SPEAKOUT: Right-to-work issue has chamber addled
By Sen. Shawn Mitchell
Published June 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Two weeks ago, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce blew it. Chamber leadership turned its back on its mission, its small-business members, and its principles when it voted to oppose Amendment 47 - Colorado's Right to Work Amendment - on this November's ballot.
The move is a misguided effort to appease Gov. Bill Ritter and big labor bosses.
By opposing the basic concept that nobody should be forced to support a union against his or her will, the chamber invites the question of whose interests it really represents. The chamber's Web site states, "The Chamber is a powerful and effective advocate for both small and large businesses at the local, state and federal levels." But small and large businesses support right to work overwhelmingly.
This is an unfortunate reflection of the new pressure on Colorado civic leaders under the Ritter administration. When Colorado elected Ritter in 2006, much of the business community was open to his promises he would be a pro-commerce, pro-growth Democrat. Business was fooled.
Until Ritter took office, Colorado's unique law, the Labor Peace Act, had maintained a half-century of rough balance that business and labor could live with. That peace was doomed even before the election, with Ritter's secret pledge to sign union-shop legislation that would make it easier to force employees to support unions. In 2007, state lawmakers did labor bosses' bidding by passing HB 1072. They trashed the Peace Act and the uneasy peace.
Business leaders felt double-crossed by the new governor and launched a firestorm of protest that ultimately pressured him to veto the bill, restoring the status quo. But after spending millions to take over state government, big labor wasn't satisfied with the status quo. Pressure for payback intensified.
Last November, Ritter obliged with his infamous Friday afternoon executive order opening the state work force to exclusive representation, labor recruiting and collective bargaining. The payback has continued in the legislature, with lawmakers passing numerous bills to benefit unions and strengthen their muscle in the workplace.
Much has been made of "the war between business and labor" in this year's election season. But the business community didn't ask for any of this. Colorado was emerging from the recession of a few years back and business leaders looked forward to working with Ritter to move forward.
Now, as our economic security is battered by rising oil prices, spiraling grocery prices and climbing unemployment, Colorado needs an inviting economic climate, focused on bringing new businesses and jobs. Creating a hostile, expensive-employment environment is exactly the wrong move.
Amendment 47 is a turn back toward growth and expanding opportunity.
But the administration and labor bosses are pushing back, threatening formal and informal consequences for opposition to their agenda. Two weeks ago, the chamber blinked, hoping for peace by appeasement. That one of the state's largest business groups would take a position so far from the mainstream of its membership, its mission and basic economics is startling and disappointing.
The Denver chamber itself acknowledged Amendment 47 is "a basic business principle," and it further stated that "allowing unions the ability to organize, but not requiring workers to participate or pay dues, makes sense in our world." An unidentified "major downtown employer who also is a prominent member of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce" admitted as much in "Chamber has its reasons for right-to-work stand," Rocky Mountain News business editor Rob Reuteman's June 14 column: "If it gets on the ballot, I'll vote for it." This, even though he is advocating to keep it off the ballot.
The Denver chamber and its members understand that Amendment 47 is good for Colorado. Reuteman's column reveals their "vote 'no' on everything" strategy as a basic lack of leadership and putting politics over principle.
This is shortsighted. We haven't heard the last from Ritter, compliant lawmakers or activist groups with a radical vision for Colorado. We should not allow ourselves to be fooled again. We should repair the damage already done.
Now is the time for the business community - and everyone who values freedom of choice and conscience - to stand and support Colorado families' economic security and help make this a jobs-friendly, growth-friendly state. We can accomplish this in part by passing Amendment 47.
Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell represents Broomfield in the Colorado General Assembly.
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 25, 2008
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSWren writes:
We each need to think independently about these issues to see them clearly and help shape the thinking of our elected political leaders.
Good newspapers are vital, but even the best are not enough. Information without discussion and debate of the common person is just propoganda.
If you find thoughtful conversation with informed people hard to find, I suggest you check out Denver Socrates Cafe http://socratescafe.meetup.com/82 and the new Denver Speakers Corner http://cocacop.meetup.com/2
Or get a hair cut from Walt at the Upper Cut Barbershop on East Colfax http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-upper-cut.... He's been talking with his customers about politics for over 50 years.
June 25, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Vote YES on Amendment 47, shouldn't all Coloradans have the right to choose?
This action really calls into question the values this Chamber upholds, next they'll be funding the 'no' campaign with their businessmembers contributions. Sick and twisted.
It is really no suprise though. The Chamber chairman was the college roomate of the governor.
June 25, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
If you value workplace choice, vote YES on Amendment 47. The Democrats have pledged to enact card check in 2009. It is likely that many employees will be forced into unions because card check allows small groups of militant workers to impose a union on the remainder of the workforce. Your only defense against forced unionization is right to work.
