The Young Turks - Sean O'Brien Interview

Episode Date: January 30, 2025

Stephen Miller SPARS With Jake Tapper Over “Left Wing” Federal Workers. TYT INTERVIEWS: SEAN O’BRIEN. A new Trump executive order calls for the deportation of non-citizens who criticize Israel. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. You know, welcome to our trash revolution. I'm so upset. Oh my God. The guy! Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and we have a colossal show ahead for you today. The president of the Teamsters Union, Sean O'Brien, will be joining us in the first hour to talk about a whole host of issues.

obviously we're gonna discuss labor. I can't wait to hear what his thoughts are in regard to Donald Trump ousting pro labor members of the National Labor Relations Board. I also want to know what he thinks about Senator Rand Paul's recent comments about how he is unlikely to confirm Donald Trump's labor secretary pick, who happens to be pro worker, and also happens to be someone who is recommended to Trump by Sean O'Brien himself. So stick around for that interview, It's going to be fantastic. But before we get to that, a lot of other news to cover, including, well, promises made, promises kept when it comes to Donald Trump.

But in some cases, he made some bad promises. And it looks like he intends to make good on those bad promises. So we'll get to that. But before we get to that and a whole host of other stories, let's start off with this. I just want to, but I want to really drill down on this chick because it's so important. There's two million employees in the federal government. Overwhelmingly, the career federal service in this country is far left, left wing. The American people- I don't know that to be a fact.

Stephen Miller's claim that nearly all people who work for the federal government are like leftists, likely explains why last night President Donald Trump and his administration offered buyouts for federal workers willing to resign from their post. Now of course, President Donald Trump, along with Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency seem to feel purging the government of federal workers is actually a really great way to reduce spending and limit the size of government. But there are substantial consequences to what they're pursuing. And before we get to those ramifications, well, let me tell you what is actually happening,

what Trump's plan entails. So Trump's administration is offering 2 million federal workers the chance to take a deferred resignation, which means that if they agree to resign between now and February 6th, the administration would pay their full salaries through September. Now, the offer was made through a memo by the Office of Personnel Management titled A Fork in the Road. That was emailed to federal employees. It laid out four pillars that the reformed federal workforce will be built around, noting that the federal workforce should be comprised of employees who are reliable, loyal, trustworthy, and who strive for excellence

in their daily work. Employees will be subject to enhance standards of suitability and conduct as we move forward. I think the word loyalty is especially relevant in that statement. But nonetheless, employees who wish to resign were told to, one, select reply to this email, to type the word resign into the body of this reply email, hit send. I like how thorough they were with the instructions there. Now, according to a guidance memo from the Office of Personnel Management, employees who accept the offer will promptly have their duties reassigned or eliminated. I think they're looking to eliminate these roles.

Now, they will then be placed on paid administrative leave until the end of September. A full-time federal employee, or all full-time federal employees, are eligible to take this offer with a few exceptions, which include members of the military, postal workers, and positions related to immigration enforcement and national security. But if the federal workers decide, nah, I'm going to refuse to take this deal and they think that their jobs will be safe, they're sadly mistaken. Trump's administration actually made very clear writing that at this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency, but should your position be eliminated, you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.

Now, an email to the heads of federal agencies also said that a substantial number of workers could be reclassified to at will status, which to be clear would make it significantly easier to fire them. As far as the Department of Government Efficiency goes, it's pretty clear that the leader, Elon Musk, had a hand in crafting this email. Why do I say that? Well, it had the same subject line and similar language as an email that he sent asking Twitter employees to resign back in 2022. So how many federal workers are likely to take this offer, especially since those who don't could still lose their jobs? Well, a senior administration official told NBC News that they expect 5% to 10% of the federal workforce to quit, which they estimate could lead to around

$100 billion in savings. And while 5 to 10% doesn't really seem like that much, in reality, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people who would leave their roles in the federal government. Remember, there are about two million federal workers. And while there is certainly waste and way too much bureaucracy in Washington, I'm not denying that that's a reality, this ham-handed approach could really backfire. Untold numbers of frontline health workers in the Veterans Affairs Department, officials who process loans for home buyers or small businesses, and contractors who help procure the next generation of military weaponry, I think we can get rid of them, could all head for the exits at once.

It could also mean losing experienced food inspectors and scientists who test the water supply while disrupting everything from air travel to consumer product protections. Terry Clower, who's an economist over at George Mason University, says that the offer could also spur the most talented federal employees with the best private sector prospects to leave. So how does that work if you're trying to accelerate government efficiency if who you drive away are your best workers? Democrats like Tim Cain are also warning the federal workers to not take Donald Trump's deal. But he gives them this advice for a completely different reason. Let's take a look. The federal employees received an interesting email at the end of the day today.

Tender your resignation and then boy, it's just going to be a gravy train. You're just going to get paid for seven months without working. The president has no authority to make that offer. There's no budget line item to pay people who are not showing up for work. This is a guy who made this promise to contractors again and again and again when he was a private business guy. So my message to federal employees who received this is, yeah, the president has tried to terrorize you for about a week. And then gives you a little sweetheart offer. Don't be fooled.

He's tricked hundreds of people with that offer. If you accept that offer and resign, he'll stiff you just like he stiffed the contractors. He doesn't have any authority to do this. Well, to be fair, contractors often aren't represented by unions, but these federal workers are. So if they're promised this deal, and then Donald Trump doesn't make good on that deal, well, they have union representation that can pursue litigation against the federal government. Also, unions representing federal workers are furious and say that their members will actually get stiff. It's interesting because the unions agree and they want their workers to stay in place.

And ironically, the buyout offer may have the opposite, exact opposite effect of what Trump intended because some federal workers are now saying that the offer convinced them to stay in their positions despite initially wanting to leave the federal government. In the popular Fed News subreddit, one alleged federal worker wrote, quote, I'll be honest, before that email went out, I was looking for any way to get out of this fresh hell. But now I am fired up to make these goons as frustrated as possible, return to office, be damned. And that's the other thing, in order to inflict a little bit of pain for those who choose

to keep their jobs in the federal government, Donald Trump is requiring them to go back to the office. Another worker wrote, quote, I've never been more motivated to stay. Before the buyout memo, I was ready to go job hunting. but then a revelation hit. I took an oath under this position to the American people and leaving my job under the current state would be failing to maintain my oath as a civil servant. So we'll see how this plays out, but clearly Donald Trump is attempting to push people

out of the federal government. This is something that he promised to do on the campaign trail, so I'm not surprised that he's doing it. And maybe this is the first phase, try to weed people out. with an offer, with a, you know, if he actually falls through on it, a relatively decent severance for people who are going to not have to worry about going into work and don't have to worry about a paycheck up until September of this year. But a lot of people are apparently deciding that they're going to stay. And the question is, what does he do after that? And look, I actually

don't really have a problem with audits being done to see whether or not there's too much bureaucracy in a government agency to question whether or not there's any waste of taxpayer resources. I think that would be totally fine. But I do see this as a little bit of a ham-handed approach, and it could get worse depending on what his next step is after seeing how many of these federal workers are willing to take this deal. But we're going to update you on this story, and obviously we'll give you the details if these moves have any negative impact on Americans' day-to-day lives and the services that they expect

from the federal government, considering the resources they provide to the federal government in the form of their taxes. But that's what we have on that story for now. Let's move on to one more. Let's move on to one more topic. before we bring our guest on for a fantastic interview. All right, so I want to talk a little bit about an entirely different story. And it has to do with something that Trump is planning to do. In fact, by the time you see this video, it's very likely that he's already done it.

But nonetheless, President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order limiting the speech of Americans who wish to criticize the Israeli government. Now, it's not being worded that way, but I want to be clear that this is what the potential executive order is all about. So the New York Post apparently was able to obtain the language of this executive order ahead of time, and they reported on it. And they write that the order requires agency and department leaders to provide the White House with recommendations within 60 days and outlines plans for the Justice Department to investigate pro Hamas graffiti and intimidation, including on college campuses, according to a document describing the order. So look, I'm going to be unequivocal and very clear here.

Investigating vandalism is totally fine. Investigating intimidation is totally fine. I have no problem with that. Those who are proven to engage in those acts should suffer the consequences. In fact, there are specific people who have done these things. And guess what? They were punished for it. Zaid Mohammed Maudawi, a 26-year-old president of the Richmond, Virginia chapter of American Muslims for Palestine, was arrested for allegedly climbing atop a monument near the capital and spray painting Hamas is coming. And guess what? He was arrested.

You just heard it. read it. In fact, the Justice Department, the federal government announced in October of last year that he was federally charged. Take a look at this. Protester federally charged with damaging U.S. government property at Union Station. So it really remains to be seen why Trump would need to implement an executive order as if guys like Madawi didn't even face any punishment for his actions. And the on college campuses part of the equation means that Trump is caving to pressure from pro-Israel zealots who didn't like that students were speaking out against the slaughter of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly Palestinians in Gaza at the hands

of the American government and through the actions of the Israeli defense forces. Further, the executive order calls for the deportation of resident aliens, including students with visas, who broke laws as part of anti-Israel protests following the October 7th, 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel, which sparked the invasion of Gaza, the document says. Now look, unfortunately, Trump will likely be able to, you know, sign this executive order. I don't think anyone in the federal government, with a few exceptions, are going to push back against it. And federal courts have also ruled that non-citizens do in fact have fewer free speech protections compared to American citizens. And for a party that loves to cry about DEI and the speech

police on the left, well, Republicans sure love to carve out specific exceptions to their ideology when it comes to Israel. Six House Republicans or six House Republican led committees issued a report last month, calling for the federal government to do more to address anti-Semitism, including by conditioning federal aid to colleges to force stricter policies against anti-Jewish bias. Hate speech generally is legal in the U.S., but the House GOP report released last month argues that federal law bars recipients of taxpayer funds from tolerating discrimination. Criticizing a foreign government is not the same as espousing hate against a marginalized group of people. I want to be clear about that because look, the wording makes it seem like it's going after actual anti-Semites.

But let's not forget how people who were saying anti-Semitic things were unfortunately getting grouped together or conflated with peaceful protesters who wanted their universities to stop investing. in weapons manufacturers or anything that was helping to emboldened the Israeli government to continue on with this war in Gaza. That's what they were protesting. The majority of people were actually peaceful. Those who weren't peaceful, those who were causing problems, in some cases definitely did face consequences. If they didn't, they should have faced consequences, but this conflation is what bothers me.

This is a way to silence students who are not doing anything violent, who are not anti-Semitic, And that's a huge issue here. People like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intentionally confuse the two. Take a look. What's happening in America's college campuses is horrific. Anti-Semitic mobs have taken over leading universities. They call for the annihilation of Israel. They attack Jewish students.

They attack Jewish faculty. This is reminiscent of what happened in German universities in the 1930s. It's unconscionable. It has to be stopped. It has to be condemned and condemned unequivocally. He didn't want any of the protests to happen on American college campuses. He wanted to, he doesn't like any criticism. Anyone who criticizes the Israeli government is immediately labeled as an anti-Semite by the likes of Netanyahu.

And that's the thing that's so frustrating that we have a foreign government calling the shots here in the United States in regard to our own speech rights. When Netanyahu orders American politicians to heal like his dogs, they usually do it. And I got to be honest, it's sad that someone like Donald Trump of all people isn't even an exception to that. We got to take a break when we come back. We will bring on, you know, Sean O'Brien, who's the head of the Teamsters Union. A lot to talk about the state of the Democratic Party, how labor plans to strategize in the Trump era, what he thinks about Donald Trump's executive orders thus far. So much to get into.

Stick around. We've got that and more coming right up. Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. Trump is going after jobs that women hold, I think he's looking to cut the federal government or the number of jobs in the federal government overall. But, you know, he's definitely going to do some damage. We've got great tariffs is here who says hi Anna, you look amazing as always. Thank you, good to hear from you. And let me read one more comment. Give me one second.

All right. Sorry about that guys. Space rights in and says I'm hearing a lot of people on the right are mad at Trump. Right in again, because I'm curious specifically what they're upset about and what you're seeing. But for now, we've got something entirely different to get into. You tweeted at me one, two, three, four, five times. And let me read what the last one said. said, greedy CEO who pretends like he's self-made. What a clown, fraud, always has been, always will be. Quit the Tough Guy Act in these Senate hearings. You know where to find me, any place, any time, cowboy.

Sir, this is a time, this is a place. You want to run your mouth. We can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here. Okay, that's fine. Perfect. You want to do it now? I'd love to do it right now.

Well, stand your butt up then. You stand your butt up. Oh, hold that. Oh, stop it. Is that your solution every polling? No, no, sit down. You're a United States senator. Act it.

Okay, sit down, please. That was Teamsters President Sean O'Brien, sparring with Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen during a Senate hearing back in 2023. But as the head of the Teamsters, O'Brien doesn't just fight against corporate politicians in the halls of Congress. In the age of weak and corrupt leadership, O'Brien bucks the trend.

He's known to go to war on behalf of his members, securing better pay and working conditions. And today we're really in for a treat because Sean is here to talk about protecting labor in the age of Donald Trump and more. Sean, welcome to TYT. Thank you very much. I appreciate you give me the opportunity to be here. It's a pleasure to have you. So let's get right in because there was a lot that I really disliked. about the leadership of former President Joe Biden, but he appointed actual pro-labor people to serve on the National Labor Relations Board, and I've always given him a lot of credit for

that. Unfortunately, yesterday President Donald Trump decided to remove acting general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, which is unfortunate, but he has the right to do that. But he also removed NLRB board member, Gwyn Wilcox, which he is prohibited from doing. There are some legal issues with him doing that. So Trump also has a record of being against labor unions, as this video from 2008 on the UAW strike makes clear. It's the same thing with the unions. That's right. They get their little 5%. They get another 2%, they get another 3%, 4%. Then all of a sudden they're making more money than the people that own the company. So in an interview with Tucker Carlson, you said you believe that Trump

wants to show that he stands for labor. Obviously, this was before his latest actions with the NLRB, but I am wondering, do you still believe that he's going to carry out what's in the best interest of labor? Well, I mean, I think he said all along during the campaign. I think many Republicans echoed the same message was that they wanted to be the working families, parties that they weren't against labor unions. But, you know, people are focusing on the drastic actions of this last week. And some of them have been drastic yesterday's termination indicated, you know, that, you know, Trump's in charge and he's going to make the decisions regardless. But I think what we need to focus on is the NLRB as a whole. Over the last

20 years, I think anybody that has to deal with the NLRB and the Teamsters Union on behalf of 1.3 million members deals with the NLRB and has probably more proactively than any other union. And I think no matter who has been the president, whether it was President Bush, whether it was Obama, whether it was Trump, whether it was Biden, and again, Trump, I think we can all agree that that system, it's a broke bureaucratic system that needs reform, regardless of who's in charge. I think, you know, it's been well documented and proven that when you file charges at the NLRB or when you have an issue with the NLRB, there's no quick resolution. So I think regardless of who's in charge and regardless of who's who's on the board, I think we need to really take a hard look at making this process on behalf of American workers easier. And look, the Republicans said a lot of things during this election on how they want to be the working parties representative. Well, you know, what we're focused on right now, and it's too bad people lose their job,

anybody that loses their job. But what we're focused on in the Teamsters Union is making certain that we work hard to get Lari Chavez-Dareemar appointed as Secretary of Labor. And that was a, that was one of our goals soon after President Trump won. And I went down to meet with him and lobbied very hot, three and a half hours. And it wasn't an easy lift. So in one of our, one of our conversations, I said, you thank unions for winning the election. You thank the rank and file members. Now you need to appoint a secretary of labor that is going to be a pro worker, pro union. And he appointed Laurie Chavez-Dariemer. So even though there's been some moves that he's made that people

may not agree with, you know, our eyes on the prize in getting Congresswoman dreamer appointed secretary of labor. Yeah, first of all, thank you for recommending someone who's actually pro-labor to Donald Trump. Thank you for putting in the work and, you know, negotiating with him. I know that that's not an easy lift. But I am a little bit concerned about her fate, especially considering some of the statements that we're hearing from Republican members of the Senate who obviously would need to vote in favor of confirming her. So, you know, Donald Trump did nominate Congress or former Congressman Laurie Chavez-Doramer. I've talked about her on the show. But, you know, Rand Paul put out a statement just this week,

senator who says, I'm not in favor of her. She's a little too pro labor. I think let's take a look at that graphic. I think she'll lose 15 Republicans and she'll get 25 Democrats. I mean, she's very pro labor. She might get all the Democrats who knows. And look, all the Democrats might vote for her. Maybe we don't need, you know, every single Republican to support her. But what do you say to Senator Paul, who has a problem with a pro-labor individual serving as labor secretary? Well, Senator Paul has a problem, I think, with anybody that don't agree with his personal agenda. And he's got to realize that there is a new wave of Republicans and hopefully Democrats. And, you know, he's stuck in the old school mentality as well as some Democrats.

And he needs to realize that, you know, to get anything done in this country, there's got to be cooperation. bipartisan support. And, you know, look, here's a guy that he has, he's made statements about, you know, being pro right to work. And, you know, Laurie Chavez-Durima doesn't stand for what he stands for. It's not about him. It's about the constituency that he represents. And he needs to realize that. And look, if he wants to, you know, obviously try and curtail her appointment, I'm going to tell you, we're going to work hard. We're working on both sides of the aisle, advocating for Laurie Shirez de Riemer, and there is an appetite for bipartisan support of our appointment. And, you know, this just goes to show you, you know, Rand Paul, you know, he should embrace

working people. He should embrace unionization. I mean, you know, for someone to just be, you know, hell-bent and saying no, because he doesn't agree with it, go talk to your constituency, leave Washington, D.C. See what your constituents wants. And I guarantee. guarantee you. And look, we've proven. I think organized labor, rank and file members have proven that, you know, they vote and their vote matters. And maybe, you know, he needs time for him to go. I mean, I love that threat, right? The threat of political ramifications, if you don't actually serve what's in the best interest of your constituents. But, you know, unfortunately, I feel that we have a political system that's now partly broken due to the fact that bribery is kind of baked in. So those corporate donors unfortunately seem to have more sway over these politicians as opposed to constituents and labor. But I want to get back to why it is that you decided to recommend Chavez de Ramer for this position. You know, she was a Republican congresswoman.

So when I was kind of singing her praises on the show, there was some pushback, people questioning whether she really deserves the pro worker, you know, description. But since you're the one who recommended her, why did you recommend her? What is it about Chavez-Daramer? Well, I recommended her because she worked very hard on behalf of a lot of our members in Oregon. Her lineage, she's a daughter of a teamster out of Northern California. She supported the Pro Act in its last version. And she understands working people. But, you know, everybody is going to always critique whatever decision.

whoever's in power. But the reality of it is anybody that, especially in labor, that's, you know, wondering, you know, what Laurie Chavez-Duriemer is going to do? What is the alternative? What was the alternative? I mean, clearly the Republicans won the election. We needed a secretary of labor that has some union connection that understands how important and struggle is for working people, has supported issues in the past that support working people. So what is the alternative if it's It's not her. And she came on strong. We met with her.

We liked what she had to say and we advocated for her and we're gonna stand by our decision. And look, our decision is based upon the 1.3 million members that we represent, but also the American worker that we hope to represent. Was Donald Trump willing to listen to your recommendation for Labor Secretary as a result of your willingness to speak at the Republican National Convention? You know, that's what's funny. We never ever had a conversation about anything at the IRNC if Donald Trump won the election. This clearly, after we won the election, we knew who candidates or we knew people that were jockeying for the secretary of labor position.

They were pro-business, big business, big anti-union law firms, and we had to be proactive. And that's what people don't see, you know, they can write it whatever they want online. They can attack, you know, the Teamsters Union, they can attack me personally for supporting her. But the reality of it is there was no better choice. And that's why we lobbied hard. We had some frank conversations with the President of the United States. And, you know, we're very, very thankful and hopeful of the outcome. And also hopefully she will get support from her Republican colleagues, despite what Rand Pauls of the world is saying.

And the Democrats will not use this as a political pawn just to say no. This could be something good. This could be something great. This could help revitalize the broken system, the bureaucracy at the DOL and also at the NLRB. And it could actually demonstrate a bipartisan approach to representing working people and you know, doing what's right by American workers. So let's get into that speech because I loved it, but you received a massive amount of backlash from the left over your decision to speak at the RNC.

You were a keynote speaker on the first night of the Republican National Convention. And I thought, honestly, it was fantastic, mostly because it was the type of speech that you would never expect at the R&C. In fact, I want to show the audience just a little piece of it. Labor law must be reformed. Americans vote for a union but can never get a union contract. Companies fireworkers who try to join unions and hide behind toothless laws that are meant to protect working people but are manipulated to benefit corporations. This is economic terrorism at its best. An individual cannot withstand such an assault. Under our current system, massive companies like Amazon, Uber, Lyft, and Walmart take

zero responsibilities for the work as they employ. These companies offer no real health insurance, no retirement benefits, no pay leave, relying on undefunded public assistance. Sean, a friend of mine named Vincent, who's actually a teamster, wanted me to ask you, how do you maintain your backbone? Hey, listen, we grow up. Boston, you know, we got thick skin and, you know, we don't, we don't, as I say a lot of times, we don't sweat. We don't sweat most. I love it. But look, you, you paid a price for sending that incredible and important message to the Republican Party, which you did talk about a little bit with Tucker. I've got back problems from the last eight months of the knife wounds from

the far left on the Democratic Party. So tell us a little bit more about that backlash that you suffered? Did it go further than criticism? I'm super curious about that. Well, you know, it's like anything else. I mean, we stand by our decision. We made the decision based upon the input of our membership, which is important. And we stand by our decision not to endorse. And look, the far left, you know, they got nasty. You know, they were, you know, tweeting, they were or exing, whatever it's called now. They were on social media attacking the teams as union, attacking me personally. But at the end of the day, you know, we made the decision. We made the right decision. We stand by our decision. And I think instead of, you know, looking to blame

people for the outcome, like the Teamsian and myself, of this election, I think they're far left in some of these Democratic politicians, not all of them, because there are a lot of Democrats out there that they're recognized that the old Democratic party that used to embrace labor, they used to fight for labor has actually become the Republican Party that they despised at once, you know, getting in bed with big, big tech, big business, big farmer. So, you know, I don't regret any decision. And I think instead of pointing fingers right now, I think people should be looking in the mirror like, look, I, as a union leader, I suffer some defeats along the way. We lose organizing campaigns. Sometimes we don't get the best contract.

we need. And the first thing we do is self reflect. What could we have done different? What could we have done better? We don't look to blame other people. And I think that's what the Democratic Party has to do right now. Not all of them, but some of them, especially some influential people, to say, look, we blew this. We can't blame anybody else. We've got to acknowledge that we made some missteps. We discounted the support of people like rank and file members and unions who I think on the average would probably vote 65 percent, despite what their leadership was advocating for. And I think they've lost touch with American workers. I think they need to get back in the trenches with their constituency, get into the neighborhoods, and talk to the

people. And you know, the Democrats during this election process were very critical of anybody that went against them, very critical of anybody that didn't follow. their marching orders. And look, the one thing that working people and myself alike, we don't like to be told what to do. We like to be asked what our opinions are, because our opinions matter. Our opinions allow them to serve us. And I always want to remind people that whether a Republican, Democrat, or independent, if you're fortunate enough to get elected, you've got to remember who you work for and who you serve. You're not supposed to be serving big tech, big farmer, big corporations. You're supposed to be serving the neighborhood, the constituent

you represent. So there's an opportunity for the Democrats to reset and refocus on who they represent. But there's also an opportunity for Republicans who had a pretty strong narrative of how they want to support working people and work and families agenda. They have an opportunity to prove that as well. Yeah, you know, I've seen a few examples of Republican lawmakers who don't just talk the talk. They're pursuing legislation that actually would help ordinary Americans. In some cases, specifically labor unions and things like that.

You know, Senator Josh Hawley was recently part of a Senate hearing in regard to credit card companies, screwing over the American people, and I love the fact that he wants to take them to task. And it was something that I didn't really expect in the Republican Party at all. I also didn't expect as someone who was a lifelong Democrat. I'm now a registered independent, that the Democratic Party would devolve into whatever it is now. I mean, I don't even know what the identity of the Democratic Party.

is anymore. And it's kind of difficult to stomach it because I think they've been kind of relying on the pro-union past of the Democratic Party. But I think that's kind of run out of fumes at this point. Yes, Joe Biden appointed a few good NLRB members. Sure, he rhetorically said he wanted to pursue things that would make it easier for workers to unionize but didn't really fight for it. At the end of the day, when push comes to shove, I don't really see a lot of action from the Democratic Party in regard to bettering working conditions, making it easier for workers to organize their workplaces. A lot of talk about the pro act, but really no fight among the Democratic Party or members of the Democratic Party to get that legislation passed. And I'm curious why you think the party has kind of shed its pro worker identity. What do you think is at the root of that issue?

Well, it's big donors, big corporations. You know, they, you know, like I said earlier, and they've become what they've despised, you know, what they've accused of Republican Party on. I mean, you look at who ran Kamala Harris's campaign, right? Her finance director was Uber Lyft. They are gig economy, independent contractor model that we fight all the time. And, you know, that R&C speech that I gave that you reference, remember, when I first

got on stage, I was getting all kinds of applause. As soon as I started speaking the truth about corporate America, corporate elitist, you know, that applause diminished. I would have gave that same exact speech at the DNC because although there'd be different names and different titles, it would be the same billionaires, different companies sitting in that audience as well. So that speech would have been specific for both parties. And that's what we're dealing with. And that's why the Democrats have lost sight. And look, I have fate that if people are really convinced and people really have an appetite to go back

to the way it was as far as who represent, who they represented, what they stood for, you know, anything can be fixed. But my bigger focus right now is working bipartisan to get things done. The last four years, there has been no dialogue across the aisle. A lot of legislation like the Pro Act and other pro worker legislation was kind of used as a pawn in the grand scheme of things. You know, let's throw the Pro Act out there six months before, in its form that no one agreed with on the other side. Let's just throw it out there just to get the Republicans to say no so that we can point our finger and say, see, they're not for the workers. Instead of working the previous four years to say, all right, great, this is what we need to do.

We want to work together on this. What works for you? What can you accept in a version of the pro act? What can't you live with? And that's what negotiations are all about. I do it every single day. I negotiate with companies every single day and trying to get a resolution that works for each side.

That shouldn't be any different than what goes on every single day on the hill. And look, let's not lose sight of the fact that we talk about the pro. Act. Now, in 2008, 2009, we had a Democratic president, the Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate majority. We sure did. And our biggest goal, our biggest goal, when I say our labor, its biggest goal was to get the employee free choice passed. And who fought hard against it? Big corporations, big tech, are the same people that the Democrats have embraced. And we still couldn't get something passed. So obviously that thought process and that mentality has got to change. And we've got an opportunity to do it right now to work across the aisle and get something

done. Not for a Democrat, Republican independent, but for the American worker. Yeah, and might I add that when Obama came into office, his first two years, not only was he in charge, he had a super majority in Congress. I mean, a filibuster proof Senate. And it really does go to show. show you that you know the little tricks that they do like with the pro act isn't because the majority of democratic lawmakers support the pro act they know it's not going to pass they're just doing this little trick to give the illusion that they're all on board with the pro act while the republicans aren't but you know i mean whenever there's an opportunity to pass legislation when the ball is in the democrats court there's always the bad cops right the people who are

willing to raise their hands and say, nah, I have a problem with this legislation. You know, during Biden's term, mansion and cinema in the Senate, we're the ones willing to raise their hands and go against Biden's alleged agenda. And I say alleged because he didn't really fight for it. It's hard for me to buy that he was in favor of his own agenda when he was so tepid in promoting it and fighting for it. But I want to end on two more things. I'll be brief. I know you've been very generous with your time. You know, I thought it was fascinating that the members, the Teamsters members, overwhelmingly

supported Donald Trump. And that's based on the polling that you guys did. So according to the electronic member poll that was initiated after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race, about 60% of members believed the union should endorse Trump while 34% supported Harris. And so I was a little bit surprised by those numbers, but not really, not by much. because I think a lot of people assume, well, those who are part of labor unions, they're all like super left wing. That's not true at all.

A lot of union members are not left wing. And in fact, I think a big mistake that the Democratic Party makes is that they feel entitled to the support or endorsement of labor unions, which the teamsters decided against doing this time around. You guys didn't endorse either candidate going. into the election. But I wanted to ask you, you know, why do you think the majority of your members back Donald Trump, given the record he has, rather than supporting Kamala Harris? Well, I think a couple reasons. Number one, I just want to make a point, you know, and you

you eloquently posed it in your statement just now is that, you know, that the our members are sick of being told what to do and what's good for them. And I know that, you know, as a leader of the team's union, you know, quite frankly, we've made investments in Democrats. And we haven't got that return on investment. So that's number one. And number two is that, you know, the Democrats just think support of union working people is like 10th grade geometry. It's a given. And it's not a given anymore. Our members are very sophisticated, they're very educated. And the Democrats try to frame this election as a social, justice issue. And the social issues are very important. You talk about, you know, abortion

and everything else. They're all extreme, extremely important. However, the most important thing for working people was the inflation. You know, it was economic with our members. And I think everybody else that was affected as a working person, price of gas was extremely high, inflation was high, cost of groceries was high. People were forced to pay utilities on credit card bills like a 29% interest. So this clearly was a misjudgment or an underestimation of how much our members pay attention. And it's an indication that our members were hurting. And this completely was an economic election. And I think the details or the results based upon the details of our members and their input through the surveys support the surveys

and the outcome of the election. You know, and the Teamsters did a good job in interviewing every presidential candidate in order to ensure that the members were informed on the options, and then they can make a decision over who they want to support. But what I thought was really interesting about that was after you guys sent out the request for the candidates to be interviewed, Donald Trump was the first to commit to that interview, which I thought was impressive, to be honest with you. Biden apparently was salty over the fact that Donald Trump committed first, but eventually did get interviewed by the teamsters. And then Kamala Harris's interview was a little more shaky.

So I want to go to you talking about that while being interviewed on Tucker Carlson's show. And then I'll ask you for some more details. Sure. One of my vice president's, a woman named Joan Corey out of my local. She sits on our general executive board. Joan introduces herself to vice president Harris. I'm Joan Corey. I'm on the general executive board for the teamstess. She goes, teams this, you better get on board. You better get on board. Better get on board soon.

If I want to support from any organization, I am not going to point my finger in someone's face and say, you better get on board or else. But that's the attitude of this whole party. And her declaration on the way out was, I'm going to win with you or without you. Oops. Not a good statement to make,

especially now that she's lost the election, but talk to me a little bit about what you experienced with Kamala Harris getting interviewed by the Teamsters. She seemed to not want to answer any questions. Yeah, I mean, it was a pretty in-depth negotiation, you know, to get her there. And this was all around, you know, the DNC stuff. There was a lot of controversy over not being invited to speak at the DNC. So when she finally came there, we gave. of each candidate's 16 questions, the same exact questions. And, you know, the questions were provided well in advance. And we were told that she was only going to answer five questions.

And then they tried to negotiate down. She's only going to answer three questions. So long story short, she came into the meeting, you know, met everybody, sat down. We started the questions from rank and file members. And then her staff, 20 minutes prior to the meeting ended, we had 20 minutes left. And she answered about a majority of three questions. And then on the fourth question, I believe it was the fourth question, her staff slipped a piece of paper across and said, this will be the last question. And then we're leaving.

Wow. Wow. So, you know, yeah, so it was, you know, pretty bold. but her declaration, like I stated on Carlson, was, look, we are going to win with you or without you. And I thought that was pretty arrogant. And, you know, if I'm coming to present and ask for something, I am going to be as humble, but I'm going to be as passionate about, you know, and appreciative of asking for support. And that compassion and appreciation was not relevant. It was like, it was, I'm going to win with or without you. And if I win, watch out.

It was kind of like a, you know, kind of like a threat type of declaration. And, you know, I think the one thing that everybody recognized in society right now is, you know, you can't just go around demanding and being arrogant about, you know, the direction that you want to go in or the support that you're seeking. You've got to be a little bit humble and modest, and that clearly wasn't, wasn't her best day in front of us. I mean, I totally agree with that. I mean, you are trying to be a public servant. I mean, yes, the president is incredibly important role, important person, powerful person, but you're still supposed to be a public servant, a representative of the American people. The idea, I mean, I just feel like Democrats in recent election cycles have kind of presented themselves as if we're the public servant.

as if they're entitled to our votes without actually, you know, carrying out policies that have benefited the American people. And look, I'm hoping that this past election cycle was a teachable moment for them. You know, Senator Bernie Sanders has always been good on issues pertaining to workers' rights and labor, and he was willing to come out after the election was all said and done and just call out the party for the mistakes they've been making. The fact that they've abandoned in the working class and I really want them to go back to what they used to represent. Because right now, I personally feel politically homeless, but I really do commend you for your willingness to work with both political parties in order to secure some wins on behalf

of the Teamsters members. That's what you're supposed to do. And regardless of the pushback that you might get, I think it's the right course of action. And I really do appreciate you the the work you do and what you represent, you know, keep taking the fight to these members of Congress. It's not only entertaining to watch, but it's inspiring. And I'm glad it can be a source of entertainment. But it's true. I mean, look, we know who we represent. We know who we work for. And look, I'll just say this. It's a great opportunity for both parties to prove, you know, that there's the ability to reset and refocus. And there's is also an ability to collaborate to actually effectuate change on the Republican side

as it relates to working people. So hopefully we can do this and look, there's going to be critics no matter what we do. We just got to focus on our mission and that's representing members and representing the American workers in the United States. I love it. Thank you so much, Sean O'Brien. I hope you'll come back again soon and thank you for being so generous with your time. Thank you very much.

I appreciate you. All right, everyone. We're going to take a brief break when we come back. I'll read some of your comments, some of your thoughts. Stick around. We'll be right back.