Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras

Breaking News:

Subscribe

Ads debated as tactics include 'real' folks

Union message 'clever' but use of fear may backfire

By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News

Published October 6, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Firefighters, police officers, nurses and teachers have volunteered to enter the political limelight through ads like this one to speak against three ballot initiatives they believe are anti-union.

Photo by © Protect Colorado's Future

Firefighters, police officers, nurses and teachers have volunteered to enter the political limelight through ads like this one to speak against three ballot initiatives they believe are anti-union.

More Elections

More stories »

Firefighter Joel Heinemann says he would rather run into a burning building than face a movie camera.

Yet it's his face Coloradans are seeing in television ads and home flyers urging a "no" vote on Amendments 47, 49 and 54.

Heinemann is a "messenger," one of about a dozen firefighters, police officers, nurses and teachers who volunteered to enter the political limelight to speak against three ballot initiatives they believe are anti-union.

Amendment 47 would ban mandatory union fees for employees covered by collective bargaining; 49 would prohibit union dues and other fees from being deducted from public payrolls; and 54 would prevent sole-source contractors and unions from contributing to political campaigns.

"I knew of these amendments coming forward, and they were so devastating to firefighters that I felt I couldn't sit in the background anymore. I had to get involved," said Heinemann, a Littleton firefighter.

Experts weigh in

Advertising and political experts say the ads hit home, although it's too early to tell whether they will translate into a defeat of the amendments on Election Day.

Protect Colorado's Future, which is fighting the amendments, is spending about $1 million a week on advertising, according to Jess Knox, campaign director.

Among the ads: Fliers that feature a policeman saying the amendments will stop law enforcement from lobbying for better body armor. As a result, public safety workers will be less safe and, by definition, the public will be less safe as well, the ad says.

"When I first saw the ads, I thought, oooh, that's very interesting," said Mike Kanner, an adjunct political science professor at the University of Colorado. "They changed the message. It's not about unions anymore, which are not as popular as they used to be. Now, it's about physical security. It's a very smart move."

Margaret Campbell, an associate marketing professor at the University of Colorado's Leeds School of Business, said using

"real" people gives the ads a power actors couldn't deliver.

"Credibility stems from expertise and trustworthiness. And I think, especially on trustworthiness, these are people we trust. They're not necessarily the highest paid, but they're seen as heroic."

But Campbell said the fear factor in the ads - the idea that the public's safety is a stake - could backfire.

"They're clever source choices," Campbell said, "but there is a darkness to several of them that people don't necessarily like. Some of the ads I've seen are a little too simple. These are utilizing an element of fear."

Campbell said that doesn't make the ads deceptive: "It just makes it harder for voters. I think they're overwhelmed."

Union membership rising

Tom Lucero is directing the campaign for Amendment 54. He said the union ads consistently misrepresent the intent of his proposal, and his campaign has filed complaints against the ads.

Despite the ads' powerful message, Lucero said he thinks Amendment 54, anyway, will prevail.

"I think the voters of Colorado are already sick of Protect Colorado's Future," Lucero said. "Voters are not idiots. They are going to look beyond the shallow rhetoric."

The amendments come at a time when union membership nationwide has begun to rise slightly, after decades of decline.

A new report by the University of California at Los Angeles Institute for Research on Labor and Employment indicates a half a percentage point increase in union membership from 2007 to 2008 nationwide, with unions covering about 12.6 percent of U.S. civilian workers.

Colorado traditionally is not a heavily unionized state. Just 8.7 percent of workers, 191,000 of 2.2 million, are in unions, with a total of 9.2 percent, or 202,000 workers, covered by union contracts, according to Ken Jacobs, chairman of University of California at Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education.

That number will likely increase this year as 32,000 state workers join collective bargaining units, as authorized by Gov. Bill Ritter in 2007.

Jacobs said similar anti-union measures have been voted down in California, and he said Colorado's high-profile campaigns could draw more union members, traditionally Democrats, to the polls.

But the unions are getting help from an unusual source.

Last week, a group of business leaders pledged to campaign against the three amendments after labor agreed to withdraw four ballot initiatives that businesses had feared would harm the state's economy.

The Amendments

Amendment 47

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

Would 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.

Comments

  • October 6, 2008

    2:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    johne123 writes:

    Who wants these ballot measures? The folks who are interested in lower wages and less benefits. Jake Jabs would like to see all workers treated as badly as his own I suppose. The Denver Chamber of Commerce, uncle Bill Coors, and a number of other longtime business leaders understand the current situation has worked just fine in Colorado for over 60 years and it should be left alone.

    Disclosure: I'm assisting Coloradans for Middle Class Relief because the last thing our teetering economy needs is lower wages and worse benefits for our middle class.

  • October 6, 2008

    2:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JeffCoGiant writes:

    Amendment 54 is not anti-union... it is PRO TAXPAYER.

    I fail to see where amendment 54 would be devastating to firefighters, police officers, etc. -- more empty rhetoric.

    Protect Colorado's Future is just trying to keep the status quo of lying, scheming, scamming, and deceiving the taxpayers with their corrupt practices of exchanging political contributions and no-bid contracts to fleece the taxpayers out of more money.

    That era is over and the new era of transparency, accountability, and responsibility is here. When amendment 54 passes, Colorado will be cleaned up!

    By the way, if Jess Knox and Protect Colorado's Future is so in tune with the voters, why don't have the guts to debate Tom Lucero and bring their message to the taxpayers instead of hiding behind firefighters, police officers, and big money out of state interests? Just goes to prove that they are afraid of the truth getting out there. VOTE YES on 54!

    http://cleangovernmentcolorado.com

  • October 7, 2008

    2:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    richardtmyers writes:

    Not only are Amendments 47, 49, and 54 aimed at isolating and attacking the very limited political power that working people currently possess, Amendment 47 would create a crime where no crime existed before.

    Consider this, from the Rocky Mountain News: "Amendment 47: Prohibition on Certain Conditions of Employment ... The amendment imposes a new misdemeanor offense that may increase the number of people incarcerated in county jail."

    http://cfapp2.rockymountainnews.com/e...

    The proponents of Amendment 47 are so dead set against the current business arrangement in Colorado, they would make it illegal. This is a crime that we do not want, and Amendment 47 is an amendment to the state's constitution that we do not need.

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.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

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

Sponsored links



Reprints