Shownotes Transcript
Here we are again. Hello, A. Hello. How are you? Okie doke. I've missed you. I know. When's the last time? Like, it's been a while, right? I don't know. It's been a while. Are they keeping us apart? Maybe. Do we have issues? Is there some, like, beef that I don't know? Too much, too much M-A-R-T-I-N for the nation.
Ukraine is at the top of the agenda when President Biden meets with the UK's prime minister today. We're working with urgency to continue to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to effectively defend itself. Could this be the moment that the U.S. allows Ukraine to have long-range weapons? I'm Michelle Martin, that's A. Martinez, and this is Up First from NPR News.
Former President Donald Trump says he won't debate Vice President Kamala Harris again. I believe we owe it to the voters to have another debate. Trump says he won, but what do the voters think? And it's been a bumpy year for Boeing. Now their workers are going on strike after rejecting a new contract deal. And could your gas stove be a health risk? California State Legislature thinks so, but will warning labels make a difference? Stay with us. We've got all the news you need to start your day. ♪
Support for NPR and the following message come from SimpliSafe Home Security. Feeling secure in your own home shouldn't be a luxury, it should be a given. That's why SimpliSafe is dedicated to providing protection and peace of mind to all families. With LiveGuard technology, SimpliSafe's 24-7 monitoring agents can act within 5 seconds of receiving your alarm.
Visit simplisafe.com slash upfirst to save 50% on a new system with a free indoor security camera. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. Support for NPR and the following message come from Amazon Business. Everyone could use more time. Amazon Business offers smart business buying solutions so you can spend more time growing your business and less time doing the admin. Learn more at amazonbusiness.com.
This message comes from our sponsor, Grainger. This is the story of the one. As a maintenance engineer, he hears things differently. To the untrained ear, everything on his shop floor might sound fine, but he can hear gears grinding or a belt slipping. So he steps in to fix the problem at hand before it gets out of hand. And he knows Grainger's got the right product he needs to get the job done, which is music to his ears.
Call, click Grainger.com, or just stop by. Grainger, for the ones who get it done. With the first and probably only presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris now behind us, the sprint is on to campaign for votes, especially in those swing states. This week, Harris has been rallying supporters in North Carolina and will soon head to Pennsylvania. Trump, meanwhile, has gone to Arizona and now heads to Nevada.
NPR political correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben is here to update us on all this post-debate campaigning. So, Danielle, as I said, I mean, maybe the only debate between Trump and Harris is now done and over with. And Trump said yesterday he will not do another debate. So what exactly did he say?
Right. So in a paragraph long post on Truth Social late yesterday afternoon, Trump first off insisted he won the debate. He compared Harris, who herself wants another debate, to a prize fighter who loses and demands a rematch. But the kicker here is that he closed with an all caps line. There will be no third debate. Now,
Now, listeners will recall that in this week's debate, Harris successfully baited Trump. She got him off topic. She at points provoked him into yelling. And even prominent conservatives have criticized his performance. So since then, Harris is very much pushing for another opportunity to do that. Here she was at a rally in North Carolina yesterday.
I believe we owe it to the voters to have another debate. To be clear, there are no other debates scheduled right now. This cycle with Democrats switching their candidate and Trump waffling for weeks on if and when he'd participate. Their only one date ever really got nailed down for these two. Now you brought up that Harris rally. I mean, what does her strategy look like now since Tuesday's debate?
I mean, thus far, it's been a pretty typical post-debate run of swing states. Her campaign told my colleague Tamara Keith that the goal of some of these events is to cut into Trump's margins in red areas of swing states. She's headed soon to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, for example. Now, as for substance, she's really using the debate to attack Trump at...
At her rally in North Carolina yesterday, at one of those rallies, she jabbed Trump for saying he has, quote, concepts of a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare.
Now, pre-debate, one criticism had been that she didn't have detailed enough plans. Well, now, with that concept soundbite, she's emphasizing the major holes in Trump's plans. All right, so that's Kamala Harris. What is Donald Trump's post-debate campaigning like? For one thing, he's really leaning into economic messaging. Just this morning, he put out a video saying that Kamala's economic plan is Biden's economic plan.
But also at a Tucson rally yesterday, he announced a new policy, no tax on overtime pay. It's time for the working man and woman to finally catch a break. And that's what we're doing, because this is a good one. But also, it's not clear exactly how that would work. And the campaign hasn't really communicated details. Is any idea, though, who exactly he's trying to reach with this new policy plan?
Well, yeah, I mean, you put this next to his idea to cut taxes on tips, and he's really looking for places to boost his support among the working class, which makes up a lot of his base, particularly the white working class. But economists have big questions about that tips plan as well. I mean, you look at his plans altogether, he's proposed a lot of tax breaks, really a mishmash of them. And economists are saying his policies would just add a lot to the deficit.
As for the rest of his message, yesterday in Tucson, it was a typical Trump speech. Plus, he continued pushing that racist and baseless idea that immigrants are eating pets. Again, that's not true. City officials have told reporters they haven't seen evidence of this. Moving forward, I should add, he'll be in Las Vegas today, and he has a town hall planned in Michigan next week. All right. That's NPR's Danielle Kerslaven. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.
If you thought things couldn't get any worse for Boeing, well, it seems like it can. Remember, Boeing's year began with one of their planes losing a door plug mid-flight. Now the aerospace giant is facing a strike at its factories near Seattle and several of its other West Coast facilities.
The union, representing more than 30,000 machinists, voted overwhelmingly to reject a tentative contract deal. It's the latest blow to the company that was already reeling, as A said, from safety and quality problems. NPR transportation correspondent Joel Rose joins us now. Joel, so a few days ago, Boeing and union leaders were saying that they had reached a tentative agreement. What happened?
Yeah, they announced that agreement on Sunday after months of negotiations. But the union rank and file soundly rejected that deal, and it was not particularly close. 94% voted to reject the contract. 96% voted to authorize the strike. Here's what it sounded like in Union Hall, recorded by member station KUOW, when union local president John Holden announced the final tally. This is about respect. This is about addressing the past. And this is about fighting for our future.
Our members rejected the contract by 94.6%. So they were all in support. Do you have any sense of why they would reject this deal so resoundingly? For a couple of reasons. I mean, the most obvious is financial. The deal would have raised wages by 25% and lowered employees' share of health care costs, also boosted retirement contributions by the company. But union members say that is still not enough. They were asking for a 40% raise and also big changes to the pension system.
And clearly they think they can get a better deal out of Boeing with a strike. So, Joel, some people listening might think, well, I mean, doesn't sound like a bad deal. I mean, is there something else happening?
There is a lot of history and bad blood between this union and Boeing management. And I think that is the other big reason why this vote was so lopsided. I talked to Leon Grunberg, a former professor at the University of Puget Sound, who has written two books about Boeing and its workforce. Grunberg says the union gave up a lot in previous contract talks when Boeing had more leverage. What really seems to be causing the anger and the frustration is that they were locked into a long contract contract
with very small wage increases. They lost their guaranteed pensions. So I think that created a lot of pent-up frustration in the workforce. Frustration that I think was very much on display in this vote last night. Yeah, sounded like it. So where does Boeing stand on all this? Well, before the vote, company leaders had been urging companies
Maybe even begging the union to take this deal. Remember, the company is already grappling with a safety crisis after that door plug panel blew out of a jet in midair back in January. Boeing is struggling to rebuild trust with airlines, with regulators, with the flying public.
In a statement last night, the company said, quote, the message was clear, unquote, that the tentative agreement was not acceptable to union members and that the company is ready to get back to the bargaining table. The last strike by Boeing Machinists, by the way, was in 2008. It dragged on for eight weeks, cost the company an estimated $2 billion. NPR's Joel Rose. Thanks a lot, Joel. You're welcome. Thank you.
President Biden hosts British Prime Minister Keir Starmer today at the White House. Russia's war on Ukraine will top their agenda. Now, there's speculation that President Biden may use the occasion to announce he's dropping his ban on Ukraine using long-range weapons provided by Washington to strike deep targets inside Russia. We're going to hear more about this from Terry Schultz, who covers NATO, where this issue has long divided the alliance. Good morning, Terry. Good morning, Michelle. Could you just remind us of what the issue is here? What's the issue?
especially why the Biden administration has limited Ukraine's use of long-range weapons and why things might be changing.
That's right. Well, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wants his forces to be able to destroy Russian capabilities, such as these missiles and drones we see doing so much damage, before they ever get off the ground headed toward Ukraine. So he's been lobbying hard and talking in public about this to get permission from the U.S. to strike back with long-range missiles that he already has, weapons coming from the U.S., but also Britain and France.
So what appears to have been changed in the last several days is that Secretary of State Antony Blinken said there's evidence Iran is providing Russia with ballistic missiles. He was in Kyiv meeting with Zelensky and top Ukrainian officials when he said this. Now Putin's further empowering his aggression with the acquisition of Iranian ballistic missiles.
So, we're working with urgency to continue to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to effectively defend itself. So, Western countries' fears that they would be seen as escalating the conflict by letting Ukraine have these deeper strike capabilities has now been superseded by what Blinken described as Moscow's own escalatory action in teaming up with Tehran to get these ballistic missiles.
Of course, that hasn't stopped Putin from continuing to threaten the West, including just yesterday, that he would view a change in the position on these weapons as direct involvement in the war. So, Tamara, let me ask you, how seriously do NATO countries see that threat? Is Putin likely to hit a NATO country?
Well, you know, it's been one of the reasons why the U.S. has held off giving these longer range capabilities until now. So they certainly don't dismiss it. But, you know, as we've seen, Putin has made these threats every time the West makes a move to help Ukraine. So I think that people are not completely dismissive of it, but they also don't think that President Putin is aiming for a NATO country anytime soon.
Just to be clear about this for people who aren't following this as closely, most other countries providing weapons to Ukraine have not included any restrictions on where and how those supplies can be used. So why do other governments see this so differently than the U.S. has?
Yeah, that's true. Almost all the other allies who've given Ukraine weapons have said, use them as you wish. And that's caused a lot of tension inside NATO. They say Ukraine can use their weapons however they need to do so, and that they have the right under international law to defend their territory, Ukraine. And so they've been heavily pressuring the U.S. to say the same thing. And one of the reasons is because most of those countries giving permission don't have the weapon.
that the U.S. and its closest allies, such as Britain and France, have sent to Ukraine and which Ukraine says it needs. So this week, Secretary of State Blinken also met Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski. And you can hear that difference of opinion in Sikorski's response to this question. Missiles that hit civilian targets are shot from bombers that start from airfields in Russia. The victim of aggression has the right to defend itself, has the right to combat all means of airstrikes that hit against it.
I'm of the opinion that Ukraine has the right to use Western weapons to prevent war crimes. So that opinion from the Polish foreign minister, again, is shared by virtually all the other NATO governments. Does this fit into a pattern? Has the U.S. government hesitated to do something and then done it anyway, eventually?
virtually every time the Ukrainians have asked for a major capability upgrade, this is what happens. And so President Zelensky is going to be hoping that as frustrating as it is, this does fit into that pattern because as you may remember, he was told he'll never get Western tanks and then the Pentagon sent him
Abrams. He was told he wouldn't get long-range missile systems. Finally, he got American Atacoms. And then, of course, he finally got his long-delayed request for Western fighter jets when allies with U.S. permission sent him F-16s. So on the Ukrainian side, there's always this mix of frustration and worry over the delay, and then, of course, gratitude when the weapons finally arrive. So President Zelensky will definitely be hoping this fits into that pattern and that there are decisions made today that
follow it. Terry Schultz covers NATO for NPR. Terry, thank you. Pleasure.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require health warning labels on new gas stoves, similar to those on tobacco products. Yeah, if signed by the governor, it would make California the first state to require such labels. For NPR's Climate Solutions Week, we're thinking about the future of food, including how we cook it. So Jeff Brady from our Climate Desk is here to tell us why warning labels on gas stoves. Jeff, good morning. Good morning. Okay, so why? Well, I think it's because we're in a time of crisis.
Well, you know, that blue flame on a stove, it's a fossil fuel that's burning and it releases pollution into your kitchen. Nitrogen dioxide is one pollutant. It can irritate airways and lead to asthma, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Using a hood that vents outside helps reduce that pollution. California Assemblymember Gail Pellerin says she knew about that when using the cooktop, but not her gas oven. So if I got a lasagna in the oven, I have never put it in the oven.
put the vent on because you're not seeing the smoke and everything. And so I was emitting harmful gases into my home. So Pellerin sponsored the legislation requiring a warning label. It says gas stoves release pollutants that can be toxic to people and pets.
Well, I suspect that stove manufacturers are not happy about this, just like other companies, like tobacco companies that require warning labels were not happy about it and opposed that. So is that the case? You are absolutely right. They opposed this legislation and echoed some of the arguments we've seen from gas utilities. They say this campaign against gas stoves is just part of a larger effort by climate activists to get consumers to switch to electric appliances that don't burn fossil fuels.
And they say this problem is not the pollution that comes from burning the gas, but the fumes that come off of the food itself. Here's Kevin Messner with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. If there's a debate on electrification or on fossil fuels, please have that debate discussed.
based on the science and merits of that issue. Don't bring in gas cooking. So his group suggested a different warning label focused on cooking fumes instead of combustion pollution, but California lawmakers rejected that. Now the bill is on Governor Gavin Newsom's desk, and he has until the end of the month to sign it into law or veto it. So that's California. What about the rest of the country?
Lawmakers in Illinois and New York considered bills like the California one, but they have not passed them so far. There's also a campaign to get the Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission to require warning labels on gas stoves nationwide. There is something else happening, though. In California, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C., there are lawsuits against gas stove manufacturers claiming they should be warning customers about these health risks.
The manufacturers, though, say they won't comment on pending litigation. What about retailers and their salespeople? Because I'm thinking that that's where a lot of customers get their information from when they want to buy a new appliance.
Yeah, you're right. And the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, they conducted a secret shopper survey to learn what salespeople at big box stores are telling customers. They went into 62 Lowe's, Home Depot and Best Buy stores in 11 states, and they found most salespeople either flatly denied that there are any health problems with gas stoves or said they didn't know much about the issue. That is Jeff Brady from NPR's Climate Desk. Jeff, thank you. Thank you.
That's Up First for Friday, September 13th. I'm A. Martinez. And I'm Michelle Martin. And don't forget, Up First airs on the weekend, too. Ayesha Roscoe and Scott Simon have the news. It will be here in this feed or wherever you get your podcasts. Today's episode of Up First was edited by Don Clyde, Megan Pratt, Nila Banerjee, Mohamed El-Bardisi, and Alice Wolfley. It was produced by Iman Maani, Ziad Butch, Nia Dumas, and Chris Thomas and Ana Perez.
We get engineering support from Carly Strange and our technical director is Zach Coleman. Join us again on Monday. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Up First sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Up First Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.
This message comes from NPR sponsor, Mint Mobile. From the gas pump to the grocery store, inflation is everywhere. So Mint Mobile is offering premium wireless starting at just $15 a month. To get your new phone plan for just $15, go to mintmobile.com slash switch.
This message comes from Bombas. Socks, underwear, and t-shirts are the top three requested clothing items by people experiencing homelessness. Bombas makes all three and donates one item for every item purchased. Go to bombas.com slash NPR and use code NPR for 20% off.