Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

BLAKE: Business-labor issues vex

By Peter Blake, Special to the Rocky

Published August 21, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated August 21, 2008 at 2:23 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

You can't blame Gov. Bill Ritter and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper if they wished that next week's Democratic circus would stick around for a month or more, distracting the public.

Because once the carnies have packed up the Tilt-A-Whirl, the freak shows and the corn dogs and rolled on down the road, the two leaders will have to focus on the nasty here-and-now of the state's fall ballot issues.

The severance tax hike is controversial, and others intriguing, but the proposals pitting business against labor would have by far the most impact.

It's not something the governor and the mayor want to discuss in a town full of Democrats, but they're well aware that if any, or all, of the four union proposals pass, they would seriously damage the state's economy. And they're unhappy that a small minority of the business community chose to pique the once-sleepy labor movement.

In a June letter to the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, Ritter said he's opposing all business and labor issues. "The so-called right-to-work proposal, as well as others being promoted by both organized labor and anti-labor forces, would needlessly disrupt" the state's economy "and cause unnecessary schisms in our economic community."

Hickenlooper, who used to run restaurants, has urged those involved to "come to their senses and pull back all their initiatives. Everybody should just say no - no to all the labor initiatives and no to right-to-work."

But it's probably too late for that. "There's been this tooth-fairy approach, thinking all these things were just going to go away," says Bill Artist, a political operative with the business coalition. Even if right-to-work was pulled, he said, "I'm not sure if any or all of the (labor issues) would go away. There are different agendas involved."

As Doug Friednash, an attorney for the metro chamber, puts it, "It's becoming more difficult by the day to get these off the ballot. At some point the organizations start to fall in love with their measures, if they drink the Kool-Aid long enough."

The business community can't agree which union proposal is the worst. Some think it's giving local district attorneys the power to prosecute corporate fraud. Others believe it's the proposal requiring employers to give "just cause," in writing, to fire even at-will employees.

But perhaps even more serious are the issues promoted by the United Food & Commercial Workers. They would require companies with 20 or more employees to pay 80 percent of the employees' health care - and 70 percent of dependents' health care. Another would permit injured employees to sue for work-related injuries even after they've availed themselves of the workers comp system.

Such laws would tempt many firms to leave the state and discourage more from coming. Smaller companies would lay off employees to get below 20, turn them into independent contractors - or simply close up.

"It really is Armageddon at the ballot box," says Dan Pilcher of the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry.

Labor is way ahead of business in raising money for the issues. The two labor groups organized to fight right-to-work and promote their own issues have raised $4.1 million from around the country and expect eventually $25 million to $35 million; the two business groups fighting them have $540,000 so far. (The separate group promoting right-to-work has taken in $556,000.)

The two business groups - Coloradans for Responsible Reform and Defend Our Economy - are reported to be negotiating a combined effort against the union issues. But they will spend no money promoting right-to-work.

Their only comfort may be in the fact labor isn't a monolith. Protect Colorado's Future, put together by the AFL-CIO, Teamsters, carpenters and service employees, is promoting only the corporate fraud and "just cause" firing proposals.

"The coalition has not taken a position" on the UFCW's initiatives, said spokesman Jess Knox.

Peter Blake is a former Rocky Mountain News political columnist. He can be reached at pblake0705@comcast.net.

Comments

  • August 21, 2008

    1:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    The Governor, Chamber, and Unions should answer why the Governor protected state employees in forbidding forced union dues, forced mandatory agency fees or forced membership in his executive order for ColoradoWINS.

    Please justify the refusal of similar workplace protection rights (RTW) to the rest of Colorado's citizen's.

    YES on Amendment 47!

  • August 21, 2008

    4:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fatdog writes:

    It is interesting how much trouble a trust fund boy can stir up for those around him. Hope that next time he is bored, he finds something else to do...travel maybe.

  • August 21, 2008

    8:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Read the Amendment that drove Unions, Ritter, the Chamber and Hickenlopper to conspire ... against basic American principles and threaten Colorado's economy..

    Shocking news ... this Denver Chamber is run by major corporate interests and their law firm partners. They don't have your interests in mind and maintain few business principles.

    Amendment 47 from the state website ... read it and decide.

    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.