Labor issues may find ballot

'Right-to-work' measure, reins on firing workers and allowing corporate fraud suits in mix

Joanne Kelley and David Milstead

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

The next showdown between Colorado's labor movement and various business interests may be decided by voters in November.

Conservatives have been collecting signatures for a "right-to-work" initiative that would outlaw arrangements requiring all employees to pay fees for union representation, whether they are members or not.

A coalition backed by labor organizations is behind two other recent proposals - one to restrict the ability of companies to fire workers and another targeting corporate fraud.

The three ballot proposals aim to alter Colorado's Constitution and promise to further politicize the labor environment in a state that's increasingly a battleground for labor issues, despite the lower-than-average percentage of residents who actually belong to unions.

"Colorado has long occupied a middle ground on labor issues, and recent efforts to change that balance are only stirring the pot," said William Berger, a Denver attorney who represents management in labor matters. "We shouldn't use the constitution to voice shifting political agendas."

Former Qwest employee Larry Ellingson, who signed on as one of the main proponents of the corporate liability measure, said, "I don't see how anybody can be opposed to holding people accountable."

But Denver-based business groups oppose the two measures being floated by the organized labor advocates. "They're just anathema to our notion of how business should operate in Colorado," said Dan Pilcher, a spokesman for the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry.

Tamra Ward of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce described the labor-backed measures as "a direct assault on our business climate. It's critical we do everything possible to keep them from moving forward."

An attorney hired by the Denver chamber has been challenging the two labor-backed issues in the ballot-approval process. The opponents say the "just cause" measure eliminates the "at-will" system of employment that governs working in Colorado. The fraud initiative could be a bonanza for attorneys who could clog the courts with suits against business.

CACI has supported the right-to-work concept in the past, but its position on the ballot measure has been "neutral" so far, according to Pilcher. The Denver Metro Chamber hasn't taken a stand on it, either.

The effort to get a right-to-work measure on the ballot gained momentum last year after Gov. Bill Ritter signed an executive order giving state workers the right to organize, which some say makes Colorado look like a less friendly place to do business.

"The unions are in the process of gaining more and more ground," said Curt Cerveny, the political consultant who is running the campaign for the constitutional amendment. "This is all about making Colorado a business-friendly state."

But Colorado AFL-CIO Executive Director Mike Cerbo dismissed the argument that the amendment could bolster the business environment.

"Businesses are moving here," Cerbo said. "I've never heard a prospective business come in here and say, 'How hard can I screw my workers if I come here?' That's not on their list of needs."

Supporters of the labor-backed initiatives have been moving ahead on two fronts: vowing to fight the right-to-work measure - which they've dubbed the "work for less" measure - while they push to get the two others on the state ballot this fall.

"We plan on raising enough money to actually pass these two measures into law," said Mitch Ackerman, Colorado State Council president for the Service Employees International Union. "Those very legitimate economic concerns are what we want to be spending our time on. We want to be helping working families."

Ackerman said labor unions have provided the seed money for two of the ballot proposals, but he expects a grass-roots fundraising effort will emerge through the efforts of a loose coalition calling itself "Protect Colorado's Future."

Documents filed with the secretary of state's office say that group was registered by Julie Wells. According to documents at the office and the Web site CampaignMoney.com, Wells is also the registered agent for New West Fellowship Group and the Alliance For Colorado's Families, two 527 political-issue committees funded in part by wealthy progressives Tim Gill and Pat Stryker.

Via e-mail, Wells declined to comment, saying her work is confidential and that she is "a bookkeeper/campaign compliance person who has numerous clients."

Ackerman said the group has yet to tap those particular activists for financial support but said they might be approached as the campaign moves forward.

Some labor leaders say the ballot proposals detract from more pressing issues.

"People aren't talking about unionism, one way or the other," said John Fleck, who recently took over as head of the Denver Area Labor Federation. "When contract negotiations come up, people want to know, 'Are we going to get a raise? Or is it all going to go to health care?' "

Most employees covered by labor contracts already have protections against "arbitrary and capricious" firings, Fleck said.

"There's other public policy we need to be working on," Fleck said. "Workers aren't talking about the 'right to work.' They're talking about health care."

Still, he said he expects labor unions "to get behind the (labor-backed) proposals 100 percent."

In a letter to members, the president of the Colorado arm of the American Federation of Teachers cautioned that a right- to-work constitutional amendment would override majority decisions in the workplace.

"We once again must fight a ballot initiative that would undermine our union contracts," Dave Sanger wrote in his Feb. 11 letter. "We should let employees and employers negotiate what's best for them in the workplace."

kelleyj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5068

Proposed initiatives

Right to work

* Who's behind it: Chief proponent is Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier.

* Where it stands: Moved to the petition phase; signatures are being collected.

* Details: Would forbid workers from being forced to join unions as a condition of employment, even though federal law already prohibits such agreements. It would outlaw "union shop" agreements that require employees covered by collective bargaining contracts to pay fees for the union representation. Applies to new contracts and renewal of existing ones.

Just cause

* Who's behind it: Coalition of labor groups and individuals

* Where it stands: Hearings this week at the secretary of state's office and the legislature

* The details: Employees could be fired or suspended only if employer can prove: incompetence, policy violations, willful misconduct, conviction of a crime involving "moral turpitude," employer bankruptcy, or economic circumstances that provide for layoffs of 10 percent. Would apply to for-profit and nongovernment entities.

Corporate fraud

* Who's behind it: The same groups behind the "just cause" initiative

* Where it stands: Moving through the title-setting process and hearings

* Details: Private citizens could sue a business or its employees after a corporate fraud.

• March 6, 2008

  8:05 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  Unions are dinosaurs and thugs for the Dem party. They are also productivity killers in a rapidly globalizing and increasingly price competitive world markets. Unions chase capital away to where it is treated better.

  Just look at a comparison between Detroit (UAW) and Indianapolis (capitalist and competitive). Fifty years ago, Detroit was the fourth largest city in the United States, with a population of 1.7 million people, and at $8,500 per year, one of the richest cities in terms of per capita income. It was 3.5 times the size of Indianapolis, the 26th largest city, whose income was almost identical on a per capita basis (see population chart above, click to enlarge). Today, Detroit and Indianapolis are the 11th and 12th largest cities, respectively, with Detroit's population cut in half from 50 years ago (and losing 3,000 people per year this decade), while Indianapolis has grown by 70% during the same time frame. Remarkably, Indianapolis now has a per capita income 50% greater than Detroit's.

  How did this happen? Detroit's city government is far larger, more regulation prone, dominated by unions and more bureaucratic than Indianapolis's city government. The ratio of residents to city employees, a key measure of city government productivity, is 50:1 in Detroit, one of the worst in the United States, but is 203:1 in Indianapolis, one of the best.

  Another answer: Indianapolis has been committed to a turnaround based on privatization of city services, and creating a climate more conducive to entrepreneurship, not unions. During the prior decade, the city's population increased by nearly 50,000 residents, induced by a more business-friendly environment and its corollary, smaller government. The Indianapolis turnaround was engendered via a three-part program that included privatization and transparency--not unions.

  Bottom Line: UAW = U Ain't Workin.' Lets' not Michiganize Colorado.

• March 17, 2008

  2:18 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  tallport writes:

  Dear Editor:
  
  Thank you for your recent report, "Labor issues may find ballot". This article outlined what promises to be a political street fight unless community leaders come together and work the matter out. At the heart of the divide is the typical false premise that giving employees contractual rights is not "business friendly". This is already an "at will" state where most employees can be fired anytime for almost anything, ie, without "just cause", but that is not good enough for the work-for-less lobby, the so called "right to work" crowd. They are is a conglomerate of powerful corporate entities with a front group based in Virginia. Their purpose is to cripple labor unions and to keep the practice of democracy in the workplace an elusive goal for as many people as they can. They will demonize unions with double talk and clever slogans and glorify union busting under the scared umbrella of all that is "business friendly" Federal law already protects the rights of non-members. Nobody has to pay for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. The individual freedom argument used by work for less proponents is a sham.
  
  Front line employees in right to work for less states make an average of $5,333 less than those in free bargaining states. Their benefits are greatly decreased and their job security is generally non-existent. Unionized workers are simply better off and claims to the contrary ignore the basic facts. The key point is that labor activists bear no ill-will towards business or fair levels of profit. We understand that business and labor are mutually beneficial partners when balance and cooperation exist. Those of us who represent labor only seek to empower employees as an inclusive component of business and not as an expendable tool. Do not be fooled. Vote NO on any work for less ballot initiative.

• March 19, 2008

  8:32 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Staxman writes:

  If I lived in Colorado, I'd certainly vote yes on I-62.

  If I argued that employers should be forbidden to fire employees even with just cause, anyone would say (rightly) that that was absurd. So why should an employer be able to fire an employee without just cause?

  If just cause for firing is present, then the firing would presumably be upheld. If it isn't present, then the employer is wrong to fire the employee.

  If you believe that the current employment at will doctrine is satisfactory as it stands, then what do you say to a person who is fired irrationally or even maliciously?