Last-minute deal tosses labor initiatives off Colorado ballot

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 2, 2008 at 7:37 a.m.

Text size

LABOR-BACKED PROPOSALS THAT WON'T BE PUT TO A VOTE:

Amendment 53 A "corporate fraud" initiative that would have made an executive criminally liable for fraudulent activity they know about but fail to report within their businesses.

Amendment 55 A ban on firing employees without a specific reason and the ability for them to sue if they decide they've been improperly let go.

Amendment 56 A proposed requirement that employers with 20 or more employees pay for 80 percent of an individual's health care premiums or 70 percent of dependent coverage.

Amendment 57 A safe workplace measure that would have allowed injured employees to seek additional damages in court beyond workers compensation benefits.

AMENDMENTS UNIONS AND BUSINESS WILL FIGHT TOGETHER

Amendment 47 A "right-to-work" amendment that would do away with the current practice of allowing workers to vote on whether they want an "all-union" agreement that requires employees to pay dues to cover the cost of being represented by a union that negotiates wages and other benefits.

Amendment 49 A measure that would bar governments in Colorado from taking union dues directly out of workers' paychecks.Prohibit automatic deductions for special interest groups and unions from public payrolls, such as those for state and county government workers, as well as cities and special districts.

Amendment 54 A proposed ban on sole-source government contractors contributing to political candidates. Opponents have said that the measure takes aim at unions, which hold exclusive-rights bargaining contracts with some governments.

More Colorado Government

Comments

October 2, 2008

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Romanesco writes:

Wait...unions can just "remove" ballot initiatives?
October 2, 2008

7:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mayor_Quimby writes:

Its because all three were going to go down in flames.
October 2, 2008

8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Elwood writes:

How many union members approved this? Did they have a vote?? Or did the all powerful union just decide it was best for their agenda?

Just goes to show who unions represent, the union bosses, not the members.
October 2, 2008

8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

Why doesn't business remove THEIR anti-worker initiatives as part of this bargain? They want it all... low wages, no benefits. One sided rule.
October 2, 2008

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

Mayor_Quimby writes: "Its [sic] because all three were going to go down in flames."

They were well ahead in polling. We deserved to vote on them to balance the anti-worker initiatives of the slave-labor businesses.
October 2, 2008

8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Romanesco writes:

AC writes: "We deserved to vote on them to balance the anti-worker initiatives of the slave-labor businesses."

Absolutely. Even if they weren't well ahead in polling, the citizens of Colorado deserve to vote on them...
October 2, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

GregoryB writes:

Another politician bought with Union dollars. Citizens get screwed, while Hickenlooper and Ritter line their pockets will Union dollars.
October 2, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

The simple rule is vote against anything big labor favors and vote for anything big labor opposes. Big labor is a legalized cartel with two purposes: control the supply and price of labor. The result of big labor's control is higher prices, lower quality goods and services, and lower employment.

Right to work is absolutely essential with the coming card check legislation. Big labor wants to force you to pay union dues. Right to work is your only defense against forced payment of union dues. Right to work may be your only hope to maintain employment. Any organization and industry that has a choice will not accept outrageous union demands. The work will be moved to right to work states or other countries. Unless you are in a safe industry which must hire a local workforce, unionization will lead to the loss of your job.

In addition to right to work, the other ballot initiatives opposed by labor are sensible and good government.

Amendment 49: bar automatic union dues deductions from public employee payrolls
Amendment 54: Would close a remaining loophole in Colorado election law by banning the practice of "Pay to Play"

Together we can restore balance to Colorado government by limiting the extreme control exercised by big labor. Big labor is actively working against the interests of the economic health of Colorado for its narrow self interest.
October 2, 2008

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

If these initiatives were to pass, Colorado would lose jobs and have a harder time finding new jobs; unions know that, that is why they pulled their initiatives; these amendments would not be friendly to businesses wanting to do business in Colorado.
October 2, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Romanesco writes:

"If these initiatives were to pass, Colorado would lose jobs and have a harder time finding new jobs; unions know that, that is why they pulled their initiatives; these amendments would not be friendly to businesses wanting to do business in Colorado."

The point is, Colorado citizens need to voice their desires via the voting process!!!!!
October 2, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

DenverTea writes:

There are intitiatives on the ballot that reverse affirmative action, even though when they were collecting signatures, they siad it Protected affirmative action. Watch out what you vote on. Also, No on 48 - it simply goes to far. We need to keep our reproductive rights safe. 48 would open a host of issues even for families who want or need IVF to have children.
October 2, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

Might have been helpful for the news article to mention the numbers of the amendments and what they were for; poor reporting there.

Good for Colorado that these were removed. What really hit home for me was a local TV piece about how incredibly nervous restauranters were about Amend. 56 especially and how many would simply close their doors.

And for the record, the measures that will be pulled are Amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57.

Amendment 53 would have held executives criminally liable under state law for corporate wrongdoings;
Amendment 55 would have require businesses to have "just cause" for firing workers;
Amendment 56 would have force businesses with 20 or more employees to provide health-care coverage; and
Amendment 57 would have allow injured employees to seek damages outside the workers' compensation system.
October 2, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

Nonsense. These initiatives would have strengthened workers' positions with regard to business. There is currently little balance... and you folks who don't mind ripping off labor cut off yor own noses hoping the big Fat Cat bosses might buy you a medical plan that will pay to stitch it back on.

Labor and business must be in balance. With the anti-labor amendments the "corporate worshippers" put on the ballot first, these countermeasures make sense.
October 2, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

AC writes: "We deserved to vote on them to balance the anti-worker initiatives of the slave-labor businesses."

Hey AC if you don't want to work (assuming that you DO work which is a generous assumption) for a "slave labor business" go out and open up your own business and hire some people to work for you. As a former small-business owner I can attest that your mindset will change quite quickly!!
October 2, 2008

9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Remember how in the 1990s we the voters passed a constitutional amendment that regulates the hunting season for mama bears? Seriously, we did! Because two cubs were found to be orphaned as a result of a spring bear hunting season, we the people actually amended the State Constitution to forever prohibit spring bear hunting again.

It is just too easy to amend the Constitution in this state. Bear hunting seasons should be regulated by the Department of Wildlife, not the State Constitution! The DOW can change its hunting regulations to respond to what people want, but can also change them again later to respond to what may be needed down the road. The Constitution is carved in stone. Only another amendment to the Constitution can change it.

Now look at the way this story has turned out: One group (in this case, organized labor), didn't like a particular initiative for a constitutional amendment (amendment 47), so they simply petitioned their own counterproductive amendments onto the ballot, as a way of bargaining with the sponsors of amendment 47, to have it withdrawn!

Consider voting 'yes' on the Legislature's referendum O, which will make it more difficult to petition proposed constitutional amendments onto the ballot. Instead, as an alternative, it will make it easier to petition for proposed new statutes (state laws) onto the ballots. A statute can be changed by the legislature if it turns out to be a mistake. A constitutional amendment cannot.

I think that in this case organized labor, to their credit, recognized that their proposed constitutional amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57 were playing russian roulette with jobs in this state, and that's why they are withdrawing them. But look how easily they got them onto the ballot in the first place.
October 2, 2008

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

In response to AC:

When was the last time that unions CREATED jobs? Never.
Businesses create jobs (I know from first-hand experience) and if the environment in Colorado is made MORE hostile to job creation it's quite easy for companies to set up shop in other states or in Mexico (think maquiladoras).
October 2, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

Romanesco; make sure you vote AGAINST ref O as that would make it harder for citizens to initiate amendments. I believe the unions initiated the amendments that allows them to remove them too.
October 2, 2008

9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Fireball writes:

Wouldn't it be nice if this journalist stated which initiatives, by number, were being pulled? Glan other posters are able to fill in the necessary details.
October 2, 2008

9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

jacka writes:

YES on 47, 49 and 54.

Too bad Union Bosses, Politicians and Corrupt Businessmen have pulled Amendment 53 - Corporate Fraud. You would think during these times that this law is needed more then ever.
October 2, 2008

9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverinfidel writes:

You would think the evaporating support big labor has encountered over the past few decades would clue them in. They don't offer what they claim, and therefore have to change the rules (loss of a private ballot) or threaten to punish everyone if you don't go along (piling on these horrible amendments knowing they only hurt workers). Sort of like fixing someone's knee's for not agreeing. Old habits die hard apparently.

Personally I would love for all these to pass. When every worker gets screwed they would know exactly who pushed this crap. Union hacks may be crooked, slimy, underhanded communists, but they aren't all stupid. Even they know these measures only hurt unions in the long run, hence the rolling over.

And AC - You should sit down with an elementary economics text and focus intently on the chapters concerning labor and free markets. How many jobs have you created????? If you are so confident in your beloved unions, then start a biz, pay livable wages, provide health care to all, and let the employees unionize. Then you can be that business owner who "doesn't rip off labor"? Its almost laughable.

You and yours would rather cry about being a victim. Why learn employable skills and get an education when you can just join a union and continue your status as a victim?

Strong backs and weak minds can be a dangerous mix.
October 2, 2008

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

The blue book has already been printed and mailed therefore any "deadline" is or certainly should be null and void OR those wanting to remove these at the last minute should have to pay for the printing costs and "green"penalties assessed for estimated landfill space to hold all the high gloss flyers they been bombarding us with for weeks & months that as grandmother use to tell door-to-door catalog salesmen "Get lost, your pages don`t even make good out house paper!"

To Denver Tea Hiring a person for gender or ethnicity as opposed to qualification is like IVF counter productive, if your plumbing cannot get the job done the last thing you should be doing is trying to super charge it and risk calfing out a litter of one pound babies with a life time of debilitating health issues and not for the dollar factor either for the misery of a lifetime in pain and agony!
October 2, 2008

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mayor_Quimby writes:

"Also, No on 48 - it simply goes to far. We need to keep our reproductive rights safe. 48 would open a host of issues even for families who want or need IVF to have children."

Nowhere does this amendment take away your right to kill your own children in a barbaric manner. Read the bill. All it says is that you (the voter) believe that life begins at conception.
October 2, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Willy writes:

davies writes:

It is just too easy to amend the Constitution in this state. ... The Constitution is carved in stone. Only another amendment to the Constitution can change it.

Exactly davies - our constitution is a mess right now, cluttered with bad amendments that looked good on the surface, but with the long term implications unknown. The State legislature is supposed to be responsive to peoples needs. If they aren't fire them.
October 2, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

MrJim writes:

You're wrong Quimby, it defines in our state constitution that life begins at conception, it doesn't just say the voters believe it. Once it is defined this way, then a mis-carraige could require an autopsy, and a mis-carried fetus (now person) will require proper disposal, as would a 22 year old who died or was killed.
October 2, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Scott writes:

It will be interesting (sickening?) to see what Guido and Vito (the union goons) get out of this.

Scott
October 2, 2008

10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Elwood writes:

I agree with Scott, What kind of backroom deal did Ritter make with the unions this time?!?!
October 2, 2008

10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Joe_Lunchbucket writes:

As always, the labor unions got their payoff -- to heck with the people who really work. And btw, these business execs are fools! How much will they pay for protection next election?
October 2, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes: "Hey AC if you don't want to work (assuming that you DO work which is a generous assumption) for a "slave labor business" go out and open up your own business and hire some people to work for you. As a former small-business owner I can attest that your mindset will change quite quickly!!"

Hey Slouch, progressive employers who treat workers with fairness and dignity prosper. Sounds like *your* problem was you were trying to get off cheap and pay people dirt to put money in *your* pockets. No wonder you found yourself in a bind.

I've worked longer and harder than you and I don't belong to a union, I am simply for trickle-UP economics.
October 2, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

denverinfidel writes: "And AC - You should sit down with an elementary economics text and focus intently on the chapters concerning labor and free markets. How many jobs have you created????? If you are so confident in your beloved unions, then start a biz, pay livable wages, provide health care to all, and let the employees unionize. Then you can be that business owner who "doesn't rip off labor"? Its almost laughable."

It's always amusing how you rip-off artists always misinterpret "free markets" to mean "labor doesn't get a voice." Just keep sitting next to the table of the Fat Cat corporatists and hope they'll feed you some crumbs for your "loyalty" to their mistreatment of one of the most valuable "means of production."

"You and yours would rather cry about being a victim. Why learn employable skills and get an education when you can just join a union and continue your status as a victim?"

You really are clueless. You're the one who needs to study.
October 2, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mayor_Quimby writes:

"You're wrong Quimby, it defines in our state constitution that life begins at conception, it doesn't just say the voters believe it. Once it is defined this way, then a mis-carraige could require an autopsy, and a mis-carried fetus (now person) will require proper disposal, as would a 22 year old who died or was killed."

Yes, but it doesnt say this in the amendment. That leaves the state legislature to require the rules and laws governing the amendment and since its squarely in Dem hands, there is little this amendment will do that is not symbolic.
October 2, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

davies writes: "Consider voting 'yes' on the Legislature's referendum O, which will make it more difficult to petition proposed constitutional amendments onto the ballot. Instead, as an alternative, it will make it easier to petition for proposed new statutes (state laws) onto the ballots. A statute can be changed by the legislature if it turns out to be a mistake. A constitutional amendment cannot. I think that in this case organized labor, to their credit, recognized that their proposed constitutional amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57 were playing russian roulette with jobs in this state, and that's why they are withdrawing them. But look how easily they got them onto the ballot in the first place."

Definitely YES on Ref O. I would go further. Outlaw the hiring of paid petition circulators from out of state. Limit out-of-state money from coming in and using Colorado as a test bed for social issues initiatives. Require TRUE grass-roots people-oriented initiatives. Under current rules, anyone with enough money and agenda can BUY their way onto our ballot and force us to vote on THEIR issues based on completely misleading campaigns that don't focus on the real issues.
October 2, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

chickenlittle1234 writes:

Hot dog! AC and davies are truly on point. Referendums have turned the legislative process into a yes or no question with absolutely no nuance or consideration of long term consequences. I say the latter because it's almost impossible to repeal these referendums, even after it's painfully obvious that they've created far more harm than good. The genius behind our legislative design is that the process is slowed. Knee-jerk populist ideas get scrutinized so that idiotic ones can be put in File 13.

Let me go even further and recommend we ditch term limits. We don't need them because we already have them - it's called being informed and voting. Term limits are lazy and clumsy. If we're truly worried about the advantage incumbents have, require public financing of campaigns. That ensures equal access to media and money, and who knows, it might even force candidates to address issues instead of bash each other.
October 2, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

jbowen43 writes:

Apparently some believe extreme control by the bosses and their lackeys in government like Greg B is preferable to majority rule.
October 2, 2008

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

tirnanog41 writes:

So now employers can continue to fire people for no reason in
Colorado. How is that a good thing? That s*cks!! Now I guess
I'm going to have to vote for the ballot measures that the unions
don't like since they gave into the business leaders on that one.
The reason it makes me angry is that I have lost jobs without
cause because of bosses who just did not like me when I was
doing a very good job. So screw you union leaders.
October 2, 2008

12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

AC,

You are wrong about your assertion that unions are part of the market. Unions are a constraint imposed on the market by government (the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 to be precise). It is precise to assert that unions are government sanctioned cartels. Few businesses would willingly negotiate with a cartel. Businesses are forced to negotiate by the force of law.

Unions exist to subvert the normal market for labor. A market involves exchanges by willing buyers and sellers. If either party is forced to participate in a transaction, the market has been subverted. The results of government imposed labor cartels are higher prices, lower quality, and lower employment as compared to the results without government imposed labor cartels.
October 2, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

kirbysfriend22 writes:

No surprise....many foolish posts on this one. This was the right decision and it's good to see the two groups work together to get it done.

Unions exist to protect the rights of the workers. I could go on and on about all the benefits brought to Americans working within and outside of union shops. But you're all aware. Only the ignorant and greedy will argue it. Union is American. It's a freedom we deserve.

Keep trying you management scare tactics if you like.
October 2, 2008

12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

DaC writes:

Hickenlooper and Ritter did not benefit financially from the withdrawal of these amendments. They simply helped stop a business crisis from hitting Colorado.

