Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

POINT: In the clenches

Proposed initiatives give workers a fighting chance

By Lew Ellingson

Published April 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

Related Stories

More Speakout

More stories »

Colorado is at a crossroads.

We can sit back and watch as our neighbors lose their homes, their jobs and their health care or we can take action now to protect Colorado's future from more unscrupulous business leaders.

This November, that choice may be on your ballot.

Colorado voters will likely have the chance to support two historic initiatives - a corporate fraud initiative and a measure that would ensure employees cannot be fired without a fair reason. Through these initiatives, Coloradans will have a chance to help level the playing field between big corporations and the rest of us.

The corporate fraud initiative I have proposed would make CEOs and company executives criminally liable if they choose to break the law or stand by as others do. It would also allow any Colorado resident to sue the executives, with proceeds from successful suits going back to the state.

Given the enormous price that Colorado has paid for corporate crime - the FBI estimates that white-collar fraud costs state taxpayers billions per year - Coloradans ought to be on the front lines of corporate cleanup.

Tired of lost pension funds, lost jobs and lost savings, an overwhelming number of Coloradans would support this initiative if brought to the ballot in November.

In fact, a recent poll by The Feldman Group showed that more than eight out of 10 Colorado voters (84 percent) say they would support an initiative that would hold any company executive with knowledge of a crime criminally liable if they did not report the offense.

Strangely, the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry has formally come out against cracking down on corporate criminals. And the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce has filed appeals with the state Supreme Court, claiming that the anti-corporate fraud initiative will lead to more lawsuits.

But the chamber's argument is nothing more than a paper tiger. The initiative intentionally makes it difficult for frivolous lawsuits to be brought against company executives, since the losing party would have to pay attorney costs on both sides.

And since monies granted from a victory would go back to the state, nobody could sue for personal gain.

Protect Colorado's Future is also working to advance an initiative that would require your employer to explain their reasons for firing you.

Under current Colorado law, you could be fired tomorrow for any reason - or no reason at all. Maybe your employer didn't like your political views. Or maybe they were upset that you took a sick day to take care of your daughter. Or maybe they wanted to replace you with younger, cheaper workers.

This initiative will help protect Colorado employees by having companies simply explain their reasons for firing employees. When this initiative passes, companies will still be able to fire bad employees; all they have to do is say why.

With these two initiatives on the ballot in November, voters will have the opportunity to take a stand and protect Colorado's future.

Lew Ellingson, the proponent of the corporate fraud initiative, is a retired Qwest employee and a member of Protect Colorado's Future, an organization of progressive groups and labor unions.

Comments

  • April 19, 2008

    1:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    With these two initiatives we won't have to worry about corporate illegalities nor unexplained termination. The businesses would move out of state to prevent the frivolous lawsuits or the probability of workers holding a company hostage to unreasonable demands. We all understand this. Colorado voters would understand this too. These proposals are part of a union extortion racket to try and protect union thuggery. Go lie to someone gullible. Colorado voters have learned their lesson and I will work for free to make sure they know about these issues too. Thanks for letting us hear the first volley of lies. It will come in handy.

  • April 19, 2008

    6:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Lew Ellingson, you are a solialist, bleeding heart idiot.

    The function of government is to protect the people as a whole, i.e., provide police, fire, and certain other services for the general welware. It is NOT to dictate how businesses are run, provide food and shelter for the people, or to take care of us.

    What you want is left wing Utopia which doesn't exist.

  • April 19, 2008

    8:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Joe_Lunchbucket writes:

    Hey, Lew: Why don't you just move to California or Massachusetts where the socialists already run the asylum? You are fool with a ridiculous sense of entitlement at others' expense.

  • April 19, 2008

    8:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    Lew, I'm ready to vote now - AGAINST your ridiculous proposals. You need to "unretire"; you have way to much time on your hand.

  • April 19, 2008

    9:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Lew, I'm for A Better Colorado, but would consider your proposals if you can answer two areas of questions.

    1. Your liability measure seems to target only corporate crime? Why does it not include all organizations - government, foundations, election committees, LLCs, LLPs, etc? What if we have an Orange County, CA situation driven by an outlaw law practice or accounting firm? What about a prosecutor that knowingly jails an innocent man?

    2. Won't your just cause measure lower the desire to form a union? Will labor really back this with real money or is this a ploy?

    Sorry, your not consistant in purpose.

  • April 19, 2008

    12:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    david.miller writes:

    Lew, I typically try to refrain being so direct, but I could actually hear your sniffling and see the tears running down your face as I read your letter. Putting emotion aside for a moment, Sarbanes Oxley has already provided sufficient overkill when it comes to misdeeds committed by corporate executives. Should your ideas become law, there will definitely be far fewer employers in Colorado to obtain jobs from or sue. With regard to your notion that a company should provide a reason for firing someone, do you believe you should have to give a reason why you have decided to quit your employment with a company? My guess is that you probably would not be in favor of such an arrangement. However, if you would agree to such an arrangement you would likely say that you were leaving because you found a better opportunity and that this would constitute sufficient reason for separation. If you were working for me, I would simply tell you (and in particular you Lew) that you are not a good fit in my business plan or model. That would be it. One final observation: It’s probably a good thing that you are retired from Qwest because I suspect that you effectively retired many years before you stopped receiving a paycheck.

  • April 20, 2008

    2:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    Lew
    Wow you are sure getting beat up. I don't agree with your proposals either. I think that what set you off was the crimes and theft of your former boss. Joe Nacchio. Know what? It is going to cost him a few million of the dollars that he stole from you and your/my fellow employees but he is going to walk and still have quite a few million to live a lot more comfortably than you and me. How much did Anshutz get? It is terrible but we can't turn the tables on all business' or there will be no business' and therefore no jobs.

  • April 21, 2008

    11:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jack_Bauer writes:

    Unions should be more pro-business than they are - do they realize if a business folds up shop due to their strong arm tactics that they are out of a revenue stream themselves?
    Some day they may get it, until then we have people like Lew to remind us of the ignorance that runs rampant amongst union hacks.

  • April 21, 2008

    3:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dwschulze writes:

    Lew,

    Will your initiative allow any citizen to sue labor unions, law firms, or "public advocacy" groups too? If anyone is stealing the future from us collectively, it is the lawyers.

  • April 21, 2008

    10:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    SEIU UNION SKULLS INTIMIDATE WITH "PROTECTED" FREE SPEECH

    SEIU Claims Right of 'Free Speech' to Stalk, Harass, and Threaten Registered Nurses According to the California Nurses Association

    PRNEWSWIRE -- Attorneys for the SEIU claimed in an Alameda County courthouse today that their stalking, harassment, and other acts of intimidation against officers, directors and staff of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee is nothing more than "free speech."

    In testimony to the court, SEIU attorneys portrayed the systematic campaign conducted by SEIU under the direction of its President Andy Stern as "protected" free speech -- dismissing the serious concerns voiced by numerous CNA/NNOC leaders who have been subjected to the targeting, threats, and intimidation.

    CNA/NNOC attorney Pam Allen noted that free speech is very different than the actions employed by SEIU bands who have gone to the nursing stations of CNA/NNOC leaders looking for them and demanding home addresses and phone numbers, following them in cars, pounding on their doors, pointing video cameras in their faces, screaming at them, and refusing to leave until being told the police were on the way.

    In a statement to the court, Margie Keenan, RN, a CNA/NNOC Board member described one such visit to her home and a visit by SEIU to the nursing floor in the Long Beach hospital where she works.

    At her home "they began yelling loudly, demanding that I come and speak with them in a very aggressive, boisterous manner. I became very scared, as they continued yelling and pounding on my door, so I dialed 911 and asked the operator to dispatch police as soon as possible. By the time the police came, the intruders were gone.

    "I was very frightened by the approach at my home because it was extremely aggressive and hostile, and I live alone. Shortly after they left my house, I received a telephone call on my home phone and the caller asked for me by name. I recognized the voice as one of the intruders and immediately hung up the phone." She later learned of the visit to her nursing floor.

    "I felt very unsettled and frightened by these events, so much so that I did not feel able to report to work (the following two days) which were my next scheduled days of work. I called in sick both of those days and learned over the weekend of a number of events that have only increased my fear and concern for my personal safety," Keenan declared

    SEIU attorneys today also challenged the restraining order on the basis of a state law exemption of labor disputes from state court intervention.

    SOURCE California Nurses Association