Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Home › News › Local News

State workers to cast votes on union coalition

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published May 21, 2008 at 9 p.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

About 21,000 state workers will decide in the next few days whether to join a coalition of the unions that pushed the hardest for Gov. Bill Ritter's executive order granting them a larger voice in state government.

An e-mail sent to all state employees Wednesday said the ballots were mailed.

The unions, which had fewer than 6,000 dues-paying state workers on their rolls before the Nov. 2 order, could soon represent the vast majority of the state's 32,000 qualifying workers.

The Colorado Association of Public Employees (a division of SEIU), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers formed a coalition called Colorado WINS four days after Ritter's order and launched a furious recruitment campaign.

They submitted to the state Department of Labor signed "cards of support" from at least 30 percent of workers in five of state employees' seven worker categories.

Opponents of the executive order say Ritter has unnecessarily opened the door to future wage disputes and, ultimately, higher taxes.

Ritter has emphasized that his order bans strikes, prohibits binding arbitration and bars unions from charging dues to nonmembers. Last week he signed a state worker strike ban into law.

Comments

  • May 22, 2008

    1:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ben_Arvada writes:

    "Ritter has emphasized that his order bans strikes, prohibits binding arbitration and bars unions from charging dues to nonmembers."

    http://bendegrow.com/2008/colorado-st...

    This statement by Ritter is inaccurate, and makes you wonder if he has read his own order. Unions are not barred from charging representation fees to nonmembers. Despite the governor's public assurances, his executive order leaves open the door to coercive fees being charged to non-union members through private bargaining negotiations.

    It is also important to note that a majority of ballots cast, not a majority of workers, determines whether the union wins the election. Workers who would otherwise vote No but choose not to participate make it easier for the unions to become their exclusive representative.

  • May 22, 2008

    3:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AnarchoCapitalist writes:

    Ben from Arvada is 100% correct.

    http://caldara.i2i.org/?p=216

    Ritter is being dishonest.

  • May 23, 2008

    12:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    tesujidragon writes:

    Ben from Arvada is your buddy from your lobbying group. Don't think that you two logging in and backing each other up is going to fool anybody.

    The fact is that the poor management of state workers by the legislature has created a climate were many state workers want to represent themselves at the capitol by joining partnerships.

    The legislature could have prevented this situation by following the law by paying competitive wages. Playing games by saying that our wages are among the 6th highest of all states, while our benefits are 49th may fool reporters and some newspaper readers, but it has left the state with hiring and employee morale problems.

  • May 23, 2008

    12:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    EricV_34 writes:

    I don't know where you are getting your "Facts". I took an almost 50% pay cut to come to work for the state working in the same field of work.

    Currently the only real benefit I see as a state employee is job stability and not having to worry about my job being out sourced to another country.

    Do I see a need for a Union? Yes, we have been lied to for the last five years with the “Pay for Performance Plan” that was a bait and switch Owens’s pulled.

    Previously as a state employee we would receive step advances based on years of service and pay grade. Now with the lie “Pay for Performance” we get cost of living increases maybe. Do I agree with the idea of pay for performance? Yes, but it is a slap in the face to be told you have a great yearly review then to get the same as an employee that is performing poorly.

    So next time your in line waiting to be served at a DMV or on the phone with another state organization. Remember the person behind the desk may have had great customer service before but five years of lies leads to disgruntled employees. Remember nothing is free and you get what you pay for!

    EricV