Amendment 55, the "Just Cause" amendment, sought to amend Colorado's constitution to severely limit the reasons each and every private business could terminate its employees. The Just Cause amendment rests on an absurd premise--that courts, state government, and voters can control the day-to-day personnel operations of businesses by limiting why they can fire a worker.

Democrats and Republican businessowners alike were rightly terrified of the initiative. It also would not have benefited employees, as practically the bill would have stifled grown in Colorado. Large businesses would be very reluctant to relocate to Colorado knowing this was one of two "just cause" states in the country. And small or family-owned businesses--from manicurists to electricians--would have lost profit by retaining employees, and ultimately would face the choice of a lengthy, expensive lawsuit from a fired employee, or simply going out of business.

Colorado organized labor leaders should be ashamed that they ever inserted this initiative. Simply put, organized labor held state businesses hostage. Organized labor leaders should be held accountable.
October 2, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

spyder writes:

What was the agreed upon extortion price that the unions agreed on to remove their ballots? Was it still the $3,000,000.00 they asked for in their first memorandum, or did they raise the ransom price?
October 2, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

spyder and others: I'm guessing there is only one thing the unions received in exchange for dropping these proposed amendments: absolution from blame if any of them were to actually pass.

They knew these were very bad proposals from the get go. This was just their tactic to have amendment 47 withdrawn. Yet look how they got their rank and file to sign the petitions anyway. I would feel a little foolish supporting an amendment, when even the sponsors knew it was reckless.
October 2, 2008

1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

666 writes:

I guess the unions realized that their measures were impractical (and in some cases borderline unconstitutional). The icing on the cake will be if 47 passes.

I think the current Qwest ordeal is an example of why 47 needs to pass. Throughout the bargaining process, CWA deluged the union members with communist propaganda and defamatory statements about Qwest. Then, once a tentative deal was reached, they say to the members "OK, now we want you to support this. Please vote yes." And obviously when the membership voted, they were thinking more of the Trotsky-esque rantings of the Politburo than they were of the meek little flip-flop after the fact.

It's sad but true, but (just like in the House vote on the bailout bill this past Monday) hot heads and injured pride prevailed over the greater good.
October 2, 2008

2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

mmannino writes: "AC, You are wrong about your assertion that unions are part of the market. Unions are a constraint imposed on the market by government (the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 to be precise). It is precise to assert that unions are government sanctioned cartels. Few businesses would willingly negotiate with a cartel. Businesses are forced to negotiate by the force of law."

Sorry, mmannino, you need just a bit more education. You just don't like it that labor can organize and represent itself in dealing with business. Same way a business has to deal with "cartels" in buying whatever other commodities it needs to produce its product, it has to deal with labor. You just want to be able to pay the cheapest wages possible and no benefits to the "commodity" that is most important to your success. So sorry.
October 2, 2008

3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

jjbaldw writes:

"We're here today as citizens of Colorado to do the right thing for our state," ....because voters clearly can't form educated opinions or do the right thing themselves.
October 2, 2008

5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

pewally writes:

Amazing that so many people still need the protectionism that was more necessary in an earlier time. From bustling free job websites to modern transportation and communication, our time gives the ability to get and retain a job without any governmental support of unions or from the passage of protectionist and entitling laws. Sure people should be free to unite and collectively wield more influence over employers, but the government should not have any obligations to unions nor should unions receive any special legal protection. And certainly, no laws should mandate how employment takes place within reasonable boundaries, as people can get another job if the one they have is objectionable - employers need to be competitive, and bad employers will not get employees. Of course, this means that a worker must work at being discerning, skillful, and strong - and of course, everyone is free to become an employer themselves - yes, it can be done and is done by millions who have the basic character and strength to take personal responsibility, and learn new skills as necessary. It is sad to see how many people are so frail in their grit that they need "laws" to protect their condition, and are too weak and selfish to make it on their own with the bountiful employment and opportunity of our times. Flat screen TV's, jobs you want, and life's niceties are not entitlements - but they are certainly attainable in our country - be thankful - not sukcling.
October 2, 2008

6:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

wstrnlady writes:

The headline should be $3 million buys back union's bad behavior.

Business and labor have just taken the rights of all Colorado voters into the so called smoke filled back room and secretly negotiated to extort money for votes.

The unions put those initiatives on the ballot knowing full well they were bad for Colorado business, and Colorado working families. But they didn't care. They were ready to gamble away their members futures. They already have $11 million dollars of union dues to fund their campaign now they have $3 million from Colorado Businesses and another $2 million from the NEA.

What are Ritter and Hickenlooper ready to pay next time?
October 2, 2008

6:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

WHATRIGHTS writes:

47 states that employees have the right to choose whether or not they pay union dues....if you have folks who do not want to join a union then why should they be forced to pay?

The initiative does not remove unions from the state, just give people the right to join or not.
October 2, 2008

8 p.m.

Suggest removal

milehighsoapbox writes:

They can't just pull them from the ballot. This is just plain stupid. When did unions come to rule this state, its voters, or the elections.

Unions had their place in society at one time, but not any more. They only serve to raise prices and costs for common Americans and drive businesses out of business.
October 2, 2008

9:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

LesterGovernment writes:

I'm surprised the so called 'business leaders' haven't been vilified here. How did so many stupid people get to be so rich? It looks like only Amendment 53 had enough popular support to actually pass. Their money would have been better spent fighting 53 and supporting 47, 49 and 54. I hope Isenberg has his hotels unionized.
October 2, 2008

11:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

AC,

I am not sure to what cartels you refer. We have anti trust legislation to deal with cartels. Labor is different. Labor is a cartel protected (and created) by legislation. Labor cartels are not part of a market. They are imposed on a market. Are you ignorant of the huge amount of labor law that imposes labor unions on businesses? The key point of a market is willing exchanges. Government mandates for labor unions are not willing exchanges. Labor unions are economic tyrrany.
October 3, 2008

7:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

uncledave writes:

Now we need an article in the Post detailing what our labor loving politicos will be getting from the Unions for the re-election campaigns. You can bet it'll be a lot more than $3million. They all scratch each others' backs. No wonder the public thinks that all politicians and unions are corrupt.
October 3, 2008

8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

RJS07 writes:

It is always unfortunate when blackmail pays off, which is exactly what this is.
October 3, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Maybe the unions will get their $3 million, but a "promise to raise" is somewhat less than a signed check in hand. Plus as uncledave says above, could be the unions are just trying to save face, and there is some other hidden deal to send the money back, or elsewhere. Weird story - who knows?
October 3, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

mmannino writes: "AC, I am not sure to what cartels you refer. We have anti trust legislation to deal with cartels. Labor is different. Labor is a cartel protected (and created) by legislation. Labor cartels are not part of a market. They are imposed on a market. Are you ignorant of the huge amount of labor law that imposes labor unions on businesses? The key point of a market is willing exchanges. Government mandates for labor unions are not willing exchanges. Labor unions are economic tyrrany."

Exactly wrong, mannino. Labor unions are the way an essential part of the market represents itself. Tyranny would result if there were *no* representation and business had its way unfettered in the use and abuse of the worker.

Just look at the mess this nation is in from a quarter century of anti-union free-marketeering. This current mess is what you get when you let business run free against the best interests of the nation. Unions and labor representation are an essential part of the mix that needs strengthening, not weakening. Otherwise we will get more of this.
October 3, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Diff writes:

No matter which side of these issues you are on...
Once it is on the ballot these and any other matters should be VOTED ON!
I just don't get how a bunch of suits - meeting in a high powered lawyers office, can just agree and then have removed an amendment referendum that was properly certified to be placed on the state wide ballot?
This seem like an out and out end around the democratic process!

How can the Governor and the legislature and the Secretary of State allow this just because these parties - NEVER ELECTED to represent me or any one in State government matters BTW - Agreed to it!

This seems like another case to support - Vote EM ALL out!
Or maybe it is even time for some recall and impeachment investigations!

"If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention"
October 3, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

jacka writes:

VOTE YES on 54 and 47.

Make Corporate Bosses, Union Bosses and Political Bosses accountable for removing Amendment 53 and trampling on peoples rights via pay-offs.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Politics › Colorado Government

Last-minute deal tosses labor initiatives off Colorado ballot

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 2, 2008 at 7:37 a.m.

Related Links

Related Stories

More Colorado Government

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links