Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Battle brewing over state unions

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 23, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Updated January 23, 2008 at 7:16 a.m.

Text size  

More Colorado Government

More stories »

Republicans are ramping up to pick the fight they promised this session over Gov. Bill Ritter's executive order making unions a bigger player in state government.

Ritter and his fellow Democrats in charge of the legislature, meanwhile, are maneuvering to draw attention away from the debate.

The fight will last at least two rounds and could be over two weeks from now.

That's roughly when Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, expects his bill, which would toss out the so-called employee partnership agreements Ritter signed, to be deep-sixed by the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee, where Democrats hold a 3-2 edge.

"There's always the hope that (the bill) will find one Democrat more interested in good policy than partisan politics and union payoff. But State Affairs is a stacked committee, so hope is dim in that dungeon," Mitchell said.

Prior to that, round one begins in the House this week with a debate over how to deal with a decision by Attorney General John Suthers that Ritter's executive order could not repeal state workers' never-used right to strike.

Ritter's lawyers believe the order keeps employees who enter into partnership agreements from striking. But the governor has committed to signing a bill clearing that up.

Republicans have seized on Ritter's concession, drafting a bill that would ban strikes not just by state workers but all public employees, including RTD bus drivers and teachers.

The bill also establishes stiff fines for striking - including $10,000 per day per involved union and automatic termination of striking employees.

"The purpose of my bill is to prevent the public from being held hostage by employee labor unions," said Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs.

Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, has a competing bill banning state employees from striking and making it a misdemeanor for an employee to violate that prohibition. Of the bills addressing Ritter's executive order, it is viewed as having the only chance of passing.

"It seemed like the best thing we could do, as early in the session as possible, was to try to solve this issue," Riesberg said. "We have so many issues to deal with this year around health care, transportation and education. And I've been around a lot of state employees, and I've never heard them talk about a strike."

Ritter supports Riesberg's bill. Republicans say it's toothless.

This morning, Gardner plans to offer a two-page amendment to Riesberg's bill, inserting all the provisions from his bill that punish striking employees.

It's not expected to get very far.

bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059

Comments

  • January 23, 2008

    5:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    A Democrat running a no strike bill? This is man bites dog, tell me more.

    This bill is likely a first because no democrat has ever introduced a no strike bill. It must be a first in America ... that's the story here.

    The sponsor will run back to Greeley claiming victory and showing how tough he is on that Denver governor to his NE Colorado district.

    Why doesn't your paper do a deeper story?

    Also what about other aspects: collective barginning, right to work/partner agency membership rules, paycheck deduction, work rules vs state workplace policies, etc...

    What about the story that these labir partnerships has lead to safer work places and better compensated employees - which have provided Colorado lower cost state operations and driven more money into the Colorado economy

  • January 23, 2008

    7:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Art writes:

    Are state employees slaves? Do they not have the same rights as all other citizens? If they can be treated this way then why not reduce all their salaries to minimum wage and take away all holidays, annual leave and sick leave for them as well. If this were done we would find out which employees were truly working for the joy of it rather than for the terribly inflated salaries and benefits they now recieve. (This last is sarcasm if you didn't notice.)

  • January 23, 2008

    8:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    farsidefan writes:

    Gee, where was all this anti executive order sentiment when Bush made his sneaky moves ? A little hypocritical aren't we ?
    But this is politics what else is new.
    As for a Repub complaining about a committee being stacked, we never heard that complaint when the Republicans had control of the legislature. The worm turns.

  • January 23, 2008

    8:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    farsidefan said: "Gee, where was all this anti executive order sentiment when Bush made his sneaky moves ? A little hypocritical aren't we ?"

    So you are saying one bad action justifies another bad action? That's the problem with many politicians (as well as some non-politicians); retribution, retribution, retribution. This applies to both parties and their supporters. BTW, we also heard Dems complaining about Repubs actions when the latter were in control. You try to make it sound like the Dems never complain(ed). Both parties stink.

  • January 23, 2008

    9:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    farsidefan writes:

    No, not at all, it is just that when the shoe is on the other foot it doesn't fit well. You never heard them complain or do anything about the "stacked deck" when they were in control. It was not such a bad thing. IMHO
    government works best when neither party controls both houses of the legislature. This insures considerable more debate on issues and nothing is shoved down our throats. I know it is unrealistic, but I would like to see a change in how we elect our governor or president. If both houses of the legislature or Congress are controlled by one party, the other party should be able to select the executive. At least there is a shot at checks and balances.
    I understand there is a need for lawmaking but as a State Senator once told me 30 years ago " There are two things people can't stand to watch: making law and making bologna..