Right-to-work closer to ballot
Proponents deliver their petitions to the secretary of state a day early
By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published April 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Photo by Linda McConnell / Special To The Rocky
A worker unloads 22 boxes of petitions supporting a proposed right-to-work measure at the secretary of state's office Wednesday. Campaign spokesman Kelley Harp said 133,000 signatures were collected; roughly 75,000 are needed to put the measure on the November ballot.
A right-to-work ballot measure cleared another obstacle Wednesday as backers turned in almost twice as many signatures as needed to put the controversial issue on the ballot in November.
Delivering nearly two dozen boxes of petitions a day ahead of schedule, supporters of the initiative sent a clear signal they intend to press ahead with their campaign to outlaw arrangements that require nonunion workers to pay union fees if they are covered by collective-bargaining agreements.
"This is an exciting day for Colorado," brewery heir Jonathan Coors, a key proponent, said in a statement. "This amendment will give Colorado workers the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union and protect the rights of all employees in the state."
Labor proponents note that Colorado law already requires workers to vote on whether they approve of the types of arrangements that the right-to-work measure seeks to eliminate.
A spokesman for Gov. Bill Ritter said there is still time for groups pitching various initiatives to back down ahead of the fall election.
"There are still opportunities to de-escalate this and get to a place where none of these measures appear on the ballot," said Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer. "The governor will continue the conversations he's been having and will talk with the business community and labor organizations and try to get there."
The right-to-work initiative's backers can withdraw at any time up until 33 days before the Nov. 4 election, according to secretary of state spokesman Rich Coolidge.
A group calling itself A Better Colorado brought the petitions to the secretary of state's office. Workers there began the process of stamping each of the petitions as they were unloaded from cardboard boxes. A random sampling to verify the signatures also will occur.
Campaign spokesman Kelley Harp said the group collected 133,000 signatures, more than the roughly 75,000 required to put the measure on the November ballot.
Accompanied by Republican lawmakers who have tried to pass similar legislation in the past decade, campaign workers arrived to oversee the handoff of 22 boxes of signed petitions.
"This day has been a long time coming," said state Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch.
Harvey tried unsuccessfully seven times to pass a law that would have made Colorado a right-to- work state.
Absent were backers such as Coors, a fifth-generation member of the brewery dynasty. The group has launched a Web site, abettercolorado.com, with a list of business leaders endorsing the effort.
Among those throwing support behind the measure: CIBER Inc. CEO Mac Slingerlend, Colorado Springs real estate developer Steve Schuck, and Amy Sherman, president & CEO of the West Chamber in Jefferson County.
The Web site registration form reveals Jonathan Coors' involvement as far back as November, when he registered the site under the name Jonathan David, 123 Main St., AnyTown, Calif. 12345. He included an e-mail address that contained his first two initials and his full last name.
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 7 entered the fray last week with five ballot proposals. They range from imposing annual cost-of-living increases for all workers to requiring employers to offer health coverage to all their workers. Another labor coalition called Protect Colorado's Future has proposed two other worker-friendly measures, including one that would make it harder for companies to fire workers without "just cause."
The coalition said it will continue to push for an investigation into the signature-gathering process of the right-to-work measure in Colorado.
"From what we've seen, we believe there is an extensive pattern of fraud," said Jess Knox, executive director of Protect Colorado's Future.
Among the group's concerns is the indirect involvement of a signature-collection firm called National Ballot Access, which handled the collection of ballot signatures for the anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives here and in Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma measure was withdrawn last week after the secretary of state's office there reportedly found a large number of duplicate signatures. But the key supporter of that "preferential treatment" initiative, Ward Connerly, said campaigns always produce duplicate signatures and blamed a lack of time for the inadequate number.
National Ballot Access acknowledged there were signature gatherers who worked on the anti-affirmative action and the "right-to- work" campaign in Colorado.
"It's common . . . to share," said Heidi Verougstraete, who has worked in Colorado for National Ballot Access.
Verougstraete said Lamm Consulting has been the lead signature-gathering firm for right-to- work petitions.
The firm is led by Scott Lamm, son of former three-term Gov. Dick Lamm. Scott Lamm did not return three phone calls seeking comment on his role in the campaign.
