interviews
Labor and the White House
by Dave Weigel
March 31, 2021
This interview with Dave Weigel, national reporter covering politics for the Washington Post, was conducted and condensed by franknews and Payday Report.
DW | The White House's involvement in the Amazon union drive was a big surprise. I mean, we know where it could have originated, the union talked to the White House; they have kind of an open door with Biden that they didn't have with Trump. We know that Faiz Shakir, Bernie Sanders’ campaign chairman, and his group, Perfect Union, got involved. So, there was public pressure.
The fact that the White House and the president released that video was a big deal to people. And, he made this decision to get involved very early on in his presidency. It was within his first 50 days. He decided to do what hadn't been done before and give a message in support of the union. It was a very careful message. The new labor secretary, Marty Walsh, when asked specifically about Amazon, responded in more general tones.
But, no matter what happens, if you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound.
A lot of previous presidents, including Barack Obama, said a lot less about these union drives and, in doing so, limited their own exposure. If the drive didn't work, people didn't say that the president supported something that didn't work. The fact that Biden made a statement, early on, when it wasn't clear how this was going to go, is a real political statement of what they thought was important.
frank | How do you think his background plays a role in this?
He's always leaned in really hard and identified with workers in the same way he's tried to identify with different civil rights movements. Joe Biden has always wanted to be seen as the kind of person who is coming from Scranton, who has lived through the sixties, and who wants to jump to the front of the march if there is a struggle happening.
He frames everything in terms of fairness. He's not as natural as other members of the party in talking about this. When Bernie Sanders talks about this, for example, he talks about greed, he names CEOs, he says nobody deserves that much money, he talks about a maximum wage and how there should be no billionaires at all. Biden doesn't go that far. Biden has never gone after Jeff Bezos. He's never gone after individual heads of companies the way that Sanders does. He does this sort of a "Hey man, these guys are under assault, somebody needs to stick up for them."
That is something that he has always wanted to be part of his brand. Even when he was voting for trade deals like NAFTA as a Senator, he was never really comfortable. He had the same ideological mindset as a lot of the Democrats in the eighties and the nineties. He did it because he saw that that was the way things were moving and he voted strategically. But, the stuff that fired him up was when he could side with workers. It is the same thing with the projects he took on under Obama when he was Vice President.
During the Democratic primary, he didn't get the same amount of labor support that Hillary Clinton did, but, Sanders didn't get it either. There wasn't the same sort of a landslide of labor to get in early and say, this is our candidate. Instead, they were demanding more of the candidates.
I would cover presidential primary events with the Teamsters in Cedar Rapids or the Building Trades in DC and you would kind of look to the level of applause as an indicator. The interesting thing is that at those events Sanders would lay out the things he did and what he wanted to pass. Biden would go on at length about non-compete clauses and about wage theft and things like that. It was less, "I have studied all of the papers on this and I've decided this is my policy," and more of "this seems unfair and I'm against this thing."
I think the Democratic Party is increasingly understanding what labor can mean for them strategically.
Republicans have gotten kind of tangled up on labor. They have done better with union households, but they are basically the party of deregulation still. They've never really moved on the labor part of their messaging. That makes it easier for Biden to compete for these workers. When it comes down to it, Republicans want “right-to-work." Josh Hawley, who branded himself as a working-class candidate, for example, supports a national right-to-work.
Biden was very concerned with winning back more union households. Union workers were saying, “Democrats had the presidency for 16 years. What do they do for us?” Biden didn't have all the answers that labor wanted, but he was making a lot of specific promises about how he was going to act. He talked about infrastructure spending and about how he was going to run the NLRB and how he was going to approach employers. It was less than Sanders did, but that's way more than Democrats had done in the past.
I mean, the McCain/Romney era Republicans had no appeal to the sort of voters who voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump. Biden only peeled back maybe 10% of them depending on where you're talking about, but it has made life easier for Democrats.
This fight has in large part been framed in the context of continuing a battle for civil rights. Do you see Biden lean into that messaging?
Biden did not really lean to the racial justice aspect or the civil rights legacy aspect of this labor fight. When the congressional delegation here came down a couple of weeks before the vote, they were much more explicit. Someone like Jamal Bowman or Cori Bush is much more comfortable saying that than Biden. That is the thing about Biden. He basically sets boundaries. He says what his position is and backs off and lets the action happen without his constant commentary. It's very different than Trump in that way too. And that's different than the Sanders position. And it's different than what Warren said her position would be as president.
Can you give us context on how or why you started covering this story?
I started covering the Amazon drive because of the president and members of Congress intervening. I mean, labor decided to get involved months before, but the fact that Democrats were getting involved was new. It has been interesting to monitor their investment in this over other Democratic Party causes.
There's a little bit of intervention from the Democrats, but not, I'd say equal to what Amazon is doing. They are not the advertisements on TV. We all know the Democratic party is kind of involved, but it is not the same political project that I've seen in other places.
There are two stories that kind of were happening at the same time; they have merged, but not completely. One is this labor drive, which is smaller than most drives that have succeeded. It is not overwhelming. You don't see labor signs everywhere you go. But, on the other hand, the level of national involvement is kind of new.
Had Biden said nothing, there would have been a story, but it wouldn't involve the White House, it wouldn't involve the Democratic Party, and it might not involve the PRO Act.
And I think that's going to change because of this.
New interview w/ @daveweigel @PaydayReport
— frank news (@FrankNewsUS) April 6, 2021
"The White House's involvement with the Amazon drive was a big surprise ... Previous presidents, Obama comes to mind, said a lot less. The fact that Biden did that early on is a political statement of what they thought was important." pic.twitter.com/MwYlmqE4xQ
That was a big decision Biden made to be a part of this.
Right. And that political story is interesting. The story here is much more independent. A lot of the people who've come in to help canvas are from smaller groups. You have Black Lives Matter and DSA groups from the area, but you don't have the Democratic Party getting involved in a huge way. I think that is something that people will revisit after the vote.
Should the Democratic Party, like most left parties in the world, be very involved with labor? Should they always take the side of labor?
Most social democratic parties are labor parties and they build up from there. Their coalition includes labor unions. In the British Labour Party, for example, labor has a role in electing the leadership. That is not the case here. That's the conversation I think they're going to start having when this votes over. For example, if there are, and the union says there are, hundreds of people around the country calling them saying, "Hey, I have some questions about what I can do at my fulfillment center in my town," that will be a question for Democrats.
And if Amazon wins, do you get spooked? Amazon has been very punchy in their PR. They might say that a bunch of elite Democrats stood with the union and the workers stood with Amazon. That is very comfortable turf for Amazon to be on, and that leaves a big question open for Democrats. If the union succeeds, throw all of that out the window. I think the lesson that everyone would take in that case would be that if it takes less than a three-minute video from the president to get momentum for something like this, then we should keep doing that. As we talk, I don't know the answer to that question. I think that is something that is going to be answered when the votes are in.
interviews
Money Alone Is Not Enough
by Michelle Miller-Adams
May 10, 2019
This interview with Michelle Miller-Adams, a professor and senior researcher at the Upjohn Institute, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
Part One of this conversation is available here.
When you look at and consider all of your research over the years, what is your ideal version of 'free college' programs? And how do you push what you know and what you're curious about to the forefront of our national conversation around college affordability?
As we enter another presidential primary, what would you like the conversation to look like? What do you think the most critical debate around this issue should be?
That is another great question, and actually, I'm about to start thinking seriously about it, because I'm about to write a book on this topic.
While I hope the ideas in my book will influence the national discourse, I'm not holding my breath for a national program, because I just think that politically, it's a really tough lift. If you look at the history of policy innovation in our country, this is exactly how it happens. Things get pioneered at the local level, and then they spread to other local communities, and then they may jump up to the states, and then maybe eventually, they'll find their way into federal policy. I just think that even though all the Democrats are talking about this, once they get in power, and depending who winds up in the Congress, a nationwide free-college program is not a surefire outcome.
That being said, we had a proposal in 2015 from President Obama that made a great deal of sense. To me, it's still the gold standard model out there for triangulating all of those various needs. It was called America's College Promise – no legislation was ever introduced but the policy proposal was out there. It was a federal-state partnership that would make community colleges tuition free. If states opted to participate–- and there were performance requirements if they did – the federal government would foot most of the bill. And importantly, it was designed to be a first dollar program.
That leads me to your question. I especially value programs that have universal eligibility. Basically, in programs like these, everybody can take a crack at it.
In a perfect world, which we don't live in, a first dollar program is far preferable to a last dollar program, because it has that better equity impact, where low-income students also get new money, and then they can use their Pell Grants to pay part of the way of their living expenses. If you do a universal program, and you focus it on community colleges, as Obama's program did and as Tennessee and Rhode Island do – whether first- or last-dollar – you are doing some de facto targeting. You are targeting low and moderate-income students, because honestly, Tatti, do you know many wealthy students who went to community college?
Very few.
Right. There may be a few, but that might just be the price you pay. If an affluent student is headed toward an elite or even semi-elite four-year institution, they're probably not going to make the decision to go to community college to get their $2,000 a year scholarship. On the other hand, students who weren't necessarily going anywhere, or those at the margin who are stressed in terms of finances, may decide to go to community college, and students on a four-year track may decide to start at the community college and cut their costs dramatically. Students do that all the time. I teach at a large state university, and we have plenty of students who started at a community college because it's cheaper – and then transfer to the four-year school to get their bachelor's.
Two other things are really important. One powerful lesson that we have learned over the years is that simplicity is your ally in these programs. With complex programs there's just too much confusion around the messaging. New York State has a program called the Excelsior Scholarship, and it's really innovative in one sense, which is that it allows students to go to public four-year institutions, as well as two-year community colleges, which is great. However, there is so much fine print that very few students actually qualify for the scholarship.
The simpler the better. If you can say it in a couple sentences, that's a good sign. But the other important element is this question of support. Thinking seriously about what kinds of resources are needed all along that educational continuum to help students, particularly those who haven't been successful in school, access higher ed, be successful in getting there, staying there and completing is really important.
Tennessee Promise has a mentorship program, and while the mentorship component is not as intensive as it was for the predecessor local program, it marks a recognition of the value of mentorship in helping students be successful in higher ed. Tennessee also has an adult free community college program called Tennessee Reconnect, and even that has a support structure built in. It doesn't come out of public money. It comes out of the philanthropic sector. There are a lot of ways to do this, but it's important to recognize that the money by itself is not going to change your outcomes that much.
As a short digression, I've been really busy, so I haven't been very active on Twitter, but I do want to respond to Pete Buttigieg's response…
He was pretty negative about free college. He basically said there's this huge college wage premium, where people with college degrees get paid a lot more than people who don't, and that's absolutely true. And he doesn’t like the idea of people without college degrees subsidizing those who are going to get the college wage premium. I think he misses the boat on this. The point of Promise programs is to bring those people who aren’t headed for college – whether because of confusion about the process or lack of financial resources – into the process so they can go on and get some of that college wage premium. Right?
Another presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren, has come out with a number of big equity-based policy ideas and one of the latest is her plan for tuition-free college and student loan debt relief. Her ideas are bold and not always fully practical, but this one had an important element, which is that if we're going to make public colleges and universities tuition free, we had better also address the student loan burden. One of the challenges of free college is that if you come up with a national program, you still have all these people walking around with this huge student loan debt. So there's a real equity challenge there, if you aren't going to do something about the people who already got indebted, then it's sort of just a generational unfairness.
We're having that discussion in Michigan. Our new governor, just this week, introduced legislation for three tuition-free college initiatives, one for community colleges, one for four-year publics and one for adults, closely modeled on Tennessee, but there's no component that deals with the student debt situation, and the legislation. Because we have this very Republican Congress it's probably not going to go very far, but we'll see.
It’s a fascinating aspect of the free-college movement. A lot of money is being committed to support free-college initiatives without a lot of evidence about what they do and don’t accomplish. I know that because we sit here at ground zero of trying to generate some of that evidence, and there are many, many, many things we do not know. This is not a heavily researched, proven model where we really understand what we're doing.