Why so stubborn?

Posted by p_myers661 on April 18, 2008 at 5:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If it were such a small "potential" gain, why are the unions wetting their pants over it? Looks to me like they have shown their true colors and lack of care about anything but union power and union money grabbing. The average worker has already rejected unions. Now we can provide the state workers a means to opt out of supporting a union.
Don't worry about the voters getting fooled. Ref C taught voters to look carefully.

Posted by VVVV on April 18, 2008 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The unions are doing the only thing they know, extortion. It is federal policy not to pay ransoms to terrorists, this should be no different. The problem with the government is that they misinterpret the voters. Education and minimum wage on automatic pilot weren't mistakes, confused voters, or people just being dumb. They were drastic reactions to the general impression that if we the voters don't take control of some issues and force the government's hand, we could go 20 years before a minimum wage hike, or education could continue to be starved of funds, regardless of every tax put on the ballot that claims funding for education, but ends up going to rediculous pet projects of the out of touch legislators. Maybe if the voters saw the government doing something worthwhile, they wouldn't feel they have to micromanage their jobs. Don't worry. If there is one thing that voters dislike as much if not more than government, it's entitlements for being lazy. The union proposals, regardless of how they are written, won't stand because they go against the standard for how the majority has to live in the private sector. Guarantees of wage increases only contradicts the current trend of pay for performance. People know, often through first hand experience, that not everyone deserves a raise. It's hard to think no matter how confusing the language, that people would not have the intelligence to recognize a fleecing when they saw it.

Anyway, what does it matter? The government will just pick and choose which laws they want to enforce, or interpret to their advantage.

Posted by Earl on April 18, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

9% union says it all. the only real growth union memebership has had in the last 20 years is in government jobs. and ditter is willing to let them in and do as they want as he will bend over again for them.
why can not politicians be fired like a ceo? dont cry about any golden parachute a ceo gets until you look at what politicians get.
a politician retires and their spouse gets a retirment check at that time. does yours? dont believe it go look it up and no I wont provide you a link.

Posted by SASQUATCH on April 18, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's not import the "Detroit Solution" into Colorado and institutionalize higher prices, higer inflation and higher interest rates via automatic union contract escalators. Let's not chase capital, growth, jobs and incomes away to where they are treated better.

In spite of what Ms. Kelly would have you believe, be cautioned that her ignorance on this subject is bigger than life itself. Not ONE (00.00%) auto tramsplant (Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Volkswagen, etc.) has been successfully unionized in spite of 40 years of UAW attempts to organize those facilities. Always rejected, not ONE plant carries the union lable! And every time GM shuts down and lays off, Totota opens and hires. What do those hundreds of thousands of American workers at the transplants know that the unionistas don't want you to know? Here's a clue:

U.A.W. == U Ain't Workin'

Posted by DougH on April 18, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is surely one of the more convoluted editorials to ever be put in print by the Rocky.

However, the whole notion that Right To Work Laws somehow protect our Freedom of Association is real nonsense. Colorado already has Freedom of Association at your job, it is called employment at will and if you don’t like the working conditions you are free to go somewhere else.

So if your fellow coworkers past and present have organized and created union representation, then that is part of your working conditions. It would be somewhat unethical and immoral to enjoy the benefits in your employment that unions have established and then refuse to join or support that union. Right to work laws appeal to greedy self interest by saying you can have your cake and eat it to.

Right to Work laws are not about employee freedom, they are about weakening Union political activism by depriving Unions of a revenue source, nothing more than that

Posted by Jack_Bauer on April 18, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You got it VVVV,
The unions ways of getting things done is via large campaign contributions or flat out extortion. And the dumocraps fall all over themselves for this garbage everytime not realizing what the long term effects of their short sightedness will have on local business.
And to those who feel unions are the best thing around since sliced bread - why are you so proud to be affiliated with, and pay your hard earned dollars to an organization the prides itself on making everyone equal. What if you are the hardest worker in the plant and the guy at the station next to you is flat out lazy? That guy makes the same amount of money as you and you pay the union organization to force that on you and your employer - that doesn't make any sense.
Th current Right to work system is the best solution - if you don't like your pay or benefits than go find a better job that provides them. If you want to unionize your shop then make sure you have everyone on board - otherwise forget it.

Posted by SASQUATCH on April 18, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BAD NEWS FOR UNIONS & DEMS:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S...

Based on real bets made by real people with real money (Intrade)--THE ODDS OF RECESSION HAVE JUST PLUNGED FROM 70% TO ONLY 20%; FROM VERY LIKELY TO UNLIKELY!

This is bad new for the labor organizers who scare people about corporate layoffs...and its also bad news for Dems who wanted economic recession to be their #1 issue in November! The betting has it that this crowd will highly likely be "sucking wind" in the months ahead.

And that's good news for America!

Posted by freethinker07 on April 18, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The people I know who say that they are Democrats or liberals aren't driving union vehicles. ( http://www.uaw.org/uawmade/auto/2007/... ) Republicans and conservatives frequently are.

I may be wrong, (check out the website) but the gas guzzlers are typically union vehicles, while the economy vehicles tend to be non-Union. How about you? Take the test. Is your vehicle union vehicle and which party do you usually vote for?

Posted by bropous on April 18, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Unions are extortion rackets who rely on violence, intimidation and bribery of public (Dhimmi) officials to get their way.

DougH's comment above is a perfect example. If you don't want to participate in their union thuggery, then somehow YOU are the immoral one, not the scumbags who would shoot you dead in front of your own family if you cross their picket line.

Right to Work does not mean the abolishing of unions, it means that you don't get to be forced to join a union if you don't like them. But unions cannot exist in a free market of ideas. Unions rely on forcing unwilling workers to put money ibn their coffers.

Right to Work is the moral stance, and I know how I am going to be voting, and that is against intimidation.

Posted by KaySieverding on April 18, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. I think unions have some real value. One of the reasons that many people thought unions weren't needed in the last 20 years is that they were often successful in protecting workers and so management softened their policies in order to deter union recruitment. Now, management is less motivated to give workers a fair shake. Unions can help workers share their concerns in an "organized" way. These concerns go beyond pay. White collar workers may benefit from unionization.

Posted by bropous on April 18, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh just shut up and post some case law, Severedingaling. It is no small wonder that you would favor unions.

Posted by conniesz on April 18, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm in favor of right to work - but I don't want a "right to worker" benefiting from union efforts. So, here's what I propose. In the case of a "mixed shop", the union will negotiate for the union members. If they extract a contract with particularly good medical benefits, those benefits only go to union workers - let the "right to workers" negotiate their own contract(s). That's something I would vote for - a way to makes it completely legal for a company to provide different benefits and wages to different groups of people depending on which contract they negotiate and sign. Once individuals attempt to negotiate on their own they may once again discover why collective bargaining came about in the first place.

It's only fair. If you don't want to work in a union shop, you should be free to negotiate your own contract - but don't whine if the union members get a "better deal" because you didn't want them negotiating for you.

Posted by dilligaf on April 18, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I for one am for the union concept. But the unions of today and it's members have drove the unions to the ground. It in a way have kind of made me anti-union. But here is the problem that a right to work law would bring. If you look at other right to work states the wages are below average. The threat of a union has kept a lot of businesses out there honest. You can say what you want about it doesn't make unions go away but it takes any power a union has and they don't have much as it is now. Now there is a reason why businesses want this law and it isn't because they care about what is best for you. And if you think it is you are a fool.

Posted by gary on April 18, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have any of you ever worked at a union company? I have and I had to join within 35 days or be fired. I did not like the union and did not want to be a member. But was forced to pay or lose my position. Even though it was a limited 90-120 day position to begin with.
We need to let the employee have the right to join or not to join.
Ritter and company wants closed shops so all government employees will have to pay to his union supporters. They can then give him more money.

Nuff Said

Posted by EdArcuri on April 18, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Memo to VVVV
Re: "Minimum Wage" laws.

Please explain how passing laws raises wages.
Please explain why we don't raise the "minimum wage" to 75 dollars and hour or 750 dollars an hour. At 750 dollars an hour we could light our cigars with 20 dollar bills!

Cheers.

Posted by dilligaf on April 18, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Gary you have the right to chose. Go get another job. DUH!!!!!!

Posted by p_myers661 on April 18, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Connieex

The reason your idea would be rejected is simple. The union can get benefits for the unionized workers. Management can give non-union workers better wages and benefits than union workers because those workers (the non union ones) have no job security. Those workers have to do the job the way the boss wants or they are gone. Unions protect sub-standard workers and charge the hard workers for that service. They also give the confiscated money to politicians who promise to protect the power of the unions without even consulting the workers on which politicians the union workers would choose.

dillingaf

Unions don't keep anyone honest. Under RTW workers can still vote in a union. Without RTW, a business can use the Wal-Mart solution and close down any part of their business that votes in a union. They did it when meat cutters unionized. They had recently spent millions to renovate several stores to include an on-site butcher shop facility where meat could be cut to order. When the union won the election, they ended their meat cutting operations and laid off all the workers at all of their stores all over the country. A very good way to get rid of a union and most effective. The company found it more practical to lose the millions invested in the modifications and other objects in order to lose the expenses a union would create. That is the value of a union today: lost jobs and lost opportunities for all.

Let unions organize but let individuals remain out of the union if they choose to keep their money.

Posted by dilligaf on April 18, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

p_myers661:
I meant the threat of a union coming into a business and organizing it. I know several companies that pay competitive wages to keep it's employee's from voting in a union. Like it or not the RTW law is the biggest union busting tricks in the world.

Posted by lamb on April 18, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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. 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?

Posted by jacka on April 18, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Comment 1

Having read your editorial, I too thought it bounced around a bit too. However, I am deficient in my native tongue and this is your vehicle; I only pay to read you. Here is my Joe 6-pack perspective based off your comments.

"We don't get it."
- Big risk, big gain. It's a set of diverse principles held by a wide variety of supporters.
------ ------ ------
"We have nothing against the concept in principle ... it triggered union-backed efforts to put other measures on the ballot"
- It will always trigger this union strategy.
------ ------ ------
"the labor-backed initiatives would do far more harm ... than the right-to-work law would help."
- That assumes they even some will get on. If they all passed then unions would have no purpose. A punter would go with RTW 4:1.
------ ------ ------
"In fact, we're not certain right-to-work would boost the economy at all. ... but unions do not represent a large portion of the Colorado work force, indeed only about 9 percent."
- You have a right to your opinion, for others it's a diverse set of principles.
------ ------ ------
"Moreover, ... most recent elections to form all-union shops - and there haven't been many, by the way - involved unanimous votes in favor of the move. Droves of workers apparently aren't being driven into unions against their will and forced to financially support organizations they may not like - at least not in this state."
- True; what about existing closed shops and the shackled workers. Diverse principles.
------ ------ ------
“Meanwhile, the union-backed measures … make it harder for companies to fire employees.”
- Unions will always counter an amendment with this strategy set.

Posted by jacka on April 18, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Comment 2 - continuation of comment 1

“according to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, who has been trying to broker an end … the unions have assured him they'll pull their measures if … That initiative's supporters … have so far been cool to such a deal.”
- Two way street. What was the Governor’s offer ‘oh so secret offer’, no touching the LPA for 6 years? Who says he is governor in 2.75 years?
- Why didn’t they offer to rescind the executive order - that will cost taxpayers, including the RMN, a billion dollars - and the Governor & Mayor (and proxies) made to pledge to never sign a union contract while in office? Negotiations need a win-win and these two union skulls can’t even deliver winning offer.
- I personally believe that the set of diverse principles behind RTW are so complex that the offer needed could not be made in good faith.
- Why haven’t the unions been at the table, are Hickenlooper and Ritter negotiating for them? Are they the union proxy? If so, time to change horses and fast.
------ ------ ------
“Do they figure that the union measures are so harebrained … They've put education funding on automatic pilot through an initiative, for example, and written an escalating minimum wage into the state constitution.”
- Three diverse principles might be to: kick the crap out of labor, create a show of force to their enablers, and stop their proven ability to get these initiatives passed.
------ ------ ------
“We've said it before … It's time for supporters on both sides … to stand down and promise not to push these measures this year.”
- You have not made the case to either side.
------ ------ ------
“Right-to-work proponents in particular need to ask themselves if the potential gain is worth the downside risk.”
- A diverse set of principles is a work to support RTW. You have not made the case for the downside risk. From what I read, the mayor & governor have not made an offer that could even be considered.

Posted by p_myers661 on April 19, 2008 at 12:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RTW doesn't stop unions from being voted in. It just means that those who don't want to pay a union will be protected. What harm does this due to the union? It just means that only those who want the union will have to pay for it. Unions don't want that. They don't even want secret ballot elections. Look at the legislation in Washington to allow a postcard ballot. We know that the union thugs would never threaten individual members with anything in order to get the card signed. There wouldn't be anyone signing others' names to postcards. This is the single most important reason RTW is necessary. If a union is carded in, the individuals who work there can opt out and the boss can pay them on the basis of ability instead of the union scale. That's the reason unions want to kill the initiative. RTW will make it impossible for them to railroad a union into a place where the workers don't want one. End of reasons.

Before labor laws, unions served a valuable purpose to protect workers. They got fat, lazy and greedy. Workers are protected by laws. They don't need to pay extra for a bunch of guys to tell them how to vote (they don't listen most of the time), how many hours they can work, that they can't do a better job than the rest of the workforce and how much of their pay they have to give up for those benefits. Those who feel they want a union can form one. Of course the employer can deal with the union and then pay the real workers a fair wage based on how well they do their jobs. What part of union protection of the lazy slugs is too hard to understand?

Posted by jacka on April 19, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

p_myers is right.

How does RTW damage the LPA? Someone please explain the specific modification of LPA statutes that will occur.

That is the "delicate balance" that so many are concerned about right?

Or is the "delicate balance", really the fear of worldwide exposure that the democrat party is a group of regressive tax and spend farmers of communal government programs designed to re-distribute wealth.

How about an editorial on Ref C collections and distributions, before we march off to ZRomanovs plan to repeal Tabor.

Posted by arby on April 19, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The point the unions are missing is that if you break the company then you have no job? Greed! The unions are a business. They are no longer effective. The unions brought about change that was good but now it's all law. They are out of date and don't know how to upgrade.
I've been involved in 3 strikes 2 as a union member and once as a manager. In each case the union members came out losers. but the union came out winners. It is a business that preys on the business that supports it.