A DIFFERING VIEW: Business-backed initiative is right to work for less
Andrew Carillo, Northglenn
Published April 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
It seems the Rocky's editorial board is trying to water down the actual meaning and objective of Jonathan Coors' right-to-work ballot initiative ("Will they stand down?" April 10).
I understand that the Rocky Mountain News needs to appease its advertisers in order to generate revenue, but this conflict of interest should not prevent the Rocky from reporting truthfully and honestly about what the initiative actually wants to do to the working-class families of Colorado.
Claiming that the amendment is "likely to have minimal impact on labor-management relations in Colorado" is a serious understatement and a lie. The initiative proposed by the millionaire business heir will completely destroy labor-management relations in Colorado, giving big businesses the upper hand they need to crush workers' rights, allowing greed to be unchecked by organized workers.
The Rocky should call Coors' ballot initiative what it really is: a right to work for less, and very bad for Colorado.
Andrew Carillo is a resident of Northglenn.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
2008 Voter’s Guide
Use our Ballot Builder tool to compare your viewpoints to the candidates.
-
A Dozen on Denver
Sandra Dallas wrote 'Lennie's tavern' for our ongoing fiction series. Check it out!
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's totally biased pregame rant about the Broncos-Jaguars game.
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
-
Latest from Dove Valley
Click for more broncos videos.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
No. 44 means a lot to Floyd Little
April 18, 2008
5:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Well, unions should know about unchecked greed. Andrew, what do you think of the tantrum being thrown by the unions in the form of the measures that would destroy business in Colorado and cost uncountable jobs?
Yes, Coors broke the union. Perhaps because the union was attempting to break Coors? Hatred is the only commodity a union can produce.
What "major" impact would this measure have on the average worker? It would prevent unions from picking pockets like the one I was forced to join in the late 70's. Not a heck of a lot of anything except dues and hot air. That union died a well deserved death when the company went bankrupt.
I think all workers should be able to choose whether or not they want to join a union. Right to work permits this. Your cutesy "Right to Work for less" comment has a corollary: Right to work in a business that still exists.
Let the people vote on it..oh I forgot. Unions don't like having a vote they can't control. They want to impose their rule with their paid thugs. Bad luck. The people of Colorado will be able to vote on this and the union noise and their initiatives will make it easy for people to pass it while they defeat those initiatives. Too bad you're trying that after Ref C. You might have found enough people to pass one or two of them if we hadn't been sold that bill of goods.
April 18, 2008
6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Earl, the 40-hour work week was government mandated, not union. If was an effort to create more federal jobs which the unions copied.
Someone should not HAVE TO join a union if they do not want to. Plain and simple. Would YOU like to be told what to do?
April 18, 2008
7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
Andrew- you don't say how and why the right to work would produce the dire results you spin off. Could it be because you don't know and are just regurgitating the spin that the very wealthy union heads have told you to? Remember, Unions DO NOT CREATE JOBS- we business owners do, and most of us have enormous overhead and stress load and by no means do we live high on the hog. Small business does 80% of the hiring and buying and paying taxes and Social Security in this country- we are not bottomless pits. We try very hard to do right by our employees- to do otherwise is wrong and bad for business, but the prop'd union mandates would force us to reduce staff or go out of business. Then what? If you think you should have everything the business owner has, then open a business and walk in our shoes. I guarantee that your sense of entitlement will change!
April 18, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jack_Bauer writes:
Andrew,
If you are all knowing about business then why don't you open one yourself and make it an all union shop.
Then come back in five years and tell us about your experiences.
I know that you will not have the same attitude about business and unions as you do now.
Either that or go get an education and find a job where you don't have to submit to lower wages and benefits and join the average squad for equal pay regardless of skill level.
You union honks are slaves to mediocrity and cry about businesses that dig in their heels against unions and their tactics.
As raysmom said - unions do not make the jobs - the businesses and business owners do. If they are driven out business by unreasonable demands from your type then more people than you will be unemployed.
April 18, 2008
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
sschow writes:
I understand it's just a phrase we've come to accept, but I hate the term "working class". By using it as a term to describe poor people with jobs, it insinuates that the wealthy don't actually do any real work for their money (when they actually do more than any 'working class' man could ever dream of). Although this is the mindset you would want to perpetuate if you were trying to start some good old fashioned class warfare...nobody can get mad at a hard working CEO, but turn him into a cheater and a crook and everybody wants his head!
April 18, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
A revived labor movement is inevitable and in fact happening. And probably is associated, to a degree, with class warfare. History shows that Americans don't particularly like the idea of a class society and will generally work to reverse that trend when it becomes glaringly prevalent.
April 18, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
primafacie writes:
Unions are really good, eh?
I work under a union-negotiated contract, although I am not a member. The union hacks worked diligently for a whopping 1 percent raise this year; I spent it yesterday at the gas station.
What happened to compensation based on merit? Instead of the same bump for the most productive workers and dead weight, it would be greater incentive to give the best 5 or 6 percent while the slugs get, oh I don't know, nothing.
But the union isn't interested in rewarding productivity. Its primary objective is to protect the lowest common denominator.
April 18, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
gramps writes:
We already have the right to work - except when the jobs are shipped out of the country. People taking away our right to unite and have a strong voice is what we should be worried about. Whether we are in an organized Union or we band together to fight against inequities, injustice; or fight for better pay, better health care, better working conditions, we do not need the government nor obscenely wealthy businessmen telling us how it is going to be. DO NOT VOTE FOR RIGHT TO WORK - it is bad for families, bad for individuals - only the rich get richer
April 18, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Businesses provide jobs, yes. But without laborers, no one would fill these jobs. I do not see why this obvious fact is apparently not so obvious to some of the posters on this forum.
Also, businesses "union" together through trade associations. It gives them bargaining power. Laborers union together in much the same way. It also gives them bargaining power.
Why don't some of you people want laborers to have bargaining power? Because it's bad for the economy? So are low wages. So are unhealthy work conditions. So are overworked, burned out laborers who have little time to spend with their families.
Some companies treat their workers phenomenally well. If all companies did the same, there would be no need for unions. But since they don't, that need is there.
April 18, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jack_Bauer writes:
Tell us gramps how a right to work law will make the rich richer? Please enlighten us all.
Do you mean that it will make business more competitive and keep more people employed?
Probably not the way you sound, but that would be the long term result.
April 18, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
If you need a union in today's US economy & job market which demands a high level of education, a high skill set level, a willingness to change and react to a fast changing global marketplace, and work roles that are redefined every month or so, then you have very little of these skills or qualities to begin with. Since only 11% of all US workers are in a union, what does that tell you? What does it say that so few do not join a union or try to bring one in to their workplace? They don't need them. Most of the great things that unions have secured for us all are now mandated by the feds. As has been pointed out, unions protect the bad at the expense of the best and also at the expense of the customer - who pays the freight. I negotiate my own compensation based on my skills and education and what the market will bear. I don't want anyone doing that for me and I sure don't want to make the same as the laziest slob in my office when I generally work more, harder, and smarter. Should Tiger Woods make the same as the guy who comes in 23rd at the Masters? Hardly. Merit based pay and skills dictate pay in this 21st century global economy. Not unions.
April 18, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Jack_Bauer,
Because a "right to work" law is doublespeak for union busting. Since unions help workers get better compensation, by preventing unions from happening, executive management, owners, and stockholders can keep more of the profits.
But you already know this. Don't you???
April 18, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
lamb writes:
Kay is more correct than most. Unions have traditionally brought workers together to get better working conditions, wages, and benefits. Fifty years ago, the best employer to work for if you wanted benefits (even if the wage wasn't the greatest) was the government or a union job. Most corporations offered nothing in the way of benefits and only marginally better wages.
As unions demonstrated time after time that workers united can effect change and that better wages, benefits, and working conditions improved morale, decrease worker turnover, and actually increase profits, corporate woke up. What happened is that more corporations began offering better wages, benefits, and working conditions not only to stave off becoming unionized but to increase the bottom line.
The current issue is not does every corporation need to become a union shop or else we must have a "right to work" state - the current issue is how much are employees valued? As profits shrink due to irresponsibility by so many (from all economic strata), those employers who have forgotten how effective strong employee associations can be have decided to tighten the purse strings at the expense of the workers. And in fear of retaliation from these same workers, there is a push to become a "right to work" state. The "right to work" is basically the same as "at will"; yes, employees have the right to either work there or not; more importantly employers have the right to toss an employee out the door for absolutely no reason. It also means that employers can reduce working hours, wages, and benefits without taking employees into consideration. And the employee is left with the comments "Well, you don't have to work here. If you don't like it, leave. Find another job somewhere else."
That's "right to work".
Unions that actually represent employees (unlike SEIU or Colorado WINS, which back the rights of employers), argue that employees treated with Fairness, Dignity, and Respect will help grow a business and the economy. But individual employees standing alone against more powerful employers can't get the message across. Only when employees stand together (which is what a union is or should be), are they empowered enough to effect change. And that benefits everyone.
If an employer decides to provide equal benefits for every employee at the same cost, that employer would probably insist that a newly hired employee pay the same as the others. What's so inconsistent if a union asks the same in a union shop?
April 18, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Yes, by all means lets return to the wonderful success of unions. How about the Homestead Strike of 1892? It was a success in that they shut down the steel mill for four months. The end result was that for forty years no steel mill was unionized.
The wonderful success of unions has reduced Detroit to a shell of its former prosperity. Unions could be useful but they have refused to modernize either their tactics or their purpose. If they would support merit pay, fractional benefits and other modern concepts, more of them would succeed in being voted in. Until that happens, unions will be redundant and will remain an antique organizations.
April 18, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Wow, listen to the anti-workers rant. They really do believe in the "Unions destroyed Detroit" myth!
April 18, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
SASQUATCH's first post hits the nail on the head, its about economic development (as well as choice and self-determination). Why any economic development official would differ defies logic.
I call into question chamber offical Brackeny's position that RTW will do damage. He is a co-opted limp noodle who had his ticket punched after attending the mayor-governor-labor Cool-Aid stand.
Brackeny - do tell how RTW will destroy the labor peace act? Destroy the delicate balance?
________________________________________________________________
On Andrew's letter, I have two thoughts.
1st, the governor's order unionizing state employees also gave them the RTW. That is a fact.
Andrew's premise therefore follows that the governor "did in" the families of Colorado's state employees because RTW "will completely destroy labor-management relations in Colorado [at the state], giving big businesses [the state] the upper hand they {Ritter] need to crush workers' rights, allowing greed to be unchecked by organized workers."
2nd, we have yet to here from either the mayors or governors economic development directors that RTW is wrong, will destroy balance, etc. Why? Because RTW is the right policy for all Coloradans.
The order unionizing state employees is here to stay and will in the words of SASQUATCH "institutionalize higher costs, higher prices, and higher interest rates via automatic contract escalators." at for state government.
Unionized state workers will never de-certify their unions. But the tax payers will see the effects of the Ritter-Labor payback in higher taxes to fund it - just review Washington State.
Any economic development official "understands that a higher cost of doing business chases capital, jobs, incomes and growth away to where they are treated better."
Come on the governor's offer from his "secret negotiations" to not touch the labor peace act is a joke! Some secret huh? And just why wasn't labor at the meeting - their positions are defense-less.
A real offer would have been to recind the Ritter-Labor executive order unionizing the state and driving higher taxes.
Coloradans will as usual make up the shortfall for the election payback.
April 18, 2008
6:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
On-line banking is great. Just reviewed the auto deposit and once again … no mandatory union dues deducted from the paycheck. Sure feels good!
Leaving the union gave our family $800 a year to augment on things that matter most -- better healthcare, a newer used car, new roof for the house, books for the kids, and higher prices for the “new energy economy”. Leaving the union & my old job also brought a higher paycheck and no forced use of the Kaiser-Permanente “plan”.
April 18, 2008
7:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Your Federal Stimulus Check – on Roids!
No forced union dues are equal to the one-time stimulus check from the Feds. The best part is it comes with your paycheck every month.
I sure do miss the state sales tax rebate that I lost with Ref C though.
Too bad those “union dues savings” will be going to cover the new state revenue needed to pay-off the Ritter-Labor Friday night special.
Labor is the pimp and I feel like her backdoor wh*re.
August 7, 2008
11:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Teamster writes:
Just a tid bit of information to all of you who have said unions are against merit based labor and protect the lazy workers. Unions do not mandate the rules of the business. The only thing the union can do is make sure the business follows the contract that they themselves have made. Sure they can bargain and yes sometimes the union gets what they want, other times they do not. Eventually something is settled upon and again... all they do in inforce the contract. So really it is the business itself that is against merit based pay raises. Maybe you should talk to your manager about that or corporate for that matter. Oh thats right .. the probably wouldn't give a rats a** about the little guy working so hard... good luck getting them to listen.. Hey! Maybe your local labor union can help you unite with others to get the job done... that is if you were not so down on the unions. All unions do is protect the worker.
Secondly, right to work will only make the rich richer because like mentioned in a post before unions set the bar for wages a long time ago. Then along came competitors who didn't want to be involved with the union so they set their wages competitively to avoid that. And so now you think we can do away with the labor movement? The opposite will happen if RTW (for less) is passed. Unions will bankrupt, those business wages will go down and then everyone else can lower their wages as well. Thats exactly how RTW will be bad for Colorado. Why can't you understand that??