AMENDMENT 49 COUNTERPOINT: Measure aims to stifle workers' voices

By Daniel Patterson

Published October 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Speakout

For public employees such as police officers, nurses, firefighters and teachers, all of whom collectively bargain their contracts with their employers, payroll deduction is vital.

I will cut to the chase: Vote no on Amendment 49 on Nov. 4. A no vote is a personal declaration of support for the dedicated people who protect us and put out our fires, the people who mend us, the people who teach our children. A yes vote is a tacit statement of support for the Coors family, the Walton family, Jake Jabs, Mike Rosen and "think tank" conservatives such as Jon Caldara, all of whom are local supporters of a snowballing national movement to stamp out the "scourge" of organized labor once and for all.

Make no mistake - Amendment 49's intent is not to "level the playing field" between unions and other organizations, as some, including this newspaper's editorial board, have suggested. This measure is not designed to save employers from the allegedly high cost associated with deducting union dues.

Amendment 49's true purpose is to protect those who don't need protection (management) and subjugate those who so desperately need it (public servants). Amendment 49's aim is to silence workers, stifling their ability to organize and advocate for needed reform (i.e., the end of No Child Left Behind, more money for struggling public schools, etc.).

Amendment 49, if it passes Nov. 4, is a death knell for organized labor in Colorado. By eliminating automatic deduction of union dues from their paychecks - a basic courtesy employers in both the private and public sectors have extended to their workers since the technology became available in the early '70s - workers would be forced to jump through unnecessary hoops such as writing a lump-sum check for their yearly union dues, a one-time expense financially strapped families can't afford. And many public employees, like the rest of the middle class, are scraping by as it is.

In Texas and South Carolina, where similar measures passed in recent years, union membership plummeted, as did salaries, benefits and work-force morale. This isn't a "benign good government measure." Rather, it is a concerted effort to nudge organized labor ever closer to extinction.

Union dues are not the only payroll deductions available to public-sector employees. Employers also allow workers to deduct donations to charitable organizations such as United Way, as well as 401(k) contributions, retirement, health benefits and life insurance premiums from their paychecks.

So how much does it cost, say, Denver Public Schools or the city and county of Denver to have union dues deducted from employee paychecks?

Peanuts!

"We're talking pennies, here," said Doug Webb, chief financial officer of the Colorado Education Association, whose membership base includes almost 40,000 Colorado teachers and other school employees. Webb explained that in the financial world, the "burden" of employee paycheck deductions on employers is microscopic, falling under the category of de minimis, an IRS term for "service provided to an employee that has so little value that reporting it would be unreasonable or administratively unpractical" (IRS.gov).

The supposed financial strain payroll deductions place on government that the editorial alluded to is, in reality, an expense so minimal the IRS can't be bothered with it. This issue was certainly not a sticking point in the recent contract negotiations between DPS and the Denver Classroom Teachers' Association.

What saddens me is that my commentary isn't an appeal for much-needed progress in the public sector. It's a plea to maintain the status quo, an entreaty to the voters of Colorado to let public servants preserve the important concessions that so many have spent the better part of a century fighting for to maintain their voice. As an employee in the public sector, you scratch and claw to keep what you have, and you pick your battles and expend your energy judiciously.

If 49 passes, there will be no more battles to fight because Caldara, Jabs and the Walton and Coors heirs will have won.

On Nov. 4, ensure that the victory party is statewide, a shared celebration for Colorado workers. Don't hand victory to those who care so little for the long-term well-being of our labor force. Vote no on Amendment 49.

Daniel Patterson is a Denver teacher, a member of the Denver Classroom Teachers' Association Board of Directors and a freelance writer.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

October 11, 2008

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ben_Arvada writes:

"By eliminating automatic deduction of union dues from their paychecks - a basic courtesy employers in both the private and public sectors have extended to their workers since the technology became available in the early '70s - workers would be forced to jump through unnecessary hoops such as writing a lump-sum check for their yearly union dues, a one-time expense financially strapped families can't afford. And many public employees, like the rest of the middle class, are scraping by as it is."

Mr. Patterson is creating a false choice between automatic government payroll deduction on one hand and lump-sum yearly check on the other. Has he never heard of automatic withdrawals or online monthly bill payments? That's how I pay most of my bills.

But let's get to the bigger point: Is this a tacit admission that union dues are too high and that most employees wouldn't pay if given the choice? I like what former Gov. Bill Owens wrote in the "Point" op-ed:

"Some opponents argue that Amendment 49 will reduce the overall level of contributions to some of these political associations. Again, I would bring you back to the point of essential services. Ask yourself, is it the government's job to make sure a select few groups (which not coincidentally provide huge funding to political campaigns) stay strong simply because they receive free collection and accounting services while other groups must perform these tasks for themselves?

"Amendment 49 levels the political playing field."
October 11, 2008

2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ben_Arvada writes:

"So how much does it cost, say, Denver Public Schools or the city and county of Denver to have union dues deducted from employee paychecks?

"Peanuts!

"'We're talking pennies, here,' said Doug Webb, chief financial officer of the Colorado Education Association, whose membership base includes almost 40,000 Colorado teachers and other school employees. Webb explained that in the financial world, the 'burden' of employee paycheck deductions on employers is microscopic, falling under the category of de minimis, an IRS term for 'service provided to an employee that has so little value that reporting it would be unreasonable or administratively unpractical' (IRS.gov)."

If Mr. Patterson wanted to know how much it costs government to perform payroll deduction services, why does he quote a private union official?

In so doing, I think the author makes the opposite point than he intended to make. I don't doubt the CEA official is correct: it very likely would be no great financial burden for CEA to process its own dues collections.

Did you know that in some cases school districts not only collect and bundle the dues to the teachers union but also perform all the bookkeeping and send the union a monthly report? That may be more than a de minimis expense.

If the actual deduction process costs virtually nothing for either government or the private association, why NOT let the government do it? From former Gov. Bill Owens' "Point" op-ed:

"Besides being a nonessential service, the practice carries serious ethical problems. Currently, unions and other political groups collect contributions from government employees right through our taxpayer-funded payroll systems. Many of these groups use the money to lobby, and even give campaign contributions to, the same politicians who signed their bundled payroll checks.

"Amendment 49 puts a stop to the free-flowing transfer of funds between government systems, lobbying groups and politicians. Both the Rocky and The Denver Post are right to call it a 'good-government' measure."

Ethics in government. That's why we need Amendment 49.
http://www.ethicalstandardsnow.com
October 11, 2008

3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

ObiWan writes:

The opponents to 49 have been claiming that this is all about their ability to have a "voice" to bargain for items of public safety. And if we don't help them, then OUR own safety will be at risk.

Denver Sheriff Deputy Jeff Shaw has been on some of these flyers saying 47, 49, and 54 will mean he will have to worry about the quality of his bulletproof vest.

ORLY?

How about this article, straight from the Rocky, about the Denver Sheriff asking for an extra 4 million because of payraises on a collective bargaining agreement.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

Show me where the collective bargaining agreement has anything to do with Mr. Shaw's bulletproof vest.

Look, if you want to be part of a union to get higher wages, then whatever.

But to threaten me with my SAFETY when it's really about your PAYCHECK, that's kinda low if you ask me.

And really, lets be honest about one more thing. If stopping free dues-collection would be a "death knell" for unions, then unions aren't one-tenth as strong as they would claim to be.

Like Ben_Arvada said, if this costs "peanuts," then do it for yourselves. Show us how "organized" organized labor really is.
October 11, 2008

3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

ObiWan writes:

Gotta throw this in as well:

"Amendment 49's aim is to silence workers, stifling their ability to organize and advocate for needed reform (i.e., the end of No Child Left Behind, more money for struggling public schools, etc."

Oh, so THAT'S why Denver teachers were threatening to strike right before the DNC? I thought it had to do with ProComp (once again their paychecks, not their public service).
October 12, 2008

6:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

My husband has been a union member for over 25 years. He has paid his union dues monthly the entire time. My tax money should not be used to collect and distibute union dues. This is an absurd arguement made by the unions. Even my union husband laughs when he sees the commercials.
October 13, 2008

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Too late. Already voted yes on all three.
October 13, 2008

7:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

MIKANE20 writes:

I just do not get it. How is it that a mojority of voters in this state insist that it is important to be tough on undocumented laborers supposedly to "Protect American Jobs" and then turn around and trash the importance of unions? Union shops require documentation for membership and therefore do the one thing Jake Jabs won't do...verify that the people employed have the legal right to work here.

Is it me, or are the idiots on the right in this state (I.e. BenArvada, Obiwan, and the entire staff of the Rocky Mountain News/Denver Post) completely ANTI EVERYONE WHO REQUIRES A PAYCHECK TO PAY BILLS?

This capitalism thing only works if people vote/buy products and ideas which are in their own selfish best interests. Passage of the Right to Work for Less Amendments is not in the self interests of most voters. It only benefits morons who can afford exotic tigers as pets and millionaire heirs who sell an American company to a foreign competitor and ship jobs brewing beer to Canada...which does very well with a highly organized labor movement.
October 14, 2008

2:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

sevingt writes:

The independence Institute is defined by president Jon Caldera as a free market think tank that researches alternatives to increased government and higher taxes. Are we supposed to believe that they promoted this initiative for the better part of two years in order to protect the interests of the tax-payer?; and that, given all of the well known abuse of the public dollar, this was the best idea that the collective minds at the institute could come up with to do so? Caldera's claim that Amendment 49 is about government use of tax dollars is a feeble attempt to draw focus away from it's true design–a corrosive effect on organized labor in Colorado.

Our State government is an employer, competing in an open labor market with others to attract the most qualified workers. Why should the state bear the disadvantage of not being allowed to provide the same conveniences and benefits to it's employees that a private company can offer? Is that what the “think tank” would call a free market, or a level playing field? They are trying to Amend the Constitution to force our State to do business in a way that favors their hackneyed, trickle-down ideology. Even if you are staunchly anti-union, this abuse of our constitution should give you pause; it would set a dangerous precedent, inviting other competing interests to introduce petty laws that would weaken one another.

“The Independence Institute believes that government should be using our tax dollars and our civil servants’ time to provide crucial public services....” wrote Caldera on his website.

But what good will it do to save a few cents here and there if the people providing those crucial services are not the best and brightest that the workforce has to offer? Labor Unions provide balance in the struggle between cost and quality, promote fair treatment, better working conditions, and higher pay for workers. These are the things that attract the kind of people that we want teaching our kids, building our roads, and putting out our fires.

Is it a stretch, Vudumom, to believe that if the wages and the working conditions of our teachers suffer, so too will the quality of education in the classrooms?

And, ObiWan, if your house was on fire and you called for help, who would you hope was coming: A guy that had several offers but chose to work in your city, or a guy that nobody else wanted?

Vote NO on 49
October 14, 2008

9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

JINX writes:

This is John Caldera's and the "Independence Institute" version of a temper tantrum. They are angry at the Governor for allowing state workers to consider a union. So, they go to wealthy business owners to beg for a bunch of cash to attack the hard working citizens of this state. Then they have the gall to say this isn't an attack on unions. Notice the bill only atacks union dues, not health care, not pension payments, not deferred payments for child support. They claim that only union dues are expensive for the government to take out of the check. It's absurd to think that some accountant tallying up a total bill and sending a lump payment prior to a paycheck to a designated spot the employee CHOOSES to send it is expensive. To anyone voting YES on this, your motives are apparent but you are punishing the wrong people for your agenda with the Governor. Take it up with him and allow me to spend my money how I want.
October 16, 2008

1:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

I believe it is wrong for the government, paid for by all tax payers, to be a bookkeeper and collection agency for a private organization, particularly when much of this money is directed for political lobbying. Taxes, health care and court ordered attachments are totally different.

In this age of electronic transfer it is easy to have an automatic monthly payment from one's private checking account or credit card to accomplish the same thing, without using government services. Even if the costs are minimal, they should be born by the unions or their members, not the government agency and tax payers that do not work for the union.

To claim that this amendment will silence firemen, nurses, teachers etc is a huge stretch. Nothing in this amendment silences or inconveniences anyone other than the union member may need to spend 5 min on-line having direct payments go from his/her checking account to the union. It is your organization and your obligation to pay your dues.

I still do not understand why there is any opposition to this bill.
October 16, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

jmjohnson writes:

Cool, I like your argument. Can I have part of my paycheck go to the 527 dedicated to passing Amendment 49? After all, it's only pennies for an employer to do these deductions.
October 17, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Tigermoon writes:

I will be voting NO on 49. I do not feel that this is a measure that should be in our State Constitution. The claim from the proponents of this measure that this will prevent unions from using the government to collect political action money for them is absurd. Political action monies are not DUES, nor should they be viewed as such. If a labor organization choses to have a political action campaign they should be responsible for funding it separately from dues. If the real problem here is that if unions are collecting dues, then using those dues as PAC money, we should not be amending our constitution, we should be investigating these organizations to stop the practice.

Believe it or not, not all labor organizations have a PAC fund. Not all labor organizations go out stumping for candidates and policies. Not all labor organizations require all employees covered by their agreement to pay dues, some do not even charge a negotiation/representation fee.

Unions are not bad. Labor organizations are not bad. If you chose to work for an employer that has an agreement with a negotiating organization and you do not want to support that organization than you probably should not pursue working for that employer. No offense, but sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it, too. These organizations don't pay for their operating costs with magic, and your contract that you don't support isn't negotiated by magic, so why not let the employer and the labor organization negotiate that if someone wants to support the contract that they appreciate to have the convenience of a paycheck deduction.

For all of you who are anti/hate-union that don't think it's "fair" that an organization that's negotiating for your job safety, security and provisions would require some financial help in doing so (Amendment 47) I hear Wal-Mart's hiring.
October 17, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

jmjohnson writes:

"For all of you who are anti/hate-union that don't think it's "fair" that an organization that's negotiating for your job safety, security and provisions would require some financial help in doing so (Amendment 47) I hear Wal-Mart's hiring."

Yeah, and once the Employee Freedom legislation is passed, your managers at Wal-Mart will know exactly how you voted and take the action they feel appropriate... As in making your life hell until you quit or else finding some small infraction to fire you for.
October 17, 2008

4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Tigermoon writes:

Good thing I got out of retail.
October 19, 2008

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

JeffWK writes:

It is pennies. Damn...does no one use common sense. Do you really think someone sits there and does these deductions by hand?

A computer subtracts the dues amount from each paycheck and once a period (whether it's a week or a month) a check is cut and mailed off. How do you think everything else in this technological age works.

And if it's such a big deal that you pro 49ers don't like it, then we best stop all these other deductions as well. Why should the gov pay to have United Way deductions taken out....why should the gov pay to have 401 taken out....why should the gov have to pay to have paychecks direct deposited in any number of employees' bank accounts....MAYBE, because it costs next to nothing and saves a whole lot of hassle for everyone by having computers do it.

Home › Opinion › Speakout

AMENDMENT 49 COUNTERPOINT: Measure aims to stifle workers' voices

By Daniel Patterson

Published October 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Speakout

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs