Speaker 1: You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 1: six forty.
Speaker 2: Cap on.
Speaker 3: AM six forty bill Handle.
Speaker 2: It is a Monday morning, October thirteenth. The Cairo Peace
Speaker 2: Summit is on its way right now. The President just
Speaker 2: arrived in Cairo and his limousine Wistoma off the tarmac
Speaker 2: and he's on his way to meet with twenty world
Speaker 2: leaders as Hamas and Israel signed their cease fire, not
Speaker 2: a formal peace accord yet, where all the terms have
Speaker 2: been finalized. Now let's get local for a moment, and
Speaker 2: this has to do with Prop fifty. Prop fifty is
Speaker 2: the proposition that we're going to see in November next month.
Speaker 3: That's it. It's Prop fifty.
Speaker 2: And the governor put Prop fifty on the ballot and
Speaker 2: there's a special election for one proposition.
Speaker 3: How important is it? It is a butte Okay.
Speaker 2: So here is sort of the underlying facts, the backstory here.
Speaker 3: Every ten years the.
Speaker 2: Census comes out with a population where people live in
Speaker 2: California and other states, there is an independent committee that
Speaker 2: decides what the district bounds are.
Speaker 3: Democratic. Well, just what redistricting does.
Speaker 2: What they do is they look at the map and
Speaker 2: they look at demographic changes, and they go, Okay, here
Speaker 2: is the district thing that we're going to do. It's
Speaker 2: independent here in California. And the reason it's independent because
Speaker 2: of the politics, because whoever was in charge, the Democrats
Speaker 2: and the legislature would do a Democratic version and the
Speaker 2: Republicans would do a Republican version just to take advantage
Speaker 2: of the ability to redistrict. And it has to do
Speaker 2: with how many congress people are sent. It's that simple,
Speaker 2: So are sent to Congress. So in California it's an
Speaker 2: independent agency. I think it's four Republicans, four Democrats, and
Speaker 2: a few independent people and politics, by law is not
Speaker 2: allowed to be considered. Okay, that's California. Texas doesn't have that. Texas,
Speaker 2: the legislator can do whatever the hell it wants. The legislature,
Speaker 2: and what they just did is redistrict in the middle
Speaker 2: of the census midyear because they're able to do that,
Speaker 2: and effectively, what they've done is create five new Republican
Speaker 2: seats because they're able to draw the line around neighborhoods
Speaker 2: and effectively bring purple areas all into a Democratic stronghold
Speaker 2: and all the areas around that are now Republican based
Speaker 2: that's what you can do with the redistricting, and Texas
Speaker 2: just did that. Why did Texas do this because the
Speaker 2: great leader in Washington said, I want you to redistrict,
Speaker 2: and the legislature said, you bet you, mister President, whatever
Speaker 2: you want, we're gonna do. So they went ahead and
Speaker 2: did the redistricting. Okay, that's Texas, you're gonna have five
Speaker 2: more Republican congress people. Newsom looks at this and goes,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, if you guys do it, we're gonna
Speaker 2: do it. However, there's a law that says you can't.
Speaker 2: There's a law that says the legislature can't redistrict. It's
Speaker 2: this independent commission. And Newsom says, let's do this. Why
Speaker 2: don't we put on the ballot a measure that undoes
Speaker 2: that law and allow us to do what Texas does
Speaker 2: so we can put democratic congress people, more Democratic congressmen
Speaker 2: women up into Washington. There is Prop fifty. The people
Speaker 2: in favor of Prop fifty, that's an easy one. Okay,
Speaker 2: we're fighting Texas.
Speaker 3: That's it. Fire with fire.
Speaker 2: The people against Prop fifty are arguing.
Speaker 3: It should be independent.
Speaker 2: How can you take this away from an independent commission.
Speaker 2: Are you going to bring this down to politics? And
Speaker 2: when you ask them how about Texas? The answer is
Speaker 2: it should be independent. We should not have the legislature
Speaker 2: do this. We have an independent commission that is fair.
Speaker 2: But wait a minute, look what Texas did? Deflection, deflection, deflection.
Speaker 2: So now come, well, I just did my ballot and
Speaker 2: I am in favor of Prop fifty.
Speaker 3: I mean I had no problem. I do not like what.
Speaker 2: Texas did, or if I did like what Texas did,
Speaker 2: we got to be able to do the same thing.
Speaker 3: No problem with that.
Speaker 2: So the people who are against Prop fifty are running
Speaker 2: the ads saying fair and we need an independent commission
Speaker 2: and we can't have the legislature involved. Okay, by the way,
Speaker 2: when they go to tech Texas, it goes the other
Speaker 2: way naturally. Now, the anti the pro Prop fifty people,
Speaker 2: I'm looking at commercials and I'm going, what are you
Speaker 2: guys doing. So one of the big commercials running is
Speaker 2: they talk about this guy Munger who is put in
Speaker 2: the majority of the money to kill fifty, that he's
Speaker 2: against LBGTQ rights and he's a right winger.
Speaker 3: What does that have to do with ending? And he's
Speaker 3: a bad guy.
Speaker 2: So if he puts money in and he's in favor
Speaker 2: of if he's against fifty, therefore you have to be
Speaker 2: in favor. I don't know why they just the message
Speaker 2: is simple, Hey, Texas is doing this, we have to
Speaker 2: fight Texas Prop fifty. There's the ad.
Speaker 3: There's the ad.
Speaker 2: If they're putting five Republicans up there, we have to
Speaker 2: put five Democrats up there.
Speaker 3: That's it. What am I missing here? What I don't understand.
Speaker 3: I don't get how how is it any different?
Speaker 1: So Texas is doing it because they're defending themselves against
Speaker 1: the Democrats, right, Okay, because it's now California, which had
Speaker 1: a law, so it is different than Texas because the
Speaker 1: people have already voted on it.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: So if you can do anything based on defending yourself
Speaker 1: against the other side, then no side is wrong.
Speaker 3: Texas wasn't wrong in what they did. No, you can't
Speaker 3: at all.
Speaker 1: Okay, So you can't say California is defending itself against
Speaker 1: Texas because Texas was defending itself against Democrats.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's all it's all the same. It's equally hypocritical.
Speaker 1: It made like the process of them doing it, and
Speaker 1: therefore you stand on that or you don't.
Speaker 3: It's to your point.
Speaker 2: It is uh, Texas has allowed itself or allowed its
Speaker 2: legislature to do this.
Speaker 3: California has not.
Speaker 2: Because Texas allows itself and did do this, the Republicans,
Speaker 2: which control the Texas legislature have given themselves a new advantage.
Speaker 3: Here we go.
Speaker 2: We have five new Republican congress people California, which passed
Speaker 2: the law saying we can't do that.
Speaker 1: It's like it's now like an amendment for the California
Speaker 1: they're trying to over there, overturning an amendment.
Speaker 2: That's right, they're overturning a proposition Texas did. Yeah, Texas
Speaker 2: never had this, Texas never had an independence.
Speaker 3: They were allowed to do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course they were. It's not a question if
Speaker 2: they're not allowed to do it, it's all we can launch.
Speaker 1: It's wrong for Texas. I think it's wrong for California.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree.
Speaker 2: I think everybody should have independent commissions to take as
Speaker 2: much of the politics out. The problem is the problem
Speaker 2: is it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way,
Speaker 2: so you can't come to now we stop the progress.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, absolutely, welcome to America. I mean there is
Speaker 2: only politics, and so the pro Prop fifty people, Well,
Speaker 2: I'm pro Prop fifty only because you know what, I'm
Speaker 2: not thrilled with the Republicans being in charge of Congress. Well,
Speaker 2: I don't have a problem with the Republicans being in
Speaker 2: charge of Congress. What I'm not thrilled with is President
Speaker 2: Trump being in charge of Congress. That's my problem is
Speaker 2: that we don't have a we don't have checks and
Speaker 2: balances anymore, we don't have an independent judiciary.
Speaker 1: And owned by him now because yes, all he's got
Speaker 1: to do is say something and you encounter that's correct.
Speaker 2: Well no, no, no, no, not at all what he says,
Speaker 2: you want the opposite. No, that's not true. That's absolutely
Speaker 2: not true. There's plenty of what he says. I agree with,
Speaker 2: plenty of what I agree with. My problem is whatever
Speaker 2: he says. The legislature, which is supposed to be a
Speaker 2: different branch than the executive, does everything the president wants.
Speaker 2: The President says, you jump off of building. The Republicans
Speaker 2: line up. They're pushing each other out of the way
Speaker 2: to jump off the bill holding first.
Speaker 1: That's why California will do anything against Trump regardless.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, even though they voted.
Speaker 2: For this, Well, California didn't. I mean it was overwhelming.
Speaker 2: California is an overwhelming blue state. But the point is
Speaker 2: is that we're not talking about the California legislature that
Speaker 2: hates everything.
Speaker 3: We're talking about the.
Speaker 2: US Congress and the Democrats hate hate Trump and the
Speaker 2: Republicans love Trump. The only difference is that the Republicans
Speaker 2: will take a bullet for Trump. The legislature there's no
Speaker 2: independence at all. That's the problem I have. That is
Speaker 2: the problem I have. Okay, now that we've told you
Speaker 2: that Neil doesn't know what the hell he's talking about,
Speaker 2: is that right?
Speaker 3: That is completely right. We will not look, we will
Speaker 3: trying to be Trump. Now, No, we.
Speaker 2: Will know a great California tribes. California tribes.
Speaker 3: Let me tell you.
Speaker 2: What's going on with casinos and the tribe. Look how
Speaker 2: late we're going because of you, Neil. Now, let's get local.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: The Indian tribes in California have a deal with California,
Speaker 2: and that is they have exclusivity for gambling. All right,
Speaker 2: that was given to the Indian tribes, started with the
Speaker 2: bingo stuff, and now you've got a whole it's basically
Speaker 2: Las Vegas.
Speaker 3: All right, we go there.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, Tim Conway has his birthday
Speaker 2: party next week, which Neil and I and whoever else
Speaker 2: is going to be there. And it's owned by an
Speaker 2: Indian tribe and it's gambling.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's a full casino.
Speaker 2: So there are also card rooms you go to commerce
Speaker 2: for example, these massive card rooms where you play poker
Speaker 2: and you also gamble, and what the Indians, the tribes
Speaker 2: have said, no, no, that's illegal because that's in violation
Speaker 2: of our agreement. And they've sued, and they have gone togslature,
Speaker 2: and they have gone crazy, and they've lost it every turn.
Speaker 2: They've lost every single time. So what happened was last
Speaker 2: year Governor Newsom allowed them to sue the card rooms
Speaker 2: over the claim that they have exclusive rights to offer
Speaker 2: Las Vegas style gambling in the States. Now there's a
Speaker 2: little crinkle here, a little wrinkle, and that is the
Speaker 2: tribes are sovereign governments, so they couldn't sue private businesses.
Speaker 2: So they were not allowed to sue on that level.
Speaker 2: So Newsom signed a bill which gave the tribes one
Speaker 2: shot to resolve their dispute in Sacramento. One shot go
Speaker 2: to Court once and the Superior Court judge Lory Damrell
Speaker 2: dismissed the tribe's case, saying, Nope, you have nothing here.
Speaker 2: Why is that because of the merits? Because you're right,
Speaker 2: because it's not fair, because every treaty the United States
Speaker 2: ever had with Indian tribes was broken. And response to that,
Speaker 2: here's what we're giving you exclusive rights to gambling. California
Speaker 2: is a total non gambling state, except now it's opened up.
Speaker 2: And the I was always in favor, always in favor
Speaker 2: of Indian tribes getting those casino rights because the way
Speaker 2: the US government treated Native Americans is like beyond horrible.
Speaker 3: So I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with you
Speaker 3: know the card halls, you know the card rooms. Why not? Well,
Speaker 3: what do the card rooms do?
Speaker 2: They take away business from the casinos, don't they?
Speaker 3: So it's over. And here's what the judge said. It
Speaker 3: has nothing to do with the merits of the case.
Speaker 2: It's federal law controls this, and you're relying on state
Speaker 2: law and you're relying on what the state can and
Speaker 2: cannot do.
Speaker 3: That's not where you go. It's federal law that controls this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, You're done, chow baby, and Of course, the
Speaker 2: card room industry applauded and went, just this is fantastic
Speaker 2: and I love this. You can tell that someone has
Speaker 2: hired a pr person to write this crap. We are
Speaker 2: encouraged by today's decision. Fair enough, that's the California Gaming
Speaker 2: Association president.
Speaker 3: Here's a fun one.
Speaker 2: Our member card rooms will continue to support good jobs,
Speaker 2: vital public services, local economies across California while upholding the
Speaker 2: highest standards of integrity, accountability, and compliance. As people jump
Speaker 2: off of the parking structures because they lost all of
Speaker 2: their money in the card rooms, but we offer to
Speaker 2: clean the pavements. We will press your wash the payments
Speaker 2: every time someone's head hits the pavement after they commit suicide.
Speaker 3: Hey, you know what, go figure.
Speaker 2: The chairperson of the California Nation's Indian Gaming Association said
Speaker 2: this outcome is especially troubling given it was a state
Speaker 2: law and acted just last year that explicitly gave tribes
Speaker 2: standing in state court, and the judge said, nah, federal
Speaker 2: law controls here, and the tribe's lawsuit alleged that all
Speaker 2: of those gambling halls throughout California.
Speaker 3: I think the biggest one is it in commerce?
Speaker 2: I was just driving the station from my house in
Speaker 2: Orange County the other day. There's a big sign going
Speaker 2: along the five and those big sign in commerce as
Speaker 2: the world's largest card room is there. I have no
Speaker 2: idea I've been to. I don't think I've been to
Speaker 2: a card room once or twice when I really I
Speaker 2: was driving along the freeway and I really had to
Speaker 2: pee and it was desperate, so I pulled in and Man,
Speaker 2: I'll tell you one thing. The people that go to
Speaker 2: those card rooms, these are not people that go to
Speaker 2: the Venetian in Las Vegas to gamble.
Speaker 3: Not quite.
Speaker 1: It's a real lorez is the type of clientele that
Speaker 1: goes to a curry.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's a pretty interesting group of people that
Speaker 2: go to those card rooms.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So in any case, the the the tribes, of course,
Speaker 2: are appealing everything that's happening, and they're saying that those
Speaker 2: card rooms are illegally offering card games blackjack and pie
Speaker 2: goal poker that they now offer and that's cutting into
Speaker 2: the tribes gambling revenues. Think about this, It all started
Speaker 2: with bingo at the tribes at the inside the reservations.
Speaker 2: A quick word before we bail out of here and
Speaker 2: go to. The next topic is on Friday, we do
Speaker 2: Ask Handle Anything, and it's all about you recording phone calls,
Speaker 2: asking me all kinds of personal fun questions and I
Speaker 2: don't know what they are, and it's all about humiliating me.
Speaker 2: That's the whole point of the process. And Neil chooses
Speaker 2: the questions and we run them, we broadcast them, and
Speaker 2: I hear him, you hear them for the first time,
Speaker 2: and it's just great fun. So here's how you do
Speaker 2: it during the course of the show, and it has
Speaker 2: to be during the show, even starting at five am
Speaker 2: with wake up call. You go to the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: turn on the just click onto the Bill Handle show
Speaker 2: and then you will click on to the microphone in
Speaker 2: the upper right hand corner. You click on that and
Speaker 2: that starts the recording. You have fifteen twenty seconds to
Speaker 2: ask ask handle anything, all right. So those are fun
Speaker 2: and without you it doesn't work. So go ahead and
Speaker 2: embarrass me and you humiliate me fair enough.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Now, let me tell you what's going on in the
Speaker 2: world of commerce, business the workplace here in the United States,
Speaker 2: and that is unionization, white collar unionization. Now you don't
Speaker 2: think of white collar jobs as being unionized, for example,
Speaker 2: law firms. I mean, who unionizes a law firm? You don't.
Speaker 3: It's actually it's blue collar.
Speaker 2: It's your electricians, it's your plumbers, it's people that do labor.
Speaker 2: And I'm talking about union labor. We're talking pretty high
Speaker 2: level labor. I'm not just talking about guys who dig ditches.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about and by the way, they have labor
Speaker 2: unions too in the construction industry. Nope, we're talking about
Speaker 2: unionizing jobs that heretofore were not unionized. Oh here's a
Speaker 2: little factoid. Oh I love this. Okay, what was the
Speaker 2: first union in the United States? Neil, any idea. This
Speaker 2: is a it's not even a trick question. It's just
Speaker 2: a historical tidbit.
Speaker 3: Was it cars? Cars?
Speaker 2: No? No, no, it goes back further than that a
Speaker 2: little bit. Seventeen ninety four? Really, yeah, yeah, it was
Speaker 2: the word waners union guys who made Guys who made shoes,
Speaker 2: not cobblers. Cobblers, by the way, are repair shoes. Early on,
Speaker 2: they didn't make shoes, of course at all, morphed into one.
Speaker 3: But it was the.
Speaker 2: Cord weaners union shoe guys who made shoes out of leather.
Speaker 2: New leather didn't repair. That was the first union that
Speaker 2: it wasn't dangerous. It was just the unionized. That's all
Speaker 2: they decided. You know why, why is the union created
Speaker 2: better benefits, work conditions, better money.
Speaker 3: That's what unions are about.
Speaker 2: And therein lies a story that has to be told
Speaker 2: about unions, and that is a little bit of the
Speaker 2: history of the unions.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: They are critical to any workforce and any economy. They
Speaker 2: are the most dangerous for any workforce or any economy,
Speaker 2: and it depends on the historical cycle.
Speaker 3: Desperately needed.
Speaker 2: For example, in the late eighteen hundreds, because you had
Speaker 2: the economy the Industrial Revolution, which wiped out the ability
Speaker 2: of a workingman to make any money. I mean, the
Speaker 2: robber barons took it over. And then you had the
Speaker 2: economy swinging the other way back in the fifties, for example,
Speaker 2: where unions were insanely.
Speaker 3: Powerful, way too much.
Speaker 2: Today they very few people are unionized, but they're moving
Speaker 2: into unionization.
Speaker 3: I'll explain what that is.
Speaker 2: And then there's a personal story or two I want
Speaker 2: to share with you the unionization of America and the workforce.
Speaker 2: We are also unionized here at KFI, at least the
Speaker 2: quote talent.
Speaker 3: I love they call us talent.
Speaker 2: I don't know where they ever came up with that concept.
Speaker 2: Talent anybody behind a microphone. We are members of sag AFTRA,
Speaker 2: you know, Screen Actors Guilt, which is not us, but
Speaker 2: the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. We are artists, fantastic.
Speaker 2: We're not just workers in radio, right, We're not just
Speaker 2: people who put together things and are manufacturing.
Speaker 3: No, we are artists. We are artists.
Speaker 1: The listeners ears are your canvas.
Speaker 3: God, life is hilarious.
Speaker 2: Okay, We're gonna finish it up with the unionization of
Speaker 2: white collar jobs. Employees at law firms and banks and
Speaker 2: tech companies which we never heard about unionizing. Well, guess
Speaker 2: what they're unionizing. And the reason is that jobs are
Speaker 2: scarcer now AI is taking over. Entry level jobs are
Speaker 2: basically gone. At tech firms, they don't exist.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And law firms, for example, new lawyers, well a research.
Speaker 3: You don't know.
Speaker 2: You no longer need researchers, so fewer lawyers are being hired.
Speaker 2: I mean, it goes across the board. So what's the answer.
Speaker 2: Unionize and unions do two things. One Uh, they better
Speaker 2: better benefits, better pay better work conditions, and they keep
Speaker 2: you working. And herein lies the problem with unions. Unions
Speaker 2: are either priceless or they can really screw things up.
Speaker 2: How powerful can unions be. I'm going to give you
Speaker 2: an example. One of the most powerful unions that an
Speaker 2: early union were the railroad rail employees railroad workers you know,
Speaker 2: I'm engineers, the guys who run rail railroads, the engines,
Speaker 2: and the caboosemen.
Speaker 3: Now what is the caboozman. Well, if you look at any.
Speaker 2: Of the the films deal with early trains or the
Speaker 2: steam trains, and you see a caboose at the back
Speaker 2: of the train, and the caboosemen they're the ones that
Speaker 2: picked up the mail, for example, that were hanging on
Speaker 2: this device, hanging on a hook, because that's the way
Speaker 2: mail was picked up so the train didn't have to stop.
Speaker 2: There's a bunch of reasons you would have a caboose. Well,
Speaker 2: you don't need caboose people anymore. So how powerful was
Speaker 2: the union, Well, you didn't need caboose people anymore, but
Speaker 2: they kept the cabooses and per the union rules, there
Speaker 2: were caboozmen sitting in the cabooses that did nothing except
Speaker 2: play cards. Actually it was a single caboose man who
Speaker 2: would just sit there because the union rules, the negotiations
Speaker 2: were there. Then it gets one better when the trains
Speaker 2: no longer had cabooses.
Speaker 3: And the union said, okay, they didn't mind.
Speaker 2: But they still had caboose men who weren't on the cabooses,
Speaker 2: who still got paid. That is a union, I'm telling you,
Speaker 2: that is a powerful union.
Speaker 3: So the point is it gets ridiculous.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, look at the history of unions
Speaker 2: when the workforce was working, when they had kids working
Speaker 2: sixteen hour days, six days a week or six and
Speaker 2: a half days a week, and you had, starting at
Speaker 2: the modern day union starting in the late eighteen hundreds,
Speaker 2: first one being the Ladies garment workers because women were
Speaker 2: working in these sweatshops, so that became a powerful union.
Speaker 2: And then you had the car the automotive workers, which
Speaker 2: Henry Ford just did everything he could to break the unions,
Speaker 2: even the point we're sending in goons to kill people literally,
Speaker 2: to attack union members with bats, with weapons in some
Speaker 2: cases there were. It was horrific. The history of why
Speaker 2: unions were needed today by the fifties, well, even get
Speaker 2: to the point where you have cabuzmen. So it depends
Speaker 2: on unions, and depends union labor always does better.
Speaker 3: For the workers, almost always.
Speaker 2: And management companies hate unions hate them why because they
Speaker 2: don't decide how much the employees get paid as a
Speaker 2: negotiation with the union.
Speaker 3: Collective bargaining does it.
Speaker 2: And whenever on handle on the laws, someone calls me
Speaker 2: about a problem with a company. I've been fired, I've
Speaker 2: been transferred. They won't give me a raise. They promised.
Speaker 2: I'm been there for twenty years and they promised me.
Speaker 2: This first thing I said, are you unionized? And if
Speaker 2: the answer is yes, go to your union rep. They
Speaker 2: have power. That's where you want to go. So if
Speaker 2: you are working in a bank, in a law firm,
Speaker 2: tech companies, be prepared to unionize. It's gonna be a
Speaker 2: good thing for you, assuming you still have a job,
Speaker 2: which you probably won't.
Speaker 3: That's it, guys, We're done.
Speaker 2: Gary and Shannon are up next tomorrow morning all over
Speaker 2: again with Amy and Will Will Coleschreiber, who will be
Speaker 2: eating the entire show. Yes, and then Neil and I
Speaker 2: come aboard at six am and we're here till nine.
Speaker 2: And of course Ann and Kono. I have no idea
Speaker 2: what they do, but they do something on the show.
Speaker 3: Okay, we're done.
Speaker 2: This is KFI AM sixty.
Speaker 3: You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2: Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
Speaker 2: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app