arguing the fees he is being charged infringe on his first amendment right to freedom of speech. the illinois attorney general calling it a radically overbroad constitutional claim. we spoke with people on both sides earlier this morning. set, stefan, us on a member of council 31 and president of as me local. make the case you heard our guest talk about on the phone about union fees. why should someone pay for if they don't want to do so? guest: the broader issue becomes this. the union provides a vehicle for working people to have a collective voice in regards to not only workplace matters, but how we deliver. it's one of the surprising things i found once i got involved was how the union advocates for the community at large.

job as anple, my investigator in chicago, i would knock on doors and going to impoverished areas. i get you see on a first-hand basis not only the standards of those, but what they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis and how we can impact the lives best. the union provides a vehicle for me to come back through labor management systems where we get to sit down with senior levels of management and discuss with them what it is i see in the field and give recommendations and suggestions with how we could better service and better streamline our approach. how we connect -- better access resources and get them to the place where they are needed. bargainingthan just for itself, it bargains for society. host: what about the idea these fees become political because of union activity? have beenin illinois

under the thumb of -- was made this very political from day one. from his just one of his first detective orders was to stop. this became a political football -- a political topic once the governor came on board. the unions have always advocated for not only its members, but society. however, the political aspect of it came in when the politician came in. host: how so? guest: from the standpoint of this. support -- would support unions. which support of the right to speak collectively. there is nothing political about that. nothing political about members of society calling 911 and expecting their calls to be answered. expecting me to go out and do my job to protect children, there is nothing political about that.

what is political is when you try to stifle my voice to be would you advocate for those in the community. the larger issues of labor unions as well. if you want to ask questions this morning, you can do so and you can call them on the line. for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8002 for independents. you can tweet is our thoughts at c-span wj. part of the brief reads as such. "mandatory advocacy groups that individuals are supports to desk forced to subsidize and enjoy privileges by those who don't -- actual support for groups in these agendas. it transforms groups into arbitrarily powerful factions. do you buy that argument? >> i don't.

we need to lay out the battlefield. no one is forced to join a union. -- in question are the unions may use to support potential candidates. part and aeparate voluntary fund. if i decide to join a union, but don't want to get involved in the political aspect of the union, my money does not go there because i don't volunteer to give that extra portion. so anyone that does not want to be involved in the union's political activity is not forced to. the union still advocates for most people -- for those people. if mr. jams were to have a problem on his work tomorrow, the union would be there because they advocate for everyone. host: what if some of those people are paying fees for this type of advocacy and protection and some don't and still receive it regardless? that can have the impact

to where somebody may look at , butwith a jaundiced eye one thing we have come to realize and we get across your membership is that the sanctity of the contract is more important than any scott -- any squabbles. when we have -- when we are dealing with workplace issues or community issues, those of the overriding principles that we work from. if the employer impedes that contract, that is when we take up for whoever. host: do you know mr. janice personally? guest: i do not. host: ralph is first up for our guest. good morning, go ahead. worker froma uaw upstate new york in this all argument is silly. i work in the private sector, i

understand this is the public sector. but in the private sector we have union security agreements. the argument is silly that i wasn't forced to take my job. i vote every three years on my contract whether or not to have a union job. indicates all he wants to do is get a free ride. he was not forced to take that job. it was the wrong pick for the u.s. marine corps, he's a corporate guy and is rolling back worker rights. this is about worker rights to the collective voice on the job. guest: i have to agree. we understand who is behind this. thisrate ceos are behind and unfortunately, my governor is leading the pack. their premise. they have been public about defunding and affecting the unions. they want to take away our collective voice.

they want to take away the rights of working people to come together and be able to have a meaningful voice in the workplace. host: from ohio, democrats line. tom, go ahead. caller: this is a sad day in america. 50n i first started working , the unions had 39% of the employees in the country and we had a high living standard. there is not one employer that doesn't sign a contract for even just when it comes signing a contract that gives the employees right to negotiate a contract, they all want to get rid of it. if you want lower social ,ecurity and lower retirement

hopefully we don't see the supreme court do this. almostt of the matter is 19% is all the union is now. this man doesn't like using -- the caller raises a good premise and that premise is this, public service sector workers make a very stable workforce. they bring a wealth of experience in equities. i have been on my job 23 years and even with 23 years, i am in the middle of the pack in regards to seniority in my workplace. because people make this their profession. a lot of people may come to work, they come to their job, but they come to engage in their profession.

we are professionals in this. when the industry talks about best practices or standards, those are suggestions we have come up with and we set the tone in regards to how society is dealt with it how the government services it. host: what are fees like for unions? how much of a person's paycheck goes to that? guest: the local has the autonomy to set the fees now. there is a minimum standards set by international and then it is broken down from that standpoint. from local to local, it varies. of a is not a percentage paycheck, just a flat rate. host: how much of a voice you have to express how those fees are used? guest: as the president of my local, we do have this question. so when an increase comes down from international, say we will increase three cents this year,

we have discussions in regards to do we want to pass it on to anders or will we eat that any rebates we get from international, they keep that portion in order to keep the cost down for members. we take it to membership and let them have a vote. this is a full democracy here. host: if you are a union member and you want to express her .houghts, 202-748-8003 ,or republicans, 202-748-8001 democrats 202-748-8000, independents 202-748-8002. host: go ahead, james, you are on. i'm a new death union member in new jersey. enjoying my and union retirement. i got all my benefits and him sitting back and enjoying what i paid into it.

i'm glad i paid into it. i had a relative who did not want unions and now they are on fixed income. i thank my union, my brothers have a blessed day. host: not only actively as a worker is as effect, but retirement as well. guest: it does come into play. i will be very honest and candid. being a union member and working for the state has afforded me the opportunity to put my older children through college. it's afforded me to be able to take a family trip. it's afforded me the opportunity to develop a pension fund. so i can have some dignity and retirement. unions do advocate for those things and rightfully so. the workforce is second to none.

so this is something this work for -- this is work for and earned. retired members approximately 3400 local unions with 58 councils and affiliates dcn0 states including puerto rico. -- d.c. and puerto rico. caller: the guest says their activities are political, but then when you went through your activities, they are all political. ,dvocating for better x y and z both sides of the aisle say they're advocating for better x y and z. of thebecause one side isle doesn't like what you do and the other one does, it doesn't mean you can just say what you want is an political because you think it is good and you think political on the other

side is bad. i think it is laughable to assume -- or two-state that these unions are not political. they are very liberal. they support democrats almost 80%, 90% of the time. sure the guest would be very offended if you was forced to support a republican or conservative causes. i know he is going to say you can take out the lobby, but money is -- when you take money -- if you just say you don't have to play for the lobby card, that does not cut true. -- if some is that everybody has to be a member of the nra because gun safety is an political, but what we do is you don't have to pay the lobby part of it, all you have to do is support the gun safety and child programs, people would object like crazy and rightly so. host: we will let our guest respond. , i'm: i want to be clear

not suggesting that nothing the union does does not have a biblical component. , thei will say is this political component that the union does advocate and does engage in has a way of impacting everyone. just recently in our state, one of my colleagues who does the exact same thing i do, unfortunately september of last year -- laughter was brutally attacked by a parent we were trying to protect a child from. her name was pam night. february, she succumbed to her injuries and passed away. the union the day after her attack, the unions advocated to management to strengthen and support their policies in regards to -- the unions went to the and lobbied congress in order to make -- come up with a better

way and even strengthen laws to protect state employees either department ofnd corrections, in criminal justice, and the mental health profession from being brewed -- all of whom are brutalized. our political activity does more than just get us a raise organ is better benefits. it helps protect us in society. he is the president of local 2081. gorsuched about justice and the idea that he is probably going to support mr. janice's side of the argument. do you hold that view as well? guest: i can't speak for what the justice may do. i do understand his background has been very conservative. are the unions concerned about that? yes they are. host: is there a workaround? if it does go to the way of mr.

janice, how do they respond? guest: we have been working on a plan. we understand there is this -- this movement is out here. we understand corporate ceos and those who are supporting this case, they are the ones that really want to take away the forces of the workers and to take the power. even -- we have been talking to members for the last two or three years. we have been engaging them in finding out what it is we need, if anything, to change differently what our approach needs to be. how we need to problem solve. if this case went away tomorrow or ruled against us tomorrow, we would still operate the same. host: but fee collection would be different. guest: it still doesn't mean we won't work hard. it still doesn't mean we won't represent the mr. janice's of the world. it still doesn't mean we won't advocate. host: are there alternatives to

fee collection if the court decides for mr. janice? guest: the unions are working in regards to looking at alternatives and there hasn't put inspecific plan place, but they are looking into alternatives in regards to how we can still do what we do. host: from philadelphia, a union member. this is philip. caller: hello. this is philip. guest: good morning. caller: i'm a member of district council 33, local 488. critical and it is very important that our members, but the union collection from fair share members as well. they are reaping the same benefits as -- you cannot get nothing for free.

working for the city of philadelphia, i've been a union member for 17 years. i see the benefits of being in the union. having a union has allowed me to go back to school and earn my college degree. live aallowed me to good, comfortable lifestyle. able to take vacations. host: are there members in your union who will question this idea of paying fees? particularly because of political concerns? how do you respond to them? i have been serving as a union steward for eight years who weree members that saying i don't see where the union has benefited may.

it wasn't for the sacrifices and fight the union has fought for, they would not have the benefits they have like their health care. host: thank you very much. guest: i have to join my brother in making that point. when you talk about historically , unions have been the vehicle for the working class to move into the middle class. for working people to have dignity on the job, to be able a rich not necessarily life, no one goes into public service looking to get rich. they do it to serve. need that they have and also in return, at least there is accountable life. -- there is a comfortable life. mr. janice cast his argument in a first amendment context. what do you think about that? guest: i am not a constitutional

scholar, but i went -- what i will say is i do find it kind of laughable that a lot of the -- allhe raises in his after this was put on the table so to speak. there is a history of this. governor of illinois, he first brought this issue and basically had a summarily dismissive in court that he was not a plaintiff, that he had no standing in this. so they went out and unfortunately had to find someone who has standing to be the face of this. the corporate sponsored by this case are the ones who are doing the land grab if you will. they are the ones were trying to take away power and silence the voices of the working class. host: how did the lower court rule on this?

guest: my understanding is the lower courts ruled in favor of the unions. that's how it got here. now also the other side never put on a dissent. they didn't put on much of anything because they wanted to fast track to the supreme court. host: here is tom in michigan, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. uaw 6000ember of the for about 14 years and as a state employee, we were -- we were flooded with not only mailings, but also from the , stewardson members and reps themselves, with political messages. it almost seemed like a branch of the dnc. we were so covered with vote democratic.

in fact, it was roughly the high 90% they asked us to vote democratic. i found that with this union. i was a member of a previous union and with this union, the uaw, it seemed the stewards and the reps were the one who benefited the most. they pushed their own agenda a lot of times. what they wanted and the newer workers that came in got less and less, but were still paying the highest dues at the time. host: we will leave it there. guest: i can't speak to his union or the practice there, but what i can speak to is in collective bargaining, there is give and take. unfortunately as the years progress and contracts go on, there is sometimes more give than there is take. sometimes the newer members may have to -- i'm not willing to

say be sacrifice, but may not have more enjoy the time of benefits that older members have. i don't necessarily enjoy -- i still enjoy the protections and the union continues to fight. there is a in the contract coming up. we always try to increase whatever it is they feel we have lost out on. we always come back to the table with these things need to be in place. host: from california, democrats line. caller: i've a quick question and his --gorsuch with president trump. host: we will go to debbie with silver springs maryland. caller: i'm also calling for neil cook just neil gorsuch because of the russia scandal. i don't understand why neil gorsuch can be suspended.

the president we have now should have no right to make any appointee to the supreme court. can we as people sue -- host: only because we are going to keep this on the topic of the actual case even though just as gorsuch is involved with that. republican line from florida. this is carol. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i'm calling here from florida. florida went to write to work. shortly after the civil rights passage whereby you spoken already about the history of the labor unions and the benefits that they bring forward. case is thelar epicenter of the case that has been running through the system with many cases trying to -- ittle the benefit

seems to me and i heard the gentleman from michigan, it seems to me -- i'm a six-year plus -- 60 or plus woman. these are middle-aged white men who were in fact part of a working career that did not pan out. who is responsible? you can't be angry with the connected benefit that people have a right. the first amendment right, the gentleman caught -- talk about the nra. nra is different -- owning a gun is different from working. people come together to bargain right here in florida. we are now facing a bill from , theypublican legislature have been putting forward bills to try and take away the pensions, they have the teachers union that fights that. so now there is primarily the

teachers union asking. used to be. they brokered out so many deals the dissolved the strength of unions there. host: we will leave it there. guest: the sister is right. this is a nationwide attack. the lawsuit may be culminating point of it, but it is something that has been and very poignant threat the nation. a lot of people have been devastated and hurt by the corporate interests that are supporting this case. this is just culminating. host: republican line, deborah, new jeff, new york. caller: good morning. confusedttle because citizens united has allowed corporations to have a voice. they are able to give through political action groups large

amounts of money, and we don't know, as citizens, who actually is giving the money. to me, it seems like unions have the ability to counteract or bring back some kind of balance into this world where people think that corporations are going to be solving all of our social ills by treating jobs. i will hang up and listen to the speaker. guest: many in this corporate sector behind this case can write a couple of checks that go into the millions of dollars. unions, frankly, don't have that type of capital. the only thing we do have is members, numbers to put on the street to activate and knock on doors. tch corporate entities dollar for dollar.

we are not trying to. we are just trying to deliver fairness and equality across the board. union sectors covered by them are law-enforcement, child services, that is at the afcsme website. last call, democrats line. hi. you are on. go ahead. caller: i want to thank the guest for what he is doing. i also want to let the members who is listening, you will have to read what is going on in a union instead of just listening. you have to read for yourself what is going on. thank you. host: if the court decides in mr. janice's favor is there any type of recourse for you and for the organization at large? guest: i am not one of the

attorneys. i would defer to them. we will still get up and go to the work the next morning. we will still provide and advocate where we can and how we can get host: you are going to watch the case personally today. what are you looking for as you watch the case? guest: personally, it is quite an honor to see history taking place, so to speak. i am going to try to better understand what the arguments are, what the other side is. i have been very hard-pressed to do so. i still may not after this case, after hearing the arguments, but i am going there to take part in history. a member of the council 31, joining me to talk about this case in front of the supreme court today. thank you. guest: thank you. host: