Backers of right-to-work revealed in legal document

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

George Kochaniec Jr. / The Rocky

Jake Jabs, owner of American Furniture Warehouse, talks during a news conference at the company's corporate offices. Jabs discussed why he is supporting the right-to-work amendment.

More Elections

Comments

October 8, 2008

6:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gonzopozo writes:

Ah, the fat cats and their check books. I'm retired now so this doesn't directly affect me, but anytime I see high rollers writing big checks I start to wonder who's "best interests" they are really supporting.
October 8, 2008

6:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

rumplstilskin writes:

Jake Jabs is an un-american anti-labor no good sob!! Boycott Anti-American Furniture Warehouse!! Screw you Jake Jabs
October 8, 2008

6:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

farsidefan writes:

Rumplstilkin, I agree . He thinks he owns everybody. One time a postal employee didn't get the mail to his warehouse on time. He stormed into the post office and demanded the person be fired on the spot. The supervisor basically told him to go to hell. In a very loud voice, he threatened every worker in the counter area with their jobs and stormed out.
He is a jerk.
As soon as I saw his face on the TV ad I knew which way I was voting. Thanks Jake !
October 8, 2008

7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

tiero writes:

Boycott them all
October 8, 2008

7:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

johne123 writes:

Ah ha!

All that talk about fairness, the good of Colorado, workers, and the amendment is backed by some of the most anti-worker and anti-union folks in the state. And, we'll never know who contributed to this from out of state.

With only 8.7% of Coloradans union members, Colorado has a unique position with it's over 60 year old Labor Peace Act. A second super majority vote of the workers allows all-union shops to require non members to pay dues to cover the costs of this representation. Amendment 47 would do away with this, but the unions would still be required to represent those employees in collective bargaining and grievances. How's that fair? Federal law also already allows non members to be refunded any dues above and beyond that used for this representation.

It sounds like Jake Jabs doesn't like that he can't push around the Teamsters that deliver his made in China furniture.

Disclosure: I'm working for Coloradans for Middle Class Relief because I believe our teetering economy can't afford this risky amendment.
October 8, 2008

7:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Logical writes:

Thanks, Jake, and everyone who is supporting Amend. 47. I despise unions. They had their use, but have outlived their need.

Obviously, many of you posters have had union-protected jobs. I never have, and will never join a union. I prefer to get my raised based on my own merit, not due to some scale that says I have worked there for 'x' number of years, so I deserve 'x' compensation. I am much further ahead in income than if I had been a member of a union.

Yes, I have been fired, but I learned from it, instead of being protected by a union and staying on the treadmill.

Sorry, folks, but I just can't feel sorry for unions losing ground. I disagree with what they do, how they do it, and how they dictate what each member will be paid, in spite of some workers' individual productivity, both good and bad. I feel unions are only good for the people that don't want to work hard, and have a way to be protected. I know that doesn't cover every worker, but there sure are alot of lazy union members. Lazy non-union workers get fired, as they should. Why have a union to protect less-productive workers?
October 8, 2008

8 a.m.

Suggest removal

robbyr2 writes:

I'm sure glad that in Logical's 30 years of working in the non-unionized world he has never had a boss who chose not to recognize his merits. Or one who used him to get further up the ladder. It's refreshing to know that anyone who gets a promotion or a pay raise got it only because they were the most productive, most wonderful employee. It's refreshing to know that all bosses are fair and reasonable.

Kind of restores the faith I had shaken by Lehman Brothers' executive bonuses and the $414K AIG "we got bailed out" party.
October 8, 2008

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mayor_Quimby writes:

YES on 47! These people are capitalists and not socialists.
October 8, 2008

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

urnfndbag writes:

I've spent several thousand dollars at American Furniture Warehouse in the past few years, and will be furnishing a new home in two months. I will never buy a single piece of furniture from American Furniture Warehouse again. That's really the best way to let Jake know his happy face on 47 doesn't make me happy.
October 8, 2008

8:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

sawzallartist writes:

Logical writes:

"Thanks, Jake, and everyone who is supporting Amend. 47. I despise unions. They had their use, but have outlived their need."

I hope then you never take a paid vacation, take weekends off, work over a 40 hour week with over-time pay, enjoy paid healthcare and other benefits, or work in a safe environment.
October 8, 2008

8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

kirbysfriend22 writes:

You beat me to it, sawzallartist. And I bet every management across the state would continue to always provide those "perks" without the presence of unions (since they are no longer useful).

It seems like we all have rights here in the U.S.... Freedoms, you know. Perhaps, since we all have these rights already, we can toss out the Constitution because it has done its job and worn out it's usefulness. I bet the government will continue to honor our rights and freedoms without it. Sounds like a reasonable gamble, huh?
October 8, 2008

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Outlaw writes:

I could debate both sides of this issue. I have worked a union job, but most of my jobs have been non-union. The way I see it is: If you want a job and it is a union job, then you know before you apply that you will have to join and pay the union dues. The reason you would want this job versus other jobs is PROBABLY because a union fought to make it more attractive. If you want those benefits then you need to support the people that brought them to you. If you have a problem with paying union dues, then go somewhere else. It is a free country and your decision.

I have also found that through the years, companies that treat their employees fairly, never hear the word, unionize. The ones that screw their employees, will periodically be threatened with unionization, as well they should.
October 8, 2008

8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Gee who would've thunk it. Rich guys backing 47. Well slap me upside the head with a frying pan! The wealthy hate unions. They are trying to destroy the last of them because they know that Unions keep average wages up for all nonunion people. Get rid of unions and you can drop wages accross the board and maximize profits. It won't trickle down to your pocket book just down your legs folks. This is how they think. Coors still pays their people fairly well but if the unions at Budweiser and Miller could be broken that would all change. Mark my words.
October 8, 2008

8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

This war on labor has to end. We have tried Reaganomics for almost 30 years now. Where has it gotten us but depressed wages accross the board and fat cats getting fewer and fatter. Union Yes!!!
October 8, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dick_Tater writes:

Grab your pitch forks and torches, lets run businesses ( and jobs ) out of the state.
October 8, 2008

9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

MrJim writes:

This doesn't eliminate the union, it just eliminates the REQUIREMENT that you join a union as a condition of employment. IF the union(s) are truly worth their salt, then the employees will still join. But if the unions take my money then spend it on supporting a candidate or cause I don't believe in, I should have the option to keep the job, but not belong to or give payment too the union. Job competition is what makes unions obsolete now, companies realize they have to make employees want to stay. When Obama gets in and we have 20% unemployment, then the companies will be able to get employees for nothing.
October 8, 2008

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

woodjt1 writes:

My husband worked briefly for AFW about 15 years ago, and when they had their "orientation day," they had a lunch with the man himself, Jake Jabs. Jake actually told the new hires they'd better enjoy their lunch with him because he wouldn't be having lunch with the likes of them again unless they became millionaires! No joke, he actually said that! What an arrogant jerk! I guarantee he's backing this measure only because it might help his pocketbook, not his employees.
October 8, 2008

9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

UNV_ME writes:

Right to work?
More like right to be a moron.
October 8, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

I’m hoping some people from both sides of this discussion can provide me with some information without attacking each other. I’m VERY political minded, and well versed on a lot of issues ranging from economic policy, foreign affairs and domestic policy – however, my knowledge is lacking when it comes to Unions.
So I’m confused. What is the problem with allowing people to choose whether or not they would like to join a Union and get union benefits? I mean, what harm is there if someone decides they don’t want to be a member and then, doesn’t get member benefits? Why should they pay the dues if it’s not something they want to participate in?
I’m a hardcore democrat, but I just don’t understand Unions. I understand them in historical context and think that they were not only useful, but necessary to get us to where we are today. But I question their continued usefulness.
Here is an example. A friend of mine works for the airline industry and is in one of the most powerful unions in that industry. He calls in sick whenever he doesn’t like an assignment he’s going to get, is guaranteed to be paid for a certain number of hours whether he works them or not and EVERYONE is guaranteed the SAME raise every year, regardless of whether or not the are a stellar employee with a million customer compliments or they are a horrible employee with a dozen complaints. I don’t understand how that is fair.
Anyhow, as I said I am not well versed on this, so if people on both sides would be willing to provide insight without attacking and being obnoxious I would appreciate it. I would love to hear from union supporters why this is a bad thing and also from the others. Thanks.
October 8, 2008

9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

"I hope then you never take a paid vacation, take weekends off, work over a 40 hour week with over-time pay, enjoy paid healthcare and other benefits, or work in a safe environment. "

I've never been in a union and I enjoy all of the above. Unions are based on the same poor economic principle that underlies minimum wage and other compensation laws: They're all cases of artificially increasing compensation for a job when the market is clearly saying that such compensation isn't warranted. To varying degrees, these policies provide incentives for complacency and reduce incentives for people to perform more useful jobs for the economy. They also drain money from other people and other useful jobs, because someone else is always paying for this extra compensation (and it is always passed on to consumers). The bottom line is, demand for a job indicates how useful it is. Sometimes it's never useful for someone to do a particular job, and other times it's only useful if a reasonable number of people are trying to do it. As more and more people compete for a particular job, the need for each person diminishes, and compensation reflects that - and that's a good thing.
October 8, 2008

9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

hottopic2999 writes:

I love Jake Jabs! He should turn loose some of those tigers from his commercials onto the employees that want to unionize. Unions kill the economy. Unionizers eat babies and steal candy from kids. Vote YES on 47!
October 8, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

UNV_ME writes:

Yes on 47 = Idiot
October 8, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

smartasheck writes:

Unions for businesses are like tenure for teachers. They are not merit based for advancement and protect underperformance. Democrats love them because it fits into their socialist agenda. It's nearly impossible for a business to rid itself of a problem union employee. Like I said, it's like tenure, just look at Ward Churchill for further justification. BTW, the teachers union is one of the most powerful in the state and look at where we stand with the rest of the world when it comes to educating our children.
October 8, 2008

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

SimpleMind writes:

sawzallartist writes:

Logical writes:

""Thanks, Jake, and everyone who is supporting Amend. 47. I despise unions. They had their use, but have outlived their need."

I hope then you never take a paid vacation, take weekends off, work over a 40 hour week with over-time pay, enjoy paid healthcare and other benefits, or work in a safe environment."

Every company I've worked for since 1995 has provided those benefits to me and my co-workers, without being coerced by a union to do so. Unions have outlived their usefulness, as they were necessary back when we had fat-cat owners (fatter than now) who wanted to pay their laborers slave wages for ridiculous hours worked. We have labor laws now that prevent such egregious acts.

I'm not inclined to vote 'yes' on 47, mainly because it's an amendment to the state's Constitution and that's just a bad thing all around if it's a flawed amendment (which most usually are), but I believe that employees have the right to work at a job that they are qualified for without having to join a union to do so.
October 8, 2008

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Willy writes:

Jabs is a first class jerk - not many who have been around him would deny that fact.

However, I have belonged to both the Teamsters and the United Auto workers and they never really did a damn thing for me except take my money, pay big salaries to the union leaders and pay off politicians and mid level managers.
October 8, 2008

10:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

SuperGlazier writes:

JB

The proponents of 47 have managed to control the discussion pretty effectively, so here we go:

If you are a nonunion worker, under amendment 47, you do not have to join a union. What you do have, though, is the right to be covered under the same collective bargaining agreement as your union coworkers, but you do not have to join the union to do so. Pretty simple, right?

Well, of course, who WOULD join a union under these circumstances? Pretty much no one. That's the point. 47 isn't designed to free workers from the yoke of unionism, it's designed to break unions by taking away their membership. With ammendment 47, suddenly you have an incentive to quit a union. Nonunion workers have the same wages as the union worker, but they don't have to pay dues. 47 is designed as a stepping stone to a totally nonunion workplace. It's a means to an end.

Once the union is effectively eliminated from the workplace, the employer is able to divide and conquer: no more collective bargaining means lower wages, lower benefits, and an overall cheaper workforce. That's why wages are always lower in "right to work" states, because unions are effectively broken, and workers lose the very powerful tool of collective bargaining. It's not that wages shrink, it's that they never grow in these states once the unions are gone.

I've seen it before in other workplaces where owners are able to convince workers to switch unions. Once all of the targeted workers switched their cards, and the targeted union was out of the workplace, all of the workers who converted were fired or laid off. End result, the union that was targeted was gone from the company, and the employer was able to do it without strikes and with the cooperation of the employees who didn't know better.

Amendment 47 is similar, and this is why unions oppose it. It is a way to break the back of unions without having to take the on directly, and it works.
October 8, 2008

10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mayor_Quimby writes:

No on 47 = less jobs and less pay = idiocy.
October 8, 2008

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

SuperGlazier writes:

"Unions for businesses are like tenure for teachers. They are not merit based for advancement and protect underperformance."

I don't know where you got that from, but in my union, if you don't perform in the workplace, or if you are unqualified, you are fired. I'm going to guess that you made that up, or worked off the gigantic pool of "common knowledge" that is not the same thing as "fact."

In fact, in my union, if you are fired for cause from three companies, you're no longer allowed to represent the union in the workplace: you have to change careers and do something else. In fact, in my union, continuing education is mandatory, as is first aid training. I know this probably flies in the face of your made up facts, but it's true.

My union is dedicated to excellence in the workplace, because that's how you negotiate higher wages. You don't show up and say "Well, I know we are all lazy and stupid, but if you don't give us more money, we'll go on strike!" Doesn't work.

I don't know where the idea came from that union workers are somehow inferior people, who are lazy and basically steal from their employers, but I don't like it.
October 8, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Those who oppose 47 are either members of the mafia, union bosses, or just low IQ dweebs who think extortion is good.

The mafia works exactly like unions.... you'll be forced to pay "dues" to the organized crime bosses (aka union bosses) whether you want to or not.

Intelligent people call it extortion. Idiots call it "union dues".
October 8, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

SuperGlazier writes:

Mayor_Quimby writes:

"No on 47 = less jobs and less pay = idiocy"

I don't follow your logic. Right now, we don't have anything like amendment 47 in the state of Colorado, but we have jobs and new commercial construction all over the place downtown. American Furniture Warehouse and Coors are nonunion, and they are doing well. What would amendment 47 change? Would 47 make them MORE nonunion somehow?

Or would making Colorado a 100% nonunion state just have employers knocking on Colorado's doors? Unions have a 8% share, so I don't see how this would really impact anything significantly. Most employers in the state are already nonunion, so what would be the benefit for the state?

Who would benefit? Would reducing the 8% share to 0% raise wages for workers? If so, how would this work?

Who would benefit from this amendment, and how? I find it hard to believe that Jake Jabs really cares about the 8% of workers who are in unions here. That makes no sense, as his workforce is nonunion.
October 8, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

SuperGlazier writes:

"rickg19611 writes:

The mafia works exactly like unions.... you'll be forced to pay "dues" to the organized crime bosses (aka union bosses) whether you want to or not."

That's not how it works at all. Let's say that you work for a company that has 10 employees. If six of those employees don't want to be in a union anymore, they can request that the union be decertified in their workplace. It happens all the time.

The government comes in, holds a quick election, and if a majority does not want to be in the union anymore, that's that. The union is out. You're not caught in some gigantic protection racket, you just have a vote, and the union is gone.

If the union acts like the mafia, or some other made up fairy tale character, the workers can kick it out. I know that's hard to believe, for those of you who see unions as some kind of evil vampire, but here's another thing that will blow your mind:

If you don't like the way a union is being run, you can (ready?) run for office. I know, it's crazy: the union bosses are ELECTED! This means that if they act badly, they are thrown out, and new members come in and take their place. Can you believe that, union members control the unions? I know, you thought that Count Chocula or Satan controlled all of the unions, but actually, union members do. Crazy, no?
October 8, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Boscoboss writes:

Agree -- boycott AAFW - Anti-American Furniture Warehouse!
October 8, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

JINX writes:

Jake Jabs, I 've spent a lot of money in your stores and I'm done. You have lost a customer.

This amendment is nothing short of "Union busting." A union negotiates the contract for ALL employees and ALL employees enjoy the benefits, be it health care, vacation, pay or disability. The members of the union pay into a collective pool to benefit all employees. All members get the opportunity to collectively come to an agreement on what benefits the members most.

What this amendment is saying is that it is fair for employees to "reap" the same benefits as the union members but not pay anything for them. It means they get something for nothing. The backers of this amendment are hoping that unions just say screw it, it isn't worth and just go away. That wil make it easier for old Jake to make more money on your backs without paying you for it.

If you want the right to work, you shouldn't get the benefit of what the union negotiates to your benefit. You want to work for $7.00 an hour in Jake Jabs Warehouse while he stuffs his pockets with the money that should pay your healthcare, go ahead and do it. I choose to negotiate as a whole to gain a fair wage that supports my family.

As far a politicians and lobbyists go, they aren't throwing their money at just anyone. As a member, you are supporting people who in turn support you. The backers of this amendment cry foul at that, but in turn vote for people who are pro non union. This amendment may be good for the common pencil pushing accountant who believes unions drive the price of everything up. This amandment is terrible for the police, firemen, teachers and construction. You vote yes on this and you will get what you deserve, all these trades will be working for $10.00 an hour and you will get what you pay for.

Vote NO on this.
October 8, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Radar writes:

JB, you pretty much have it in a nutshell, unions claim to fame is historical, now it is like your friend says, if he does like his assignment, he could just not show up. leaving someone else to pick up his slack. He pays dues usually about 10-20 % of his wage, going to upper management, union reps, but mostly political backing. now what the unions don't/ Won't tell you is that when they go on srtike, they might pay less than 1% of your wage to walk the picket line, does that feed a family of four? ask for the numbers of people had their credit rating shot all to hell from repossessions of cars, furnitue, and foreclosed on homes. Non union workers negotiate, for their wage, basiclt you sell youself, and skills. health care, we find our own, usually with a company, but we are not limited to HMO style union picked health care. we can cater to our needs. Vacations we as most people save for them. again non union work force, we get promoted, and raises based on merit, and performance, union get promoted,raises base on ...whatever, or they will strike. non union get terminated usually based, on something you did and most likely you deserved it. Companies have to get their ducks in a row, in order to keep from getting a wrongful termination lawsuit. union well the company is stuck with the member, like it or not. even if it a safety issue they will still be there. basicly we have control of our own choices, as for what type of work environment, we choose to work. unions pay someone to make desicions for them, oh and last item, unions now contribute to the rising cost of manufactured goods, the company is forced to pay higher wages, and someone has to pay for that, and it is passed on to the consumers.
October 8, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

IRUNMAN writes:

I actually just started the process of furnishing my apartment.

I sure am glad I saw Jake Jabs advertisement on tv at the gym advocating Amendment 47.

I will never step foot in a AFW store.

Stick to cheap, Chinese-made crap furniture, not politics, Jakey.
October 8, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

COGrownFarmBoy writes:

I was never a big supporter of Unions until about 10 years ago. My office had hired a new boss 13 or 14 years ago and when people left he hired in new several new people to replace vacancies. Then about 10 years ago, he was trying to restructure our office and tried to force two of us who had been with the office for years to move to our Minneapolis Office. Both of us had always received high performance ratings and had done our jobs well, he just wanted to get rid of people who weren't personally loyal to him. It had nothing to do with job performance. Thankfully because he was in charge of our entire region not just the Denver Office, he had already been involved in some other shady personnel issues and so several of our other offices joined with us and for the first time we unionized. We do not have paid employees and everything is handled by volunteers. The primary focus of our union is to make sure that we are treated fairly. We are not involved in political campaigns but focus on protecting workers rights. I understand that there have been abuses by Unions in the past but there have been more abuses by Businesses and Business Leaders against their employees. Unfortunately having Unions are a necessary evil because of the power of businesses and business leaders. One of the earlier comments is that good businesses don't have unions because their employees don't feel like they need one is very correct. The ads on this amendment are misleading because you are entitled to request a refund of the part of your unions dues that is involved in political campaigning if you disagree with the position of your union. Colorado has a good system and does limit union control...I am voting No on 47 to protect our working population against those who would take advantage of them.
October 8, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

RainbowWarrior writes:

The conservative movement has undermined unions with illegal imagration. There are jobs that must be done that no one wants to do, and no one wants to pay to have done. Unions have filled these positions with Americans, and pay a living wage w/benefits... Any of you bone heads ever done assembly line work or worked at a meat proccessing plant? Republicans have allowed the boarders to be opened for the benefit of bussinesses, at the expense of American workers. And when ever they could, they shipped whole factories along with the American jobs overseas and established tax havens to avoid paying their fair share to support our country! It's all about the money and the profits of the top 1%! I laugh at the fools during an election season who promote the Republican party that has never had their economic self interest in mind and have been able to dupe so many people for so long to vote them into office because, hey, some day you might join the super elite, rich white man club at the very top that will never represent more than 1 in 500 Americans! They use wedge issues and your own emotions and moral values agaist you!
October 8, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cel writes:

Alright, so I've read 47 (at least 47 times), I've seen the commercials, I'm not a union member - never have been. I'm a registered independent and reasonably educated, I guess I'd say about average, so help me out here. I'm having a difficult time finding a problem with 47. Maybe it's because I'm not and never have been a union member. As far as I can see, this doesn't make unions go away, it make them optional and doesn't force you to pay dues to an organization that you are not a member of or don't wish to support. I've seen a commercial with a fireman, he says if 47 passes it will take away the voice of public servants like fire and police (or something like that), how is it that will happen? Which federal law is it that allows a non-union member to get a refund on his/her dues? If there is an applicable refund why not just do away with the mandatory contribution in the first place? A little help here, please. Thanks - Cel
October 8, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

SuperGlazier writes:

Radar writes-
"He pays dues usually about 10-20 % of his wage, going to upper management, union reps, but mostly political backing. "

You're just making things up.
October 8, 2008

11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

"Once the union is effectively eliminated from the workplace, the employer is able to divide and conquer: no more collective bargaining means lower wages, lower benefits, and an overall cheaper workforce. That's why wages are always lower in "right to work" states, because unions are effectively broken, and workers lose the very powerful tool of collective bargaining."

Jobs are to workers as business is to companies. No consumer owes any particular company any business, for the same reason that no company owes any particular worker any job. Just like companies get business because they do something useful for consumers, workers get jobs because they do something useful for companies (and therefore consumers, vicariously). In other words, contrary to popular belief, the economy does not exist to produce jobs. The economy exists to produce the most wealth for everyone involved without wasting time, energy, or resources...and jobs exist solely as a means to that end. If they're not meeting a need and creating wealth, jobs are utterly useless.

You pro union folks need to realize you are one of the contributing factors to jobs being shipped overseas. The cheaper workforce is neccessary to produce low cost goods. Unions and government policy is making it almost prohibitively expensive to manufacture goods in the US. We used to have plenty of good jobs for our surplus of unskilled workers, because we used to be a manufacturing-based economy instead of a services-based economy. Unfortunately, the government has driven production costs so high that many US-based companies simply can't compete with foreign-based companies, and they have to outsource to survive. We now have a 90+% service-based economy, which makes us vulnerable and dependent on other countries.
October 8, 2008

11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Radar writes:

Super, as a former member of the carpenter union my wage was 14.60 per hour, = 584.00 a week 90.00 union dues a week, seems to fit in that range to me, today figures are different for the wage, but i'm guess the % going to dues is not far off. as for where it went, if i remember right we had 3 managers, a two stewarts, and was told that went to lobbist in Washington.
October 8, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

SuperGlazier writes:

"You pro union folks need to realize you are one of the contributing factors to jobs being shipped overseas. The cheaper workforce is neccessary to produce low cost goods."

No, greed is the contributing factor for shipping jobs overseas. The solution is working for $1 an hour, I suppose, so we can compete with china? Whoops, that won't work either, because $1 an hour is too high.

I don't understand the argument that low wages or goods that are made in a sweatshop or by slave labor are somehow beneficial. Who benefits? Certainly not the child that is making the goods, nor the local economy where the goods are made. Nothing good can come from a fundamentally bad act.
October 8, 2008

noon

Suggest removal

SuperGlazier writes:

Radar

No way. Typical dues are 3%.
October 8, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

"I don't understand the argument that low wages or goods that are made in a sweatshop or by slave labor are somehow beneficial. Who benefits? Certainly not the child that is making the goods, nor the local economy where the goods are made. Nothing good can come from a fundamentally bad act."

Free markets don't mean companies can exploit workers or pay them whatever they want. Instead, competition in a free market forces companies to pay workers almost exactly what their work is worth to consumers. When competition between companies is fierce, the power balance between companies and consumers hovers at equilibrium - and so does the power balance between companies and workers.

When there's not enough competition and the companies in a market sector are not meeting consumer demand at a reasonable price, this means one of two things: Either their profit margins are too high, or the companies involved simply don't have the capacity to fully meet consumer demand. In both cases, the circumstances naturally attract more competition. If the latter is the case, more competition will create more jobs. No matter which is the case, more competition will mean reduced profit margins, but it will only mean reduced worker compensation if the workers are already overcompensated.

In fact, the increased competition will usually mean higher worker compensation. This is because the jobs are now less concentrated and distributed among more companies, who now have to compete for talent. Contrast with a monopoly, where only one company is in charge of setting wages for all jobs in a market sector. In that case, they only have to compete for workers with entirely different types of companies, who might require entirely different skillsets. When there are few companies competing, they have a lot of control over compensation, but when many companies are competing, workers have more control.

In other words, fierce competition drives job creation, better compensation, and efficient use of resources, both material and talent-based. (By efficient, I'm once again referring to creating the most wealth for consumers). Lax competition allows companies to become complacent. This leads to high profit margins, low compensation, and overall inefficiency and impoverishment of society. With less companies competing to fulfill the wants and needs of consumers, this also translates to fewer jobs. These conditions naturally attract more competition to fix them, but there are both natural and unnatural barriers to competition.
October 8, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

SuperGlazier

You make some good points. A well-run union (yes, there are such entities) is a benefit to both labor and management. Unfortunately, they are rare.

Yours sounds like a solid organization. In our company, we have 40+ manufacturing sites around the country, half are union and half are not. Each has an average of around 200 employees.

The only appreciable difference among them is productivity. Every non-union plant is more productive than the union plants. Why? Because in the union plants there are a SMALL number of members who are deadwood. They know exactly how to play the game: they work just enough so they don't get fired, but not enough to actually help. Their fellow union members don't like it, their union stewards don't like it -- but they are protected. Why? Because labor law is written such that - if the union does not protect them - the union can be sued for "non-representation".

In the non-union plants we can "weed the garden" in the rare circumstance that it's necessary. In the union plants it can be done, but it's much, much harder.

So, with productivity lower in the union plants (resulting in higher operating costs), guess what happens if business drops off and we need to close a plant? Unless it's geographically important to keep a plant in a specific location, the union plant is the first one we consider. Not because MOST of the people aren't really good at what they do -- they are! It's the few slackers who affect the entire business that bring the rest down.

We work well with our unions. Not a single strike in over 30 years. The plants are clean and safe. We have never tried to get a union decertified ... it's never even been discussed.

I'm voting for 47 simply because of my experience with unions - not because of who wrote it, or who appears in its commercials.
October 8, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Superglazier-
Thanks for your response, but I’m still confused. I understand that the Amendment could deal a blow to some Unions, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I’ll use the example of my friend again. In his Union, there is no performance based pay increase, it’s the same across the board, because that’s what the Union negotiated. Now, this is the same for a bad employee, a mediocre employee or a stellar employee – so what is the motivation to show up to work everyday, smile, be efficient and do a great job when you can just do the bare minimum?
Also, his Union is so powerful that the airline, especially in the face of climbing oil prices, is having to pay for negotiated benefits it simply can’t afford. It’s still turning a profit, but is doing so by jacking up fees and fares and cutting flights left and right. Even my friend told me that if they could just simply fire the slackers, they would have been able to fix their staffing problem…instead, because of the Union contract, they had to offer voluntary furloughs – and ended up losing their best and most experienced, and kept the slackers. I just don’t understand how that’s a good thing.
It seems to me that companies need good employees to operate, so they will take care of their good ones and cut out the bad given the choice. Also, I think that they would offer fair wages and benefits to attract top talent… at least that has been the case in every job I’ve had. And if I don’t like the package, I find a company that offers a better one, and market myself to them.
Again, I don’t know a ton about Unions other than what I’ve seen from my friends who are in them. So any additional points you could provide would be appreciated. I am honestly trying to understand the importance of them…
October 8, 2008

12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Radar writes:

Super, now days maybe, 3% but let me ask you how much do they pay for a walking a picket line? hence Being a former member.
October 8, 2008

1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

KMP5280 writes:

Cel:
You are exactly right. All this back and forth ridiculousness about firefighters, policemen, and nurses losing their "voices" and basically saying that no one will take care of them is as absolutely off-base as the "no on 47" people know it is. They are using this messaging because it is a heart-string puller - and they are BANKING on the fact that Colorado voters will not educate themselves on the topic, but will just remember a picture of a sad firefighter and vote no on 47. In fact, from what I've read, they are spending tens of MILLIONS on that bet.

The fact of the matter is, because you have taken the time to try and educate yourself on the proposed amendment, you know that the commercials and rationale they are trying to instill on the Colorado community is nothing but a smoke-screen.

The truth of the matter is that 47 does nothing but allow Colorado workers to choose: whether to be in a union, or NOT to be in a union, without fear of losing their job. The unions don't like this because they will actually have to live up to their promises to the workers they represent.

Think about it: if amendment 47 passes, workers can opt in or out of the union. If the union bosses don't do anything in favor of the workers, more of the workers will opt out of the union. The union may completely dissolve and the workers will be there bargaining for themselves. If that doesn't work, and workers feel they need representation, don't you think that they would vote to bring the union back in? I sure think so. At least that is how my rationale says it would work.

I am a registered independent who has always voted democrat. I support Barack and Udall for their social policies - and will vote accordingly. However, on this Colorado issue, I want to pass agenda that I know will make Colorado a better, more business-friendly place that hopefully will grant me the ability and support to start my own small business one day. In a tough economy, pushing for agenda that IMPROVES our economy is important - and all the evidence I have read says that right to work states do just that: fuel job growth and decrease unemployment levels. It is important that we read into each issue at hand and vote on each issue independently of party affiliations - and educate ourselves and vote without false rhetoric ringing in our ears.

Just my thoughts. I have never been in a union, am not around unions, but think that I do just fine negotiating for myself: I work hard, I am highly educated, and I stand up for myself and push for things I believe I deserve. Maybe someday in my future, I will want to join a union, but at that point, I want to make that decision MYSELF and make sure that they are actually WORKING FOR ME and not spending my dues trying to push their own political agenda.
October 8, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

JINX writes:

Jb

If your police officers and firemen aren't given the opportunity to collectively bargain for their wages and benefits, what do you think the city will pay them. Do you think the city will say we believe we have the best officers and want to pay the highest salary in the state, or will the city say this is what we pay, like it or not. That is taking the voice from these employees. Is it fair to tell a fireman to do the work he does at say $10.00 dollars an hour - no benefits, or $15 with health care. You will not get quality workers to do this job. The city will lowball and fill positions.

