This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
During the elections, President Trump made his position on unions cleared during a conversation with Elon Musk last August. I mean, I look at what you do. You walk quit, they go on strike. I won't mention the name of the company, but they go on strike and use it.
That's okay. You're all gone.
You're all gone.
So every one of you is gone, and you are the greatest. You would be very good.
And in the past six months, Trump has ended collective bargaining for two thirds of the federal workforce, effectively paralyzed the federal agency tasked with adjudicating unfair labor practices and disputes over union elections, and rescinded the minimum wage that federal contractors have to pay the workers, just to name a few of Trump's anti union actions. So it may not be so surprising that there has also been a significant drop in union elections and petitions to the National
Labor Relations Board in the last six months. That stands in contrast to the previous three years, where there were a historic number of union elections, representation petitions, and unfair labor practice charges filed each year. My guest is Anne Lafusso, a professor at the University of Cincinnati Law School and
an expert in labor law. And the average number of newly certified unions per month dropped twenty two point three percent in the first six months of this second Trump administration compared to the last six months of the Biden administration, and there has been a fifteen point eight percent drop in the number of representation petitions filed in that same time period. How do you account for this significant drop?
I think you have to look at both sides of the equation. First, you had historic increased under Biden, a progressive general Counsels. The board was relatively progressive, but not quite as progressive as Jennifer Brusso was. So Brusso was aggressively progressive. She looked at the law and she interpreted the law in a way that, in my view at least, was reasonable. But on the progressive side, the law can always be interpreted more progressively or more conservatively, more pro
union or more pro business. And it's not like the law has a single meaning. And she was on the very progressive side, and that emboldened and encouraged unions to file election petitions and also defile unfair labored practice charges, even where it might have been a more if the theory of why they were being unfairly treated iffy because in the past they may not have gotten that theory validated for the board. So that's going to increase the numbers.
Then when Trump came in, they're remembering the first Trump Board, and the first Trump board as progressive as Jennifer Brutto was, it was reactionary. It was extremely to the right, much more pro business and even in some instances I would say not just pro business, but anti union more so than any other board ever in the history of the National Labor Relations Board. And they're remembering this and it was very painful for them. So they're in this sort
of wait and see pattern, anticipating the worst. So I'm at a conference right now and I'm listening to people and they don't want to file petitions right now because they are really afraid. Now the board doesn't have a quorum, so they really don't know exactly what's going to happen. I personally don't think that the Trump two board will be as reactionary as the Trump one board. I could be wrong.
What makes you say that when Trump has a pointed a conservative as general counsel.
The reason I'm saying this, though, is because the general counsel, Cowan, who is a conservative man, so he's going to interpret the law in a more conservative fashion, is going to be more pro business fashion. However, he's an institutionalist. He's been the regional director for one of the regions out in the West, I think in California for a long time. He was a board member. He's loved by everyone. He was at the board when I was there, Everyone loved him.
He was just kind, he was easy to work with. He doesn't want to destroy the agency. Also, people Trump put forward for the board, they're also institutionalists. He could have picked people that had union busting careers and he doesn't seem to be doing that. So it's possible that the fear that's going on is an overreaction. But I think at least they're waiting and seeing what this board
will do. So when you put those two things together, though, the sort of record highs and then the remembering of what the Trump board did in his first administration, and you get this huge swing. I don't know if it's gonna last. It's gonna be very interesting to see, and I think it's gonna depend on what this board starts doing and whether it was willing to dismantle precedents.
I mean, the board right now doesn't have a quorum right correct, So what can they do.
The board itself, meaning the five board members, can't do anything. The agency can do quite a bit, so the General Council can issue complaints, the regions can investigate charges, the region can hold elections. They just can't be board certified. So there's plenty of things that can happen. So I don't think these numbers are necessarily because the board doesn't acorum. Maybe some of them are design Well, if they can't be certified right now, then maybe we should wait. That
could explain some of them. But there's a lot that can do, certainly on the unfair labor practice side right because it takes a while for you to have an ALGA hearing, there's gonna be a board within the year, and you might want to get at least the hearing done. I mean, I heard yesterday one of the U organizers was telling me that he is something that's been six years before the board, So there are some big backlogs. That's an unusual case, but I've heard about longer than
that also. And by the way, this is not just from the Biden and Trump era. When I was there under Bush and Clinton, they were like long delays also, And we don't know whether I think every board does this to some extent. If it's a really difficult issues, sometimes they just think about it and then they run out of time because they no longer have a quorum or something. And that's become more and more usual since the early two thousands, when Congress has decided not always
to fill those spots. So with a more dysfunctional Congress, you have these times where the government's not functioning. The administrative agencies are not functioning because they don't have officials who have been appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress, so you get these backlogs.
