Union proposes cost-of-living law

5 ballot initiatives touted as remedy for right-to-work

April Washington and Joanne Kelley

Published April 1, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More More Business

Comments

April 1, 2008

5:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

david.miller writes:

So, should this agenda becomes law, do you think there will be more or less people employed in Colorado? How about economic growth?
April 1, 2008

8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

rellimpank writes:

--Marxist dreaming--
April 1, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

iggypuppet writes:

According to City Councilman Ryan Frasier, "If I thought for once it (Right to Work laws) would hurt working families, I wouldn't support the measure,"

According to the Economic Policy Institute however, "We find that the mean effect of working in a right-to-work state results in a 6% to 8% reduction in wages for workers in these states, with an average wage penalty of 6.5%. Controlling for regional costs of living reduces this amount to approximately 4%. We find that previous research reporting real wage gains associated with right-to-work states is almost purely the result of border cities that benefit from their proximity to a non-RTW state."

So tell me... how does earning 6-8% less in salary by living in a right to work state NOT hurt families?

While there are a lot of union haters on this board, the union folks do make a valid point when they ask the question, "what's fair about having a non-member earn the same wage that the union has negotiated for its members? What's fair about having to provide representation to workers who are not members of the union?"

Whether you like unions or not, this is clearly a union-busting law, and even opponents of unions concede that unions raise the wage bar for everyone. If you want a WalMart society, vote for right to work. If you support opportunities for workers to earn a living wage and share in some of the success that the workers provide for their companies, stay away from right to work. It's a bad deal for everyone except employers who want to pocket more money for themselves.
April 1, 2008

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

oneworker writes:

These cost of living increases are for everyone. Something must be done to reestablish balance for working families.
April 1, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rock writes:

It's about time workers have more rights.
April 1, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Leonardo777 writes:

Cost-of-living increases on top of any other increases would help working families with expenses such as gas, food, and high costs of healthcare. Every bit helps. Working families need safe workplaces and affordable and accessible medical coverage. Too many hard working Americans' jobs have disappeared due to their jobs being moved overseas. Banning tax credits for companies moving operations overseas is one way that will help keep our jobs in the US.
April 1, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

guster writes:

Unions exist because corporations are more powerful than individuals and exploit workers in order to achieve their primary goal -- that of making a profit. Those employees who live and work in states that are "right-to-work" states make less money per hour, have less benefits, and, consequently, a lower standard of living. This affects the entire ecomony in which they live because they have less money to spend to stimulate the economy. This is just common sense! Those who would vote for the right-to-work ballot initiative are undermining their own economic stability. A society is only as strong as its weakest member, and unions exist to level the playing field when individuals unite to negotiate their wages, benefits, and working conditions.
THINK ABOUT IT!
April 1, 2008

11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Serenade writes:

Have we learned NOTHING from Tabor and Amendment 23? Every harebrained scheme that is enshrined in the constitution means that it can NEVER be undone, even if we discover that conflicting provisions are hamstringing the State economy. What's wrong with putting these forward as statutory changes? At least then if it creates unintended consequences, we can address it by hounding our legislators into doing something about it.
April 1, 2008

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

erod writes:

If the right-to-work-for-less initiative passes these laws will be essential for working families in Colorado to be able to keep up with inflation and receive affordable health care. The people who work to fill the pockets of the corporations deserve some of the profit THEY produce for these corporations. These people are spending the most valuable resource they have to offer, there labor. They have the right to the American dream as much as those who don’t have to worry about putting food on the table. 98% of the people of this country have to go to work everyday and only receive pennies for their lives work, they do not have the money or time to go out and pursue laws that will benefit them. It is the unions, a non-profit organization, that spend the time and money to fight for all workers who don’t have the resources to fight for them selves.

“In this glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right-to-work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works.’ Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining… We demand this fraud be stopped”.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
April 1, 2008

12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

ColoradoFamily writes:

While CEO's are giving themselves very large bonuses and salaries the rest of us are forced to fight for every bit of a living wage. We need a voice to speak out for our health care, working environment and the balance between working families and the interest of Big Business. These ballot initiatives are a step in the right direction. It is time for the voters of Colorado to stand up for what it right.
April 1, 2008

12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

momoftwo writes:

Coloradoans need cost-of-living wages, access to affordable health care, safe workplaces, and corporations should not receive tax credits if they ship jobs off seas. It is insane to suggest anything less. Who signs up for an unsafe workplace, to have your job shipped over seas, etc.?

Unions give a voice to the working people - the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
April 1, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

BillK writes:

Wow. Can there really be anyone that doesn't instantly see how out of touch labor is?

Any one of these initiatives would result in huge job cuts and employers moving out of state en masse, but the cost of living increase should just be called the "destroy Colorado business" initiative.

Are people really so naive as to think businesses are just sitting on piles of cash? No, if costs go up - "cost of living" increases, increased property taxes, etc. - those costs will be passed on to the consumer. (Ironically, raising cost of living increases even further.)

So hey, vote for these initiatives in the name of "protecting families."

And enjoy your unemployment benefits, as you won't be getting a new job anytime soon - not in THIS state.
April 1, 2008

1:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

infidel91 writes:

You can harp all day about how workers need this and workers need that and wages are this percent lower, but at the end of the day, you have no answer to the question of whether it is morally permissible to allow unions to confiscate money from workers who have chosen not to join them.

"The UFCW's Gonzales said the right-to-work measure seeks to destroy unions and working families. The measure would outlaw arrangements requiring all employees to pay fees for union representation, whether they are members or not."

If unions would be destroyed but for their ability to steal from non-union employees -- in other words, if nobody is willing VOLUNTARILY to pay union dues -- then it is perfectly appropriate that the unions disappear.
April 1, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

RD writes:

I support the 5 union ballot initiatives simply for the fact, that if business succeeds in the effort to make Colorado a Right-to-Work For Less state, then the workers will need some new laws in Colorado to protect them from the business owners. The unions negotiate for liveabe wages, health care and to protect workers injuried on the job. In a store where there is an union the wages and benefits for the workers are better than in non-union shops. That is why the workers in union shops pay union dues(to have the bargaining power). No one forces people to work in an union shop if a person does not want to pay dues or fees, then they should go work in a non-union shop, not change the law to allow people to work in an unio shop without paying the dues or fees, all that does is weaken the bargaining power.

As far as these initiatives hurting job creation, all I have to say is to ask this question, Does this state need more minimum wage jobs?
April 1, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

rocketman504 writes:

As a resident of a right-to-work-for-less state (Wyo), I'll be the first to express how that stupid law affects workers. The right-to-work-for-less ballot initiative will have a more adverse affect on Colorado's economy than these proposed ballot initiatives. Workers are companies and corporations greatest asset. Without workers, corporate executives wouldn't have jobs! The workers deserve their fair share to have a liveable income! These proposed initiatives will be all to important if right-to-work-for-less passes in Colorado (God forbid)!!
April 1, 2008

2:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

rosarita08 writes:

Coloradoans need cost-of-living increases due to the high cost of food, gas and healthcare. There are a lot of single parents out there and we need all the help that we can get. As far as safe working conditions, we all need a safe environment to be more productive.
April 1, 2008

2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

tflores writes:

In a Country like we have, the existing Union is a great protective arm. The actual economy is not clear today; so I think this initiative is going to make our future more uncertain. Harm every body and specially harm families that live day-today, paycheck to paycheck.
April 1, 2008

3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

GoPackGo writes:

Ryan Frazier doesnt need a cost of living raise if in fact he's getting checks from company's that have bids with Aurora.
April 1, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

dolander123 writes:

Why would you want to make Colorado a right to work state to drag wages down to walmart level. We have worked so hard to gain the benefits we have. People have died remember Ludlow.We are going backwards we need to go forward we need change.Unions are who negociate for better wages,health benefits,safe work enviroment,days off,vacation. The only ones who benefit from rtw is corporations,ceo's who take all of these things away from you so they have a profit.They don't care if you can feed your family pay your bills,buy a house we need the middle class back in this country. And the only way we get it back is to fight and that is what unions do for you. We don't need less unions we need more.
April 1, 2008

4 p.m.

Suggest removal

marg writes:

we can't depend on corporations to give us a fair cost of living increase. we have to make these changes by law
April 1, 2008

4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

gramps writes:

Try to imagine how many women have had to be the sole support of their families - imagine too that statistics tell us that Union women make a significant percentage more than their non-Union counterparts. Then, add in to the mix the statistics about minority women and the percentage is even greater between what the Union women make as opposed to the non-Union. There are so many issues involved - when people, you and me, band together in a common effort, we have more power. The Union leads us and speaks for us when we are weak - think again about those women supporting their families. The protections they have being Union, the health insurance, paid days off, etc. Let the employer and the employees have the say - not the government! Stay out of it!
April 1, 2008

4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Workingmom writes:

The "right-to-work" proposal would absolutely hurt the working family. We have to stay united.
April 1, 2008

5:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

courtneym writes:

let the people have a voice and decide what is right for them
April 1, 2008

6:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

BillK writes:

Please - I love the complaints about wages being dragged to "Wal-Mart level" and yet every time a new Wal-Mart opens they get at least 3-4 times the number of applications they do of jobs they have open. I guess those wages don't quite suck as much as those who deride them say they do.

The bottom line remains the unions can demand anything they want from businesses. The businesses can then close up shop and go elsewhere - surrounding states or overseas.

Union supporters seem to believe Businesses are some endless font of cash from which they can demand whatever they want and it will be given to them. In a global economy, that's just not true. Call the support line for most any company and you'll now be talking to a voice in India rather than along the Front Range, and salaries and benefits are the reason why.

I love the comment above that "no one is forced to work in a Union shop - you can go work elsewhere."

I say the same thing about living in a right to work state, or working for an employer that doesn't provide the wages or benefits you like. If you WANT to work in a Union shop, why not go elsewhere? Don't like "Wal-Mart wages?" Don't work for them.

The argument always seems so silly when made in reverse. Don't be fooled, it's actually "You've worked here ten or twenty years, if you don't pay up, you have to quit, simple as that." Thuggery at its finest.
April 1, 2008

6:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

bluecollarworker writes:

Let me tell you one thing, if it wasn't for unions representing workers and insuring justice and fairness for all, employers would hire and fire at a whim. The employer might like your work one day and the next not like you or your politics and just flat out fire you! Another, thing - explain to me what's fair about a Unions having to represent non-union, non-dues paying members. If a majority vote the union in, then all should belong to the union and pay dues for the benefits and wages they reap. You know if a company is union or non-union before you are hired and so you can decide at that time whether or not to accept the job. Same goes for if the Union is voted in while you are employed, you then have the ability to make the decision of whether you will stay or leave. A majority rules! Why change what has worked and worked well for years.
April 1, 2008

7:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

BillK writes:

Guess what? For the most part, employers CAN.

Most of us work for employers "at will" in which employers can fire and hire as they like, as long as the reason isn't illegal.

You tell me what's fair about having to pay to have a Union represent me? I don't WANT a Union to represent me - EVER. I don't need their overpaid union thugs telling me whether to work or not work. Funny how whenever you read about strikes it's never the union execs getting paid six figures who go without a salary even when the "strike fund" runs out.

The truth people need to realize is that employers are not in it for YOU, they are in it to provide a service or product at a price point the market will pay, period. You, as an employee, are a means to that end. It's not a social program.

The other thing people need to realize is that for each of us - and I include myself here - there are a number of people willing to do what you do every day for LESS MONEY if given the chance. Perhaps not as well, and perhaps not in your city, or state, or country. But they exist.

Everyone knows that (do you buy the most expensive product on the shelf or the cheapest?) yet they still "demand" their employers pay them more and more and more.

Sure, I'd like to get paid more, but it's a balance that mafia-like "demands" upset.
April 1, 2008

11:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

kathyM writes:

Unions had a useful and noble purpose in the past. But they, too, found creative ways to do a crappy job, or no job at all, while getting paid big bucks. Eventually it hurt employers, many of which could not stay in business while carrying the huge overhead of a union contract. Unions earned their bad reputation.

However, this story will repeat itself if employers and shareholders don't wise up. Shareholders insist on consecutive quarterly profits or they'll bolt. So corporations are forced to profit at the expense of research and development, product/service quality, and decent pay and benefits for employees (all of which are essential to a company's long-term success). Combine that with "right-to-work" environment, and you're just asking for unions to make a roaring comeback.
April 2, 2008

6:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Radar writes:

kathyM, i agree with you, i'm not a big union supporter anymore. At one time they (Unions) did serve a great purpose. now not so much anymore. I have seen MANY people loose their houses, cars and dream because of some strike or another. Back when i was with the carpenters union they took $90 a week dues, and paid $25 a day to walk a picket line. Many folks went bankrupted for that ideal. you can't feed a family of four on $25 aday, although now we have many elderly that do that now. I do agree that a cost of living increase is a good idea. especially now that fuel of all types are unjustifiedly high, thus raising the price of everything shipped.
April 2, 2008

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

I guess the message here has been too difficult for some to understand. Let me repeat it:

BUSINESSES EXIST TO CREATE PROFIT FOR THE BUSINESS OWNER WHETHER THAT OWNER IS ONE PERSON OR STOCKHOLDERS OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE.

That is the first law of commerce. If these proposals pass, what do you think will happen?

Some businesses will just plain close. Add in a union climate and you can see the dust as they head to Wyoming or any other state that HAS right to work. Even the poster admits there is an increase in business near the borders of right to work states. Of course those increases are in the OTHER state.

Other businesses will cut employees, raise prices and do their best to survive.
Good luck if unions can lie their way into laws that close businesses. Those of us on fixed incomes will have to cut back even more to pay the costs. That is the second law of commerce:
All increases in cost are passed on to the consumer.

Here's an example you might be able to understand if your ears are free of union nonsense.
A farmer whose workers are unionized must sell his vegetables at the same prices as the other farms without a union. A bushel of corn sells for 48 dollars. It takes all workers ten working minutes to pick and box a bushel of corn. The union workers cost three dollars an hour more than the non-union workers. The farmer pays fifty cents more for each bushel of corn but has to sell it for the same price so he makes fifty cents a bushel less for his corn. His farm produces, and he harvests, a hundred and fifty bushels a day. He pays seventy five dollars a day more just in his cornfield. In a year he is only harvesting corn for fifty days. That means he pays 3800 dollars more per year. He has expenses that are the same as other farms. He needs to earn a profit of 150,000 a year. He can plant beans and harvest them with two workers. Next year he doesn't plant corn and six workers have no jobs. The other farms still plant corn but the cost goes up because there will be less corn on the market. Now a bushel of corn costs 60 dollars.

What good did the union do for those six unemployed workers?

Businesses that have the ability to change their methods or other working conditions will do so leaving a number of workers unemployed. The same thing will happen, to a lesser extent, if any of these initiatives pass. RTW will permit businesses to pay wages they can afford. If they are paying too little they will have trouble getting and keeping good workers. That is expensive too. I have been a member of a union and my husband was a member of a union that drove the company out of business. Wonderful benefits and nice high union dues. They ended up working for less than they had earned before without benefits. Attempts to unionize the workers there failed.

Keep union thugs from deciding how to spend your money while ordering you to lose work so they can demonstrate their power.
April 2, 2008

10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

puppydog writes:

As workers it is going to effect us because we are not going to be united. Therefore, the corporations are going to take away what we already have in our contract. So right to work for less is going to hurt us.
April 2, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Logic1 writes:

GWM, great point. Also, it is not the role of the Federal Government. Many programs by the feds are actually unconstitutional. Bailouts included. Much of it should go to the state and thus dependant on each states constitution.
April 2, 2008

1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

middleclass writes:

I think Right to work is a fraud. The people for Right to work for less should pull the initiative and quit interfering in Colorado's economy. The supporters of Right to Work for less won't be happy until Colorado is a poor state like all the Right to work for less states. Southern states are Right to work for less states for example. Maybe if they would pull their initiative, we could deescalate the situation and get back to finding ways to help workers and business in Colorado, instead of trying to hurt an already fragile economy. Big business wants
April 2, 2008

2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

middleclass writes:

The workers are just trying to protect themselves. Big business wants to take away their ability to unite for better wages, benefits, safety, and working conditions. Tell big business to pull their Right to work for Less iniative and labor might do the same.

Martin Luther King Jr. said, " In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work'. It provides no 'rights' and no 'works'. It's purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped."

I was amazed to find Martin Luther King fought against Right to Work for Less. Big money just wants to take more away from the workers. The same people that support Right to Work for less are the samr people that want to ship American jobs to China, because they want cheap labor. At what point do the workers stand up and say enough is enough? Workers can't afford Right to Work for Less in Colorado. This is a worker issue, not a union issue.
April 2, 2008

4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

middleclass writes:

That's the problem. We can participate in the global market without selling out the American worker. There needs to be a balance. I took economics at CU Denver and they teach that we need to compete in the global economy. How does the American worker compete with someone in China that will work for $2 a day. Without taxes and tariffs to establish a balance, the only one that benefits are the greedy corporations. If this country keeps going down the road we're on, your grandkids will have to go to China to find a job.

Without labor, there is no profit. If American workers can't make enought to raise a family and buy consumer goods, who will buy the goods made in China?

Wake up. Getting back to the issue, Right to Work for less is bad for Colorado and our economy. Out of state special interests are waging war on Colorado workers.
April 2, 2008

6:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

coloradoworker writes:

RYAN FRAZIER. Did someone say Ryan Frazier???? Here's a question for "you" COLORADO, asked by me ("COLORADOWORKER"), just how much do you think Mr....lets go ahead and set back the working/middle class somemore, Mr...."Yeah, Right to Works great.........if you a CORPORATE GIANT", just makes a year????????????????

ANSWER: A heck of a lot more than 85% of people living in our state does. And I ("COLORADOWORKER"), am part of that 85%. So share some of the LOVE, RYAN..... loan me 200 bucks so that I might be able to make my rent this month. Na for real, do you think I can barrow $50, so I can put gas in my 1993 Ford-Ranger. So that I can get myself to work for less money, and "STILL" get my kids to school????? I PROMISE I'LL PAY YOU BACK NEXT FRIDAY, BRO!!!!!!

THE FACTS: WAGES WILL DROP!!! AND IF WAGES DROP, STATE TAX REVENUES ALSO DROP! WHICH MEANS LESS STATE FUNDING FOR EDUCATION (THE CHILDREN), LESS FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION (SENIOR CITIZENS AND BUS RIDERS), PARK AND RECREATION (EVERYONE), ETC..

FINAL THOUGHT: Our great state is already at a stepback, we should be trying to fix it, not break more bones (WAGES)!!!!
*RIGHT TO WORK CRIPPLES "OUR" ECONOMY!!!!!
*RIGHT TO WORK CRIPPLES "OUR" COLORADO!!!!!
April 3, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

BillK writes:

"The workers are just trying to protect themselves. Big business wants to take away their ability to unite for better wages, benefits, safety, and working conditions. Tell big business to pull their Right to work for Less iniative and labor might do the same."

Please - no one is trying to take away your right to unite.

Right to work only prevents you from forcing your coworkers to join your stupid union in order to stay employed.

If a group voted to say that only people of a certain religion could work at an employer and to keep working there you needed to convert to that religion or find a different place to work, no one would stand for that.

But when it comes to the religion of believing employers are "the enemy" and are somehow immune to basic rules of economics, all bets are apparently off.
April 3, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

middleclass writes:

BillK - Right to work for less gives people all the benefits of being union without paying for it. Check the US Bureau of labor statistics. Union members make 30% more than non-union members. It pays to be union! (that's a fact) They make more because they are united and they each pay a small amount of money every week that goes to pay for attorney's, worker representation, and politics that benefit workers. How long do you think it takes a non-profit worker organization to go bankrupt if everyone gets a free ride?

This law makes unions represent everyone, even if they are not dues paying members.

We should make a law that says everyone gets gasoline, but make it voluntary to pay. How long would it take for the rich oil companies to go bankrupt and how long would it be before they didn't have the capital to provide gas?

The people pushing Right-to-Work-For-LE$$ are rich out of state corporate interest groups! Tell them to take their anti-worker agenda somewhere else.

Home › Business › More Business

Union proposes cost-of-living law

5 ballot initiatives touted as remedy for right-to-work

April Washington and Joanne Kelley

Published April 1, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Related Links

More More Business

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs