laws with mark mix from the national right to work legal defense foundation. then, brishen rogers from the roosevelt institute joins us to discuss the role of labor unions. host: as we approach labor day 2018, unemployment is at an all-time low, but there are still millions of jobs left unfilled. 6.7 million jobs in the u.s. to be specific. good morning, and welcome to "washington journal" on this sunday, september 2, 2018. we're going to start the program asking you about your job. how secure are you in your job? here's how we'll conduct the conversation. if you're happy with your current job, your current employment, the phone line to use is 202-748-8000 f. you're considering switching jobs,

that line is 202-748-8001. and if you are unemployed and for all others, use the line, 202-748-8002. we welcome your posts on facebook on this topic, and also on twitter. send us a tweet, @cspanwj. happy labor day weekend. we hope it's a three-day weekend for you. either way, we appreciate you being here this morning. we'll get to your calls and comments about your job situation in just a moment. that number, 6.7 million, looking back a couple of months, it's been that way for several months, going back to april at least. this is the reporting of cnbc on that number. here it is. there are more jobs than people out of work, something the american economy has never experienced before. that is from cnbc. they say there are 6.7 million job opening says. 6.7 million available workers to fill them, according to the bureau of labor statistics.

signs of wage gains remain elusive. the average hourly earnings up just 2.7% over last year. just reading some of this from cnbc -- and again, this number is stubborn. it's stayed the same in the july report as well. 9 number of vacancies is pulling well ahead of the bureau of labor statistics council of unemployed. this year is the first time the level of unemployed exceeds jobs available since the number was being tracked in 2000. they write, under normal circumstances, the mismatch would be creating a demand for higher wages -- host: our question for you this morning, how secure are you in your job? 202-748-8000 if you're happy

with your current job. 202-748-8001 if you'd like to change jobs or considering changing jobs. and for unemployed workers and all others, that line, 202-748-8002. let's go to houston, texas, and hear from deb, who's considering changing work. good morning. caller: good morning. our fellowship helps people try to gain employment here in houston, and my observations -- i've been working hard on this since last year, and all the people i'm either trying to help get jobs either have two or three jobs that they can't put together, their time with their family and they don't have benefits and their car breaks down and they have to pay gas, and they're working, and their taxes are not getting a fair shake because there's no employer contribution, no pension, no benefits, if they get sick, there's nowhere to go to the doctor. i'm also sensing that a lot of

these people i'm helping have some college. some of them didn't finish their undergraduate. some of them have some associate stuff and community, but once they leave school and they can't get back in school, their student debt is so bad, once they hook up with a job, their checks are garnished, and they can't work because they have some petty marijuana charges on them from 10 years ago or their boyfriend wrote a bad check. we just have all these things stopping people. so when you say unemployment, we have all these jobs, yeah, people have two and three jobs, but no one's really doing what the american dream was, what our parents did, was work somewhere, put your good day in, go home, put your feet up. host: what about you personally? you holding down one job? is that able to do it for you? caller: i'm old and retired, and this is my ministry. i run a fellowship. i'm on the social security.

i'm poor. i'm one of your bottom feeding people on food stamps. but i do this as a ministry. host: thanks for calling in. we go to georgia. lorena, who is happy with her current job, what do you do? tell us what you like about your work. caller: i go to a technical school here in the metropolitan atlanta area. and it's the back revenue cycle of healthcare. we are educated and training a great amount of students. and i'm happy with it, because i've done it in my earlier career when i graduated. but then again, i have to go back to school to obtain my master's in order to teach in a technical school. and i'm currently working on a ph.d. and i am 63 years old. and i can do this forever. we teach revenue cycle, which consists of medical coding. the electric health record.

so it's the end part of healthcare. and i don't want to take away from the first caller, because i agree with her. we run into these issues she just mentioned, but you have to have a political system that works with the chamber of commerce to tell them, some of these things are just minor, and that the students who graduate can work again. that goes back to your community. and she's doing a great job from what i heard her say. i do tell people, there are other opportunities. the other o to employment social job sites, you will see a lot of jobs. i have sent several students to alaska to work, because near georgia, we're sad rated. host: but is there a point? do you think people are having to stich together a couple of jobs to make what they need?

caller: yes, until they get trained into a specific technical career, they're going to have to work two jobs. host: thanks for that, lorena. we go to las vegas next, and steven, who's considering switching work. good morning, steven. caller: good morning. yeah, i'm considering switching jobs because i've been a public bus driver here in las vegas for about 20 years now. just completed my 20th year. before it was all on the job training, but i've been learning at a trade stock center and joined the union, and you don't have to belong to the union if you don't belong to a right to work stated. i took some business leadership and customer service classes from the community college here back then to try to help the bus drivers out. but as it turned out, you know what i mean, everybody's overworked and underpaid, and that's why i'm considering switching jobs, because i'm sitting here, you know, not that i don't enjoy the open door policy, because i do. i was born in 1959, so grew up

with all the rock 'n' rollers and everything back in the 1970's, whatever. host: you switch work from your job bus driving, you'd go into management? what are you thinking? caller: i actually -- unlv over here had some human resource classes, and they're really good. continuing education. i'm about halfway through, so yeah, i'm looking into taking some office management classes. i'm capable of handling meetings and work on projects, stuff like that. but my background -- my dad used to be a general manager, and the first thing i took when i got out of high school was auto mechanics. as far as that's concerned, i'd take deal mechanics, even though i'm 60 years old now, because what computers can't take over, a.i. can't take over, mechanics, you know what

i mean? that's why i'm considering changing jobs, because people aren't trained in business leadership and customer service, career management in particular. host: ahead of labor day, this first hour anyway, we're talking about the employment situation. we mentioned unemployment at a record low. but there are 6.7 mill john jobs left unfilled in the u.s., and labor statistics also saying there's just 6.4 million workers left available to fill them. here's how we've broken down the phone lines. if you are happy, that is 202-748-8000. if you're considering changing jobs, like our caller from las vegas, 202-748-8001. unemployed, retired, all others, that line, 202-748-8002. we talk about this as the a gallup report on poll about pay in the united

states, and their poll says workers and advocates across the united states fight for higher wages, new research showed tuesday that four in 10 american workers believe they are underpaid. 43% said they are not earning what they are half. half said they are paid about right, and 5% said they are overpaid, the latest survey from gallup. here is washington and janet. good morning. happy with her current job. janet from washington, go ahead. caller: hello. i'm 76 years old. i worked my whole life. i can't work anymore. i have arthritis and asthma. i had surgery, but i trained when i was young. , but to work in a paper

cleaned, work at -- i i asked if they're still hiring, because they can't get the job. but i can remember when reagan was in, we hadded atlas. om ohio, we had the atlas, and we had the chrysler, all the good jobs. and a lot of people i know, they said that reagan told their jobs, made laws that second sell their jobs. host: and janet, how long did you work? what age did you retire? caller: we haven't had any then nd people -- and the senior, he didn't get us any jobs, and we didn't get any jobs until clinton got in. clinton got over 123 million

people jobs with pay back into the social security. host: all right, we'll let you go there, breaking up just a little bit. yesterday here in washington, the second of three days of remembrances and memorials for arizona senator john mccain with his memorial service at the washington national cathedral. the front page of "the washington post," last hurrah for all that's lost. ringing through washington national cathedral on a dreary morning were compromise and civility of the sort that seem to be under daily assault from all corners of the country, especially from the white house. they write the republican senators mourners, though sometimes angry, were also westful and worried that what has been bludgeoned by the country' division and the current president might never return, common decency, a shared identity, and values that transcend ideology, class, or race, a toughness that shows itself in battle and service to nation rather than on twitter.

each of these was touted as a key element of mccain's epic life. let's hear from alan in chandler, arizona, unemployed. what's your situation? how hard has it been to define work for you? how long you been looking? caller: oh, since i've been out of college. i stopped looking. i'm 50 years old. i stopped looking at age 45, 46, 47. i just said, ok, i'm out. i'm done. i stopped looking. -- ust got to a point where it was just -- -- i'm like, ok, i'm out. host: what field were you? what was your career? caller: degree in criminal justice and minor in business marketing, and then went into the military and enlisted. and then came out of the military into the workforce. in the correctional facilities

and working on teaching certificates. and it was like, too many hurdles to jump, and i was like, ok, i'm done. and now i'm 50 years old, so i'm looking at other needs across the world. i'm ready to just go ahead and move if i can. but i've been unemployed since i've been out of college and the military. i mean, i hope some of the people get jobs. for me personally, i see how the game's being played, and i don't want to play it no more. thanks. host: thank you. virginia, lisa, good morning, happy with her job. tell us about it. caller: i am very happy with my job in terms of my commitment and using my skills. i work for a very large company in the telecommunications field, and the difficulty is that in reality the share

holders are in charge of orporations that are public. and the employees are an after thought, unfortunately, in terms of our financial value. host: and lisa, do you think that's changed over the course of your career, it used to be different for you? caller: i was in a different career before coming to this on one of those people that was motivated by september 11 to change my career and try to do something that was less ademic and more addressing the terrorist situation. i did that as a contractor for a while. it has changed because the shareholder is now holding the political and financial reins in our nation, unfortunately. but not the citizen.

and what i found as an individual person was that if an employee has one major problem, be it a car breaking down or medical situation or some of the good things like needing to buy a car or a house, you can only handle, even with a nice salary, one of those things happening to you each year. and if the company decides, well, we're not giving christmas bonuses this year, we're not giving raises, and you won't get a bonus, your annual bonus, those are several types of bonuses that large companies will give. and they will give the sales people, you know, their percentages on their sales. all of that dries up, companies are in a difficult position, because they owe allegiance to their

shareholders primarily, but then the workforce begins to their eir motivation and ability to maintain their middle class and upper middle class lifestyle. host: you're talking about the shareholders. we just mentioned the wages haven't gone up. people aren't satisfied with their wages. there are 6.7 million job openings, according to the bureau of labor statistics, and only 6.4 million workers to fill them. why don't you think people or workers have a higher advantage or a better advantage these days? caller: i'm sorry, could you restate the last part of that? host: why don't you think workers have a leg up in terms of better leverage with their employer these days? -- i : well, i think that think that -- i just don't know

the answer to that question. i think people are afraid. my first urge would be to say that people are afraid to speak up because there are all kinds of methods by which you can be shunted aside and then fired. but i want to say the obvious. not enough workers to fill the position, immigration. immigration is the answer. when you look at other nations that are in this situation, the birth rate is down. you know, we have to look at the long term here, if we want to maintain our primacy in the world, we need to stop doing this shut willing off of the world with paris and shutting off immigration. need to open our nation and be the marketplace that it's built to be. host: appreciate your input this morning. again, the figures we're talking about this morning, in

terms of job security, how secure are you? the figures from the labor statistics, 6.7 million job openings in the u.s. we've broken up our phone lines like this f. you're happy with your job, 202-748-8000. considering changing your job, 202-748-8001. and for unemployed, fired, all others, 202-748-8002. we go to washington, cynthia, who's thinking about switching jobs. caller: hello. host: good morning. caller: yes. host: cynthia, you're on, go ahead. caller: i'm currently working. i have a pretty fairly good paying job. but i just don't have enough hours. i'm in the care giving business. don't -- i have to have like

every three clients. i don't even get 40 hours a week ever. and my hours vary. so i've just been struggling ever since i've had this job for a couple of years. it's kind of hard to just quit when you're a caregiver, you know, when you take care of people. host: have you tried to fill in with other work, or is that just not possible with your schedule? ller: yeah, you mean like -- hat do you mean? like if some other worker needs help in their shift or something? host: yeah. caller: oh, yeah, i can do that, but some things i can't do. i'm 56, for one thing. and i kind of take care of eopleer who younger than me or

older than me, but i'm kind of small, and so some things i can't do, like i can't help or e, carry them around lift them and things like that. i'm kind of limited in what i an do with my clients. that's another reason why i can't just take on as many hour as i want, because everyone has different needs and things. host: good luck. thank you for calling. we go to california to hear from zachary, who's happy with his job. zachary, hello there. caller: hi. so i'm 23 years old. at the age of 21, which is the deral minimum to be an interstate truck driver, i got my a.d.l., and i think that especially within my

generation, the problems that we're experiencing with upward mobility and finding a good, high paying job, i think that truck driving is really a missed opportunity. in this country, we actually have a shortage of truck drivers. i don't have exact figures, but there are truck driver jobs that need to be filled like yesterday. host: yeah. how long you been at it? caller: since i was 21. i turned 21 in january of 2016, so just after that in february i got my c.d.l. how much are ally you driving a week, how many hours, how far? caller: well, when i was o.g.r., i could do probably 3,000 to 3,500 miles a week. now i'm actually a local delivery driver. i'm not driving a whole lot of miles, but i am working a lot of hours. i'm working between 50 and 60 hours a week. when you're young, you can do that. you know, when you're young, don't have a whole lot of

responsibilities, you don't have kids, you're not married, it's a great position to get you set up to go to college or go to another technical school, to at least get you set up, or if you want to stay a truck driver for the rest of your career, you can do that. host: you're a young enough guy, the field is going to change a bit, as all automotive vehicles will. what about the autonomous trucks that are being developed? what do you hear? what will that mean for your career in trucking? caller: well, i feel like it would be more a partnership between a driver and the computer. i don't think that there's going to be completely autonomous vehicles, because let's face it, no computer is going to be able to unload 20,000 pounds of freight off a trailer. that's not going to happen. especially with my job, i deliver locally to 7-elevens, and the freight changes ever single day. it's not consistent. o there's no computer, there's

no algorithm that's going to compensate for that at the rate it needs to. host: on the 50, 60 hours a week you're driving, is that overtime? do you get overtime for that? caller: well, i'm actually part of a union, so yeah, we do get overtime, and we do get holiday pay, things like that. host: appreciate you calling in, sharing your experience. just as the labor day weekend was getting under way, ahead of that, on thursday, the president announcesing a pay freeze. the headline here from washington's federal news radio, trump gives word on federal pay for 2019. want to read you the specific statement that the white house issued, the president saying i've determined that for 2019, both across pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero. these alternative pay plans decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well qualified federal workforce.

but on friday, "the wall street journal" -- saturday, "the wall street journal" reported that the president is reconsidering. trump to study the federal pay freeze. this story said president trump said on friday he would spend the labor day holiday weekend studying the freeze on pay increases for civilian federal workers in 2019, that he had instituted the day earlier. the president saying, "people don't want to give them any increase in salary without elaborateding" -- host: our question for you this more than, welcoming your comments on the issue of how secure are you in your job? 6.7 jobs unfilled in the u.s.

are you happy with your job, that line is 202-748-8000. considering looking for other work, 202-748-8001. and if you are unemployed or retired or all others, 202-748-8002. let's go to victor in silver spring. silver spring, maryland, retired. good morning, victor. caller: good morning. i wanted to pass on my life experience for employers and the younger people. now, when i started working, i just graduated from the state school for the blind. not a single private firm would even wanted to look at me because i'm blind. the only employer that would look at me would be the federal government, and i had to start off at the very bottom of the scale. and i got a lot of on the job training, as i went along and i worked my way up from being a

technical aid to quality assurance specialist when i worked for the national library service for the blind and physically handicapped. and what i wanted to tell the employers is, look, you may not get everything you want in a person's resume, but take this into consideration. if the individual is willing to work, willing to be trained on the job, i think they would be a lot better than some of these know it all college grads who hink they know it all. and i want to make this quite clear. use experience, life experience , when you're hiring people. because they may turn out to be the diamond in the rough that you are really and truly

looking for. thank you. host: thank you. thank you, victor, to joanne, who's in new jersey, happy with her job. i there. joanne, hello. one more time for new jersey. job anne, are you there? caller: yes, i'm here. how are you? host: you're on the air, says you're happy with your job. tell us what you do and why you're happy about it. caller: well, i sell bread in manhattan. i'm a sales manager for a bread company there. it's something that i took a long, long time to find, because i was in and out of jobs trying to do a corporate thing, and then finally i followed my passion, which was the culinary field, and then i landed -- i started job selling bread and then just grew with the company. and very happy with this job.

i work for eastern european men that own the company. it's really fantastic. and i've climbed the ladder, and i have a very good salary. i'm just a high school graduate that has a very large salary -- well, i'm a high paid employee. and it's wonderful. it's just follow your dream, i think. host: tell us about their business. are they hiring mother people? not the restaurant field, but certainly the food service, bread supply obviously for your particular field, is that an area that's growing in manhattan? caller: actually, it's not. because a lot of restaurants are now making their own bread, because artis yal bread is very expensive, and it's a giveaway in restaurants and hotelses. they don't like to pay a lot of money for this product because they don't make any money on it. host: sure. caller: and everyone is going

gluten-free. and it is a struggle right anyway to find the right fit for the restaurant and the bread that we have. and it has been, you know, quite difficult because a lot of bread companies are feeling it in new york city. host: do you work directly with restaurants? you visit restaurants, you're trying to get your product into that restaurant. caller: yes, yes. host: well, thanks so much. good luck. caller: all right. i love c-span. thank you. take care. host: kent, washington, j.c., good morning on our unemployed line. caller: hi, i'm from washington state. thanks for c-span and the capabilities that you have, at one time i applied over 20 years ago to work with c-span in my broadcasting major, but i wound up building airplanes for a washington state aerospace company that we may all sandn love. i loved building airplanes for

people to travel in and to do for business and other things. my family had some aerospace already in it, and we've had a pilot, myself in broadcasting, building airplanes, and another gentleman who's currently working guarding as a t.s.a. agent. but the irony is my dad was an orthodontist and couldn't straighten his kids out, as you can see, i'm a little wired. the concept is the fact that i was working there at the aerospace, and because of the people that they would bring up as the yes people, they were forcing out people with experience like myself that had, from various backgrounds, building airplanes for over 12 years to 15 years. and it was not good. i decided to take an early retirement, before my retirement age, and i'm looking for work now because i still have a lot to offer. and there are not a lot of

people wanting to hire experienced people just like the gentleman who was from the library system for the government. and they're not taking the experience. i have seven years of college, but i didn't want to get my degree yet because of other opportunities. but we have so much life experience that this nation is not using it, and why we're using people from oversea says is stupidity beyond maybe imagined. host: and are you looking specifically in the aerospace or the aviation field? caller: ironically, no. i would like to get back into broadcasting, but we'll see what happens. i also have photographic and videoography skills. host: great. we appreciate you calling in this morning, casey from kent, washington. cnbc on this labor day weekend looking at cities across the country that are the hot job areas.

the headline, americans are flocking to these 15 cities where jobs are plentiful, salaries are rising, and business is booming. we'll try to scroll through some of these for you. i'll get to it in a second. that's what you get when you're working this early in the morning. we go to keith in iowa. we'll try to get it for you. keith is also unemployed. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. how you doing? host: doing fine, thank you. caller: hey, i'm -- i've been -- i look in boundary for almost 25 years. got on a job, and i had my second -- i got pushed out, gave me a week notice that my medical was being dropped, you know? i just really want to let people know that i live seven days a week, 12-hour days all my life, and i don't want that on anybody, because i missed out on a lot of family life

during that time. that's all i got to say. host: did the foundry work just dry up? did the plant close down? caller: no, we got stuck in corporate america. we had a company that bought our company and took all the benefits away from the guys. and it got sold out and locked out. and we opened two weeks later under a new company. people lost a lot of benefits and a lot of money during that. they worked years. we had people working for years and got shut out. host: remind us how long you worked for that company. caller: for about 25 years. and now i'm force the into retirement, and it's killing me right now so i'm trying to find it. host: appreciate you calling in this morning. we're asking you about your job security. we've set the phone lines like this. if you're happy with your job,

202-748-8000. for those of you who are considering switching jobs, 202-748-8001. and for unemployed workers, those of you who are retired, all others, 202-748-8002. we'll continue with your calls in a moment. our call there from iowa, des moines, one of the 15 cities that cnbc is saying, reporting that americans are flocking to, because of potential work, des moines, iowa, orlando, florida, charlotte, north carolina, and they rate them, too, with a score of workforce. ogden, utah, with 46.8 earnings and workforce score. houston, texas, had a call earlierier from houston. mcallen, texas, in the top 10. san antonio, texas, as well. boise, idaho, hosts a number of corporations, including the micron corporation. dallas, texas. denver, colorado, the mile high city with a workforce and

earnings score of 58.3. number five is nashville, tennessee. charleston, south carolina, at number four. raleigh, north carolina, at number three. number two is provo, utah. and their score, 52.2, workforce and earnings score. and austin, texas, is their number one city to move to with their population and housing score of 100, and that's a top 15 cities that americans are flocking to, according to cnbc, and you can find that on their website. illinois, greg, happy with his job. good morning, greg. aller: good morning, c-span. i have good job security, and i'm fairly well satisfied with my job. however, when i went on the department of labor inflation table, when i started in the workforce full-time in 1977, my spending power of my wage is

almost exactly to the penny as it was back then. however, when i bought my first new car, it was $3,600. in today's dollars, that's $15,000. and i can't get that same model $24,000. ses at so the raises have not increased my standard of living. basically it's the same. host: granks, job. new york, mona is happy with her job. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. host: go ahead. thanks for calling in. caller: thanks for the program. i just wanted to share my idea. for the past five, six, sovepb years, i been working almost sometimes you

t training on the job, but the income was not enough. but then corporate for the inflation rate, having said that, i had to consider going back to school. into gone to school, healthcare, now it's much better for longer hours, but then income is a little better. but the difficulties are now that most employers, you're not given insurance benefits, no benefits. it's a few dollars which consider to be caller, and no insurance. so now we have to pay insurance out of pocket. host: even if you're working full-time, you're not getting health insurance benefits. caller: not all the jobs do that.

they don't want to spend much on employees, so they turn to dollars. host: appreciate you calling in this morning. here's the front page of the "new york times" on the memorial service yesterday in washington for senator john mccain, hailing mccain, two presidents diverge from a third. peter baker's analysis, he rites --

host: by the way, we kfered yesterday's memorial, all of our coverage is available to you online at c-span.org. back to our calls and comments about the employment situation. how secure are you in your job? michigan, steve's there and considering switching work. good morning, steve. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call, and thanks, c-span, for all you're doing. yeah, i'm thinking about switching jobs. i'm an embedded programmer, and there's a lot of work in my field. i'm current am working for a company. but a better opportunity came along that's closer to home, so

i'm thinking about moving. but one of the areas of my field, which is embedded programming, that's really got a lot of jobs available all over the united states is embedded programming. of course, you need an engineering degree for that. host: give us an idea of your age, and do you feel like you have kind of the pick of the litter in terms of where you want to go, and where you move -- you're calling from michigan -- would you move elsewhere? caller: probably not. i have a nice home here. 'm 61 years old. but the area that i'm working in is very hot. there's just jobs. detroit, there's tons of jobs in embedded programming. there's all over the u.s. i mean, i get calls when i'm looking for work, not calls, but emails through indeed and zip recruiter.

i get them all day, jobs that are calling from texas, california, the east coast. host: can you do some of that work remotely? can you do it from home, for example? caller: yeah, it depends. if you are a software engineer doing an application development, then you can do it from home, because you can do that work on your computer. even in embedded programming where you're writing code for automotive or washing machines or, you know, controlling vehicles, all of that probably requires that you be at work because you're dealing with hardware that the software is going to go into so you have to be there to test it. but some you can do at home. host: it sounds like, though you're considering switching jobs, you are happy in the work itself, what you do in programming. caller: yep. host: well, good luck with that. thanks for sharing your story. to james in pennsylvania.

james on the unemployed line. go ahead, james. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: good, fine, thank you. caller: yeah, i work for a dairy company here in erie, pennsylvania, and they've been in business since 1932. recently they just announced that they were going to close our factory. they got millions and millions f dollars in tax breaks toward donald trump's tax bill, and they're closing down factories. i'm 55 years old. and all the jobs -- i mean, it was a good nine wage job, and all the jobs out there right now are all $9, $10 an hour jobs, and it's just crazy. it's very hard for me to figure out what i'm going to do with the rest of my job. host: how long did you work at

the dairy? if you want to, tell us how old are you. caller: i worked there 11 years. i'm 55 years old. the majority of the employees there are -- i mean, they have young guys there that had been, you know, buying houses and planning their lives and this and that, and that and this, but there's some of the older people there that just, you know, planned on retirement, like me. and as i look around now in my area, all the jobs are $9, $10 an hour, and we made $22 an hour. we're a union company, with good healthcare and all this and all that, and now it's just very, very frustrating and unsure about what's going to happen. and when donald trump says that this economy is doing so well and everything is going so good and this and that, i can't see

it, because all the jobs that i see out there are jobs that you can't live. it's crazy, man. host: go ahead, finish your thought. caller: to be a 55-year-old man and have to go back out there and try to find another job, you know, because most employers, they're looking for young men, you know what i mean? host: appreciate you calling in this morning. we will talk more about unions in the u.s. later on our program and also about a look at right to work states across the country. one of those is virginia. we'll hear from alexandria, virginia, and this is charles, also unemployed. caller: yep, i'm 64 years old. i was informed that august 17 that friday, august 30, would e my last day.

and my company said your performance is fine, we're satisfied with your performance, but the position is eliminated. so i'm unemployed. host: how long had you been at this position, charles? caller: i've been there about seven months. it's a contract position, and employment is at will. you can be terminated any time with or without cause. the company said they're going to give me an a-1 recommendation. and then a couple days later i get a call from a headhunter, we've got a job for you here nearby, and are you interested, nd i said i sure am. i will be getting an enter vie pretty soon, it will be fast, and i should be back to work in a couple of weeks. i'm an i.t. professional, and here in northern virginia, d.c., southern maryland, there's tons of jobs. i'm never out of work for very long, and my new job is going to pay a higher salary, if i

pass the interview and get an offer and the recruiter is very confident that i will. it's just part of job. host: does that process -- sounds like you're used to it. does the process of losing a job like that fairly out of the blue and then moving on to the next, does that unsettle you at all? caller: no! i spent 10 years in iraq and afghanistan on all kind of different projects, three months, six months, nine months. one time i flew all the way to afghanistan to start a new job, and my first day in country, the company lost the contract, so i had to pack up my stuff and fly back to washington, d.c. i was in afghanistan less than 24 hours. in the i.t. field, projects come and go. companies come and go. the army, the defense epartment needs changes, and i always keep a bag packed. and whenever i get a call from a recruiter, we may have something for you, i said i'm

interested. that's just the way that it runs in the i.t. field. host: you said there are plenty of jobs available. we heard that from a caller in michigan, the embedded programmer who called us. that's sort of a constant maintenance in terms of keeping your resume updated, making sure your headhunters know where you are and what your status is, i guess. caller: well, that's true to some extent. i keep my resume out there in signer space active all the time. and my last three, four jobs, i never even applied for them. the company has an opening they spotted in cyberspace, the phone rings, and in two weeks you're working. that's just the way it works in the i.t. field. like i said, northern virginia, d.c., southern maryland, there's plenty of work in i.t., all kind of jobs. the unemployment rate in fairfax is 3%. if you wanted to work, and by the way, i'm 64 years old. in my field, companies value

experience. host: do you think you'll retire any time soon? caller: well, i would like to keep on working until i'm at least 70, maybe even older. i'm in reasonably good health. i love my work. a lot of my jobs require international travel. i don't plan to retire for at least another five, six seven years, maybe. host: all right, charles, good luck. about 10 more minutes or so on this topic, how secure are you in your job. more phone calls coming up. the president yesterday was tweeting about a number of issues. one of those mainly on trade. here's the breitbart report on that. the headline, trump hits canada over trade talks. u.s. shouldn't have to "buy allies" with "bad deals." they write that president trump on saturday took aim at unfair trade practices in a series of tweets after the u.s. and canada failed to reach friday's deadline to replace the north american free trade agreement. the president began thinks rough trade talk by declaring

there's "political necessity to keep canada in the new nafta deal," adding that the u.s. and canada do not reach a "fair deal" following decades of abuse, then its northern neighbor will find itself "out of the agreement." reston, virginia, next up. ed is there and considering switching jobs. hi, ed. caller: good morning. actually, i'm want really -- i'm considering switching jobbeds, but the only caveat is i actually want to open my own business. i work for myself. i basically heard the same thing that everybody is pretty much talking about as far as the job goes. people don't have health insurance and the benefits, so it's pretty much the same thing. the one gentleman who's pretty happy about his job, and he was working till he's 7 owe years old. i'm sorry, but i don't think i might even be around by the time i'm 70-something. i would like to retire a little

bit sooner, trying to enjoy life sooner. if i did retire at 70, how much can i really do at 70 years old? the whole thing is, a lot of companies, they are really taking away the benefits from the employers, not giving them benefits, and they're overworking the employees. for example, i'm going speak about a big thank like home depot. they have night stockers. i know a few people that work for different companies. the thing is the same. they're being overworked. there's big department stores like lowe's, home depot, anyway, but however, they only have one person stocking the whole section. in the gardening section, you have somebody stocking the whole gardening section, which they overwork these people. by the time morning is there, they're so tired they can't do anything. host: ed, i think you mentioned you're interested in starting your own business. what would that be? caller: basically, i want to

deal with homeowners association, because a lot of property owners, they do write you up, say you need your gutter fixed, your molding, your drierer vent is loose or something like that, because they walk around your property and write you up. basically my company is going to be a one-stop shop. i come by, and i fix everything for you at a reasonable rate, where you don't have to call up a gutter guy. you don't have to call a concrete guy or call your siding guy. come there, what did they write you up for, i give you a reasonable rate, and take everything as a one-stop shop. host: ok, thanks for sharing that with us this morning. we're talking about the president's tweet about canada trade. on the issue of unempty and labor in canada, this from their publication in canada, the national post, something maybe not being talked about here in the u.s. to much degree, but in the parliament in canada, liberals consider "right to disconnect outside

work hours in labor rule revamp." some employees choose to stay connected because they don't work a traditional workday. at least one employer group called any government action a legislative overstep, the report said. they write that federal liberals are considering a reshaping of whether standards should include giving workers the right to ignore their job-related emails at home. to linda in fort myer, florida, o ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm 58 years old. had three career changes, and in ind of stuck again unempty with no proximate causes so far. i was given two days notice as a teacher. i'm a fine arts teacher. and because i couldn't pass an algebra test, i lost my

license. host: you couldn't pass an al engineer vertebra test? caller: yes. host: ok, and this is the state of florida? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: you're required to take tests to keep your license, and this test, as i say, english, all this stuff, and one of the tests is math. i didn't have that kind of algebra when i was younger. i even tried taking classes. i still couldn't pass it. it looked like greek to me, and believe me, i've taken so many tests. i'm a as the result feud paralegal. i've been in medical fields. i was a certified c.n.a. i've taken tests for years, and i've never in my life flunked a test. i'm very disappointed. today, there's no loyalty either way. i'm kind of with jim from erie.

employers will cut you out at the drop of a hat. if they can hire somebody cheaper, you're done. i don't care if you have experience, they don't appreciate it. it's just a cut-throat world now. it's terrible. host: when did the state of florida require this test for their teachers? how recent is this test? caller: it's always been that way. you have so long to pass it. and to keep your certification, you have to college credits. you have to take 12 college credits every so many years, which is fairly expensive. i mean, a teacher's salary, that you will testing and everything, it's gotten so out of hand. i made less than $40,000. i've been a single mom all my life, and my salary has actually gone down in 15 years. i make less money anyway that i made in 15 years ago ago. host: linda, appreciate you calling.

a comment on your situation was taking that algebra test in florida, somebody on twitter said, algebra, i told my kids they didn't invent it when i went to school. it will be tough for some folks. clayton, north carolina, considering switching jobs. gabriel, good morning, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. in large part, there's two things i wanted to focus on, and i'll be very brief. i'm actually a millennial, and, you know, the way that the things are going for millennial says, a lot of us just feel like the situation is tough and is dire, in large part because we have so much on school debt that to try to get ahead, try to get forward, you can't even get approval for certain things like a home loan or so on, because you have the down the lode, impending debt that comes from trying to get an education. i've been very fortunate

because i went into the military, but i think one of the next big things that our group is going start to really focus on, the millennial voting bloc is growing, that concept of what is going to be done to help us get an education that is affordable, that is achievable, and also able to be reallocated into a job that going to serve us well. that's one of the big things i wanted to say this morning, just touch base on that, because i don't think we have the same opportunities that many people around us had back then, to become educated. scommoip gabriel, are you still in military or out of the military now? caller: i'm out of the military, and i'm actually a student at duke university school of medicine. i went to medical school, and i'm in my later years here of training. but yeah, so i mean, i had to go back because it was just

tough to get a situation coalesced together. but i will say this, just to be fair, just to be fair, and this will be the very last point. there is, i would say, there is a difference in the millennial group today, and even the younger group that's kind of coming in that generation, kind of a sense of, it's unfortunate, a sense of not of thing to have as strong of a work ethic in certain things, and not all, but i have seen many colleagues that really don't put in the grit that a lot of people back then used to, especially like my grandfather, who lived during the great depression, who really, really worked hard. i just think some of that work ethic has begun to erode. i hope it comes back. i think we need it back. and by god, there's many of those things there, but just the two things i wanted to say about that. millennials are coming back to vote. we are growing. we are going influence the

system. we need help getting an education. host: glad you called in this morning, gabriel, thanks for your input, and good luck in med school. one more issue on this, to indianapolis, we hear from mick, who's retired. good morning. you're on the air. go ahead. guest: i was just listening to the callers. my heart goes out to those trying to find a job, and those who served in the military like i did. i'm 9 and retired, i have no -- 69 and retired. i have no desire to go back into employment. but i want to point out courtesy of tax cuts, corporations have over $1 trillion amassed to spend on whatever they feel is important. unfortunately, it's all going to stock buybacks. so that's not helping anybody

ind a job. that somehow everybody can come to a conclusion what they need to vote for in the coming election and make sure that you get what you need for your state and your city and your family. thank you. that somehow everybody can come to a conclusion what they need host: on this labor day weekend we continue on "washington journal" we'll hear a couple of perspectives on the labor day holiday. we'll hear on the role of labor unions and the rights o of the american worker. next we'll hear from national right to work and states right o work laws. first from yesterday's mccain memorial john mccain's memorial at national cathedral in washington, megan mccain one of his daughters delivered the eulogy to her father. hear's part of her tribute.

>> i am here before you today saying the words i've never wanted to say giving the speech i have never wanted to give, feeling the loss i have never wanted to feel. my father is gone. iii was many cain things. he was a sailer, he was an aviator, he was a husband, he was a warrior, he was a hero, he he was a was a congressman, he was a senator, he was a nominee for president of the united states. these are all the titles and the roles of a life that has well-lived. they are not the greatest of his titles nor the most important of his roles. he was a great man. hero, he was a congressman, he was we gather here to mourn the passing of american greatness, the real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice

willingly nor the opportunities stick appropriation o of those who live lives of comfort and privilege while he suffered and served. he was a great fire opportunities stick appropriation o of those who wh bright. in the past few days my family and i have heard from so many of those americans who stood in the warmth and light of his fire and found it illuminated what is best about them. we are grateful to them because they are grateful to him. a few have resented that fire for that light it cast upon them, for the truth it revealed about their character. but my father never cared what they thought and even that small number still have the opportunity as long as thai draw breath to live up the to the example of john mccain. my father was a great man. he was a great warrior. he was a great american. i admired him for all of these

things. but i love him because he was a great father. my father knew what it was like to grow up in the shado of greatness. he did just as his father had done before him. he was the son of a great admiral who was also the son of a great admiral. and when it became time for the third john sydney mccain to become a great man he had no choice but to walk in those same paths. he had to become a sailer. he had to go to war. he had to have his shot at becoming a great admiral as they also had done. the path of his father and grandfather led my father directly to the harrowing hell of the hanoi hilton. this is the public legend that is john mccain. this is where all the biographies, the campaign literature, and public remembrances that he showed his character, his patriotism, his faith and his endurance in the

worst possible of circumstances. this is where we learned who john mccain truly was. and all of that is very true except for the last part. today, i want to share with you where i found out who john mccain truly was. it wasn't in the hanoi hilton. it wasn't in the cockpit of a fast and lethal fighter jet. it wasn't on the high seas or the campaign trail. john mccain was in all of those places. but the best of him was somewhere else. the best of john mccain, the greatest of his titles and the most important of his roles was as a father. host: ahead of labor day we are joined next by mark mix who is the president of the national right to work legal defense foundation. what are the right to work laws? guest: very simple. right to work laws in the 27 states that have them simply indicate that an individual

worker cows chewed whether or not they want to join or support a labor union and they can't be fired if they choose not to support or join a labor union financially. host: how far do they go back? guest: the ability to pass right to work laws passed in 1947. congress with the taft-hartly act allowed states to pree. the labor act passed in 1935 as part of the new deal. franklin roosevelt brought labor policy here to washington and created a five-member board and wrote federal law that allowed union officials to literally require someone to join a private organization in order to work. when the supreme court uphead the act, the growth in unions grew dramatically because they had this federal privilege. n 1947 congress passed the taft-hartly act as an amendment.

and in that they allowed states to pass right to work laws if they could by affirmative vote, federal law and allow workers to choose whether or not they want to join or pay dues. host: why was it deemed we really need some -- something in our favor here, something with some flexibility on this? guest: i think historically when the wagner act was passed and roosevelt pushed through the new deal, the numbers of union density went up dramatically. by 1946 there was a significant number of job actions and the congress changed even though harry truman was against right to work laws sh and section 14. the states basically said and congress said, i think we've made too much of this compulsory power of the unions given them too much power. we need to balance this. so the taft-hartly act passed in 18946 by the house and

senate vetoed by president truman and overridden. since then states have been able to pass right to work laws. host: give us an idea. how many have become of the 267 that you mentioned have become right to work states in the past numbers of your ten years or so and your organization, the legal defense foundation. what's your role in helping get those laws passed? guest: we've had six right to work laws passed in the last six years. five are now in effect. so we've had indiana, michigan, wisconsin, west virginia, kentucky all have passed right to work laws so five of them in the last six years are now in effect and operating in those states. missouri passed the right to work law. it never went into effect and it's been defeated by the voters just about three weeks ago, four weeks ago. is not in effect. the national right to work legal defense foundation has been around since 1968.

we provide free legal aid to employees whose rights have been violated. i also work with the national right to work committee which is lobbying and is the is not i the national right primary driver of the state right to work laws and right to work efforts on capitol hill. they have been around since 1955. all we do is try to promote individual freedom in the workplace for workers across the country. host: what in those 27 states has been the impact on unions? guest: in some cases the unions become more accountable and they are out there. like in indiana when we first passed the right to work law union membership increased. inive back in 1987, union membership increased. in oklahoma union membership increased. but i think union density in general had dropped around the country. in fact, union membership in density has dropped more. the department of labor indicated that 1 states or 17 year actually

increased union density. half were states that had rathe to work laws. host: we were asking people about their employment experience. one man from pennsylvania sure if year actually a dairyt pennsylvania is a right to work state or not. guest: it is not. host: now he says he got laid off and the people taking that job are making 9, 10, 12 an hour. is that a typical experience in those sort of situations? guest: pennsylvania is not a right to work state. i don't know if he was a union member or not. i didn't hear the detafmentse obviously union officials want you to believe that if you're not forced to join and pay dues to a union you're going to make less money. that's not true. the facts don't bear that out. of jobs of jobs tudies and wage growth and the actual disposable income for workers, we find out workers in right to work states have more money to spend per capita than those in forced work states like in pennsylvania. host: union membership by

state, total membership in the country is 10.7%. blic sector 34.4 and private 6.5%. mark mix is our guest. we're talking about right to work laws in the 27 states across the country. welcome your calls and omments. we've also set aside a line for union members. we'll get to your calls momentarily. in that figure that we just showed, the big increase there or the bigger number there is public sector unions. is that different than it was 25, 30 years ago? st: the government sent --

guest: the government sector density has been flubtwutting. it has been as high as 8%. in the private sector going back to 1955 it was about 33% down to tire workforce now about 6.5%. host: the most recent state passing right to work is kentucky. what has been their experience? in terms of the debate there? what were some of the pros and cons? guest: lots of pros and cons. the good news for kentucky is it passed, the governor signed it. he campaigned that he was going to pass a right the work law. the legislature changed dramatically and passed the right to work law in january, february of last year. it's been a great, greet reaction to right to work. in fact, the governor indicated the state has now broken all records for economic development and new site selection and job placement in kentucky.

that they stimated have brought in over $10 billion in investment. a couple of those site selections and that they have brought those investments have been directly attributable to the folks saying the right to work laws made a difference and that's why we're coming to kentucky. so for workers of kentucky it's been great. the private sector has done well. the investment in the state has been good. there are more jobs for kentuckyance. the right to work law is very popular. there's been no effort to try to get around it. unions have filed a lawsuit trying to strike it down. we had an orl argument back on august 10. we believe the state will uphold the law. nothing new in the challenge. but the right to work law is working. individual workers can still join unions, they can still support unions financially. unions participate in anyway they want but they can't be compelled. host: you're a graduate of james madison university in the heartland of virginia, a right to work state.

that has held through democratic and republican governors and legislatures as well. guest: indeed. once we pass a right to work law very rarely do they are repealed. louisiana repealed one and we got it back. indiana passed one unions it ne went into effect, the court struck it down and then the legislature repealed it. in missouri, the law never went into effect. no right to work law once we have them gets repealed. it's very hard for if the other side to lobby saying we want to force you to pay dues to get or keep a job. in states that don't have a work to right law it's not the oks on the state it allows them from washington to do this. basically you have a federal law that authorized forced unionism and the state said we're going to make a different path. host: how did the supreme court's decision change that? guest: the supreme court decision this summer is the

decision that we argued on behalf of mark jan yuss a state employee in illinois. that is basically a right to work law for every government employee in america. going made the case argued the , we first case on this issue, a case we argued that it was a violation of first amendments to compel you to support political candidates and ideologies that you oppose. then we went further and said everything that government unions do is basically political speech because they are lobbying legislatures to spend government resources a certain way. the court agreed with us in 19 half the equamente. they outlawed the forced political conformity. over the course of the next 40 years we were back in the supreme court six times related to this issue. there was a series of cases that we won, 2012 out of

california. 2014 out of illinois. where the courts started looking at this notion about government speech and government union speech. finally, on june 27 of this year they ruled 5-4 that it was a violation of a worker's first amendment rights to compel them to pay anything to a union in order to work for their government. basically what we have now is a national right to work law for every government employee in the country. host: lots of calls waiting. caller: good morning. of course this right to work is political, obviously. who done to stop unions are notoriously democratic. the gentleman wants us to believe that workers who don't belong to the union make more money than the union workers. he already said that.

sense does that make? make any sense. the big question is, what happens, you have a worker who is not paying union dues and other workers are, and the union is negotiating wages, vacations, benefits, and the nonunion workers ride on the backs of the union workers. that sounds like republican welfare to me. guest: thanks for the call and thanks for being up this morning on a sunday in maryland. obviously we haven't passed a right to work law in maryland. we're working on it. the question is about wages and it's a topically appealing argument for folks like dave and union officials when they say that workers make more at a union. the bottom line is if you actually compare wages just for cost of living which is a very important way to compare apples to apples. ey right to work states make more. would you rather make 50,000 in

los angeles or 45,000 in utah? with cost of living you're much better off in utah with 45,000 than you are with 50,000 in los angeles. plummer ant you that a in new york city makes more makes -- a union plummer more in new york city than in wyoming. but when you actually adjust for cost of living and look at how much money that worker has to spend at the end of the day, workers makes more in in right to work states are much better off than states. n forced union the wage issue while the idea that the wage actual wage rate may be more doesn't make any sense when you compare what those wages can buy. host: new york. line.ican caller: good morning. i'm an 86-year-old line. caller: good morning. nationali american citizen, came from the

netherlandses. had my first experience in the united states as a trainee for he u.s. air force. served my time, met my wife, and said, hey, you're going to have to go with me to the united states. so we came to the united states , my first job was whatever i could get. worked there for a while until the company couldn't pay me any more. so i had to quit there and went to work for a big company. that had a company union. i wasn't forced to join the union. what i'm going to say about union workers should be looked upon as a very limited experience. the first thing that i noted bout the union people was that an attitude towards

the company. my attitude is if you have job an attitude -- if you do t job you're supposed to do, then laws that abor exist and country laws actually support you against unfair eatment, then i say unions are just an excuse for certain people at the top of the unions to make a big salary at the cost of the workers. don't.ing is i guest: first i grew up just

down the street from you a little bit, bell fast high school in a little town about 35 minutes away. so good to hear your voice. i think your point is well take p. what we found in the current environment is that employers generally deserve it. if they're not taking care of their employees those will join together voluntarily to amplify their voice, will form unions and will activate unions. interestingly enough, union membership in this country today, only about 10% have voted whether or not they want to be in a union. most members are in union facilities that were unionized long ago. they've never had an opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to stay in the union or not. but the idea is the employer is not taking care, federal law them to law protect a union.

now, unfortunately, that law also for many years required them to join the union and pay daws. that's the unjust tiss of forced unions a union. now, unfortunately, that law also and believe that's long. today you cannot be forced to privately join a union or pay 100% just to work. guest: i think he's troferinge employment at will. i think you had a caller talking about employment at will. that's different. in that case i don't know if the person was in the union or not but the employer and employee at will state there is

true an employee can leave for no cause and an employer can for no cause. that's something different. as to the first amendment protections of association i agree. when a ng to think that for no. first amendment says that you have a right to associate the corollary right has to exist logically. you must have the right not to associate. but yet private sector labor policy forces you to associate with a group you never asked for, never voted for, never whe first amendment says wanted. we argued the case on fifth amendment grounds, 13th amendment grounds, first amendment grounds and they uphe would this notion that the compulsory is legal. i think the days are coming when that will end, too. in the afternoon anus case they . id you can no longer you can't be forced to pay for it. host: the earlier call said in terms of the union negotiating

a contract for everyone and if you choose not to be in the union yo benefit from that negotiation perhaps is that fair? guest: this is called exclusive representation, more appropriately called monopoly. because it's unions that argued for this to compel everyone to join this collective and have them be the sole voice in a workplace. this notion that everything that unions do benefits workers is laid bare by a case we had a wile ago where two union members were up for promotion one got it the other grieved against him and said i've been here one day longer so therefore you have to take the job away from this guy and give it to me i don't think that's beneficial. the perfect idea is that we get to represent ourselves unless we voluntarily decide to have our voice given to someone else. union officials love this privilege and exclusive representation, that gives them control over the whole unit. it makes them the single voice.

yet somehow they cry about it that they have this burden. believe you me, they could take that right now on capitol hill. i think every republican would agree that no one should be forced to join a union collective. if that right now on democrats washington they would do it in a heartbeat. host: robert, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to say i work in this not to work right to work state florida which is loaded jobs ead-end no benefit that they could let you go at the drop of a hat for no reason, as he was saying. also, you have that they could let you go at the drop of a no rights. if you try to organize a union, the employer will find other reasons to get rid of you and not say it's because you were trying to organize. i would like to know who this

mark is really representing. he's certainly not representing the workers. number three, is the fact that before unions were ever in this bad work ook at the conditions that people worked under in these factories and coal mines and they brought the militia in to shoot people who ere going against basic rights for the workers. it's all nonsense. people should wake up and realize that the disruption of the unions is one of the worst things that could possibly happen in this country. like i said, florida is one of the worst states for any type working rights at all. working guest: sorry we disagree on this. if we look at the right to work law as it is on the books in florida you will find it doesn't stop anyone from joining a union. your point about employers finding ways to fire worksers, that's a violation of federal law. those workers can bring charges

with the national labor relations board and the board will investigate that. there is recourse for workers who believe they have been fired for trying to organize workers. do employers fight back? absolutely. do workers win unionizing organization campaigns? absolutely. are there active drives across the country? yes, there are. the notion that somehow officials or unionism is the only way i would say that voluntary is a perfectly good institution but compulsory really enatsdz ma to individual freedoms that this country was built on. the idea of joining voluntarily is a much more and stronger structure. the founder of the afl here back in the early 1900s when

his delegates were going to come to washington and expand power, he warned them that the workers of america, anything else is a men as to their rights. and what brought the power, vol tierism is stronger than meg compulsory. so the idea that forced unionism is equated with unionism in general needs to be separated. ecause union members are fired failure to pay dues. host: one of the myriad of figures. their headline here a more perfect union. which union? failure to pay dues. host: one of the some figures. 61% of americans say approve of labor unions. political support by party 42 republican party, 81% of democrats, 61% of independents. the number of the largest union in the country, the national education association, with 3.2

million members in that association. we have a line for union members. caller: i think that the unions today are not the same as they were a long time ago. being fair, i don't think it really supports a lot of the employees because i was fired from a job so i talked to my union rep. i talked to my union rep what winded up happening with back and forth and phone calls. like, we're going to get you your job back. ok. i said i didn't want to work -- i wanted to work for the same company but at a different location. they talked to another location, and they tried to set something up and it fell. i talked to my union rep. ok, well, in between that time

this is what we want you to do. we want you to find a job and we'll try to fix some things for you. ok. talking back and forth. hen my calls weren't being answered. what happens to the money? it disappears. i paid into it. so i'm like were they really for me or against me? i see a lot of the -- in philadelphia answered. what happens to the a lot of th companies are already logged in where when you are filling out your application for the job, the unions' already locked in. so you have no choice. host: can you tell us are you in a public specter union, private industry union? guest: private industry union. this is one of the issues that it's probably a practical application of this idea of mon oply representation. georgia's case, un-- in george's case he can't raise issues with the employer

himself. he has to ask the union. the union has the decision to go past first-stage. so they agreed to try to help him. but only then do they have the ability -- the union official has the ability to take that grievance any farther. jodge has no right. he can request it but getting to stage two is totally at the discretion of the officials. in this case they decided not to go any further, stopped answering his calls. i would suggest george would think the union membership didn't make any difference for him. now, that's a bad story and george i'm sorry about that the but this is not a one-off situation. we find this happening across the country. to george's point i think only less than 10% have ever voted for whether or not they want to be in the union. those legacy contracts existed prior to their accepting employment and they were thrown

choice.no host: mark mix the president of the national right to work legal defense foundation. also have an op ed that you published just before in papers across the country published just before the weekend. the headline is this labor day celebrate the freedom and prosperity of the right to work. you talk about the economic impact on some of the states. the study found that right to have substantially surpassed growth in real household consumption over if their ompared with have substy forced counterpart. residents in right to work states enjoy a $2200 additional disposable income. their

forced that also a factor of ho the economy is is? guest: the inflation that state as we discussed with one of the callers previously he talked about union wages being higher than nonunion wages. that is a fact. union officials are able to raise wages artificially to the degree you can make more money. the problem is does that money spend, how far does it go? what we found when you compare cost of living -- this is what economists do all the time. in order to compare wages you must compare what they purchase. so for a cost of living adjusted rate, right to work states per capita, are better off. so they make the argument that it's rathe to work for this or that but as i mentioned, it's right to work law is so simple. it couldn't be any more simple. it doesn't stop one worker from joining a union or participating in a union. it wouldn't stop you from ving your entire paycheck to

a union if you decided to do that. so the notion that it is anti-union is ridiculous. it's anti-forced unionism for ure. no question about that. the right to work states like iowa and alabama you have a union density higher than some states that don't have right to work. it's inexplicable what they want to argue. leaders of the unions, i understand their position because this is how they pay their salaries. if workers are given the choice, if they can hold officials accountable, that means officials have to rely more on and pay more attention to the workplace than they do washington, d.c. or state capitals around the country or pl ticks. host: next, pennsylvania, hello. caller: i'm a stockholder in a large corporation. i'm wondering what the difference is between the fact that i have to -- some of the

money that would come to my profits from holding that stock go to political parties. and most of that money goes toward political parties that i disagree with. they are actually taking my money without asking me and you are not fighting for that. you're fighting against working eople who are trying to obtain higher wages from companies, corporations that do take advantage of a lot of workers. and you know that. i have one quote i would like to say. corporations have neither bodies to be punished nor souls to be condemned. they therefore do as they like. why don't people like you if going to go after

unions also go after corporations for the money that they take out of their stockholders going to go after pockets? o go after guest: thanks for the call. you raise the issue that having your money used for purposes you disagree with is wrong. i agree. as far as corporations are concerned you're not going to lose your job if you don't give the corporation your money. you're a voluntary stockholder guest: thanks i assume unless you're in a required 401(k) where you have to buy the company stock. i don't know the details. there are plenty of groups that actually do hold corporations accountable for that type of behavior. the in and out burger firm is being boycotted by the democratic party because they gave money to the republican party. chick fillet was being boycotted because they don't support social issues they support. as far as our representation, all we do is represent employees. that's with two es. the fact is we sue employers all the time. employers that partner up with unions and violate individuals' workers rights because of the compulsory dues arrangements.

if you look at the litigation we filed, we havesupport. as far as 199 active cases today on behalf of employees who have had their rights violated. they may disagree with you but they're not business owners, not corporate titans, not corporate officers. they're employees that are laboring under this problem of being forced to pay fees that they disagree with as a condition of their employment. they can't work unless they pay the fee. obviously the injustice of corporate money being spent on political causes is i think a little bit lesser of an injustice in the sense that you don't lose your job and your livelihood if you disagree with what the corporation does and lose your support.

guest: they are not against the law in virginia, north carolina, and other states that have various drive 2if6s of a statute that passed. basically unions exist in virginia. some of the voluntary unions are very strong. we have a right to work and a statutory prohibition against recognizing unions for negotiation purposes with the government of virginia. they are very active. they go to richmond. they lobby. they make sure their voices are heard. host: but they can't represent workers? >> they can talk to elected officials but elected officials have no obligation to sit down and negotiate with them.

virginia has done well both with the right to work law and prohibition. in many states you are forced to negotiate with union officials. in iowa there was a case in iowa where then governor vetoed a bill and union officials said we want a pay raise. he said i can't afford a pay raise. an arbitrator said you have to raise taxes to fund this pay raise. those types of situations aren't good for tax payers or citizens. the notion that you should outlaw government unions are s wrong. you should outlaw the mandatory participation. that's what we have in virginia, north carolina, texas as well. host: here's buffalo, minnesota. ood morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i'm a proud member of the local 56 , a retired man

now. i wasted 22 years o of my life before i worked in a union. didn't make enough money. i had to pay two paychecks to pay my house payment. didn't make enough went to thi inaudible] the stadiums. buildings for the soccer team are built with skilled union labor. tion this government right here doesn't realize. in texas a skilled carpenter makes $10 an hour. up here in minnesota you're making a good living wage. i have a pension. i would have never had that any any of the jobs i was out at. host: are you happy your pension is through your union? caller: yes, it is, sir. host: thank you for calling.

miami. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say i work here in florida. the jobs here in florida are all given part time. you work 20 hours. the minimum wage is 8.25. higher than 8.25. you know any other states that will pay better wages and get more hours work? guest: i don't know if all the jobs in florida are part time and making 8:25 an hour. obviously there's lots of opportunities across the country. from what we understand the economic data that's come out the unemployment is at its lowest. and folks seeking jobs are at the highest. the people not looking for work is the lowest. i think there's opportunities out there. the idea of unionization relating to that particular scenario, i'm not sure the correlation.

but there are other states that are providing perhaps better opportunities for sure. host: louisiana, good morning. caller: appreciate you taking my call. i want to express what i got out in 1955 i went down to houston, texas, and started working at union jobs there and they wouldn't even hire me if i didn't have a high school diploma. but when i walked out to the plant [inaudible] we got the same money. then i paid union dues over 40 years, about 42 years and in buy. hey told me bibe host: what union was this? caller: we started chemical workers.

then it ended up [inaudible] . i'm in louisiana. i work for one bargaining unit in houston to another bargaining unit in shreveport. the last company [inaudible] hide been with with them -- i had been with them -- that's what i thought i was paying union dues for. i made it. i'm still here. host: thanks for calling in. guest: that's one of the issues that we find to be something that is a constant statement by union officials is this notion that they're in a workplace and for example they're producing eight widgets an hour someone is producing four an hour, they get a tap on the back saying slow down you make us look back. t what it tends to do is statt

normalize is to rev up the lowest and hold down the highest. these are difficult things. folks like him call and say there's a guy sitting next to me that's not doing anything that's making more money or the same wages that i am. host: a story we saw out of ohio. talking about ohio as an island among right to work states.

do you think that's because they're being competed by places like indiana and other, kentucky now the most recent? guest: there certainly is a competition for jobs and site selection. i think ohio is doing ok. i think they could do better with a right to work law. if you look at private sector job growth in the right to work states versus nonright to work states from 2006 to 2016 private sector nonfarm employment increased almost 16% over right to work states. it was 10% in nonright to work states. that means companies are heading to right to work. you're seeing some of the most successful automotive plant, right to work state. they're exporting almost

300,000 automobiles out of the country back to europe and other places. mercedes benz in huntsville, alabama. boeing in south carolina making airplanes. south carolina has become the tire capital of the world as far as producing tires in a state that has very little unionization but workers are going there they're enjoying the work environment, they're enjoying the quality of life in south carolina although it's a little humid from time to time. it is the right to work states as far as helping to create growth and opportunity. you really can't argue with the stats. ohio hopefully are doing well. we think they could do bet fer hey pass add right to work law. know half of all businesses are automatically kick out a state if it doesn't have a work -- right to work law. caller: good morning. i have a question. as far as the at-will state

laws that are out there where you are fired at will, if you had these union people that are signing off of their protection they fall within the realm of the at-will states, they can be fired at-will. for no reason. that gave them no seat at the table. being in the union gives you a seat at the table. it gives you fair collective bargaining. this situation with this law for pro-motes not having a union. in fact, a lot of public employers and they fall within employers f the private are promoting what you're promoting and they're saying ok let's make a situation where people if they don't want to be in the union are forced or compelled to do so. guest: certainly you don't have to worry about that. they're trying to find a way right now, the governor signed amendment rrr. i don't know why they picked that. but a work-around to continue

to try to force public employees to pay dues or fees to get or keep a job. so you'll be fine. they'll continue to look out for union officials and their compulsory power. the idea of the at-will doctrine is separate from the right to work laws. i want to stress that. there are states without right to work laws that have at-will employment doctrine. so it's a different labor policy. host: mark mix. thanks for being with us this morning. guest: my pleasure. thank you. host: we'll continue our focus ahead of the labor day holiday on labor unions. we'll talk about the current state and the future of labor unions in the u.s. ahead of that, this week on steven -- we talk to "newsmakers" talking about what's ahead of the november elections. >> it seems like right now the house really is in jeopardy of

flipping. is that fair do you think? >> i wouldn't say it's in jeopardy. i certainly wouldn't write it off. we continue to see each week the scenario seems to change. but it is an uphill climb for sure. >> talking about how that shapes what you do and your interaction with party strategists and donors in terms of the importance of the senate. does the senate at some point even this fall become if not the only game in town the biggest game in town? >> it hasn't gotten there yet. think it's important to do protect g you can to the house even if you think it's going to lose because it's easier to return. it depends where you return from. a ten-seat deficit is easier to make up than 40 seats. if in fact it starts looking more of a difficult proposition certainly people will be concerned about making sure we have the senate no matter what

happens. >> the president is talking about a red wave. what do you think about that? do you think he's only talking about the house, the senate? do you anticipate a red wave? >> i'm not exactly sure what he means by that. i don't think there's much evidence of a red wave in terms of outside republican turnout and enthusiasm. objectively you don't see that in the different races. you could argue although the results are somewhat mixed that it's a blue wave. or a blue ripple you're seeing in certain states where outside democratic turnout mostly in special elections. we know about special elections if you spend 10, 15, 20 million have all target you can a difference. but it's hard to see a huge surge of republican enthusiasm that would dramatically change election outcomes beyond what we would org ordinarilyly expect in a mid term. the primaries in florida you

saw a surge of turnout in both sides. it could be evenly matched. but i don't think it's some sort of unilateral. i would love to see it, i want to see it, but i don't see it yet. host: don't forget "newsmakers" today. today at 10:00 and 6:00 eastern. continuing our conversation this morning ahead of labor day we're joined by the visiting fellow, law professor at temple university if philadelphia. here to talk about focus in on labor unions. rt of what you focus on labe -- labor law. guest: that's correct host: in our previous segment we were focused on right to work states. what's your experience with the effect on labor unions? guest: the effects are actually

quite clear. the whole point of right to work laws or as most of us in nd around the labor movement call them fair share -- the whole point of right to work laws or get rid of fair share fees undermine labors and workers bargaining power. the ability tor states to put right to work laws was passed by congress in 1947. your previous guest did mention that. that was part of an effort to limit the power of unions and working people after world war ii. it has been quite effective. in state after state where right to work laws have been passed we see a declining union density. it becomes more difficult for workers to organize and exercise a voice. you have higher levels of economic inequality and different forms of economic stagnation. host: we talked about this with our previous guest about the history of this. 1947 and the passage of the taft-hartly act.

why was it after world war ii that they wanted to address workers bargaining power? what was behind that? guest: it's a complicated political story. honestly, the sort of best history hasn't been written yet. an old colleague of mine is working on a book at the moment. but what happened is in world war ii unions made a pledge not to strike for the duration of the war. they worked together with the government to support the war effort. at the end of the war, there was a large wave of strikes across the country where workers had felt they made a lot of sacrifices during the course of that effort and businesses had profitted. ose led to a political dynamic where there was pressure from the business community to change labor laws and make it more difficult for workers to organize. right to work, the provision enabling right to work was one

small part of that bill. it was basically designed to make it more difficult for workers to unionize in the first place, to bargain collectively, to exert power through strikes and picketing. there's also the right to work provision. host: how long has the effort to get right to work laws in states -- how long? ever since 1947? pre-dates 1947. this has been an effort on the part of the business community, the corporate community for a very long time. i will say a couple things. many states have passed laws that basically make it, what the federal provision says that states can make it unlawful for unions and companies to enter into agreements under which workers have to pay any fair share fees to a union. now, the fair share fees are fees that are paid to defer the cost of representation. one of the things about u.s. labor laws is that unions once

certified they have to represent all the workers equally. that means if a worker who has not signed up for the union is actually represented they have to carry a grievance on behalf of that workers. what they do is make sure that workers represented gain the benefits have to pay their fair share. the national right to work foundation today is funded by a lot of organizations that seek to undermine unions' power including the coke brothers, including the walton family foundation. it is simply not true that prior to right to work, workers have to join a union or pay union dues. they do not. since the 1950s supreme court has held workers do not have to join a union. all they have to do is pay a fair share of fees to defray the cost. host: in a law review something you wrote during the obama administration, you were looking at minimum wage. about minimum

wage. i wanted to ask you how this relates to unions as well. you quoted a journalist saying that at the time 1935 that you can guess the money is handy but there's something more than money. knowing that the working man don't stand alone against the bosses. there's a government that now cares whether things are fair for us. is that sentiment still present today with people that -- with union workers, for example? do they still share a sentiment that working together is still fairly important? guest: absolutely. a couple things. one is that, minimum wage laws are remarkably popular across the political spectrum. democrats support them,

republicans support them. whites, african americans women, men support them. why is that? they reflect a sense that we de serve dignity and fair compensation. union members absolutely feel that way. organizers feel that way. he dynamics are workers have the count on one another in order to make sure they get what they feel is fair. host: given the decline of union membership, particularly in the nonpublic sector, do you think the fight for minimum wage in states and localities is somewhat supplanted that effort for unionization? guest: yes and no. i talk about this with with my coauthor a little bit in a paper we just published with the roosevelt institute. as it has become more difficult for workers to form unions and bargain collectively, many

workers have looked to states and localities as ways to actually protect their interests. the fight for 15 is a good example. it's extremely difficult to unionize -- for fast food workers to unionize. what they've done instead is pushed for states and localities to raise the minimum wage either for fast food workers or for all workers in their jurisdiction to 15 an hour. that gives you some of the benefits of unionization. unionization tends to bring higher wages. it doesn't give you the due process rights and the political rights and the voice on the job that tends to come with unionization. host: this is the piece you referred to as razzvelt institute.org, rebuilding worker voice in today's economy. here's how to join the conversation.

given the growth in right to work states, our previous guest talked about businesses and manufacturers moving to those states, seeing a more advantageous work environment, sort of competitive environment, what's the gument for unions in other states? for keeping a union at a manufacturing facility? guest: the argument is that you have a more reliable and well-trained workforce. you have a workforce that can speak with one voice. this is the benefits to management of having a union. you can a workforce that can speak with one voice, you can understand better what it is that workers need. and you can work together with unions to actually ensure appropriate productivity at times, for example, when you're

turning over models. i do want to say, i wouldn't want to focus too much on right to work because i think that it is only one of the many issues facing workers and workers who are seeblinging to unionize today. e've built a legal system over the past 50 years is part stemming from the taft-hartly act which is difficult for orkers to unionize, in which tens of millions are excluded from coverage. once workers do have rights to organize and succeed in forming a union they have l limited bargaining rights. it is difficult for them to actually get all of the employers in the district together to ensure bargaining. and they effectively don't have a real right to strike anymore. issues thatl strongly impact the formation of unions in the first place and exercise power at the bargaining table.

fair share unions and right to line, butin down the workers have to have the ability to unionize in the first place. host: our guest is brishen rogers from that our firsts go to color, a union member -- first caller, the union member. , because aspublican trump has said, although i don't support him, it is the workers party, the party of abolitionists, who started out by hoping the most exploited workers in the united states, and i will carry on that tradition as a union member. i am a teacher in los angeles and we have been without contract for a year and a half, and we are going to go on strike in our over, mainly because of the cost of living raise that we

have not had in a few years, increased class sizes because they are trying to save money by packing classes. it is really hard to make a living in los angeles. compassion for those who are not union workers, who are making minimum wage. the cost of living is 27%, in some areas 30% higher than anywhere in the united states. guest: so, and i wish you the best of luck in the possible strike. going on strike is always a very challenging, and in many ways, a brave and dangerous thing to do, because workers risk their livelihoods when they go on strikes. first off, i want to wish you luck in that endeavor. yes, many cities around the country have a very

high cost of living at this point. one of the stories in the past 30 years or 40 years, heavy industry declined as a percentage of the economy, working-class jobs have become service jobs, and they don't pay as well as those in heavy industry. that is in part, part of the .ffect of the task-hartley act that means that retail workers, transportation workers, -- stics workers there was a caller earlier who erie,he union job in pennsylvania, and could not find a new job that need more than nine dollars or $10 per hour. we don't have to accept that those jobs are going to pay that much. they could pay quite a bit more if we had a different set of labor laws, different rules around what companies can do

vis-a-vis shareholders and workers. raymond,'s hear from michigan, democrats line. starting us off with an example, i am a design engineer. , ande a job at aerospace the guy next to me is an engineer from india. in theere two guys cubicle next to us. -- called them -- where i'm unions andthis, , where didrk states the visas and foreign nationals come into being? host: thank you for asking. visas for foreign workers, right?

couple of things. these are separate issues. immigration law is set at the national level, whereas the question of whether workers have ispay fair share fees what is available and who they are available to. the question of globalization and global outsourcing are very difficult. on the one hand, congressional successive presidents have made a set of policy choices that have made it easier and more profitable for companies to outsource work all over the globe. time, that has encouraged a rise of living in other parts of the world. many of us can looking for better lives for ourselves or

children, or our ancestors did. the indian coworker you discuss was probably looking for a better life for himself. the question for me, what are the rules that govern when a company can outsource in that way? what labor laws will govern that person's work, and how can we set a set of rules to protect workers instead of pitting them against each other. -- having unions in place making it difficult to get rid of a worker who is not doing their job? are certainly examples where unions make it difficult to get rid of a worker who is not performing effectively. i don't know that there is good data on how often that occurs. there's nothing in u.s. labor law or in any collective bargaining agreement that i've employer that an cannot --

host: what got you interested in labor? guest: when i was in college, i went to the university of virginia, there was a campaign to raise the minimum wage on campus to eight dollars per hour. one of my professors recruited me on that campaign and i were on it. my parents divorced when i was 15, and my mother had not worked in a long time. she had worked, raising us, of course, but she was not in the workforce. she struggled for a number of years. she was a health care worker. she retired recently because of disability. host: was she a member of a union? guest: she was not. she was in virginia. i don't want to put words in her mouth, she's not here, but she has said to me that she has wanted to form a union, but it is hard to organize one in virginia because of right to work.

caller: i was wondering how we could do away with the right to work states. there's got to be some way to bargain that or pass a petition and get it on a ballot or something. is goingat you can do to vary state-by-state. i don't know the rules around referenda in texas, the state to changee has power that can of law, or a ballot initiative. that actually happened in missouri. the state legislature passed a right to work law, and then citizens banded together, put a ballot initiatives on the ballot and repealed that law. they basically protected the unions' right to negotiate for fair share fees. there was a supreme court

decision affecting labor unions, restaurant celebrating the janice decision in the supreme court. guest: i think that is going to go down as the citizens united of labor laws. lineis another in a long of supreme court decisions that effectively protect free speech rights for some and not all. they aret of what doing is protecting the companies' ability to speak, and of wealthy elites, but undermine workers. settled on this question for decades, that workers in the public sector have to pay fair share fees. the argument has been around for a long time that paying those fees is a form of compulsory speech. it isn't. money isn't speech. simply funding an organization does not mean that one agrees with their political agenda. workers in every state in a country, if they disagree what doing, what the union is

they have the right to go to leadership, to decertify that union. there is no law in the country that requires a worker to join a union or support its agenda. essentiallydid was constitutionalize the right to free ride on the efforts of the union. host: president trump celebrating in a tweet that came out after that decision was made. supreme court rules in favor of -- support a candidate of his or thechoice, big loss for coffers of the democrats. again, simply not true. unions cannot use general dues money for political efforts. they can only use money that workers themselves donate for political efforts. when a union gives money to candidates, it comes from that specialized pot of money. there is no pressure in any public or private sector union in the country.

what janice does is it increases the trends toward undermining union power, which leads to greater economic and political inequality. host: let's hear from daddy in albuquerque -- debbie in albuquerque. caller: i wanted to speak with the other guy -- can you explain to the viewers, the reason the government got involved in all of this labor union is because of strikes, wildcat strikes, 5000, 6000 the week were going on. can you explain that if we got rid of all of the unions, which is what they seem to want to do, the possibility of what will startsagain is everybody doing strikes. like police, firefighters. , nouse if there's no union contracts, this is a possibility of history repeating itself and people don't seem to be looking at the big picture that we can go back to where it was, because

that is why the government involved, mainly because of strikes, isn't it? i'll take my answer off there. the national labor relations act was passed in the 1930's. riordan that, we had an incredibly violent history of workers going on strike and often being shot or otherwise beaten by police or hired security guards from their factories. we have, in fact, the most violent labor history of any industrialized country leading to the nlra. that is still our private sector labor law. to try to channel those industrial disputes and to more productive forums. workerske it easier for to unionize, we won't have these debilitating strikes all the time. if we get to the point where workers have very few rights, are we going to see a resurgence of strikes? i certainly hope we don't see a

resurgence of strikes in which there is violence and bloodshed. i will say that some of the -- the teacher strikes were not violent at all. some of the ones that we saw in the spring reflect exactly what you were saying. west virginia teachers did not have collective-bargaining rights. they didn't have formal collective-bargaining rights or right to strike, but educational funding had been pushed down to such a level, teacher salaries pushed down to such a level that teachers had an off and shutdown state schools for a week. at the end, they emerged victorious. i think if we continue to erode the workers' bargaining power and right to -- guest: -- host: this is jackson in winston-salem, democrats line. thank you, i appreciate

the things you are mentioning about citizens united. it seems like in recent years, more so in recent years, 20 years or so, there's been a lot of individualism and greed. do you see any optimism for my second question would be, is there any possibility of some type of law where we would say that a ceo could make, navy, 70 times what their average worker makes? could make, maybe, 70 times what their average worker makes? could that be possible? think individualism is certainly part of the problem, being encouraged by the policy choices that members of congress and presidents have made. cutting tax cuts on the wealthiest individuals, allowing executive compensation to get out of control. pushing harder and harder to undermine the collective voices of the workers so they don't

have the ability to speak collectively. and then you might become more individualistic. signs of optimism, i think there are many. the redford teacher strikes, the fight for 15 and all of the victories at the state level. and unions are increasingly popular among workers. something like 60% of workers in a recent survey say they would like to join a union if they had the opportunity. when workers are unionized, they are typically very satisfied and want to get rid of the union. another signbeing, for optimism is that members of congress are starting to pay attention to these issues in a much more serious way. sander sanders introduced labor law reform legislation, and so did senator murray in the spring. pay, some of ceo

my colleagues at the roosevelt institute have focused on this. we should absolutely be thinking , makingmiting ceo pay sure that -- it might be that we say that it should not be more than 70 times the pay of the average worker. i would say even smaller than that, maybe 30 times. you could change the rules around how stock options are used for executive compensation. and you should also change the tax rules. marginale taxing top incomes at a low rate, that would create incentives for companies to pay executives handsomely, and to pay for the infrastructure we need, we need to raise taxes on top incomes and that would help bring down ceo pay. on labor day, we are speaking with brishen rogers from temple university. we are talking about the current status and future of unions in

the u.s.. if you want to join the conversation, (202) 748-8000 free democrats. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. we have a line for union members, (202) 748-8003. everyone else, (202) 748-8002. an extensiveng you piece from back in april about the decline of union membership, and the causes they talk about. they write that the second half of the 20th century brought bold changes to the economic status quo. globalization, the invention of new technologies, and that the companies in developed nations could produce goods for far less money with the help of sophisticated machinery. these undoubtedly explain part of the decline of union density and influence in the united states. in themployed union-dominated manufacturing industry -- not been re-created

in europe. 92% of workers are still members of the union. finland,, denmark and union density hovers around 65%. why might this be different? there's quite a few reasons. one is that in the united states, like i said, we passed a major law in the 40's that made it much harder for workers to unionize. so it is hard for them to even build a voice and power. the second is what we call the bargaining structure, it is quite different between the u.s. and canada on one hand, and many european countries on the other. in mark andnd germany and other countries, unions bargain at sectoral

levels. they all sit at the table with and they arenies able to set minimum terms across the entire sector through those systems. in thosetates countries are quite involved in that process, kind of theicipate in it and push parties toward agreement. in the u.s., that is just not the system we have. something we had, the closest, is patterned bargaining in the auto sector, where uaw would negotiate first with one company, then try to get that deal with the other ones, which was difficult to achieve. we put the difficulty of forming a union in the first place, and the fact that most of the bargaining takes place at the firm level, it is difficult to gain enough power to take wages out of competition. if you want to organize fast food workers, what would you do? if you organize one mcdonald's,

that mcdonald's might be owned by a franchisee of mcdonald's corporate. collectivet have any bargaining rights against mcdonald's corporate. and if you organize that one mcdonald's, it won't do anything about the mcdonald's sites in your city or country. you still got, burger king, taco bell, pizza fast foodhese other companies. what european companies often do is strongly encouraged unionization across the entire industrial sector and encourage bargaining across the sector, a much more effective way of keeping wages up, unionization , and promoting workers voices in the economy. guest: we have -- host: we had 10 from blunt fill, union line.n our caller: how many of the 50 u.s. labor history

in their public schools, and why or why not. and -- how many were voted in and how many were legislated in? say i don'torry to know the answer to either question. i don't know of any state that mandates labor history at the high school level. i certainly didn't have it in virginia, and i was also in high school in massachusetts and didn't have it there. as far as right to work, the majority of right to work laws have been passed by state legislatures, not a valid -- by a ballot initiative. atst: you teach labor law temple university. that has to start with, i assume, some level of labor history knowledge. what youming students, think their knowledge is? >> i teach in philadelphia. students in philadelphia often

have some experience with unions. temple students are usually the first of their family to go to college and we have children of union members, family members of union members part the children themselves. that is still a fairly strong uniontown, so they still have some experience. their experience is often with industrial unions or craft ,nions, uaw or the carpenters height-fitters and the like. the workers organizing in the ,ost -- service sector workers janitors and building service workers. so a lot of students, the popular, what people see about unions in the news does not always reflect what unions and workers are doing on the ground. from let's hear from steve

plainview, new york, republican line. caller: i'm a republican and also a union member. i would like to know why who no longerrs have to pay union dues get all the benefits of being in a union? that takes away, of course, all leverage that unions have. -- says that he is for the worker, but his foundation is funded by the koch brothers. tohe's really using janice represent big business. it is not about the worker, it is about breaking the workers' union. what can the unions do? union-member only benefits? host: thank you for your question.

guest: it is a challenging one. first off, why did nonmembers get all the benefits? this is the law that we have. it is the law, as it evolved in the 1930's and early 1940's. as a previous caller said, what are the big issues -- one of the big issues leading up to that was a lot of strikes and disruption to the economy and to industry. thats thought at the time if you simply had one union representing all workers in a factory, that the union and management could figure out a way to work out their differences. but that meant that everyone in the factory had to be represented by the same union. that is still the system we have, but it leads to this problem. to joinrs are required the union or pay fair share fees, the union does have to spend a lot of resources on their behalf. what can unions do about it?

one is known as members only bargaining, or members of the unionism, where they only represent workers who actually join the union. that is permissible under u.s. law, but the problem is there is no requirement that a company bargain with the union. it is sort of at the company's ofcretion to have any sort relationship with that type of union, so it is difficult for them to get off the ground. option proposed would be for unions to be able to charge members -- sorry, to charge workers for services. so if a union takes up a grievance on behalf of the worker, the worker pays the union to take on that grievance. that would help with the free riding as well, though i'm not sure how many unions really want to be in the position of selling things to members. they are fundamentally organizations of workers, not a

third party. going totive union is be workers standing and fighting together. i think that at the most basic level, it will come down to what workers themselves do and how they organize, that will determine how we solve these issues. between saying that brett kavanaugh has a long history of decisions against workers rights, including a case supporting trump in the appellate court, mother jones with a similar view in their report on brett kavanaugh. -- organized labor very worried. this is more of a washington you know but what do about brett kavanaugh in terms of his decisions on labor issues? guest: this isn't something i've looked at closely, but colleagues of mine have. he has pretty consistently sided with management in difficult cases. i don'te supreme court, think we would see anything different from him then what

we've seen from alito, thomas, roberts. anthony kennedy departing the court now was a moderate voice. at the same time, kennedy was basically always aligned with the conservative bloc on questions of labor law. host: our coverage of the hearing of brett kavanaugh begins on tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern. c-span, on ourn website, on radio, and you can follow on our mobile app. texas, on next from our democrat line. caller: the pendulum might be swinging towards unions, as a recent voter initiative in missouri, the legislature passed a right to work law. i believe there was a ballot initiative that put the right to

work law on the ballot and the right to work law was overwhelmingly defeated, i believe, the margin was 67% to 32%. so, a shout out to the people of missouri. i think they made the right decision, thank you. you are right about that, color, how unions can make a comeback, the peace in the washington post talking about votersearlier in august, in missouri repealing their state's right to work law, only the -- state to do so, the first by referendum. guest: it is a tremendous victory, all the more so does it was put in place through citizens' action, through legislative initiative. though i guess i would say this is only the beginning. we need fundamental labor law

at the federal level. workers need to be able to organize in their own work laces. today, if they start to organize, they run a high risk of being fired in retaliation. is, of course, unlawful, but it can take months or years or decades for a case to wind up in the courts. at that point, the damages they get do not begin to compensate them for their loss of work. as a result, damages do not deter employers from acting unlawfully. they might threaten workers, them,date them, terminate say they might close down a plant in response to organizing. these things happen frequently, and are some things we have to change to give workers a voice. in byron, is kenny georgia, independent line. caller: my question is, why

isn't the fight for 15 a part of the republican platform? they are about standing on your -- because walmart doesn't want to pay a living wage, they pass those on to the tax of us in the form of credits, food stamps. use your brain power. the union thing, you can't win on arguments, but i believe that on the living wage thing, you can win. guest: i appreciate it. what i would add is that walmart is engaging in share buybacks, spending so much of that money, that they could use to raise their workers' wages significantly. a could give hourly workers a raise of around five dollars per hour with the money they spent on share buybacks. host: didn't walmart recently raise pay across the country? guest: they did, and i'm not sure how high it is now.

for a long time, they resisted raising pay. down wages and living standards across the retail sector. retail was unionized for many years. a lot of retailers still have unions. walmart has undercut those companies in its actions. host: this is from new port richey, florida. randy. good morning, america. i am a manager, and one of my concerns about the unions is that they tend to have specific duties. and in the modern workforce, we need a very fluid workforce that , so that isple jobs one of my concerns. and one of my questions to you is, does raising pay have anything to do with the rise of inflation also? thank you.

on specific duties, you do hear this from managers at companies fairly often. it is the case in a lot of industries, not in all industries. my understanding is that a lot of the unions that have 20-30zed in the past years, especially in sectors such as health care, hotels and other hospitality services, building services, they have less of an emphasis on those type of job role questions. the host mentions denmark recently. are attractedople to something that denmark does, which is that denmark sort of protects workers -- they have a -- they have much more fluid labor markets. unions bargain to set high wages and high levels of worker protection. high wages and benefits, decent hours and the like. unions notion that

actually control what workers go into which jobs is sort of unknown over there. they have a much more fluid labor market. whether that could work in the u.s. is, i think, another question. it is hard to get to that point without unions having more power at the local level first. inflation, we and aren't really seeing inflation at the moment, even though we are seeing wages take up. we are also seeing low unemployment, and wages aren't taking up much on their own. it would seem that a lot of the effect is because many states and cities have raised their minimum wages in recent years. i want to mention the work by some of my colleagues at the roosevelt institute who have worked on questions of -- and the labor market, why employers have so much power that they can essentially lower wages for workers beyond the level we would expect in a fluid market. of laboris a lot

market monopsony, -- one of the ways to fight that is to raise minimum wages so that workers simply have a floor beneath them, and to encourage collective bargaining rights, so that employees can push wages up. -- is calling from virginia, on the republican line. caller: after years of negotiating with unions from the management side, just two reasons, going back to 9/11. andreasons the firefighters police entered those buildings. one, those people were heroic. two, they weren't on strike. said,ntleman called and what about these people who get benefits but are not members of the union. the negotiation and

tell the union, all right, we will determine what the nonmembers get. shutnion would absolutely the plan down. they would not have that. you heard this gentleman talk about, not only do they want benefits for the workers, but wanted determine the pay for the management. taxesant to determine the and so forth. they don't want to simply negotiate for workers, they want to control the work. they want to control the companies. host: john, what industry or field were you managing where you were negotiating? caller: i would rather not go into that. host: thanks for the call, anyway. guest: on the police and firefighters, correct. they were not on strike. police and firefighters, i believe, do not have the legal right to strike in most states across the country, i don't think they have it in any,

because of the threat to public safety that would result. that strikes me as a sensible rule. what is traded, off? do they have other ways of promoting their interest in bargaining with the state? on unions controlling the labor supply, or trying to control the plant, plenty of unions may try to do that. again, i don't think that the unions that are organizing low-wage workers today are really in that position. at the same time, i would say there is a real virtue to having powerful unions that can keep a pay. on, say, runaway ceo it has skyrocketed over the past -- and part of it seems to be and studies show, unions have not been able to keep that pay in check. in the postwar period, when unions were strong, they were at the bargaining table and it was i can't the ceo to say,

give you guys are raised, then give himself a raise of $30 million per year. so i think it is entirely legitimate and desirable for unions to play that role. i can't speak to whatever experience you had bargaining with a particular union, but i think they should keep the role in keeping executive compensation in check. fellowe is a visiting with the roosevelt institute, and is on twitter. thank you for being here with us this morning. we have about 25 minutes left in the program. we will use that time to talk on the phone's about any public policy or political topic you want to talk about. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. we will see you in a moment.

>> tonight on q&a, historian charles calhoun talks about his biography on benjamin harrison. was inas nominated, he indianapolis. he gave four speeches that they. day.mpaign speeches that said, let the people come to you. so over the next four months to five months, that's what happened. he stayed at home, slept in his bed and would visit visiting delegate -- and would seek visiting delegations from around the country. farmers,rs, cotton they would come he would give them a short speech, mostly attuned to their own interests, but something that would resonate with people generally. he had his own stenographer take

down what he said, and he would go over what he said and make sure it is what he wanted people to read. he would give it to the associated press the next morning and it is in the papers around the country. >> historian charles calhoun, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. at 9:30 a.m. eastern, watched c-span's live coverage of the senate judiciary committees hearing on the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. they want includes opening statements by chuck grassley and all of the committee members. then introductions of judge kavanaugh from condoleezza rice. ohio senator rob portman and attorney lisa bleich. then judge kavanaugh makes his own opening statement. watch day one of the senate live,mation hearings

tuesday at nine: 30 a.m. eastern, on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. washington journal continues. is open phones until 10:00 eastern. democrats use (202) 748-8000, republicans use (202) 748-8001, and independents and all others use (202) 748-8002. we welcome your tweets. from its is returning august recess this week, the day after labor day, they will be back on tuesday. weekly magazine, -- will feature power struggles, policy fights, and most of all, politics, rights kate ackley. given lawmakers' frenzied a autumnal to doed

list, it is a wonder more are not retiring. keeping the government operating during the weeks before the elections, and grapple with farm and aviation programs, as well as heated debates over election security, immigration policy, and a proposed border wall. calls until your 10:00. barry is next in massachusetts. caller: thank you. i have a question for your guest and for yourself. i'm very concerned about the rising deficit. ,he economy is doing quite well and i always thought the process of getting out of a deficit was to grow the economy. that was certainly one of -- thent trump's out-of-control spending. has left, but we

will leave your comments standing. we will hear from pat next from west virginia, independent line. aller: thank you for having show on labor history today, on labor law. we celebrate labor day because of a reason. my grandfather -- i am an old enough men to have two grandfathers who work in the workforce before unionism was popular. my one grandfather started at 13, driving mules in the mines. boys that that because they were not able to do the heavy work of mining. at least 16 tons to get your pay for the day, so they drove the noodles. that is what my grandfather did and they did it seven days a week, 12 hours a day. there were no days off, no holidays. you got christmas off and you maybe got easter off, and that was it.

my other grandfather started in a factory, a glass factory in huntington, west virginia. he also worked seven days a week, 12 hours a day, and it was labor that gave us a 40 hour work week. i would also like to say that ofterday marked my 40th year the longing to a labor union. i belong to a public labor union, work for the federal government. i believe in an open shop. i don't believe you ought to force a man to belong to a labor union, but if the labor union represents you, you should pay your fair share. the only reason we have laws in our country that keep that from that the case, and rulings keep that from being the case, is because of groups like alec at the heritage foundation, that spends millions of dollars

keeping that legislation from being passed. pat, thanks from west virginia. he talked about his grandfather positive experience in labor. lethub hasome -- wal information about how we earned the labor day holiday. in 1882, 10,000 workers in new york city assembled for a parade . september 1894, the year congress officially made the first monday in september a federal holiday. republican, ken, line. caller: yes, i am a union ironworker. thatt wanted to reinforce i'm a republican as well and a donald trump supporter. the reason is that i think that the union has a following, also, administration,

because he has been able to produce jobs. immigrationnforcing , and in turn, lessening the workforce by the nonunion, kind of illegal workforce. as that was minimized, it would , ormize the union workforce the demand for the skilled labor of whatever union local that you are from, and they train you. so whenever the contractors, the independent contractors hire workers, contractors or whatever, you are actually trained for years, for three or four years. as you work, you go to school, and they pay you, the

contractors. it is very, very good for people who don't have money for college, but they have the will to work. host: you said you are an ironworker and you support the president. how about your fellow workers and union members, do you feel strong support for the president? caller: i feel strongly towards my brothers and sisters and for the president of our country. what happened with me is i am american first, union second, but i am a father above all of those things. if i can put food on the table because he creates jobs, and his administration is able to create jobs and maximize our ability to get ourselves in the workforce more, i can provide for my used towhen before i scratch and claw to put food on the table. host: let's hear from john in florida, democrats line.

hello, i'm calling on this very good labor day. i always listen to your program to remind myself of what unions are all about. but you've had guests on who really need to be fact checked, like -- who said that ronald reagan was good for unions or non-unions. created a deficit and has raised taxes several times, taxed social security and medicare. do you have someone come on to speak to the opposite of his program, -- two guests, right to was not good for me, and the right to have unions and the real reasons for unions. all right, scott is next from new jersey, on the independent line. caller: good morning, how are

you? thanks for c-span. i just want to talk about john death, his funeral. the president was absent, he went to play golf. -- will he change? i don't know. i have to call him president. horrible, -- a inrible harm to this country times like this. the second thing i want to say, , whatre you would agree is very important today is that we can give enough coverage to real issues, like the iran conflict, don't you think so? host: appreciate that, scott.

he is talking about the president not at yesterday's memorial for john mccain. this is politico magazine. donald trump's funeral problem. john mccain's ceremony is only the latest from which he has been shunned, might be the best because he has been known to make them all about him. sherry on the democrat line. maryland. caller: i wanted to talk about controlling the elections. first of all, -- can give a , united citizens versus the election committee. at the supreme court, we need a law to fix that. oligarchsrnational are passing huge amounts of money and expertise to candidates that are basically going to destroy our country.

when i talk about robert and and their use of sophisticated algorithms on huge databases via cambridge withtical, they were able, to -- data director, they went through and picked out conspiracy theorist generators, micro-targeted these people with advertisements on local tv, blogs, all kinds of fake friends to add to a conspiracy-generating capability , and they swung the election. usedrrified that they putin's hackers to find out the offerabilities of the dnc of the dnc server.

incidentally, while we are here, i actually know quite a bit about i.t. clinton was not blind, but that is a -- using a private server, and so far it has never emerged that anybody compromised that server, and many intelligent people get confused with the dnc server getting attacked and compromised by putin's henchmen. , alary clinton's server secure, tiny thing that is probably as safe at that level as anything at the dod. host: we have open phones until 10:00, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. discussion on right to work states and unions, a couple of these tweets reflecting that.

be none says there should public sector unions. steve says australia has a minimum wage of $18 an hour or more, depending on the job, and they spend not one penny on welfare benefits for people who work. we spent billions to subsidize low wages through food stamps and rent subsidies. working 40 hours on minimum wage cannot afford to feed, close, and shelter themselves. mike is next on the independent line in granger, indiana. caller: i would like to comment role innion workers' building the infrastructure of this country, primarily been put in place by the union worker, and it has been neglected by our politicians. currently, i would challenge every american to look at the infrastructure of the union, and

he would see the corrosion and neglect, and it is very obvious that it is in dire need of maintenance that should have been done throughout the years. of ---- i am a member something that our union is ready to take on. we are trained and ready to accomplish these important jobs. thomas ins hear from compton, california, democrat line. caller: thank you. i would like to say that united on women andnocide children in yemen, and the bombs

that blew up, 29 women and children on board, one of thousands of weapons that the in the hands of politicians. from arabicl it countries and like take close their eyes on massacres of people in yemen. also, the american people are guilty of -- if we pay them tax money, while we know they share more of that fake u.s. interest, thousands of them. by the way, in the middle east, country, the role of media in covering the war like yemen. what do you think? host: i appreciate your input.

in walker'so debra bill, maryland. theer: i take issue with article you had up about trump making funerals all about him, and that is not true. he asked to go to billy graham's funeral, and he did not want to say a word, and that was from him. something that they imposed upon him. he wanted to not say a word. in arizona,eve phoenix, calling us on the democrats line. good morning, thank you for c-span. i don't mean to oversimplify, -- basically, what is fair

with pay. how much does the company, the stockholders and officers make, versus how much is good for the worker. and my device is, find something you like doing and start your own business. then you get to decide, you get to see the money coming into going and who is valuable to you , who really helps you get ahead . you can be as generous as you can financially be when you are in that situation. when you are in a situation and you feel you have the talent and ideas to get ahead, then you should do the best you can to your skills toth become independent, and then help other people. honest, each company decides what is fair for compensation for everybody

across the board, and that is why i recommend starting your own company. host: moses lake, washington, bruce. calling tolo, i'm let you know that the website -- has job listings -- [reciting website] fore are jobless things websites together, put it all on one webpage. host: ok, myrtle beach, south carolina, just on the republican -- jeff on the republican line. caller: i want to refute the lady who said that nobody infiltrated the clinton server, reportedcently been

that -- had real-time access to her email. every time she received an email, china received that email. of thenother part mueller investigation, u.s. agencies trying to turn in oligarchs into an informer. has write oleg dara bhaskar faced credible accusations of extortion, bribery, murder, and thought he might make a good source. and 2016, the fbi justice department unsuccessfully tried to turn him into an informant. -- getting visas for the united states and explore his legal problems, hoping for information on russian organized crime and possible aid to president trump's campaign. in one dramatic encounter, fbi agents appeared unannounced and

uninvited at his home in new york, and pressed him on whether paul manafort, a former business partner of his, had served as a link between the campaign and the kremlin. him was parto flip of a broader clandestine i'm american effort to gauge the possibility of gaining cooperation from roughly half a dozen of russia's richest men. rick, next, democrat line in los angeles. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. , perhapsnt to say that the coming election in november, we had better keep the russian influence the way. for all the security there is, it must be's -- must be improved.

it looks, from where i'm standing, like the president of the united states is totally bought by the russians. he does any favors for the and won't think about our country. perhaps somebody told him about the mccain funeral, i don't know, some russian guy in this country. mom, don't do that. yes? let me finish. another -- host: i'm going to let you go, we are wrapping up here. thank you for all of your calls this morning, we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern with a program focusing on the november election, just over two months away, and our conversation with talk show hosts, columnists, commentators across the country.

join us on c-span, c-span radio, and enjoy the rest of your labor day weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] law,xt, stephen on today's "newsmakers." c-span profile supreme court justice nominee brett kavanaugh. then join us as a group of educators visits c-span to use how to learn online resources in the classrooms. collects joining us on "newsmakers," is steven law, president of the senate leadership fund. joining us, jonathan martin, the national political correspondent the "new york times." and the political correspondent for axios. the democrats have to defend more seatsha