Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Business, labor dispute Schaffer's charge

M.E. Sprengelmeyerand Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News

Published October 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Elections

More stories »

Business and labor leaders rebuked U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer on Tuesday for saying unions were "paid off" to enter a truce over ballot initiatives.

At a breakfast campaign stop at the Copper Kitchen cafe here, Schaffer was asked about a proposed ballot amendment that would have required every Colorado employer to pay 80 percent of health care premiums for employees and 70 percent for family coverage.

It was arguably the most onerous to businesses of the four measures that organized labor had put on the fall ballot. But the proposal was withdrawn earlier this month after weeks of negotiations between labor and business leaders.

Schaffer told the breakfast crowd that labor unions agreed to set aside the proposal after "business leaders paid off labor unions."

He stood by the characterization later, citing reports that business leaders had agreed to raise money to fight Amendment 47, a ban on mandatory fees for workers represented by labor unions; Amendment 49, a ban on government payroll deductions for union dues; and Amendment 54 restrictions on political contributions from unions.

"So business gives money to the unions, presumably so unions can rescind their four amendments and use the money to fight the other three," Schaffer said in an interview. "It's owned and run and organized by the AFL-CIO, Teamsters. Yeah, they paid them off. I don't think there's any other way to state it."

Both groups dismissed Schaffer's characterization of the agreement.

"Labor isn't being paid anything," said Pat Hamill, the Denver businessman most closely involved in reaching an agreement with labor leaders. "We're running our own issue campaign to get things defeated. When people makes these statements, they should check their facts."

Hamill and other business leaders agreed to raise $3 million to campaign against Amendments 47, 49 and 54. So far, they have collected $2.3 million in pledges toward that efforts.

The partnership between business and labor was aided by several elected officials, including Gov. Bill Ritter, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar and U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter.

"The real leaders of this state have come together to put Colorado ahead of some ideological crusade," said Jess Knox, executive director of the Protect Colorado's Future union coalition. "It's too bad that Bob Schaffer identifies with the very narrow special interests pushing these

anti-worker amendments."

Anti-union measures

Two groups running ads against Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall made large contributions to campaigns promoting three anti-union measures on Colorado's ballot.

* The Western Skies Coalition gave $393,300 to a new group, Western Skies Economic Growth Committee, which says it supports Amendment 47, 49 and 54 - the three ballot initiatives that target unions. All of the money went toward advertising time. The coalition, designated as a 501(c)4 nonprofit, is not required to disclose it donors. It was formed by Mike Ciletti of Phase Line Strategies, the Republican consulting firm.

* Coloradans for Economic Growth contributed $425,000 to Defend our Economy, a group in favor of Amendments 47, which bans compulsory union fees, and Amendment 49, which prohibits government payroll deductions for union dues. Coloradans for Economic Growth also does not have to disclose its donors but has advocated on behalf of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer and against Udall. It gave $287,000 to A Better Colorado, a pro-Amendment 47 group.

Comments

  • October 15, 2008

    11:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    johne123 writes:

    Considering Bob Schaffer worked with Jack Abramoff to look the other way to allow sweat shops in the Marianas Islands continue operating (and continues to lie about having shut one of them down), can we really be surprised that he would help another set of extremists push their efforts to hurt working class people.

  • October 15, 2008

    1:05 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    hunterman writes:

    Schaffer's life-support system depends on daily corporate suppositories. He is a lying coward and unworthy of this great state.

  • October 15, 2008

    2:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mem7_7 writes:

    Unions hurt workers by regressing pay based upon tenure instead of merit or capability or skill. Only lazy, unskilled, and incapabile workers seek the safety of meritless pay unions provide.

  • October 16, 2008

    3:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    richardtmyers writes:

    mem7_7 wrote:

    "Unions hurt workers by regressing pay based upon tenure instead of merit or capability or skill. Only lazy, unskilled, and incapabile workers seek the safety of meritless pay unions provide."

    That's absurd. Unions routinely fight for education and training for members of the bargaining unit. For this reason alone, union workforces are widely acknowledged as more skilled than non-union workforces.

    Such opportunities aren't often offered freely by the company. But the chance to get a good education doesn't just help the working person, it helps the company as well.

    Many unions also provide safety training, including such overlooked necessities as life-saving resuscitation techniques.

    So i'm curious about just how deep your hostility toward unions runs. If you were dying due to electric shock, or choking on some food that you tried to swallow, and someone tried to help-- would you turn them down if they were union-educated? I thought not.

    Vote NO on Amendment 47.

    richard myers
    IBEW retired