Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
Hello, welcome to the Call It Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss the move by President Joe Biden to push through legislation and really to present the legislation to be the driving force behind it. That averted a looming national rail strike and forced a previously brokered labor agreement on railway unions, who had not all ratified this agreement. And this understandably upset many of his political allies coming from organized labor. And later on, we're going to react to some recent comments made by Michelle Obama about her experiences in marriage and what comes along with making one work. And also look at some of the interesting ways these comments were received by people.
Joining me today is a man who works in a dog eat dog industry, but lives in a dog eat dog world, Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. Are you ready to share with the people how you stay so chill in a business that's so ruthlessly competitive?
[00:01:22] Speaker B: No, I gotta give away my secrets, man.
[00:01:25] Speaker A: Hey, don't give away your secrets, man. All right? That's your competitive advantage.
[00:01:29] Speaker B: Exactly.
[00:01:31] Speaker A: Well, I tried. I tried.
[00:01:33] Speaker B: Or at least I pretended. It's. Let's say that.
Let's not get too into it now.
[00:01:39] Speaker A: We're recording this on December 5, 2022. And last week we saw Joe Biden, who has proclaimed himself to be the most pro union president, worked to undermine several major railway unions to avert a national rail strike as we approach the holidays here in the US he did this by having Congress. He prompted Congress and pushed on Congress to have them push the deal through legislatively, which can be done through a law, the Railway labor act, which has been on the books since 1926.
Now, even though eight of the 12 unions affected here had already agreed to this deal, which was brokered back in September, many in organized labor see this as quite a betrayal because it undercut the remaining unions in a way that some believe undermine these unions in a pretty substantial and fundamental way. So, Tunde, what's your reaction to the, quote, most pro union president pushing through a railway labor contract legislatively, even though several of the unions hadn't even agreed to it?
[00:02:49] Speaker B: I guess sometimes you just gotta do stuff as a leader to get it through.
I think I heard once in business when I was younger that when I worked at a big corporation and one of the executives was in town giving his rah rah speech to us from the podium and he made one of these kind of points, he goes, if everybody, like, if everybody walks away from a Negotiation a little bit upset, then it's probably the best outcome.
[00:03:16] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:03:17] Speaker B: And it means that one side probably didn't railroad the other side, I guess pun intended on that one. But, but you know, one side didn't get, didn't ram right over the other side and get 100% of what they wanted. And the other side didn't get much. And if everybody walks away a little bit unhappy, it's probably the best result. So.
[00:03:35] Speaker A: Well, I don't know that there's reporting that the actual railway companies are unhappy, but to your point, you hear the same thing like in mediation like that for a good deal, we'll have everybody kind of smart.
[00:03:47] Speaker B: Here's what I see from what I've read is that the railway workers will receive after this bargaining, specifically 24% wage increase, increase healthcare benefits and preserve two person crews, whatever that means. My point is that I'm pretty sure the railway companies may not have given a 24% wage increase without this, this, this bargaining, collective bargaining stuff.
[00:04:12] Speaker A: Bargaining. No.
[00:04:13] Speaker B: So the point is, so I'm sure they're not that happy about that, but they walked away from the table a little bit unhappy. And I think just to answer the question directly, that's what it tells me is that, you know, the labor, the folks on the side of labor, let's just put it that way, that supported President Biden appear to not be 100% happy either. So that tells me, to your point, this probably might have been the best way outcome for it.
[00:04:35] Speaker A: To your point. Let me say it a different way. There were clear concessions that you can see that were made from the corporate side, you know, like clear real sub substantive stuff, not like window dressing. And so, yeah, like that, that you can presume, I think, I think it's fair to presume that that's not stuff they're just handing out like it's candy on holiday. Yeah, yeah.
[00:04:53] Speaker B: You know, clearly weren't doing that. They weren't increasing wages by 24% before this collective bargaining. So yeah, I'm sure they didn't, they didn't want to do that. Just. Yeah.
[00:05:01] Speaker A: So I mean, I think that's a fair point Now. Now I'll say to me, my reaction to this, I look at it when we select leaders like you can still be someone now whether he's the pro, most pro union president or not is, you know, like that's kind of just puffery. That's just how you sell yourself or whatever. I don't think that's something we're judging objectively.
But when you're selecting a leader, you got to keep in mind you're selecting a person. You're not selecting a robot that's going to respond in some pre programmed way, or AI so to speak, or not even AI, but just a computer program that's going to respond in some pre programmed way for any decision that needs to be made. And so to a certain degree, you are selecting someone whose judgment you trust. And so I don't know, I'm not going to go back in an instance like this or in any situation where somebody who I think has a reasonable type approach to making decisions and has decent judgment, which I would say you could say that about Joe Biden and rehash all of the details of, oh, could you have done this? Could you have done that? Like he's an executive, he's supposed to make decisions. We put you vote for him or something like that. You put him in that position because you trust his judgment. So in my mind, yeah, everybody's not happy about it. That's understandable. There's rarely going to be any situation where an executive makes a decision and everybody's happy about it. So to me, he made a decision. He determined that a strike would be more harmful to. His job is not just president of the unions, it's President of the United States of America. He determined that it was going to be more harmful to allow that to play out in that way. He was legally authorized to do this and he made a call. So whether it was the right call or not, time will tell. But I don't like, I want him in there making these kind of decisions basically. And as long as he's not making these decisions based on pure political type of, oh, you know, or what it's going to sell, what can I sell in the media? But he's like making decisions and it's like, okay, well here's what I think then. I think when you have that, you just kind of take it and say, okay, well he's the executive. This is what, this is why we have him in place to do this. And you know, if we don't like these decisions all the time, then we get an opportunity to remove him in four years.
[00:07:14] Speaker B: Or you know, it reminds me a little bit when I was prepping and two separate topics. So I'm not saying this to go into it, but just reminds me a bit of the decision to withdraw it out of Afghanistan.
[00:07:24] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:07:25] Speaker B: Where it's like, all right, somebody's got to do it and it's not pretty and probably a Lot of people aren't going to like that you're doing it.
[00:07:32] Speaker A: And you can second guess it forever.
[00:07:34] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:07:34] Speaker A: You know, like you can second guess this, second guess that. But it's like, look, you make a decision. Do you trust my.
[00:07:39] Speaker B: Exactly. But now let's rip that bandit off and let's, let's do this and then get past it and then we can move on. I think just like Afghanistan, you know, we moved on. And this too shall pass, this labor dispute. Well, let me not say this. I'm sure labor and the big industries will always be disputing, so let me say it that way. But this moment shall pass and people will continue to move forward. And that got me thinking about kind of the why in terms of like, okay, so why are we even talking about this? Right? And I don't mean that in a smart ass way. I mean, what is a labor movement? What is a union doing striking against this and that and that? So I started, I started doing, you know, me with history. So I started saying, how far back does this go? You know, when this is the earliest. This is a fun fact for you and the audience because I saved this for you for the show. Do you want the first recorded strike in the history of recorded humanity is.
[00:08:33] Speaker A: I would think it has to be something with prostitution.
[00:08:36] Speaker B: No.
[00:08:37] Speaker A: Oh, okay.
[00:08:38] Speaker B: That's kind of cool though. I didn't think of that one.
[00:08:40] Speaker A: Well, I bet you, I bet you your written records just don't go back far enough.
[00:08:44] Speaker B: No, no, no. I'm just wondering. I don't think, I think that seems like more of an individual endeavor. Unless there was a big house somewhere with a madam who was in controlling a lot of chicks, you know, that might have been a one on one dispute, you know. Now, well, here.
It's hilarious. The first historical account. Sorry. Is the end of the twentieth dynasty under Pharaoh Ramses III in Egypt. And they have the date on the 14th of November in the year 1152 BC.
[00:09:12] Speaker A: Oh my God.
[00:09:13] Speaker B: Freaking 3100 years ago. That's funny. So check this out. But it's classic human bs. The artisans of the royal necropolis ad Deir el Medina walked off their jobs because they had not been paid. And then the very next sentence is, the Egyptian authorities raised the wages. So it's the same thing, right? Like you had skilled artisans that were the only ones that could do this.
[00:09:36] Speaker A: Right.
[00:09:37] Speaker B: Ramsay's got to get his tomb looking good for when he dies and goes to the afterlife and shows everybody that he's the man. And they were being Cheap, not paying these guys. That's what I mean. Like it's the classic human dilemma. And these guys all got together and said, you know what? Screw this, we're out, we're walking off the job. And then the Egyptian authorities raised their wages.
[00:09:54] Speaker A: Well, I mean, that's kind of, that gets to the fundamental tension. I mean, yeah, that's what I'm saying. I don't want to go too far into this, but the fundamental tension always is that in capitalism, this is observed from just the roots of capitalism. And I mean, in that instance, you had skilled workers. There's a slight difference that you can play out when you deal with skilled workers versus unskilled, which a lot of times we've seen unskilled work in labor as well, particularly in recent times. But the fundamental thing is that wages will go to or mere sustenance and below sustenance if just the capitalist endeavor is allowed to play out. Labor unions are a counterbalance to that. And what I'm quoting, there goes, that's capitalism theory right there. That goes all the way back to the people who are writing about this stuff, the Adam Smiths of the world and all that. And David Ricardo was like, it goes back like that. Like they understood that then like you're talking wages are going to be sustenance. So in order to get a fair shake, it's never going to be one worker saying, okay, going to the company, say, look, we can replace one worker, you know, forget you. But it's the collective action that only, that is the only way you'll ever get other than government action, you know, but where you'll, where you can get a fair shake, so to speak, or relative fair shake when you have these type of capitalist endeavors. So that's what you're dealing with. But there's one other thing.
[00:11:10] Speaker B: I just had a good point. Let me say this because you used to make a good point that organized labor is the only ability for workers to meet on the level with organized capital, which is the industrialist. And it's true, right? Because obviously the labor, and that's what.
[00:11:28] Speaker A: Capitalism is, by the way, organized capital. You're organizing money together to do that. The Dutch East India Trading Company, bunch of people put their money in and did something that none of them had enough money to do on their own. They organized their money to fund this stuff and to make more money off of that. And so, yeah, we don't call it organized capital, but that's what it is. And so if you think about it like that, yeah, organized labor is a.
[00:11:51] Speaker B: Counterbalance because an individual labor can't really fight the system, but organized labor can. So it really is. I mean, that's why I like the term collective bargaining, because it's pretty much defines what it is.
[00:12:01] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, there's no, like, I don't have any kind of hostility towards labor, you know, organized labor at all. But in this case, I'm looking at. Okay, well, his decision making seems to be. He's looking at the things you're supposed to be looking at. Like, to contrast. I'm not saying you take anybody who's in leadership and just say, hey, whatever they say, that's what goes. Like, if you look at George W. Bush deciding to go to Iraq and it's like, okay, well, yeah, you're. Look, you're doing this for completely, like, reasons. You're not telling us the real reasons you're doing it.
[00:12:29] Speaker B: You're back concerned about the labor of the defense contractors. Come on, man.
[00:12:34] Speaker A: Well, yeah, there you go.
[00:12:36] Speaker B: You know, guys on the, on the factories at Lockheed and Boeing need, you know.
[00:12:40] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. They did a lot of things too. But I'm not saying that you always take an executive's decision, you know, and just say, hey, that's it, you know, but in this instance, they're not saying. The people who are opposed to this aren't saying, oh, you're just doing this because your son, because Hunter Biden is an executive somewhere or something like that. Like, it's just like, yo, we just don't like the decision you made. And in that instance, it's like, look, then you need to run for president. If that's the. If your only argument here is that you don't like the decision, you know, the substance of the decision, you would have decided that a different way then. It's like, I mean, that's, that's what we have.
[00:13:14] Speaker B: This wasn't. So this wasn't easier for one person.
[00:13:16] Speaker A: To make that call, but it wasn't.
[00:13:18] Speaker B: About Hunter Biden's contract with the Ukraine.
[00:13:20] Speaker A: Everything is about Hunter Biden.
[00:13:21] Speaker B: Okay, I just trying to. I'm getting you.
It's too much right now. No, but, but, no, but it's funny because you're right. And that's where I'll pick it up here. Because I like that fun fact about the Egyptians. Just because when I read it, it struck me as just, humans haven't changed.
[00:13:38] Speaker A: You know, and they won't.
[00:13:40] Speaker B: It's funny, like, the rich guy Ramses was just being cheap in the end of the day. He didn't want to pay.
[00:13:45] Speaker A: He was gonna pay them as little as he thought he could get away with.
[00:13:48] Speaker B: Exactly. And they walked up the job, he.
[00:13:50] Speaker A: Thought he could get away with nothing.
[00:13:51] Speaker B: Yeah, it's hilarious. But under modern times, the real roots of the current kind of labor movement as relates to strikes began in England in 1842, where a group of laborers were demanding fairer wages and conditions across several industries. And it exploded into what they call the first modern general strike, where several say this, workers from several different groups of industries decided to stop working at the same time and petition to government and all that. What happened was, it's interesting the history of it at that time, even here in the United States, it was more seen as kind of like agitating. They kind of treated governments treated striking more as a criminal act. And so what happened was by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most Western countries, United States included, had some sort of laws that kind of legalized striking, but under certain conditions. And so I found it interesting in preparing for today because what you really, and we've talked about this in other shows that the industrial age is really still new. You've only got about 200 years of this where you have this need for this mass labor to produce things that the rest of society needs, not just serfs and peasants on one land, one landlord's so called estate or slaves on one plantation or whatever the labor used to be kind of look like before the Industrial revolution is the first time we saw mass production in factories and things like that. So if guys walked off the steel plant in the late 1800s, that killed the whole downline supply chain. And I think that's, as I was reading, what got me into then looking into the rail, sorry, Railway Labor act of 1926 that you had already mentioned, which is by the early 20s, the railroads were some of the most important things in this country because especially back up until 1926 when you didn't have modern air freight the same way the railroads really were the only way to get things moving across this country. And you had a massive lead up to infrastructure or need for infrastructure building out the country back then, all that. And so it made sense that there was a kind of a special provision created during the, you know, over that time that said, okay, we don't mind people striking and using their freedom of speech, right, the First Amendment and the ability to address your grievances, so on and so forth. However, there are certain industries where it would create too much sloppiness and dysfunction in the rest of Society, if we just let you just do this anytime you felt like you were upset. And the interesting thing I learned was that translated in 1936, they included the airline industry as well, because by the 30s, I guess, the airline industry was also very important and vital. So it got me to reading that one of the, like you said, one of the supporters of the Biden administration who was very upset about this legislation was the airline stewardess union. So I just found it interesting how a lot of those relationships are sticky. And still today, the railway and the stewardesses both seem very important to the infrastructure of the United States. But also some were very unhappy with the direction of the administration on this one.
[00:17:15] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I mean, like, well, that's. It's understandable that they would be upset about this. Like, that's me saying that it's understandable that Joe Biden, that he could look at the circumstance and decide, okay, well, I legally am authorized to do this because of this law that's on the books. And historically, you should understand that the power has always slanted, or just most of the time has always slanted more towards the capitalists, the industrialists. They were the ones that had closer access to power most of the time. Not all the time, but most of the time. And that's been something that labor unions have always had to fight against as well. Is the reason why it was considered a criminal act is because the owners of the factory were cool with the guys making the law. So it's not like it was just inherently something people saw as criminals, like, nah, stop that from happening. So when you have, in this type of instance, the labor unions are looking at this from both the short term, like, hey, this deal. And then they're also looking at long term, whatever strategies, plans they have ultimately to get. In my view, what unions should be doing is trying to make sure they get a fair shake of a thriving business. Like, I don't think they should be doing things that undermine the business because they're, they want to be considered. Well, they should approach it in a sense, almost looked at their partners, because they want to get a good, a fair shake on whatever is being made. So they want stuff being made. But when you look at it that way, it's going to be like, if you make a call like this and you say, hey, you guys can't strike. I'm authorized to do it, I'm legally authorized to do it, but you guys can't strike, of course they're going to be upset. That doesn't necessarily mean that biden shouldn't do it. That just means that he's got to deal with the repercussions of undercutting some of his constituents, people who he has said he holds himself out as. That's why that's relevant. It's relevant because he holds himself out as. I'm here for you. Labor unions, I'm here for you. Most presidents, historically, most legislators in the United States, they're not here for you. They're here for. They're here for the industrials, they're there for the capitalists. They're not here. I'm here for you guys. And to do something like this is like, oh, what do you mean? I thought you've been telling us this whole time you're here for us specifically. So you get the betrayal, why they would feel betrayed. And then also just undercutting whatever short term and long term strategies they have. You get that. But this is, you can't look at everything in terms of, okay, well, if I'm on one side, then I have to. Everything the other side is completely wrong. Or vice versa. This is a situation where you can clearly understand where the unions are coming from. Like, yo, you undercut us. You know, you don't know all the stuff we got going on, all the plans we have. We don't, you don't know what we know. And I want to get to the issue, one of the issues that's a sticking point, but then also you understand why Biden did it. So tell me this. When you look at the disappointment and anger and I kind of, you know, just gave my thoughts on this, what do you, what is your reaction or what do you make of kind of the disappointment and anger that we're seeing here, you know, and just with the caveat being, or kind of the note thing here, that one of the issues that is a sticking point that wasn't in the deal is paid sick leave, you know, which is not something that's in their deal. It hasn't been. And they were fighting for that to get, I think it was maybe seven days of pay sick leave, which isn't a crazy thing to ask, but it's not something that's the norm here in the United States.
[00:20:26] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think you said it already. Where, look, I'm not, I don't know.
You know, I prepared for this show. I've been steeped in this, talking to people in the labor unions and all that for the last few weeks. Right. So my point is, is that I don't know how many of those People are maybe just extremists on their own. Right. Right on their side of the fence, and they just want it 100% their way. Or it's, or it's a failure in their mind.
[00:20:53] Speaker A: Well, they don't have to be extremist. They could just say, hey, allow us to either ratify or not ratify the agreement. That's not.
[00:20:59] Speaker B: No, but what I'm saying is, because I'm looking at all this stuff I'm preparing for. I mean, look, and like you said, they wanted something specific, which was seven days of sick leave. Right.
However, they were given pay increases, increases to health care benefits and giving additional paid time off.
[00:21:15] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:21:16] Speaker B: So what I'm saying is I don't know what additional means on top of what they already had. Meaning if they already had 15 days paid time off and now they got 20, I could argue and say, hey man, this may be better than seven paid sick days. Just because you can now have seven sick days within that and have 13 still paid to do whatever else you want. I don't know. And my point is it's just saying that sometimes in negotiation people can get caught on a shiny object. Like, we just want the paid sick leave.
And if they don't have it in writing that it's just like that if someone gave them three months off on PTO paid, they might still be upset. That's all I'm saying is someone like.
[00:21:53] Speaker A: That, just people, you get stuck on one issue and you can't see the big picture.
But what do you think about the principle, though?
[00:21:58] Speaker B: Just because what I'm saying, like this is where I'm at with it and this is what I realize as I'm reading it, because I want to share a couple things that I kind of uncovered in reading this. But to answer that question, the reason why I say I'm not sure is because I know we've talked about this kind of from things on the right politically, and this could be one example coming from kind of the labor side, which I don't want to call it left or whatever, because I know there's people on the right that care about labor too, but just a different sector than we're used to seeing in politics pushing back. Like this is because of the hyper polarized nature and the ecosystems everyone's in. I'm sure. Like I saw what, like the Starbucks union was tweeting against this and all these other people. And it's all like the same thing. Like the social media is involved and the news is trying to jockey for positions. And I found it interesting that there's strange bedfellows in this. Like I was reading that Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders teamed up on the same side of this and they were seen given a fist bump on the floor of the Senate. And it's just Josh Howley and someone else who's more of a left leaning Democrat teamed up on this. So I don't know if people are getting moved into different corners because of their ecosystems and not seeing that kind of Venn diagram that somewhere in the middle there's an agreement. And it's not going to be perfect for everybody because one thing that's interesting is the Railway Labor Act I'm going to read here. It says the purpose is to avoid any interruption of interstate commerce like we talked about.
But what I find interesting is that it says but remain in full. It says the RLA do not expire on certain dates unlike other industries. Meaning that basically all of they don't have a deadline on addressing their disputes. That's what I learned here, that part of their railway this act is that you can't force the workers to have an end date like you have in other type of industries that this, the government allows us to go indefinitely. So part of I think this is that at some point the Biden administration stepped in and said, okay, you guys been negotiating going back now for months and we just came out of a pandemic two years ago where we've still got messed up supply chains.
[00:24:05] Speaker A: Well, we can't also remember back into.
[00:24:07] Speaker B: This the deal voluntarily, but remember the.
[00:24:09] Speaker A: Deal that they legislatively pushed through was something that was tentatively agreed to by everybody back in September.
[00:24:15] Speaker B: Correct, that's what I'm saying. So when this all popped up again, I'm sure they're kind of like, look guys, we can't have this uncertainty.
[00:24:20] Speaker A: No. And you know what I mean, that's what I agree with as far as the executive aspect of this. Like, look, they basically got to a point where they're like, this is going to happen. Yeah, we're at the one yard line. We're not.
[00:24:33] Speaker B: We've already seen what happened. And that's what I get. Like I get the administration's pickle, right? Because they're trying to talk to a base that has supported them and who feels now at least some people in that base feel that they've been neglected. But I think look at what the whole country is complaining about with things like inflation and all that and the inability to get certain goods and services because of screwed up supply chains caused by a pandemic two and a half years ago. So what I'm saying is, as we're finally kind of recovering from that, I think as a leader, Biden did the right thing in this one, which is, okay, I'm watching this happen again. Right. It's kind of like we talked about with the Federal Reserve. Like you're watching the data of inflation. And so if I, if I can see that this is going to be a disaster if these people strike and the rail cars aren't operating, and from gravel to oil to whatever to goods and services on store shelves, it's either going to cause more inflation and, or lost jobs because people can get fired if their store shelves aren't full, then the employer campaign. So this could have had other effects and like you said, they just certainly would have had. Let's make a decision now. And some people are going to be upset.
[00:25:43] Speaker A: I get the pickle. The Biden administration was in it. But I also get the union's frustration, like to everything you just said. You're just viewing that from the lens of, of the political, you know, the Biden. But the union's point of view this, their, their ability to collectively bargain was just undermined. And of course, other unions would be upset about that because any union is only based on the idea that we can collectively bargain. And so if that's going to, if you can undercut collective bargaining with lobbying. Now, I'm not saying, I'm not saying that's what happened here, but if you can undercut collective bargaining by just going to your politicians and saying, look, we got to get this collective bargaining out, they're not agreeing to what we're willing to do. You need to do this legislatively, then you can, like that, that can undermine unions much more than, than moving forward, you know, much more than anything else. You know, that's bargaining as the lifeblood. But and also to your point, this is a time when their threat of strike had more leverage than, than normal. So you're saying, oh, well, because you have more leverage, we're going to undermine you, we're going to undercut you. And it's like, well, I can get the frustration from the union. There's. And I can get that even though I would defer to Biden on the decision, I'm not here to second guess the decision, but I can still see the union, why the unions who hadn't ratified this, the eight that did, I mean, whatever, but the four that did not ratify this, I could see why they would be upset And I would see why every other union's like, whoa, whoa, whoa. You know, like we would expect this from a guy who runs as a corporate guy, but we would never expect this from you, just from a principal standpoint, you know. And I do think ultimately cooler heads will prevail, you know, because I think it looks like the decision making wasn't again, for some crazy like just completely irrelevant type of thing or some kind of personal thing. It seems like it was like this was one of those decisions that was made for the best, for what someone believed was the best overall scenario.
[00:27:31] Speaker B: But. That's right. I mean, I don't understand the term undermined like we talked, just talked about. Right. Number one, it's not like the labor side only had to make concessions with no gains. We just mentioned a pain.
[00:27:43] Speaker A: Hold on. It really undermines them. They have a process for ratifying or rejecting a deal and they didn't ratify it. That's why Congress congressional action was necessary.
[00:27:51] Speaker B: Yeah. As we noted, a deal was struck in September and now the labor unions came back to the table and said, oh, that wasn't good enough.
[00:27:58] Speaker A: So they actually tentative broker deal. It wasn't that they agreed. Like again, they didn't go back on their word. It was a broker deal with Department of Labor and everybody like that. And just I wanted to give some clarification real quick just what the thing. And to your point, this is something that we've seen cross pollenization over the political parties like Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. They both agreed. Actually they were on the same side. I think it got 52 votes. Manchin on the Democratic side didn't vote for it, voted against it. And then most of the Republicans voted against it for the adding the sick leave part. So most of the thing was 52 senators voted to add the sick leave, including cotton and crude six Republicans.
[00:28:37] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.
[00:28:39] Speaker A: Normally you see pretty high in the partisan game, but that was interesting as well that when that raised a whole nother issue that actually I want to jump to right now in terms of just, you know, the fact that we could get 52 votes. But you know, in the Senate because of the filibuster rule, in order to end debate, you need 60 votes so that you can't get to a vote even though you have out of 100 people, 52 are willing to say yes or, you know, on record saying, yeah, I support this. You can't get to a vote because of the filibuster rule unless you get 60. You can't end debate. So 52 votes isn't enough to pass something in the Senate. So it's interesting and I want your thoughts on the.
Why do you think something like sick leave is something that we like the House was willing to do it, but we couldn't get or that they were not able to get in something like this. 52 senators, that's more than half, but wasn't able to overcome filibuster. And then just in general, it seems like we oftentimes when it comes to labor, lag behind a lot of other developed nations, you know, with something specifically something like sick leave.
[00:29:44] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean we don't just lag behind. We're a distant. You know, I saw a list of 22 what they call advanced economies, you know, all the countries we can assume would fall into that and we are last as the only country that doesn't have any sick leave on a federal level. Now there are several states that have requirements for paid sick leave and I think there is a federal law from the. Now I'm drawing a blank on which department it is, but it's. Employers do need to give a mandatory 10 days of unpaid sick leave. So that, that, that there is something there.
Yeah, but, but and also that has to do. I mean I think you have to have more than 50 employees. They have to all be within, you know, so you could be a very, very small employer and not have to do anything. But I don't know. I think that part of it is the culture of our country. For whatever reason, this has never been something that I think caught the majority of the country's eye to make sure they get done like other things, you know. And then the other thing is. Yeah, I mean our country definitely has, I would say within all those larger western style economies probably a more special relationship between business and government through the way we allow businesses to lobby the government. Other countries generally don't have such a well oiled economy of lobbying behind the scenes. And so we perpetuated it. Yeah, and so but that's what I'm saying like because what I feel like the reason why I kind of push back on you as relates to the word undermine is because number one, after reading that Railway Law Act, I mean specifically that industry has a special rule that the government can do this.
[00:31:27] Speaker A: Well now I would take a different approach if this was illegal. Like I think that the fact that this is there is a law that allows this means something. I want to get back to the reasoning though on why the US may lag behind the two things that came to mind When I looked at this and just like, wow, you know, these kind of bitter fights over something that's like a given in other developed economies. Like nationally, they will legislate. Companies have to provide X number of paid sick days. And we'll put some in the show notes about this, like how widespread this is. And this is like a deal breaking, you know, union busting, you know, like rail strike, national rail strike issue here. And one of the things I think is where I agree with you, like, culturally we're like burnout nation. Like, we just. That's the way we operate is like ride everything to the bone and you know, and then just deal with whatever, you know, once. Once it's down to the bone and like. And that's. That served us well in many respects, you know, like. And then. But that also creates, you know, just kind of this culture where, you know, what do you mean you want time off? What do you mean you want to take a vacation? Like, it's like that stuff is looked at like a worker is deficient because they want that. Whereas that's kind of a given in many other places in the world. And then the other thing I think is this is just the nature of, you know, any type of multiple society. A society where you have multiple different, you know, cultures, groups, races, religions versus societies that are very uniform.
[00:32:54] Speaker B: It's just.
[00:32:55] Speaker A: It's just easier to divide the workers. You know, it's easier to divide people in a country like ours versus like a Norway or you know, even an England or something like that. Like, there are so many different levers like you've talked about, you know, even. I think it was Carnegie when, you know, the, the unions were on his neck, you know, and then he figured out a way to get him off his neck. And what he did is they in the town, they accused some black dude of doing something to some white lady and then the union was busted, you know, so it's just.
[00:33:22] Speaker B: It was great newspapers here.
[00:33:25] Speaker A: Say it again.
[00:33:26] Speaker B: I said it was great because Carnegie on the newspaper. So he just. He got the guy, that one of the journalists to write in there that.
[00:33:32] Speaker A: I wouldn't describe it as great, but it was very.
[00:33:34] Speaker B: Negro man rapes white woman. And then that. That ended all.
[00:33:38] Speaker A: Ended all the labor talk, you know, and, you know, so.
[00:33:41] Speaker B: Yeah, that divided. Divide and conquer is a better way to put it. Just. Yeah.
I would say this to your point, that's exactly what you said, is that in the United States, through the efforts of lobbying, right, to kind of marry in a few things, we've said in this discussion so far that the corporate side, the industry in our country has been able to help divide this country so that we're looking at things like whatever gossip of the day is going on in politics and not looking at the serious stuff. You know what I mean?
[00:34:15] Speaker A: Well, yeah, that's a good point. I mean, and you could say that through the corporate ownership of the media, which was true with the Carnegie story, just gave. And it's true now, you know, in terms of how they can control, you know, just what issues are salient to people, you know, and then people love, you know, like the, the, the people are much more interested by and large in the interpersonal stories or things like that than serious stuff anyway, you know, so. But I know you have one more thing.
[00:34:41] Speaker B: That's why, that's why C SPAN doesn't make money.
But, but no, I just, just some kind of fun facts I found interesting just regarding back to strikes real quick because I found it interesting that at the federal level, right. So employees under federal law are prohibited from striking. If they, if any federal worker tries to organize or goes on strike, they're barred from retaining their employment. Period. And so I found that, you know, I always knew about this. Yeah, I knew about the famous one under Ronald Reagan with the air traffic controllers in 1981.
[00:35:13] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:35:13] Speaker B: But I didn't know. I learned here that in 1978, the year of my birth, they called it a wildcat strikes in New Jersey. Kearney.
Sorry, Jersey City, Kearney, New Jersey, San Francisco and Washington D.C. were all fired by Jimmy Carter for the same thing. So the postal workers tried to strike in 78, were fired by Carter. Air traffic controllers did it in 81, fired by Reagan. So it's just interesting how in a short period of time that. And then certain states such as New Jersey, Michigan, Iowa and Florida don't allow, for example, public school teachers to strike where a city like Chicago does.
So I've heard of horror stories in Chicago where the teachers will just organize a strike. And what happens is you've got 40,000 teachers in the city of Chicago, which translates to like 2 million kids. They're teaching, you know. And so what happens is all of a sudden 2 million kids are home from school and parents gotta stay home. You know, it just disrupts the whole kind of economic activity.
[00:36:13] Speaker A: I mean, that's. There has been a lot of hostility towards unions throughout time. And that's because when the unions are big or where in an important place, important industry, they're very powerful, you know, like. And so that's. It's something that has, you know, anytime there's power like that, particularly, you know, depending on who has it, it's something that can be seen as a threat. And so, you know, and one of the things just, just to mention, you know, like you had talked about, like, there's also. And this, this comes up here to some degree, like just solidarity action, you know, like in sympathy strikes and so forth, where even in their situations where because one union is striking, another union that's not directly related doesn't have a grievance, but they'll strike as well. And that's another way that these types of things can. Can expand out of control, you know, so to speak. So there is power to be exercised, you know, from unions. Ideally, like I said, this power is primarily used not vindictively and so forth, but just to make sure that workers get a fair shake or they have safe conditions and so forth. And most of the time, that's what happens. I mean, I'm the first to admit, though, that in certain part, like in the 60s, 70s, unions, you know, they started doing more than that, you know, so, you know, it's not always that unions are on the right side and, you know, but ultimately, like I said.
[00:37:31] Speaker B: I mean, that guy Jimmy Hoffa wasn't a good dude. Come on.
[00:37:35] Speaker A: They were just doing a little bit more. A lot more than what?
[00:37:38] Speaker B: He's a straight shooter. Taking all that pension money and doing those fine investments in the desert. Come on. Yeah, yeah.
[00:37:44] Speaker A: So. And then just, just for the purposes of which you had mentioned the Wildcat strike, what that is basically, is not a union strike. That's like workers without federal employees. Yeah. They're like, yo, we're just, you know, we're just out, you know, like. And then, you know, it's, you know, without the collective bargaining aspect, it could be more risky. But, you know, I think we can move to the second topic. But the point I wanted to make here and get through, and I think we did through our discussion, was just that the. A decision can be made. You can be not. You can like the decision or not like the decision. You think the decision is justified or not justified. But at the same time, you can understand why somebody would be. Even if you think it's. The decision is justified, it's the. You can think it's the right decision. You can still understand why somebody would be mad about it, you know, because ultimately the unions are trying to balance the best interests of the. The union members, whereas Biden is trying not to balance the best interests of the nation, which includes the union members, but also includes all of us as well.
[00:38:41] Speaker B: So he considers.
[00:38:43] Speaker A: And that's the pickle you were talking about.
[00:38:45] Speaker B: And I'll just be a smart ass and say since I earned my income on a 1099, I'll be selfish and not care. How about that?
[00:38:52] Speaker A: Well, you're an employer, so. Yeah, you're infiltrated. Infiltrated.
So no, I only.
[00:38:59] Speaker B: Hey, I don't have any W2 employees. I'm all outsourcing too. It's all 1099s, man. That's why it's great. I don't gotta deal with any of this.
[00:39:07] Speaker A: So we'll move to the second topic. Second topic was something that caught our eye. Michelle Obama is promoting a book. So when you promote a book, you get out and you say things that are gonna get picked up in the news cycle. And she has not disappointed. One of the things she noted was about how her and her marriage with her and Barack Obama, between the two of them, sometimes there's discomfort. She had another couple other things she said that just indicated how sometimes one person needs a little bit more than the other. And you know, and then sometimes it's about you a little bit more, sometimes it's about the other person a little more. And people reacted like to some, you know, people in marriages or whatever, this may seem like not breaking news, but many people reacted to this stuff. Like she was saying, you gotta drink your partner's blood. Which she wasn't saying that, just to be clear. So Tunde, as a person who's been married a long time, what was your reaction to some of the comments?
[00:40:00] Speaker B: The same as I said the last show. I'm tired of the Internet and social media and all this crap where people just crying.
[00:40:05] Speaker A: You blame the social media for this?
[00:40:06] Speaker B: Yeah, I do. Seriously. Because like you're saying, right, like if you read the excerpt of what she, like, put it this way, if you read that and you didn't know it came from Michelle Obama or anybody who one could say is well known, famous, whatever, right? Because I think what happens is, especially someone like her who was a first lady, well known people already have kind of a mental filing cabinet with how they feel about her.
And you know, some people just don't like her, some people love her, whatever. So whenever anyone like her, that's why it doesn't have to be her, just says something like this, especially when it involves something personal and intimate like your relationship with your spouse and maybe how she deals with it, people just react. It's like, she's an avatar for them and how they feel about how things should be. So I think you're right. Like, as someone who's been married a long time and who. At least, let's get my wife in here. But at least I think we have a good marriage.
I'll ask her later. I'll let you know.
I read it thinking, okay, that makes sense.
[00:41:16] Speaker A: Yeah, sounds about right to me.
[00:41:18] Speaker B: Because I'm in the trenches in a marriage for a long time, and it's working. And that's what I've said to people as a joke. Like, if, you know, my first bad joke is, if you heard that I got divorced, it's a 99% chance it's my fault because my wife's pretty chill, so I probably did something to screw it up. And then the second thing I tell people is if she ever died or left me, because I got to say the first part to say why I say the second part like, that I probably wouldn't get remarried again. And it's not. At least I say that now at this age. Right. But it's not because I'm unhappy. It's because marriages takes a lot of work. And I'm happy that we've done the work. Like, I'm not upset about that. But what I'm saying is, after procreating, having a family, all that, if, God forbid, something did happen to us, I'm just not in the mood to do this all again. You know what I mean?
[00:42:04] Speaker A: But.
[00:42:04] Speaker B: But that's kind of what I felt. I mean, not. The last part I just said is not what Michelle said. What I'm. What I feel like she was saying was what I said just a minute ago, which is, it's hard work being married.
[00:42:15] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:42:16] Speaker B: And she said. She alluded to that a little bit. Like, at the end, she says, like when she says when young people ask me about getting married and all that, she goes, have you really thought it through? Do you want a wedding or do you want a lifelong partnership? Those are two very different things.
[00:42:33] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:42:34] Speaker B: And I said to myself, from a young age, I used to wonder when I hear, like, young ladies. I'm talking about when I was in my twenties and people, oh, you know, we're spending fifty thousand, a hundred thousand on my wedding, and I'm so stressed out and this and that. And I remember this was before I was married. I just think to myself, like, that's interesting. Why should this be so stressful? You know? And I'd be like, wouldn't you Want to put this much attention to kind of worrying about the rest of your life with this person and not only focus on this one day. And, and, and I guess maybe that's why my marriage is okay, because I came into it with that thinking like, okay, this is a long term partnership.
[00:43:10] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:43:11] Speaker B: This isn't.
[00:43:12] Speaker A: Well, that's, that was the objective that you came with and you guys both had that, like, it reminds me of, you know, like, and I'll get into a couple of specific comments, but just from what you said, you know, many smart people talk about how, you know, when you're choosing a partner, a lot of people make the mistake of trying to find someone they have shared interests with and not necessarily focusing on the other thing, which is shared values. And so your values are more personal, you actually, than your interest, Your interests. As you age and stuff like that, they change, they evolve, you know, or devolve or whatever, but your values or things like, and that's something like, are you trying to build a lifelong partnership? What does that entail? You know, trust, you know, things like that. And so it was interesting to me, and I'll say this, There are a couple of things I saw that really picked up. One of the things she said was what you were talking about, but also she mentioned that you have to, one of her quotes is, you have to prepare yourself for long stretches of discord and discomfort.
[00:44:08] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:44:09] Speaker A: And you know, you could see how that people like, whoa, whoa, whoa. And I mean, you know, people romanticize, you know, the Obamas, you know, so it's like, what is, what are you, what are you talking about? I'm sure their marriage is like a fairy tale. And it's like anybody who has been in a marriage knows, like, no, there's no way. Like, and it's not, it's not that it's specific to marriage. Like, I tell people this all the time. Imagine spending that much time with anybody.
You're gonna have times, you're gonna. If you spend that much time with anyone, if you spend that much time with a parent, with a sibling, with any person, there's going to be times when you're angry at that person or like, you know, just whatever. And so you have to understand. And that's where you get in with, if you're going in. Because it's like the person who this is like, I'm he, I like this person, the person who that is, I want a partnership with this person. Then you can deal with that stuff as it ebbs and flows and so forth. But if you're, look, as you just pointed out, the other. One of the other quotes was if you're looking for a wedding, then it's like, well, as soon as the wedding's over, then when things get rocky, it's like, well, I've already got out of this what I wanted to get out of it.
[00:45:06] Speaker B: Yeah, no, and I think, well, I think, look, part of it is, look, are you the type of person, this is where you, like you're saying about, I mean, people don't realize, I mean, maybe non married people don't realize this, right? But getting married, you're really sharing.
[00:45:17] Speaker A: Married people don't realize this.
[00:45:19] Speaker B: You're sharing your life with another human being. Like that's another complex individual who, like you said, has their own value system, their own likes, their own dislikes. And you're absolutely right because I've said that. I've kind of, when I've talked to either friends of mine getting married or people I know that are younger because I've had some friends, you know, I told them don't get married because they're behaving a certain way during their engagement and all that. Oh, no, man, I'll change when I get married.
[00:45:42] Speaker A: No, you're not.
[00:45:43] Speaker B: It is who you are. Like you just shouldn't get married. They went ahead and got married anyway and it became a disaster. So, but, but then I think about it. Like I used to tell, I remember telling a younger person this. I said, because it was exactly what you said about values. I just didn't realize I was saying it like that because I said it about just religion. And I said, look, you could have someone that's very religious, goes to church every Sunday, and someone who's not religious at all and doesn't really care about religion and all that. And both of them are fine, good people and they can coexist if they're just dating and kind of hanging out. Because the person that doesn't like church will say, okay, you know, you get up and go this morning, I'll see you when you come home. I'll have lunch ready. And the person who likes church will go. And you know, as long as they're not the type that wants to force their partner to come, you know, they can coexist. I said, what happens when they have their first kid?
That's when the real values come into play. Because if the person who is very religious says, no, I'm going to raise my kid in the church. This is my child. And da, da, da, the person who's not religious, maybe feel just as strongly I don't want my kid raised in that environment. Or maybe feeling that they're going to be indoctrinated with something or something. And that's like to your point where a value system really becomes, there's a tension because now you're talking about both people have a right that they're going to feel that they want their child in some sort of environment or not.
[00:47:03] Speaker A: Well, it's a justified right as well. And to contrast that, like let's say the instead of a person that their values, the church and religion is a very big part of their value system. What if it's somebody who just likes to go to the mall every weekend? Like that's different. Like it's like, oh, well, you know, I. One person likes to go to the mall every weekend and the other person doesn't. That's something. And 10 years the other person may not like even going to the mall every week like that. So that's a different kind of thing than hey, this is kind of fundamental about who I am or the one.
[00:47:31] Speaker B: That doesn't like me might look at, oh, you're gonna take the kids to the mall. I get afraid, keep going, oh, I'll.
[00:47:39] Speaker A: Just be hanging out at the house. Don't worry about me.
[00:47:41] Speaker B: I'll be out playing. So that'll be my PlayStation time with no kids around. Come on.
[00:47:45] Speaker A: But one of the other things she mentioned is talking about learning how to make real compromises and just the effects of glamorizing a relationship, you know, like that you do, like when you first meet somebody and so forth. And we've all, you know, talked about this and seen, you know, many people talk about it in terms of, you know, when you meet people, it takes a while before you actually get to know them. Versus I think it was Chris Rock said, you meet their representative first. And so it takes a while to actually get through that and see who a person really is. And so much of that, you know, can be about glamorizing things or, you know, trying to present yourself in a way where you actually don't even reveal your whole self. And that's another barrier a lot of times to building these long term relationships because you have to actually really, you have to be able to see it and then to be able to accept the person that you are dealing with when you're talking about a marriage. And again, all of that stuff to me was loud and clear coming out of Michelle Obama's, you know, reading these excerpts, which again, these are excerpts which are intended to drum up interest in her second book, the Light We Carry. And so, you know, there's a plug for it. I mean, because I thought it was worthwhile, the stuff she was putting out there. But again, the reaction to it was what we was like, oh, my goodness. How is this stuff controversial?
[00:49:02] Speaker B: Because it's 2022 and the Internet exists. That's why the.
No, but that's why I like to.
[00:49:10] Speaker A: We're going to have to have a meme of you shaking your fist at the Internet.
[00:49:13] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:49:13] Speaker A: You have to be an old man.
[00:49:14] Speaker B: The Internet has to stay off my line at all given times. Trust me. That's why I, like we're in Florida because I got the Castle doctrine and stand your ground. So if the Internet shows up on my lawn, we know what's happening. And it'll be a deer slug, not no bird shot.
[00:49:29] Speaker A: Oh, my goodness.
[00:49:31] Speaker B: But now, because she used an interesting term that I highlighted, it says, only then can we evolve together. And I felt that's interesting.
[00:49:40] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:49:41] Speaker B: It goes back the sentence before that two sentence before that. She has never had. Our marriage has never been perfectly 50. 51 of us is always needing more or giving more. We have to be willing to listen to each other honestly and without defensiveness. Only then can we evolve together. And I thought the word evolve is very good because it goes back to what you're saying. Right. If we even joke about you're meeting the person's representative. Once that kind of veneer comes off, then if you're still together and you like it.
You know, Stephen Covey had a great famous book called the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
[00:50:15] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:50:16] Speaker B: And he kind of draws this arc through the book about kind of. You know, there's a lot of the psychology and emotional states, but there's one where he calls interdependence.
But what he gets at is you can't be interdependent really with someone. Kind of what Michelle Obama's talking about here, and really grow and evolve with them, let's say in a positive way. Because I know you can devolve with someone pretty quickly, I'm sure. But to grow and evolve in a positive way, you have to first be truly independent as a person, be very comfortable with yourself, have a certain level of self esteem, all that for you to be able to be with someone and be truly interdependent, that's different from codependent. Think about that.
[00:51:01] Speaker A: Correct, Correct.
[00:51:01] Speaker B: That's interdependent. And that's what I realize is as we look at how interdependence.
[00:51:06] Speaker A: Just let me say that that's a choice.
[00:51:08] Speaker B: That is exactly.
[00:51:09] Speaker A: I can do this on my own, but I want to do this with you. I want to rely on.
[00:51:13] Speaker B: Codependence still means you may be looking for someone like a crutch, you know, whether emotional, financial, whatever.
[00:51:20] Speaker A: But the difference in the choice there is that it's not a choice saying, I can do this on my own, but I want to do this with you. It's like, no, no, there's different, but go ahead. I don't want to.
[00:51:30] Speaker B: Yeah. So with the idea of. Because I'm thinking about specifically in our culture, our society.
And then, I mean, obviously I'll talk about like my generation and the younger ones. Right. Because I wasn't around for people older than me, how they dated in the 60s and 50s and all that. But I would say by the time you and I kind of came up in the 90s, right. Where we were teenagers getting into our 20s, then you look at it, a lot of people aren't comfortable being by themselves.
[00:51:59] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:52:00] Speaker B: And meaning how many people do we know jump from a relationship to relationship, don't ever really let themselves be still alone. So they learn how to be by themselves and independent, learn how to be their own person first, so they're not going into the next relationship feeling like they they this. Whether emotional neediness or some other thing they're looking for from another person to satisfy some need they have. And I'm sure it's gotten worse because I had a flip phone when I met my wife, so I don't know what it's like on these swipes and these apps and all that. But I'm sure it's only worse now because it's become more impersonal as the age of the Internet has allowed people to do the speed dating and all that kind of stuff. So I think it's probably going to be more difficult for people to evolve together, as she mentioned, in the future, because so many people just honestly don't know how to be by themselves in a way that they can kind of like fix and build themselves up to a whole thing that then can be interdependent with something else.
[00:53:01] Speaker A: Well, I think we got our dose of pessimistic tunde today because it doesn't necessarily have to be something that will be worse. I mean, I'll say this, though. I want to say that I want to point to the same thing you just did, the Evolving together piece. I think implicit in that, but is very important Is that, is that as you grow you will evolve, you will change. And in a marriage, I take it that it's a very important. Now I haven't been, I've been married, you know, but I haven't been married as long as the Obama's have. I've been married for 14 years, but, and I've evolved since then. But I take it from that statement the implicit piece is that you're going to evolve. You can either evolve in parallel, you can evolve where you go away from each other, you evolve apart, or you evolve together. And so there's a high level, it appears of intentionality that she's referencing there, of what it takes to actually evolve together. Because the default probably isn't that you evolve together. The way she's talking about it. And like I said, someone who's been married longer than me, so I'm looking at this for hints and tips and so forth, is like, okay, yeah, you have to do this stuff. You can't evolve in parallel. You have to evolve, you have to try to evolve together. So I think, I thought it was insightful.
[00:54:21] Speaker B: I thought it was an interesting look at them, like you said, about how people see them. Like I could see something like she's, we know that she's very into fitness, right. She was into the eating good and all that. She married a guy that up until I guess his second or third year in office when he was like 50 years old or maybe early 50s, smoked at least a half a pack of cigarettes a day. I wouldn't be surprised if that was just a bone of contention for them as a married couple over the years where she probably was like, hey man, you know, when are you gonna stop smoking this and that? And we got kids now once they had the kids and you know, they had to deal with it, right. And deal with each other. And so it's just little things like that, like you said about people looking at them as some fairy tale. I just bringing that up. That, yeah, just natural stuff like that, like one spouse smoking cigarettes and another doesn't or somebody doing something. These are the normal things that people experience in any relationship. And, and I, I, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people reacted all over the place with it. But that's why I'm negative guy today that just the Internet better stay off my lawn for the next couple weeks.
[00:55:22] Speaker A: Tune day shaking fist at Internet in the cloud. You know that we can have you shaking fist at cloud because yeah, that's a, that's a way we can represent the Internet. But no, I think we can wrap it up from here. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I see it, it subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review us, tell us what you think, share it with a friend. Until next time, I'm James Keys Tunde over the line. All right, we'll talk to you next time.
