No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Marjorie Taylor Greene sinks herself in court

Episode Date: April 24, 2022

Marjorie Taylor Greene sinks herself in a less-than-successful court appearance. Brian interviews Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz about his now-viral moment ripping Josh Hawley on the Senate floor, what he’d like to see done on marijuana legalization and student debt, and the latest on climate change legislation. And Liz Shuler, the president of the AFL-CIO, joins to discuss the string of unionizations happening across the country right now.Donate to the "Don't Be A Mitch" fund: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dontbeamitchShop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today we're going to talk about Marjor Taylor Green's court hearing and just some of the way she screwed herself. I interview Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz about his now viral moment ripping Josh Hawley on the Senate floor, what he'd like to see done on marijuana legalization and student debt, and the latest on climate change legislation. And I'm joined by Liz Schuller, the president of the largest federation of unions in the United States, the AFLCAO, to discuss the string of unionizations happening across the country right now. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So this past week, Marjor Telle Green was in court defending herself amid efforts to get her disqualified from the ballot in Georgia, thanks to her participation in the events of January 6th. So here are just a few of the more memorable moments from that day.

In fact, you think that Speaker Pelosi is a traitor to the country, right? I'm not answering that question. It's speculation. You've said that, haven't you, Ms. Green, that she's a traitor to the country? No, I haven't said that. Okay. Put up Appoints Exhibit 5, please. Oh, no, wait. Hold on now. I believe by not upholding the, securing the border, that that violates her oath of office. Ms. Green, did you advocate to President Trump to impose martial law as a way to remain in power? I don't recall.

So you're not denying, you did it. You just don't remember. I don't remember. Ms. Green, if somebody tried to unlawfully interfere with the process of counting the electoral votes unlawfully, that person would be an enemy of the Constitution. Wouldn't you agree? Does it define that way? Is it defined that way? Well, I'm asking for your understanding. If somebody broke the law in a way designed to interfere with the process of counting the electoral college votes, votes, that person would be an enemy of the Constitution.

You mean interrupting Congress? Is that what you're referring to? Doing anything unlawfully to interfere with the process of counting the electoral votes. Interrupting Congress, like when the Democrats interrupted Congress and had a sit-in on the House floor and stopped Congress? Excuse me, excuse me, student-er-up to the green. I'm entitled to ask my questions in the way I'd like to ask. them, Your Honor. I ask that she listened to my question and simply respond. May I proceed? Yes.

So if someone broke the law in an effort to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes, that person would be an enemy of the Constitution. Am I right about that? Breaking the law is unlawful. There's been over 700 people charged for what happened on January 6th. Right. And those people were trying to interfere. with the lawful process of counting the votes for the electoral college, right?

I would assume, yes, they did. They stopped the electoral count. Right. And so those people would be enemies of the Constitution. You would agree with that, right? I don't know if it, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if it defines it that way. I'm sorry, I just need to include one more because here's Marjorie Tegreen's lawyer

explaining who the real victim is in all of this. Our country's elected leaders were victimized right here in the very halls of Congress. Representative Green was a victim of this attack. Her life was in danger, she thought. She was scared and confused. Her children were frantic about what was going on and feared for her safety. She feared for her safety when the mob that she incited did the thing she incited. edited to do. I know we talk about the Republican victim complex a lot here, but man, when it

happens, it really is just a parody of itself. Okay, so that was her in court getting caught lying under oath about what she called Pelosi and then suddenly remembering once she realizes that they have proof of it, not recalling whether or not she suggested Trump should impose martial law because, you know, who among us wouldn't forget a conversation like that. And also pretending not to know whether someone who interfered with the counting of electoral votes would be an enemy of the Constitution. Now, the question in all of this is whether Marjorie Taylor-Green should be disqualified from the ballot for engaging in insurrection. The matter at hand here is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says, and I'll shorten here because

it's long, that no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. So what we're trying to figure out here is whether Marjorie Taylor-Green engaged in insurrection. Well, it's actually pretty simple. Here's a video that Green herself posted on her own Facebook account in the days leading up to January 6th. America reelected Donald J. Trump for four more years. You can't allow it to just transfer power peacefully like Joe Biden wants and allow him to become our president because he did not win this election. It's being stolen and the evidence is there.

There's a large group of us where organizing an effort to object to the electoral. college votes for Joe Biden in key states where there's real evidence that this election has been stolen. I am very convicted in what we're going to be doing on January 6th, and it's historic, and I feel it's very, very important. On January 6th, if you're able, there are going to be possibly a million or more people coming to Washington to be there for this historic event. It's critical for everyone to show up and show the nation. who we are. We aren't a people that are going to go quietly into the night. We are not a people that are going to be thrust into socialism without stopping it. She said, you can't allow it to

transfer power peacefully, meaning she was endorsing the insurrection that sought to stop the peaceful transfer of power. She said, it's critical to show up, meaning on January 6th, we aren't a people that are going to go quietly into the night. We are not a people that will be thrust into socialism without stopping it. And you know what happened on January 6th? Exactly what Marjorie Telle Green was advocating for, the insurrection. A mob showed up at the Capitol with exactly the intention

of not allowing a peaceful transfer of power. So we don't have to wonder whether she engaged in insurrection because there's literally video evidence of her engaging in insurrection. No one forced her to post that video onto her Facebook. Like she made the conscious decision not only to participate in the planning of January 6th, but to proudly display that. participation. That disastrous court appearance that you just heard clips from, you know, it proves her to be a completely non-credible actor, you know, someone who will lie through her teeth under oath,

someone who will pretend to have lost her memory, someone who will play dumb until the moment she realizes she's been caught. But in terms of the question at hand, whether she should be disqualified for engaging an insurrection, that issue was already proven well before she took the witness stand. It was proven the moment those insurrectionists followed her directions and storm the Capitol. I think I should say this too. I don't think that she should be disqualified because she's a Republican.

I honestly don't. That would set a really dangerous precedent to undermine our democratic process for partisan reasons. If Republicans want to elect a paper bag to represent them, go for it. Maybe they'd have less sexual harassment scandals if they did.

So I don't think Margie Tilly Green should be disqualified because she's a Republican. I think she should be disqualified because she violated the Constitution. That's it. This is black and white. and the fact that this is still, even a question blows my mind.

Like, we had hundreds of people stormed the U.S. Capitol looking to assassinate Democrats and Mike Pence for standing in the way of Trump declaring himself the winner of an election that he lost. And Marjorie Taylor-Green, among others, was responsible for that event for stoking those lies that push those people to show up. You don't get to violate the Constitution and then pretend that you didn't just because your insurrection failed the first time. So whether that disqualification will actually happen obviously remains to be seen. seen, but in terms of what should happen here, it couldn't be any more clear.

Okay, so what does happen next? The judge in the case is going to give both parties until Thursday the 28th of April to file their follow-up briefings on some details that were requested by the judge. Once he has that, he'll make his decision within a week. But the judge doesn't have final say. His decision is a recommendation for the Georgia Secretary of State, which is Republican Brad Raffensberger. It's Raffensberger who decides if Green is qualified or not.

to be on the ballot. He could also say that he doesn't have the authority himself to make that ruling. In any of these cases, whether he deems her qualified or unqualified or refuses to make a ruling one way or the other, there's always the opportunity to appeal Raffensberger's decision that goes to the Fulton County Superior Court, and their decision could be appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals and ultimately the Georgia Supreme Court. So all of those are the options. I'm not going to opine one way or the other on what I think will happen because it doesn't matter. But I will say that we've all collectively been around long enough to know better than to put our hopes in the hands of a Republican, right? Like, granted Brad Raffensberger did stand up to Trump when he tried to get him to find 11,780 votes in Georgia.

But at the same time, Raffensberger also defends Georgia's voter suppression law. Like, we're only setting ourselves up for failure if we're actually waiting for a Republican official to swoop in like a white knight and save us. So instead of banking all of our time and energy on trying to disqualify Marjorie Taylor Green from the ballot, as clear as it is that she should be disqualified, I think that it's probably a more effective use of our time to use this circus act that is Marjorie Tillergreen and show voters across the country that this is what the Republican Party is. When you cast your ballot for the GOP,

you are supporting these people, people who are more concerned with attacking trans kids and punishing companies that don't tow the party line and calling anyone who doesn't agree with them pedophiles and groomers and banning books and stripping women of their bodily autonomy, and, oh yeah, attempting to stage a coup to undermine the results of a free and fair election. All while the Democrats are trying to pass legislation capping the cost of insulin

and legalizing marijuana and making childcare and universal pre-K free and allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices and weaning us off our dependence of fossil fuels. Are the Democrats perfect? Of course not. But if the Democrats aren't giving you everything you want, is the answer allowing Republicans to win and getting nothing? There is a reason that Republicans rely so much on these culture wars that are about nothing. And it's because they have zero to offer in the way of policy, in the way of making

your life better. Like, you've got Republicans in Texas who are so corrupt, so incompetent that they can't even keep the power on. And they get reelected. You've got Republicans in Florida who are about to leave a bunch of residents with higher taxes because their focus is on taking way Disney's self-governance status as retaliation for having a political opinion that they didn't share. And they get reelected. You've got Republicans protecting fossil fuel companies and leaving us reliant on petro-states while those same exact countries are waging genocide and they get re-elected. Like, there is a reason that they focus on the cultural war stuff and it's because it grabs your attention better than policy does. It's on purpose. It is a distraction because they

know that if they had to run on an actual agenda, they lose. So instead, their strategy is to just trick you with bullshit about groomers and pedophiles and socialism and wars on Christmas and on. Don't buy it. The fact is that we've got a choice here between two parties. and their priorities couldn't be more different. Marjorie Taylor Green represents the future of one of those parties, and the only way to change that, it's not relying on her being disqualified because, let's be honest,

for every one of her who's kicked off the ballot, 10 more Marjorie Taylor Greens will pop up in races across the country. It is to deliver Republicans a repudiation at the ballot box. It's to show up and prove to them that these fringe lunatics espousing fringe ideas is a losing proposition. Only when they lose, only when power is taken away from them, Will they realize that they need to change course? And that doesn't happen alone.

It's on us to make that happen. Next step is my interview with Senator Schatz. Today we have the U.S. Senator from Hawaii, Brian Schatz. Thanks so much for coming on. Thanks for having me. So you had a pretty amazing moment on the Senate floor a few days back where you called out Republican Senator Josh Hawley for blocking Defense Department nominees

all while criticizing Biden for not doing enough on Ukraine as he was voting, against Ukraine aid and demanding everyone that he doesn't like resign and after he exonerated Trump for withholding lethal aid to Ukraine. And yet, despite all of this blatant hypocrisy, we just don't usually see that kind of stuff like your speech coming out of the Senate. What led to that moment and what's the response been like from both, you know, those of us who are in your party and people on the other side of the aisle as well? Well, it was a bit unexpected. I mean, I didn't, you know, I knew I was going to go up and ask for, you know,

consent. I was going to go and take a floor action to try to get this nominee confirmed because it's necessary. I mean, this person is in charge of logistics for the Department of Defense. And I think, you know, lots of, you know, regular folks don't pay a lot of attention to defense logistics, except now that we're watching sort of every twist and turn of this Russian war, we understand the importance of having your logistics chain, your transportation, your fuel, your electricity, your food, all of that really very much matters and differentiates our United States military from other powerful militaries because we get all of that stuff right, but it's not automatic. You need leadership, and this person was very well qualified to lead logistics for the Department

of Defense. So I was just, you know, angry and trying to get this person confirmed thinking maybe that I could. And then Holly sort of just launched into his set piece. It was like a 12-minute, you know, he had flipped. charts like he just wanted to use it as an excuse to blast the Biden administration's foreign policy and I just and I had no prepared remarks for for to respond to that because I just didn't occur to me that he was going to be so ridiculous and then I just got angry and started sort of shouting and I was talking to my I have three brothers no sisters and you know I'm the youngest and so my

brother separately texted me and so like I've seen that version of you I was just Matt yeah and I think the reason that it resonated is not because it was some extraordinary piece of oration, but just like it resonated because everyone else is so pissed off and kind of wondering why a person who raised his fist in solidarity with the people who tried to overthrow the American government is still treated like a member in good standing. And like, I guess we're not supposed to mention that because it's old. And so I do think that one of the things Democrats have to do, even if it feels redundant, even if you don't want to be that guy that's always sort of

reminding people about the insurrection. And even if the pollsters tell us that it's like not the number one issue, we still have to remind people that what's coming up as a choice for voters is between a party that believes in democracy and a party that doesn't. And, you know, what strikes me, Brian, as as as a important proof point is I don't think a lot of people know whether President Zelensky is left, right or center. Because it's entirely beside the point, right? He's pro-democracy, so we're for him. And we've got to build a pro-democracy movement in the United States

that includes conservatives, old-school conservatives. And it's not to say that the center of gravity shouldn't be on the progressive left. Of course, it should. But we ought to welcome people into the pro-democracy movement, And if for no other reason, then, hey, no other issue can be solved without a functioning democracy. But also, it's a really smart way to win. Well, look, you know, to that point, we have people like you. We have people like just recently Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow,

who ripped into her Republican colleague for fundraising off the idea that she was grooming kindergartners. You've both captured a lot of attention across the country these last few days. And I think it's just the authenticity of calling out. They're bullshit, right? And yet that's not something that we usually get. We get slogans and canned answers and the usual politicking. So has there been any discussion among other Democrats on how to better approach these issues, like how to how to focus on people like you as a model for how to respond to this stuff, as opposed to what we're doing right now, which the argument can be made is not exactly working? Yeah, I think, I mean, look, I'm not sure I should be a model,

But I just, I would say this, I think we've got a lot of very talented communicators. And oftentimes they are talked out of what they really want to say by a bunch of less talented political operatives who take a very arithmetic approach, a very linear approach to public opinion, which is to say, they take a poll and they say, okay, this is where this is where the public is. meet them where they are, right? And look, I'm not above looking at a poll. And if something is deeply unpopular, I'm probably going to avoid it unless it's a question of core values. But I'm not, you know, I'm not suggesting that no politician should ever review polling information and use it to be more persuasive. But I am saying is that a poll doesn't tell you how you as a leader, how the grassroots engaged can move public opinion. And my favorite example is, of this was when

former President Trump instituted the Muslim ban, right? And Murphy and Booker and Maisie Hirono and others were, and Liz Warren and others were really pissed. And there were some pollsters

who quietly came to us and said, hey, be careful. This thing's a little dicey, blah, blah, blah. And we just essentially told them like go pound sand because there are some things that you just don't take a poll on. And it was our collective outrage that moved the polling numbers, right? The idea is that public leaders ought to be able to move public opinion. Now, there are limits to that, of course,

in an increasingly polarized world with an increasingly insane Republican party. But we have to remember that the idea is not to figure out what people already think and then say that. The idea is to figure out what we want to say and how it can be most persuasive. I was speaking with Jamie Raskin a few weeks ago and he told a story about how he was on the campaign trail and someone told him, you know, everything that you said was great, but stay away from the gay marriage stuff. It's not where we all are. It's not where the party is, not where the country is. And he said, well, it was at that point that I realized I don't want to be in the political center. I want to be in the moral center. And so, you know, that's why you're elected.

That's right. And I also think, I mean, people, I mean, I remember this with Obama. Whenever he got more forceful, he got more popular with the base. we also got more popular with swing voters because swing voters are imagined to be this kind of like mythical, you know, kind of exactly in the middle on all the issues. And the truth is swing voters are heterodox ideologically, sometimes not sure what they think or sometimes sure what they think, but it doesn't fit neatly between the parties. And what they look for is some sense of passion. Authenticity, yes. But conviction is what people want to see in folks. And it is not always a take the left wing position, take the right wing position, and then split the difference.

And that's what's going to be attractive to the middle voter, because the middle voter often is a disengaged voter who's just pissed off at every politician. And if you sound like every other politician, it doesn't matter if you split the ideological difference. They don't like you. Right. Look, you had mentioned polarization today. We see so often where the evidence is so insurmountable against someone on the right, for example, and yet their party and their supporters don't seem to care. Do you think that we're able to overcome, you know, this polarization that we see today to actually sway people still? Look, I don't know in the sort of short run that, you know, we're going to be able to depolarize. And it is an international phenomenon.

But what I think is that if we are focused on the right things and if we come from a place of conviction and we are unafraid to describe the modern Republican Party accurately, right? And the problem is that actually we are afraid to describe the modern Republican Party accurately because it makes you sound like a frothing partisan, right? I just sort of didn't go to the Senate to be some sort of like Democratic warrior against the repul. Like I I like the aspect of the Senate where you actually have to work on a bipartisan basis. So even I, as I want to describe things accurately, I'm like, God, that makes me sound a little nutty, right? But the problem is that it's true. The problem is that one of the primary selling propositions of the Biden presidency was that you could put him in power, you could put Democrats in power, and you could stop worrying about these nut jobs because the adults would be in charge.

And I think, unfortunately, we can't stop worrying about the nut jobs. The fever did not break. And in fact, there's now a new generation of MAGA Republicans who are determined and I think are going to politically live beyond Donald Trump. And so it wasn't as simple as just vanquishing him electorally. and, you know, he may come back and we may have to do that again. It is about essentially a creeping authoritarianism in the United States. And we need to take that very, very seriously and not let some center-left pundit tell us we're talking about the wrong thing and what is the point of doing a January 6th committee anyway, because I think basically what people want to see in us is a sense that we know why we're in office, we know what we're fighting for, and it's America itself.

I'll just make one tactical point. Usually the midterms are lost by the party that seems to have overreached, right? And usually that's in the legislative sense of the word. You know, they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and they got Schallect. We passed the Affordable Care Act and people were grouchy about it until they figured out what was in it. And we got Schillac. This selection cycle is a little bit different in the sense that although we are the kind of incumbent party holding the trifecta, we still have a very, very strong case to make that these other guys

are terrifying and you should not put them in power. And that's not an abstraction. And that's not just an excuse for not having enacted, you know, this or that bill. I think that is at least part of the best case for voting in the midterms is that these people may actually dismantle democracy itself. They have a plan. They tried to execute it last time. They've now got more people, more secretaries of state running for office, more county clerks running for office, more crazy people in positions of power to try to execute a coup, maybe not by storming the capital, but maybe just by lawyering up and counting the votes wrong. Yeah. And to your point of overreaching, we've also got in the states, we've got abortion bans that are aggressively

unpopular. We've got book bans. We've got, you know, everything that you can imagine in the states. These are These are not one-offs. These are blueprints for what Republicans will do once they have power more broadly. Speaking of that, of these legislative wins, we've got midterms approaching. Biden is losing support among young people and progressives. And like it or not, midterms are a referendum on the president. There are a few issues that are especially important to progressives, and that includes marijuana legalization and canceling student debt. What would you like to see the president and Congress do on these issues and what is the likelihood of one or the other getting it done? canceling student debt is within the president's authority, and I think you should do it. I think it's good public policy. I think it's good economic policy not to have this generation, actually a couple of generations saddled with an extraordinary amount of debt. I just don't think

that's good economics. And there's no sort of macroeconomic reason not to do it. It's not going to increase inflation. There's a kind of, hey, I paid my dues. Why are these guys getting a break argument against it? But I find that to be like just not particularly compelling. killing. But that's in the executive branch. And I do think the president has authority in that space. I would like to see the president evolve a little further on marijuana, although obviously it's a big improvement over Donald Trump. But it's kind of similar to where Obama was, which means like we haven't made a ton of progress, even though in lots and lots and lots of states, marijuana is effectively legal. It's not federally legal. It's difficult to bank. We haven't done the

reforms on the criminal justice side. We can't even research. through FDA, it's potential medicinal benefits. And by the way, the Coast Guard is still on the high seas, seizing marijuana, right? And then they take a press, they do a press conference with like a bunch of marijuana on the side. And it's like, I don't know, a mile and a half from a marijuana shop. I'm just going to say you can walk into any, I'm in California. You can walk into any weed shop as if, as if it's a liquor store, as if it's an apple store and buy weed perfectly legally. Yeah. And out of the port of Los Angeles, these Coast Guard vessels are like catching the bad guys with marijuana on board.

Look, I'm not one of these people who thinks we should move all the way to saying marijuana is medicine. I'm more on the libertarian side, which is to say this is clearly something people use. It is clearly something where in which black and brown people are incarcerated at five times the rate for marijuana possession as white people, even though they use marijuana at the same rates. And so to me, this is a justice issue. And to the extent that I'm, you know, sort of on the social side, libertarian and a live and let live kind of person, I just think it's time for us to move on.

I also would just add, and I think this is probably the main point you're getting at, which is this is a very powerful electoral issue. Like left, right and center, people are just like, let's get on with it. And it is an opportunity for us to demonstrate the difference between the parties. And of course, it matters to people. you know, in the 18 to, let's say, 38 age bracket. Okay, so let's move on to climate. How do you reconcile the need to make sure that prices stay low enough

so that Democrats can stay in power without pissing off too many people with the need to transition renewables as quickly as possible? Because, you know, the most recent UN report found that we have until 2025 to stop increasing emissions, we have until 2030 to reduce them by at least 43, You represent an island. You know, you're also a young guy. So I think you have a pretty vested interest in stopping the worst effects of climate change. Yeah, I mean, a couple of thoughts. First, I think what President Biden is doing makes sense in terms of providing a million barrels a day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And I think we ought to do, we want to just

understand that we currently have a system that operates on fossil fuels. And that even the most passionate climate activists, if they're honest, understands that that's not something you can swap out overnight. And therefore, unless you think people shouldn't have electricity or gasoline in their cars, that we're going to have to provide for our current system as we transition to a better one. So that's number one. Number two is clean energy is cheaper. Clean energy is cheaper in terms of foreign policy. It's cheaper in terms of the, you know, what they call externalities, the pollution that it doesn't cause. But it's also literally cheaper. Like per electron, it is now officially cheaper. Not in every instance. I understand that. And of course,

there's a difference between generating electrons and then putting fuel in something and lighting it on fire to combust and go someplace. So, you know, it gets rather technical. But the short version is that if you are worried about prices over the long run, or if you are worried about the United States government or the United States citizenry funding petro-fascists, the best way to move on from all of this nonsense, whether it's the Middle East or South America or Russia, the best way to move on is to just develop our own clean energy resources. And by the way, this is no longer a technical challenge. I worked in Hawaii with the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative now for about 20 years. And back a couple of decades ago, like this stuff was not settled, right?

Intermittent energy, battery storage, how are we going to do this on the grid? We still have some of those challenges, but actually a lot of those technical challenges have been solved. And the technology is mostly there to get us at least two-thirds of the way home. The problem is a political one. We have a political system that has been overcome with fossil fuel money. And that's the problem. It is not like this stuff is infeasible. It's just that the politics haven't caught up with the reality that we need to do this.

What's the situation look like in Hawaii? I mean, that's a blue state through and through. You're not connected in the same way that all of the other, you know, the lower 48 countries are. What's the situation like out there with regard to renewable energy? Well, we're doing great. I mean, we started, look, I mean, we were at, I think, 30, 40% clean energy. But that was because we used the gas, which was a byproduct of the, of, of, the sugar plantation and that but once that was gone we went down to like four or five six

percent clean energy since then we're now and we passed a 100 percent clean energy law and the cool thing about it is you know I was in the legislature I was in my late 20s we passed this law which was a voluntary renewable energy standard you know 20 percent by I think 2020 and then it became a mandatory standard and then you know and then we basically made it tougher and tougher and ratcheted up our ambition every three to five years. And every time we set a new threshold, we exceeded it by a lot. Because if you set the market in the direction of clean energy, it just goes. And so now we're into the 30% clean energy realm, which is more, by the way, than any of the technical people thought we could even handle on a grid. So now we

have a 100% clean energy statute. By 2040, we'll be 100% clean energy. So, So, and it's very popular. Like we had the same, you know, we had Indo-Paycom, you know, the Pacific Command back then. We had the Waikiki hotels. We had the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable all freaking out and saying, you know, we're going to have energy reliability problems. We're going to have brownouts and blackouts and prices are going to go up. You shouldn't do this.

We did it anyway. And then about eight years later, they actually just decided this is pretty great for our economy. And there aren't power supply or power quality issues. once we start to do this, it's going to look obvious and it's going to look ridiculous that we didn't do it a lot earlier. Right, especially with, you know, stuff like Russia going on right now where the United States and Europe were funding to the tune of billions of dollars, this genocidal war in Ukraine. Okay, let's finish off with this. What is your message to voters in terms of your pitch to keep Democrats in power in a midterm year where the party historically

loses and with a president who has a low approval rating to keep Democrats in power and expand our Senate majority so that we can eliminate the filibuster, what would Democrats be able to accomplish with a functioning Senate majority? If we get a Senate majority that gives us a little more room to maneuver, we can pass voting rights. We can pass marijuana reform. We can reduce the price of insulin and other prescription medication. We can give statehood to D.C. we can take even more meaningful climate action. So that's on the positive side. On the negative side, and I think this is worth saying,

and I don't think politicians sort of relish talking about this, but there's a creeping authoritarianism in the United States. It is led by Donald Trump, but it is not exclusive to him. And they need to be beat. They need to be beat for practical reasons, which is to say Donald Trump is going around the country, installing his cronies who are willing to ignore election results and overturn democracy itself.

And that is worth fighting against, whether it's a midterm or a presidential, the threat is real, and unfortunately, it has not gone away. We'll leave it there. Brian Schatz, I hope to hear a lot more from you. Thanks for taking the time today. I appreciate it. Thank you. My pleasure.

Thanks again to Senator Schatz. Now we have the president of the AFL-CIO, Liz Schuller. Thanks for coming back on. Hi, Brian. Thanks for having me on the show. Of course. So we spoke a few months ago when you just become president of the AFL-CIO. A lot has changed in the universe of unions since then.

So can you give us an overview of the latest news on unions in the last few weeks? Sure. Well, I think not much has changed in the sense that workers are still rising up. They're still in motion everywhere, organizing, striking, walking off the job, making their voices heard and coming together collectively, which is so exciting for us in the labor move. that people are finally seeing that the way to make change is actually through coming together and by joining unions. So I think we last talked around Striketober and then fast forward to today

and coming out of the pandemic, people are still frustrated. They're still fed up with what they've been seeing, how they've been treated, and they want more. Now, I feel like, you know, every morning I wake up, five more Starbucks have unionized. how many unionization efforts should we expect coming up at Starbucks and Amazon, since those are the two primary examples that we're seeing every day? I'm just so excited because these workers have been so courageous, stepping up against all odds, against Goliath, if you will. And they've just shown so much courage.

And we're inspired, I think, workplaces all across the country, are feeling the energy and the excitement and the enthusiasm. Even though Starbucks and Amazon are getting the headlines, there's worker organizing going on across industries, across all types of jobs, across demographics. So it truly is something that's permeating the economy right now. I think primarily because the pandemic really did expose the vulnerabilities that workers face not only with safety and, of course,

wages and hours and all of that, but also the burnout that people are feeling, the toxic work environments that they're seeing. And so collective action now is being seen as the way to make change. And so I think we're going to be seeing a lot more organizing efforts, whether it's Starbucks, Amazon. We've seen research assistance in the UC system, 17,000 rising up, forming their union, Silicon Valley, museums, culture workers, non-profit workers. So I think it's vast and it's just getting started. I think it's a testament, too, to how the Democrats have overseen this recovery and a recovery that was supposed to take, what, four years,

and they got into office, passed the American Rescue Plan, didn't focus on just tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And instead, you know, like I said, this recovery that was supposed to take four years, we've seen the most jobs added in any 14-month stretch of time in U.S. history. So I think, you know, when you have a tight labor market like that, you can have people who aren't going to just take the scraps that are given them, take the crumbs that are given to them, and can finally, like, not only unionize, but look for better jobs

and not just kind of say, like, well, this is the best we got. So I think it's the notion that coming out of the pandemic, people were called essential, frontline employees. Right. And then right when we're starting to come out of it, they're being treated as expendable. Like, oh, all of a sudden, the billions that we made during the pandemic, we don't have enough to share with the people who actually made this company profitable or made these hospitals work and got patients, you know, nurse back to health, held people's hands while they were dying. So that's the stakes. And that's why we saw bakery workers going on strike, John Deere workers going on strike, because companies were making money.

money hand over fist. And you're right, the labor market is tighter because we had, you know, the investments that the Biden administration was willing to make. We're also now seeing the benefits of the infrastructure law that was passed, starting to trickle out into communities and the potential for a lot more job creation. So people are saying there's more out there. I can do better for myself. I can have a high road, high wage job and put this crappy job that I've been suffering in for a while aside and do something better. Now, is there ever a tipping point at which, for example, all Starbucks or all Amazon employees become unionized or is it always piecemeal, always location by location, and you can just have one Starbucks on third street

that's union and then the next Starbucks on 4th Street, that isn't? Well, the beauty of a union is it is democratic and it's organic. And so workers coming together and having conversations in a particular workplace is how it gets started. And you can build on that store by store in the instance of Starbucks. Or there's the alternative is the employer can voluntarily recognize the union. So I suppose we can hold out hope that Howard Schultz will say, you know what? Maybe this isn't so bad. We're going to voluntarily recognize a union at Starbucks. Sure. We would love to see that happen. I don't think it's going to. So until then, the momentum will build, probably store by store. But the good news is, is it can take on any form or fashion that the workers

themselves want to see. And what is beautiful about organizing is it truly is at the ground level workers talking to each other, identifying the issues that really matter to them. And it often is wages and benefits, health care. But it's also some of the work environment issues, the workplace culture issues, things like scheduling, where you want to have that predictability. You want to have control over your life. You want to be able to plan, you know, being able to pick your kid up from daycare or being able to take a class online. And right now, workers are pretty much at the victim or, you know, they don't have the power or they at least feel powerless to be able to have a say in those intangibles. And so having a union and the ability to collectively bargain those issues

is what we do, right, in the labor movement. And we say, you know what? No, actually, workers should have the ability to have more of a say in how their managers are treating them or how their schedules are laid out. And so that's exactly what we're seeing. Now, you'd mentioned this idea of momentum. And I think, I think, first of all, that's what we're seeing right now, the first Starbucks, the first Amazon, the first of all of these institutions that unionized, all of a sudden, we see a flood of them afterwards. I imagine that the momentum will really start to pick up once these unionized stores start to see the fruits of their labor. So when did they negotiate their first contracts, for example? Sure. And the process,

you know, can be long and it can be quick, depending on how much employer opposition you have. And we all know that when workers come together and have more power, it's very threatening, usually, to companies. Now, we do have some examples where we have good partnerships with companies, where they realize that having workers at the table who have a voice and a say is actually going to make the company more successful because, you know, you have a happier workforce and more productive workforce, that's better for the company. Less turnover. That's right. And those companies are, however, unfortunately in the minority. Most companies feel very threatened when employees want to come together and unionize. So if they're kicking and screaming along the way,

there are going to be delays informing the union, of course. But once the National Labor Relations Board holds the election, contract talks can begin immediately. And I will say that first contract, often can be the most difficult because the employers recognize that it's setting a baseline. And so they're going to fight you, right? They're not going to want you to get good raises and good benefits. So they're going to push hard back, but that's the beauty of having a union is you have an equal place across that table and you have the law behind you. Because often when workers get together and they do a walkout to make a point,

they go to work the next day and they don't really have the sustainability. and they don't have that contract that's enforceable by law. Now, what seems to be the biggest obstacle for unionization efforts? Like, when union drives fail, what is it that scares people? Well, you hit on it. It's fear. And for the most part, when workers come together, it's very exciting, by the way, and you start talking to your coworkers, and you're like, hey, I'm worried about this.

How do you feel about it? And then you start feeling that momentum. And once the employer gets wind of it, like they did at Amazon, they start first hiring consultants to union bust, which are very expensive. They spend millions of dollars to fight the union. Which is ironic because you would think that in the midst of all of this, if they have that much expendable cash, where might be a more effective place to put that money? Yeah, if they put the money they spent on union consultants into actual wage increases. Yeah, exactly. that would be, you know, the end of it, right? But they do the union busting consultants. They also will do all kinds of fear tactics, scare tactics, intimidation, surveillance. You know, they try to have these captive audience meetings, they call them, where they invite workers into the office with the CEO. And this actually happened to me and my mother, when we were trying to organize clerical workers at the electric utility company in Portland, Oregon, when I first got

started and it's classic the company says oh well it's just you and me right we don't need a third party or someone to come between us we can work these things out directly um we're family right and so then you start seeing the company up the ante and usually the first thing they'll do is give workers a slight wage increase all of a sudden when the union comes in oh we're generous but it's usually a tactic, right, to discourage people from unionizing. They'll also try to fire people who are union activists to try to have a chilling effect and scare other people. But the law is on your side. So if anyone's thinking about forming a union, I would say that most of everything I mentioned is illegal, but companies get away with it because the penalties are so low. And that's

One thing we're trying to change is change the law to balance the scales back on behalf of workers and have real penalties, enforcement penalties, monetary penalties for companies who violate the law. Because right now it's a slap on the wrist. Now, more broadly speaking, what percent of union employees are paid more for the same work, you know, versus their non-union counterparts? Yeah, we have a whole place on our website dedicated to what we call the union difference. And yes, workers make more money. And in fact, especially if you're a woman, a person of color, it's shown that we make more,

I think it's 14 or 15% more for women and hire if you're a black worker, Latino worker. And so I would direct you to aflcio.org for that information. But I think in the end, we absolutely see what we call the union difference in wages, health care, that you're more likely to have health care benefits in a unionized workplace, because you're bargaining those benefits across the table from the employer and they're not just going to give it to you out of the goodness of their heart. Retirement security. People today are so retirement insecure. Most people, I think it's 40% of people don't have $400 in savings for an emergency, let alone retirement savings. And so only by banding together and negotiating that,

with your employer, are you able to create that more sustainable way of work and planning for your future? So you'd actually just looked into the great resignation, which we've been hearing about for months. Can you give a little information on that and what you've looked into, what that uncovered? Yeah, I think the headlines that we've been seeing over the past few months of workers quitting their jobs, looking for more, were staggering. I think, you know, in one months time, several months in a row, it was four million workers quitting their jobs. Now, many of them went back to work, but this churn we're seeing of people fed up with toxic environments, you know, knowing that there's more out there, has emboldened workers to start to

make that change. And so the research that we did, we wanted to get underneath why people were quitting. And of course, the pandemic had something to do with it. But more people, it was fascinating. Wages and benefits were a driver, but more people were saying that it was workplace culture, the quote intangibles, the toxic environment, the burnout, the bad bosses, the bad coworkers, the bad customers, and the feeling of powerlessness that goes along with it. But what was fascinating is in our survey, they recognized when asked that collective action actually could solve for that. And you don't have to just sit back and take it that coming together actually can make a difference. Great. Well, we'll leave it there. Liz Schuller, thank you again for taking

the time and, you know, exciting to see all of this stuff happening and hoping for plenty more on the horizon. Thank you, Brian. And for anyone who wants to organize a union, get out there, start talking to your coworkers, and we're here to help. Thanks again to Liz Schuller. That's it for this episode. Already have a really fun one lined up for next week. So remember to subscribe if you haven't already, and throw me a review if you have a chance. Okay, thanks, everyone, and talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie,

interviews captured and edited for YouTube and Facebook by Nicholas Nicotera, and recorded in Los Angeles, California. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app. Feel free to leave a five-star rating and a review, and check out Brian Tyler Cohen.com for links to all of my other channels. Thank you.