Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Business, labor plan for November ballot fights

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 25, 2008 at 8:30 p.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More More Business

More stories »

With little chance left of getting "right-to-work" backers to pull their ballot measure, business and labor interests have drawn up battle plans.

A union-backed coalition filed a last-minute proposal Friday that would change the definition of a labor organization. The aim is to exempt unions from the impact of a potential right-to-work law that would bar all-union workplaces.

"This is such an incredibly divisive issue," said Jess Knox, head of the Protect Colorado's Future coalition. "We wanted to make sure Coloradans have an opportunity to vote affirmatively for the current system."

A group of Denver business leaders has been weighing several options for a voter dissuasion campaign, while labor groups will try first to knock the right-to-work amendment off the ballot by finding enough invalid signatures on the petitions that were turned in this month.

"You hope, hope, hope in your heart of hearts that everybody will stand down," said Tom Clark, executive vice president of the Denver Metro Economic Development Corp., an affiliate of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. "But you've got to plan for the worst."

In a slide presentation obtained by the Rocky Mountain News, the economic development corp.'s executive committee discussed various strategies last week for warding off "mutually assured destruction":

* Support the right-to-work effort and oppose several labor-backed initiatives (including a plan requiring employers to pay for employee health care and to give workers annual pay increases that keep pace with inflation.) The group noted that this "yes-no" option carries the risk that some businesses won't help fund the campaign and that linking business and labor issues in voter minds could prove difficult.

* Campaign for "no" on everything but risk splitting the business vote on right-to-work. "No" votes are "easiest" to get because they only require creating uncertainty.

* Let the right-to-work group run a "yes" campaign on its own measure. The chamber and economic development affiliate would run a "no" campaign on labor proposals, giving the appearance that many groups oppose them.

Clark said the executive committee hasn't voted on which avenue to pursue. But he noted it would be difficult for his group to run a "yes-no" campaign at a time when so many initiatives appear headed for the fall ballot.

He reiterated his frustration with the right-to-work measure, saying his economic development efforts have been aided by the state's current law because it sets a higher bar for all- union shops but doesn't outlaw them as a right-to-work measure would.

"We've had the benefit of being able to argue it both ways," said Clark, who maintained it would have been difficult to recruit the labor-friendly Anheuser-Busch to Fort Collins if a right-to-work law had been in place.

Right-to-work supporters, led by Coors Brewing descendant Jonathan Coors, want to abolish the potential for union contract clauses that require workers to pay for the cost of contract negotiations and union representation.

A campaign spokesman said Friday that the effort is "moving forward with an eye on winning in November."

As the plan moves closer to a vote here, a labor-backed coalition has been preparing to sift through the right-to-work petitions to look for potentially invalid signatures once they become available to the public.

Protect Colorado's Future has yet to begin collecting signatures for its own ballot measures, including one making it harder for employers to fire workers and another taking aim at corporate fraud.

But Protect Colorado's Future expects a boost from this week's challenge by a group analyzing the signatures that qualified an anti-affirmative action measure proposed by California conservative Ward Connerly. The group's legal challenge claims more than half of those signatures are invalid.

"Ward Connerly and the special interests behind right-to-work reportedly used the same paid signature gatherers, so we expect them to have many of the same problems," said Knox of Protect Colorado's Future.

Comments

  • April 26, 2008

    9:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    No chamber can oppose Right-to-Work. In fact, ALL CHAMBERS MUST PROMOTE RIGHT-TO-WORK; those that do not promote will lose credibility and drive away business.

    If your chamber does not PROMOTE RTW consider them compromised by the big union machine.

    COME ON CLARK AND PURPORTED COLORADO CHAMBER LEADERS – come out and make the statement that Colorado needs the Right-to-Work. If you can not I ask that you step aside and find other employment.

    TO OTHER STATE AND CITY CHAMBERS COMPETING WITH COLORADO TO ATTRACT BUSINESS: take inventory of Colorado’s purported chamber leaders quotes and use them with business site selection groups and in promotional material to show that MANY LEADERS IN COLORADO CONSPIRE WITH BIG LABOR TO PROMOTE THE CORRUPT PRACTICE OF ‘SELLING LABOR PEACE’.

    Any normal Chamber would be leading the effort to get more business here by GOING ON THE RECORD EARLY AND OFTEN TO PROMOTE RIGHT-TO-WORK.

    As to Budweiser … we recruited Anheuser-Busch to Fort Collins because we have ‘labor peace’???

    Bud has been here for ages and if they could rid themselves of the unions they would. Come on, I’d love to here either Aggie Busch III or IV quoted as loving the unions, ‘selling labor peace’, or stating that the delicate balance was any reason for locating in Colorado.

    Busch's won’t conspire with labor because they are not corrupt. Are they conflicted from outright supporting Right-to-Work? You bet, the big unions are in their shorts, they saw what happened to Coors and can not go there.

    Will they give money to the Right-to-Work campaign? If they can without disclosure you bet they will!

    NOTE TO THOSE WHO EVEN CONSIDER CONSPIRING TO CORRUPT BY ‘SELLING LABOR PEACE’. "We've had the benefit of being able to argue it both ways," says Clark. THIS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE HE IS A DOUBLE TALKER, CONSPIRES WITH BIG LABOR UNIONS AND IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF INDIVIDUAL SELF DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHT-TO-WORK.

  • April 26, 2008

    9:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

    SHOULDN'T ALL COLORADANS HAVE THE RIGHT-TO-WORK?

    *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

  • April 26, 2008

    8:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
    CEA agrees - RTW good for employees
    **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
    Dues and don’ts
    EDITORIAL
    THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN
    THE INDEPENDENCE Institute, a Golden-based think tank, is circulating petitions for a ballot initiative that would stop governmental agencies from collecting union dues from their employees.

    In 2001, then-Gov. Bill Owens signed an executive order that stopped the payroll deduction for unionized state employees. Soon after Bill Ritter’s election, the new governor issued a new executive order to resume the automatic deductions.

    Jon Caldera, president of Independence, says the organization doesn’t believe governments should be collectors and distributors of dues for unions that turn around and spend that money to lobby the same governments. Independence believes that taxpayers should not be subsidizing unions that often work counter to the taxpayers’ general interest.

    We agree.

    A spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association says CEA’s view is that “once the employee has earned their salary, it’s theirs to spend as they fit and making a union contribution is their right.”

    We have no quarrel with that right. But there is no right to force taxpayers to foot the bill for union members making those contributions. Let the members write checks to their unions.

    This Independence Institute effort is worthwhile, and we urge Coloradans to sign the petitions.

  • April 29, 2008

    2:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 47 - GIVE ALL COLORADANS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE