. another 30% have completed college. they are in these jobs because there are no other jobs in their communities for people to do. what used to be a job that you described as a high school student or starter job has now become a job that people trying to support their family on. there's an iraqi war verdict i -- veteran i met in kansas. he had a $40,000 a year before the recession. his union truck driver job was wiped out. the only john he could find was jimmy john's. he's trying to help his niece get through college. he can't find a better job in his community. that's why he decided to strike last thursday because he understands he needs to try and

make that job a good job that he can help his niece get a better future with. host: bolden, missouri, mike independent line. caller: good morning. i'm retired from the building trade. guest: happy labor day. caller: thank you. a big chunk of our money went for educating to skilled workers. when we had new materials, we were always updated. lot of the money went for training. your last guest mentioned -- he didn't elaborate, he put down the history of unions. i encourage people to study up on the likes of joe hill and

united farm workers. i thank you for being here and thank god for unions. guest: i appreciate you calling out our ancestors. you're right, we stand on the shoulders of people who struggled for decades to try and create an american middle class that is disappearing. that's why i think we are recommitting ourselves that includes a new middle class so that we can have a shared prosperity. host: we'll hear from james he's from florence, kentucky, the democrats line. caller: i applaud mary's discussion about having a living wage. it seems as if her presentation isn't balanced. she's focusing on these giant for profit

organizations. this proposal would virtually wipe out many nonprofits that do incredible work in the community. like to hear your response to how this would affect nonprofits. host: do you mean the proposal to increase for a living wage sir? caller: yes. guest: the demand for the $15 is of the top eight multinational corporations in the u.s. economy that earned over $8.3 billion in profits last year. this demand doesn't impact the wonderful nonprofits that you've talked about. many of our local unions and local unions of the rest of the labor movement represent nonprofits in mental health, developmental disability that do incredible services to our community. we reached eaten -- agreements with them about what is the best way to maintain a standard of

living. order of magnitude, nonprofits employ about 5 million workers in the u.s. economy. we're talking about multinationals that employ up to 25 million workers in the u.s. economy. what i want you to imagine is if those workers could double their salaries, what a difference it would make in many communities of color in this nation and in white rural poor communities where it would just be a huge booster shot to the local community and small businesses. host: 54% approval rating for union. high point seen in 1956, again, 65% percentage enjoyed in 2000. guest: i wish gallop would ask how about raising wages how about middling the american middle class. so many of the listeners and people in our nation see unions

in the way that has been characterized by the attack in the last 40 years. many people in this nation have never had any good experience with unions. host: you think it's perception? guest: i think it's perception and lack of understanding about the role that collective bargaining has played in our economy in driving wages up for everyone. the best way for our capitalist to be a democratic capitalist country is encourage workers to participate in our workforce and in the democracy. host: from napels florida, this is erik on our republican line. caller: i am very conservative. i have a question about the difference between the private sector unions, the public sector unions. i'm actually for private sector unions because what i found in my own case, i was once a

teamster, that companies mistreat their employees and they deserve what they get. the difference between the private sector and the public sector is that at the private sector, when you go to the bargaining table, the person who pays the bills is there at bargaining table. the public sector, the taxpayer who's making the bill is not at the bargaining table. please don't tell me representatives are at the bargaining table because representatives no longer represent us. if you're a republican and have a democratic bargaining table, he's not representing you. would the advent of all of these municipalities going bankrupt from basically really these public unions, you know, me and my wife are going to work until we're dead to support you in the public unions. guest: yes. that's a travesty and it's wrong and we are using every last

breath inside of our union to make sure that people can retire with dignity. nobody should be in the situation that you and millions of americans are. which is we all are going to have to work until we drop. that's wrong. we don't think these bankruptcies are caused by public employee wages and bents. we think these bankruptcies are caused by a total lack of an economic policy that have dealt with globalization and technological innovation at work. wie need to call on corporations to do the same thing that happened when we bailed out the auto industry or the financial industry in our country. we should look at a tripart tied agreement to revitalize urban centers. host: this last tweet from ron, he said wages are determined by the value created not by

government fiat. guest: the problem has been we suffered a 40 year attack in the private sector and wages have been driven down as unions have been attacked and collapsed. so the public sector wages that used to be a part of the community benefit and people went into the public sector earned less than their private sector counterparts because they got benefits. are now sticking up like a sore thumb because private sector workers have been killed by globalization by corpse ethos in this nation. we think we shouldn't be attacking public workers. we should be trying to insist that low wage jobs can become living wage jobs. host: your thought os on thomas perez? guest: he brings incredible passion to the position. he wants to walk in the footsteps. francis perkins. he's trying to shine a light on

labor management cooperation in terms of training and upgrading of workers and rebuilding the american middle class. we support him 100 percent. host: what said, what should he advocate? guest: we want him to stand with the fast food and wal-mart workers trying to form a union. we want him to advocate for tax policy and education policy that will help revitalize the american middle class. we think that the president is framing the right debate by saying we need to grow this economy from the middle out and we expect the secretary of labor will help shine a light on the thing that your callers have said this morning. host: mary kay henry the president of the service employees international union, thank you. coming up tomorrow, we'll continue our look at what's going on with syria with steve clemons. we'll look at what he expects what's