under a more neutral nlrb it wouldn't and shouldn't.state, the concept of a fair the nlrw was a decent idea because it removed from the courts which take a long time to resolve these thing and put it in the hands of experts the ability to resolve quickly and definitively these disputes. but when it becomes so one-sided, always pro-union, always pro-management, nobody gives it credibility, and the people who win rejoice, and the people who lose say we didn't get a fair shot. stuart: this administration is always anti-private enterprise. >> yes. stuart:tail beat up on the banks, the investment firms, health care insurers, drug companies and walmart. >> and one of the weapons of doing that beating up is the nlrb. stuart: it's the machinery of government which they will employ in a partisan way, and it should not be applied in a partisan way. that's an opinion. >> but i don't think that'll change because the republicans want to be able to do it when they're in power, and the democrats want to be able to do it when they're in power, so the l

robert, what's your reaction to what walmart is reacting to by the decision of the nlrb?i think they're trying -- obviously, ed, they're trying to spin it as best they can. but this is really a historic decision. it's a very important moment where the nlrb is standing up for these very brave workers. i mean, can you imagine having a walmart job, scraping by, and yet willing to go out and strike and risk what you have in order to take on the largest company in the united states in terms of employees? so it's a turning point. and i think it's the beginning of something very important. and hopefully this friday all of the listeners, all of the viewers will get out there and join these workers. >> is this going to motivate walmart workers to do more strikes? i mean, could they -- or do you think the movement within the employment force nationwide is going to respond to this? >> well, i think it will certainly encourage them, ed. when i interviewed many of these workers back when i did the film years ago, they were isolated, they were alone. what the folks at our walmart have

became interested seriously in a union in that her of 946 -- in that summer of 1946 when a former nlrb national labor relations board, lawyer tried to guide the players and give them advice. well, they rejected that. but out of that came a really what we would call today a company union, an organization which created the first pension plan, something that's always vital for athletes who have such an abbreviated career and are concerned about what's going to happen to them beyond it. >> host: who were some of the players active in 1946 in pushing this so-called union? >> guest: well, some of them, one of them was dixie walker, they used to call him the seem's choice -- the people's choice who patrolled the outfield for the brooklyn dodgers. johnny murphy of the new york yankees. marty marion, the shortstop of the world champion 1946 world champion st. louis cardinals. these were some of the pioneers. of course, the players that year, that first year of 1946 that i fell in love with the game, were trying to protest their conditions and not simply by negotiating new pension schemes, not s

ends up going all the way to the supreme court and nlrb and all the things. do you think this is actually possibly an illegal move by the president to offer this fix? >> i think it is transparently illegal. i think it's transparently unconstitutional. the caveat is that the supreme court or no other court is going to intervene to stop him from doing. this in some ways it's very nixonian. nixon said it's legal if the president does it. so the question is whether or not there are going to be lawsuits coming from the insurance companies or from someone withstanding to say the president didn't have the authority to do this and that would get the courts involved. i think under the pure civics textbook case the president doesn't have the right to rewrite the laws. >> bernard? >> i would be delighted if speaker boehner and the house republicans sued to prevent the president from keeping his promise to allow those people who liked their plans to keep them. that would really make this like an aquite an extraordinary event. the supreme court has been very clear over 25