Unions are just legalized cartels attempting to drive up labor costs beyond market rates. Unfortunately, companies with a choice will just move operations to achieve lower labor costs. Reduced employment levels are the likely result of increased labor union organizing efforts.
Beyond the cartel nature, labor unions are also politicial organizations with almost all money flowing to the Democrats. A large part of labor union dues are used for political purposes, not negotiating. If you value political choice, you will say no to unions and yes to right to work. Even if you support unions and Democrat candidates, right to work is a rational choice. Right to work will force labor unions to work harder, reducing union dues and making unions more accountable towards members.
June 25, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
Truths and half truths. I'm not a union member (and it's highly unlikely anyone in IT will be able to become one) - and have discovered the following:
1) No one will be forced to join a union; however, if a person is in a union shop, the union is authorized to "reclaim" those funds from every worker involved in labor negotiations. The rest of the dues are waived if an employee is not a union member. It seems reasonable to me that if someone benefits from something, that person should pay part of the "freight".
2) There is currently a law in CO which states that it takes at least 60% vote - TWICE - to form a union shop. I haven't seen any indications that this will change.
3) Interestingly enough, those states which have been conned into accepting similar business-favorable amendments have lowest standards of living and highest rates of poverty - not that the owners and investors care in "sharing the wealth" with the folks who make those businesses successful.
Are the rabidly anti-union folks being fooled by business - or are are they business people who are terrified their profits might be impacted by paying a living wage instead of getting to hire illegals, H1Bs (in lieu of citizen and permanent legal residents) and figuring out other ways to keep base wages down? If they weren't either naive - or outright liars - the title of the proposed amendment wouldn't be so misleading.
June 25, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
mrfxx,
Card check will force unionization. Card check will override state laws on union voting procedures. In addition, the Democrats in charge of Colorado would like to impose card check if the national law does not get enacted. Ritter will most likely sign card check if the federal law does not appear likely.
Although you may not be forced to join a union, union dues will be confiscated without your consent. The point is a difference without a distinction. Labor unions are still given the exclusive right to negotiate labor agreements. The agreement is forced upon even if you are not in the union.
As far as standard of living, the union heavy states have been losing jobs for decades. Michigan is a living example about the impact of strong unions on a labor market and industry. Non union labor plants have been growing while union labor plants are on a death bed. The labor agreements forced on the big 3 are outrageous. Without any doubt, the outrageous labor agreemnents have been a major factor in the demise of the domestic auto industry. If the non union plants are organized with similar labor agreements, domestic auto manufacturing will relocate entirely. The same pattern will repeat in many other industries if card check and forced unionization is enacted. Right to work is your only defense.
June 25, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Corruption - Politics - Forced Dues
YES on 47 for Free Choice and Paycheck Protection.
YES on 47 to give all Coloradans that rights politicans and government employees enjoy today.
June 25, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
The Denver Chamber opposes the Right to Work for the rest of Colorado?
Chamber for Corruption - Politics - Forced Dues.
Chamber sides with the union-politician led coalition that wants to limit your freedom to choose.
June 25, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
mrfxx
You stole my thunder. But all I can say is we in Colorado have the right not to belong to a union. If you don't want to join a union then go work in a non union shop. Believe me there is plenty out there. Also has anybody noticed that the people that are pushing for this amendment is businesses. Gee I wonder why. These union shops were voted by at least 60% of it's employee's. Remember the old rule in this country that majority rules. And I don't really care for unions. But I'm smart enough that if I don't want to be union I'll work somewhere else. It is funny that some of the blogger's I see here saying vote yes are the same people tell us non smokers if we don't like secondhand smoke to go somewhere else. WOW!!!!!!
June 25, 2008
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
dilligaf,
Amendment 47 will preserve your right not to belong to a union. The proposed card check legislation will enable relatively small groups of militant union agitators to force a union on the rest of the employees. Card check is coming nationally. If it does not happen nationally, it will happen at the state level. If you value choice as you indicate, vote yes on Amendment 47.
If unions are so great, unions should have no fear of right to work. Unions fear right to work legislation because they know that many employees do not want to belong. Right to work will force unions to provide real value to their members, not just inflated union dues for political campaigns.
June 25, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
mmannino
First of all I didn't say unions are great I said I didn't care for unions. What I'm saying is that the people in those union shops by the majority have elected to be represented by a union. Amendment 47 is nothing but a union busting sceam and the people behind it like you could careless about the rights of working people. All you care about is taking care of big business. Now I believe if it makes it to the ballot it will pass. But this guy will vote no and don't try to tell how to vote. You cons like to do that.
June 25, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
dilligaf,
You are not informed about the pending card check legislation. Card check allows a small group of militant union agitators to intimidate others to sign a card. There is no secret ballot. The majority of workers who sign the cards can dictate the union to all workers.
Amendment 47 is not union busting. It is workers choice. The unions will still exist if Amendment 47 passes. Amendment 47 does not decertify any unions.
June 25, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
mmannino
No unions will not exist. When companies have a mix of union and non union it causes dissention and if companies that thought they had labor problems before they haven't seen anything yet. You will have workers that pay for union representation bargaining for wages and benefits while the free loaders enjoy them for free. That causes problems with in the company which results in bad productivity. If you check other states that have the right to work laws the unions do not exist. And as for as you Senator Mitchell you are a typical pro business anti worker republican. I will bet you voted no on the last min.wage increase that would help pay for the out of control gas & healthcare costs. You could careless about the blue collar people trying to survive in this economy your friend Bush has let get out of control. Instead of going to work on important issues that is killing this country you have time to write an article to bust unions. I don't mean to be rude but you make me sick. BOY THAT WILL PROBABLY SEND HOMELAND SECURITY AFTER ME THAT WILL BE READING THIS BLOG.
June 25, 2008
5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
mmannino right on all fronts - s/he is AGAINST CORRUPTION - POLITICS - FORCED DUES.
dilligaf, mis-informed like the Shamber of Compromise.
YES on 47 TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE
June 25, 2008
6:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
rumplstilskin writes:
Don't be fooled by all the BS and negativity towards the unions, the right to work initiative only means right to work for less money. The big company bosses are pushing this garbage down your throats, if it passes your wages will not be able to keep up with inflation. Take a look at every state that has this poisoned law. There standard of living is the lowest in the nation. Unions protect both non-union and union workers. If you are so foolish to vote for it you might as well take a knife and cut your own throat because that is exactly what you are doing.
June 25, 2008
6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
rumplstilskin writes:
NO NO NO on 47 or your in it deep
June 25, 2008
9:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Unions like any cartel want to crush competition. Right to work just provides competition for the unions. I am consistent in my distaste for any cartel, especially government sanctioned cartels such as labor unions. All cartels increase the cost of goods and services because there is no competition. Competition lowers prices and improves services.
The impact of card check legislation will lower employment levels. If you are fortunate to work in a company without the option to move its labor force, you will be a winner. Even companies forced to deal with unions will seek higher levels of automation to lower employment levels. However, most will not be so fortunate. Michigan is a clear example of lower employment levels associated with a militant, union work force. If you want Colorado to become another Michigan, you should vote no on Amendment 47. If you want a vibrant economy with lots of employment choices, you should vote yes on Amendment 47.
June 25, 2008
10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
The right to work statute will make it impossible for unions to require people to pay unions who don't want to be members of unions. The current requirement that people be allowed to "opt out" of part of the dues has proven spotty and difficult. Workers have been harassed, intimidated and injured. too. Many of those who try to pay only those expenses for wage negotiations and representation have had to file in court to obtain the numbers.
As for those who state that workers should not apply where there is a union there is also the prospect of the new "post card" replacement of the secret ballot.
Many of the old union shops were voted in years ago. Should all new workers be forced into the union mold? Right to work will permit people to leave the union behind. Unions are not worker friendly. They are politician friendly. Just ask Ritter.
Even rational arguments in favor of unions admit that unions are opposed by more people than support them. There is good reason for this: the good that unions sponsored has been solidified in laws and regulations.
Strikes don't help workers. NO matter what gains are made, the time off of work will never be made up and the earnings are gone. The businesses will delay hiring and cut positions. That will mean that the economy will not benefit.
let people choose and remove the opportunity for unions to slither in by threatening people into signing post cards or simply forging the signatures.
I don't need a union, I paid for one and got nothing from it. My husband has been in three different unions. In two of them he made far less than he has made at the same job at non-union businesses. Last winter we had our income reduced because the company lost two lucrative contracts. Fortunately, they lost them to union companies and those drivers were late so often the contracts were voided. For the months of December, January and February the company paid our health insurance. They didn't say a word about it. They just eliminated the worker payments. Now they are taking twenty five dollars a week until we catch up. The drivers who quit weren't charged at all. Non-union. The union shop reduced all paychecks when they lost one contract and then laid off three workers. They ended up with ten or twelve gone and every month the union dues were deducted, no matter how small the checks. As for pay. only one union job paid near what this job averages and we come out with better take home because there are no dues.
Let people make up their own minds. If unions are beneficial they will survive. If not, and they are not forced on people, they will die out. If we have them forced on us, the businesses will move away from the unions and leave the workers behind. The first goal of any business must be profit or there is no reason to be in business.
June 25, 2008
11:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
YES on 47 to protect your paycheck and your choice.
June 26, 2008
12:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
blh1616 writes:
Well it is no surprise that Sen Mitchell would write an article in support of Amendment 47. After all he did introduce the following legislation this past year, all targeting unions/potential unions:
SB08-056 - Labor Union Participation Discrimination - Essentially Amendment 47 in bill form. .
SB08-086 - Prohibit Employee Partnership Agreements - His response to Governor Bill Ritter's executive order allowing state employees to form partnerships with the state.
These were Senator Mitchell's crowning achievements, two anti-worker bills that didn't even make it out of committee.
Just a side note - Why does everyone use Michigan as THE union example? Unions also have high prevalence in other parts of the country such as California and the northeast - the economic capitols of the country. But it is convenient, kind of like saying all businesses are like Enron. Decisions from the top of US auto have affected their business much more than their assembly line workers and the union that represents them. After all can you stay competitive when most Americans would rather have a foreign car than a domestic car be it for quality, image or fuel efficiency. And although Toyota does have union plants, it continues to sell more and more cars and is now the #1 auto maker in the US.
June 26, 2008
12:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
The shameful and corrupt Denver Chamber vote to oppose Amendment 47 is wrong on numerous fronts.
There are clear social and economic benefits to allowing workers to freely choose whether or not to associate with a union. From job creation to the number of employees covered by health insurance, Right to Work states have consistently exceeded their non-Right to Work counterparts in almost every metric of economic performance.
The values promoted by this Chamber are generally admirable, yet when asked to support the extension of equal rights to all Coloradans the Chamber sadly balked.
Amendment 47 would also bring the same rights state employees and state management enjoy to all Coloradans. Just 9 months ago the Governor gave state employees (and state management) this same protection when he invited the Unions to organize state employees in the name of partnership. The Chamber, led by the Governor’s former college buddy, oddly said nearly nothing in opposition.
This Chambers’ adoption of selective union-funded statistics fails to capture the numerous advantages of Right to Work states. The National Institute for Labor Relations Research published a response to the deceptive, union-backed study cited by the unions. The Institute demonstrated that states that protect employees' freedom of association enjoy higher real wages and lower costs of living. In other words, workers' paychecks go much further in right-to-work states.
While it's hardly surprising to find a union official defending an arrangement that ensures his organization can earn from forced dues; the Chambers adoption of the same reasoning is illogical, intellectually dishonest, and again frankly corrupt. It calls into question the Chamber’s coalition ‘Coloradans for Responsible Reform’.
The attempt on Coors. Remember the union official Jessie Knox or Ernie Duran who called on the Coors family to take their son to DIA’s LT parking in the car trunk. The printing of that quote is clear evidence that corrupt unions are in power.
The enjoining of the character assassination is disgusting and a low blow for those that purport to invite active civic minded people of all shades to engage. Worse here, we have a ‘business’ Chamber in coalition with labor bosses who promote death and double speaking politicians who seek cover. Coalition with such actors deserves strong questioning of such an organization and its political arm CFRR.
While the moral case for a right-to-work law rests on the principle that no worker should be compelled to join a union against his or her will, the economic benefits of protecting employee freedom are clear.
Colorado voters would do well to heed the example of our more prosperous right-to-work neighbors when contemplating what to do about the state's economic woes, budget woes, a 30%+ DPS dropout rate, and why thousands of Colorado children have no health care.
June 27, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Drop out rate high, children in poverty statistics alarming, business fighting unions, that tell you anything about Colorado? Ski resorts bring in workers from out of country, saves them a buck while having record profits, state thinks it should spend billions to get skiers to resorts quicker. The state stamp has a Wyoming mountain on it, Coors put out an ad a few years ago with the sierra Nevada mountains in it. Mass confusion. But keep the working folks, some who have to work 2 jobs, from making too much money...
July 1, 2008
11:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zowner writes:
As an owner of a Union shop I will tell you that the non-Union employees receive basically no benefit from their forced contributions. Granted their contributions are a reduced percentage of their wage compared to the 'full' Union members, but they receive nothing in return. We provide medical insurance and vacation pay to our non-Union employees and we didn't need a Union contract to force us to do it. Employers will usually have to pay some type of fee to the Union as well on non-Union employees. I will tell you that I would rather have set up shop in a Right To Work State where I wouldn't have the Local breathing down my neck to force all my employees to be full Union members. If I did enforce it, I would be bankrupt from the ridiculous fringes and fees I would have to pay to the Union.
July 23, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
ChrisMo writes:
New to Arizona and say NO! to "right to work!" It drives down wages! It's difficult to survive! We need the wages to support the rising costs of living. Everything is going up and the paychecks are horrible in Arizona!
People should have more options when it comes to union and non-union. I would not want to be in a union. I want to get paid good money to earn a living! Hell, just the other day on the news, a guy was walking the freeway all dressed up with a poster sign saying "WILL WORK VERY HARD FOR A GOOD COMPANY." We can't even get jobs, good workers with good experience can't get jobs because of these "right to work" laws. It's just not fair! At least in places like NY, you can get a decent paying job! Why not in Phoenix? Why not anywhere?