ROSEN: Ballot-issue rundown

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

October 3, 2008

6:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

frickeedickee writes:

Mike Rosen fans: Forget what he has to say today. Here are the REAL ISSUES that should be on your minds when you enter the voting booths this fall, courtesy of writer Timothy Egan:

Among the many dispiriting things to come out of Bob Woodward’s quartet of books on George W. Bush is his observation that the president has not changed since he first started talking to Woodward in 2001.
No growth. No evolution. No regrets.
“History,” Bush replied, when asked by Woodward how he would be judged over time. “We don’t know. We’ll all be dead.” Broke, as well.
George Bush entered the White House as a proponent of a more humble foreign policy and a believer that government should get out of the way at home. He leaves as someone with a trillion-dollar war aimed at making people who’ve hated each other for a thousand years become Rotary Club freedom-lovers, and his own country close to bankruptcy after government did get out of the way.
Historians will recall that in each of the major disasters on Bush’s watch, there were ample warnings — from the intelligence briefing that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike a month before the lethal blow, to the projections that Hurricane Katrina could drown a major American city, to the expressed fears that letting Wall Street regulate itself could be catastrophic.
Voluntary regulation. That phrase now joins “heckuva job, Brownie” and “mission accomplished” among those that will always be associated with the Bush presidency.
Bush has hinted that his legacy will be about the war. So be it. He never caught bin Laden, the mass murderer who launched the raison d’etre of the Bush presidency.
But he did topple a paper army in Iraq, opening the drainage for our currency, blood and global reputation. It may go down as the longest, even costliest war in our history.
Bush leaves with his party in tatters. In the 28 states that register by affiliation, Democrats have picked up more than 2 million new voters this year while Republicans have lost 344,000. It seems only fitting that it was the last of the Bush dead-enders in Congress earlier this week who jumped ship when presented with the final horrendous hangover from this man who doesn’t drink.
If ever there was an argument for voting against politicians who are confident about their cluelessness, Bush is it. So it was heartening to see that a majority of the country, in some polls, now views Sarah Palin as unqualified to be president.

Obama for President.
October 3, 2008

6:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Yes on 47 and 49 for sure! Bust up them unions!
October 3, 2008

6:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

scodtt writes:

All of these views seem like Rosen, except for Amendment 50. I guess there are so many here that Rosen didn't take the time to realize that Amendment 50 is a way to bust through TABOR limits. Rosen usually supports the idea of limited government, and Amendment 50 is a back-door way to increase government spending.

As for his comment that $5 bet maximum might as well be matchsticks? That's no doubt true for Rosen, but for most Coloradans losing $5 in a bet every few minutes could spell financial ruin within a day. With $100 bets it could mean financial ruin in an hour.

For the Rosens of the world there is the Internet, and there is Vegas. Colorado voters don't want Vegas in Colorado, and that's why they are voting no on Amendment 50.

http://KeepVegasOut.com/
October 3, 2008

7:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

GorillaGrodd writes:

In regards to amendment 50, it's quite simple. It's none of the government's business how much I spend per bet when gambling. There shouldn't be any limit at all, but increasing the limit from $5 to $100 is certainly a step in the right direction.

Yes on 50.
October 3, 2008

7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

George Bush continues to drown government in Grover Norquist's bathtub and threatens the American people with financial terrorism. The Republic has died and the Fascists are running the country. And complicit enablers like Rosen continue avoiding the obvious.
October 3, 2008

8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ginger writes:

What Scodtt fails to mention about Amendment 50 is that gambling is a PERSONAL CHOICE just like any other form of entertainment. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to drive to a casino and play slots, poker, or go to their local King Soopers and buy a lottery ticket. If people don't understand how odds work, maybe they shouldn't gamble in the first place.
October 3, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I once had a liberal economics professor who called the lottery the "idiot tax" because, as a statistician, he felt you had to be an idiot to donate. It was no coincidence that he was big time into redistribution of wealth, and since the poor and middle class tend to contribute most often, it goes against his brand of socialism.
October 3, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

humorist2be writes:

YES on 51 BECAUSE it HELPS COLORADO!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snC87K...
October 3, 2008

8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

GorillaGrodd writes:

In all fairness, the lottery really is an "idiot tax". The odds are terrible. Even slot machines are a better bet. The best best games are blackjack and craps, where the odds are only slightly in the house's favor.
October 3, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

Should vote no on all the amendments since the Colorado constitution is already a "phone book".
October 3, 2008

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

Washington D.C. (October 3, 2008) – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today gave the following speech regarding the proposed Wall Street bailout on the floor of the House:

“We have come a great distance in seventy-five years; from the New Deal to the Raw Deal, from having nothing to fear but fear itself, to being afraid of everything. We traded democracy’s warm heart containing the ideals of faith, fairness and frugality, for the greedy, cold calculations of the Dow Jones ticker. The New Deal saved free market capitalism with jobs and regulation; now both sink in the swamp of speculation, manipulation and capitulation. The Golden Rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is submerged by the rule of gold, “do unto others before they do unto you.”

“Some people will ask of this Congress, what were we thinking? Why did we give $700 billion bailout to Wall Street without fixing what caused the problem in the first place? Why did we rig the free markets for security fraudsters? Why didn’t we explore alternatives to let Wall Street solve its own problems? Why didn’t we have money save millions of homeowners, create millions of jobs, and a green economy? Why didn’t we stop the speculators? Why wasn’t there accountability? Why didn’t we take time to make an intelligent decision?

