[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. I actually want to start the show today with a thank you and a message of sympathy and condolence to anyone who personally knew a frequent guest on the show who passed away last week. I only learned of her passing yesterday. It was Jane McAlevey, the labor organizer and scholar. She succumbed to multiple myeloma at the much too early age of 59. Jane was last on the show in April, after she disclosed her terminal diagnosis, to talk about a historic organizing win at a Volkswagen plant in Tennessee and to talk about the big picture of union and other labor rights in her lifetime. Here's 30 seconds from that appearance, putting the Tennessee victory in a historical and big-picture context.

Jane McAlevey: I'm not sure Americans understand that our labor laws are so intensely anti-union that the US South has become to European and Asian automakers what Mexico and China have become to a lot of the production facilities that make clothing, electronics, and things like that in the United States. A cheap and compliant- compliant, really key,- cheap and compliant source of labor is the US South coming out of a long history we cannot disconnect from slavery straight through to today.

Brian Lehrer: Jane McAlevey, here in April. She had been on the show 10 times going back to 2016. The New York Times obituary for Jane included these lines. "Ms. McAlevey dedicated her life to increasing working-class power. She believed that worker-driven unions led from the bottom up, rather than the top down, were the most effective engines to combat economic inequality. In her writings, including for The Nation, is what the magazine described as its strikes correspondent, and in frequent media interviews and podcasts, Ms. McAlevey became a vocal critic of what she saw as the complacency, ineptitude, and corporate collusion of many US labor leaders." Rest in peace, rest in power, Jane McAlevey.

Partly in her honor, partly because we wanted to do this anyway, but we're moving it up for Jane, we'll talk now about labor as an issue in the presidential election.

One of the things that President Biden did last week after the freak-out-inducing debate was to make an appearance before a friendly union-based crowd in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, speaking without looking at notes, or a teleprompter in this case, about his policies and reputation as the most pro-union president since FDR.

President Biden: One of the things, the first bill that I got passed, and I didn't have a Congress to continue it, I made sure that we had payments for child care per child. Guess what? Based on income. Guess what? We cut child poverty in half and the economy grew.

[applause]

President Biden: We have child care. Guess what? Mom or Dad can go to work and earn money. It grows the economy. This isn't wasting money. It's growing the economy.

Brian Lehrer: President Biden last week. Certainly, a battleground in this election, as in many before, is for what they call the working-class vote, even though there is no single working-class vote, it's people with certain incomes or types of jobs or amounts of education. The votes tend to go differently by race, as most of you know, even within those categories, but writ large, the battle for the working class vote in the battleground swing states is a huge deal in this election.

We thought we'd do a three-way comparison now between some of Biden's labor policies, the labor policies in the Republican platform that got released this week ahead of next week's convention, and the labor policies in the report called Project 2025, from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, that's been getting a lot of attention lately as a pretty far right policy blueprint for a second Trump administration. To help us do this in an informed way, we are happy to have back with us Steven Greenhouse, former longtime labor correspondent for The New York Times, now a senior fellow at The Century Foundation think tank and a contributor to The Guardian. He was last here in 2019, for his book, Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present, and Future of American Labor. He's certainly focused on the big picture, too. Steven, thanks for coming on again. Welcome back to WNYC.

Steven Greenhouse: Great to be here, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: First, did you know Jane McAlevey or her work? I know you at least tweeted an acknowledgment of her passing.

Steven Greenhouse: Yes, I knew Jane going back 20 years or so. I did a story for The New York Times about her innovative organizing effort in Stamford, Connecticut, where she really pushed her idea, that really panned out over the decades, of whole worker organizing, that when you try to lift workers, when you try to help workers, when you try to unionize workers, don't just focus on their problems in the workplace and how to improve things in the workplace. She had a larger, more expansive vision. Let's try to help them on housing. Let's try to help them on child care. Let's try to figure out better ways, easier ways for them to get to work.

Back then, 20 years ago, she was not well known, but when she died, she was probably the best-known union organizer of her generation of the past 20, 25 years. She really was an inspiring and inspired figure. She really spoke to workers in a very vigorous way that you have to stand up and organize to improve things at your workplace and improve things in the country. I was just reading a very good article by Sarah Jaffe, a labor journalist in The Baffler, and she said, "It is not an exaggeration to say that Jane McAlevey did more to bring practical labor organizing strategy into the public conversation than anyone in my lifetime."

Brian Lehrer: Do you agree with the take in the clip we played of her from April, that European automakers see the US, the South in particular, as a source of cheap labor in the way that the United States might see China- [clears throat] excuse me- for the manufacturer of clothing?

Steven Greenhouse: I agree in part, yes. European manufacturers, Volkswagen, BMW, Daimler-Benz, Mercedes, have set up shop in Alabama and Tennessee and other states in the South. They see it as a good, inexpensive place to manufacture and to get around tariffs from having to import parts they make in Germany or Japan. Wages, thankfully, in the South are not as low as they are in China, or Sri Lanka, or Vietnam, or Bangladesh, but yes, the American South is viewed by many, many European and Japanese companies as a great, cheap place to manufacture.

Because those states are traditionally low union, anti-union, they see them as a better place than manufacturing generally in Michigan, or Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania, or Ohio. As Jane wrote, as I've written, there was a huge UAW union success in Tennessee when the UAW unionized the Volkswagen plant and some 5,000 workers there a few months ago. Now we'll see whether the unions can really lift wages in the South. That's one of the big challenges facing unions, facing workers in the United States. Jane focused on that. One of Jane's main theories was that we really need to do bottom-up organizing.

We need to do deep organizing to really mobilize workers, keep workers committed not just at the workplace but also in politics and in the community. She very much criticized many unions for engaging in what she called shallow organizing. Just, oh, we get you, we organize you for a month or two to try to vote in the union, and then we say goodbye and we move on to the next workplace. The workers aren't as committed to the union, aren't as committed to changing things, aren't as committed to lifting their whole community as one can do with real deep organizing, which makes workers much more active, vocal, and vigorous.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. You wrote a piece for The Century Foundation this year after the big win for unionization at the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee that Jane was largely on for in that April appearance, that there's more reason for hope for a reversal of American labor's decline than there has been for half a century. One reason you cite is that Joe Biden is one of the most pro-union presidents ever, as you put it. Can you give a short list of policies that he's enacted? We heard in the clip one of his having to do with child care, or others that he genuinely tried to enact that led you to describe him that way. As I say, we heard him talk about childcare policies in that clip from last week to a union crowd, but I'm sure that's just one.

Steven Greenhouse: Sure. I've argued that Biden is actually the most pro-union president in American history. I think he really likes unions and union leaders more than FDR did. FDR is the only one who might compare with him. FDR, when he was president, had huge majorities and democratic majorities. In Congress, it was far easier for him to enact pro-labor legislation than it was for Biden. FDR, I think, was ambivalent about unions, but Biden is a real enthusiastic friend of unions. What has Biden done to help workers? He pushed very hard to get Congress to enact a $15 minimum wage. Republicans blocked that. He pushed these landmark bipartisan bills, the Infrastructure Law, the Green Energy Law, and the CHIPS Act to bring computer chip manufacturing back.

In all those laws, there's language to make it easier to unionize those plants. Especially in the Infrastructure Bill, that's really helped increase union membership and provide good high-paying union jobs for probably tens of thousands of Americans by now. Biden pushed very hard for more funding for childcare, for child tax credits to make it easier for working families to raise kids and balance their jobs and work. His National Labor Relations Board has probably been the most worker-friendly, union-friendly National Labor Relations Board in years.

It's made rulings that would make it easier to declare that certain people are workers and not independent contractors and thus can unionize. Biden issued a new regulation that would provide overtime, time and a half, to millions more workers. I think this last week, his Labor Department issued the first-ever rule to provide protection for workers against extreme heat. I wrote an article about a year or two ago saying, "Why hasn't any government and any president in history done this? Far too many workers are dying from extreme heat."

His Labor Department's new proposed regulations on extreme heat are great. I think they will go far to protect workers when they're working in 80, 85, 90 degrees. He's done a lot. The list can go on. He's spoken out on behalf of efforts to unionize Amazon, unionize other places. He was the very first president, no president before him ever marched on union picket line. During the UAW strike against GM, Ford, and Stellantis last fall, he actually joined the union picket line. For his State of the Union, Jill Biden invited Shawn Fain, the really charismatic, combative, new president of the UAW to sit beside her. Biden has really shown himself to be a friend of workers more than Obama, more than Bill Clinton, more than Jimmy Carter. He's really gone the extra mile.

Brian Lehrer: We want to compare Biden to the Republican platform and the Project 2025 report, written by many people with ties to Trump. The Republican platform document released this week opens with the words, "Dedicated to the forgotten men and women of America." Demographically, and in workforce terms, Steven, if you can see it that way, who do you think that's supposed to make have a visceral reaction, that, "Oh, good, that must be talking about me."?

Steven Greenhouse: Exactly, Brian. Trump is a genius at appealing to people's grievances and telling people, "You've been forgotten for years by past administrations, Democratic and Republican, but I'm the guy for you. I'm going to fight for you." He said that in 2016 before he was elected. I submit he didn't do much to fight for typical workers. He did a great job cutting taxes for the 1%, for corporations. He did a great job reducing regulations on business to enable them to increase profits. That might mean fewer protections for workers.

I read the Republican platform.

Even though it says, "We're going to fight for you, the forgotten Americans," there's really very little about helping workers. They say, "We're going to protect Social Security," and we know that many Republicans deep down want to somehow cut funding for Social Security. The platform says, "We want to protect Medicare," but again, the lawmakers in Congress say, "We got to do something to rein in Medicare benefits because they're too expensive." I think the main thing the Republican platform says that they say would help workers is that they would limit immigration and that might create more opportunities for American workers, but they're saying that when unemployment is already extremely low.

It's been 4% or below now. It's a little above 4% for two years now. One of the problems the American economy has right now is there aren't enough workers available. If there were more workers available, the economy could grow faster. There's a shortage of workers in many industries now. You hear business folks saying, "We need more workers," and Donald Trump says, "I'm going to do American workers a favor by kicking out 15 million undocumented immigrants." That would create havoc for our workforce, for our industries. Yes, it might create more opportunities for some American workers, but again, the unemployment rate is already very low. American workers who want to work can generally get jobs.

Brian Lehrer: So much in the Republican platform finds its way back to immigration and deportation one way or another. Other language from the Republican platform, the most explicit promise to a group of workers in the Republican platform that I can see is no tax on tips. Can you put that in context? Do people pay income tax on tips today, or what would that change, and for whom?

Steven Greenhouse: People do pay tax on tips, but as I'm sure many of your listeners realize, tips are easy to hide from the IRS when you're filling out your taxes. In his four years as president, Donald Trump did not lift a finger at all to try to raise the federal minimum wage, which is an abysmally low $7.25 an hour. Biden and the Democrats in Congress have tried to increase it, but it keeps getting blocked by Republican filibuster. The Republicans are doing what corporate America wants on that. When Donald Trump was campaigning in Nevada three or four weeks ago, he was trying to appeal to blue-collar workers there.

Remember, Las Vegas is the most important city there. It relies on the tourism industry, and many workers are hotel housekeepers or waiters, so Trump out of nowhere, puts forward this idea of, "If I'm elected president, I will eliminate taxation on tips." It's a cool idea, but a lot of people say, "It ain't going to happen. It will be hard to get through Congress. It's just a campaign promise." Anyway, many workers probably aren't paying for all their tips. I don't want to say workers are being dishonest, but I think it's--

Brian Lehrer: Of course, in this day and age, there are probably more tips that need to be reported as income because they're being put on apps, and they're being put on your credit cards in restaurants. There's a paper trail of them, so it's not as easy to not pay taxes on them as in the case of cash. One critical analysis of that, that I've seen, is that the real benefactors would be the employers, like restaurants, or hotels, or the delivery apps because they'll use that as an excuse to reduce the actual pre-tip wages that they pay to tip-eligible workers. Do you think that's a fair critique?

Steven Greenhouse: I think that's absolutely a fair critique. I imagine many workers wish that even more than promising no taxation on tips, that Donald Trump would put forward specific steps, specific things he would do to raise wages. He really hasn't done anything on raising wages. We'll talk soon about Project 2025, just the recommendations coming out of the Heritage Foundation, many of them written by people who worked in the Trump administration.

Brian Lehrer: Right. I'm saving Project 2025 for the whole second half of this segment, which we'll start in a couple of minutes because there's so much in there.

Steven Greenhouse: Okay. One other thing that's-

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead, Steven.

Steven Greenhouse: - in the Republican platform that we should mention is the two main things Trump says he'll do to help American workers are deport all these immigrants in theory to create more opportunities for American workers. As I said, that will create all sorts of chaos and damage for American industry in many way. Second, he says he will impose tariffs to protect American industry and help American industry build. He's talked about tariffs of 10% across the board on all products coming into the United States, and 60% on products from China. Yes, in theory, that might help American industry, but one, it will raise prices on many products coming in. There are estimates that these higher tariffs would cost an average American household $1,700 a year, which is a good piece of change for typical workers. Also, there's no doubt in my mind, and many economists' mind if Trump really tries a 10% across-the-board tariff and 60% on China, there's going to be a massive trade war, which is going to damage the world economy and damage the American economy, and so it's worrisome.

One of Trump's main critiques of Biden is that he's the president of inflation. Even though inflation was caused largely by the pandemic and Putin's war in Ukraine, but what Trump is calling for, kicking out all these immigrant workers, huge tariffs against China, ending the Federal Reserve's independence, it would be hugely inflationary. There are many economists saying that Trump, if he gets his way, if he does what he promises, he will become the emperor of inflation, and it'll be much worse than it had been.

Brian Lehrer: Tariffs do have a record now, right? Trump imposed some tariffs, significant tariffs. Biden, by and large, kept them, and the purpose of those tariffs supposedly was so that American manufacturers wouldn't export as much manufacturing to go for the low-wage workers in China or wherever. Instead, those jobs would stay in the United States at higher wages because it would cost more to import the goods back in here to sell. Has it worked, and has Biden really been any different from Trump in this respect?

Steven Greenhouse: Brian, I'd say it's worked somewhat, although it has helped some American manufacturers increase their production. They feel less competition from products from China because those products are more expensive with the tariffs, but if you ask farmers in the Midwest, when China retaliated over the tarrifs, they were hit hard so some Americans say the tariffs didn't work that well. When I read economic studies about Trump's tariffs, economists say it helped create some jobs, but not very much, and that the cost of saving some of these jobs might have been $500,000 or $1 million a year in terms of per job with the increased tariffs.

I think you're right, Brian, Biden has kept many of the same tariffs that Trump did, but he's tried to target them more finely so that they don't increase prices on as many goods and they're more closely tied to protecting this industry and that industry. Again, Trump says if he's elected, he will take a total blunderbuss approach to tariffs. That said, 10% across-the-board tariffs will usually raise prices in the economy. Not only will it raise prices of goods coming in from China and elsewhere, but American industry will say, "Hey, if everything coming in from China faces a 60% tariff, we could greatly increase our prices." Prices at Walmart, or Costco, or Amazon I imagine will go up a lot on many, many products.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. That is the Trump platform, 10% across-the-board tariffs, but 60% on things coming from China if he's elected and actually follows through. Listeners, we're talking with longtime labor correspondent Steven Greenhouse, former New York Times, now with The Century Foundation and writes for The Guardian sometimes, comparing Biden and Trump. When we come back from a break, Project 2025, think-tank labor policies that are written to influence Trump. Listeners, if you consider yourself working class or as part of the labor movement in any way, however you define that, your questions, comments, or stories comparing the Republican platform, the Project 2025 Republican Blueprint, and the Joe Biden record, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text and stay with us.

[MUSIC]

President Biden: I asked the Treasury Department to do a study. Was all my pro-union stuff and organizing and marching and being on picket lines with y'all, is that good or bad for the economy? When unions do well, the entire economy and everybody who's non-union does better. Everybody.

[applause]

Brian Lehrer: President Biden last week before a union crowd in Harrisburg speaking without notes or a teleprompter, by the way, I watched the video. In that case, trying to save his candidacy as well as trying to rally the base for whoever the Democratic nominee ultimately is, even if it isn't him. That certainly includes union members as we compare the Biden record, the Trump record and campaign promises, and the Republican-leaning think-tank, The Heritage Foundation, and their massive blueprint written by many Trump allies for what a Trump second term might do, called Project 2025.

We'll take some phone calls and texts from you as we go with Steven Greenhouse, former labor correspondent for The New York Times, now with The Century Foundation on that topic and writing sometimes for The Guardian. All right, Steven, Project 2025, The Heritage Foundation think-tank report. Again, not part of Trump's or the Republican party's official platform. Trump will emphasize that, but written by many people with ties to Trump and with experience with Trump. It's very long. The labor section begins on page 581 and goes for more than 30 pages.

I've highlighted some passages from the Project 2025 chapter called Department of Labor and Related Agencies. Steven, let me get your take as we go through these. It opens with these words as a mission statement. "At the heart of the conservative promise is the resolve to reclaim the role of each American worker as the protagonist of his or her own life, and to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life." Already I'm thinking this is a culture war document, at least as much as an economic one, when they say, "Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life."

Then the mission statement continues, "Restore the family-supporting job as the centerpiece of the American economy. The Judeo-Christian tradition stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor and family." Then we get to the next section called Needed Reforms. The first words there are, "Reverse the DEI revolution in labor policy." Diversity, equity, and inclusion. It says, "Every aspect of labor policy became a vehicle with which to advance race, sex, and other classifications and discriminate against conservative and religious viewpoints on these subjects and others, including pro-life views." We'll get into the pro-life aspect of labor policy, believe it or not, but again, culture war and not labor policy, actually. So far, Steven, any thoughts?

Steven Greenhouse: I looked at that 37-page chapter written by a former official in Trump's labor department, and I was very much struck, as you are Brian, by the first thing they discuss in detail was basically get rid of DEI, any mention of DEI, any policies of DEI in the federal government and they'd love to do that as well across private industry. Total culture war. They start out with this nice preamble that we want to help families do it in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and then bam, they hammer the DEI thing like the leftist horrible cultural warriors are ruining our workplaces. I imagine many people of color, workers of color who want fair treatment for their workers and fair opportunities for their children might not be so happy about this language to totally get rid of DEI policies.

Brian Lehrer: I mentioned in the intro how, when we talk about working class in this country, and Trump's appeal, and the Republican party's appeal to working class, yes, there's an increase in Black and Latino support for Republicans these days, at least in the polls. We'll get to some of that, but it's so largely the white working class whose grievances are more based on race than based on class who are in that base. Here we see it at the beginning of the labor policy.

Steven Greenhouse: You're probably familiar with the study saying that the best way to track which Americans are pro-Trump are the ones who, in polls, say that it's white workers who are discriminated against most and appealing to white grievances. The first substantive paragraph of the labor worker chapter is really very much aimed to appeal to white grievance.

Brian Lehrer: I do want to come back to the reference in the mission statement to restoring a family-supporting wage. I feel like the religious conservative subtext there is to put women back in the home, out of the workplace, but then again, maybe everybody would like a family-supporting wage. The advent of two-wage earner families as a more common thing in recent generations has been taken advantage of by employers who then reduce wages based on the assumption of two earners supporting their kids. Do you think there's something to that?

Steven Greenhouse: Yes, comma but, Brian. When you look at the language, they do have a proposal saying workers should be allowed to accrue paid time off. It doesn't say there should be a law requiring employers to provide paid time off, but they realize that paid time off, which many employers do not want to give, but Project 2025 realizes that paid time off is good for workers, but it doesn't want to require it. They say, "This is something we have in mind to improve work-family balance." The United States is the only wealthy country in the world that doesn't have laws requiring that employers give paid parental leave.

We're the only wealthy industrial nation that doesn't require that all workers be guaranteed paid vacation. The Democrats, Biden wants to do something about this, but the Republicans and Project 2025 really only pay lip service. You're right, Brian, part of it, they don't say it out loud, but yes, I think they believe it'll be good if women stayed at home and didn't work. It also realized modern-day realities that if women want to work, we should try to provide some lip service to make it easier for them.

Brian Lehrer: You're saying, lip service, they just tiptoe toward what you were describing that other countries have, real paid family leave, and things like that. I read that section. What they seem to call for, specifically, is more flexibility for workers to get comp time in the bank rather than time and a half if they're working overtime, and they see that as a pro-family policy, which may be this as far as it goes.

Steven Greenhouse: I was about to get to that. This is an issue with a real history. Workers, when they work more than 40 hours a week, generally want to be paid time and a half than overtime because it really supplements their paycheck. Many, many families are having problems making ends meet. Many employers, no surprise, do not like paying that time and a half, so they would much rather provide comp time. That saves them money, but generally, workers want pay instead of comp time. Project 2025 raises this idea that employers very, very much want, you don't have to pay overtime, you can twist your workers' arms so they take comp time instead.

An interesting other thing there was, Project 2025 proposes that when workers work on their Sabbath, they are to be paid time and a half. When Trump was president, he scrapped Obama's rule that extended overtime to 4 million more workers. Trump was happy to get rid of that. He didn't show much love for over time. Here in Project 2025, they say, "We'd like over time in this one instance when workers work on their Sabbaths." It's their nod to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Brian Lehrer: Only to the Judeo-Christian tradition because I noticed in that section that it said the default day off would be Sunday except a worker should be able to take advantage of it on their sabbath if they're truly observant on another day. They said, for example, on Saturday, but they did not include the other example, which is, of course, Friday for Muslims. They wouldn't even nod to that even as they nodded to Jews. Now, let me go back to the first section of this Project 2025, labor chapter, which seems to lean mostly culture war, leans mostly to allow employers to discriminate more, frankly.

That section goes on for a while, citing specific proposals like, I'm reading again, "Eliminate EEO," Equal Employment Opportunity, "Level 1 data collection." It says, "The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission collects EEO-1 data on employment statistics based on race, ethnicity, which data can then be used to support a charge of discrimination," and it goes on from there. It doesn't want to even collect data on race and ethnicity in the workplace. Then another one, and I can't even believe they put this in writing just flat out like this, "Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics."

I'm going to read it again just because it's so straightforward, "Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics." It's so specific, they want it to be legal to discriminate against gay people and other LGBTQ Americans in the workplace. They just say it out loud. Can you believe it?

Steven Greenhouse: Can I believe it? Yes, they do. Many people on the right, many religious conservatives say it shouldn't be banned to discriminate against homosexuals and transgender folks." Project 25 discusses this whole thing at length, and it says, "We want to overturn the Supreme Court decision that says the nation's federal employment discrimination laws cover homosexual and transgender workers." Project 2025 says specifically, "We want to somehow overturn that Supreme Court decision," and as you say, Brian, rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status.

We've seen some of the conservatives on the Supreme Court saying they're very uncomfortable with these rules interpreting federal laws to protect homosexuals and transgender individuals. Again, just as DEI was culture war, this part of the labor platform is also very much culture war.

Brian Lehrer: Then in keeping with that, it goes on to another section with the header, "Pro-life measures, like keep anti-life benefits," I guess that is abortion benefits, "out of benefit plans." It goes on from there. We're not going to dwell on that because it's obvious what that is, even though we could go into specifics of how they want to use the workplace to discourage abortions or abortions covered by workplace insurance, and things like that. Finally, after all that culture war, they finally get to a section called Worker Voice and Collective Bargaining.

Finally, after all that other stuff, race, DEI, sexual orientation, discrimination, pro-life policies in the workplace, finally, worker voice, and collective bargaining. First chapter, non-union worker voice, and representation. Non-union worker voice and representation. It says "America's one-size-fits-all approach undermines worker representation. Federal labor law offers no alternatives to labor unions whose politicking and adversarial approach appeals to few, whereas most workers report they prefer a more cooperative model run jointly with management."

Would you comment on that? They're criticizing in the first section on collective bargaining here, criticizing unions as not cooperative enough with the employers they're bargaining with. Your thoughts?

Steven Greenhouse: Sure. That section is very anti-union if they want to increase all sorts of disclosure requirements for unions. They want immigrant worker centers to have to provide all sorts of disclosure forms. This shows a hostility to worker organizations. As for this idea of creating employee involvement groups at different corporations, that's an idea that was really pushed under Bill Clinton, and it was defeated. On one hand, people can make a good argument that only 10% of American workers are in unions, 90% are totally unrepresented, and many of them feel they don't have as strong a voice as they would like at their company.

Many employers and some academics said, "Let's set up some employee management panel where workers would have some input about how to improve their workplace." That was called the TEAM Act. Many union officials said, "That's a bad idea. It's going to be controlled by management. The workers will be chosen by management. They won't be truly representative of workers, and managers won't be required to follow or honor the recommendations of the panel." Moreover, unions thought that if workers have this pseudo-worker voice, then that might make them less tempted to join unions. Further on in Project 2025, a few paragraphs later, Brian, they call for banning card check. Card check is a tool that unions find as a very effective way to get workers to unionize instead of going through a bruising unionization election where management twists workers' arms and requires them to attend meetings where there are anti-union consultants talking about how horrible unions are. The union, once it gets a majority of workers at a workplace to sign cards saying they favor union, then they could pressure the employer to recognize the union.

Project 2025 would totally ban that. One thing that I found interesting about Project 2025, it left out some very important things regarding unions that Donald Trump had called for previously. When he was president, he said that if Congress passed a national right-to-work law, he would sign it. A lot of union leaders hated that, and Trump is trying to attract union leaders. The president of the Teamsters, Sean O'Brien, will speak at the Republican Convention, so it was interesting to me that Project 2025 leaves out Trump's call, Trump saying he would support a national right-to-work law.

I should explain what that is. Under right-to-work laws, employees in unionized workplaces don't have to pay a cent towards the union that bargains for them, that wins higher raises for them, that might have a grievance hearing for them if they feel that they've been demoted wrongly or fired wrongly. Union officials really opposed right-to-work laws because it might mean 10% to 20% of workers at unionized workplace will opt out of paying any union dues. It just makes unions poorer and weaker and harder for them to exercise their power, whether in politics or when they go on strike.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners we've gotten this long into the show without taking any phone calls, which is unusual, I know, but many of you have been asking for us to go into detail about things in the Project 2025 report. I really wanted to do that in this segment, and we've been doing it with longtime labor reporter, Steven Greenhouse. Now we will get in a few phone calls as we've been comparing Biden labor policy, Trump and Republican Party on-the-record labor policy, and these Project 2025 Heritage Foundation recommendations for Trump written, as Steven pointed out, largely by a former Trump administration, labor department official. Now we'll get in a few phone calls. Rachel in Stanford, you're on WNYC. Hi, Rachel. Thank you for calling in.

Rachel: Hi, Brian. I just wanted to ask your guest today about why Project 2025, and even the Biden administration, and previous administrations haven't really addressed the real elephants in the room. I would categorize those as housing, healthcare, and higher education. I grew up in the Rust Belt in the 1970s and really witnessed the decline of manufacturing and the offshoring of lots of manufacturing. My family had a family-owned business, and we were always witness to some of the labor issues at hand for big businesses and small businesses.

To me, it just seems like one of the reasons why so much got offshored was the cost of labor, and what are those economic driving forces that cost labor to be higher. I would argue the increased cost of higher education and the increased cost of healthcare. I'd like to know from your guest, why those topics are so avoided by various administrations, why they're not tackling it. Is it just because it steps too much on certain industries and profit centers? Because it seems to me if those things were tempered, if there were more speed bumps from a financial standpoint, put on those things, those three economic forces, then the ability to keep manufacturing here or temper some of the offshoring, all of those things would start to calm down.

Brian Lehrer: What a great question. I've often wondered, Steven, why Medicare for all, in particular, isn't something that corporate America rallies around and fights for because it would take the burden of health insurance off the workplace sector, reducing their costs. What do you say to Rachel and that question?

Steven Greenhouse: Great question, Rachel. Housing, healthcare, higher education, the three Hs. Obama really stuck his neck out and got Congress to enact Obamacare, which has made healthcare available to many people who are uninsured. Enables families to keep their kids on health insurance until they turn 26. You can't be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions. Obamacare is very important. Would I like to see Medicare for all? Yes, I think many workers would've liked that, but it was a senator in your state, Connecticut, that blocked that.

Obama, and Biden, and Clinton too, on higher education, they have expanded Pell Grants to make it possible for many people and poor, and families of moderate income to afford college. They provide grants, they provide loans, but when you do that, at the same time, colleges say, "Oh, all these people can now start to afford coming to our colleges. We could raise tuition." It's very hard to stop tuition from increasing. For a while, Biden was saying there should be free community college. He had embraced that proposal from Bernie Sanders, but it was shut down by some more conservative Democrats in Congress.

I think the Democrats have tried to do something on healthcare and on higher education, but not enough, I agree. Housing, I totally agree with you. I don't think the Democrats, I don't think Republicans on the federal level have done nearly enough. Republicans have, over the years, fought very hard to cut year after year, Section 8 housing subsidies. I often think that Biden or any Democratic president, any president, should launch a Marshall plan for housing because housing costs are way too high. They eat up far too much of a typical family's income. If families only have to pay 20% of their income rather than 35% or 40% of their income for rent, that would make a humongous difference. That would mean real gain.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. It's really the biggest driver of inflation in the United States, even though it's grocery prices and gasoline prices that usually make the news. We're going to do a separate later in the election season, on housing policy comparatively between the two parties because it's such a huge thing. Obviously it overlaps with labor policy, which is today's subject, but we're going to do housing as a separate. We do a lot of housing coverage on the show in the local context, and we're definitely going to do it in the presidential election context robustly in a separate. One more call before we run out of time. Stephen in Queens, you're on WNYC. Hi, Stephen.

Stephen: Good morning, and thank you very much for taking my call. My comment to you and your guest was that one, I don't think Trump even understands on half of that stuff that's in the Project '25 because I saw Steven Miller with some of what he had to say. I think they just told him, "Look, you just be you." The white grievance thing that I see telling mostly white men, "You got the shaft," and then at the same time out the other side of his mouth, the Black church that had more white people than I've ever seen in a Black church, the--

Brian Lehrer: You mean where Trump campaigned? Go ahead.

Stephen: Thank you. The barbershop where he talked about, "My mugshot and Frank Sinatra's," and I'm like, "Really, Kid? Sinatra was 22 years old. You look like a goat in a headlight." This type of stupidity is what I'm looking at. I see that as racist, and something out of Saturday Night Live, the turnaround into Blacks love the headshots and the sneakers, and like I said, the church and the barbershop crap, and all of that. At the same time, yes, we have been grieving. I saw Steve Miller talking to whites and Asians. I'm seeing Trump with what he said at the debate about them taking away the immigrants, taking away the Black jobs, and I guess our anger, and I can understand George Clooney, was, Joe, you needed to turn around and ask him what the hell is a Black job. Please describe for me the Black job that these people are taking from us.

Brian Lehrer: Stephen, let me ask you a follow-up question, because as somebody who obviously pays attention to the news and has the opinions you just articulated, how do you understand the apparent increase compared to the last election cycle of Latino and Black voters toward the Republicans and toward Trump? It's not going to be a majority, but adding points rather than losing them.

Stephen: Can I ask you and your guest, I wonder, it's gone up, but has it gone up really that much, or are we under the perception that, oh my God, it's gone up this much, and look? Because also with the computers, and you can go online and stuff, I think we may be believing stuff that may not actually be there. We might be seeing things that may not actually be.

Brian Lehrer: That's possible. It's possible. By the way, Stephen, you got off definitely the phrase of the week when you described-

Stephen: Sinatra?

Brian Lehrer: -Trump as a goat in the headlights. I have not heard goat in the headlights before and I love it.

Stephen: Excellent [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: No matter whether people support Trump or not, that's your choice.

Stephen: I didn't mean it that way. I just meant compared that picture of Sinatra as a kid. Come on.

Brian Lehrer: I know, a goat in the headlights, and you don't mean greatest of all time. Stephen, thank you very much. Steven Greenhouse, you get one more response to Stephen in Queens, and we're out of time.

Steven Greenhouse: Stephen, appreciate your comment. Yes, it's true that Trump tries to attract white workers by saying, "I want to get rid of DEI," which will help, especially workers of color. "I want to kick out all these Brown-colored people who are immigrants." I spoke the past few days with some union leaders in Michigan and Wisconsin, and they say, yes, Trump is trying to woo white workers, but they tell me they're trying to remind workers that remember that Trump had said one way to keep auto jobs in the United States is to move them from higher wage Michigan to the non-union South, And that Trump did nothing to raise the minimum wage, and they rolled back overtime.

These union leaders are trying to convince white workers, and Black workers, and Hispanic workers, and Asian workers that Trump really isn't a friend of workers. He talks the talk, but he doesn't really walk the walk. I think that message is slowly getting through. President Biden has other problems right now, but I know union people in a lot of these key swing states are trying to say it's the Democrats who are really fighting for workers. It's the Republicans who are fighting against higher minimum wage, making unions stronger, and many, many things that would help workers, yes.

Brian Lehrer: Obviously, more to say about labor policy, but for today, in this very long segment, we leave it there in honor, in part, of the late Jane McAlevey, a comparison of Biden, Republican platform, and Project 25 labor policies. Steven Greenhouse, now of The Century Foundation, thank you so much.

Steven Greenhouse: Great to be here, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.