Chamber draws battle lines
Group opposes right-to-work plan, targets labor issues
By David Milstead, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published June 12, 2008 at 11:09 a.m.
Photo by Dennis Schroeder / The Rocky
Joe Blake, president of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, testifying at the Capitol in January, said the chamber will use its resources to defeat labor measures on the November ballot.
The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's board voted Thursday to oppose the right-to-work ballot initiative, but its dollars and efforts will instead target this fall's union-backed measures.
"All of our resources are going to be put into defeating whatever labor ballot measures may appear in November," chamber President Joe Blake said. "All of our time and energy will be spent doing the same thing."
The Denver chamber, sympathetic to right-to-work as a "basic business principle," staked out moderate ground with its vote against Amendment 47, the right-to-work measure backed by a batch of conservative business leaders.
The chamber has about 3,000 members with roughly 300,000 employees. The 55-member board had a majority of its members present for the vote, which was "close to unanimous," the chamber's Tamra Ward said.
In doing so, the Denver chamber is taking an opposite route from the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, recognized as the state chamber of commerce. CACI voted to back Amendment 47.
The proponents of Amendment 47, who call themselves A Better Colorado, seek to make Colorado a right-to-work state where "union shop" arrangements are banned. Union shops require all workers covered by collective-bargaining contracts to contribute financially in return for being represented by a union.
"It's too bad the Denver chamber caved in to the union threats and put its own politics ahead of principles," said Kelley Harp, a spokesman for the Amendment 47 backers. "That's not leadership, that's capitulation."
Harp said again Thursday that the right-to-work amendment would be on the fall ballot.
Colorado law includes the "Labor Peace Act," which requires a special employee vote before a workplace becomes a union shop. Passed in 1943, it remains unique in state labor law. The Denver chamber calls the law "an arrow in our quiver when recruiting companies to our state because it provides balance."
The Denver chamber took into account the statements of Gov. Bill Ritter, who told Blake Wednesday he would "act to protect" the Labor Peace Act "as long as I am privileged to serve as governor."
What has the Denver chamber, Ritter, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, and U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar concerned is a potential business-vs.-labor ballot showdown that some have called "mutually assured destruction."
As Amendment 47 worked its way through the ballot process, union-backed groups introduced a wave of measures widely believed to be retaliation.
The United Food & Commercial Workers Local 7 backed initiatives that would have increased commercial property taxes and one that called for an annual cost-of-living increase for employees of companies with more than 10 employees. The UFCW said Wednesday it was yanking those two measures "in the spirit of negotiation."
But the union is continuing with two health-related ballot proposals, including one that would require employers with more than 20 workers to provide a plan for major medical coverage.
A coalition called Protect Colorado's Future, which includes the AFL-CIO, has backed a measure to place restrictions on employers' ability to fire workers, as well as a corporate fraud initiative that would expand legal liability.
Finance Editor David Milstead can be reached at milstead@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2648.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
June 12, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dick_Tater writes:
"Union shops require all workers covered by collective-bargaining contracts to contribute financially in return for being represented by a union."
It's a choice, you can choose to not be robbed every pay day. For those who like to give away their money, they can choose to do so.
June 12, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Come on David, your bias is showing through.
The statement: “Their solution was to seek to make Colorado a right-to-work state where “union shop” arrangements are banned. Union shops require all workers covered by collective-bargaining contracts to contribute financially in return for being represented by a union.”
David’s statement is not only factually incorrect, it’s plainly biased.
The right to work initiative DOES NOT ban “Union Shops”. It bans Unions from forcing non-union members to fund a union that is against their beliefs.
Get it DAVID? People can still form unions under the “right to work measure”.
They just can’t EXTORT monies from those that don’t wish to be members.
If the unions are worthy they’ll attract membership on their merits. They are failing and now they want to force EVERYONE to pay their dues regardless of affiliation.
David,
Your buddy Ritter snuck in the Union pleasing access to state employees executive order at 3:30 on a Friday hoping it would go unnoticed.
Now he has set the bar to where only 30% of the workforce has to be in favor of Union membership in order for the whole classification to become union.
David wishes to allow the possible 70% of the workforce to be blackmailed out of two hours wages a week (dues) by the 30%.
I’ll have to leave the state. I’m fundamentally against unions. I’ve dodged their bullets before.
Rocky Mountain,
Why let this HACK, David, write for your paper?
June 12, 2008
1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Vote YES on Amendment 47, recently unionized state workers enjoy the right to work and it's ability to protect their paycheck.
Shouldn't all Coloradans enjoy these same rights?
June 12, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Jacka,
Get your fact right. State employees didn't "recently unionize"
Ritter gave the unions ACCESS to state employees in a closed door deal. See the difference?
State employees have YET to vote in a union.
In fact, several unions are falling all over themselves trying to recruit members.
Will they unionize in the near future? It sure is possible with the ridiculously low standard of 30% in favor.
Want to stop it? Make Ritter one and done.
June 12, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
CUBUFFINSUNDEVILCOUNTRY writes:
I live in Az....A Right to work state. Which means right to not get paid enough. I will give you an example of what right to work does. I know I have friends, and many of you have someone close by, that are associated with the grocery stores ( King Soopers ( Fry's down here ), Albertson's, Safeway, Etc. ) and have been there a long time. and make a decent wage. Yeah, there were strikes that happened, and dues, but working there is not considered a "welfare" job. My Mother who was with King's for 16 years as a cashier ( getting paid nicely ) She had Kroger transfer her down here, when my Dad retired. So, she went to Fry's, with seniority. Guess what? No Union Representation!! She came in with 16 yrs at Kroger, and they took away her wages from Colo., and put her at $6.50/hr. She went to the "union" here, and was told we were right to work, and the wages are based on the poverty level of AZ ( now picture in your head, Migrant Farm Workers, Illegal at that, getting paid per bushel. ) Right to work is only good for the businesses to line their pockets. Prices won't go down, service will get worse, and the economy will go to hell in a hand-basket. Personally... I make about $60K, and my Wife makes $30k, and with the economy down here ( neither of us have had a raise in 4 years )we are one of the fortunate to be paycheck to paycheck. Most are in debt to thier ears. From a Right To Work State, to my old friends nieghbors, fellow Coloradoians. DO NOT PASS RIGHT TO WORK...It's a Laxative. BTW..before the Limbaugh contingient yells at me...I AM A REPUBLICAN!!!!!
June 12, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
YES on 47 to stop Union corruption.
Compromising chamber of commerce has a special partnership with Unions - one is even a member.
Chamber against peoples right to choose.
Chamber against Colorado's small and medium sized business.
Chamber for Big Denver Corporations and their Big Union partners.
Chamber for the corrupt sale of 'labor peace'.
Remember the attempt to break labor peace and the labor-led constitutional amendment on minimum wage increase?
Hey Big Business Chamber, the Guv gave state employees the Right to Work when he Unionized them. Shouldn't all Coloradans have the Right to Work?
Why did the Chmaber agree to be blackmailed?
June 12, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Fred,
He might be headed for one and done.
Beg to differ on democrat's state unionization program. It was announced yesterday by Big Unions that 5,400 state employees voted YES to unionize 22,500 total state employees ... and only 7,900 voted in total.
Thank God the 17,100 state employees who were unionized without their vote have the Right to Work. They have the choice to join the union and pay dues - or not.
Unions are anti worker, anti-family, anti-Colorado.
Unions are anti-choice and disenfranchise voters.
Yes on 47 to protect your paycheck, vote and freedom of association.
June 12, 2008
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
CUBUFFINSUNDEVILCOUNTRY writes:
Jacka...I respect your anti-union stance. I actually feel the same way. But having legislation on the books, to "neuter " them will only take away any competition and INCREASE wages. Yes, Payola in the form of dues is corrupt. But id a unionized Journeyman is making $30/hr, about $9/hr goes to dues, so he makes $21/hr. In AZ, he makes about $9.00/hr. No representation. If you don't like your wage, someone standing in front of the Home Depot will do the same for Min Wage ( $7.25/hr here ) There has to be a better way that RTW. RTW is even more evil than your local AFL-CIO office.
June 12, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Right to work means that the unions cannot force someone to join the union and that business that are not union cannot be denied jobs because of non-union status. As a business owner paying truck drivers anywhere from $20 to $30/hour and unskilled labor starting at $14/hour, non-union is working well for my employees. Bring in the unions and I will be forced to raise wages (which I can't afford to do) that are already high or close the doors. I will close the doors and save myself the headaches.
June 12, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
CUBUFFINSUNDEVILCOUNTRY writes:
Steel...at $90K/yr....figure a mortgage on a $300K house. $600/mo in utilities ( it's not cheap keeping out Mother nature in the summer In Phoenix, and that with the house fully insulated, and the A/C on 80 )Gas Prices at $4.59/gal X 3 cars, Having to pay for your own Health Ins. ( because with right to work, employers also have the right to not give you benefits ) 2 car payments, Credit Cards ( that are used when the utility bill gets rediculous, so we can eat ), and there is no dining out. Plus, I get that you don't understand this, but College tuition for 1 child ( or should she go on welfare, and not have an education, on then be on the crap list for using taxpayers $$ by being on welfare?) Down here, $90K/Yr, is what $30K/Yr was back in 1990 up there. Not a lot. So, don't figure that just because someone make a collective $90K/Yr and is paycheck to Paycheck, there is bad budgeting, or eating out all the time. Get 4 daughters from ages 5-19, give them comfort, make them work for what they get, move down here for a SUMMER, pay the utilities, and see where you are at. I know where you will be...In Albuquerque, on your way back to Colo. because AZ is too insane for your finances.
June 12, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Jacka,
I'm not aware of the vote which you speak of.
I do know that some employees voted in favor of unions for their specific work group classification.
That being said, not all state employees are unionized now and the ones who are belong to different unions. It isn’t one big state employee union.
BTW: Why is management forbidden from voting on this? Are they not state employees too? I don’t get it.
I wish I could simply exclude my opposition from being able to participate in decision making….
Other then that, Jacka, we seem to be on the same side of this issue.
June 12, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
CUBUFFINSUNDEVILCOUNTRY writes:
Navy...I appreciate that, and that is where RTW is a laxative. If there were no unions, and you had skilled workers willingto do the same thing you current employees do, for 60% of what your current staff does, would you lower you wage base? If not, I commend you. But, RTW does that. I will go totally non PC now, and I apologize in advance. If Jose from Hermosill, MX hops a train, and comes to Phoenix, and I am a Bridge builder, making $17/hr. Jose will do it for $8.00/hr, do I have a job in the morning?....NOPE. Because there are also no labor laws. So, you can be released for no reason what so ever. It is supply and demand. If there is a demand for employees, Someone will supply thier services for a lot less than you make.
June 12, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Colorado has a right to work here. If a company is union you have the right not to work there. It is union because the MAJORITY of it's employees vote for it. And if they don't want it at anytime they can vote it out by the MAJORITY. There is your right to work. And yes it is businesses that is pushing for this law. WONDER WHY?
June 12, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Fred,
Read here: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_955...
Thank God the Governor gave state workers the Right-to-Work!
YES on Amendment 47, shouldn't all Coloradans have the Right-to-Work?
June 12, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
dilligaf,
The statement "It is union because the MAJORITY of it's employees vote for it. And if they don't want it at anytime they can vote it out by the MAJORITY. There is your right to work. And yes it is businesses that is pushing for this law. WONDER WHY? " is inaccurate and misleading.
Ritter set the bar that only 30% of the shop had to vote in favor of going union for that shop to be unionized.
That's 30%. I repeat, that's 30%. That's a full 21% less then needed to make the statement that the majority voted it in.
You’d have the 30% be able to extort 2/hrs a week from the 70%. That’s insane.
Why can’t the individual decide what is best for themselves?
June 12, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Jacka,
The link reads:
Contract will cover a third of state employees:
At least 22,500 secretaries, prison guards and other state employees will soon fall under a union contract following a vote tallied Wednesday, though the majority of eligible workers didn't cast a ballot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It reads that 1/3rd of state employees will be unionized. That’s the only point I was trying to make. That it’s not all (or even half) of state employees.
And there’s nothing new in that. Firemen, police and teachers were all already unionized.
BTW: I wonder who insures that all eligible workers even get their ballots?
Why is there such thing as an “eligible worker”? To me…ALL state employees should have the right to vote (if one is forced) rather then excluding those that might possibly disagree.
June 12, 2008
3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
Right to work is just another name for "Bust the Unions", it has nothing to do with right to work, it has everyhting to do with employers doing as they please with their workforce. As a ex union member, I watched the company slowly destroy our union because we had three members who resided in Texas (right to work state). They hired anti union hands at every turn (not supposed to ask pre hires that question, but we all knew they did), and slowly but surely gave what used to be Union jobs to non union employees. Then if any disipline was set forth for screwing up on the job, non union employees got off with a slap on the wrist, union employees with same or less infractions would end up fighting for their jobs! Picking apart Union contracts, management pointing fingers at the union when it was them pulling the strings.
Right to work means, right to work for less, with no chance of organizing. Right to work means some get a free ride, and others pay their way. Right to work means you and your co-workers must kiss more rear end, for less money...
June 15, 2008
1:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
sec970 writes:
Don't distort the facts here, folks--right to work does absolutely NOTHING to prevent unions or bust them. Workers are still allowed to unionize just like they are anywhere else--it just means that the union cannot FORCE anyone to join if they do not choose to.
Why are the unions so afraid of giving workers a choice in the matter? If unions are such a wonderful thing, would not EVERYONE be fighting to join?
Right to work simply means that an EMPLOYEE can choose whether or not to join the union--either before or after hire. If he/she hires on as non-union, and then decides the union is worth it, he/she can join later.
I have not seen any employers with guns FORCING anyone to take a minimum wage job with no benefits--why should the unions have the power to force an employee to join?
True freedom means the individual can decide what is right for him/her.