Also, is this is this reluctance coming from the union leaders or the workers who might fear the political climate, especially in light of the economy and the labor market. I mean, where's it coming from?
Oh? Both, definitely. So from the worker's point of view, they're scared. There are people that are afraid to even speak out against the president for fear of retaliation because we saw that the president decided to fire a large percentage of the federal workforce, which he has direct control over. So people are afraid to speak out. Now. Whether that's justified or not, the historians will tell us that, but people certainly are afraid, and so they don't want to
stick their necks out right now. But union leaders who are thinking about these things and hearing from their constituents are also concerned, and they're more in the wait and see pattern, like, well, let's see what's going on. But the workers themselves, i think, are afraid. And they're also
afraid because the economy is than is good. So when you had a much better economy, which despite what everyone was saying, we had a pretty good economy under Biden, but the economy has been going down and down, and the market, the labor market is much tougher right now. There's no flacks in the labor market, so it's hard if you get fired from a job right now. Let's say you're unjustly fired because you're a union activist, you
may not get another job. It's very tough. So this makes people afraid to organize, and it makes the labor organizer's job and the labor union leader's job that much more difficult.
You say, wait and see, but don't the unions already know where Trump stands, especially with the executive order that he issued ending collective bargaining for two thirds of the federal workforce. Even before Trump took office, student athletes dropped organizing efforts at Dartmouth College and the Universe Stay of Southern California.
Well, that was smart of them, because the General Council has withdrawn of Brusso's memo, her General Council Memo stating that student athletes are actually employees and should have the protections of the board. So we do know almost certainly what this board would do with that. So in that issue, it's pretty clear. But there are sometimes some very easy issues. For example, remember the early two thousands when Bush was the president. Chamber and Wilma Leibman, two people that couldn't
be further apart. A progressive Leaveman and a conservative Chamber and very conservative Chamber. They've agreed on six hundred cases together. Now they were all found voids by the Supreme Court because there was only two and they weren't a quorum, but not because of what they decided. Those were all easy cases. There's plenty of easy cases to go forward.
What they're waiting and seeing on and I think what they are going to not do is we're not I'm not going to see them pushing the envelope on anything like I would be surprised if beingan say Okay, we're going to ask for expanded remedies right now. I wouldn't ask for them because I wouldn't want that precedent to go before a court. First of all, I wouldn't want to go before the board, and then I wouldn't want to go before the court because of what could happen.
So they're not going to push the student athlete issue right now. So if I were student athletes right now, I might go for a voluntary recognition, but I wouldn't go for anything else. So I understand those issues, but
we don't really know. Yes, I agree with you that the executive order and many of these executive roles, but I'm thinking one in particular, the president is trying to control the administrative agencies a lot more, and the presidents taking the position that he can fire board members, and only the Supreme Court can tell us if that's true.
My guess is, even though right now the precedent at the Supreme Court is that he can't fire commissioners or board members, that they are likely to reverse that oly a split a divided vote, and I'm talking about Humphrey's executor. So if he can fire anyone at will, if he doesn't like a decision that comes out of the board, then he'll just fire the person. So I'm sure that these board members are going to be somewhat more beholden to the president than they normally were in an independent
agency where they really were independent of the president. I think that will happen. And let's face it, he already fired Wilcox, Member Wilcox, and I do want to remind the audience that she was the first black female board member, and so the look is very, very bad that he decides to fire the first board member but not the Democrat, white male, And again that could be a coincidence, I don't know, but it is a very bad look and
so it does send a message definitely. But again, the president is not going to fire a board member because of an obvious, simple case of enforcing the law. I think what he would do if it's something that gets the chamber upset, that gets Starbucks or Amazon upset, And that doesn't mean Starbucks losing a case or an election. I mean where Starbucks And this is ridiculous because these
are expanded remedies or something like that. So yes, I think it's just a more nuanced than People always have sound bites and they always sort of feel when they're in the moment one way or the other. And I at least am taking also a wait and see and I'm optimistic that it will not be as bad for unions as it was other than trump one administration. Let me put this way, I wouldn't bet on what I'm saying. I just think it's more likely than not, like forty
nine to fifty one percent. That's where I'm at.
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with Professor and lafosso how unions are already playing defense. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. A significant draw in union elections and petitions to the National Labor Relations Board in the first six months of President Donald Trump's second term show that organized labor is wary of risking disputes that could lead to unfavorable rulings
with broader implications. This year's organizing slump is a stark contrast to the previous three years, where the NLRB saw historic numbers of representation petitions, union elections, and unfair labor practice charges filed each year. I've been talking to Professor An Lafasso of the University of Cincinnati Law School. Would you say that labor unions are playing a defensive role already?
They're sort of on the front lines of some of the legal fights against Trump's reduction inforced plans and moves to exclude two thirds of the workforce from collective bargaining rights, and initiatives that shutter agents and affect universities.
Absolutely, unions are definitely on the defensive and they're concerned. There's a lot of things means can do, but remember, whatever they do for their members, they also can't live without members. They need fees because organizing takes money and getting benefits for their members takes money. So they are on the defensive and they want to survive, and this is in their mind.
Again.
I can't get into the mind of every union, but I wouldn't be surprised if for them this is an existential threat. That's how higher education feels right now. I mean, I'm a member of a union at my university, and we certainly feel that this is an existential threat. People are palpably afraid. And by the way, we're a public institution. So what's going on in public institutions is at the state level, more at the state level, but it's the same kind of thing that's going on at least in
the red state. And I'm in Ohio, which is even though Cincinnati is a blue area, the University of Cincinnati is a state institution, so we have a state legislature. So we are part of the same thing that's going on in West Virginia and other red states that are part of this idea that unions are not good for the economy and that higher education is left wing propaganda. And I think a lot of us are afraid to speak out. We're afraid. What are we going to do?
We want to keep our jobs even ten years on the line. So it's going on all over the country.
Is there a sort of culture shock because you went from a president who was walking picket lines with striking workers to Trumpoo's signing executive orders to limit union rights.
Probably for a lot of people, it didn't surprise me because the whiplash has been going on for so long studied it, so it was exactly what I expected. But I do think that for many people, especially younger people, right, because they don't have that historical I think when you're young, you forget there was an existence before you were born, Right, You just are born and then this is what you grew up. Right. I mean, I have a twenty one year old daughter, and so what has she gone through?
What is she seeing?
Right?
And her memories are of Biden mostly a little bit of Trump right, And so there is a whiplash for a lot of people, and also people who don't pay attention as much, but now they're in a union. I'm sure there's also a cultural whiplash. For those of us who study labor law, we knew this was going to happen. None of us were surprised at all of any of this.
By laying back, now, is there a risk to the momentum that the unions seem to have picked up in the last few years.
There's a concern about that. So the concern is, Okay, if we stop organized, I think we lose our momentum. But if we organize, we might get bad results. This is why you're in this paralysis this way, and see, because there's this one push to kind of keep the momentum up. People want unions more than ever in like at least the last seventy five years. Well it could be longer even, you know. So they're more popular today
than they've been certainly in my lifetime. But at the same time, you have an administration that's more hostile to unions definitely since before FDR, so before the New Deal, you know, when you have the horrors of what was going on in the Industrial Revolution and the hostility to unions back then. So there is a paralysis right now, and you know which way do we go. You're at
a path that's splitting right now. Now. Do you go in this relatively aggressive way and continue the momentum or do you stop or do you do something less aggressive but you can keep up the momentum. What is the right choice? And I think people don't know what the right choice is right now, and that's that's the problem.
What role will the Supreme Court play. You talked about Wilcox. In that case, we'll probably go up to the Supreme Court. But what about other decisions. Is there anything likely to come before the Supreme Court, which has ruled against unions time and time again recently.
Yeah, I think the strategy will be for unions to keep those cases out of the Supreme Court. If they lose, they won't petition for sorcerai. If they win, fits out of their hands the employer will petition. But the problem is that the board going to be more pro employer is going to flip positions, and so they might be able to keep a lot of things out of the
Supreme Court. They won't be able to keep the administrative stuff, the constitutional stuff out because the Supreme Courts can be really interested in things like the Wilcox decision, but the actual labor law decisions. What I think is more likely is that they can get a decision up there about
whether or not the board was entitled defference. And so a lot of people think that's a dead end because of Low or Bright overrules Chevron, But there's still difference, and there's certain types of difference, and right now the courts are split on how to what that difference looks like. Is it completely denovo so there's absolutely no difference. We know there's not complete difference like there was Undershovar, which
was not complete, but it was very, very deferential. But there's also something called skidmore difference, where you take into consideration the history and the purpose of the act and what the board has done in the past. So it's interesting that some courts aren't doing that at all, like the Fifth Circuit and to some extent of sixth Circuit, and other courts are really struggling with that, like the Third Circuit that's really thinking about that in a very
nuanced way. I applauded the Third Circuit for is doing so. I think that is more likely to come up and what the labor issue is would be more accidental and maybe even surprising.
You talked about whiplash.
This is a big, big picture.