All in the political family
A member of another prominent Colorado family has emerged as part of the campaign to push for a right-to-work initiative on the November ballot.
Scott Lamm, son of former three-term Gov. Dick Lamm, and his consulting company worked as the lead firm to gather the signatures required to the put the issue to a vote this fall.
Jonathan Coors, a fifth-generation member of the brewery dynasty, is a key backer of the initiative.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
April 10, 2008
5:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jim_in_Erie writes:
Unions......ugh!
April 10, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
I support right to work because this means if you need a job and don't have one then you have a right to work and get that job. Employers will have to give you the job. If they don't give you the job then you can show them that the law says you have a right to work. Then they must give you the job. It's your right.
The entire problem with foreclosures will be solved when everyone has an enforceable right to work. No more going around begging for a job when you have bills to pay. You have a right to work. Just show up at the big corporation, tell them what you can do, start work, and get paid.
Right to work is the best idea to hit Colorado and America in a long long time.
April 10, 2008
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
If unions are so great the why are their numbers so low?
If unions are so great then why the need to force non-union members to pay dues. Wouldn't the merit of the organization allow it to succeed?
I’m not asking for this representation. I can do it myself at a far cheaper price.
I’d rather not join the “church of union”.
I don’t believe in their dogma. I’m morally opposed to their beliefs and actions.
I’ve ducked their bullets before. I’d prefer not finance those that have attempted to kill my family and I.
I say lets bring this to a vote. It will be shot down like a scud.
11% union membership. Hmmmm
I don’t think the other 89% want to be forced to pay for your religious beliefs.
April 10, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
The other good thing about having a right to work is that you don't have to worry about layoffs and downsizing anymore. You have a right to work. Pink slips come and you just ignore them, have a good laugh, you're protected by the law. Go right back to work.
When everyone has a right to work then they cannot take your job anymore just because some spoiled rich piece of garbage like Jonathan Coors wants to use your salary to buy gas for his yacht. Jonathan Coors doesn't need to work. He was born into a filthy rich family and has no more understanding of what it's like to earn a living than an squirrel can do quantum mechanics. So, right to work is an excellent idea.
I missed the petition drive as did all my neighbors and every single one of the thousands of acquaintances and their friends that I know or have ever heard of. So, where do I sign?
April 10, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Fred's right. If unions are so great than why do they force people to join? I was forced into the Union by birth, so I'm an American citizen. How did this happen? Well, they took a vote. It's called democracy.
A bunch of people decided to form a Union called the United States of America but they didn't bother to ask me! I would've said, "Hell no! I can do it all on my own! And cheaper, too!" Take your USA and shove it! I don't need you!
And now they want dues! Only in this case they call them taxes and force me to pay! How can we allow this? It's insane. You mean I have to pay for all those military people, cops, courts, judges, roads, bridges, post offices, government employees, and so forth? Who do they think they are? No, Fred is 100% right! We don't need unions!
April 10, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
mam322 writes:
I support the right to work, force employers to justify when they dismiss an employee, make them prove their case rather than use some lame excuse. Make employers hire people who live in the state, rather than import them god knows where. Time has come for Colorado business and government to come to their senses and be held accountable for their actions.
April 10, 2008
8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
According to cable news... The Unions want any/ALL illegal aliens to become union workers. That should tell everyone something about unions shouldn't it??
April 10, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
Unions complaining about rigged election? What a Joke! I would leave Colorado rather then have to join a union.
April 10, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
CUBUFFINSUNDEVILCOUNTRY writes:
I live in Arizona, Obviously. We are a RTW State. Lets learn about the Real RTW. My Mother, who worked for 20+ years at King Soopers as a cashier at about $22/hr, cam down here as a transfer to Fry's ( another Kroger " unionized " chain. Because the Union is very weak here, ( I have been here for 20 year, and no contracts negotiated, strike, nothing ) she si still making $10/hr. They took away her retirement fund ( sent heer a check for pennies on the dollar ), and medical benefits. Complained, and was fired on the spot. Here because of RTW, there are NO labor Laws, except to protect Illegal Farm Workers ( if ICE does not find them 1st. )you can get fired for no reason ( I took off a week after my wif had child #2 via emergency c-section ( I scheduled it as vacation as well ), came back and was told, I was let go for job abandonment. This was right after the federal Paternity laws went into effect. AZ didn't care, and took the employer side. I went from a $60,000 Project Mger job to slapping Pizzas for $7/hr for a year befopre I could get back into IT. RTW is a horrible Idea for the common worker, it only benefits the employer, and if you go into this thinking you will be better off with more jobs, that's true....I hope you like McDonald's. There is a reason the median income in AZ is at the bottom of the national chart, and RTW is about 80% the reason
April 10, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
CUBUFFINSUNDEVILCOUNTRY writes:
all of you guys thinking with RTW the employers are more accountable, have been fed a truckload of manure. RTW is bad, bad, bad. I guess you will have to find out like we did in Arizona. The reason a lot of companies are moving to Phoenix is because of RTW. They can pay little $$, over-work you with a refined Overtime that pays you half your salary per hour, and no labor Dept to hang over you like a vulture watching your every move. Companies get away with murder here. At least up there you can get a " pink slip " here it impossible to get unemployment benefits, becasue the the employer can call a firing an involuntary staff reduction, which does not allow you to collect.
April 10, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
middleclass writes:
Let's just all go work for Wal-Mart ant destroy the middle class.
This law is designed to bankrupt the workers ability to fight back. If the corporations want powerless, poor workers to be at their mercy.
This is not a union issue. This is a worker issue. Right To Work for less has always failed in the past, because it has always been bad for Colorado.
Jonathan Coors is some rich, punk kid with no idea of what it's like to be poor. Does he really care about workers?
April 10, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Holier,
We live in a Representative Republic and not a democracy.
How about knowing what you’re talking about before writing?
It only makes you look foolish.
Should I define them for you and explain to you the reason democracies fail?
Oh, and I’m quite libertarian so I’d have to agree with your sarcastic rant regarding most taxes.
April 10, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
rreute writes:
Subject: Letter to the Business Editor
from: Jeff Kaufman
So the pro- "Right to Work" group started their own website. I went there and it is so full of lies that is unbelievable. I'll just give a small example. They claim that the 22 Right to Work states have great economies. Well I looked up the per-capita income of the 50 states, because that is where true buying power lies and I found it quite interesting that 16 of the lowest 25 states are RtW. Even more none of the top 10 states are RtW. I don't think this is a coincidence. The small handhold that unions do have keeps a lot of us making a living wage, whether you work in a union job or not. It is time to stop the constant separation of the Rich and the Poor.
April 10, 2008
7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
rumplstilskin writes:
Right to work means right for the employer to pay less wages don't be fooled by these lies look at the low wages in every other right to work state. The rich are trying to erode the middle class folks whether you are a union worker or not if this bill passes it will effect you in a very negative way!!!
April 10, 2008
9:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
mebcaux writes:
"Right to Work" is Orwellian doublespeak invented by enemies of labor such as Coors who are more concerned with preserving their right to dictate terms to and terminate employees without interference from a collective bargaining agent. What it means is that "free riders" can benefit from union contracts without being required to pay agency fees in exchange for union representation. This makes it very difficult for a union to provide adequate representation. "Right to Work" should appeal to chiselers who never pay their fair share of the bar tab or tips.
April 10, 2008
11:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
No one should be forced to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.
Under current Colorado law, workers can be forced to join a labor union to get or keep a job. Some companies in Colorado have what is called a “closed shop,” meaning that union membership is compulsory for certain jobs. This unfair practice limits employment opportunities for many Colorado workers and is an unfair infringement upon their freedoms. A right to work law will give workers in ALL industries and in ALL companies the right to choose whether or not to join a union, and will make this necessary right a part of the Colorado Constitution.
April 10, 2008
11:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Right to Work protects worker rights, including the right to strike, collective bargaining, and the right to organize and belong to a union.
The new amendment simply removes the requirement that workers MUST join a union as a condition of employment.
April 14, 2008
9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
solon writes:
Every get this clear in their heads please. No one can ever be forced to join a union. Ever. It is a federal law. You can be forced to pay 'agency fees' in a union shop. In those cases, the union collectively bargains for everyone, so the fees go to cover the cost of them bargaining for you, even if you are not in the union.
'Right to work for less' simply forces unions to negotiate on your behalf without you paying for it, so you are essentially freeloading off the union. The sole purpose of right to work for less is to make unions poorer. Once that happens, unions get weaker and you end up with the sad facts pointed out above, which is that workers end up with fewer rights and less pay.
April 20, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
tjinc0 writes:
Do any of you know what "right to work" means?
It's the right for corporations to lower wages, raise hours and worsen our working conditions. It makes it much easier for employers to break the worker's unions. They flood the workplace with non-dues paying leeches, then hold an election. The union is voted out by the parasites, the workers lose out on hard earned benefits. At the very best, The non-dues paying workers are a drag on the union and the workers who realize this truth:
A union is a mini-democracy. You must support it to sustain it.
I wonder who is flooding the comments with anti-worker rhetoric. Are some Coors employees being coerced into contributing, or is their P.R. firm having some fun?
Wake up, Colorado, who think brought you the week end, minimum safety, and what is left of a livable wage? A union is an honorable and effective means of workers to have a say in their wages, hours, and working conditions. No union has ever "forced out of business" a well-run company.
Don't drink the corporate Kool-Aid.
April 23, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
PipeMan writes:
They like to paint a picture of Unions as greedy thugs that hate America. Just remember Union members aren't driving expensive cars and buying gigantic houses and using tax shelters to shield there income. We are not the ones sending jobs and money over seas to make bigger profits for ourselves. We are your fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles. We are patriotic Americans, veterans, council members and activist. We fight for the benefit of ALL working people. Unions brought you the 40 hour work week, the weekend, overtime, OSHA, child labor laws, workers compensation, health care, pensions, sick pay, vacation pay, minimum wage and unemployment insurance. All we want is a fair livable wage for all working families.
July 20, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
YES on Amendment 47, text from State website reads:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 16. Right to work.
(1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE "COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT".
(2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:
(I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND
(II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.
(2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.
(3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.
(4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.
(5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "LABOR UNION" MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.
SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.
October 24, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardtmyers writes:
Someone wrote:
>>> If unions are so great the why are their numbers so low? <<<
Union numbers are low in part because of a relentless, decades-long campaign by business interests to damage them.
>>> If unions are so great then why the need to force non-union members to pay dues. Wouldn't the merit of the organization allow it to succeed? <<<
If communities are so great, then why force homeowners to pay taxes to pave the streets? Shouldn't the streets pave themselves?
Makes about as much sense.
Unions are working people who have joined together to protect their own interests on the job. They are more effective if they speak together. Their primary concerns when doing so are the basic issues of wages, hours, and working conditions.
A little more than a century ago, the average workday was twelve to sixteen hours, and the average work week was six days. Working conditions were extremely dangerous (read Jack London's /The Apostate/, or Upton Sinclair's /The Jungle/). Pay was abysmal.
Over the years, unions have fought for higher wages, the minimum wage law, the eight hour day, pensions, and employee stock ownership plans.
Of course, if you /prefer/ working sixteen hours a day for barely enough money to feed your children, then you probably won't like anything about unions.
October 24, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardtmyers writes:
tjinc0 writes:
"I wonder who is flooding the comments with anti-worker rhetoric. Are some Coors employees being coerced into contributing, or is their P.R. firm having some fun?"
Actually, Amendment 47 is backed by Jonathan Coors of CoorsTek. The brewery is not supporting Amendment 47. Bill Coors (age 92) spoke at a press conference a couple of weeks ago, and described himself as "adamantly opposed" to Amendment 47.
Want to see an amazing list? These are business leaders who have taken a stand against Amendment 47:
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org...
October 29, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardtmyers writes:
The article includes a link to the pro-47 website, but not to any of the opposition sites.
Here is a link to an opposition website with information about Amendment 47:
http://www.voteno47.com
And, a site with info about Amendments 47, 49, and 54:
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/