Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

GARY: During this hour, we're going to focus on labor issues, the value of contract concessions, apprenticeship programs, state budget problems, NAFTA. The list is a long one. And joining us today to through some of those issues is Bernard Brommer, who is the president of the of Minnesota State AFL-CIO.

Today, we're going to talk about issues of concern specifically to organized labor. But of course, those issues extend pretty much all across the board. Mr. Brommer, thanks for coming in today.

BERNARD BROMMER: You're welcome, Gary. Good afternoon.

GARY: Good afternoon. It's just as a starting point. How many people are members of unions in Minnesota at this point?

BERNARD BROMMER: The membership of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, which is a federation of unions, which in turn represent rank and file members, is probably in the vicinity of 350,000 Minnesotans, men and women who belong to unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

GARY: And then there are other like the Teamsters, they're not affiliated, right?

BERNARD BROMMER: Not at the State level. They are at the national level. But there's other organizations, supervisory groups, professional groups, other organizations like that do represent workers. So that number climbs somewhat higher. And that doesn't take into account the Minnesota Education Association, which as you know is not an AFL-CIO affiliate.

GARY: Oh, it isn't?

BERNARD BROMMER: No, it is not.

GARY: Oh.

BERNARD BROMMER: The Minnesota Federation of Teachers is the teacher's union that is the AFL-CIO affiliate.

GARY: If you were to lump them all together, any ballpark guess, how many people are union members?

BERNARD BROMMER: I would guess that we're probably looking at upwards of a half a million Minnesotans that are members of trade unions in our state or organizations that pursue a traditional labor agenda, collective bargaining, representing people, that sort of thing.

GARY: At this point, are most people who are members of a trade unions, are they members of the old style kind of industrial unions? Or are the majority of them now members of what might call white collar unions?

BERNARD BROMMER: Well, it's a mix, Gary. We certainly have membership in the basic trade unions, the skilled trades in some of the industrial unions, the growth of course, has been in some of the public sector organizations, public sector unions, AFSCME in particular in Minnesota, has grown tremendously, the healthcare field, the service employees union, and other unions are organizing workers in the healthcare area. Some of the service industries workers are increasing their numbers in unions also.

GARY: Perception, I think, is that the number the membership in organized labor unions is declining, that your influence is declining substantially. Are those perceptions correct?

BERNARD BROMMER: I don't think they are. The erroneous idea that's out there about the decline in unions, it's true. There's been a decline in terms of the percentage of workers who are in unions when measured against the total workforce. But the numbers of people who are organized has stayed fairly constant or has, I think, even increased a little bit, the misconception is that our actual numbers are going down, and that isn't the case.

GARY: I have to ask you, what with the state legislature getting under way now? Certainly one of the proposals that received a lot of attention early on was the suggestion one easy way for the state to deal with its budget shortfall would be to simply freeze the wages of all public employees for a year. Number one, I would assume you don't think that's a good idea, but why not?

BERNARD BROMMER: We do not know. Well, first of all--

GARY: In one year, isn't that much of a sacrifice?

BERNARD BROMMER: Perhaps not, but it makes public employees the scapegoats for the budgetary problems of the state. And it ignores the fact that these individuals are also taxpaying Minnesotans, and that the cost of living has gone up for them. And to simply single them out as the only entity that will make the sacrifice, so to speak, to balance the state budget we think is extremely unfair.

And it's my sense and I don't think it's going to change. I don't think the legislature is very enamored by the idea. I think this is pretty much isolated to the administration. And I think they did it perhaps more as a trial balloon than anything else. I don't know that they even embraced the idea with all that much enthusiasm.

GARY: See if anybody was really interested in it. I do think part of it, though, did originate with, I think the state university system, though, did it not, or some folks in that area who are concerned about if they didn't hold the line on education costs, they were going to have to dramatically increase tuition and/or cut back programs. That's my recollection.

BERNARD BROMMER: That there was some idea regarding the salaries of faculty in the state university system were that might have gotten started, and I don't know how far that'll go. But, again, it's unfair. I wished we could get the administration to look at the taxes of those individuals in Minnesota who are earning income in excess of $100,000 as part of the solution to solving the budget shortfall, as opposed to looking at office workers and clerical workers and other people who are probably making less than $20,000 a year to solve the state's budget problems.

GARY: Does organized labor support that so-called 4% solution, which would we do?

BERNARD BROMMER: Yes, we do.

GARY: Now, the idea here is that essentially you raise the income tax on wealthy people, and now is that a matter of equity or a way to raise money?

BERNARD BROMMER: It's a question of fairness. Well, it's obviously both. Obviously, it won't the entire gap, but a question of fairness. There's a lot of concern about our tax system and where the burden is falling.

And the Minnesota Citizens for Tax Justice Organization, for example, has information that suggests that during the 1980s, those that were at the upper income levels in our society did very well as a percent of their total income, their tax burden actually declined. Whereas for a lot of other people, middle class, lower middle class as a percent of their earnings, their income, their tax burden went up.

GARY: Under that plan, who's defined as rich? That's always

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

BERNARD BROMMER: Problem, that changes, that definition will vary from individual to individual. But I think the most frequently used definition is individuals with earnings in excess of $100,000 a year.

GARY: Our guest is Bernard Brommer, who is the head of the Minnesota State AFL-CIO. He's been kind enough to come in today to take your questions. We're going to talk about labor issues during this hour. Let's take our first question. Hello.

AUDIENCE: Hello. Good afternoon, Bernard Brommer. My question has to do with the possibility that organized labor will be asked to buy a dead horse, to invest money in enterprises that are doomed by virtue of stupid or illegal business practices to go bankrupt. And what can we do to open the books to make it possible that organized labor can stay together and rational on this question?

GARY: It's the whole issue of making-- it sounds like labor, contract concessions in exchange for some kind of an equity position in companies.

BERNARD BROMMER: Sure, sure.

GARY: And it's being talked about at Northwest.

BERNARD BROMMER: It's a very timely question in light of the negotiations that are going on between the unions and Northwest Airlines right now. And it's always a difficult question as we're witnessing a lot of times the workforce, are the individuals they're not involved in the decisions that are made in corporations, in boardrooms.

But if those decisions are wrong, if poor judgment is used and the company is in a situation where they're facing financial difficulties, possibly even bankruptcy, the workforce is eventually the ones that seems to be called upon to make the sacrifice, to make wage concessions and so on. And the unions that represent workers are constantly struggling to get information on which to make good decisions.

And there is no magic solution in response to the caller as to how you get that information and how you can avoid putting workers in the position in the first place of having to make those kinds of sacrifices.

I think that there needs to be some changes, the demands by the unions, for example, at Northwest Airlines, that they get an equity position in the airline, that they get involved in the decision making process, that they have representation on the board, and so on, be interesting to see how those things come out. Because historically, employers have not responded favorably to those kinds of things.

But I think unions are on the right track, the ones that Northwest Airlines, in making those demands, because if they're going to have to make those kinds of wage concessions, whether it's in the airline industry or anywhere else, they ought to have something to say about their social, political, economic future with that entity.

GARY: Is there a general thought when labor is confronted with a question, OK, well, look, you have two choices organized labor. We can either eliminate jobs and everybody kind of keeps their same wage level, maybe even get a little raise, or give some of that money back and preserve the jobs. Is there one approach that you advocate in a situation like that? Confronted with that kind of an ultimatum?

BERNARD BROMMER: No, and it's not uncommon, that happens frequently. And again, the workers are usually the ones that are required to make the sacrifices. Concessions are not new, obviously. We've seen concession, bargaining, givebacks, takeaways, that phenomenon has been occurring for particularly during the '80s with the transfer of wealth in the country and the downturn in the economy, the recession that we had.

We saw a lot of difficulties in a lot of different industries. But a lot of times, the employers, the people at the top of the economic ladder, they're not willing to make the sacrifices. They're not sacrificing, if at all, very little. And that's where the unfairness, the inequality comes in. And that's a constant struggle for organized labor.

They're saying, OK, if, unionized workers have to make an economic sacrifice here to save the enterprise, then let's everybody step up to the plate and make a sacrifice. And I think it's probably going to be a very, very important issue in the Northwest situation also.

GARY: Let's take another caller. Hello, your question?

AUDIENCE: Yes. I'm a self-employed person, simply because labor can no longer represent the section of the construction industry I'm in, for example. I build new homes as a self-employed subcontractor. Because the laws are arranged that the general contractor can pass on all those costs to the self-employed person.

How is labor going to address re-expanding those people that used to represent that basically been left in the lurch between the '80s piss on my back telling me it's raining philosophy and the increasing decentralization of the economy? I'll hang up and listen to the answer.

BERNARD BROMMER: Well, it's a very good question. It's a difficult problem. The caller made specific reference to the construction industry, the decentralization. We're aware of that. We're aware that a lot of construction employers, for example, employ independent contractors. They no longer have a workforce because as a result of some of the loopholes and the shortcomings of our laws at the state level, for example, they can avoid the payment of workers compensation payments.

They can avoid unemployment insurance taxes, probably other taxes that are doing and owing the government at one level or another. And what we need is some strengthening of those laws. We need some support from the people who are elected to public office to close those loopholes and to make sure that there's a level playing field for everybody out there in terms of participating in this economy.

GARY: In exchange for some changes along those lines, would you folks be ready to accept maybe a reduction or some changes in the workers' comp insurance compensation laws and so on, so that it's a little cheaper for business to operate in Minnesota?

BERNARD BROMMER: Well, that assumes that Minnesota is out of line in terms of the costs to operate a business entity here in the first place. We don't have universal agreement on that point to begin with. But--

GARY: Well, there's a lot of time to work.

BERNARD BROMMER: Yes, we've tried to work with the business community, with others, but our principle mission is to represent the interests of workers, organized workers in Minnesota, and beyond that, workers who are not organized at this point in terms of getting a fair share of the economic pie. It isn't all just one way. This whole business climate argument and phenomenon, I think, has been really overblown and overplayed.

There's strong evidence that Minnesota's economy, the employment situation here is a lot better than it is in a lot of other places in the country. And I think that we have to focus on those things. And remember that there's some things that are going OK here, too, in this state also. But we're willing to sit down and talk to anybody about anything.

GARY: What do you think about the suggestions spoken or otherwise, I think primarily from, oh, the Clinton administration, for example, time that we all get together and kind of putting people first, kind of pushing ahead together and so on. Doesn't that get to the heart though, or at least bring into question the traditional adversarial relationship, labor and management? It sounds like the thrust would be, well, we put aside all our differences.

[LAUGHS]

BERNARD BROMMER: Well, there's never going to be total unanimity. I mean, there's always going to be an adversarial element in labor management relations. But I think that some changes can be made. I think that's very important because we do obviously have a global economy organized labor recognizes that. The challenges that are out there don't simply confront employers and unionized workers. It confronts everybody in our country. And we have some very, very difficult issues that need to be addressed.

But we're very encouraged by the agenda, if you will, of the Clinton administration, we think that there's probably going to be some dramatic changes in terms of labor management, industrial relations in the United States that we'll see more emphasis on the involvement of organized labor, more emphasis on involvement by workers, importance of training, education, and so on, and more emphasis on a cooperative program involving the government, the business community, and organized labor more along the lines of what we see in other industrialized nations around the world. The United States is somewhat unique in that organized labor is usually dealt out of the hand.

GARY: Manufacturing wages, can they remain as high as they are and still have US businesses compete on a global basis?

BERNARD BROMMER: Well, that's another myth, Gary, that's out there in terms of manufacturing wages. The United States, in terms of its manufacturing wages, has declined significantly. I think now we're 13th or 14th in the industrialized world. We're behind a lot of other nations in terms of our manufacturing wages that are paid to our workforce.

So I don't think that American workers should be called upon to sacrifice anymore. There's a lot of elements that have contributed to this decline, in terms of the United States ranking. At one time, we were number one in terms of manufacturing wages, but not anymore.

GARY: Bernard Brommer, who is the head of the Minnesota State AFL-CIO is our guest in our studios. And let's take another call. Hello.

AUDIENCE: Good afternoon, Bernard Brommer. I was wondering if you would-- I'm going to hang up when you answer that. I wonder if you'd comment on the Paragon and the Nordic ware deal, where these people were fired for union efforts. And also your opinion on binding arbitration, but on the controllers when Reagan fired those people, the federal government, I thought, seemed to have solidarity, they supported solidarity everywhere else but America.

I wonder if you'd comment on those two incidents-- the firing of the controllers, and the Paragon and the cable TV. Please. Thank you.

GARY: OK. First of all, just a little background about the Paragon situation. Could you explain what he's talking about?

BERNARD BROMMER: Yeah. I believe that refers to the cable television entity, and he also referenced NordicTrack. Both of those business enterprises, the employees were interested in organizing. And in fact, there may have been union elections there, but they were unable to get a first contract, a collective bargaining agreement, workers were laid off, the unions are alleging that it was because of their selection of a union to represent them.

In NordicTrack, for example, there was, I think, some printing employees that had voted to go union and they were seeking a collective bargaining agreement. And NordicTrack, which was printing its public relations materials to sell their exercise equipment, simply closed down the printing operation and decided to farm that out.

The issue that's raised by the caller is one that deals with changes in our labor laws, the ability of workers. And this goes to the question earlier, Gary, about the number of workers who are organized. Unions are winning a significant number of certification elections. But the difficulty that we're encountering is trying to get that first collective bargaining agreement.

Obviously, workers vote for the union because they want the representation and they want to be covered by a union contract. They want their wages and their benefits and so on, spelled out in a collective bargaining agreement. But under our state and federal labor laws, there's nothing that compels either party to agree to a collective bargaining agreement, and employers are simply stonewalling it and waiting for the year to expire.

And then, of course, the union's representation rights can be challenged, in a lot of cases with the encouragement of the employer. So this is a very common problem. And also the permanent replacement of workers. The striker replacement legislation that we attempted to get in the Congress, and that President Bush threatened to veto is a part of this also.

So there are some changes that are needed. Again, we think that we're going to see some labor law reform at the federal level under the leadership of President Clinton. The air traffic controllers with their arbitration would have been an instrument that could have been used, there certainly can. It's a common instrument that's used by labor and management to resolve differences.

But in that situation, President Reagan fired those 11,000 or 12,000 air traffic controllers. And I think that was a very, very unjust act on the part of our federal government.

GARY: Well, the labor movement always points to that. But yet it was clear, didn't it? Wasn't it clear by law that they couldn't go on strike? And when they did, what a pretty--

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

BERNARD BROMMER: Gary, the events of that period are getting a little bit fuzzy. Now, going back to '81, some 11 or 12 years ago, and reference was made to some kind of an oath or a pledge that these individuals signed with regard to their employment. And the administration accused them of violating that oath by going out on strike.

In retrospect, they probably would do it differently. But the fact of the matter is, is they had a commitment from President Reagan himself. In fact, in my office, I have a copy of a letter that President Reagan sent to then president of Petco, Bob Poli promising when he was elected president that he was going to correct all of these difficulties with regard to equipment, and hours of work, and pensions and so on, that were the grievances of these air traffic controllers.

It's no small irony that Petco is a union endorsed President Reagan in his election bid. And his response to that was to fire their membership.

GARY: Let's take another caller. Hello, your question please?

AUDIENCE: Yeah, Bernie, I used to work for White Farm Equipment in Hopkins, which after a long series of labor problems and other problems went down the tubes. But before that happened, an employee group got together and we attempted to see if it was feasible to buy them out.

And what I'm wondering is if the AFL would support a state program where the state would loan money for feasibility studies for employee buyouts, and not necessarily where a company is ready to go down the tubes, but maybe even with a viable company where the employees think that they have the wherewithal and maybe the resources to take something like that on? And I'll hang up and listen.

BERNARD BROMMER: Interesting idea. Yes, it is. And it's an idea that has been around for a while in labor management circles. And I think there's a growing interest, although it's certainly not something that is snowballing, but it's been around. And we certainly support it. We do support the idea that there would be some funds that would be provided in the form of seed money to look at the feasibility of an employee buyout.

If I'm not mistaken, under the dislocated workers program and perhaps other programs in state government, that's been tried. There has been some seed money, some small amounts of monies that are available on a grant making basis to examine those kinds of questions, where workers are looking at the closure or shutdown of their plant as a result of a merger or a buyout or a takeover or whatever. All of that activity we saw going on in the '80s.

And we think it's something that certainly should be explored, should possibly be expanded. Because in a few instances in the United States, there have been companies where the workers have come together, put together the capital necessary to purchase the enterprise in order to maintain their employment. And I certainly think it's one of the tools that ought to be available to workers to look at in the event that they're faced with the loss of their employment.

GARY: Let's take another caller. Your question for Bernard Brommer, please.

AUDIENCE: Thank you. I have two questions. The first one has to do with Mr. Brommer's concept of fairness in taxing high income people more than lower income people. I don't understand why we want to punish success. Wouldn't it be just as logical to say that high income people have contributed more to society? So maybe we should tax them even lower, at a lower rate than middle income or low income people because they're contributing so much. It's at least as logical, I think.

Secondly, many union demands on society, things like striker replacement, plant closing notification, employer paid retraining, much of the workers' comp and unemployment insurance demands, suggest that unions think that employees have a right to their job and the benefits that accrue therefrom.

Why shouldn't shareholders have the same right to dividends, regular dividends, and in fact, a return on their investment somehow guaranteed by some entity, government or the unions perhaps. And secondly, if in fact, the union worker or the workers in general have that deep involvement with their job, that they have a right to retain it. Do you think that workers and unions should be the subject of product liability suits when products don't work?

GARY: Mr. Brommer.

BERNARD BROMMER: That's a very interesting argument. The questions that were advanced by that caller. And I think at its foundation, it gets down to the old debate about what's more important-- capital or labor? I certainly would challenge the premise that was suggested by the caller that just because you make a lot of money, you make a more significant contribution to our society than somebody who is earning less.

Obviously, the salaries of sports figures come to mind right away. And Michael Milken, the $550 million that he made as a Wall Street broker one year, and we've all been made aware in the news about the excesses that occurred with regard to the savings and loan industry. And there's a long litany, and I don't want to bore the listeners with all of that.

But I think the general public is sufficiently informed and educated that they know that the salary or the accumulation of wealth is not necessarily related in any way, shape, or form to your contribution to society. I think that the contributions that workers and labor make to the success of our economy, to the production of wealth is every bit as important as capital, every bit as important as stockholders and shareholders. And they should have some of those same basic rights.

We think that the rights of stockholders, shareholders are vastly beyond the rights of workers. And we think that there ought to be a more level playing field in that whole area. The contribution that an individual makes to the 25, 30, 35, 40, even 50 years working for an employer, we think is worth something. Those individuals are generating wealth, they're allowing these people who have these high incomes to take the wealth out of the company, to pay dividends to shareholders And so on.

And don't forget that a lot of working people in this country are also investors in this economy. And they understand the risks associated with being shareholders or stockholders, perhaps not on the level that this individual was referring to in terms of some of these high income people. With regard to the unions accepting product liability, and so on and so forth, that's an intriguing question.

If unions had anything to say about the decisions with regard to manufacturing processes and decisions, regarding the types of products that are marketed, and had veto power over the ability of something to be put on the market that is unsafe to consumers and so on, then you'd be looking at a different situation. But the fact of the matter is, is that workers and unions don't have anything to say about that. Those decisions are made exclusively by stockholders, shareholders, and managers.

GARY: Let's take another question. Hello?

AUDIENCE: Yes, hello. I'm calling from Rochester, Minnesota. And I have a question whether the unions work at all with employers and heads of industries about safety for their workers. I see that we're always in this race for economic superiority in the world, but there are more and more people are becoming injured on the job because we have to speed up and work so fast, and a lot of equipment is being used. That's very unsafe for people.

And I'm just concerned that we're in this race, and people's lives and health is at risk, either stressed out or getting physically injured and having to take other jobs or no job, not able to work all for this almighty dollar.

GARY: Do you think enough attention is being paid to worker safety at this point?

BERNARD BROMMER: No, I do not. And that's an excellent point that the caller makes. Yes, unions do work with employers in terms of trying to improve workplace safety. It's a constant struggle. Minnesota compared to the national averages, Minnesota is a relatively safe place to work. But we need to do better. We can do better.

This relates to the issue of workers' compensation also. Workplace safety ought to be at the forefront of that debate. The legislation that was passed last year in the area of workers' compensation, as one of the components, is the establishment and creation of workplace safety committees by the employers of Minnesota for the very purposes that the caller described.

We do a lot in the area of workplace safety, Occupational Safety and Health, but much more needs to be done. We have to avoid these tragedies in the workplace. The events that occurred in North Carolina, with those 25 workers being locked in their place of employment, and 25 of them lost their lives in a fire in a country that's supposedly got an Occupational Safety and Health Act has had for some two decades for that to have happened is simply unconscionable. We do not need to repeat any more of those tragedies in the workplace.

GARY: Another question for Bernard Brommer. Hello?

AUDIENCE: Hi. I'm concerned about the future strength of unions with coming generations. I have two children in public schools. Yesterday I was speaking with my daughter's fifth grade teacher, going over social studies curriculum plans for the year. And she said that she was not going to do labor union history issues because she didn't think it was very interesting to the children. This really concerned me.

And I'm hoping that unions are working with educators in some way. And if not, I guess my suggestions would be that they use drama or art or music to help communicate to children the human drama of the labor union history and the importance of it to them and their grandparents and to their future.

GARY: All right. Thanks for your call.

BERNARD BROMMER: I couldn't agree more with you. And we are working with educators, the Minnesota Federation of Teachers, for example, as an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, has worked very hard to get labor education in the curriculum at the elementary and secondary level in our schools in Minnesota. It's a difficult issue because historically, the people who print the textbooks have generally depicted unions in strike situations where labor has lost.

And also, when you talk about drama and so on, that generally is associated with a strike where there's violence, and that's how unions are depicted. But the fact of the matter is that thousands and thousands of negotiations are carried on every year successfully. The importance of free democratic trade unions to our democracy, I don't think can be underscored.

And you're right. We do need to teach that in every school in this state and in the country, and we don't do a very good job of it. And we're going to continue struggling to try and get that curriculum improved.

GARY: What do you think people will get out of the movie, the Jimmy Hoffa movie that's out? What lesson will they take from that?

BERNARD BROMMER: I'm not sure that what they'll get by way of a lesson. I haven't seen it yet. I understand it's been receiving some very poor reviews that it's not a very good film. I intend to see it, but regrettably, there are some individuals that have not necessarily depicted labor in the best light in terms of their respective careers. But that's no different than you see in banking or in business or industry or government or education or religion wherever.

We've certainly had our share of difficulties and problems, but taken as a whole, I think the labor movement in the United States has done an outstanding job. We've had some extraordinarily difficult times, the last 10, 12, 15 years. And I'm hoping that we can keep this movement together, because I think it's essential to our society to have a free democratic labor movement, as we've witnessed in other areas of the world.

Where unions and workers, along with students and others, have been in the forefront of the fight for democracy. And we need look no further than Poland and places like that.

GARY: Let's take another call. Hello, your question?

AUDIENCE: Yes. I want to thank the unions, first of all, for taking a leadership on universal healthcare and containment of healthcare costs. One of the issues that the unions have championed that benefit the whole society, not just union members. I have a two part question. One goes back to the striker replacement law, the federal law, have the dire predictions that people made about the state law that we have in Minnesota come to pass, or was it so much smoke?

And secondly, there's been proposals to have plant closing laws, where communities are devastated when a plant closes with virtually no notice, like the other industrialized countries have. Is that something that we ought to have in this country, given the state of the economy and the layoffs that have been announced recently and so on?

GARY: First of all, what is the current state of Minnesota's striker replacement law? Isn't it still in the courts?

BERNARD BROMMER: It's still in the courts. We have two cases. One was in the federal courts, and the federal decision struck down Minnesota's picket line piece bill was the official title of it here as being unconstitutional. It was preempted by federal labor law.

There's another case that's currently before the intermediate Court of Appeals in the State of Minnesota, where a decision is pending. The decision by the federal court, I understand, is going to be appealed by the Steelworkers Union. They were the subject of the lawsuit. So it's still undecided in terms of being definitive.

If this action at the federal level, the Clinton administration has indicated that they would sign that legislation. President Clinton has said that. It may render all of this moot because we would be looking at a federal law if we can get it passed through Congress.

In the area of plant closings, yes, there is a need. I think there's a continuing need. We have some modest federal legislation that requires minimal notice in the event of a mass layoff or a plant closing. We've attempted for many years to try and get such legislation enacted at the state level in Minnesota, with no success up to this point. But we're still interested in seeing that kind of legislation strengthen.

I think it would help a great deal, not only to provide notice to the employees, but also to the local community, to government. If there's a problem that maybe something can be done to save the enterprise. We talked earlier about employee buyouts, and there's any number of other things. How can the government be a partner and help in a situation if that's possible and so on.

So there's probably any number of changes that we could make that would improve the lives of a lot of people. But so far in Minnesota, that plant closing law has been vigorously opposed by the business community.

GARY: Take another caller. Hello, your question?

AUDIENCE: Hi. Yeah, I've been a union member for 16 years now. And as in the '80s and that the two-tier pay scales came up and along with part time union employees, where they didn't have to pay out full benefits.

I was wondering what effect this has had on the unions throughout Minnesota and the country, in terms of it seems to be there'd be some slight infighting against with the employees and stuff like that and with union upper people and the elected union officials. And I'll hang up and wait for your reply. Thank you.

BERNARD BROMMER: Thank you. Well, the caller has correctly identified an issue, the phenomenon of two-tier pay scales. Of course, those have been proposed by employers in an attempt to reduce their labor costs. And I think it's fair to say that in a lot of cases, if not most cases, it has caused difficulties because you've got employees basically doing the same kind of work, earning different levels of pay, some new workers at substantially lower levels, and they can't close the gap.

So it has caused difficulties amongst the workforce and in unions where that has been a product of the collective bargaining agreement and the concessions that employers have demanded of unions in order to maintain employment.

The advent, the mushrooming of part time workers in our economy, obviously is an issue. We've talked to people and I know people who are working two, three, four part-time jobs, the loss of full-time jobs with benefits. And that's we think the big issue. The cost of healthcare is an issue that is going to be dealt with.

An earlier caller thanked unions for their role in leadership in terms of securing universal healthcare. A lot of employers have figured out by hiring part-timers, they can greatly reduce the cost, labor costs for healthcare, in a lot of cases, they don't provide healthcare for part-time employees or only limited benefits. So that's the issue. Here is the costs.

GARY: What do you make of the plans to try to get more of these job training programs or apprenticeship programs that are being talked about at the state level to try to get high school kids involved, even as early as like junior and high school, try to focus them in one direction or another college prep program or perhaps an apprenticeship program. Is that too early for kids to get involved in training?

BERNARD BROMMER: No, I don't think so. It's being discussed, the youth apprenticeship concept. And it's modeled after the programs in Germany in particular and a couple of the Scandinavian nations. And I think it has a great deal of merit if it's handled properly. If it's put into place, I don't think there's any need to reinvent the wheel in terms of youth apprenticeship.

We have the concept of apprenticeship in the United States. Most often, most frequently associated with the building and construction trades, and the skilled apprentices that are produced there as a result of our apprenticeship, the licensed apprenticeship system in the State of Minnesota.

But if we're going to pursue this, and if we're going to be successful in establishing this kind of a program, then I think it's something that ought to involve government, it ought to involve education, it ought to involve business, it ought to involve the labor community. And we want to avoid some problems. One is holding out a false premise for these students.

If they're involved in a school to work transition, and we do a very poor job of that presently, in my view. But if we get this apprenticeship system, there has to be some promise of employment. These youngsters have to understand that they have to be the skilled individuals that the Workday world needs in order to improve this economy.

But to engage in youth apprenticeship and exploit these students for the purpose of working in low skill, low paid jobs or to reduce the workforce, the full-time workforce in other areas, we think it'll be a failure. It just won't succeed. If it's done right, I think it has a great deal of promise. And there's going to be discussion on this in the current session of the legislature, I'm sure.

GARY: Isn't it hard for organized labor to adapt? It seems like we're moving into an era when workers really do have to be flexible and continually get retrained for this job, that job. And I would think it's difficult to get work rules written that, on the one hand, protect workers, and on the other hand, allow employers and workers, for that matter, the kind of freedom and flexibility they need to adapt to changing to some environments.

BERNARD BROMMER: Well, I think in this there are changes that are occurring. And we're not involved directly in collective bargaining at the State AFL-CIO level, but the unions that are affiliated are. And I think they're making those adjustments every time they sit down at the bargaining table. Changes are occurring, we recognize that, in terms of work and the economy that we've been talking about.

But also there should be improvements in productivity, improvements in quality, all of those things are factors. The quid pro quo here is that there ought to be some job security. People ought to be assured that they've got some rights, that they will be trained. And that whole issue of training is one that we could talk for probably a couple of hours just by itself because there is a need.

But I don't think we're meeting those needs in our culture, in our society. And we'll have to see how that plays out in the years ahead. But we've got some catching up to do in the United States. And I think, again, if there's a partnership, an equal partnership between government and the business and corporate world and the workers and unions and recognizing our mutual concerns and sit down and work together on these issues, we're going to make significant progress.

But if it's looked at as the business and corporate interests are paramount, and we look at workers as an expendable commodity, so to speak, just another part of the inventory that we can throw out on a human scrap heap if we don't need them anymore, then it isn't going to work.

Because, I think, basically, the compact that we had with the American workforce has really been damaged in the 1980s, where we saw so much human misery, with the upheavals, with plant closings, with the transfer of wealth, and all of the accompanying things that happened that were now are coming into much clearer focus in the '90s and we're reaping some of the rewards with this trickle down economic theory that we were treated to.

I think it's going to take a tremendous effort to regain the confidence of a lot of American workers because they feel that they've really been abused as a result of the economic decisions of the '80s.

GARY: Bernard Brommer is the head of the state AFL-CIO. He's been good enough to come in and take some questions today. Your call please?

AUDIENCE: I have a question on workman's comp area. What is the cost of workman's comp in regard to the deregulation several years ago compared to the benefits? It seems that all we hear is we must cut benefits to improve the workman's comp situation in the state? Thank you.

GARY: Thank you.

BERNARD BROMMER: Again, a good question. And it's one that I really can't answer from a technical point of view in terms of the cost comparisons. I think what the caller was referring to was the deregulation of the insurance industry that sells workers' comp insurance for premiums paid by the employers.

Prior to the early '80s, Minnesota was a regulated state increases in rates and premiums for workers' compensation insurance couldn't be put in place without prior approval by the State of Minnesota. Since I think along about 1983 or '84, that has all been deregulated. Now we have what is referred to I think most commonly as a file and use system. The insurance industry has basically no regulation in Minnesota. They file their rates-- those rates are used as a basis for establishing premiums.

And employers get the notices in the mail if they're not self-insured, and they have to pay those premiums or look elsewhere in the marketplace to find insurance.

I agree that usually when we're looking at reform, like some of our critics suggest, we need-- the translation of that buzz word is cuts and benefits. We had comprehensive workers' comp, the legislation in 1992, that was passed and signed into law. We think that was an excellent piece of legislation.

The emphasis on safety, the emphasis on making life a little bit easier for injured workers who are having difficulties, and one of the things that we agreed to, what the business community wanted was a deductible workers' comp insurance system, where an employer could reduce their premiums by purchasing deductible policies. That's now being put in place. A lot of changes, a lot of improvements that I think are going to result in a reduction in costs in Minnesota.

And we need some time to see if all of those things are going to come to pass. Another piece was the managed care on our healthcare for workers' compensation. Very, very expensive piece of the formula. But we don't need any more attacks on worker's benefits, in the opinion of the Minnesota AFL-CIO.

GARY: Another question for Bernard Brommer, please. Hello?

AUDIENCE: Hello.

GARY: Hello.

AUDIENCE: I want to congratulate you on an excellent presentation today, both the station and the speaker, Mr. Brommer.

BERNARD BROMMER: Thank you very much. You're very kind.

AUDIENCE: I've been interested in the comparative labor management relations in terms of relationship to what's going on in Scandinavia as well as in other parts of Europe. And in Scandinavia, they talk so much about co-determination of labor management issues.

And I'm wondering if you think that the current situation at Northwest Airlines negotiations, that is a portent of what's going to happen here. More co-determination of labor management policies, including all kinds of issues, such as healthcare, environment, and so on.

GARY: Does that mean where labor and management get together and come up with a mutual solution? Is that the idea?

AUDIENCE: Many of the policies that normally were in early Scandinavian labor management relations were handled through adversarial conflict and negotiation. Now, they have labor representation on the boards of directors and so on.

GARY: You see that as a wave of the future, Mr. Brommer?

BERNARD BROMMER: Well, I think we're moving in that direction, and I take some encouragement from that. The caller made reference to labor management relations in Europe and in the Scandinavian nations, and they do things differently. Unions are much more integrated and have a much better status in those cultures, in those societies, than we do here in the United States.

And I think that's benefited those economies, those societies, a great deal. They still have their problems, to be sure. But labor is much more recognized as an equal partner, if you will, in the economies of these other nations. And if we can ever achieve that same status here in the United States in terms of our economy, I think that we'll be able to make some significant improvements.

But change comes slowly sometimes in some of these areas, and there's still a great deal of effort and time and money expended on eliminating free democratic trade unions in the United States. If we can ever get beyond that, to the point where workers and their unions are recognized as an important and integral part of our economic and political and social makeup in this country, then I think there's really no limit on the contributions that American workers can make to solving the problems that exist in our economy today.

GARY: Another caller. Hello? Your question?

AUDIENCE: Yes, thank you. I'd like for you or your guests to comment on what labor's role is in encouraging business, specifically in the State of Minnesota? And let me phrase my question in the context of several articles that I'm reading here at lunch while I'm listening to your radio program.

The first one I'm looking at is the Minnesota Real Estate Journal, and it's an article here commenting on the number of businesses that have left the State of Minnesota within the last 18 months, and it says 87 companies, and there are more being added every day. Then I'm looking at city business here, and it shows the business climate article is headlined business climate causes storm, and it shows the relative taxes for a 99 employer manufacturer in the State of Minnesota.

Minnesota stands at approximately 179,000, North Dakota at 74,000, Wisconsin at 89, Iowa at 94, and South Dakota at $32,000 per year. The third article that I read yesterday was on 3Ms move to Austin, Texas, and the number of jobs that have left this state. It seems to me that labor's control of the legislature is really discouraging business and the expansion of business in the State of Minnesota.

GARY: OK. How do you how do you respond to that, Mr. Brommer? We don't have a lot of time left here.

BERNARD BROMMER: First of all, labor doesn't control the Minnesota legislature.

GARY: But you do have a lot of cloud up there?

BERNARD BROMMER: We work with the members of the legislature, and we advance what we think is a fair and equitable agenda. We certainly have an interest in seeing the expansion, the improvement of business in the State of Minnesota. We understand obviously that if you have business, that you have employment. The two are inextricably linked.

But we do not accept the basic premise that Minnesota is a terrible place to live and work and do business, and that all of these other places are meccas that are attracting our businesses in droves. Business moves for a lot of different reasons-- expands, locates in an area for a lot of different reasons, using South Dakota and North Dakota as examples, and suggesting that somehow Minnesota has to compete with or diminish itself to the lowest common denominator, I don't think would be a very wise public policy.

Minnesota has always had strong commitments to education, and to healthcare, and to the quality of life for our citizens too. Minnesota is a high tax state. But the people of Minnesota have said, we're willing to pay taxes, if we have these things in our society-- if we have good healthcare, if we have good streets and roads, if we have good schools, if our kids have opportunities, that's what we want.

I think it would be a tremendous stride toward improving the whole labor management and political climate in this state. If we could get off of these business climate arguments of pitting one state against another and took a look at how we could make specific improvements and suggestions, rather than constantly suggesting that Minnesota somehow has to diminish itself, lower itself, if you will, to the same level of taxes and public services and public policy as states, like South Dakota, North Dakota, and so on.

I mean, the citizens of those states have made decisions as to how they want to operate, what they want to do. And I would pit Minnesota against those states in terms of its ability to provide employment and provide an economic future for its citizens against those states any day.

GARY: Two quick questions, and we have to run, Mr. Brommer. First of all, NAFTA-- North American Free Trade Agreement. Do you like it or don't you?

BERNARD BROMMER: We don't like it. And we're going to be asking the Clinton administration, the National AFL-CIO to basically renegotiate that agreement. As you know, it's been signed by President Bush, and it's got to be presented to Congress, it'll be debated in the trade committees there. and the Clinton administration has sent all kinds of signals that they've got a lot of trouble with that agreement.

GARY: Robert Reich, the new Labor Secretary, obviously, a close confidant of Clinton. Good pick, as far as you can see?

BERNARD BROMMER: We think so. We think that we're going to see some changes. And we're very encouraged by his emphasis on the involvement and improvement of the workforce in the country, the training concerns that he has, the improvements in opportunities for American workers and the fact that they ought to be a very strong voice in determining the economic policies and the job policies in this country. Very encouraged.

GARY: Thanks so much for coming in.

BERNARD BROMMER: You're very welcome. Thank you.

GARY: Very appreciate it. Bernard Brommer, who is the head of the Minnesota State AFL-CIO, here to take some questions today.