Are unions forever dependent on you know, which administration is in power.
Maybe? On the other hand, maybe not. Because one of the things that Supremecourt wants to accomplished by overturning Chevron through its life or Bright decision was to stop this whiplash and saying we are the final arbiters of what the law is. And therefore I think in the long run there's going to be more labor issues going up to the Supreme Court again, because the court is going to decide when there's a big whiplash like this, they're going to say, we can't have this, we can't just
keep in going back and forth. So you can see a lot of the old decisions that were done before Chevron. No one's going to touch those. I would be really surprised, like Republic Aviation and will leach Mir Republica Vias very pro union. Leachmere is not pro unions for pro business,
but there are similar issues those cases. They were done before Chevron, and there was there was a lot more stability, but as you gave the board difference and as long as they just explained their change, the courts were sort of hamstrung unless there were individual judges that just were not going to give them difference, which there were. There were individual judges not paying much attention to Chevrons for
various reasons. So I think that the Supreme Court may just decide these things now with a very conservative court, they may decide them in a way that unions don't like, So that would be the downside until the court becomes once again more progressive, which will happen. I mean, there's always going to be changed, but of course the supprove Court changes much more slowly, so there won't be a whiplash.
With agencies, they're much more accountable to whatever the democratic process was, So whoever's in power, it can change every four years. It rarely goes more than eight years without a case occasionally. I mean, the one I can think of was Reagan. Reagan to Bush. There was twelve years of Republican rule, and then you had eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush, and then eight years and then four to four and it will be four again, and then we'll see if it goes to a Republican or
a Democrat. And then it's the president who decides the Supreme Court. But you have to have the openings the president, especially if they can fire board members, they can literally change extremely quickly, extremely quickly, and that's your whiplash. So I think the hope is among business people, especially because businesses can survive, but they don't like environments where the laws are not predictable. I think that we might see
some a little bit more stability. Maybe not in the short run, but in the long run we might see more stability. Again, I'm taking a look and see. I'm waiting because while that would be my logical, rational take on this, humans are not always rational, so who knows what's going to happen, So we'll see. I just want to say that I'm at this wonderful conference right now for musicians and just wanted to remind people that musicians
are workers, and they work under very difficult conditions. Hence they are totally trying to organize, and that people should support musicians.
Thanks so much.
An.
That's Professor An Lafasso at the University of Cincinnati Law School. Coming up next, a thirty million dollar pardon scheme. This is Bloomberg. The audacious plan crystallized over a lobster dinner in Puerto Rico. That's where a self styled connector and a child actor turned crypto enthusiast hatched an idea to secure a presidential pardon for bitcoin booster Roger Verr, also known as Bitcoin Jesus, and in the process make millions
for themselves, specifically thirty million. Joining me is Bloomberg. Legal reporter Eva Benni Morrison, who wrote about this scheme, eva they only had tenuous ties to Verr, why did they decide to try to get him a pardon.
There has been a lot of enthusiasm around the clemency process since President Trump took office in January. He has certainly approached his clemency powers with more vigor than some of his predecessors.
And that's instilled a.
Lot of hope in people who want to try and get their case in front of the White House for relief. So, in this situation, Roger ver who is an early investor in bitcoin and he is currently under indictment for tax evation in California, he was very vocal about wanting a pardon, and he had been on social media and sitting down for interviews with conservative commentators talking about his battle with US authorities and making a direct appeal in some situations to Trump to.
Give him a part.
Then Matt Argyll, a businessman from Florida, and Brock Pierce, who is also a pretty well known figure in the cryptosphere, knew about this and approached him and offered to lobby.
For his cause.
So Matt Argall in particular was pretty key in a number of these conversations that took place earlier this year, and offered to assemble a group of Washington insiders who could Take's best case to the White House and try and get him a pardon.
Was there a fee or any kind of monetary compensation.
Yeah.
While a number of these pardon plans have been popping up over the past few months, this one stuck out because of the fee that was attached to it. The conversations were about Roger handing over thirty million dollars to these people to try and get him a pardon, which is astronomical. You know, I've reported on a number of these different proposals and fees flying around to lawyers and consulting and some lobbyists, but thirty million dollars is certainly the highest amount i'd heard.
What kind of fees do you normally hear about?
It differs across the board.
I have heard that some lawyers have been quoting a million dollars as a base level to prepare an application and to speak to the right people in Washington to try and get their client's case heard. But then someone suggested there was a finder's fee, So someone quoting five thousand dollars to put someone in touch with someone else for other people. Lawyers in particular have quoted tens of thousands of dollars to put the paperwork together. So it
really varies. But this is a real evolution of this clemency space.
Years ago, it was mostly you know, regular lawyers or lawyers experience in this drawing up the paperwork. And so if it wasn't these huge.
Fees, absolutely, I think the clemency space historically has largely been populated by pro bono advocates, so lawyers and academics offering to lobby for people who have been in prison for a very long time or particularly harsh sentences, maybe during the cocaine epidemic. But only now we're really starting to see these massive fees attached to this kind of work.
And why is Roger Vert called bitcoin Jesus.
Roger is called bitcoin Jesus because he was one of the early investors in the cryptocurrency and kind of had a bit of a godfather like role in those early years.
So he got their pitch and what happened after that.
Yes, there were a number of conversations held earlier this year between Roger VERRT and Matt Argyll, Rock Pierce, and some other characters who are quite well known in conservative circles and have very good track records at helping people get clemency. So those conversations went into what a path to a White House pardon might look like, and also reiterated this thirty million dollar fee structure again and again.
But those conversations seem to have fizzled out.
In March, I got my hands on an email that showed that the had just stopped replying to text messages and calls and voice notes from some of the people that were involved in these pardon conversations.
Did Pierce and Argyll actually have connections to Trump world?
It's unclear. That was one of the challenging parts of this exercise. There were certainly the names of senior White House officials thrown around in some of these conversations in the context of so and so knows this person at
the White House. So and so as best friends with this person, But it's unclear whether anyone who was involved in those discussions actually had those legitimate connections, let alone the leverage to try and put this case in front of someone that had decision making capabilities.
And the White House has responded in what were The White.
House pushed back very strongly.
They denied any knowledge of this pardon plan, any knowledge of the conversations. They weren't very happy with the suggestion that the names of senior White House officials were being thrown around. The official statement we got from a White House spokesperson referred to grifters quote unquote using the names to drum up pardon business, and the White House completely distanced themselves from whatever was going on here.
Did any money actually change hands?
No money changed hands?
And Argle, you spoke to him, I mean, what do you say about this?
I did.
I spoke to a number of people as part of this reporting, including Matt Argyll, and I found him to be quite upfront and forthcoming about his role in these conversations and how it all came together. He told me that he genuinely thought Roger Vert was interested in engaging him to lobby for his cause. He claimed that he had traveled to Washington, He's mainly based in Miami on a number of occasions to kind of lay the groundwork, and you know, he introduced a well known Washington lawyer
to Roger Ver to discuss a potential pardon plan. And I asked him about the thirty million dollar fee because it was such a large amount. And the way that he said that he and Brock had come up with that fee was they estimated Roger Ver was worth ten to twenty billion. That's not an amount that we've been able to confirm. But in Matt's justification, twenty million dollars seemed like a drop in the ocean for someone like that, especially when your freedom's on the line.
But he also said, this wasn't about me trying to make dough if I made this happen, since my guys came through hook me up after.
Yes, my Argyll explained how they came up with the thirty million dollar figure, but he also said the arrangement was quite fluid as to what they were going to do with that money. At the end, he said, you know, maybe Roger could invest in a crypto projective his or maybe at the end of the day he'd just end up with good karma.
Ah, a lot of good karra. Maybe thirty million came through. So now what about Vera's case? Where does it stand?
Rogerver seems to have called on his calls for a presidential pardon in recent months. He is still in Spain, where he was first arrested, and he's fighting extradition from there back to the United States. His lawyers have asked a judge to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that he was following the advice of an accountant and a tax lawyer when he decided to renounce his US citizenship and moved.
To sent Kids in twenty fourteen.
And what are the charges against him exactly?
Rogerver is facing charges for tax evasion. The IRS said that he hid the gains from the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bitcoin.
And what's the business background of the two men who hatched this plan?
So, Matt argu and brock Piers are both good friends but involved in their own business interests. Brock Piers is one of the co founders of the crypto firm Teather Fun Fact. He was also a child actor in the Disney movie The Marty Ducks. Now he is the chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation. Matt argyll Is He tells people that he helps companies secure lucrative government contracts. He's also run a number of call centers in Miami before, so he's been involved in a lot of different things.
And Eva, did they work alone? Was anyone else involved?
Matt Argyll was certainly the lead in a lot of these conversations earlier this year, and Brock Pierce was involved as well, giving he knew Roger vir from their early days as crypto investors. But at various points in these communications you can see that other people who work in the clevency space, lawyers and lobbyists, were also involved in and hatching a bit of a plan for Roldja to secure presidential pardon.
Well, it's a fascinating story, Ava, and I guess more to come on what's now a clemency business. Thanks so much. That's Ava, Benny Morrison, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg