Dems with no Public Unions Fail, in other news water is wet.

On Fox News today Chris Stirewalt wrote an article that basically said out loud what everyone already knew. Dems can never survive without Unions and primarily PEU's. Why? Because as the article says its a vicious cycle:

The cycle for five decades has been that unions support the campaigns of Democrats who promise to expand the power of unions. Thus empowered, the unions have more money with which to elect more Democrats who further expand union powers. And so it goes.

Mitch Daniels asks why we need PEU's

Just a few days ago I asked the question of why we have PEU's. I got some feedback from some other places that I posted it but no one still really answered the question for me. The answers I got were basically about preventing abuses foisted upon defenseless workers. But when the government is the boss well that makes no sense since every private union turns to government to correct issues they believe are unfair.

Well now someone with a slightly larger base than The Handbook, meaning at least 4 people will listen to him, has asked the same question. Mitch Daniels made the rounds on Sunday asking basically the same question.

You can read Hot Air's take on this question here.

So anyone think Mitch Daniels reads The Handbook to get his ideas? Yeah me neither.

Why do we have PEU's?

So with everything that just went down in WI and Scott Walker laying the beat down the way he did, I started to wonder why exactly are federal employees allowed to unionize? I understand the concept that some people believe that unions protect the worker, personally I think that's absolute crap, but some people out there still believe that Social Security will be there for them when they get old.

So I pulled EO 10988 signed by JFK on 17 Jan 1962 which basically gave public employees the ability to unionize. Why he signed this I personally don't know. Maybe he thought it was a good plan, maybe as one writer in the LA Times put it here that Scott Walker should look to Ronald Reagan for advice on how to not anger unions.

I believe we are looking at two separate times. Not just two different years but two completely different landscapes. I may be wrong but I don't believe that unions had acquired the foothold into politics that they have now with the democratic party or maybe it's just nostalgia on my part thinking that things were just simpler at that time.

In that article the writer claims that JFK signed that EO so to blunt the upcoming vote in Congress on a bill that would allow federal employees to unionize and give them more rights than what he felt they should have. Here is my question though, what was so bad about a federal job at the time that required employees to unionize in the first place? Or was it as I believe that Democrats saw a chance to create a brand new revenue stream that would always be in their corner since they allowed it to happen?

As that article even admits this was the dam breaking that allowed states, cities, and municipalities to begin to offer the ability of their employees to unionize. So thanks JFK for creating a parasite on the budget of every level of government throughout the country.

My real question though is this. If government is so good, and government and government alone knows how workers should be treated and what is fair, why did the unions need to exist in the first place?

In 2010 alone fewer than 1 million of the nations 3.5 million federal employees were unionized. Total with all federal, state, and local employees who were unionized fell to 36% in 2010. That was a drop of around 1% from 2009.

Per the Washington Post

About 984,000 of the federal government's 3.5 million full and part-time workers are union members, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. Union membership dropped 1.2 percent among federal workers from the previous year. 

Scott Walker dropped that number even further in 2012. The real question I want posed to Mitt Romney will you revoke EO 10988? If not, why not?

Personally we at The Handbook believe that the public unions can never be brought to a level where they will look at budgets with a realistic outlook in their demands and expectations until they are removed completely from the picture.

If 401(k) and IRA's are good enough for everyone else they are perfectly fine for your government employees. Why should any company, government included, continue to pay you after you are no longer a productive member of that entity?

In the interest of disclosure I am technically a federal employee as I am a member of the US Armed Forces. Just so there is no question I would be willing to sit down and look at the retirement packages offered to members of the military and look at other options with anyone who wants to. 

Pension reform in.......... California???

Yep you read that right. San Diego and San Jose both voted to curb public employee pension plans. With San Diego voting 66% in favor and San Jose voting at 70% there is no mistaking that the people have caught a fever and only reducing union costs can cure it.

The unions o\f course used the same arguments that it is unfair to the people that have paid into the plan and now get less in retirement. In a way I can see that argument then common sense pops into my head and i realize that if they hadn't b een so greedy in the f\irst place they wouldn't have the current problems with the bill that passed.

Now that the unions were dealt two more losses on top of\ the massive beat downs they took last night in WI, any chance they stop being the problem and start working with the real adults to become part of\ the solution?

Yeah I didn't think so either.

Quick question though any chance CA becomes the next state to take on union thugs?  Yeah me either.

Read what Hot Air has to say ab out it.

Scott Walker lays the smack down!!

This post is taking a small bit of time to write, unfortunately my 2 year old decided to knock my beer on my laptop. So I'm writing this with a combination of my actual keyboard and the catastrophe that is the on screen keyboard. I say this so if there are more typos than normal you'll know why.

Now on to the good stuff.

Last night was suppose to be the night that Libs put all those pesky conservatives in there place. So imagine my surprise to wake up today to find out that Walker not only won. He kicked wimpy liberal ass all over the state. His statement after the results showed just how much Walker completely understands what voters are after. 

“They [the voters] said loudly, not just in Wisconsin, but across the country, ‘If you do the right thing, if you make the tough choices, voters will stand with you.’”

Of course Obama believes a message was sent to Walker and those union hating conservatives. I'm not completely sure what that message is but I for one hope that its the same message that they use in November.

Britain on Strike today

So the Unions here in England are what the Unions in America want to become. Completely in power and unquestioned. Well it looks like they got questioned by the government here.

I am actually here and this is actually affecting my life. Due to the brilliance in union leadership approximately 2 million workers are on strike for today, including teachers. So because of this my child does not get to go to school today to further her education. Is it just one day, sure, but that is beside the point.

Ohio joining the sane and becoming a Right to Work state?

Pjmedia is reporting that there is a signature petition out there right now to change the state constitution to become a Right to work state. The legislature would state in part

• “No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require any person or employer to become or remain a member of a labor organization.”
• “No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require, directly or indirectly, as a condition of employment, any person or employer, to pay or transfer any dues, fees, assessments, other charges of any kind, or anything else of value, to a labor organization, or third party in lieu of the labor organization.”

It's possible I guess. Although seeing how the last attempt at curtailing unions went down in a smoldering pile in Ohio turned out I'm not that sure.

PJmedia believes that waiting on this until 2013 might work out better in regard to the POTUS election so that there isn't a crazed union movement getting people out to vote to shoot this down and ultimately giving Obama Ohio.

While I believe that any attempt on anything reducing union power would be met with screams and alot of money in ads I'm not completely sold that this wouldn't pass. The reason is this doesn't take away the current union negotiating capability. Granted it would cost them some money in dues and we all know how they react to that concept. But I believe this falls closer along the lines of the Individual Mandate amendment that did pass in being simply about personal choice and freedom.

Of course we at The Handbook reserve the right to retract everything said here if proven to be wrong, or claim that it was completely taken out of context.

The DNC Convention vs the Laws of NC

Just in case anyone had thought that the DNC had decided to maybe lay off pushing their anti-business pro union down anyones throat they thought they could.. Well no such luck.

Apparently the DNC forgot to check the laws in NC before they awarded Charlotte the convention for this year. Actually more likely is they knew the laws exactly and wanted to see how many businesses they could get to union up due to a chance to get some extra business in such a crappy economy.

So just remember folks we here at The Handbook want you to always remember. When there is a D at the end of the name I assure you its not YOU they are looking out for.