The union negotiates a fair wage where the employee can support himself and his family. By allowing people to reap the benefits without paying theie fair share will be the demise of the union. Officers, firemen and teachers will lose by not being payed adequatly which will lead to underskilled workers taking their place.

This amendment is being pushed with crafty wordsmanship on protecting workers. It is not protecting workers, it will make the rich richer. If your not in a union, great, this bill probably wont affect you. If you are a police officer, fireman or teacher, this bill will greatly affect the wages and benefits in this state. I know, I am one of these.
October 8, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Jinx-
Almost my entire family is on the Job. The ones who work in right to work states basically make the same as the ones who don't.

I REALLY am trying hard to understand here, but I keep hearing talking point from BOTH sides.
October 8, 2008

1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

"The union negotiates a fair wage where the employee can support himself and his family. By allowing people to reap the benefits without paying theie fair share will be the demise of the union. "

The demise of the union? Why? If the union is doing its job - and displaying value to the members - why would it go away?

If the union ever DID go away and the employees began being mistreated by management, they would simply vote the union back in.

Management knows this. Very rarely will management implement policies and procedures that they KNOW will lead to organization by a labor union. That's why, generally, wages and benefits are provided that are in keeping with the local economy.

Are there exceptions? Sure - some organizations are run by idiots. Nothing can help them. Reference: the current financial mess.

The flip side is when unions gain too much control over the situation, i.e. all of the car manufacturers. G.M. is nothing more than a pension fund that makes cars for a living.

I believe we need unions to keep management honest. But I believe the individual right to decide where to work and what organizations to join superceds the rights of a union to collect dues. If they can demostrate value to the laborer, the laborer will willingly pay dues.
October 8, 2008

1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

"The city will lowball and fill positions."

WRONG. The city will pay employees based on the market value of their labors. No more, no less.

"The union negotiates a fair wage where the employee can support himself and his family."

WRONG AGAIN. A fair wage by who's standards? The market decides what a fair wage is. By artificailly "bargaining" with unions, the government ends up paying an artificial premium for these employees. Why should the taxpayers bare the wieght of what the you and your union thinks is fair wage? I don't belong to a union, nobody is bargaining for a premium for me and my family. I get paid what the market has established as a fair wage for my labors, why should you be any different?

"This amendment is being pushed with crafty wordsmanship on protecting workers."

WRONG AGAIN. The only people using crafty wordmanship are the people against this amendment. A quick look at the FACTS and fundamental understanding of economic theory clearly illustrates that government intervention in our 'free' enterprise system is what has gotten us in this economic mess. Pull your fingers out of your ears, show some personal responsibility and EARN IT like the rest of us. Stop pandering for socialist handouts and blaming all your woes on the rich.
October 8, 2008

2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

JINX writes:

wizzrd

Whats the fair market price for a teacher, or a cop or a fireman. They aren't selling a product. How do you come up with it. I KNOW what the city would pay us without a union. They offer it every time a contract comes up. Guess what, it's always cut benefits, no raises and little job security. I am not talking to the auto union. Frankly they aren't a colorado union. I'm talking about middle class city workers who will be lowballed and paid minimum wage if the city is able to do it. As a union, all officers and fireman are paid a livable wage and are able to negotiate contracts. If this amendment passes, some officers wont pay that share but will still be paid the same until the union dissipates. Then guess what, the union is gone and we go with whatever the city wants pay us. In the city unions, you don't have to be in the union, but you do have to pay your share of the contract negotiations because you are reapin the benefits. If you want to work for what the city will pay you based on a fair market value, go ahead and take your chances.

A funny story I heard . Some union guys went down to the Chamber of Commerce to become members. The chamber said okay, that will be 2500.00 The union guys said wait, we just want to be members, we dont want to pay anything. The chamber said you cant be members and get the benefits without paying your dues. Yet the chamber of commerce wants to do away with union "dues" and benefits. This is big business attempts to do away with unions, like it or not.
October 8, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

"Whats the fair market price for a teacher, or a cop or a fireman."

The market determines what the fair market price is, which is why it's called the fair market price, go figure. As JB pointed out above, civic employees in right to work states get paid a fair (market determined) wage. Why do you think that is? Because those local goverments are just nicer than our local governments? I don't think so, they pay those people what the market will bare, why is exactly what will happen here.

"They aren't selling a product. How do you come up with it."

They're PRODUCING a service, the same as aproduct, and they'll be required to compensate employees to effectively produce that service. If they don't, the service won't be preformed effectively and ajustments will made. 90% of the US economy is service based, this isn't a new concept.

"I KNOW what the city would pay us without a union. They offer it every time a contract comes up. Guess what, it's always cut benefits, no raises and little job security."

The city is negotiating with you. Of course they're going to low ball. When you go to buy a car or a house do you make the highest offer you are willing to pay as your first offer? Of course not, and the city is no different.

"I'm talking about middle class city workers who will be lowballed and paid minimum wage if the city is able to do it. As a union, all officers and fireman are paid a livable wage and are able to negotiate contracts."

If the city can pay minimum wage and still get folks to fill those positions, then that is the fair market price for that service. When wages for a particular job are low, that's the market's way of saying, "Hey, there are WAY too many of you guys trying to do this job, and we don't need all of you! If you're looking for a way to pull your weight and thereby make a living, how about you do something more useful for the economy?"
October 8, 2008

2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cel writes:

What if there was some other method of collecting money from non union members? Maybe only an abbreviated portion. Or a voluntary contribution. I've seen on some of these boards union people saying things like "if you don't want to work in a union shop, then go work somewhere else." Couldn't a non union member make the same argument, "Go work somewhere that only accepts union workers." I personally wouldn't want to work anywhere that I didn't trust the bosses to treat me right, or if I did I'd go into it with full knowledge that I could expect to be treated like crap and be under valued and under paid. Does anyone know the Federal citation that allows for a refund for non union members to collect their paid dues? I've seen that mentioned here. Still, I'm not understanding, what's wrong with 47, it doesn't outlaw unions, from what I can tell it only says that I don't have to join one or contribute to one if I don't want to and anyone can feel free to join and contribute if they should choose to. I have yet to understand how this amendment will silence the voices of Fire, Police, Nurses, etc... why will this void all collective bargaining. Are the people supporting 47 naive enough to think some bosses won't try to take advantage and some things won't change, and are the people opposed to 47 naive enough to think that there won't still be unions and that unions won't be able to apply pressure to new employees and administrations? I'd appreciate some help here, I'm really trying to understand. It would be an interesting experiment to put this an amendment with the abortion issue and see which side really supports choice and which side doesn't. A little help? Thanks.
October 8, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

JINX writes:

Example- most sheriff offices are non union - work at the will of the sheriff. El Paso County Deputies make $38,000 a year. Denver Police are union- they make $68,000.00. All Denver PD employees have the ability to negotiate a fair wage they are able to live on. Take away the union, because thats what is essentially being proposed, you will take away the voice of these officers saying we deserve adequate compensation for the job we perform.

Now call the $38000 fair market value. The amendment is not saying that the officers who choose to not be in the union will make $38000 while the union officers can negotiate $68000. That would be fair, I have no problem with that. You want to work at the non union scale and not join the union, so be it. This amendment says you dont have to be union, but what the union negotiates, you still get. You just don't have to pay for it. You don't have to pay dues and the union will still work for you. Now if that isn't union busting, I don't know what is. If you want to get the negotiated $68,000. You have to help pay for it, it's not your right to just reap the benefits and sit back and pay nothing.
October 8, 2008

3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

JINX writes:

Cel - there is an abbreviated fee, if you don't want to be a member. It's called fair share. You don't pay member dues and you don't reap the benefits of a union (grievance and police legal protection). You are simply paying your share of the contract negotiation and your dues are considerably less. That is fair, you reap the benefits of the contract but you are not a member. What this amendment proposes is you don't pay your share and you still reap the benefits.
October 8, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cel writes:

So the union negotiates everyone's starting wage and they all start equally? In a union situation, are there merit increases, ie - the "good cops" are equal in monetary compensation to the "bad cops"?
October 8, 2008

10:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

NoOn47 writes:

Why has it taken so long for all these people to come forward? And they only did it when forced through a legal document? If this amendment is so important, why weren't there out there talking about how proud of it they are? It smells fishy to me.
October 9, 2008

1:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

noble1 writes:

His furniture is crap, I'm too much of a gentleman to say what his daughter is, and this is obviously a measure to keep worker from having rights they deserve.
October 9, 2008

5:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

OK, Rocky Mountain News..

Now tell us who is backing all the other Amendments..

How about 50.....58 and all of the other TAX INCREASEMENTS.

Go ahead and print all of those backers now.

It is the fair thing to do.

Bet you will not...because RMN is in bed with those backers.

Nuff Said!
October 9, 2008

12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

becca6166 writes:

I've shopped AFW for years and will certainly continue as they have amazing furntiture, accessories and their prices can't be beat. "47" is right for Colorado - this will make our State more attractive to other companies wanting to do business here.

Employee's should not be forced to join a Union to be able to work anywhere. It's all about CHOICE. The Union's time has come and gone. The ads with Firefighters and Police Officers are Union-backed tactics being used to pull on our heart-strings and are completely wrong and deceptive! Union's make false-promises to employees who then beleive their dues go towards health insurance, pension, etc. Those things are paid by the Employer. Union dues go to the Union bosses. The reason Union's don't want 47 to pass is they know their membership will drastically drop. Give the Union members a choice and many would drop out. (Look at the UFCW website). Good, hard-working employees don't need Union protection, that's what laws are for.

If the Unionized Employers didn't have to increase their staff to deal with Union charges, grievances, atrbitrations - maybe they could afford to pay their employees better and offer better benefits, and be more competitive in their industry!

The comments about low wages at AFW are silly. I have a friend that works at AFW and he's paid very well. Talk to the employee's there - they are paid very well, have health insurance, 401k, etc. - and wow - they're Non-Union!

Good for you Jake! Yes on 47!
October 27, 2008

5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

richardtmyers writes:

Passing along this link to a site with information about Amendment 47:

http://www.voteno47.com

And, a site with info about Amendments 47, 49, and 54:

http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/

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 › Elections

Backers of right-to-work revealed in legal document

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Elections

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

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