AG rules against 'no strike'

Suthers says Ritter can't preclude walkouts

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Originally published 12:30 a.m., November 30, 2007
Updated 06:25 a.m., November 30, 2007

Gov. Bill Ritter's executive order giving unions a larger role in state government can't preclude workers from striking, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said in a legal opinion Thursday.

Ritter has said that his order contains a strong no-strike provision that would prohibit state workers from forming a picket line if negotiations between unions and management soured.

But state employees already have a right to strike under a 1915 law, and the legislature would have to pass a new law to reverse it, Suthers wrote.

Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, and Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, have drafted a bill that would do just that. And Suthers' opinion reinforces the need to pass it next session, Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany said.

Ritter, a Democrat, was aware that such legislation was in the works and would sign it, said his spokesman, Evan Dreyer.

However, some Democratic lawmakers would have to vote for such a bill for it to make it to Ritter's desk, since they are the majority party.

Voting in an election year to deny some union members the right to strike would put Democrats in a tough spot, said Colorado State University political science professor John Straayer.

"The question is what happens to the other members of his party," said Straayer, who likened it to Republicans having to vote for a bill that allowed abortions.

"It would divide them," Straayer said.

The opinion from Suthers, a Republican, comes at the request of GOP lawmakers who say that Ritter's order has opened the door for unions to eventually bargain for higher wages and benefits.

Ritter has said he and the legislature maintain full control over the state budget and that his order establishes "partnership agreements" aimed at engaging state employees to find efficiencies and be more productive.

On the day Ritter issued the order, Suthers said it was counterproductive and amounted to a "solution looking for a problem."

The law Suthers refers to in his legal opinion is the Colorado legislature's Industrial Relations Act, created in 1915 and revised in 1921.

The Colorado Supreme Court has said that the law would have to be amended by the General Assembly in order to deny state employees the right to strike, Suthers wrote.

"The question is, does the executive order take away the state employee's right to strike, and the answer is, not always," said Suthers' spokesman, Nate Strauch.

• November 30, 2007

  7:46 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Earl writes:

  oh goodie now we all know that government strikes can and will happen.
  'The opinion from Suthers, a Republican, comes at the request of GOP lawmakers who say that Ritter's order has opened the door for unions to eventually bargain for higher wages and benefits.
  Ritter has said he and the legislature maintain full control over the state budget and that his order establishes "partnership agreements" aimed at engaging state employees to find efficiencies and be more productive.'
  now why would a lawyer, ritter, turned politican go around the back door to allow 'partnership agreements' with the unions, if all he wants is to engage state employees to find efficiencies and be more productive? I have never seen a union that went after productivity or efficiencies in my life. been in three different unions and left those jobs because of the unions protecting the lazy and trouble makers and just telling us what we wanted from the employeer, and it was always more money and free everything and less work.
  maybe when the union comes about I will apply for a job with CDOT to ride around all day with a rag on a pole and wipe the reflectors on the poles on the side of the road. that should be worth 25-30 bucks and hour with full protection of not getting fired I think.

• November 30, 2007

  1:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GrayOwl writes:

  Is anyone surprised by this? The governor's legal background, plus that of advisors, surely made this prospect clear to him. How can we tell for certain? If someone in his employ misled him, surely that person will be fired. Right? And if no one is fired, well, guess what: The guv got exactly what he wanted, and his devious plan was successful. Now, if he can get his pals to block any legislative change, he gets exactly what he wanted all along -- and when he is criticized, he can blame someone else. What a glorious situation for such a politician. What does it take to through such a sleaze out of office?