“Why? Why? Why?”
October 3, 2008

9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

humorist2be writes:

Brain -- 51 is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL
October 3, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

One must wonder what Kucinich was thinking, saying "...from the New Deal to the Raw Deal...."

The New Deal is the Raw Deal. It has been so-dubbed by one particular faction since its creation.
October 3, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

specialneedsmom writes:

Amendment 51 is necessary to provide thousands of people with developmental disabilities with services that enable them to live and work in the community. It even helps some to work and to contribute not only their talents but also to draw a paycheck that can be spent and provide their "share" to the common good. What people fail to remember is that not voting for vital services to support our most vulnerable people does not make the problem for everyone go away. In fact, I would dare say that the cost to society is much greater in that the affected families are not able to have two wage-earners in the family, and must rely on other services to survive. Just like any system where we fail to address the root of a problem, the consequences of not doing so are greater than addressing the issue up front. For example, aging parents have so depleated their resources to pay for services for their adult children that they no longer have funds for retirement - and I don't mean fun retirement in Florida - I mean no funds to provide care like nursing. This means that the parents must rely on other systems of support such as Medicaid.

Amendment 51 is a very small price to pay to ultimately solve a major problem. It will cost the average family very little - $20-$40 per year. How often are you able to say that your $20-$40 has solved a major social problem these days?

Finally, the affected people are suffering enormously and the general public does not understand yet that in many cases this is life or death.

I agree that sometimes we have to draw the line. But this is not the place to draw that line. Support 51.
October 3, 2008

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

ItsJustme writes:

So why is the blog monitor allowing all these off topic posts? "You agree not to post comments that are off topic...."
October 3, 2008

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

ItsJustme, is it just me, or are you off topic?
October 3, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cleanman writes:

Yes on 54. Stop the "unholy alliance." check out the lastest radio ad from Amendment 54 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=992G_R...
October 3, 2008

10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

johnson5 writes:

I read Amendment 51...
It puts our state where we SHOULD be. We aren't even taking care of the developmentally disabled people who live here! Over half of them are on some waitlist for services. We're 46th worst in the Union! How embarassing is that? This tiny little sales tax increase is NOT even noticable to most, and it provides something EXTREMELY important! If we don't pass this and get the level of care where it should be already, we're just a bunch of scrooges who are enjoying our low taxes like immature children. We'll be having EVEN worse crises very soon with all of these folks' parents dying in the soon-and-coming years. There is no other way--we should be doing this already! Selfish and foolish us! I confidently say YES ON 51! Read it...
October 3, 2008

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

primafacie writes:

Lotteries are, indeed, a fool's bet, so call me a fool: It's only a buck.

I'm a terrible card player, don't get craps and can go broke on slots in 10 or 20 minutes (did I mention I'm also a tightwad?). But in the interest of the liberty thing, if folks are freely willing to play $100-a-hand blackjack and someone is freely supplying the table, cards and dealer, the state ought not prevent such freedom of association.
October 3, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

primafacie, I too occasionally indulge my urge to take a crack at 100 million$.

In describing yourself, you also described me, with regard to gambling. Save one thing...I like a good game of 'holdem occasionally.
October 3, 2008

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

frontrange writes:

frickeedickee-

Wow, nice job using the copy and paste feature on your computer to pull bits of pieces of Timothy Egan's piece out of the New York Times!

Interesting that your post doesn't really contain any of your own ideas! Oh, and did you notice that your copied text has absolutely nothing to do with Mike's column or the local issues facing Colorado voters this November? You just used Mike's (well-read) column as a platform to make a speech. (Not even your own speech at that).

You claim that these (referring to Egan's column) "...are the REAL ISSUES that should be on [our] minds..." -- so nothing on the ballot in November (other than President) really matters, nor is it important? Great, you just saved me a lot of time! I'll just skip over those "pretend" issues and put a check next to "McCain/Palin" before leaving the ballot box...

Frontrange
October 3, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

frontrange writes:

scodtt-

you seem concerned that middle-class Coloradans won't be able to go to Central City and play a 2/5 Hold 'em game if Amendment 50 passes.

Building on Ginger's point that gambling is a personal choice, if people don't choose (and not all will) to play at $100 limit tables, the casinos will keep low-bet (2/5-type) tables around.

There's no way I could afford to play at a $100 limit table, but that doesn't mean the government should tell the casinos it isn't allowed. I don't need the government to protect me! I have will power and the ability to protect myself from spending money I don't have.

Frontrange
October 3, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

4gColoNative writes:

I don't listen to Rosen ... I don't already "subscribe" to his world view.

But reading through these now, I agree with his position on every one of these except 58.

re: "...discourage production while passing the tax on to consumers."
Get real! These companies, and companies like Xcel, pass everything they can onto consumers regardless of regulation. Don't be afraid of having costs passed on to you -- *because it is going to happen anyway.* This is like saying "please don't hurt me" to the lunatic with a club coming at you rather than fighting back.

And discourage production? These companies are motivated by making a buck. They'll continue to do whatever earns them a profit. They'll produce if producing is profitable -- and they've been wildly profitable! They don't require this old subsidy ... it just lines their pockets even more.
October 3, 2008

12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

sooperburd writes:

Wait a minute.

Where are all the liberals that normally bash Rosen's column? They usually say things like "Rosen is such a right wing puppet." Where are you all now?

I'm going out on a limb here, but my guess is that all of you liberals that love to bash Rosen have never actually listened to his show enough to realize that Rosen is not a hardcore conservative. His stances on the initiatives are hard evidence of his political leanings.

He's against 48, hmmm, he's not a pro-life nutjob?
He's for 52, what? Rosen wants to raise taxes?
He's for 54 (this is a big one you lefties always cry about) Rosen's against no-bid contract corruption??

One person that immediately comes to mind is am760. I caught him/her red handed last week in a gratuitous Rosen bashing. Do you now believe me that Rosen is only right of center and not a wacko right winger?

Of course, you'll all be back to bashing him as a radical conservative next Friday. I look forward to catching you liberals in the act.
October 3, 2008

12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Actually, Sooperbud,

Rosen is as hardcore conservative as they come with one exception. He is not socially conservative and cares little if any for conservative positions on this. I suppose, regarding the one he is for raising taxes on, he feels that the project is worth it.
October 3, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logical writes:

4g, your logic is lacking. "Don't be afraid of having costs.. happen anyway"? If they don't incur the cost, there won't be a cost to pass-on to us. That is why we don't want additional costs imposed on energy producers.

And you say "...motivated by making a buck." like that is a bad thing. Why do you work? Do you ever ask for a raise? Ah, you want to make more money, also, I assume.

If you own stock, whether directly or through mutual funds, you want the companies that you have an ownership interest in to make money. That is how the price of the stock goes up and you make money. What is the problem with that?

Come on, pay attention to what you are saying, and look at the big picture. Don't just pay attention to the liberal sound bites.
October 3, 2008

2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

I love it when Rosen tries to tell me how to vote. Because it makes it easy to vote. I go the opposite way and I know I've done the right thing.
October 3, 2008

3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

sooperburd writes:

spencerr,

Explain to me how someone can be socially liberal and still be called "hardcore conservative". Where I come from, the "hardcore conservatives" are the rabid emotional ones that protest at abortion clinics, want prayer in schools, hate gays, believe in creationism, etc.

Rosen is absolutely not a hardcore conservative in my book. He's a fiscally conservative (and not even THAT fiscally conservative, see amendment 52 above) Republican that could care less about social issues.

In my opinion, you couldn't be more wrong to label Rosen as a hardcore conservative.
October 3, 2008

4:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

sooperburd writes:

dilligaf:

So you're going to vote the opposite of Rosen? That means these 3 things:

1. You believe a fertilized egg is a person.
2. You think our roads are just fine and don't need more money.
3. You like politicians giving no-bid contracts to the businesses that give them the most campaign contributions.

Did you even read Rosen's column??? If you had read it, there's no way you would have stupidly said "I go the opposite way and I know I've done the right thing."

wow.
October 3, 2008

4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

DStuart writes:

Vote YES on 51
www.endcoloradowaitlist.com
October 3, 2008

4:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

Sooperbud
I believe a fertilized egg is a person if it's human.
October 3, 2008

5 p.m.

Suggest removal

sooperburd writes:

HopiMedicineMan:

That's perfectly fine. You have every right to your beliefs and I will never stand in the way of them.

I was just taking issue with the liberals on here that think Rosen is a radical conservative. I know that dilligaf doesn't believe a fertilized human embryo is a person, so I was showing how stupid it is to make blanket statements like he made earlier.
October 3, 2008

5:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

at least rosen tried to write something relevant this week...but couldn't do it without lying.

"In his October 3 Rocky Mountain News column, Newsradio 850 KOA's Mike Rosen urged readers to vote "yes" on Amendment 47 and falsely described the so-called "right-to-work" ballot measure as one that "[p]rotects employees from forced union membership or dues.""

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
October 3, 2008

6:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Sooperbud,

I am no liberal, if I am who you are referring to. And besides the social issues, he is very conservative. That was my only point. He is conservative fiscally/economically, and he is conservative on military issues. This is the first time I have ever seen him support a tax.

But you are right, he is not the kind of guy that would go stand in front of an abortion clinic holding a protest sign.

Anyway, with the exception of the I-70 tax, I will vote with him. Take the money for that from someone or something else.
October 3, 2008

6:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay said, "right-to-work" ballot measure as one that "[p]rotects employees from forced union membership or dues.""

In late 2001, I gained employment at King Soopers. Part of the condition of my employment was that I join the union after thirty days. Otherwise, they would not have hired me.

This amendment would get rid of unions being able to force employees to join unions as a condition of hire.
October 3, 2008

6:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Besides, jay, amendment 47 does something.

Your Media Matters source details all kinds of stuff that it doesn't do. It doesn't say what it does do. That is because the writer of the article has gotten so deep into semantics, that he can claim whatever he wants.

Everything that Media Matters said is true...and misleading. The Feds may have outlawed "full shop" places of business, but a business can still fire an employee for refusing to pay dues.
October 3, 2008

7:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

sooperburd writes:

Spencerr,

I, like you, will part with Rosen only on the I-70 issue. It sounds like the two of us are very similar.
October 3, 2008

9:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

frickeedickee writes:

And more good news for proud liberals like myself: David Brooks (Yes, I read David Brooks, too. Ever heard of him? And tell us, Sara, what newspapers do you read? Hm? Wink? Wink?), the thinking man's neo-conservative, today all but declared the "Reagan Revolution" DEAD, along with John McCain's shot at the presidency. No end of blessings from heaven and earth. America's had enough of bumpkins, imbeciles, newcular weapons, stupidity, just folks, hockey moms, winks, and the conservative nightmare.
October 4, 2008

3:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

RB writes:

Just who in the name of God would adhere to Rosen's recommendation of anything on this planet? I certainly won't listen to one who blathers from his ivory tower how I should vote and/or view issues of the day from my struggling middle class life. Only wish I could tell you where to put your opinions Rosen but, then again, I think you know exactly what I describe. There truly is a special place in Hell for people like you Rosen. Once again, come down from your ivory tower and know what it is like to decide between paying to eat or fill your car with gas so, you can get to work. Guess, you just can't grasp the concept.
October 4, 2008

10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

spencer jr, do you believe that it's legal for a company to "force" someone to join a union in the united states?
October 4, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Patron_Drinker writes:

jay,
Companies aren't the ones who want to force us to join unions. Unions want to force us to join them. If it weren't legal, we wouldn't need a law to make it illegal. If it weren't legal, you could work at King Soopers or Safeway (or many other places) and hold onto your job past the probationary period, which is when you're now forced to join the union.
I'm not management, jay, I'm labor. Like most Americans, I work for a living, and I don't want my money going to support people and politicians whose ideas and policies harm working people. That means unions and liberals and Democrats, at least to me.
October 4, 2008

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'll ask again...for the crowd.

who here believes it is legal to "force" someone to join a union in the united states?
October 4, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"I certainly won't listen to one who blathers from his ivory tower how I should vote and/or view issues of the day from my struggling middle class life."

This is just plain silly, RB. Where in the article did Rosen tell you how you should vote? The column is simply his summaries of the issues on the ballot and his opinions on them, nothing more. If you disagree with the reasons offered, then fine. That's why you get one vote and Rosen gets one vote. Why not give a rebuttal explaining why you disagree rather than emoting about a "special place in hell" for those you disagree with?
By the way, I hate to break it to you, but there is no hell.
October 4, 2008

8:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay,

Not as a condition of living, no. As a condition of employment...yes. You have to pay dues in order to continue employment, even if you choose not to belong to the union.

It is theft.
October 4, 2008

8:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

frickeedickee writes:

Palin's latest on Obama: “Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

Mike Rosen, will you and the other conservatives with whom you "pall" around kindly tell this woman, now that her "debate" is over, to slither back under her rock in Alaska before she shovels any more dirt on the party of Reagan.
October 4, 2008

9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

According to jay's Media Matters link, the National Labor Relations Act "already prohibits mandatory full union membership".

But according to the actual legislation, it does not. The following is Sec. 7 of the NLRA:
"Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title]."

So, according to the National Labor Relations Act, it is entirely legal to require union membership as a condition of employment.
Media Matters doesn't bother to mention this. Not surprising that jay doesn't mention it either. I'd wager he's never bothered to read the National Labor Relations Act. Would that be a safe bet, jay?
October 5, 2008

4:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

SodaPop writes:

Actually, you cannot be forced to join a union. Even the national group that supports restrictive bargaining laws like 47 <a href="http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm"... you cannot be forced to join a union.</a> So yes Eli, you are wrong and Jay is right.

However, you can be forced to pay 'agency fees' that cover the cost of the union representing you. You get the benefit of the union's efforts, so you have to cover your fair share of the cost of representing you.

Seems reasonable enough.

47 would allow people to freeload off their dues paying co-workers. Not exactly a great way to build employee morale. And it would interfere in the free market, as it dictates to what kind of contract workers and employees can agree. Since when is interfering in a free market conservative or smart?

The bottom line is that states that restrict bargaining have lower wages. If you want to have lower wages and freeload off your co-workers, vote the way Rosen tells you. But if you want high pay and benefits while paying your fair share of the costs of negotiating those benefits, ignore Rosen and vote...

NO on 47
October 5, 2008

4:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

SodaPop writes:

Actually, you cannot be forced to join a union. Even the national group that supports restrictive bargaining laws like 47 (http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm) agrees you cannot be forced to join a union. So yes Eli, you are wrong and Jay is right.

However, you can be forced to pay 'agency fees' that cover the cost of the union representing you. You get the benefit of the union's efforts, so you have to cover your fair share of the cost of representing you.

Seems reasonable enough.

47 would allow people to freeload off their dues paying co-workers. Not exactly a great way to build employee morale. And it would interfere in the free market, as it dictates to what kind of contract workers and employees can agree. Since when is interfering in a free market conservative or smart?

The bottom line is that states that restrict bargaining have lower wages. If you want to have lower wages and freeload off your co-workers, vote the way Rosen tells you. But if you want high pay and benefits while paying your fair share of the costs of negotiating those benefits, ignore Rosen and vote...

NO on 47
October 5, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"Actually, you cannot be forced to join a union"

SodaPop,
It seems that you don't pay any attention when you read either, just like jay. Yes, you CAN be required to join a union as a condition of employment. From your own link:
"Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment UNLESS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOUR EMPLOYER AND YOUR UNION CONTAINS A PROVISION REQUIRING ALL EMPLOYEES TO EITHER JOIN THE UNION OR PAY UNION FEES."

Read a little closer next time.
October 5, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

dandy9918 writes:

Actually, you can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. I work for UPS and I'm represented by the Teamsters. The National Master Agreement specifically states that UPS will collect the initiation fee (currently $175) and monthly union dues (currently $47 a month for me) as a condition of employment. I'm no fan of unions, but I know people whose job has been saved by the union fighting for them. Even if I could stop paying union dues, I wouldn't. It's like an insurance policy, you pay into it all your life and may never use it, but just one accident or hospitalization and it's paid for itself. I usually disagree with the Teamsters on political issues, but on this one I agree with them. I will be voting no.
October 5, 2008

2:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Sodapop also mis-uses the term "free market." 47 actually frees up the labor market so that supply of labor and demand for labor can equilibrate at the price-clearing equilibrium. This is the free market.

Sodapop seems to think that the union's ability to heft its weight to demand non-equilibrium conditions of labor that are not in line with the free market is somehow free market.

Unions want nothing to do with the free market.
October 5, 2008

5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

bluejacket writes:

If I gave everybody on this blog an automatic rifle, I would have the blog all to myself. Geeeze!
October 7, 2008

4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

boulder1259 writes:

This comment is directed to the Rocky Mountain News: please remove comments that have nothing to do with an article (mine included, once the others are cleaned up).

As a starting point, please remove frickeedickee's ramblings because they have nothing to do with Mike Rosen's article.

Thanks, and please apply such practices universally (i.e., if a posting doesn't relate directly to an article, it should be removed).
October 8, 2008

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so what spencer jr and eli are saying...if i have this right...is that they believe that "joining a union" is the same as being charged a fraction of the dues through an "agency fee".

while that is certainly a nefarious way to recoup some costs from NONUNION members...it in no way legally means that people are "forced to join" a union as a condition of employment.

thanks guys...i think we solved the riddle...and it didn't even take three days of dancing to do it.

yet.
October 8, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

No, jay, I would have been on the hook for all the same dues as anyone else, and I don't think that Eli was making similar arguments as me, so I doubt you are are even in the same zipcode with what Eli was arguing, let alone the same page.
October 8, 2008

3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

sorry, spencer jr...i'll take the data over your "feelings" about a mythical job you once applied for.

no one is "forced" in the united states to join a union....no matter what rosen and rush tell you.
October 8, 2008

4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

It has nothing to do with what Rush or Rosen say, jay. It has everything to do with what the National Labor Relations act says, which you have obviously never bothered to read.
Here is the quote again, with the relevant part emphasized in caps:
"Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH RIGHT MAY BE AFFECTED BY AN AGREEMENT REQUIRING MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR UNION AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title]."
October 8, 2008

4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Sorry jay, but I'll take the actual text of the relevant legislation over your feelings on a topic about which you know nothing.
October 8, 2008

6:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And all I can say, jay, is that if you really don't believe me, go to the King Soopers on Alameda right off of Union. Go apply, and when they call you back to hire you and you go in to interview, sit through the whole process.

I guarantee that you will understand Colorado labor laws with regard to the effects of amendment 47 after you go do a little primary research.

The easier way is to simply believe me. I am not lying to you. But then, you don't really need my kind of proof anyway. Eli already showed you what the law says.
October 9, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

again folks...it comes down to you believing that an "agency fee" (a fraction of total union membership costs) charged to NONUNION members when hired is the equivalent to "JOINING A UNION".

you're reaching and you know it.
October 9, 2008

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay, not only were they trying to charge the complete fee, but that fee was flat for all employees regardless of income. So the couple bucks an hour they were going to take from my minimum wage paycheck was exactly the same as the two dollars they took from the paychecks of those who made twenty dollars an hour.

All I had to look forward to at that job was donating approximately 40% of my gross income to the unions for several months, until they decided that I did not fit in with my oft-developmentally disabled peers.

They were nothing but thieves.
October 9, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

again, spencer junior...i'll take the data over your personal anectodes.

it is illegal in the united states to force anyone to join a union.

period.

no matter what rush and rosen tell you.
October 9, 2008

4:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Jay,
What do you not understand about the legislation? It states very clearly that you have the right to refrain from joining unless there is an agreement in place that requires union membership as a condition of employment. It's not that hard to understand. The National Labor Relations Act says in plain, simple English that it is perfectly legal to require union membership as a condition of employment. Not a portion of dues, but union membership. I absolutely cannot believe that your reading comprehension is so horrible that you honestly can't understand the quote provided. I think you're just resorting to "willful ignorance" again.
October 9, 2008

6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Some interesting information you can use to educate yourself a little, jay. It'll help you to be a bit better informed than you are.

http://www.the-reel-mccoy.net/pdf/kin...

The above link is a transcript of the King Soopers orientation video. Here is a quote from page 20, emphasis added:
"King Soopers currently has
contracts with various unions. Which union you will be under depends on which department you are in. Because the union contracts contain a union shop provision, EMPLOYEES MUST JOIN AND PAY MONTHLY DUES AND FEES TO THE UNION. The union contracts also contain what is called a dues checkoff clause that allows the union to deduct their fees directly from your paycheck."

I'll take the legislation and official company policies over your personal anecdotes, jay. You are absolutely clueless.
October 9, 2008

8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Creative googling, Eli? Excellent work. That is exactly what I was talking about.

Eli 100, jay 0.
October 11, 2008

8:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

megmill18 writes:

AMENDMENT 48

The definition of a person is at fertilization. Becasue have had the joy of a child I know that. And all of the ranting liberals can say that some people aren't in the place to have a child, but NEWS FLASH! Is anyone? And I was 16 and in the wrong season of my life, but I chose to give my child lfe and give an amazing family the gift of a beautiful baby girl they never could have had. She has the right to live! VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 48

There are better options for your baby
October 12, 2008

8 a.m.

Suggest removal

harvew writes:

Eli & spencerr did an excellent job, trying to 'spell' it out for jay; I hate to call anyone ignorant, but when you're getting it explained to you with 'open arms' and spelled out for you- all I can say is Eli's right, citing his "reading comprehension is so horrible that you honestly can't understand the quote provided" -...too bad, so sad!
October 13, 2008

12:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

we're back to the same place people.

full mandatory union membership is illegal in the united states...no matter what they post on the conspiracy websites you guys frequent.

any questions about that?
October 14, 2008

12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

jwatts3122 writes:

Mike, merci very large for your insights and clarifications! I was in the process of suffering serious red eye and the red bleep while wading through my mail-in ballot and blue book...
October 15, 2008

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Govenata1 writes:

Mike has some great insight and his picks are well thought out. Personally i agree that the constitution is gettin way overcomplicated. I also think that the government has no right getting into positions where they controll what we do. Making us pay for others isnt right.

I believe there are other ways to help those in need, now having said that... I understand how hard it is to be disabled. I dont have any disabilities that keep me from working, but i experience pain because of my lack of a perfect body. Its hard, but the fact that half my paycheck goes to the government because they say they know how to distribute it better than i do hurts worse. I see too many people working on thier car in thier driveway or mowing thier grass, painting thier house, ect. that are "disabled" and recieve government aid because they cant hold down a job. I also see single mothers who have many kids and no job yet have a roof over thier head and a vehicle. Some didnt deserve the situation that they are in, husband died, boyfriend left them for another woman, ect... Bad things happen to good people and i am glad that they have access to that assistance, But... its not perfect and by no means is a government controlled solution perfect.

Helping others is good, but providing a means for them to not contribute to society by paying them to be irrisponsible is not helping anyone. IMO when government creates a utopia, some people benefit and the rest pay for it. This is why Mr. Rosin takes so much time to make an educated decision regarding voting decisions instead of making emotional decisions.
October 20, 2008

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logan5 writes:

Regarding Amendment 50; those who think the limit should stay at $5 because it somehow "protects people" are being inconsistent if they do not also propose limiting the sale of Lotto and PowerBall tickets to $5 per person pre drawing. Why should private-sector casinos be limited by statute, yet people can gamble as much as they want, without limit, on the government's game of chance? Doesn't this also constitute a conflict of interest for the state government, at least theoretically creating an incentive for them to limit competition with their own gambling enterprise?

Also, those who do not gamble don't realize that on games like Blackjack a skilled player will actually lose much less over the long run with a higher limit that they will with a $5 limit. This is because a higher limit allows them to vary their bet relative to fluctuating odds, which enables them to make up for losses. With the $5 limit, however, a player loses $5 per hand when the odds are against him, but has no way to bet more when they are in his favor to regain lost ground.
October 22, 2008

12:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

NeilT writes:

Govenata1,

51 is for the those that are truly disabled. Usually severely and many of whom are children. 51 has nothing to do with the fraudulent idiots you're talking about.

In fact, these disabled children have been approved for much needed therapies that can, in many cases, help them to lead a productive life. They are just waiting for these services, but there's not enough funding. That is what 51 is all about.

Early intervention is key. If professionals can get involved soon enough, many disabled children can contribute to society in a positive way. Since these programs are severely underfunded, they have to be put on a wait list, sometimes as long as ten years. For many that's just too late. You will end up paying a lot for them down the road. At least pay a little now so they have a chance to help cover their cost of living.
October 22, 2008

6:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

First we had Ref C a couple years ago and now Amendment 51, this amendment will not get rid of the "waitlist" that is BS. I won't be voting for 51 because I see all the time families with half a million dollar houses getting services for their children when there is truly needy people on the "waitlist" that can't even come close to affording ANY services; until they change who can get funds for these services I won't be voting for more funding.
BTW, there will NEVER be enough money, there will ALWAYS be another reason (like election time) that they don't have enough funding.
October 23, 2008

3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

tjsunshine writes:

Amendment 47: NO! People supporting this amendment state people are forced to join a union. This is against federal law which supersedes any state law. In many unions, workers do pay fair shares but do not have to join the union. The fair shares is usually about half of the dues and is done to pay for the expenses related to negotiating the contracts which include pay and benefits. Currently, workers could choose not to pay fair shares and it would legally be difficult to "make" them pay. Their purpose to get this amendment passed is so businesses and cities can pay their workers less. It has been shown that "Right to Work" states make less money and have less benefits than states who do not. This information comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics. Currently, only 8% of workers in Colorado are a member of a union. If it is being forced, you would think that number would be higher. And out of that 8%, about half of those are firefighters, police officers, teachers, and nurses. The people out there taking care of others. We have received the support from several business people including Bill Coors. We currently have the Labor Peace Act which has worked well for Colorado and many business leaders also believe it has worked well.

Amendment 49: NO! This just eliminates a workers right to dictate what is taken automatically from their paycheck. Union dues are taken out currently. The reason for this amendment to make if tougher for unions to collect dues which impacts our ability to represent ourselves in the political process. It is prohibited to contribute to federal campaigns. We do participate locally. Our members vote on what we contribute money to. What many people do not understand is the legislators make many decisions to our safety. They do not determine our salaries, so our only interest is to the issues that affect our citizens and firefighter safety. This amendment applies to only unions and not corporations. We are not asking to take away their right, just don't take away our right to have a voice.

Amendment 54: NO! This eliminates my family, my union, and me to contribute and to a campaign since we are under a labor contract with a government agency. Once again it takes away our voice and now my families because I am a firefighter under a contract. You can find the definition to "immediate family" on the last page of the amendment. It includes just about everyone. Once again, corporations can continue to contribute to campaigns. Unfortunately, it is hard to participate in our current political process without the money. We are already at a disadvantage since corporations out spend unions 11 to 1.

Unions were formed many years ago to protect firefighters. I saw this first hand with my dad being a firefighter for 32 years. This is why I am involved so we do not go back to the unsafe work environments that he experienced.
October 24, 2008

12:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

NeilT writes:

Brain,

I agree that some people play the system. You'll find fraud in anything if you look hard enough. But this particular system is a pretty tight ship. The more you make the less assistance you receive. I know this first hand. I "screwed up" and had a good year, according to the system, (read: made more than $40k for a family of four) some years ago and my son lost all his therapies. (he had just minimal supplemental due to severe disability-he will be with us for the rest of our lives)

Again, this is not related to the fraud that occurs with Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security.

You said; "there is truly needy people on the "waitlist" that can't even come close to affording ANY services"

So we should penalize these folks because a fraction of a percent might play the system? Will this forever put an end to the "wait list?" Probably not. The needs increase due to an increase in special needs cases. There is no guaranty that your next child will be "normal." Your kid could be the next name on the list. We need to do what we can to at least shorten the time on the list.

You, personally, might appreciate it someday.
October 24, 2008

8:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

NeilT; in my opinion (which is also "first hand") it is the system not people that "play the system" there are too many people on the "list" that really don't need the "help" (they are on the list because they have a child/children that have a developmental disabilities and can be covered regardless of income/wealth) and they are taking funds that should go to people that really need it. I'm not saying anyone is doing anything wrong I'm saying some don't need the help and they are getting services anyway. I will not support this system, it is flawed like most government systems; the only way for that to be realized is to quit giving the money until something is done to do it right.
October 26, 2008

7:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

jh49 writes:

I'm glad Mike Rosen posted his preferences for the Amendments. Now I can vote opposite his and cancel his votes out.
October 26, 2008

8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

kc02 writes:

Hey, Jay: Since you keep posting the same thing over and over again, let's clarify it some, shall we?
You may not be forced to join a union in Colorado, but you sure as heck have to pay UNION DUES when you work a union bargained for job.
So, no, you may not have to join a union, but you have to pay their dues. Which all go straight to the Democratic Party. Surprise, surprise.
October 26, 2008

4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

lhattherock writes:

After going into the Rocky's website to find Mike Rosen's recommendations on the ballot issues, I read through other comments and just had to respond to "frickeedickee". As "frontrange" pointed out, he/she couldn't even be original as it was mostly a "copy & paste" from someone else's piece. I have 4 comments for "frickeedickee" regarding blaming everything from 9/11 to hurricane Katrina on President Bush:

1. Regarding President Bush not getting Bin Laden, did he/she conveniently forget that in the previous administration, former President Bill Clinton was offered Bin Laden on 2 separate occasions? Because he turned down those offers to put the terrorist in custody (he was pretty busy at the time with Monica), thousands died.

2. Regarding blaming President Bush for the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, money had been earmarked way before Katrina hit, to fix the levees. The money was never used for that purpose under the watch of a Democrat mayor of New Orleans and a Democrat governor of Louisiana. Maybe "frickeedickee" has selective memory regarding the graft & corruption that has been in place in Louisiana for a long time.

3. Regarding blaming all of the economic woes on President Bush, how about economic committee chairs, Democrats Barney Frank & Christopher Dodd and the hatchet job they did under a Democrat controlled congress?

4. As a proud American citizen, I can't even imagine referring to terrorists as a "paper enemy" as "frickeedickee" did.

I join with "frontrange" in voting for McCain-Palin! As I vote, it will give me great satisfaction that I have cancelled out the vote of selective memory "frickeedickee"!
October 26, 2008

6:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

jbowen43 writes:

Worldly wisdom is overrated. McCain proves that point.
The constitution is getting thicker than a phone book because past republican legislatures failed to obey the will of the people. Vote yes ONLY if you think we will always have Democratic legislatures.
Vote no on 46 because it is a bad bill introduced only to get out the hard core right wing bigots to vote.
#47 Ditto
#49 Ditto again
#51 We have to do this because we are a civil society and it won't cost anyone much and we have to make up for decades of republican neglect.
#52 NO. This money will come from Low Income Energy Assistance programs and the regulatory agency that protects our water. Look at the prime sponsors and ask yourself "What interest do they have in fixing I-70 West?" Answer. None! This is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't be fooled.
#54 See 46, 47, and 49 above.
Vote against 58 and 59 only if you truly hate children, Colorado, and America.
October 27, 2008

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

Not sure I agree with all these recommendations.

I don't need more roads. Colorado needs light rail if we are going to reduce fuel consumption. Quit building roads, build public transportation.

No help for the disabled?I'm not a fan of tax increases, but boy was that response cold and lacking any kind of empathy for our friends and neighbors who need assistance.

Gambling? Sure, throw your money away if you want. But by promising it to community colleges, gov't will now take that spending out of their budgets, and if the gambling doens't come through, the CCs lose. Look at the real consequences.

And for all those saying there are better options for your baby... Amendment 48 also makes several forms of birth control illegal, as well as banning abortions. So there are going to be a lot more babies looking for options, if women can't even choose a birth control method. (plus a % of dead mothers who can't have medical treatment anymore because that's illegal too) So, more babies needing homes or good care that might not get it, plus a few good mommies in the grave. Does this sound right to any one?
October 28, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrh writes:

On Amendment 52, is there a specific proposal to reduce I-70 congestion given? I've seen estimates on the amount of revenue the new tax would bring, but I have no idea what the fix is going to cost or what the fix will be (I'm not saying there isn't one, just that I haven't seen it). What happens if the fix is less than the revenue generated by the tax? Do the tax payers get money back? Does another gov't agency get added?

It amazes me how friendly CO voters are towards tax increases, especially given the economic climate! I'm against Amendment 51 but am in favor of the gov't funding a program like this if they can come up w/ the money by reducing waste or cutting another program.

On the workplace-related proposals, a "Yes" vote moves us more in-line w/ states that are having good economic growth and will bring jobs to CO. I don't think CA, MI, OH and PA are states we want to model our labor laws after.
October 29, 2008

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

dealmkr writes:

tjsunshine writes:

Amendment 47: NO!

Amendment 49: NO!

Amendment 54: NO!

First of all, you just flat out lied about each and every one of these amendments. Why dont you try telling the truth you union hack! You can come on here
Amendment 47 - This was helped to be written by Ryan Frazier, Aurora City Councilman, and the sole purpose is not to force anyone to pay union dues that doesnt want to. There are 22 states that have this type of law and to say that they are all paying lower wages is simply a lie. Some actually have higher wages than Colorado. No one should be forced to pay dues to an organization that they dont want to be a part of. Another bit of information for you, there are several private industry jobs that are not unionized and they pay higher than union jobs because they want to keep you hacks out of their shop!

Amendment 49 - Another lie. It forces unions to collect their own dues, not force the employer, in this case the government to be their billing and collection agent. If someone was to join a union, why cant they simply pay their union like they pay their cable bill, write them a monthly check or debit it from their members bank account? It would put the burden and costs of collection on the union, not the employer.

Amendment 54 - your biggest lie yet. It in no way forces you as the individual to stop contributing to political elections. Was it does is force your union to stop trying to buy elections like this one! You as an individual can contribute to an election just as I can, but people are tired of seeing unions buy elections.

I have been a union member in the past, forced to join if I wanted to be employed by that company. 47, 49 and 54 are good for Colorado and will actually improve our ability to attract and retain businesses to this state. Please dont listent to union hacks such as this poster and our worthless Governer and vote yes.
October 29, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

dealmkr writes:

newsaddict writes:

I'm glad Mike Rosen posted his preferences for the Amendments. Now I can vote opposite his and cancel his votes out.

================

Only an idiot would do such a thing. Do you actually know anything on any of these measures? I would bet not.
October 29, 2008

6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

kimber1911 writes:

As far as 51 goes, why is it anyone's job to provide for the disabled. Last I checked Josh Blue is doing pretty well. If people want to donate to the cause that is fine but to confiscate the money from someone is a problem.
October 29, 2008

6:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

kimber1911 writes:

Specialneedsmom. I understand what you are saying but if a disabled person gets a job to contribute to the common good what are the chances they pay enough in taxes to recoup what I spent on their rehab?
October 29, 2008

8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Thunderwalker writes:

I think the state government gets enough of my money. They invent ways to get my money. I just assume they not get anymore. We haven't seen anything yet. Better dead than commie red.
October 30, 2008

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

Its amazing how people criticize how our government spends money and then want to vote for 51 as if they will spend that money right. Ref C was supposed to solve these problems (endorsed by a Republican governor) even if this passes there will be another issue next election season asking for even more money. Nobody is stopping anyone from donating to this cause as I have and will continue to IF this does not pass; if it does pass then my tax will be lower than my past donations were.
November 3, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

MGD writes:

The money that I've been forced to invest in our schools over the years has had a terrible return. More violence, more graffiti, more disrespectful kids.

jbowen43 says vote against 58 and 59 if you hate children. Well I'm sure not loving what the public schools are turning out. I guess I'll vote against more taxes at this time.

As for voting on 46 if you are a biggot, jbowen43 was nearly correct. If you think favoring one person or group over another because of the color of their skin is a bad thing then vote yes. Let's be done with the liberal guilt and let the best and the brightest shine no matter where their ancestors are from. Otherwise you are providing people with a crutch which they may not need but will come to depend on.
November 4, 2008

3:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

JeffWK writes:

47 - 21 of the 22 RtW states are in the bottom half when it comes to per capita income. Furthermore, if you don't want to flip burgers, would you apply at Burger King? No. So then don't apply at a union job if you don't want to pay dues. Simple. We don't need another law on the books for something as ticky tack as this. Next time I think we should have an amendment to ban fryers in restaurants, because no one should have to clean those things.

49 - Deductions, whether they are taxes, dues, charities, 401s, etc are all computerized and cost next to nothing. No reason to exclude one thing, unless there is an ulterior motive, which there is.

54 - Yea, it stops organizations from contributing, and let's me contribute individually my $10 (all i can afford) and let's big business brass contribute $1000s. Yea, that's fair. NOT. I love how everyone complains about unions contributing to politicians, but they fail to mention the big business contributions.

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 › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: Ballot-issue rundown

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs